is there really anything such as right wing art?
monsie...@hotmail.com
economics, political economics, politics, sciences, maths will admit
that right wingism is really about providing good service. but when we
get to aesthetics they go silent, make a revealing comment about how
little they like art, literature, history or moie departments (negating
their claim to logic, while claiming this claim true in departments
that belong to them, like the sciences, economics, medicine,
mathematics, and other sick immoral subjects) or blab double loud as if
two wrongs make a right, filling it all up with shitty doublespeak. in
other words, since romanticism we finally realised that art or artist
means freedom, and right wing 'art' consists of service. thats why
right wingers just compensate this with quantity and noise, but no
nuts. one genre after another, obeying the right wing laws of power,
there is precious little freedom and loads of lovely little service.
that's why they're so fond of noel carroll's shitty little book on a
philosophy of mass art, and can't stand webern, schoenberg, punky
bresson, abel ferrara or cassavetes, or for that matter roland barthes.
postmodernism, in that sense, has just done an easy little exercise in
memory recovery, reminding us that art or artist is just a permanent
state of rejection of the author status all the petty little authors,
throu lots of noise manage to make it seem like they're of any actual
artistic worth, building up pathetic enormous languages, damn hard to
fight language, that no longer refer to the word in itself but to
themselves throu their use; the author says he's an author, there's
nothing to read, and writing allows a living so the next author comes
up and claims he's an author so the fallacy just fucking goes on and on.
urthman
The richest are not (by any measure) the smartest but the shrewdest -
the most psychopathic - free from the burden and inconvenience of a
conscience.
And intellectuals are always lumped in with the liberals and lined up
against the walls - right next to the true artisans and creative
wizards.
But - the con is the art - so yes - true right wingers are most
assuredly artists.
Neo-con-artists
Lewis Mammel
urthman wrote:
> The richest are not (by any measure) the smartest but the shrewdest -
> the most psychopathic - free from the burden and inconvenience of a
> conscience.
So what's the answer ? Kill all psychopaths ?
Roger Johansson
Simply stop creating them.
The traditional culture in the western world is creationism, which
means that it is very important that men are created, boys go through
an initiation procedure to become tough and strong, to become men who
have social pondus and influence.
This culture needs a lot of violence and mobbing to work, to create
really dangerous men, men who women can fall in love with.
We have struggled to abolish the creationist culture for hundreds if
not thousands of years, but it is still working secretly to create men
from boys.
It was the official system a thousand years ago, and it still is the
official law in a few very backward places. The reason why it has to be
a secret social system in the western world today is that we are in the
process of abolishing it.
The creation of men means that young girls have to be trained in
special ways to become women who can convince a man that everything is
okay in spite of his dangerous mind and his manly world outside the
home.
The creationist culture is especially strong in USA, that is the reason
why they have so many serial killers, school shootings, and violent
people in general.
Religious people do not use clear language to say things, they often
use symbolism.
So I see no reason to accept the definition of creationism which some
spread, based on a literary interpretation of old scriptures.
Instead we need to investigate this subject as criminologists
investigate a situation which some people are trying to hide.
Most religions have a taboo against talking openly about these things.
A few examples of creation myths from different ancient sources:
Gen 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living
being."
>From greek creation myths:
Prometheus shaped man out of mud, and Athena breathed life into his
clay figure.
(this is a variation of the most common creation myth, here a woman or
a female god is the one to breath spiritual life into the newly created
man)
Ancient creation myth from Nigeria:
God created the first human being with the help of the moon. God
kneaded the body out of clay. Then God covered it with skin and the end
God poured blood into it.
(Blood often stands for spiritual life in creation myths, to pour blood
into a man is the same as blowing spirit into a man)
We see when we study creation myths and creationist cultures from all
over the world that the jewish creation myths are not unique in any
way. Similar stories about how men are created and how the social world
is divided are found in many creation stories
All these creation myths are expressed in symbolism.
The religious people never tell in clear language what it is all about,
because religion is about secrets, a secret social organisation.
So there is no reason for an investigator to take anything they say
seriously if taken literary and without critical interpretation of
their motivation to not say the truth in clear language.
The common ingredients in creationistic cultures are gender roles,
mobbing, creating the holy wrath, creating strong and manly men out of
boys, how to make the man very determined, creation of a special state
of mind in the man, the holy spirit, or hallucinogenic dreams about a
totem animal, bravery, toughness, creating strong and violent warriors
out of the boys, creating the marriage, the woman is the lifegiver in
some creationist cultures.
So it looks like a creationist culture is a secret social system for
controlling the members of the tribe, for controlling their social life
and sex life, for controlling who will be allowed to be happy, to be in
heaven, or who is to be unhappy, being in hell.
It has similarities with mobbing in a school yard. The tough kids abuse
the others, some of the abused ones become members of the upper class
socially, and these supermen (gods?) are using the weaker minds for
pleasure, or abuse them.
