Counter-Currents
Home Remedies for Hitler Hysteria Prescribed by the New Right Avant-Garde
F. C. Stoughton4,934 words
Here’s a stumper: if the definition of irony is typically something like “that which goes against expectations,” then how could an Avant-Garde artist—one who is expected to test the boundaries of our expectations—ever satisfy popular, mainstream, garden-variety tastes in irony? At some point, the Avant-Garde artist will, according to his nature, go against the expected means by which the unexpected is supposed to be realized; he will offer us a new unexpectedness.
And a new unexpectedness is direly needed. For about a century now, ever since, say, Duchamp’s 1917 “Fountain”—a men’s urinal intended as a piece of ready-made statuary—so-called Avant-Garde artists have reveled in ironically overturning, at every turn, concepts of beauty, decency, and of art itself. Thus “shock art,” this militancy against the status quo in Western culture has paradoxically become the status quo and has rendered itself increasingly tame, passé, and hardly shocking at all. It is as the late Jonathan Bowden has said: “Revolutionary art becomes liberal wallpaper.” Thus whether it is Rick Gibson’s “Human Earrings” (earrings made from human fetuses), or a tin of “Artist’s Shit” by Piero Manzoni, or Tracy Emin’s “My Bed” (unmade with soiled sheets and menstrual-stained undies), or . . . well you get the idea. The point is that a little of this goes a long way. Soon being “edgy” looses its edge as the masses become ever-more desensitized. Soon irony devours itself.
But just as the brainscrambled masses were expecting the unexpected to remain forever thus predictable, safe for bourgeois consumption at the Tate Galleries or at MOMA, a New Right Avant-Garde has emerged to confound these long-established means of confounding expectations: Bowden, Charlie Krafft, Ramzpaul, Horus the Avenger. Each have opened up surprising new dimensions in irony itself, much to the confusion and dismay of the slow witted who still had their minds attuned to the old, tired, mainstream “Avant-Garde” and their truculent childish concept of “shock.”
For example, when news got out one year ago that Charlie Krafft, widely known as the artist behind the “Hitler Teapot,” happened to question the received history of “The Holocaust” and failed to prostrate himself sufficiently before the sacred number “6 Million,” the arts and cultural commentariat had ERROR blinking in their short-circuiting brains. They couldn’t process the fact that what they had thought to be mildly shocking and ironic was clearly—what precisely?
Seattle-based journalist Glenn Fleishman tweets “Ironic Nazi art creator turns out to be unironic.” Jillian Steinhauer, in a story that was picked up by The Huffington Post, asks “What Do You Do with White Nationalist Art Once the Irony’s Gone?” Blogger Bob Duggan asks “Is Charles Krafft’s Nazi-Inspired Art Ironic or Not?” And The Stranger’s Jen Graves, who first outed Krafft as being sympathetic to White Nationalism, suggests that “pretty much everyone thought Krafft was being ironic”—until now.
Let us first make clear precisely what these writers mean when they use this word “irony” or “ironic.” If we look to the word’s Greek etymology we find eironeia, signifying “simulated ignorance.” These writers, wittingly or unwittingly, appropriate some of this original definition into their interpretations of Krafft’s “Hitler Teapot” and related works. Put simply, their thinking goes something like this: everybody knows that Hitler was pure evil, a demon, the worst person who has ever existed. Right? Thus any representation of the man that does not depict him as such—and especially one that depicts him, rather, as wholesome, or warm, or familiar, like a teapot—would have to have been done out of some kind of “simulated ignorance,” to contravene our expectations of the demonic, all to achieve a humorous or haunting effect.
But if an artist is a “Holocaust denier,” then he must not think, to begin with, that Hitler is the embodiment of evil or an imp of Satan. His work depicting Hitler in an unexpected, non-demonic light would not therefore be interpretable as ironic. Right?
Thus Krafft must really think that Hitler is . . . what?—a teapot?
Clearly the logic of this mainstream commentary does not get us very far before it begins to break down. To the extent that one might feel a need for explanations or interpretations of art, therefore, a new reading of these Nazified teapots and perfume bottles seems in order.
Here’s one: if Mr. Krafft is remotely sympathetic with White Nationalism, then the weight of emphasis and the true sense of irony subsists in his art only insofar as it contravenes, not the idea of Hitler-as-demon, but rather the overarching expectation that we must always demonize him.
II.
We will return to this assertion. But before we proceed with where it leads, we must offer, as a necessary aside, some context. For there are other ironies lurking near-at-hand.
One of these is found in the degree to which Jen Graves’ treatment of Kraftt goes utterly against what one has come to expect from her, considering her previous writing on the subject of humble artist vs. the Goliath of religious hegemonies. In late 2010, for instance, when Catholics denounced a homoerotic video by artist David Wojnarowicz depicting a desecrated crucifix, Ms. Graves defended the artist, derided the Catholics as “nutjobs,” complained how the Smithsonian stifled freedom of expression by “yank[ing] the video out of the galleries suddenly and without discussion,” and continued to show her loyalties by advertising in The Stranger precisely when and where the public might go see screenings of the censored video.
Figure 1: Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ”
Her world is one in which religious reactionaries display their narrow-minded, knuckle-dragging intolerance by going on the “warpath” against enlightened works of shock-art like Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” (see Fig. 1) or the homoerotic fetish photography of Robert Mapplethorpe. Bob Duggan, too, lauds Serrano’s “Piss Christ” and yet condemns Glenn Beck’s Christian conservative response—dunking an Obama bobble-head doll in a jar of urine—as a “hateful symbolic act.” Jillian Steinhauer also derides Beck’s pastiche as “Really Bad”!
Clearly Graves and her ilk thus only support “edgy” art so long as it cuts against and undermines religious “nuts” who want to impose their ideological hegemony on us all and keep us from, you know, asking too many questions.
But isn’t “to keep us from asking too many questions” precisely the first and central religious tenet of “The Holocaust?”
You know it is. Sanctified, in some European countries, by law.
