PDA

View Full Version : Salvador Dali, Iconoclast of Political Correctness



ogenoct
Monday, October 18th, 2004, 05:18 PM
Salvador Dali, Iconoclast of Political Correctness

by Ernst S. Bloefeld


November 11, 2002

Among the innumerable acts of Jewish sabotage against Aryan culture in the 20th century, the debasement of our concept of beauty stands out as one of the most insidious. Never have our people felt so estranged from the nourishing spirit of beauty that gives its expression thru art.

20th century art, particularly painting, is characterized by its lack of an IDEAL.

Up until the time of the impressionists, standards of beauty were defined and upheld by an academy system that governed an artist's exposure through the salons (public exhibitions). In England these academies were comprised of the most refined and cultured aristocrats such as Frederic, Lord Leighton. It should be noted that painting academies trained artists by having them copy classical antiquity.

Eventually however the juried salons gave way to the independent gallery system. Soon, well-funded Jews moved in and bankrolled every modernist dauber (especially the ones with communist leanings).

One modern painter whose work and political views stood in defiance to the Jewish monotheism of ugliness was the Spaniard Salvador Dali.

Dali rose to prominence in the surrealist movement, giving it a much needed invigorating boost with his highly realistic images of dreams.

In a time when art was plummeting ever farther into the realm of abstraction Dali was a lone champion of realism, extolling the necessity for craftsmanship.

By 1937 Dali had a falling out with the communist founder of the surrealist movement, Andre Breton. Dali's expulsion from the surrealists occured when Dali told an indignant Breton that "the world's greatest crisis is racial. The white race should band together and reduce the darker races to slavery." Furthermore Dali was an unabashed admirer of Hitler.

Establishment art critics and historians consider his only significant painting to have been done between 1929-1937 and have been dismissive of all his subsequent work.

During the years of the second world war Dali moved to the United States and devoted himself to the study of the old masters. His arduous research yielded a technique of almost undreamt of virtuosity in an age when craftsmanship was scorned and at its absolute nadir.

Though Dali was almost universally derided by critics for his unforgiveable regression into classicism, it was his unapologetic facism and praise for the Franco regime that doomed his critical acceptance. Nevertheless Dali's fame continued to increase with the public, which longed for an artist who "knew how to paint."

In his writings or public and private comments, Dali was never known to hesitate in voicing his contempt for everything affiliated with the Left. Dali would routinely call General Franco to congraulate him whenever the dictator shot some Basque separatists. He openly praised the work of Arno Breker, Hitler's favorite sculptor who had fallen into obscurity.

Once when asked by Andre Malraux, France's minister of culture, if he believed in capital punishment Dali replied no. Dali then proceeded to say he advocated "a long, slow torture instead."

I would like to urge all white nationalists to see the Nietzchean superman Dali depicts as Christ in his religious tableaux of the 1950s and '60s. By the sheer force of his oeuvre, Dali's reputation is slowly undergoing a reappraisal now that his critics are dead and forgotten.

QuietWind
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 03:02 AM
Salvador Dali has always been my favorite artist. His religious art is truly remarkable. His surrealistic pieces are amazing, although often filled with phallic symbols and various other parts of the human anatomy. I have included some of his religious pieces below.

Siegfried
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 04:30 PM
When I was in Paris with my girlfriend last year, there was an exhibition of Dali's sculptures. These are perhaps not as well-known as his paintings, but are at least as good - some may even be better, in my humble opinion. An interesting quote from Dali: "God is beauty, and Arno Breker His prophet."

Milesian
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 05:56 PM
Somewhat related:





Designs Of The Jews On Art And Architecture
By Father Leonard Feeney


Certainly you have been noticing that everything new in art looks strange.

And, just as certainly, you have noticed that what is being passed off as the “modern” look in homes, stores, tables, chairs, paintings, and overshoes, has come in for some healthy ridicule from the great bulk of the American people who still retain their sanity. But in the midst of the digs and catcalls, brought on by living rooms full of wire and canvas furniture, and picture frames full of cows in flight over violins melting in frying pans, it is apparent that very few of you realize what is behind all this madness. How did sensible Americans get mixed up in all the current maze of curved concrete, plate glass walls, and egg crates stuck to the ceiling!