Creationism divides the society in two halves, it creates a dualistic
world, the symbols for this divided society are heaven and hell, the
sky and the earth, land and water, etc..
Remember that the people who wrote down a few creation myths and
started the bible were stone age people, they had no idea about the
universe or our physical origin, and they were not interested in such
issues. They were interested in the social life within the tribe, and
that is what these creation stories is about.
The created minds tend to wonder, ponder, where they come from, as
spiritually excited minds. Who created my new mind, who shaped love
into a powerful drug, who created this social world where I can rule
with my new powerful mind, who created the created minds, who divided
the social world in two?
Should I be thankful towards my creator(s), or hate them?
Such questions linger in the back of the mind of the created minds.
--
Roger J.
monsie...@hotmail.com
Roger Johansson ha escrito:
>
the only reason the american right is rejecting creationism is because
darwin ridicules them and creationism has been the foundation of the
many religions the right wings of alltime have engineered, be them
christians, jews or muslims the differences are in fact
pseudo-differences, all are built in order to control and have power
over the world. this is what ppl from nietszche to derrida left us.
it's very easy to understand which is precisely why the right always
reacts with so much hysteria to these matters, also doesnt help that
it's very difficult to get these kinds of writers into an 'education'
system, as the pay off (an old man, in his seat getting the young to
hunt for him, is contrary to the morality of these uncoverings) it also
doesnt help that they also use a lot of jargon in their writing, also
because writing has a propensity to get riddled with jargon.
fact is if creationism is ridiculed, so is the father. this increases
kids' rights far beyond the parents' desires, so they resort to taboos
and creationism. the interest of maintaining these kinds of gods is
similar or just completely equal, to the interests of the parents
maintaining their power over their kids. i say hate the 'creators',
because i equate that with vitality, leave the facile cliché that
states that hate is bad coz here hate, as long as it isnt attached to
the hated, making them an obsession or a neurosis, can be pathed out
into a calm and healthy permanent rejection that makes life more
enjoyable.
in any case, creation is immoral and creationism's pretense is to make
it moral, a bit like the fact that the existance of the family was
really just brought about by warriors, who after bloody battles needed
to soothe their conscience, just like those people who are always
smiling and talking, as if silence is really silence, as if all the
smiling and talking isnt the paranoid silence of another psycopath with
power issues, that and the ideology of family is in fact worse than
their non-existance because they strongly contribute to perpetuate the
tyrannical system of gods and fathers that we're supposed to thank.
as it is, even when i talk of vitality or health in that other
paragraph i'm being too naive cuz life has always been the death of
other species and the power, control, vigilance and death of others of
our own species. one of the first writers of this style (he wrote the
nature of gothic...), far too paranoid, naive, actually not at all
bright and also a pedophile, john ruskin claimed that there wasnt any
wealth other than life, but he didnt realise what i just said, which as
i said, we apparently needed nietszche
and heirs (or more like gaps in the flow of power) to clarify.
there arent any arguments against this, just noise, a bit like in
bertrand tavernier's right wing shitty mooee on the middle ages la
passion de beatrice.
frisbie...@yahoo.com
monsie...@hotmail.com wrote:
> it really isnt that hard. right wingers when you find them talkin bout
> economics, political economics, politics, sciences, maths will admit
> that right wingism is really about providing good service. but when we
> get to aesthetics they go silent, make a revealing comment about how
> little they like art, literature, history or moie departments (negating
Hmmm....
right wingers like classical music. Even George W., though he keeps
it quiet. Condezilla is a classical pianist.
But as far as a right-winger BEING an artist, well, that's just about
inconcievable. I never gave it any thought, thanks for this new
insight.
John Skelton
You just said that Congolezzie is a classical pianist. So is she an artist
or what?
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> right wingers when you find them talkin bout economics, political
>> economics, politics, sciences, maths will admit that right wingism
>> is really about providing good service. but when we get to aesthetics
>> they go silent, make a revealing comment about how little they like
>> art, literature, history or moie departments (negating
> it quiet. Condezilla is a classical pianist.
> But as far as a right-winger BEING an artist, well, that's just about
> inconcievable.
Wagner. Celine (so far right he got an article rejected by a Nazi
publication for excessive racism). Stoppard (fairly crap but would
probably still have had some sort of career even without becoming
Thatcher's court fool). Fielding. Marinetti and the other Italian
Futurists of the Fascist era. Carl Orff (minor contributor to Nazi
music). Walter Scott and James Hogg. D.H. Lawrence (proto-Nazi).
Henry Williamson and Francis Stuart (Nazi sympathizers). Steinbeck
(pro-Nixon). Leni Riefenstahl, since this is crossposted to a films
group. Heidegger, since it's also posted to a philosophy one. Ernst
Junger (too aristocratically far right for the Nazis). Steve Reich
and Elizabeth Wurtzel (paranoid Zionist racists). Robert Heinlein
(Vietnam war monger). Kipling (a complicated and unhappy person who
managed to perceive a lot of the damage imperialism inflicted while
continuing to support it). Ezra Pound (fanatical Mussolini-ite).