And hasn’t “Hitler-as-pure-evil” and the number “6 Million” become the new global litmus of moral rectitude? Affirm them, you heathen, or burn in flames of guilt and “hate” and heresy!
Indeed, Holocaustianity is the West’s new big Manichean religion of good vs evil, of guilt and shame and original sin. It’s got the works! It has been created and promoted by Anglosphere elites into the dominant religio-ideological paradigm of the past half-century. Compared with the absurd sums of money and colossal power driving “The Holocaust” into our children’s hearts and minds in our schools, and into those of young adults in our universities, into our public conscious via Hollywood films, and into our government and foreign policy via aggressive lobbying groups, the Catholic Church and its dogma seem positively meek, limp, ineffectual, defeated. Thus Graves and Duggan et al. take sides against yesterday’s religions, in a battle that was already waged and won over a century ago.
Graves et al. claim the Holocaust as undeniable history when it is convenient for them to do so. But then when it suits them it becomes something other than history: a bludgeon, an indenture, a shibboleth. Historians and the public at large must be allowed to arrive at more judicious, more nuanced interpretations about events of the past without fear of being subjected to, in the present, an onslaught of condemnation and demonization. This, or else you must cease to call those past events “history.” You cannot have it both ways.
The Holocaust is not history, not only because it did not happen they way you think it happened, but also because the moment history ceases to be contested or contestable, it becomes religion.
But the Holocaust is not history in another sense. It is “not history” when it is used ideologically, propagandistically. Hitler and The Holocaust since the ’70s have been taken up in Western media and governments in order to excuse and justify everything under the sun. If you are a “Right-wing” neocon, you evoke Hitler and the Holocaust to rally support for an invasion of Iraq and, potentially, Iran. If you are a “Leftist” liberal, you evoke Hitler and the Holocaust to rally American opinion against Slobodan Milošević, or stifle American dissent about Affirmative Action programs, or quash European dissent about the importation of drug-crazed Somali rape-squadrons into the quiet suburbs of Sweden. Hitler and the Holocaust have become generic symbols of unredeemable evil, ontic entities of demonic force. Hitler is no more a mere man, but a smoldering lump of brimstone. You saw his cameo at the end of Time Bandits: “It’s EVIL! Don’t touch it!”
And if you wish to label me a “Holocaust denier” and dismiss the idea that the event is more propaganda than history, then allow me to refer you to “mainstream” scholars who agree with me in this particular matter. In his The Epitome of Evil: Hitler in American Fiction, 1939–2002
For instance, Butter discusses at some length David Charnay’s 2002 novel Operation Lucifer. This is an “alternate history” that features a Führer who has managed to survive into the 21st century only to be captured and put on trial at Guantanamo Bay. Yet, despite this massive re-imagining, the view of Hitler as demonic, as “devil incarnate,” is not, cannot be revised. Indeed, it is precisely the connection between Hitler and irredeemable evil that gives the book its propagandistic logic. For Charnay is using the fear of Hitler-As-Evil to justify the war on terror, American military actions in the Middle East, and the existence of Guantanamo Bay itself.
Even the historian Peter Novick, hardly a “Holocaust denier,” still maintains that “The Holocaust” as it is now imagined in mainstream commentary is almost entirely a function of propagandistic exigencies. He calls it a “retrospective construction” that would be unrecognizable to Americans living in, say, the 1950s. At that time The Holocaust was far less prominent in our culture since it was the Soviets who were then the “new enemy.” Look up any history book at random from the first two decades after the war and you will scarcely find any reference to it at all. One book, for instance, chosen at random, The Soviet History of World War II: Myths, Memories, and Realities (1963), mentions the word “holocaust” only once, and not, in fact, in reference to the internment of Jews under Hitler.
Holocaustianity became increasingly important in the late ’60s as a consequence of Civil Rights era politicking, the need to “integrate” American schools, and the need to integrate nations into the European Union and import into it “vibrant” uneducated Third World immigrants.
Figure 2: German cartoon depicting Napoleon as the son of Satan
Thus it has been the case that, unlike the demonized political figures from wars of the distant past, unlike Napoleon as devil spawn from propaganda of two centuries ago or similar depictions of Kaiser Wilhelm or Trotsky from a hundred years ago (see Figs. 2, 3, & 4), the propaganda surrounding Hitler has become more, not less, prevalent and virulent as the period in which he lived fades into the past. Western news media, entertainment media, governments, and social engineers all have found it convenient to have at-hand a scary sock-puppet, an “epitome of Evil” to frighten childlike hordes into submission at the box office and ballot box alike, especially now that the dead or dying gods and devils of pre-20th-century religions have become so ineffectual at eliciting our passions.
Figure 3: Kaiser Wilhelm as the devil
These propagandists, such as Ms. Graves, end up becoming inadvertent religious nuts, spreading the gospel of Hitler, proselytizing his cult, perpetuating his potency, not as an avatar of Vishnu as Savitri Devi imagined him, but as an inversion of whatever might happen to be their political objective at any given moment.
And it is this creation, through Hitler, of a binary inversion of the good, always to be reflexively unconditionally condemned, that we must condemn. On principle.
Figure 4: Leon Trotsky
For unlike followers of Abrahamic faiths from Torahic and Talmudic Judaism to modern secular liberalism, for whom the world is always polarized into good and evil—representing what Jonathan Bowden has derided as a tendency to click! valorize everything in a “televisual morality”—we of the New Right are of a far more pagan temperament, inclined to see most things not in terms of this strict bifurcation but rather as a gyring vortex of primal forces, individual and group self-interest, and, most of all, nuance.
We embrace the Nietzchean nuances that exist beyond “good” and “evil” while the Abrahamic slaves lust to demonize and condemn unconditionally, to “fall upon men and things with Yea and Nay.” Meanwhile, the only thing we in the New Right say Nay to is this very insistence that we reduce the world into Yea and Nay—ESPECIALLY when the Nay, that which is always negated and demonized, is, through Hitler Hysteria, only ever white people, white identity, white self-determination, white existence per se.
