Post: #801

The funny part about guys like Andy Warski and Sargon is not that they are bad, not that they are not telling mostly the truth - and not even that they are ineffective. Andy Warski for example has probably reached more people with the anti-SJW comedy and tanked entire MTV channels like Decoded, because there was simply sooo much material to make fun of them.

Warski of course has his hangups on feminism and the Blue Pill similar to Sargon. But I see a strange dichotomy with Sargon. He honestly still tries to be leftie liberal and I am afraid that some of his views will probably change over time if he remains true to himself. For example he has made an entire series making fun of the EVERY CULTURE IS EQUAL bullshit:





But then he denies any relationship between race and IQ, claims that he is 1/4 black and an "ethno-state" is racist.

I think when guys like him speak about an "ethno-state" they envision some SS-country where the dominant race rounds up every other race with a DNA test and a Family-Guy-skin color palet and deports and kills all folk:



The truth and the reality of a logical so-called "ethno-state" is that there are indications that humans work best creating a culture by having one dominant culture that is calling the shots. Immigration and integration of said culture was always happening in the past to some lesser degree, but when it became too unfitting or the the people coming over could no longer uphold the old culture, then the system was collapsing.

China, Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Switzerland, USA, all European countries - those are successful so-called "ethno-states" where one race and even subculture of the race was the most dominant one. And Singapore will remain Singapore despite massive immigration so long as the Han-Chinese are the dominant and most numerous force there.



If for example Singapore gets suddenly 1 mio. Malaysian Muslim or Somali immigrants per year, then I will make the prediction that the country will be gone within a very short period and it will not only be destroyed as a culture, but it will become a veritable shithole.

Thus Singapore is an ethnostate in my definition - not any Neonazi definition. And Singapore has the right and obligation to try to retain that dominance.


https://thediplomat.com/2014/02/singapor...r-problem/


We will soon see how the multicultural experiment will go down with Sweden, UK, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada. I can guarantee you that all those countries will be veritable shitholes soon enough - or at least great parts of it while the ethnicities self-segregate. Cultural Marxism and Multicultural Feminist Social Justice is not a culture and you will find out soon enough.

The future beacons of our Earth's civilization will prove this to be true.
I expect the North Asians to be the most dominant force in the world while the White states are destroyed from within by this multicultural anti-White bullshit and the late-stage effects of usury and offshoring of all production.
And maybe in 500 years India will become the most dominant force in the world - and guess what - the main dominant ethnic group will be Indians (yeah I get it - ranging from very white to very black, but still all Indians).

And Sargon will see the destruction of the West happen and he will experience that IQs do matter.

Post: #802

Does the government fund socialist artwork? And if so why?

Post: #803

(03-01-2018 10:32 PM)kbell Wrote:  Does the government fund socialist artwork? And if so why?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...78808.html

They will admit only to part of the story - fighting communism which is bollocks.

The postmodernists were in power even then and wanted to destroy all the former perceptions of beauty and form. In a way abstract art would become certainly somewhat successful, but maybe far less than it does.

And I would not say that they fund especially socialist art, but it helps tremendously to be a leftie especially when high-level artists do countless interviews and whose words are read by millions. In effect art becomes a propaganda network. Currently they push especially the "diverse" artists - if you look at the top 30 young artists represented by some of the biggest London galleries, then you find the majority to be non-White despite the overwhelming majority of high-level artists being of course White in Europe.

Still - a certain skill prevails currently and there are even alternative ways of entering the art world despite being hated on by all critics and galleries - the internet somewhat democratized art:


Jack Vettriano - hated by the art world, loved by the people. He became grand by sheer impetus of the market against the will of the critics.


Beryl Cook - she also became famous by democratic vote with the wallet.

Both artists got zero support and only rejections by critics and galleries until people started to pay 20.000-50.000$ on auctions and galleries had to take them in to get a cut.

In our current time art has to be preferably dark, diverse, progressive and unique. As an artist you better say the right things and push the right narrative or it gets devalued.

I personally don't think that they need to push any special art nowadays, because the entire system has been so deeply infiltrated in all universities, media and Hollywood that the push to more progressive thinking happens regardless of the underlying wishes of the market.