T.S. Eliot (Catholic-traditionalist anti-Semite). Eric Clapton, Boy
George and Morrissey (adherents of British fascist parties). Yeats
(supporter of the Blueshirt Irish fascists). Mary Renault (backer
of Thatcher's war over the Malvinas). H.P. Lovecraft (anti-semite
and white supremacist). Ishmael Reed (some sort of neo-con free-
marketeer). Milorad Pavic (Serbian nationalist)...
and so on and on... artistic ability has nothing to do with insight
into the state of the world.
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
monsie...@hotmail.com
Jack Campin - bogus address ha escrito:
danilo kis aint fond of leftists either. so?
it isnt that difficult. dont get me wrong, i'm not saying leftists have
the answer, no, leftists just dont allow death and domination, and
since thats what life is, they dont allow life, whatever lifeless life
things like mtv are, or the lifeless forms life can get upto in
capitalism. unless death is an artform, which it very well might be
(baudrillard talks of suicide as the utopia). but i'm right on this
subject, because of the way we talk about art, the way we've always
wanted to talk about art but only began in romanticism (until then only
in carnivals). we talk of art and artists as otherness, as something
that someone else has that we don't have or something we can't predict
will happen. and rightwingness has nothing to do with being surprised
by someone else, it's about having control, having laws over others.
all the 'authors' you mention are just part of a pain in the arse
tradition in writing; ''heidegger'''s contribution is to satirise the
very tradition he slaves away in, his book is over a thousand pages
long, so in a way it falls in the trap. all right wingers in the art
area can do is decoration, which spreads galore and paranoid about
playing by the rules. right wing aesthetics consist in contracting
'cleaning ladies', combing their hair, lenghthening their penises,
their tits, making the mooee actionlike, the music catchy and the
artist the slave of the guy with the money. that's not art, not in the
hypocritical manner in which we use the term, that's production.
monsie...@hotmail.com
the answer, no, leftists just dont allow death and domination, and
since thats what life is, they dont allow life, whatever lifeless life
things like mtv are, or the lifeless forms life can get upto in
capitalism. unless death is an artform, which it very well might be
saying that about the left is the credit i may be giving to the right,
which is none at all, they're all a bunch of enormous cretins. but i'm
right on this subject, because of the way we talk about art, the way
we've always wanted to talk about art but only began in romanticism
(until then only in carnivals). we talk of art and artists as
otherness, as something that someone else has that we don't have or
to do with being surprised by someone else, it's about having control,
having laws over others. all the 'authors' you mention are just part of
a pain in the arse tradition in writing; ''heidegger'''s contribution
is to satirise the very tradition he slaves away in, his book is over a
thousand pages long, so in a way it falls in the trap. all right
wingers in the art area can do is decoration, which spreads galore and
paranoid about playing by the rules. right wing aesthetics consist in
make objects on the floor a scandal, getting pets like in errol morris'
gates of heaven, combing their hair, lenghthening their penises, their
monsie...@hotmail.com
Jack Campin - bogus address ha escrito:
> [I'm reading this in rec.arts.books, followups set there]
bearog
i guess rightwing art be everything up to the enlightenment.
after the enlightenment, it becomes fuzzier.
there is rightwing art like john wayne movies and stuff like andrei
rublev.
but, there are not-so-right art by rightwing artists. t.s. eliot,
though conservative, was one of the leaders of the modernist movement.
so were italian futurists.
and there are clearly liberal or leftist artists who've created works
with strong conservative values. bicycle thieves is a great family
values movie.
topsy turvy is as nostalgic/romantic about the past as it's critical.
and apocalypse now is all over the map politically.
*Anarcissie*
> it really isnt that hard. right wingers when you find them talkin bout
> economics, political economics, politics, sciences, maths will admit
> that right wingism is really about providing good service. but when we
The Right is not about good service, it is belief in the value
of authority, power, material wealth (sometimes), the military
virtues, and order. There is plenty of art present and past which
is imbued with that belief and those values, and plenty of
aesthetic theory associated with it. One might say that any
doctrine which distinguishes high art from low art partakes of
rightist values, for instance, and there is still plenty of that
sort of discourse around although it has been somewhat
challenged in recent decades.
Francis A. Miniter
> i guess rightwing art be everything up to the enlightenment.
>
> after the enlightenment, it becomes fuzzier.
>
> there is rightwing art like john wayne movies and stuff like andrei
> rublev.
You have no idea. More like "Birth of a Nation" or Leni Riefenstahl's Nazi-era
movies such as "Triumph of the Will" or "Olympia" or "Freedom Day - Our War-machine"
>
> but, there are not-so-right art by rightwing artists. t.s. eliot,
> though conservative, was one of the leaders of the modernist movement.
> so were italian futurists.
>
>
> and there are clearly liberal or leftist artists who've created works
> with strong conservative values. bicycle thieves is a great family
> values movie.