Thus when Duggan says Hitler is “evil in its most concentrated form,” or when Steinhauer makes comments regarding Charlie Krafft that go something like: “Actually we aren’t dealing with someone’s social/political stance here. We are dealing with someone’s embrace of evil.”—they sound to us impossibly childlike and slavish and religious in their lack of nuance. But they also sound like an enemy, with just a hint of nostalgia for a status quo that is about to die, deservedly.
For if to them Jewish Nationalism = Zionism = the heartbeat of Ameri-kuh and White Nationalism = Hitler = an “embrace of evil” in its “most concentrated form,” how long do you expect an Avant-Garde worthy of that name to rest complacent, culturally yoked in that double standard?
III.
Ezra Pound thought that serious artists were also physicians. They perform first a diagnostic function to determine what ails mankind, then dip into their artistic repertoire or palette as one would visit an apothecary shop to find an appropriate remedy. A misdiagnosis might thus result in a work that is ineffectual, inopportune, even counter-productive. In our era of vacuous and flashy sensationalism fueled by enormous sums of money, therefore, a so-called Avant-Garde artist like Lady Gaga represents merely more of the disease. Likewise, “Piss Christ” is bad art not so much because it shocks or offends, but because it misdiagnoses the problem. It is tantamount to offering a topical ointment for toenail fungus when the patient, Western man, rather suffers from acute leprosy of the soul and an advanced case of terminal genocide.
Figure 5: Charles Krafft, “Bible and Syringe”
One of Charlie Krafft’s earlier works “Bible and Syringe” (see Fig. 5) seems to diagnose mankind with a surfeit of religiosity. It can even be taken as an oblique reference to the Marxian paraphrase, perhaps, that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Thus the delftware syringe that is here juxtaposed with the Bible must not be interpreted as delivering an antidote to religion; rather it represents part of the disease. It reminds us that religious self-righteousness, too, contains its own seductions and addictions.
I assume liberals would generally fawn over “Bible and Syringe” and give a reading not too different than mine. However, in Krafft’s later work he subtly adjusts the diagnosis by broadening the definition of “religiosity.” While most liberals will recognize and are horrified by undue religiosity in the form of the Chick tracts or the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the squeaky clean Mormon missionaries on their doorstep, they fail to recognize the same delicious opiates of fanaticism wafting about upon stepping into the inner sanctum of their local Holocaust museum.
Krafft’s Nazi knickknacks are thus his remedy for postmodernity’s most debilitating and widespread afflictions of Holocaustianity and Hitler Hysteria (henceforth H&HH). He makes this explicit connection in his recent NPR interview. When Kurt Anderson asks him specifically about the “Hitler Teapot,” Krafft muses: “I think [Hitler has] been demonized excessively . . . So the teapot started out ironical and still stays ironical.”
In other words, Krafft insists upon a new, unexpected irony: i.e, that his art must—to repeat my thesis—contravene, not the idea of Hitler-as-demon, but rather the overarching expectation that we must always demonize him. Greg Johnson has arrived at a similar interpretation, claiming Krafft “ironically” “tweaks” widespread “symbols of evil” in order to “give us some distance on evil.”
This distance is much needed. For we are now confronted with an odd paradox wherein the propagandists at once insist on H&HH as epitome of radical evil, and at the same time insist on sticking it in our noses at every turn, shoving it into our homes, our curricula, our entertainments—thus making a ubiquity of iniquity. And this brings us to another stroke of genius in Krafft’s Disasterware. By rendering Hitler something as warm and homey as a teapot, it acknowledges this fact, that the man is now required to be as much a part of the postmodern Western household as dishwashing detergent, but at the same time mocks the whole obligation of moral outrage that his image is supposed to elicit in us; it downgrades our emotional indenture; it domesticates the demon, allowing us to overcome it—simultaneously allowing us to step past the threat of our own demonization–by-association.
Figure 6: Charles Krafft, Hitler teapot
But probably Krafft’s greatest heresy is not so much that he makes Hitler warm and cozy and nurturing like a teapot, but that he simultaneously renders him human. How dare he give Hitler that odd worried look, that turns him into a sympathetic figure? (see Fig. 6) Such compassionate concern exudes from the man’s eye, as if seeing for the first time the looming implications of his own future demonization, betraying not so much self-pity for his own tarnished reputation, but sadness for the burden that it will impose upon future generations. We see this same odd expression on Hitler’s Face, ultimately betokening a similar rehabilitation and re-humanization, in Jonathan Bowden’s painting “Adolf and Leni.” (see Fig. 7). These pleading eyes make these works far more revolutionary examples of Avant-Garde art, and far more consequential for the status of the human in modernity, than Duchamp’s “R. Mutt” urinal ever was.
IV.
Figure 7: Jonathan Bowden, “Hitler and Leni”
The video artist Ramzpaul has also mastered this new genre of revolutionary, multi-faceted irony. In a kind of inversion of Steven Colbert’s feigned conservatism, Ramzpaul frequently adopts a simulated ignorance by taking on his liberal enemies’ mindset, which then proceeds to destroy itself with its own ludicrous illogic.
Recently, when the Daily Mail ran a photo and story seriously speculating on whether Hitler lived in Brazil with his black girlfriend after World War II, Ramzpaul played along, becoming the dimwitted liberal dupe in his video “Did Adolf Have Jungle Fever?”
“Ok, here’s the smoking gun,” Ramzpaul says. “You really can’t see his face that well here [ . . . ] But you can tell it’s Hitler because—well, you hear the scary music in the background? Yeah, whenever there’s scary music that means there’s Nazis or Hitler involved; so it’s probably Hitler.”
