Saturday, 3 December 2016


That the movers and shakers among the Jews hate White Gentiles is beyond question. From Susan Sontag's "The White Race is the cancer of human history" to Noel Ignatiev's "The White Race must be destroyed" (even though it simultaneously does not exist), Jews have attempted to create the conditions that will lead to our extinction. This does not concern me. I expect such things from a rival group. What concerns me are those among our own people who wish to see our own destruction, for Susan Sontag is partly right: part of our race is cancerous, and like a cancer, they are the part of our organism that has died and become rotten and threatens to rot the whole. Nihilistic ideas are like diseases: they like to spread and infect and destroy. The Puritanism of Perversity is one such mental and spiritual disease.



One form this disease takes is self-detestation, a sort of Puritanical ritual of verbal self-flagellation, which extends out to those who are Same and, obversely, to the glorification of those who are Other who often wish to harm the Same. This harm comes not necessarily through physical violence; the aforementioned quotations demonstrate a more cerebral attack, which is encouraged by Leftist Whites in academia. The expression of anti-Gentile sentiment by Jews in white societies is not a cause of societal corruption, neither is the ever-increasing consolidation of Jewish power; they are symptoms, just as multiculturalism (read multiracialism) in general is a symptom. If Whites had adhered to the principles of societal homogeneity, they would not find themselves in today's predicament.


One readily sees this ideological cancer in the arts, and certainly Christian art was an early culprit:

The blackening of Balthazar appeared as the medieval period gave way to the Renaissance. Reichlich, Breu the Elder, Dürer, Bosch (above), Metsys, van Cleve and Rubens are all guilty parties in this. The Bible itself, one notes, gives no physical description of Balthazar and was invented c.800A.D. by St. Bede:

"The first was called Melchior; he was an old man, with white hair and long beard; he offered gold to the Lord as to his king. The second, Gaspar by name, young, beardless, of ruddy hue, offered to Jesus his gift of incense, the homage due to Divinity. The third, of black complexion, with heavy beard, was called Balthasar; the myrrh he held in his hands prefigured the death of the Son of man."

I suspect the invention by Bede was due to the association between blackness and death and was therefore symbolic rather than literal. It is noteworthy that the description was largely ignored for centuries, before appearing again as a phenomenon in art, which in turn has provided dishonest Leftist academics like Pamela Patton at Princeton University with texts "evidencing" medieval Europe's multiracialism. Of the artists' interest in "diversity", she supposes:

"It's tempting to ask whether they were primed for this by the actual ethnic diversity of the medieval Iberian world, where there were Africans, Arabs, Jews, and other non-European groups in some numbers."

I have a different view of this. We know that Blacks were to be found as servants to bourgeois mercantile families in the late medieval period, but were extremely rare and peripheral figures. Equally, Jews and Arabs were to be found as merchants and traders - in the case of Jews, even financiers - but their input into European society as a whole was negligible, for they were always outsiders.

It was really as the Renaissance dawned that attitudes changed with the increasing wealth and power of this mercantile caste, which would see them replace the aristocracy as the dominant force in shaping the cultural space. This meant that their values and mores that emanated from the multicultural, multi-ethnic and internationalist marketplace would change both Church and art. In the case of the Church, its irreconcilable morality with that of the marketplace would create a liberal bourgeois culture where one made money in the marketplace and then self-flagellated for it in church. Bede aside, the liberal bourgeois influence then is the principal reason for the blackening of Balthazar and also for the increasing fascination with Blacks as commodity in art. See, for example, the portraits by Passarotti (above) and Titian (below).

That the vulgar liberal bourgeois still views the Negro as commodity - particularly children, as in the portraits - can still be seen today in the adoption of Negro children by White liberal bourgeois families. They are little more than a must-have accessory to remain in the liberal bourgeois clique of virtue signallers. Yet the new Leftist morology traps the liberal bourgeois into its doublethink, whereby the Negro is both commodity and family member, both social inferior in his formerly impoverished status and moral superior because of his former poverty. His readily apparent Otherness signals virtue at a glance and simultaneously acts as a whip for self-flagellation - particularly if the Negro grows hostile, as he will be educated into being because of the liberal bourgeois need for self-flagellation, which itself is a perverse form of self-gratification.


One can see how easily one can be pushed from self-flagellation to self-destruction and this has certainly been a result of the Leftist ideological current that had been gaining strength since the rise of atheistic radical liberalism in the early nineteenth century. It is almost as if the removal of the restrictive Christian dogma released all of the liberal bourgeoisie's repressed nihilism. When Frantz Fanon berated them thus:

“I speak of the Christian religion, and no one need be astonished. The Church in the colonies is the white people's Church, the foreigner's Church. She does not call the native to God's ways but to the ways of the white man, of the master, of the oppressor. And as we know, in this matter many are called but few chosen.”

they simply could not get enough and recognised the greater propensity for self-abuse, zealously turning against the old system. Fanon as generic Negro replaced Jesus as icon and became the new subject of contemporary art. In fairness, the Negro, along with other non-White races had already become the subject of fascination by liberal artists such as Gauguin, Matisse and Picasso, of a half-century and more earlier, who fashioned the cult of the primitive. While Picasso was ever a mere follower who jumped on any bandwagon that was in fashion, Gauguin in particular felt discomfort in his own skin, as a White European in a White European world, eventually settling in French Polynesia, where he bigamously married a thirteen-year-old native girl. This again shows the ambiguity of the liberal bourgeois as penitent and exploiter.