Well, like many of our present problems, this one immigrated here from Europe, where it had been gaining momentum since the year 1906. In that year, a young Spanish artist named Pablo Picasso produced the first of his deranged, erratic, twisted, brainsick, moon struck, crackpot canvases. Over night Picasso became the talk of Europe — and not just because of his spectacular queerness. For Pablo Picasso was that wild and fabulous contradiction: a painter who is a Jew.

Except for a liberal Jewess named Rosa Bonheur, who had done some pictures of horses a few years before, Europe had never heard of a Jew owning a paint brush and easel. Image making of any kind was strictly forbidden by the vigilant rabbis. To enter the world of art meant apostasy from the synagogue. Pictures and statues had been taken over by the Christians, who commemorated in paint and stone the Jew detested fact that God had become Man — picturable now, along with His Virgin Mother, His Foster Father and His host of haloed saints.

Picasso finally realized all this, and his entrance into art was not in the least a scrapping of his Jewish loyalties. For Picasso had hit on a new angle for showing his Jewish hatred of pictures. He was willing to bet that he cold get Gentiles to pay money to see how a faithful Jew, let loose in a studio, ought to behave toward a piece of canvas.

He would use paint not to make images but to break them.

All the Jews jumped on Picasso’s bandwagon as soon as they saw what he was doing. Gertrude Stein wrote two books in praise of him, and young Jews from every capital in Europe flocked to Paris, Picasso’s headquarters, to be instructed in the new iconoclasm.

It didn’t take long to figure out that there are two basic ways of obliterating the subject matter of a picture. You can either distort it and twist it and stick it in a setting where it never, in reality, could be; or, you can reduce the thing to circles and squares and haphazard lines, leaving no trace of what you started with. The Jews decided that these two styles of destruction were entitled to fancy names, so they called the first one “surrealism,” and the second, “abstraction.”

From then on, modern art became a Yiddish field day — but not an intolerant one. Gentiles could enter the race as long as they observed the rules. Consequently a Dutchman named Piet Mondrain became a leader in “abstraction” and “surrealism.”

With the pictures on the wall gone haywire, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the room, the house and the whole neighborhood followed suit. And naturally, there was a Jew already posted at each foreseeable point in the process, waiting to give you the “latest, up to date fashionably smart” item, just the way you saw it advertised in the sick Jewish press.

But before we trace the effects of Picasso’s revolution as it spread beyond the studio and art shop, there is this unhappy realization for Catholics: The Jewish attack was successful where, of all places it most wanted to be — in pictures and statues of Our Lord and the saints. Just enter any of the brand new churches which your local bishop has lately erected with the help of a Jewish fund raising expert. Apart from the immediately apparent fact that there are hardly any statues at all, you will notice that Our Blessed Lady has been streamlined, the Stations of the Cross have been reduced to fourteen studies in abstract composition, and the Crucifix (above the altar which looks like a drug store counter) has been distorted into some weird sub-human shape.

An investigation will many times reveal that these travesties on Christian art were done by respected Catholics who, in following the Jewish line in art, imagine that they are keeping our Church “abreast of the times.”

Thus far, however, “liturgical” Catholic sculptors have not yet reached the extremes of distortion which their Jewish mentors have. No Catholic, for example, has yet produced a statue of Our Blessed Lord that looks quite as grotesque as the totem pole monster with rope bound wrists which is sketched on the title page of this article. This particular bit of diabolism is entitled “Behold the Man,” is meant to be Jesus in His crown of thorns, and comes to us from the Jewish chisel of an east side New York sculptor named Jacob Epstein. Epstein does all his carving in London now, and as a reward for a steady stream of blasphemies like “Behold the Man,” he has been made a “knight” by the head of the Church of England, the namesake and worthy successor to Queen Elizabeth I.

By the end of World War I, the Jews felt Christian art and sculpture were well launched on the road to destruction, and so they decided to have a fling at architecture. Accordingly, there suddenly broke out in all parts of the Jew inhabited world a rash of delirious designs on everything from office buildings to hamburger stands. At a loss to explain whence this new, sharply distinct architecture had come — arising in every nation at the same moment, and essentially the same form — bewildered Gentiles dubbed it “International Style” and let it go at that.