Ramzpaul here underhandedly critiques Western media’s insistence on disseminating, even now 70 years after the war, Hitler-as-evil stories with quotidian regularity, and simultaneously critiques lazy consumers of information who lack a bullshit alarm when it comes to “evidence.” For he zooms in on the face of the man pictured. It proves completely devoid of any identifying detail. It could be anyone. Yet for Ramzpaul, still in-character, this grainy, shadowy image is “pretty conclusive.” Thus “Hitler” has become a paper-doll cutout of a white man and therefore universally applicable in instances where a sense of white identity needs undermining.
However, in the original Daily Mail story Hitler is somewhat redeemed in the imagined moral compass of liberalism, and ironically so; for, remember, this Hitler has a black girlfriend. The Daily Mail thus attempts an unexpected twist on Hitler Hysteria, but one that only reasserts the usual anti-white agenda. For rather than merely dangling the Hitler-as-Evil marionette in our faces once again, they catch him in the act of compromising his pro-white street cred. Ah ha! If The Führer himself had “jungle fever,” what chance do you other, lowlier whites ever really have of realizing your nationalist, secessionist, or separatist dreams?
But Ramzpaul merely reverses this ironic reversal. He uses the premise of being convinced by this absurd story to spearhead a new political platform: with this photo as evidence, we should all make “Jungle Fever Denial” a crime! His re-ironized “Hitler with Jungle Fever” thus performs a Judo move on “Holocaust Denial” jurisprudence, and on the very idea of “The Holocaust” itself.
For one stupid photograph, too readily believed in, soon leads to another. With feigned moral outrage, Ramzpaul presents us with a typical “Nazi atrocity” image: “I know this photo is painful to look at . . . but it is important we remember . . . why the Daily Mail runs these stories . . . because of the atrocities that happened.” He speaks of how “photos never lie” and how they here serve to remind us of “what kind of MONSTERS” these Germans were. “Thank God someone took this photograph so we will always remember,” so we will never again dare to want, as white people, our own nation.
He never breaks character even till the very end of the video. It is only in the last few seconds, after he has signed off, that he undermines his entire act by revealing the real photo from which the forged “atrocity” photo derives. In doing so he charges the entire Holocaust industry with a false basis in flimsy, doctored evidence and the will-to-believe of the easily duped.
Ramzpaulian irony, and New Right Avant-Garde irony in general, thus goes beyond a mere conflation of opposed binaries—the expected with the unexpected, the sacred symbol with urine or feces. Instead, this typical irony, this binary conflation, is itself pressurized and problematized.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Ramzpaul’s video entitled “Easy Bake Anne,” which is, I believe, the only video in which he explicitly declares himself to be an artist.
Here, again in his usual voice of simulated ignorance, he insists that Serrano’s “Piss Christ” is good art because it’s “shocking” and “edgy” and “irreverent.” And yet, as if he is confused on the issue, he points out how desecrations of other religious symbols, such as pastor Terry Jones’ burning of the Koran, is seen by certain commentators, not as “edgy,” but rather as hate: “I’ve learned there’s a fine line between being edgy and irreverent, which is a good thing, versus hate, which is a bad thing: peeing on a crucifix is edgy and irreverent,” while “burning a Koran is hate.”
Ramzpaul’s faux naïveté here is endearing; the viewer’s sympathy thus goes out to him over this genuine conundrum. But his perplexity also forces us to imagine how liberal commentators would try to explain away this double-standard.
However, he seems utterly uninterested in this absent explanation. His is an offensive (pun intended) strategy; he goes for the soft jugular, one of the most sacred symbols of the current cultural hegemony: The Diary of Anne Frank.
His decision to target Anne Frank is by no means arbitrary. As with his grievance against the Daily Mail for continuing to barrage us with “daily mail” about the Holocaust, like unwanted junk mail piling up around us in our homes, by choosing this book he reminds us how, for decades now, the Department of Education and local school districts nationwide have perpetually made this politically one-sided, emotionally manipulating propaganda required reading for impressionable children.
And as with Krafft’s teapot, Ramzpaul’s video makes explicit the propagandistic assault of a demonized Hitler on our domesticity. For he doesn’t put the book, and symbolically Anne herself, into a proper crematorium oven. No. He puts her into his own kitchen oven, in which something warm and wholesome might be baked, like cookies. Meanwhile, the name “Easy Bake” further pulls us conceptually into the realm of the familiar, the domesticated, and evokes the innocence of children at play—Betty Crocker’s Easy Bake Oven.
It is as if we are to imagine millions of children, in the context of play, in the context of playing house, in the context of an idealized domesticity, exacting their revenge upon this book in particular and upon the H&HH indoctrination in general that has been continuously crammed into their young minds. And the fact that this play mimics the very propagandistic lies that they are forced to imagine by the people who are supposed to be giving them an education, adds yet another ingenious dimension to the rich and multivalent irony.
V.
Horus the Avenger is a master of counter-propaganda. Like Ramzpaul, he takes anti-White liberalism’s own talking points, adds just a little bit of pressure or the slightest twist, and allows the whole dogmatic edifice to collapse in on itself. This strategy is hilariously epitomized in the video that he made with his White Rabbit Radio crew entitled “Anti-Racist Hitler.”
The premise of the video is that Hitler returns to public life in the present day. Under a hail of boos he emerges from an anti-gravity Die Glocke (!). But he quickly wins people’s hearts by claiming to be a “changed man” and promising to “crush racism once and for all!”
The “demonic” Hitler we have come to expect has been transformed before our eyes. He is now the epitome of the open-borders liberal peacenik. This is of course trivially ironic, but Horus does not stop there.
Hitler finds himself in Tel Aviv, which he thinks is a “great city” except for one small detail: “Too many Jews here! Vee need more diversity!” His multiculturalist organization, “The Children of the Rainbow,” will set things aright!