This double standard is today ubiquitous. The fact celebrities launder their money away from the tax collector in banana republics ruled over by brutal warlords is hidden behind empty words of a universal brotherhood of man and their black adoptees. Equally, the more they gain in affluence and influence, the more self-destructive their behaviour seems to be - and destructive of those around them, of those who are Same. Their adoption of black babies does not only create cognitive disonance in their black victim in having two "parents" who look nothing like it, but also cognitive disonance within their own white societies. Indeed, the Negro and Other in general, who being brought into white society, face the cognitive disonance of attempting to fit themselves to an alien system of values.


Yet in their worship of the Negro and of the Other in general, and in bringing the Negro and Other into white society, the liberal bourgeois, in his position of societal power and privelege, has bestowed power and privelege upon the Negro and Other far beyond the measure of ordinary members of white society, the masses. The result of this Molotov cocktail of societal privelege and cognitive disonance for the Other has resulted in a complete rejection of values deemed to be white, often expressing itself in violence against the members of white society. The liberal bourgeois reaction has been to reconfigure society ever more towards the values of the Other, without considering that the Other is not merely one cohesive group, but as myriad as the peoples of the Earth. This has resulted in further cognitive disonance, particularly among the liberal bourgeois' own masses - and this is before we even begin to explore the contradictions within bougeois identity politics of gender, which requires an article in itself. In any case, the liberal bourgeois also wishes to see the most militant, aggressive version of the Other's culture that will fulfill his self-destructive desires.


This escalating turn against the self and the Same and veneration of the Other can again be seen in contemporary art. Let us take the city of Salzburg in Austria as an example, whose rise as a European cultural epicentre began in the late nineteenth century and whose architecture, art and people has been until very recently distinctly European. Yet since the dawn of the new millennium, there has been a concerted artistic attack upon the traditionalist nature of Salzburg. Beginning in 2002, a shadowy consortium of art "benefactors" called the Salzburg Foundation funded Kunstprojekt Salzburg, whereby each year, for a period of ten years, a contemporary artist of their choosing could besmirch the cityscape with deconstructive exhibits, which would then be on permanent display. It was no surprise then to find Marina Abramovic's name added to the list in 2004.


It is not, however, Abramovic's "work" I am interested in this time. The first I wish to look at is Catalan artist Jaume Plensa's 2010 piece Awilda (above). This is a five-metre tall marble sculpture of a Caribbean woman that has been placed in the courtyard "Dietrichsruh" of the University of Salzburg. He says of the piece:

“Awilda comes from Santo Domingo. She is just one of the many who have come to Europe in search of a better life. My objective is to use her face to inject an image of the future into the heart of our old traditions. The extraordinary history of the city of Salzburg consists of layers of humanity which have amassed over time. Like sedimentary deposits. Awilda embodies the enormous capacity of an anonymous person to help shape daily history – even if this is normally eclipsed by the great names and the political events. Here daily life is transformed into something transcendental. A celebration of the people.”

It is the third sentence here that is telling. If Plensa and his masters see this Negroid face as the face of Europe's future, there can be no doubt that they wish to see the destruction of the existing European stock. The statue Awilda has since been replicated with slight variations in several locations across the Western World.

As if to prefigure the coming of Awilda, in 2007 as another piece for Kunstprojekt Salzburg, German sculptor Stephan Balkenhol created a dual sculpture Sphaera (above) and Frau im Fels (below), which stand in separate locations but close proximity in the Altstadt. Even taken on its own, Sphaera's representation of a non-white man standing atop the golden globe - symbolic of the world itself - is revealing. This is the world those infected with the Puritanism of Perversity are striving for. The white woman that completes the pair alludes, of course, to the miscegenation that will produce the alleged face of the future, Awilda.

What is interesting is that in the draughts of Sphaera, the man on the golden globe was white (see below). The natural instinct of the artist, who, like Plensa, is ethnically European, was to represent someone who was Same on the top of the globe; yet the superficial sheen of the Leftist dogma, whether through the outside pressure of his sponsors or through his own will to virtue signalling, won out over these instincts, which shows just how artificial  and unnatural this ideology actually is.

What is worse is that the liberal bourgois clique has tried to foist its nihilistic tendencies onto the masses, who have traditionally rejected it, which has caused the class conflict the likes of Marx and his successors enjoy masturbating over. Yet while Marx and his followers claim to take the side of the working class, every action demostrates the contrary. If, as Jaume Plensa states, ordinary people make a difference, then why was the outcry by the ordinary Salzburgers against these crreations treated with either indifference or contempt? Indeed, the ordinary Salzburgers have seen it for what it is: an attack on them. When the liberal bourgeois accuses the aristocrats, plebs and proles within his society of hate merely for demanding future existence, he is projecting his own self-hatred onto them. And as we have seen and will see in this series of articles, the hatred for the Same and worship of the Other is demonstrably visible in liberal bourgeois art. I leave you with this apt quotation, ironically by the aforementioned Frantz Fanon:

“The unpreparedness of the educated classes, the lack of practical links between them and the mass of the people, their laziness, and, let it be said, their cowardice at the decisive moment of the struggle will give rise to tragic mishaps.”

No comments:

Post a Comment