One reason for the universal sameness of the new architecture was, of course, that the Jews contriving it had all been given the same artistic schooling. They were all bent on translating the perversities of Picasso into concrete. But even more potent as a stereotyper was the single, resolute objective in each Jew’s mind as he sat down to his drawing board. He was determined that, more than a new mode of building, his blueprint should present the setting for a new way of life.

As to what that new way of life ought to be, Jews everywhere were agreed. Instructed by their Talmud, they knew that the welfare of the world depended on Gentiles’ taking the place nature intended them to have.*

*Note by original site-owner: According to the Jews and their Talmud, which is their supposed “holy book” instead of the Bible, non-Jews are “goyim”, which is a Hebrew word for “cattle”; according to them, we were created as animals in human form, better to serve the Jews, and finally to be exterminated by them.

The first thing you noticed about the new Jewish architecture, and that you still notice, is the stark nakedness of it. A Jew-designed house, with its vast expanses of unashamed glass, gives its inhabitant the feeling he has made his bed on the front lawn. It leaves him without a scrap of dignity, privacy, or composure.

With unwonted frankness, the Jews describe these houses of theirs as “machines of living.” They are meant simply to facilitate man’s biological functions — to give him a place to bring his food and eat it, a place to protect himself from the elements, a place to sleep and to raise his children. And the Jews feel these purposes should be plainly and immediately evident in the house’s construction. The modern family dwelling, they hold, should be designed with the straightforwardness of a bird’s nest — which presents no deceitful fripperies, but is clearly and genuously what it is: a secure spot where the bird may lay its eggs.

To go with their animal-function houses, the Jews have also designed some animal-form furniture, the most striking specimen of which is probably the Jewish chair. It is impossible to see the human body — back hunched, arms dangling — trying to conform itself to one of these atrocities, without either snickering in amusement or gasping in horror.

As with painting, the Jews are willing to admit an occasional apt Gentile to the fraternity of architects and designers. But it is always made clear that he is there by sufferance, the show belongs to the Jews. Thus, the brainstorms of a ferocious Finn, labeled “lamp” or “table,” might be featured by a modern minded furniture store: but you can be sure that the man who ordered them, and who stands by your shoulder urging you to buy, is solidly Jewish.

To trace the origins of modem Jewish architecture, as a central, organized movement, it is necessary to look to Germany. There, by the mid-twenties, a certain Walter Gropius, supported by the Jewish composer Arnold Schoenberg, Jewish writer Franz Werfel, and Jewish mathematician Albert Einstein, was operating a successful school of architecture called the “Bauhaus” (German for “building house”).

The Bauhaus had contracted to be the laboratory for all that was new in art and technology. It aimed at coordinating the twentieth century forces of the studio and the machine shop, with all the work done jointly by a “commune” of students, teachers, artists, and grease monkeys.

By the year 1933, Adolph Hitler had arrived on the scene, and it became quite apparent that there would be no room in Germany for two such contradictory enterprises as the Jew-ridden, communal Bauhaus and the Jew-Hating National Socialism. The Nazis chose to stay, and ordered Gropius and company to pack some realistic luggage and get out.

Although Walter Gropius eventuated to Cambridge, Massachusetts, and became our next door neighbor, the idea of a Bauhaus still obsessed his former colleagues. The most capable of them, a Hungarian Jew named Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, finally persuaded some unwary industrialists to support him in establishing an American Bauhaus in Chicago — the now famous Institute of Design.

When Moholy-Nagy died in Chicago his “new Bauhaus” laid him out in an exhibit of his paintings, sculptures and designs, then hired a Jewish cantor to come in and lament over the body in proper Hebrew fashion. It was a fitting gesture; for Moholy (as even his wife called him) had rendered his race an immeasurable service.

Under his direction, the Institute of Design had completely assumed the role of the old Bauhaus in Germany, serving as the headquarters for modern architecture. But beyond that, Moholy and his Institute had won the everlasting gratitude of Jewry by promoting in America the idea of mass housing. This was the most significant advance in the campaign to animalize Gentiles by designing their dwellings since the International Style first burst into being.