But when some Jews resist anti-racist Hitler’s plan to make Israel more “vibrant,” he unleashes upon them all of the liberal multiculturalist talking points that are usually directed against White Nationalists. When turned upon the Jews, these typically anti-white slogans prove strangely and hilariously apt. “So you believe you are God’s chosen people? Some kind of ‘Master Race?’” He turns to one yarmulke-topped Jewish skeptic and tells him: “Take off your tinfoil hat.” Indeed, many of Hitler’s “anti-racist” slogans are lifted and retrofitted from real-life Jewish multiculturalists who are actively promoting diversity in Europe, particularly from Barbara Lerner Spectre, the founding director of Paideia, the European Institute for Jewish Studies. For instance, her slogan “Europe has not yet learned to be multicultural” in anti-racist Hitler’s mouth becomes “Israel has not yet learned to be multicultural.”
Hitler’s ideological transformation is coded into his demeanor and dress. No longer in the garb of a military dictator, he becomes “cool,” decked out in Hawaiian shirts.” Thus the demon Hitler is rendered ironically warm and friendly and domesticated. He starts a “Rainbow Dating Organization” to further his goals. “Zese days I am all about zee LOVE!” He even plays ridiculous peacenik music, in the vein of USA for Africa’s “We are the World,” to the vibrant hordes: “Vee heal zee world / Vee are zee Children of the Rainbow!”
Yet, in the end, it is precisely by being such an “anti racist” in modern terms that he ultimately becomes just as much of a genocidal maniac as multiculturalist liberals would like to think he was historically—only this time, in the most profound of ironies, he succeeds. Yes, this pro-diversity Hitler manages to achieve what the historical Hitler allegedly tried and failed to achieve: the genocide of the Jews. Liberalism’s own “anti-racism,” proves to be more deadly than any “gas chamber” was ever imagined to be.
“Anti-Racist Hitler” succeeds as art because of its sophisticated tapestry of interwoven ironies. It doesn’t just dunk a liberal Jewish talking head, like Jon Stewart or Bill Maher or Rachel Maddow into a vat of piss, as wonderful as that might be to conceptualize. Rather, it uses the actual ideologies, the very words of liberal multiculturalist Jews to promote, and then enact, their own annihilation.
VI.
It is no secret that Western media and governmental power structures have long used H&HH as an ideological weapon, a gag order to keep us choking on the regurgitated propaganda of yesteryear, to stifle all debate and discussion. H&HH are scarlet letters to shame whites into being uncomfortable in their own skin.
Thus, to mock this relentless, terrorizing injection of nightmarish boogiemen into our living spaces and work places, the New Right Avant-Garde is exploding irony into new dimensions, discovering new terrains beyond the tired, expected, passé, and ham-fisted, “shocking” conflation of binaries.
Thus we domesticate the demon.
With Hitler hoovers we sweep clean our household. With Hitler hand soap we lave our children, inoculating them from all future poisons.
Hitler as croquet mallet. Hitler as lace doily.
I demand my “anti-racist Hitler” thermos and my “Easy Bake Anne” lunchbox to go with my “Hitler Teapot.”
THUS WE DECLARE A NEW TENDENCY IN ART.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
36 comments
Yes, yes, yes. Brilliant. I first starting doubting the official line when all those bogus memoirs of the holocaust came out. If they are bogus what else is? ( they needed to reign in their own people, oops) Then, what are they going to do when it is impossible for there to be alive any survivors? I look forward to the day when people laugh hysterically when some grand child of a so called survivor tries to invoke this dubious guilt. It is not going to happen. We will teach our children otherwise. The irony of ironies is that it gets returned to the sender in spades. This is what is happening now.
It is happening already. The Jews are claiming “epigenetics” is transferring the trauma of the Holocaust to the grand and great-grandchildren of the “survivors.” They are gonna get away with it. In a few years major news networks will be running stories about these cases of epigenetic trauma and goyim will be in tears watching.
A few years ago, a fellow whose family had died in an accident brought up their deaths and his suffering in a purely gratuitous way to score points in an argument that had nothing to do with the issue. I was shocked and blurted out that he was an “asshole” to exploit his family’s deaths that way. People were shocked that I said it, but from the looks on their faces they also understood. That should be our response to the next person who brings up the holocaust or slavery for personal or political advantage. I’m sick of these assholes.
LOL. Edgy.
Over the years many of the lies have been exposed so the MSM has to come up with new ways to keep up the hate against the Germans. It was already said, I believe fifty years ago, by a mainstream German historian that there were no “death camps” in Germany; no gas gas chambers. I believe that is the position of most mainstream historians today (never mind there weren’t any death camps anywhere). Of course that didn’t stop movies, newspapers and magazine articles from saying there were “death camps” in Germany over the last 50 years.
When I went to school in the 1970’s I recall reading “Anne Frank.” My memory is not that clear, but I always thought she died in a “gas chamber” and I believe they explicitly said that, or with all the talk of gas chambers that was the impression they deliberately put in your mind. You have to search for it, or read the whole article (which I have a hard time doing with Wikipedia history articles since they are loaded with lies and falsehoods), but they now admit Bergen Belsen did not have a gas chamber. But in the entry for Anne Frank they don’t mention the use of gas chambers in Bergen Belsen, but they don’t explicitly say Bergen Belsen didn’t have gas chambers, so if you don’t disregard what you’ve heard for so many years you might still think Anne died in a gas chamber. Very tricky people, these folks.
She most likely died of typhus, which the article admits was widespread in the camp. But Wikipedia says they don’t know how she died. I think they do that so the reader is left with the possibility she was murdered by some NAZI in a cruel way, with these thoughts being put in everybody’s heads by the Jews for seventy years now.
It seems to me, that over all this people seem to forget, that her fate indeed was brutal and cruel in any case.
If only we were allowed to forget! Anne Frank died in a hospital bed. She was not raped to death or incinerated by bombs, like countless nameless German girls. But naturally, as a white man, I feel more sympathy to the German girls. Can you name just one of them? I can’t. Can anyone reading this name just one of them, right off the top of his head, without going online to hunt for a name?
Yet we have all heard of Anne Frank. Every American “knows” that 6 million Jews died in WWII, but not one in a thousand knows the number of Americans who died. That is shameful. A flea, if it is crawling on your eyeball, can block out an elephant. We need to get poor little Anne Frank and all the other Jewish victims out of our faces, so we can get a sense of the real magnitude and meaning of the War-to-Justify-all-Future-Wars.