Post: #804

Good post, I remember some art programme saying that Adolf Hitler's paintings were uninspired and ordinary.....and I was just there thinking "Man he had a great talent, they are actually very good". Better than most people could have ever dream of doing themselevs

His painting were traditional in every sense. Honest.

In this country we have art competitions for children and its always the abstract empty shit that wins out against some incredible but simple drawing by a 7 year old of a house and garden or animal pet or what have you....

It's like they don't want to encourage a celebration of those things......

Post: #805

Art is something most right wingers have ignored at their own peril.

I don't blame them, because "art" today is deliberately made to repel the same right wing people.

This is true, modern art is marxist, deliberately ugly to destroy "bourgeoise lies", namely that beauty makes people feel good and people who feel good are not going to be ready for a marxist revolution.

Then you have the (((Frankfurt school))), who did their great study on what they called the "authoritarian persona". They dissected everything about right wingers, fascists and nazis. If fascists generally preferred melody to rythm, then they set about destroying melody in music. If fascists generally preferred neo-classicism in architecture, then they promoted brutalism. If fascists preferred the nuclear family, then they promoted feminism.

Once you understand this, anger grips you, when you realize that the (((elites))) literally have sought to destroy everything you like - on purpose.

Post: #806

(03-02-2018 07:30 AM)Syberpunk Wrote:  Good post, I remember some art programme saying that Adolf Hitler's paintings were uninspired and ordinary.....and I was just there thinking "Man he had a great talent, they are actually very good". Better than most people could have ever dream of doing themselevs

His painting were traditional in every sense. Honest.

In this country we have art competitions for children and its always the abstract empty shit that wins out against some incredible but simple drawing by a 7 year old of a house and garden or animal pet or what have you....

It's like they don't want to encourage a celebration of those things......

I've been learning to draw, so one of the things I've studied is the use of perspective. I looked at some Hitler paintings, and most of them are scenes of buildings that employ a lot of perspective to structure the image. The eyepoint and horizon lines are chosen in many cases to make sharp angles, in a way that accentuates the use of perspective.

However, some of them are country scenes, or other scenes that may have perspective drawing in them, but it doesn't stand out so much. He only has people in some of his drawings, and they are usually small enough in the image that he doesn't have to draw them in great detail. He probably wasn't as good at drawing the human figure. There are a couple of pictures he did of dogs, which are semi-good at best.

I would say he was technically proficient, and usually had good composition, but his paintings didn't necessarily tell much of story, or convey a mood. A better artist would have put more feeling or energy into the subject matter of the painting. He was more of an illustrator with a focus on buildings and perspective.

This probably reflects his outlook on life to some degree. He seemed to value Europe as a civilization with a grand history, architecture, and culture, and he also valued the natural scenes in the European countryside. However, individual people were not his focus, and didn't matter much in comparison with building his ideal of a nation and a culture.

Post: #807

Hitler wasn't such a bad artist:







He seems to have experimented a bit with new techniques and wasn't so bad. Funnily enough Churchill was also a highly proficient artist and even feigned paintings selling them as real when he was short of cash.

If Hitler had visited an art school or been under the tutelage of some known artists, then he might have formulated an interesting individual style going beyond pure depiction. And frankly this career would have been a better pick for the world including Germany.

Post: #808

How is the art made to repel Right wingers nomad? That's something I'm curious about.

Post: #809

(03-02-2018 04:24 PM)kbell Wrote:  How is the art made to repel Right wingers nomad? That's something I'm curious about.

I thought I touched on this.

First of all, it's important to realize that I am not making this up.

Modern art is marxist art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

Quote:In its ruggedness and lack of concern to look comfortable or easy, Brutalism can be seen as a reaction by a younger generation to the lightness, optimism, and frivolity of some 1930s and 1940s architecture.

I mean, it is right there, brutalism is a deliberate attack on "lightness, optimism, and frivolity".

It is important to understand here, even though brutalism is modernist, that doesn't mean all modernism is brutalism.

Art Deco is also modernist, but not marxist.



You can tell the scope, the materials, the "progessiveness" is clearly modernist, but it is positive, it respects beauty, tradition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco

Quote: It combined modernist styles with fine craftsmanship and rich materials. During its heyday, Art Deco represented luxury, glamour, exuberance, and faith in social and technological progress.

