Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 38
Interview with Charles Krafft
Charles Krafft
71:25/ 198 words
To listen in a player, click here.
To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save target as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
Seattle artist Charles Krafft returns to Counter-Currents Radio to talk with Greg Johnson about the controversy swirling around his work since it became widely known in the Art World that he is a Holocaust revisionist and White Nationalist. Topics discussed include:
- His use of the swastika and the image of Adolf Hitler in his art
- His association with Laibach and Neue Slowenische Kunst
- The origin of his interest in Holocaust revisionism
- The origin of his interest in White Nationalism
- The inaccuracies and loaded terms in Jen Graves’ article in The Stranger that launched the controversy
- Why Krafft describes himself as a Holocaust “skeptic”
- Why Krafft describes himself as a “White Advocate”
- The effect of the campaign against Krafft on his personal life and professional activities
- The laws penalizing Holocaust skepticism in Europe and America’s complicity in them
- The meaning of the Holocaust Memorial in Washington, D.C. and the memorials around the country
- The importance of revisionism about World War II for preserving world peace
- The uses he hopes to make of his “martyrdom”
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
33 comments
Should we be surprised that Salon.com has taken the Krafft affair to a new low of liberal smugness and P.C. hysteria?
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/we_let_charles_krafft_fool_us_partner/
It’s interesting how many people, 90% of whom had probably never heard of him before last month, suddenly have really strong opinions about Charlie and his work.
This Salon piece may be the worst yet. They say Charlie is “a veritable chair nominee for KKK Grand Wizard.” And they try to accuse L. Frank Baum of having been anti-Semitic by pointing out his association with Theosophy, the advocates of “Universal Brotherhood,” amusingly enough.
Jonathan Haidt’s ideas explain this hysterical reaction to Krafft. See this video:
http://vimeo.com/19822295
Haidt puts forth the idea that the moral principles that are sacred to liberals will blind them to the truth when their notions of the “sacred” are threatened, but he doesn’t seem interested in how their ideas became both sacred and hegemonic across society.
We need KMD to explain this. Haidt talks as if it just got this way which isn’t true.
How did the West uniquely develop a sense of moral outrage directed against their own people and their own interests? This is indeed the most difficult question and far too complex to discuss here adequately because it ultimately involves a theory of the uniqueness of Western culture as resulting from a prolonged and relatively recent evolutionary past as Northern hunter-gatherers.
This has resulted in a tendency toward moral universalism and altruistic punishment. But the main point here is that since the 19th century Jews have understood the importance of culture in creating moral communities via influence on culture.
The culture of Western suicide is the result of Jewish dominance of the media and veto power over all the centers of power in Western societies. All of the intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique involve moral critiques of the West. The ultimate result has been the creation of the culture of the Holocaust—including guilt over slavery, colonialism, etc
Samuel Sattin, the author of the piece at salon is guess what ? Jewish. He lives in Northern California. He has had a book published by Dark Coast press. A connection to the stranger is probably not far off. I hope Charles’ friends remain loyal.
That was a great interview.
A couple of easy and inoffensive ways to describe one’s racial leanings are “A white nationalist/white advocate is just someone who believes whites are people too. It’s someone who believes it’s okay to be white and to like it, and to take a stand against the anti-white nonsense used to attack white people.”
That’s not necessarily going to generate immediate and enthusiastic agreement (lol), but because it makes it very difficult for someone to shriek hysterically about moral repugnance it can’t help but establish a baseline level of acceptability of the racialist position (certainly so in the minds of neutrals).
As for the big H, I prefer to refer to skepticism about the “standard narrative,” and point out that we’re seeing that standard narrative starting to unravel and that this is generating hysteria among those who use that narrative to attack white identity.
Hey, can you guys give us hearing-impaired folks written summary (in a paragraph or two) plus some bullet points of this radio show?
Would one of our readers be so kind as to type out some bullet points and post them as a comment?
Excellent interview. Very revealing and informative. If the intent was to conduct an interview which sought to find out what Mr. Krafft actually believes and provides a glimpse into his character, then this interview is in stark contrast to the “investigations” and “exposés” Krafft’s getting from everywhere else.