> topsy turvy is as nostalgic/romantic about the past as it's critical.
> and apocalypse now is all over the map politically.
>
"Conservative" and "Right Wing" do not have the same meaning, though there is a
fading of one into the other. But if you want a movie that may have a foot in
each camp, consider "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" (1992). While it
masquerades as a Hitchkockian style suspense film involving revenge on a family,
it in fact conveys a couple of nasty messages. First, early in the film, we see
a black man appear at the house and frighten the wife/mother. But he turns out
to be harmless - he is retarded. So there is a subliminal association of mental
deficiency and dark skin. Second, and this is the deeper message, the
wife/mother begins to work, occasioning the need for a nanny, and thus breaching
the protective isolation of the home under the control of the mother. She goes
to work for a strong businesswoman who encourages her to do well in business.
Obviously, this strong businesswoman has to die, and, of course, she does. Only
at the end, does the family re-bond and drive the nanny interloper out,
re-establishing the "natural order" of things, with the wife/mother resuming her
ordained domestic role. I found it blatantly propagandistic.
Francis A. Miniter
jonathan swift
monsie...@hotmail.com
*Anarcissie* ha escrito:
dictionary.com is on your side, but what i'm saying is the way we speak
of art and artist, since romanticism has consisted of talking about an
author or an artist being free and simply doing the things he wants. i
insist, we say we go to see 'a movie directed by steven spielberg',
which is sort of right wing doublespeak for 'a movie mostly similar to
the last one and with minor differences, reception tested and directed,
in fact by the mass of the audience'. i insist thou the dictionary is
on your side, i can't reconcile right wingism with art as we've been
hypocritically taught bout it today. these are the complaints made by
the likes of duchamp or warhol modernist art, which never consisted of
originality, but of taking found objects and questioning the meaning of
art and the role of consumerism in the production of the 'art'.
Stu
There is a right wing conception of art but it is not tied to artistic
expression. Art for the right is commodity. It generally supports
conservative values. You will find most of the people who support
traditional arts like opera, theatre, and high end galleries are
conservatives. The art objects are treated as investments at best and
very often as cultural institutions to support the elite.
As for the mavericks such as Duchamp and Warhol, at one time their art
may question the foundations of capitalism, but eventually these
expressions are co-opted and integrated into the mass culture. You may
want to read Herbert Marcuse on this phenomenon.
--
~Stu
monsie...@hotmail.com
Stu ha escrito:
not really, i've already read thomas crow and t.j. clarke on the
matter, and that's enough for me, and i knew it beforehands anyways.
but thanks anyway, i really can't reconcile right wingers with art. and
if they anytime seem to do it, it's minimal or a slip of the tongue or
designed to ward off people from realising that which in aesthetics
reveals them as so hypocritical. be that as it may, and contrary to
what it may seem, i'm not exactly a leftist, which doesn prevent me
from realising that all right wingers get upto is production, service
or pleasure, but not quite anything to do with 'art' as we talk of it.
Sy Grass
<monsie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140846217.8...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> i really can't reconcile right wingers with art. and
> if they anytime seem to do it, it's minimal or a slip of the tongue or
> designed to ward off people from realising that which in aesthetics
> reveals them as so hypocritical.
Jesus Hunter Thompson/Mose Allison Christ.
Can these people actually be sitting around getting high on the vapors of
their own snot like this, even to such an intoxicating extent that they
can't recognize such talk as that for utterly the lowest form of bigotry?
Get clued: these are *not* liberals, not only because snot-noise like that
ain't liberal-minded, but because it ain't any kind of 'minded' at all.
There is no mind involved in talk like that.
But I'll tell you what it is: it's the way people who have no mind of their
own are found to talk, strictly in terms of the comfort-zone delimited by
their indoctrinations, the prejudices and vain conceits that derive of them.
These utter schlemiels actually have the nerve to vapidly observe themselves
as "intellectuals"!
That's the most comical thing about it.
--
Mackie
http://whosenose.blogspot.com
http://www.mackiemesser.zoomshare.com/0.html
"We, as a people, agreed in the Fifties to swallow any nonsense that was
repeated often enough, without examinaton of its meaning or investigation
into its roots." Lily Hellman, *Scoundrel Time*
"If I had known the word 'square', I would have used it." Lily Hellman, *An
Unfinished Woman*
--
.............................................................
> Posted thru AtlantisNews - Explore EVERY Newsgroup <
> http://www.AtlantisNews.com -- Lightning Fast!!! <
> Access the Most Content * No Limits * Best Service <
monsie...@hotmail.com
bearog ha escrito:
> i guess rightwing art be everything up to the enlightenment.
>
> after the enlightenment, it becomes fuzzier.