Normal people don't find brutalism (also called Bauhaus) appealing, only marxist and degenerates do.

https://jaysanalysis.com/2013/01/16/cult...ipsterism/

Quote:It is a frequently misunderstood notion that "modern" and "abstract" art was an organic development that arose from grassroots battles against "oppression" and the "folk art" of the lower classes. In fact, ugly, degenerate art arose from Soviet and communist circles as a means to attack aesthetic beauty.

Where does the hatred of the beautiful come from?

In particular from Adorno's book "The Authoritarian Personality", which dissected right wing psychology from a freudian perspective into things such as:

Quote:conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intellectualism, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness

Adorno was a radical marxist.

Someone who wasn't a radical marxist may call the above:

Conventionalism = Tradition

Authoritarian submission = Hieararchy and Order

Superstition and Stereotypy = Religiousness and Idealism

What does modern art do but attack these things?

It has a deliberate goal of destroying the "bourgeois morality". It's very interesting Americans don't have this word in their vocabulary. Today you would call it "conservative" and it would be mostly the same.

Modern art has a deliberate stated goal of destroying the conservative morality, so it attacks tradition, hierarchy and religion.

Post: #810

(03-02-2018 06:43 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Modern art has a deliberate stated goal of destroying the conservative morality, so it attacks tradition, hierarchy and religion.

True - though not all modern art is that way.

And there are even Brutalist architecture buildings which are surprisingly popular - especially people living there:







But it is true, that those buildings have not been designed for at least outward aesthetics. They are popular spaces inside because the location, light intake and internal design is good, but I guess that many artists have the specific goal of destroying everything that was before with a livid hate of the old culture and even perception of beauty.

Post: #811

^^^ The second one could be nice to live in if you have one of those patio gardens.

An example of ugly brutalism would be the Boston City Hall:


Looks like a prison or fortress.

A lot of modern architecture is oppressive because of the scale.

Anyway big election in Italy today- curious to see what happens.

Post: #812

(03-02-2018 02:34 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

(03-02-2018 07:30 AM)Syberpunk Wrote:  Good post, I remember some art programme saying that Adolf Hitler's paintings were uninspired and ordinary.....and I was just there thinking "Man he had a great talent, they are actually very good". Better than most people could have ever dream of doing themselevs

His painting were traditional in every sense. Honest.

In this country we have art competitions for children and its always the abstract empty shit that wins out against some incredible but simple drawing by a 7 year old of a house and garden or animal pet or what have you....

It's like they don't want to encourage a celebration of those things......

I've been learning to draw, so one of the things I've studied is the use of perspective. I looked at some Hitler paintings, and most of them are scenes of buildings that employ a lot of perspective to structure the image. The eyepoint and horizon lines are chosen in many cases to make sharp angles, in a way that accentuates the use of perspective.

However, some of them are country scenes, or other scenes that may have perspective drawing in them, but it doesn't stand out so much. He only has people in some of his drawings, and they are usually small enough in the image that he doesn't have to draw them in great detail. He probably wasn't as good at drawing the human figure. There are a couple of pictures he did of dogs, which are semi-good at best.

I would say he was technically proficient, and usually had good composition, but his paintings didn't necessarily tell much of story, or convey a mood. A better artist would have put more feeling or energy into the subject matter of the painting. He was more of an illustrator with a focus on buildings and perspective.

This probably reflects his outlook on life to some degree. He seemed to value Europe as a civilization with a grand history, architecture, and culture, and he also valued the natural scenes in the European countryside. However, individual people were not his focus, and didn't matter much in comparison with building his ideal of a nation and a culture.

Hitler would be a better architect then an artist. When you read the memories of Albert Speer who was "the architect of Hitler" and leader supply minister, he worked close with Hitler. They had plans to build the world capital Germania and other places.
Hitler always seen himself as some artist but he had not so much creativity. He did absorb a lot of things and put it in a frame.

Post: #813

Let's not romanticize the Germanis project:



That is brutalist as fuck and they planned to raze centuries old German architecture to make way for bombastic concrete blocks. Though I might concede that the plans look quite logical and traffic looks to be orderly.