I think Krafft is wise to self-identify as a “white advocate” and a “holocaust skeptic” – these are the right labels for a public figure whose livelihood isn’t pro-white politics. To the extent someone like Krafft even has a chance in a witch hunt like this, the labels he picked at least offer the possibility to avoid self-identifying as a thought criminal, which the labels “white nationalist” and “holocaust revisionist” seem to do by definition.
I suppose the question now is to see if the art gatekeepers will ever allow him to speak in his own voice and accept his own self-identification, or if they will continue to apply the worst possible skewed labels and misperceptions. I guess we already know the answer to this question, sadly.
Odd how the art establishment never suggested reevaluating the totalitarianist themed art of Shapard Fairy once he outed himself as a statist and apologist for the regime.
Mr. Krafft, I’ve always loved your work, I don’t think I could possibly like it more but I certainly do like you a lot more recently. I’m amazed by your courage, you should do some ceramic casts of a set of basket balls and title it Charles Kraffts Balls, accent them with gold and put them on a pedestal. I’m glad you’re one of us but I liked your work even before I knew that. I’m sure there are a lot of others out there who agree with us to some degree but just don’t have the guts to come out. An old friend of mine, a former friend, a former skinhead from back in the day was a featured artist in Huffpost a few months ago, all I could think was, if they only knew. I’d never out somebody but boy was I tempted.
Some in the Northern California and Pacific Northwest art scenes have such a seemingly pro white or at least pro life sensibility to them I wonder if there are more of us out there. I adore Jock Sturges and Nikki McClure, their art seems so race conscious to me, I wonder if they know how many white nationalists enjoy and promote their work.
I sincerely wish Mr. Krafft the best of luck in the future and wish to thank him from the bottom of my heart for having to courage to speak up and speak out.
Some would guage this mans work as cultural kitch, however the workmanship and rendering in this medium is not amatureish or folkish, but of a master. It is not pottery banged out of a third world sweatshop operation.
The subject matter is confontational, however the workmanship give it a sort of authenticity. The malevolence of a killing tool consealed behind delft. It boggles the mind. There is a humor to some peices that destroys the melevolence.
I did not like the one about the tight rope walkers. It was like a souvenir item sold by trinket vendors selling on the day of the mishap. It trivialized a mans mishap.
I think that this man will be vindicated, and ought to use art as a weapon to destroy his enemys.
And now this mans profession, in jeopardy due to ignorance and bigotry by swarms of toney philistines and hypocrites, must be championed by men of conscience.
Critics ought to pass on technique and message of the products of a mans hand and mind, and not speculate on the heart and mind of the producer. That is none of their business.
How bout a ceramic ceramic bust of Samuel Sattin , with the words “professional scribbler’ as a legend?
Notes on interview with Charles Krafft
1. began painting on plates: “disaster ware” – natural catastrophes- fires, earthquakes floods, train wrecks
2. first swastika in 1991: branched out to socio-political disasters – occupation of Holland
3. First started painting porcelain to do portrait of Von Dutch – took class on painting on porcelain from hobby crafters
4. residence in Holland: found molds donated by Kitsch factory — airport kitch kind for tourists — cow creamers, vases, windmills – began to tweet windmills – sculpt into swastikas
5. also used Laibach’s black cross
6. Idaho Hitler tea pot — Aryan nations church there – also white gated community
7. first used swastika -1991
8. less than 10% of out put is images of NS
9. commissions of Hitler 5% — doesn’t sell alot of 3rd Reich history – not salable
10. Jewish collector asked for Hitler Tea pot in black face.
11. scandal — stalker, crude anti-semetic postings on facebook — jewish client saw it.
13. most clients are gentiles – not Nazis – nobody identifies as Nazi – those on internet most likely government sponsored honey traps
14. interest in holocaust around same time NSK collective in Slovenia –use symbols and icons – mix them up in post modern way- give sense of totalitarianism- making a comment – hyperbole – retro avant- guardism — tyranny of globalism
15. uses axis of evil- rogues gallery of modern boogieman – Kim Jong-Il, Ahmadinejad
16. Eastern Europeans want to go back before war, art derailed by war – trauma of war – get modernism back on track.
17. demythologize – turn evil boogie man (Hitler etc.) into tea pots, piggy banks, chia pets.