>
no not really, it was after romanticism that it became fuzzier. page
150something in hugh honour 's book on romanticism has an scupterer
suddenly wonder what it would be like to make scupture without having
to depend on a patron. that's where it all started. the enlightenment
view in fact just allowed the multiplication of the authoritative
perspective point of view, so in fact it was a multiplication of
rightwingness. indeed noel burch compares certain images of
pre-griffith, of melies and akerman's modernist jeanne dielman with
medieval anti-perspective.
frisbie...@yahoo.com
Wow. I'm impressed!
Lessee... Tom Clancy? Bo Derek is a Republican, I think.
Topaz
of the 1936 Nuremberg Rally by Dr. Walther Schmitt:
Adolf Hitler's double proclamation to the party rally makes clear the
inner National Socialist unity of political accomplishment and
cultural guidance. That alone says more about the National Socialist
movement than all the intellectual analysts could say with a thousand
essays. The combination of politics and culture in the party rally's
program is clear proof of the enormous confidence that fills the
German renewal movement, and which as always spurs it on to still
greater accomplishments. No matter how splendid and triumphant the
political accomplishments discussed in the morning are, come evening
the party reports on it cultural strengths and achievements. It knows
that great political accomplishments also demand great works of art,
and that only these will justify its position in history. As the
Führer has said, National Socialism sees artistic creations as the
highest expression of a nation's being. This view, which breaks
decisively from the past, was expressed in the conclusion of his
speech about the new German cultural era at Nuremberg in 1936: "Art is
the only truly immortal product of human activity."...
Adolf Hitler announced at the conclusion of the 1936 party rally that
it will in the future become a great German Olympic festival: "What
came of the pitiable rallies of our former opponents! Now we see a
great exhibition of the nation in political, military, spiritual,
cultural and economic arenas. The physical activity of the nation must
also be included in the splendid new facilities of the party rally
grounds. It will be a new Olympia, one in modern form and under a
different name!" Once again the Führer revealed in these words the
greatness of an idea which is not a dead teaching, rather part of our
innermost being, an ever living appeal to all sound feelings and to
the creative strength of each German...
We sense that just as Napoleon transformed Paris into the glittering
center of his state with monumental plans, so too the national capital
of Berlin will become a source of pride and greatness for the entire
nation.
It finally would be improper if the artistic level of the ceremonies
themselves were not of a level keeping with their vast new
surroundings. This was evident both in the youth ceremonies and those
of the Labor Service at the 1936 Party Rally of Honor. Their simple
clarity and almost architectural form were a deep expression of the
new German life. The same was true of the powerful oath of political
leaders of the movement, held under the deep black night sky. As Adolf
Hitler was greeted, spotlights suddenly shot up 150 kilometers into
the heavens, creating a dome of light of unimaginable splendor above
the Zeppelin Field. This political roll call of National Socialism
took place under a symphony of flags, light and disciplined columns,
towered over by the marble platform.
Every moment of this party really demonstrated the creative,
constructive will of the National Socialist movement. Everyone in
Nuremberg felt this and was swept away by its force. The spiritual
strength of the party of construction led to an inevitable
confrontation with Jewish-International Bolshevism, whose systematic
work of destruction has brought one nation after another in Europe to
crisis and misery.
As a proud victor, the Führer in his opening proclamation could list
the accomplishments of his government and the movement, which National
Socialism has done in less than four years since it took power. The
battle against unemployment and the large new economic undertakings
are part of a long series of accomplishments that only four years ago
seemed an impossible dream, but today are already part of a history
that National Socialism hardly speaks about any longer. Yet these
great achievements are not the party's crowning glory. More beautiful
and glorious is the educational work of the movement, its building of
a new German man. The accomplishments thus far have never been rivaled
by any previous government in so short a time..
The Führer spoke of the lessons of political development in recent
years. He spoke as well of the experiences that Germany and the
National Socialist movement have had with the destructive Bolshevist
idea. He proclaimed the iron will of the new Germany to drive back
with force any Bolshevist attack. In this moment the Führer of Germany
became the greatest political prophet in all of Europe.
The National Socialists who heard Germany's Führer know that the words
Adolf Hitler spoke in Nuremberg are the result of serious, mature
reflection, careful observation, and irresistable logic. Here speaks a
man who knows better than anyone else the bestial nature and methods
of Bolshevism. His warning and firm bearing were therefore a political
prophecy that will guide the future development of European politics.
The movement in Nuremberg understood. The thanks and jubilation of his
followers doubled as he called up the old iron laws and virtues of the
National Socialist movement to stand up to Bolshevism, hammering them
once more into the hearts of his followers. Our brown army overcame
Jewish-Bolshevist anarchy in Germany, marching under the eagles of the
National Socialist standards and our red battle flags. The spirit that
led the German war for independence against Moscow will make Germany
strong in the future, defeating any Bolshevist attack on Central
Europe. That is the message of Nuremberg.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Alric Knebel
> The former White nations and Japan are the first world. The Black
> nations and India are the third world. In the middle, or the second
> world are the Arabs and China. It is just as racialists would predict.
> It is because the White race is on average much more intelligent than
> the Black race. The people in Japan are much lighter in color than the
> people in India.
>
> All IQ tests have proven that Whites are on average much more
>intelligent than Blacks. White people invented just about everything
>important. Most leftists admit that Whites on average score higher on
>the tests. They have their excuses for it, but all of their excuses
>are demolished in "My Awakening" by David Duke. Here is an example:
>
> [rest of racist ideology deleted.]
Follow this. If race is important because of inequalities in
intelligence inherent per race, the implication is that INTELLIGENCE is
what establishes a person's value in the white supremacist's scheme. If
intelligence is so important, then why is race in the equation at all?
Why make RACE the trait of value when it's INTELLIGENCE that matters?
I remember once in another newsgroup you said one of the dumbest things
I'd ever heard. You said that THOMAS KINKADE represented the only real
art. In a single stroke of ignorance, you dismissed all other artists,
and you went after "modern art" in particular. That you can't
comprehend modern art shows you're of a lower intelligence. Clearly
people who can comprehend it, as I do, will disagree.
Now to this. If an average intelligence LOWER than the average
intelligence of the white race mars the acceptability of that race, it
follows that YOU -- having proven to be of lower-than-average
intelligence by your previous statement on art -- have a marred
acceptability. It follows then that YOU are someone with whom someone
else of AVERAGE intelligence -- someone, say, who can appreciate an
artist other than Thomas Kinkade -- should not mingle.
True?
True.
But you've made RACE the defining category, thereby borrowing YOUR value
from the betters of your own race. Luckily for you, our averages are
high enough to carry you.
--
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
Wordsmith
Would you consider Norman Rockwell right wing?
W : )
Stu
>> .
>
> Would you consider Norman Rockwell right wing?
>
> W :
Doesn't his art have a certain "folky" left wing sense. Like social
realism, Rockwell explores regular usually working class people doing
their jobs.
When I think right wing I think Wagner or 19th century romanticism.
The stuff that celebrates the bourgeoisie. What you see in well funded
civic art institutions that cater to the rich. Art that will not rock
the boat. Art that you get dressed up to see in order to show the
others at the club that you are well cultured.
--
~Stu
Lewis Mammel
Stu wrote:
>
> On 2006-02-25 10:12:03 -0800, "Wordsmith" <word...@rocketmail.com> said:
>
> >> .
> >
> > Would you consider Norman Rockwell right wing?
> >
> > W :
>
> Doesn't his art have a certain "folky" left wing sense.
No.
delc...@mail.ab.edu
>
> Doesn't his art have a certain "folky" left wing sense. Like social
> realism,...
--
Perhaps you mean "socialist realism." But if you do, you've got that
wrong as well.
Rockwell explores regular usually working class people doing
> their jobs.
That's not what socialist realism was about. It was art as propaganda
in service of socialism, the compulsory theory and practice of
literature, and all the other arts throughout the Soviet bloc and
China.
As for right-wing aesthetics, try - --Hitler and the Power of
Aesthetics-- and --The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi
Germany--.
The career of Emil Nolde provides a cautionary tale about the
relationship of a right-wing artist--Nolde was a Nazi-- to a fascist
regime. Nolde's paintings were condemned as "degenerate art,' too
close to expressionism for Der Fuhrer to tolerate. Many of his works
were destroyed, and Nolde was formally prohibited from painting, a ban
he got around by switching to small scale watercolors that were easy
to hide and had no tell-tale odor of linseed oil or turpentine the
police could detect when they inspected his premises.
Nolde's bizarre tale is wonderfully treated in Lenz's novel --The
German Lesson--.
J. Del Col
Wordsmith
Stu wrote:
> On 2006-02-25 10:12:03 -0800, "Wordsmith" <word...@rocketmail.com> said:
>
> >> .
> >
> > Would you consider Norman Rockwell right wing?
> >
> > W :
>
> Doesn't his art have a certain "folky" left wing sense. Like social
> realism, Rockwell explores regular usually working class people doing
> their jobs.
NR's art has downhome folksiness in spades, but does that in itself
designate specific
political affliation?
W : )
Wordsmith
It could be folksy and right wing too.
W : )
Wordsmith
Stu wrote:
> On 2006-02-25 10:12:03 -0800, "Wordsmith" <word...@rocketmail.com> said:
>
> >> .
> >
> > Would you consider Norman Rockwell right wing?
> >
> > W :
>
> Doesn't his art have a certain "folky" left wing sense. Like social
> realism, Rockwell explores regular usually working class people doing
> their jobs.
NR's art has downhome folksiness in spades, but does that in itself
designate specific
political affliation?
W : )
> When I think right wing I think Wagner or 19th century romanticism.