Sure, Anne is a deliberately created icon. During the expulsion of 3 million ethnic Germans from the East countless Annes nobody has ever heard of suffered similar fates. Still, I wouldn’t generally want to belittle these things, I just feel it would be dishonest.
“… the expulsion of 3 million ethnic Germans from the East ”
Try 15 million. The death toll alone from the expulsions was 2 or 3 million. Almost entirely women, children and elderly.
One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.
Yes, attention, sympathy, and compassion are strictly limited resources. And the Jews want all of our inner most treasure to go towards themselves and their clients.
I would not have laughed at Ramzpaul’s skit years ago (the part about Anne at the end), nor would I have laughed at a similar Dieudonné joke in one of his videos. Now I laugh very hard at these jokes because I am aware of the lies we have been fed that have subsequently been exposed and because Jews have esnsured that no one would ever shed a tear for over one million Germans that were burned alive in their cities. It is not just that they don’t give a damn about what was done to those Germans due to their politicking, many still celebrate it.
My laughs are not at the unfortunate death of Anne at such a young age as a victim of war, they are at the hatred of Jews that make sure that no remorse will ever be shown for the much more cruel suffering inflicted on tens of thousands of little German girls and for Jews and the MSM saying it was the right and correct thing to do.
Obviously when so much attention is given towards one little girl, when 50 million Europeans died in the war it’s for propaganda purposes. It has created enough sympathy and guilt in westerners to 1) allow Jews to steal Arab land and build their own nation on that land 2) blackmail and extort from Germany, Austra and the rest of Europe to the tune of well over 100 billion dollars in money for Israel and Jews and 3) it has allowed them to take control of every western country by convincing caucasians they are “guilty”
If you are really interested in Anne Frank and her diary, you should read this from historian Robert Faurisson. There is a very real possibility little Anne did not write that diary.
http://pauleisen.blogspot.com/2012/10/is-diay-of-anne-frank-genuine-by-robert.html
The most important historian of WW II and perhaps the entire 20th century is on tour in the USA again. His name is David Irving. He is the only man to personally interview the people closest to Hitler and get them to trust him so that they eventually opened up to him. No one else, not even German historians would be caught anywhere near these people, instead preferring to gain their knowledge from other historians books so that they would just repeat the wortless junk someone else wrote.
He is the man that, along with Elke Frohlich retrieved the theretofore unknown Goebbels diaries from Moscow in 1991. These diaries have helped answer many things. Irving is on tour and will probably be at a city near you. After doing this for many years, this may be his last tour in the USA. He will be discussing the “holocaust.”
You can hear him speak for $25.00
If you’re interested, dates, locations and how to order tickets. If you have ever watched one of his speeches on youtube, you would see what a fantatstic speaker he is. He is not young anymore, but still very interesting.
http://www.focal.org/speaks/
I find myself once again wishing that Serrano’s pseudo-scandalous piece could be considered at remove from the imputed gesture, and, just as well, as at remove from its post-gallery currency as an instructive example of lazy degeneracy. I’ve always found it to be aesthetically and conceptually stRiki-Eiking and inescapably wedded to traditional Christian representation. It evokes strange sympathy, and I don’t know if I’m wrong to wonder if it might likewise subvert — or contravene — expectation in a way that slyly plays against predictable artworld cant.
I do like this essay very much. I would only suggest that while trolling from the avant-garde right serves, for the moment, to expose the unacknowledged residue of sacredness in the hearts and minds of curatorial gatekeepers, there are yet more anarchic and narrative-confounding spirits milling against the grain of complacent nostalgia. Can we give a nod to the UnPop maestro, Shaun Partridge? Well, I just did.
“Piss Christ” is shocking precisely because, at first glance, the image is beautiful. That was certainly my first reaction when it caught my eye on a printed page all those years ago. Then I read the caption and the story and felt disgust. The reaction would not have been so powerful if the initial image had not aesthetic merit. I admit that the thought, “How about ‘Piss Menorah’?” passed through my head, even though at the time, I was a good philosemitic reader of Commentary and The New Criterion.
“Piss Menorah”? “Piss Talmud”? “Piss Muhammed”? “Piss MLK”?
You’ve given me an idea…
If you think about it, the story of Anne Frank supports the doubts of the Holocaust revisionists.
She was deported to Auschwitz, but she was not killed. This contradicts the official story that those too old or too young to work were killed upon arrival. In fact, many Jewish children were born in Auschwitz, and many old Jews died there from natural causes, as is recorded in the archives of the camp. Anne Frank was transported to Bergen-Belsen to be safe from the Russians who were approaching Auschwitz. There, the overcrowding with refugee-prisoners combined with the Allied bombing of the railroads caused starvation and diseases. Anne Frank was quite probably one of the victims.
Now I do not approve of the persecution of the Jews, and that they were incarcerated in camps. But then, millions of white men were also deported and forced to work in German factories, the so-called “Arbeitseinsatz”. It was war, after all. But more humane solutions should have been tried, like sterilization.
My Uncle Joe was taken prisoner at St Valery which lies to the south of Dunkirk and spent the wars years in concentration camps. In the first camp the prisoners would sneak out through a hole in the wire until a new guard thought the prisoners were escaping and shot one. There was a near riot and the “blighter” had to be transferred away.
My uncle ended up in a work camp in Eastern Poland. One week they were pouring concrete and ended up going over the 40 hour work limitation set by the Geneva Convention so the following week, “The Gerries being sticklers for regulations,” had the prisoners work less hours the following week to bring the average back to 40 hours!