If they had planned to create a new city elsewhere, then this is one thing, but wiping away the old and making away for the new. We should not forget that the NSDAP was also a socialist party with very similar tendencies to the socialist of the communist sort - at least in some aspects.

Post: #814

Hehe - in other news - looks like only the sperm counts in the West are dropping.

Only a coincidence of course - has nothing to do with anything:

Post: #815

(03-05-2018 04:01 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Let's not romanticize the Germanis project:



That is brutalist as fuck and they planned to raze centuries old German architecture to make way for bombastic concrete blocks. Though I might concede that the plans look quite logical and traffic looks to be orderly.

If they had planned to create a new city elsewhere, then this is one thing, but wiping away the old and making away for the new. We should not forget that the NSDAP was also a socialist party with very similar tendencies to the socialist of the communist sort - at least in some aspects.

Dreams of steel and cement. A new dawn. Some people think the Nazis and Hitler had be Nationalist. The intention was not to make Germany strong, it was to create a new Germanic Masterrace society and get rid of all boundaries of the past. He used older values, Christianity, Norse nostalgic and similar stuff just to occupy it and use it as a step for a re creation of society.
All in all it is not any better then the communist dream of a new society, of the creation of a new and better human. Hitler seen the Germans just as a bee stock for some new super humans, he wasn't interested in German culture deeply, just use it.

Post: #816

I don't know where Zel got that image, it's not an original but just fanfiction.

These are the originals and they look quite different:





It's definitely modern and industrial, but nowhere as bad. There are elements of neo-classicism too.

Post: #817

It's time to apply the term brutalism to its accompanying ideology.

Post: #818

Imagine if we woke up tomorrow to a tweet of Donald Trump pardoning Martin Shkreli.

Post: #819

Post: #820

Anyone seen this bullshit yet?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/...tained-uk/

Quote:Austrian activist Martin Sellner of Génération Identitaire and his girlfriend, American author and YouTuber Brittany Pettibone, have been detained by airport police in England for nearly three days.

What in the fuck is going on in England?

Post: #821

(03-11-2018 01:41 AM)Malone Wrote:  Anyone seen this bullshit yet?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/...tained-uk/

Quote:Austrian activist Martin Sellner of Génération Identitaire and his girlfriend, American author and YouTuber Brittany Pettibone, have been detained by airport police in England for nearly three days.

What in the fuck is going on in England?

Wow - this is terrible news. Imprisoned for wanting to meet Tommy Robinson?

But tens of thousands meet with real Jihadi terrorists who would gladly kill millions of Britons, but are simply unable to do it at this time.

The traitors who want to destroy Europe are truly revving up the Orwellian system.

Post: #822

Post: #823

A few years back, when all the PC was ramping up in the sports world changing everyone's nicknames, I thought to myself half jokingly that Holy Cross Crusaders could be on the mascot chopping block. Because they warred with Muslims several centuries ago.

Yet I never told anyone, not even anonymously on this site or elsewhere, as I thought it was too out there, that it would need another decade to be considered.

Not so.

Though it happened several days ago, it was just brought to my attention via Mike C's Twitter, that yes, Holy Cross will eliminate their knight mascot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/ho...b1701fe600

So who's next?
Rutgers Scarlet Knights (similar to Crusaders)
LaSalle Explorers? (genocide dontcha know)
San Diego State Aztecs? (stereotype)
Xavier Musketeers (a musket is a gun, guns are bad)
Ole Miss/UNLV Rebels (the Confederacy is bad...surprised these are still around)
UMass Minutemen (Minutepersons is more inclusive)
Denver Pioneers (they fought the Indians)
Idaho Vandals (encourages defacement of public property)

Post: #824

Leftist slippery slope.

Guess how 2028 will look like?

Post: #825

(03-23-2018 02:18 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Leftist slippery slope.

Guess how 2028 will look like?

Maybe not too different from 1918 or 1928? After all, the people responsible then and the ones responsible now are related not only by ideology but by blood.





"The Enemy comes. Look what he carries"


Maybe not 2028, perhaps the demographics will not have shifted enough by then, but 2038? 2048? May we live in interesting times!