Jack Campin - bogus address
> It finally would be improper if the artistic level of the ceremonies
> themselves were not of a level keeping with their vast new
> surroundings. This was evident both in the youth ceremonies and those
> of the Labor Service at the 1936 Party Rally of Honor. Their simple
> clarity and almost architectural form were a deep expression of the
> new German life. The same was true of the powerful oath of political
> leaders of the movement, held under the deep black night sky. As Adolf
> Hitler was greeted, spotlights suddenly shot up 150 kilometers into
> the heavens
I think Schmitt added three zeroes in that last figure. The Third
Reich didn't have satellites.
Despite the pretensions expressed in that passage, the Nazi system
never came through with *durable* artistic goods, despite Hitler's
personal fascination with the monumental. The Italian Fascists did
a lot better, but in music, the one piece that Janacek wrote for a
forgettable gymnastic festival in bourgeois-democratic Czechoslovakia
eclipsed all the public statements of Fascist Europe. The Nazis had
a potential artistic ally in Webern, by far the greatest composer the
Germanic world produced in the 20th century. He never joined the
party and never disowned his Jewish colleagues, while being an
enthusiastic patriotic booster for the Nazis' military conquests -
but no way could the Nazi aesthetic fit him in. He had the same
sort of trouble as Nolde and responded to it in the same way, working
in miniature.
In proportion to its size, the place that was most creative in the
Fascist era was France, both from its native artists and from its
assortment of refugees from European fascism, American racism, and
mediocrity everywhere.
Klaus Theweleit's "Male Fantasies" is a pretty good survey of Nazi
art (actually better read that way than for its odd psychoanalytic
theories).
Followups set.
Lewis Mammel
Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
> > As Adolf
> > Hitler was greeted, spotlights suddenly shot up 150 kilometers into
> > the heavens
>
> I think Schmitt added three zeroes in that last figure. The Third
> Reich didn't have satellites.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/pt36dom.htm has:
150 blue spotlights surge upward hundreds of meters, forming
overhead the most powerful cathedral that mortals have ever seen.
Reminds me of Babes in Toyland, when they order 600 1 ft.
toy soldiers and get 100 6 ft. toy soldiers.
Then we have,
Die 130 grellen Lichtstrahlen ragten bis zu acht km hoch
in den Himmel, wo sie sich durch die Lichtstreuung zu
einer Kuppel vereinigten.
The 130 sharp rays of light rose up up to eight km highly
into the sky, where they united by light scattering to a dome.
... which I believe is a quote from Speer.
Stu
>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> Would you consider Norman Rockwell right wing?
>>>>
>>>> W :
>>>
>>> Doesn't his art have a certain "folky" left wing sense.
>>
>> No.
>
> It could be folksy and right wing too.
>
> W :
Rockwell himself was a Roosevelt liberal. I never felt his art to have
the same elitist feel as the art from the right. Like Diego Rivera, he
choose to illustrate people doing their jobs. Social realism.
--
~Stu
Holds an Art Degree. MFA San Francisco Art Institute '80.
delc...@mail.ab.edu
Stu wrote:
> On 2006-02-25 13:12:44 -0800, "Wordsmith" <word...@rocketmail.com> said:
>
>>
> Rockwell himself was a Roosevelt liberal. I never felt his art to have
> the same elitist feel as the art from the right.
NR was a kitschy populist, if anything.
Like Diego Rivera, he
> choose to illustrate people doing their jobs. Social realism.
Diego Rivera"s art is openly tendentious. It is more in tune with
socialist realism, i.e. art as propaganda in service to the cause of
socialism. NR's work is nothing of the kind.
J. Del Col
jonathan swift
curmudgeon
whatever that is !
**********************
I live in a world all of my own,
but that is alright ,
because everyone knows me there.
Sy Grass
<delc...@mail.ab.edu> wrote in message
news:1140966604.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stu wrote:
>> On 2006-02-25 13:12:44 -0800, "Wordsmith" <word...@rocketmail.com>
>> said:
>>
>>>
>> Rockwell himself was a Roosevelt liberal. I never felt his art to have
>> the same elitist feel as the art from the right.
>
>
> NR was a kitschy populist, if anything.
"I've always loved Dickens. And Henry James. Tolstoy, Dostoevski." Norman
Rockwell
--
Stu
>>> :
>>
>> Doesn't his art have a certain "folky" left wing sense. Like social
>> realism, Rockwell explores regular usually working class people doing
>> their jobs.
>
> NR's art has downhome folksiness in spades, but does that in itself
> designate specific
> political affliation?
>
>
> W :
Possibly not. Art is always difficult to define. Some artists have
political content others are quite apolitical. It could be argued that
NR was not even an artist in the pure sense. He was a commercial
illustrator. His paintings were cover designs for magazines. He was a
gun for hire.
However, I would certainly not characterize his paintings to have
fascist content. Even a clearly pro-military painting like this
illustration
http://www.militarysheetmusic.com/images/over-yonder-where-the-lilies-grow.jpg
shows
a soldier in a very human light. In this case liberating Holland from
the fascists. Compare this type of painting to the art of
totalitarian regimes, where the national armies are rendered as a
unstoppable impersonal machine. Invincible apparatus of the state.