I asked him if he was well fed and he said no. There just wasn’t any food. The guards got fed slightly better, but only slightly. They were always hungry. What kept them going was the Red Cross parcels which the Germans “always made sure we got” and they would share them with the guards. At the end of the war the guards raised the prisoners back west to escape the advancing Soviets. He saw smoke at Belsen so believed in the Holocaust but he also drove German cars and watched the Black and White Minstrel Show. It was just another war of which we have had many and in which civilians were slaughtered. The scale was different in the last war but the principle was the same. I don’t think he ever gave it a second thought.
Great article. I own one of Charles Krafft’s pieces of art. He did this rabbit and called it “Snuggle Bunny”. When the piece was thrown out of a French Art Exhibit. I was excited to snap it up. Any of you guys thinking of ordering some art from him will not be disappointing. Look out for future collaborative pieces from White Rabbit Radio and certain Pro White artists. We currently have some interesting projects in the works.
For those that don’t know and really enjoy AntiRacist Hitler. He tweets so many days a week. And some of his tweets are hilarious.
https://twitter.com/AntiRHitler
Lastly, thanks to all those that have given to our money bomb. We are currently working on our next animation. “Johnny Racist” and it is about a 1/4 of the way done. This next animation will be series of shorts about a dystopic Unversity called GSU. Lookout for first episode of in about a month or so.
thanks to the author for all the kind words …..and we will be running a excerpt of this with a link back from our website
If the holocaust didn’t happen, that is, if there was no attempt by the National Socialists to put an end to the Jewish torturers of Europe, then why the hell WASN’T there? Surely Hitler and the rest knew what they were up against, right? Surely they were aware that the Jews exterminated millions in USSR, right? And surely the German people wouldn’t have complained if the Jewish infiltrators just disappeared from their land, right?
So the question becomes, why DIDN’T they try to exterminate the Jews? Were the National Socialists too Christian, in spite of their pagan leanings? Were they just not hard enough? Did they lack the inherent genocidal psychological traits of the Jews? Or does it even matter?
The point is, we should stop caring about the holocaust. Denying it does us no good, and affirming it does us no good. The survival of the European race shouldn’t hinge on moral questions of the past. Whether or not we exterminated hostile races is irrelevant. If the holocaust happened, we should celebrate it the way the Jews celebrate the extermination of their enemies during their stupid holidays. If the holocaust didn’t happen, we should regret it and work even harder to destroy our enemies.
Unfortunately most Whites, even race-conscious Whites, get tripped up by the holocaust question. They think, incorrectly, that if the holocaust is disproven that the jews will stop hating us. That isn’t true. They’ve hated for 2,000 years now; NOTHING will stop them from hating and envying us and trying to destroy us.
Even if the holocaust is true, there’s no reason why Whites should feel guilty about it. Guilt is useless and serves no purpose from an evolutionary or racial standpoint. We should have a Nietzschean perspective on the holocaust: everything that happens is necessary. That should be our perspective. Yes, the Germans and their allies killed a bunch of Jews, but it was a historical necessity.
Maybe one in ten WN’s would understand this, but most are still too soft to accept it.
This article boils down, for me, to two somewhat contradictory impulses. On the one hand, Hitler’s image is a sure fire way to anger, freak out, terrify, give nightmares to, sadden, and irrationally enrage our enemies. To not use his image then, is to miss a great opportunity.
On the other, I’ve yet to see anyone use Hitler’s image (or much Nazi imagery in general) without getting dragged down into pointless debates about Hitlerism, Holocaust denial, WW2, “aryan supremacy,” etc. etc. Even Charles Krafft – someone who is arguably the smartest, cleverest fellow to employ Hitler yet – wastes a lot of time defending and explaining stuff which doesn’t seem particularly useful from a contemporary perspective (at least in the interviews with him I’ve heard).
I don’t think this problem has to close off use of Hitler for pro-white activists. It’s just that brandishing his image in a strategic way isn’t as simple proposition as it might seem.
Thanks for the responses. Yes, I probably pick on the “Piss Christ” more than it deserves, perhaps. It isn’t that important, ultimately. It is not unappealing aesthetically–this soft golden glow, as if the cross is lit from above by sunlight filtering through stained glass. And it is ironic that that which partly provides this effect is also that which “degrades” the object. i.e. urine. But I would still argue that “Piss Christ” and other similar works seem merely static. There is no sense in which the ironic conflation of crucifix and piss takes us anywhere.
Granted, some commentators, like Duggan, have tried to sanitize and rehabilitate the “Piss Christ.” They claim that the use of urine is not meant derogatorily so much as it is a nod to the importance of bodily fluids in a decade in which the threat of AIDS loomed so large. But I am tempted to call bullshit on this salvage attempt. For, if that was indeed Serrano’s intention, he would have dunked the crucifix in blood or semen; urine is precisely not the bodily fluid that springs to mind when worrying about the threat of HIV transmission.
And I myself was never particularly “shocked” by the piece, other than in the sense that its federal funding grated on my former “libertarian” sensibilities. While not Christian myself, I remember thinking, back when it was still a hot controversy: “why on earth should Christian Americans’ taxes be used to promote something that seems so openly hostile to them or their values?” Anyway…
On the Holocaust questions: the essay isn’t particularly concerned with proof or disproof of numbers or techniques. I agree that our enemies would hate us anyway even if we managed to prove that Germans and Romans and Romanovs alike always treated them with perfumed caresses.
The point of course is that it is used against us as a weapon. Rather than fight back in the traditional sense, with arguments and evidence, these artists I cite perform a judo move on this particular set of images and icons, and thus use some of our enemy’s momentum against them. I find it all quite refreshing and effective.
On the Holocaust questions Phil Butler confided in me that his interest was that “If they can lie about that, what else are they lying about?”
Most of their history is a lie. Jews are not, and have never been, an empirically-minded people. They are a race of believers, and most of their beliefs are not grounded in reality, but in ideas and numbers.
In this respect Jews represent the essential leftist: Someone wanting to form the world according to ideas rather than accepting the world as forming the basis of ideas. Procrustians one could call them.
In December 2013, Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, visited Kiev’s Maidan Square and gave out cookies to the paid rioters who were carrying out the violent coup she masterminded with a budget of five billion dollars. As far as I know the rioters took the cookies from her with no more disturbance than dogs taking biscuits from master.