It was immediately evident to most Jews that there were tremendous advantages in putting lots of Gentile families under one roof and having many such identical roofs congregated in a small area. For those who needed more convincing, the first such assemblages (called by the innocuous name “housing projects”) provided the clincher. Placing the inhabitants in compact, uniform stalls; indiscriminately mixing up black and white families; compelling them to lead a kind of life that strips off the properties and conventions of civilized man — these measures have proven their effectiveness. Housing projects are openly, notoriously, jungles of crime, cruelty, depravity, and vice. As enforcers of Talmudic theology, they are unbeatable.

Although there is no precedent in the animal world which justifies the building of a place for religious meetings, the dispensers of modern Jewish architecture have produced, along with their housing projects, a number of churches. Each of these looks as though the architect had begrudgingly said to himself as he started off, “Well, if all the pious herd want to be packed into one room at one time, I suppose I can build them a barn for the purpose.”

Lately, the architects have been more enthusiastic about churches. They are now designing a variety which fits quite neatly into the animal pattern. It is popularly called the Interfaith Chapel. It is a communal religious center for the priest, the minister, the rabbi, and its calculated Jewish effect is to reduce the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, to the level of televangelist fakery and Talmudic filth — a supreme award for eighty five years of plotting on the part of Messrs. Picasso, Epstein, Moholy and company.

http://www.ooff.com/other/jews-art.html

QuietWind
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 06:45 PM
I don't agree with about half of what Father Feeney says. Picasso may be known for his more surrealistic imagery, but he also painted very realistic pieces. One reason the Jews do not like images of Jesus, that Christians display (aside from the fact that they believe he was a fraud), goes back to how the God instructed in the Bible not to make any graven images/idols. This is in the Catholic, Christian, and Jewish Bible alike. They view, placing a picture of a man up inside a church and calling him "God", as idolatry. It is true what Feeney says that Jews were not allowed to produce art. This is still true today with Chassidic Jews. In strict Islam, it is also forbidden. Many Islamic laws are actually identical in nature to Jewish laws. What we tend to see in society is not the observant Jews and Muslims, but the liberals.

Father Feeney appears to be very opinionated and doesn't like much of anyone, does he?
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.TXT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Leonard_Feeney

http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html


Some non-abstract Picasso's below:

Side note: Growing up in a family of Writer's, Artist's, etc. One thing I was always told, "Before you can break the rules, you must first know the rules." Essentially, what this means is that before you can paint in abstract, surrealism, etc. must first know about line, form, contrast, etc. Before you write free verse, you must first be able to write prose, sonnet's, etc. On a personal note, this is what makes artists like Dali and Picasso so good. They KNOW the rules, then they break them. Even in their most broken pieces, you can still see elements that linger.

Milesian
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 08:21 PM
One reason the Jews do not like images of Jesus, that Christians display (aside from the fact that they believe he was a fraud), goes back to how the God instructed in the Bible not to make any graven images/idols. This is in the Catholic, Christian, and Jewish Bible alike. They view, placing a picture of a man up inside a church and calling him "God", as idolatry.

Idolatory would be calling the image literally "God" and rendering worship to it, like a totem. This is one of many an absurd charge frequently brought against Catholics by Anti-Catholics (who could forget such gems as "worshipping Mary like a goddess? :D). As if Catholics didn't know the meaning of the word idolatory.

Symbolic art that represents something and is designed merely to elevate the mind to holy thoughts is not idolatry by any stretch of the imagination. It was this error that spawned the heretics known as the "Iconoclasts" in the 8th & 9th centuries AD, and who had to be forcibly restrained from vandalising every Church, religious painting and statue in sight.

In this heresy we can discern the influence of the Paulicians and perhaps even the Muslims. It is still evident in a residual form amongst some denominations today and has not been totally suppressed.


It is true what Feeney says that Jews were not allowed to produce art. This is still true today with Chassidic Jews. In strict Islam, it is also forbidden. Many Islamic laws are actually identical in nature to Jewish laws. What we tend to see in society is not the observant Jews and Muslims, but the liberals.

Yes quite. There are liberals in almost all religions and philosphies.


ather Feeney appears to be very opinionated and doesn't like much of anyone, does he?
.