His paintings for the Boyscouts also reflect this humanity. I
volunteered as a boy scout leader and ultimately was discouraged by its
right wing politics. However, the Boy Scouts has much good to offer.
Rockwell clearly finds the moments of whimsey, light and humanity in
the movement. http://home.dejazzd.com/shenning/images/r1963.jpg
What is the art of the Bush regime? Clearly, he and Rove will co-opt
what every artist he needs to progress his image as "folksy". But this
is a new development in the right wing agenda. Ever since Reagan
understood the importance of a cowboy hat and a horse at a photo
opportunity, the right wing understood it had a foothold on the middle
class, despite an agenda that worked against the class.
Before Reagan, "folksiness" was an attribute of the Woody Guthries and
John Steinbecks of the world. In Norman Rockwell's day the working
class was the working class. His illustrations innocently reflect
children and adults in their ideal surroundings. The current right
wing has subverted these "folksy" themes for their agenda. If there is
a taint of fascism in NR's work it is the stench of Washington think
tanks, corporate focus groups and spin doctors who have twisted the
image of the average American working stiff.
--
~Stu
Stu
> *YES* it is the exact opposite of Left Wing art,
> whatever that is
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/new_deal_for_the_arts/activist_arts1.html
--
~Stu
Topaz
<bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I think Schmitt added three zeroes in that last figure. The Third
>Reich didn't have satellites.
>
>Despite the pretensions expressed in that passage, the Nazi system
>never came through with *durable* artistic goods,
The Jews control your media and everything you think you know is a
lie.
This is what President Nixon said:
http://www.hnn.us/comments/15664.html
"There may be some truth in that if the Arabs have some complaints
about my policy towards Israel, they have to realize that the Jews in
the U.S. control the entire information and propaganda machine, the
large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio and television, and the
big companies. And there is a force that we have to take into
consideration
> despite Hitler's
>personal fascination with the monumental. The Italian Fascists did
>a lot better, but in music, the one piece that Janacek wrote for a
>forgettable gymnastic festival in bourgeois-democratic Czechoslovakia
>eclipsed all the public statements of Fascist Europe. The Nazis had
>a potential artistic ally in Webern, by far the greatest composer the
>Germanic world produced in the 20th century. He never joined the
>party and never disowned his Jewish colleagues, while being an
>enthusiastic patriotic booster for the Nazis' military conquests -
>but no way could the Nazi aesthetic fit him in. He had the same
>sort of trouble as Nolde and responded to it in the same way, working
>in miniature.
Anyone can go to a museum and look at the "modern art". It's obvious
what side of the war lacked real art.
>
>In proportion to its size, the place that was most creative in the
>Fascist era was France, both from its native artists and from its
>assortment of refugees from European fascism, American racism, and
>mediocrity everywhere.
>
>Klaus Theweleit's "Male Fantasies" is a pretty good survey of Nazi
>art (actually better read that way than for its odd psychoanalytic
>theories).
>
>Followups set.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
Alric Knebel
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> The richest are not (by any measure) the smartest but the shrewdest -
> the most psychopathic - free from the burden and inconvenience of a
> conscience.
Cite?
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"As the Officers and Soldiers of the United States have been subject to
repeated insults from the women calling themselves ladies of New
Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and
courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any Female
shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any
officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held
liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation."
-- Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, General Order No. 28
Angle
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> Robert Heinlein
> (Vietnam war monger).
Cite?
Richie Cunningham
> Cite?
What do you think Starship Troopers was about?
Jack Campin - bogus address
> Cite?
What do you think Starship Troopers was all about?
John W. Kennedy
>>> Robert Heinlein (Vietnam war monger).
>> Cite?
>
> What do you think Starship Troopers was all about?
Chronologically impossible.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Jack Campin - bogus address
>>> Cite?
>> What do you think Starship Troopers was all about?
> Chronologically impossible.
Well, the first deaths on the US side in the Vietnam War were
from 1959, but I was thinking of what he *did* with the book.
Its peak of popularity came during the war; young American men
wrote to Heinlein saying they'd joined up to kill Vietnamese
because of it; and he wrote back to them saying that was exactly
the sort of thing he had in mind. (And no I haven't been keeping
news clippings for 30 years to anticipate the obvious question;
I believe this may be documented in one of Harlan Ellison's
critical essays).
There is quite enough documentation on Heinlein's politics
out there on the web to establish exactly what he stood for.
Jingoism to the point of genocide but only insofar as it
didn't get in the way of opportunistic personal greed. At
least we can give Ezra Pound some credit for being fascist
on principle and suffering for it.
Jared
> "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" (1992)... Only
> at the end, does the family re-bond and drive the nanny interloper out,
> re-establishing the "natural order" of things, with the wife/mother resuming her
> ordained domestic role. I found it blatantly propagandistic.
Horror films are traditionally socially conservative - just be glad
there weren't any teenagers trying to have sex.