The strong arm of Victoria Nuland’s puppet revolutionary force was neo-Nazis. It’s not subtle; they had signs on their helmets and shields, as if she would not have known it anyway.
Victoria Nuland is Jewish. She doesn’t use the name of her husband, historian Robert Kagan, or her family’s original surname Nudelman. Nuland is a typical Jewish bit of crypsis: just enough to fool naive gentiles in a social environment where it’s thoughtcrime for gentiles to wonder who is Jewish and who isn’t, and wonder how that may influence their interests and actions. (Even though Jews love to know who is Jewish and who isn’t, and make the difference matter.)
You would have to be stupid as someone with 88 and other neo-Nazi signs on you, not to figure out that your paymaster was a Jewish neocon with strong credentials and power, that she was acting for a powerful Jewish establishment that dominates America. (The ZOG if you will.)
Apparently all this wasn’t a problem on either side.
In her famous “f*** the EU” phone call, Nuland also indicated her preferred government would be headed by “Yits” (at least sometimes regarded as an important fellow-Jew by Jews) to the exclusion of “Klits” (a gentile). Apparently this wasn’t a problem either.
The shock, horror, livid rage, uncontrollable disgust and bottomless grief that Jews naturally, inevitably feel in contexts touching on neo-Nazis and the horrors in the East (including Ukraine) were completely not in evidence. (The violent, uncontrollable hate that neo-Nazis are supposed to feel for any and all Jews was also not in evidence.)
Blacks use the word “nigger” like a club. They can say it as much as they like, and they love to, but whites have to act as though it was so incredibly hurtful to blacks that only a white monster would say “the N-word”. This far-from-subtle game is about who is to be boss.
Jews play the Holocaust game with vastly greater intelligence, resources and subtlety. But at some level, it’s the same game. It’s about sob-sister history, manufactured taboos and the artful, instrumental manipulation of the tropes of “shock!”
Victoria Nuland should have served her cookies-for-Nazis with tea from a Charles Krafft Hitler teapot.
Your overall point is not really clear. But your strong asshole vibe is.
I have always thought that there IS a traditionalist defense of “Piss Christ,” even though it is obviously not what the artist intended. The story of the Christ is the story of a god sent to live in the world, where he is submerged in its effluvia and destroyed. In this regard, “Piss Christ” depicts that form of suffering pretty accurately.
Great article. I can’t say this enough but art (well done art, not depictions of blacks as simians) is in the top two most important things we can do against the on-going program of genocide. The first is to be on a consistent message. If you can combine art with the message, then even better. Art is magic. If I had to choose between a pro-White congressman (or senator) being elected or a hit movie that conveyed our message, I would take the movie any day. Nobody likes politicians very much but everyone likes movies. A movie can be stored on your shelf, I wouldn’t want a politician near my house.
A couple of observations that may not have exactly escaped attention, but that I don’t see addressed:
The Krafft work, being evocative of traditional blue and white porcelain or china, carries additional, no doubt intentional cultural meaning. From the popularity of Chinese Export ware and Delft ware from the 18th century forward, this material not only implied domestic comfort but cultural ambitions. In fact in the late 19th century “blue and white” became a cultural collecting field for British aesthetes. There are obvious parallels with Germanic “kultur” and “gemutlichkeit” as well, and the pieces could (I don’t know if Krafft would endorse this) even be read as critiques of National Socialism’s petit-bourgouis origins and “middle-brow” tastes. In that regard, “high-art” advocates would be sure to be on-board with the irony.
In regard to “Piss Christ”, I always saw it as a meditation on the experience of Christ incarnate as a man, and as an allusion to what might be called the masochistic side of Christianity: enduring the spit and blows of Roman soldiers, the turn the other cheek, suffer martyrdom and debasement, wash the feet of your fellows side of Christianity. I could even see a “revaluation of all values” type of Christian *sanctity* in Piss Christ, if one were given to that sort of thing. That’s also why conjectural “Piss whatevers” (insert symbol of your choice) don’t have the resonance of Piss Christ: it’s actually taking off on an element of the faith it is objectifying.
Im a fan of Robert Stark’s interviews and Ive listened to almost everyone. Could someone please ask him to either turn up his guest’s mic, or turn down his own?
His voice is always much louder than his guest’s and its very annoying to have to constantly adjust the volume.
Thank you.
This is an extremely well-written and insightful essay. And quite funny, too. I doff my hat to you, Herr Stoughton!
Wonderful article! I’ve thought much the same for years but it’s heartening to see these apparent truths expressed so well. Thank you Mr. Stoughton
In the same vein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEGeHxF0tF4&noredirect=1
Here’s something to consider:
World War II ended 69 years ago and the Third Reich was destroyed. So why are the symbols of National Socialism still banned today in the second decade of the 21st century? Back when I was a kid, one could build a model of a Luftwaffe aircraft complete with swastika decals. Those decals have been increasingly removed from circulation. And we have seen the continued criminalization of Third Reich heraldry as well as the increasing censorship of numerous kinds of speech by the usual suspects. It seems that the further we are removed from 1945, the more powerful the “myth” of the Third Reich grows. There’s an element of absurdism here, a fear that the entire liberal world order will collapse if some magic symbol is brought to the public.
Which gets me to my point: Is the system doing this not because it is strong but because it is weak?
Could it be that all it would take is some act of guerrilla theater to bring down the system (perhaps flying remote control model Stukas complete with swastikas in the public square)?
Consider the rapidity with which the Soviet Union fell…and this an empire with considerable secret police, agitprop and military force backing it up. Yet it disintegrated in a couple of short years, and this without major revolutionary bloodshed. Could the system which now dominates the Western world today be just as fragile, just needing the right lever to push to bring it down?
Just a random thought…
(As a side note: I would like to see an article or two analyzing just how Soviet communism lost it. There may be some lessons to learn.)
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