18. controversy –stranger newspaper – Jen Graves claim it is an expression of hostility towards Jews because of interest in ww2 revisionism. but was using Nazi tropes before he got into revisionism
19. read Nazis in America — by H Bloom
20. got into White Nationalism about 2 years ago
21.Stranger article falsely claimed he was hoodwinking patrons slipping in Nazism under guise of post modern irony – false and misleading
22. did not know the man who bought the Hitler tea pot – not hood winking, not subverting
23. they think it is a tribute to Hitler, but hysterical reaction — superstitious of symbols
24. getting the Saul Alinsky treatment – isolate and go after livelihood.
is harmful, on the spot with friends allowed some platform, but not allowed to say how he got to his position, others may follow
25. they don’t want an articulate person talking, may draw others and attention – 26. said his enemies suggest he might be senile. joke: never forget, he is forgetting, ergo senile.
27. met Jen Graves before
28. an art teacher from a community college said he was a bigot- K may have suggested to her to out him then.
29. Call from Graves. asked if holocaust denier – didn’ t think that that had anything to do with his art
30. she began polling people
31. why the shock? it is not a well kept secret — his art work
32. harm is that he cannot go for grants, on a blacklist no college lectures
33. rejects term “denial” does not deny there was a holocaust –weaponized term, prefers skeptic
34. identifies as white advocate: racially aware of whiteness, proud of European -American achievements – wants to preserve traditions
35. not a white supremacist that is a media attack term
36. discussion on collective guilt – why not collective pride
37. Whites did control globe 100 years ago
38. must take our own side
39. no real advice to others thankful for first amendment at least not charged with a thought crime — in Europe people are in jail– Americans do not realize the extent of the taboo
40. discussion about revisionism – all history undergoes revision with new information
41. discussion about Am gov’t restrictions on other countries entering Nato or UN
can’t have a American like constitution
42. us complicit – must study holocaust
43. Why do Americans know how many Jews died in WW II, but not how many Americans?
44. holocaust museums built before monuments to American dead
45. instill idea that Americans did not do enough to help the Jews instead of thanking them
46. not much coverage in mainstream media of his pt of view
47. doing okay thanked Dr Johnson for his deconstruction of article
48. recommends Herbert Hoover’s secret war diaries
49. standing his ground.
Thank you for this Rhondda!
You are welcome. My pleasure.
I know what I left out in my notes, especially the reference to the white network. I have a problem with childless women trying to lead, yet advocate that other women must bear children. It is irrational I know, but there it is. The Joan of Arcs are rare and few can pass the test.
Artinfo.com covers our interview on the Krafft affair:
http://blogs.artinfo.com/artintheair/2013/03/13/artist-charles-kraffts-first-interview-after-being-outed-as-a-white-nationalist-choice-quotes/
Ours was not the first interview with Charlie since this event happened. He was interviewed by email by several journalists, and his first taped interview as far as I know, was Carolyn Yeager’s last Saturday.
They called the quotations “unsettling” but I didn’t read much of anything that I’d consider unsettling…
Yes, I think that in part, this is the strategy I described of “playing it safe” in pandering to what they evidently think are our pyschotic Jewish overlords.
Speaking of outing is artinfo.com’s plug for North American New Righter Greg Johnson the outing of the NANR?
As far as I know, my first mentions in mainstream publications have been in connection with my Krafft articles and recent interview.
I listened to part of it. Mr. Krafft comes across as a very reasonable and erudite man.
Greg,
If I may ask an off-topic question, after listening to this, I decided to re-read Joe Sobran’s speech on the h to the IHR. As everyone knows, Sobran was horribly persecuted over his views too. In his speech, he mentioned meeting Weber, and it occurred to me that you have mentioned knowing Weber. It made me wonder if you ever met Joe Sobran and if so if you see any parallels to Krafft situation? It seems like they always do it the same way, smears, lies, try to get the person fired, encourage colleagues to ostracize, etc. It’s despicable.