The first link contains some errors.
Firstly, Fr Feeney's excommunication wasn't valid according to Canon Law and was actually signed by some notarary, whom wouldn't have had the power to issue a formal excommunication. Second, Fr. Feeney did not excercise "Private Interpretation", he merely repeated what was infallibly declared (Ex Cathedra) by various Popes and Church Councils.
As for the subject of unbaptised babies, etc. He is hardly alone. St Augustine, one of the Doctors of the Church, explicitly agreed with him over a thousand years earlier.
Again, that he challenged his Pope (if he actually did so) is made to seem as if he is a renegade. On the contrary, he would join such notables as St Cyprian, St Athanasius and even St Paul.

St Athansius was exiled and anathematised by Pope Liberius. Yet it was the former who became a Saint and Doctor of the Church, while Liberius was done the dubious honour of being the first Pope not to be canonised.
Fr. Feeney didn't go quite that far. And he was reconciled with the Church without having to recant his position. Not something which would be accorded to a heretic.

It should be remembered that Fr Feeney was regarded as the foremost theologian in America before his run in with the liberal heirarchy. His own bishop was enraged by the attacks of his priests on Feeney. Unfortunately, the bishop's successors were more minded to take the side of the liberal priests.
Objectively, the Feeney case is not black/white or open/shut.


One could say he was "opinionated", or perhaps he just had a quality lacking amongst his brethren in his day and this - the strength of his own convictions ;)

QuietWind
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 08:43 PM
I understand what idolartry is, and how protestants and other have falsely accused the Catholic church of idolatry throughout the ages. What I was trying to explain is how Jews consider it to be idolatry among ALL Christian faiths-- Catholics and Protestants alike. The cross, as a symbol of Christianity, is also considered to be idolatrous to them, because it hangs central in many churches, right up there by the alters. To us it all seems rediculous. These are symbols, and not objects of worship. It is like how Jehovah's Witnesses do not stand and salute the flag or pledge alleigence to it. In their religion, alleigence should only be pledged to God, and saluting the flag actually becomes a form of idolatry. I have seen muslims debate over the use of smilies on-line and wether it is haram or not. :shrug


I'm sure you know much much more about Feeny than I do. images/smilies/pantheon_europa/smile001.gif You are the Catholic, not I. I just have a problem with any religious person who views their "church" as the only means to Heaven. I'm non-religious, but even back when I was full of zest for my religious beliefs, I always had a problem with people who were always pointing fingers at who to damn to hell. Thank you for sharing an alternate view of Father Feeney. images/smilies/pantheon_europa/smile001.gif

Milesian
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 09:57 PM
I understand what idolartry is, and how protestants and other have falsely accused the Catholic church of idolatry throughout the ages.

Ok sorry. I misunderstood your motivation there :)


What I was trying to explain is how Jews consider it to be idolatry among ALL Christian faiths-- Catholics and Protestants alike. The cross, as a symbol of Christianity, is also considered to be idolatrous to them, because it hangs central in many churches, right up there by the alters. To us it all seems rediculous.

Indeed. I assume the Menorah is exempt ;)


These are symbols, and not objects of worship. It is like how Jehovah's Witnesses do not stand and salute the flag or pledge alleigence to it. In their religion, alleigence should only be pledged to God, and saluting the flag actually becomes a form of idolatry. I have seen muslims debate over the use of smilies on-line and wether it is haram or not. :shrug

Seriously? :D



I'm sure you know much much more about Feeny than I do. images/smilies/pantheon_europa/smile001.gif You are the Catholic, not I. I just have a problem with any religious person who views their "church" as the only means to Heaven. I'm non-religious, but even back when I was full of zest for my religious beliefs, I always had a problem with people who were always pointing fingers at who to damn to hell.

I understand and respect your opinion, of course.
It is more and more common to believe that there are many roads to Heaven (or Valhalla/Nirvana/Las Vegas or wherever a person's personal paradise might reside ;) ). It is tempting in a comforting sort of way but I don't subscribe to it.
I'm a Catholic because I believe that it is right. It might not be, but as far as I'm concerned - it is. If I didn't believe that then I would have no reason to be one. If I thought I could get to Heaven by being a debauched hedonist, I'd do it in a second ;)

To each their own. That is the Divine Gift of Freewill after all.



Thank you for sharing an alternate view of Father Feeney. images/smilies/pantheon_europa/smile001.gif

My pleasure :thumbsup

albion
Tuesday, July 12th, 2005, 10:20 PM
http://www.globalgallery.com/images/isi-k819.jpg
Meditative Rose - 1958