I met Sobran only once, in March of 2007. He was speaking at a memorial event for Sam Francis. He was reeling drunk and clinging like a naughty child to a woman who was his minder. Frankly, I found it hard to believe that this was the man whose writings I admired so highly. I do not know if he was a drunk when he was with National Review or not, but Sobran’s friends to whom I spoke believed that he had been destroyed as a human being by being fired by Buckley. If true, it is astonishing: Sobran knew the full measure of Buckley’s cowardice, dishonesty, and injustice, yet he was still destroyed by his rejection.
Charlie Krafft strikes me as a much stronger person than Joe Sobran, and I don’t think that Krafft ever took the art world as seriously as Sobran took National Review. So I suspect that Krafft is going to be just fine in the end. But none of this is fun. It is emotionally hard to know that one is a target. It is hard when friends break with you openly, and even harder when they act like cowardly little pussies and refuse to pick up the phone, answer your emails, or return your calls. But in the end, it is good to know who your real friends are and to broom out the false ones. It also makes a big difference to know that there are new friends out there, or just people who let you know that they respect you, sympathize with your plight, and see your enemies for the vermin that they are.
Wow. That is really sad. I almost regret asking. It destroys a bit of the Sobran mystique for me. I hope he found some peace before he passed.
The goys scattering like rat’s to distance themselves from Krafft don’t get that from the standpoint of the Jews they’re trying to please, they too are just white trash Gentiles. Makes their actions even more pathetic.
I think in these situations most of the white rats are motivated by a combination of factors:
1. They believe that Krafft is involved with ideas that are truly false and evil
2. They believe that they better act concerned about that, because other people believe the same thing
3. If they have Jews in their lives, they know how difficult and how dangerous they can be, so they go to extra lengths to clear themselves of any suspicion of heterodoxy
Speaking of the late Joe Sobran, I did hear him speak at a American Free Press/The Barnes Review conference about 7 years ago. He read his speech in a monotone and soft-spoken voice. He was difficult to hear. At that time he had a beard.
If I had any friends left I wouldn’t have any spare cash to support the NANR.!!??
I guess most of you have heard that in regards to the holocaust of ww2 http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/04/291802/the-holocaust-bomb-a-rerevisionist-myth/ the number of death camps and the number of casualties has been revised:
The new total, up to 42,000 “death camps” with “gassing” totals now approaching 20 million Jews,
The new numbers come out of Israel or more specifically, the Holocaust Memorial Museum and from Johns Hopkins.
Next they will start counting every railroad tie as a distinct site of horror.
Studio 360, which I think is connected to NPR, interviewed Krafft today. It’s on their website. To call it an “interview” would be very generous. It came across like a cross examination at a witch trial. The verdict: Krafft is insane and needs psychiatric help!
I would love to hear the full, unedited recording of this one:
http://www.studio360.org/2013/mar/15/charles-krafft-responds/?utm_source=local&utm_media=treatment&utm_campaign=daMost&utm_content=damostviewed
Why do all these NPR guys sound like they have a lovingly tended stump where their genetalia used to be?
An interesting interview. I wonder if it doesn’t undermine the validity of the ‘postmodern irony’, this development. Postmodernism puts too much emphasis on the intention of the artist rather than the inherent merit and ostensible meaning of the artwork. Therefore a swastika is fine when they think the artist is a liberal being ironic and mocking Nazis, but not fine when they think the artist is a Nazi mocking liberals.
I think use of fascist iconography is generally ill-advised and is likely to turn people away from white advocacy. Of course I think laws against Holocaust denial are an illiberal abomination. I am not interested in or persuaded by revisionism myself, but it is certainly outrageous to be locking people up with murders and rapists for translating a document. The worst way to honour the victims of totalitarianism is to have thought crimes on the statute books.
Looks like Dr. Karl Radl wrote a blog article about controversy surrounding Charlie Krafft. (Greg Johnson gets a mention).
http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2013/03/charles-krafft-and-art-of-holocaust.html
You might be interested to know that the scandal over Charles Krafft’s holocaust skepticism and WN leanings is growing larger and larger. This story was covered twice by both Salon.com & HuffPo, and here it is in the’The New Yorker’:
Charles Krafft and the Conundrum of Nazi Art
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment