That should be Markus Wolf. Bad editing.

#203

If you read the Balfour Declaration, then who gave England and the United States the authority to seize Palestinian land and give it to the Jews?

This is a perfect example of bash whitey. Most likely by whitey:

"What I hear is a bunch of paranoid white guys not happy to have most of the power and wanting ALL of the power, as they believe this time-tested status quo should remain.

Then you project your own past behaviours and actions onto the minorities you fear - as if blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. are going to suddenly take away your rights or create segregation of make you sit at the back of the bus. It's standard right-wing delusional pussydom with an extra dollop of vicious xenophobia and hair-brained hyperbole."

Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945

By Saul Friedlander

I bet it is a wonderful example of a disinterested third party's view.

Dear 203,

"During the period of slavery the slave population in the slave states was around 25%.
According to shipping records in London over 12 million slaves passed through London on their way to america until slavery was outlawed in England in 1810.
London was only one of several major ports of "export"."

The number of slaves directly imported into the U.S. is around 400,000.

How about we get an accurate number from African-Americans:

http://www.theroot.com/views/100-amazing…

"The total number of slaves imported into the US has been reliably estimated as being around 20 to 30 million during the approximate 300 years we had slavery . This was far greater than the approximately 8 to 10 million Native Americans that were wiped out by the whites."

In just a few sentences, the number inflated to 20 to 30 million. I can assure you, Africans procreate at a far greater rate and would have resulted in a population today of about 200-300 million. My G-d, do you not see your hypocrisy?

How come no mention of the Arab slave traders when discussing slavery? Or, the cruelty that American Indians were known for? No, no, no, we must focus on the evil white man...

You're just another pathetic white-bashing white.

I'm just trying to wake you up. I don't know why but I am.

Boy. Nazi's are really sore losers. Second only to Confederates, or course.

YOU LOST THE WAR.

If there needs to be any further proof of how your Übermensch ideology was idiotic it should be that stark fact - YOU LOST AND YOU LOST BAD TO US MONGRELS.

Now accept the fact you are clearly not a superior race and get on with your pathetic little lives.

@Caer, I appreciate the spine it takes to fight with these creeps, but you're banging your head against a brick wall. Although you are on the right side of history, so to speak, our history is not up for this kind of debate, and I ask that you drop it, considering your opponents will endlessly contort themselves to provide readings of the records that match their world view. The kind of ideas about Jews they are flinging around are exactly the same as those that led to the Holocaust, and I would appreciate it if (despite your intentions) you would stop goading them into broadcasting them any more loudly.

@SeekingReality, "What about the Khazar connection?" Ah, yes, never heard that one before. All of the genetic tests linking international Jewish populations more closely to each other than local non-Jewish populations and demonstrating common descent from the Levant are the product of international Zionist Occupied Governments, right? You clearly are intimately familiar with the complexities of Jewish history and identity. I was expecting you to say no Jews are white, but instead you tell me Ashkenazim are descended from Khazars. Wonderful.

It seems to me that Mr. Kraft is not interested in selling his works to a broad audience any longer. The pieces currently in museums will eventually get hidden away. What the Nazi's did, happened for all to see and did so in the full light of day.

On another note, I can't imagine drinking tea that came out of that pot.

Dear 212.
The 12 million figure comes from the Port of London official records.
And the population of slaves in the american slave states comes from american records.
Unlike you I at least can point you to an official source other than my own imagination.
Your unsubstantiated figure of 400,000 would mean only 1200 slaves a year were imported into the US? Hmmm?
I did not "inflate " the 12 million to 20 to 30 million because that 12 million ONLY refers to slaves that were shipped by way of London during those 300 years.
That was not the only port of export during the 300 years. There were many others.
Once again the real issue with slavery as well as the killing of civilians by the Nazi regime is not the numbers but the principle of the thing, ie, that it is morally wrong.
And let us not forget that about one third of the slaves died in transport, so you can add that to the tally.
You said that the US was a white country prior to 1965 and my point is that there have always been many other races .
It was sure not a "white country " when the white people first arrived! There were far more "indians", and also all the people in the southwest were what we now call "hispanics".
They were here first. In fact the entire continent of north and south "america" was not a "white" continent and it still is not.
It is fair to say that the "white people" were all "illegal immigrants" to a land of darker skinned people.
I have not said a single word against "white people", you apparently do not read very well or you would not say such a silly thing based upon my words.

PS 212
The Brits kept pretty good records bacause they were taxing the slave transport. Here is one source:
http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_45.htm…

"Estimates, based on records of voyages in the archives of port customs and maritime insurance records, put the total number of African slaves transported by European traders, to at least 12 million people."

And thatwas just up to 1810, it is difficult to imagine that British Customs agents in the 18th century were fabricating their data.
. It is equally difficult to imagine that your reference to counts being made by the slaves themselves could possible be more accurate since they would have no way of knowing what went before or' after, and would at best be based on after the fact attempts to come up with a figure. I'd bet on British Customs records as being the most reliable source

PPS to 212
This is direct from the British National Archives, found here:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/recor…

It explains the detailed records kept and confirms the 12 million figure I gave you.

"4. Records relating to transportation of slaves and goods

Ships involved in the colonial trade were first required to be registered in 1696. Registers survive from 1786 in BT 6/191-193 and BT 107 (indexes in BT 111). Only four volumes for Liverpool, 1739-1774, have survived for ships registered before 1786 because of a fire at Customs House. These registers are held by the Merseyside Maritime Museum.

Prior to clearing from a British port, the master first had to obtain a pass from the Admiralty. These licenses and those relating to travelling in convoy are in ADM 7. At the port, the master of the ship had to provide the collector of customs with a written list of the cargo to calculate duty. The details were written up in Port Books (E 190). Other records may have been collected at the various customs houses (the records of customs out ports are in CUST series), however many have been lost due to fires, riots and war. In addition to customs duty, between 1698 and 1713 British merchants involved in the Africa trade had to pay 10% tax on goods exported to Africa. This tax was levied to maintain the African Company's forts etc. The duty ledgers are in T 70/349-356.

Ships' captains maintained log books or journals which described details of voyages. These log books were the property of the ship owners and survive in local record offices. Very few have been found in The National Archives; those that have are the log books of Royal African Company ships in T 70.

The master also lodged a muster with the collector of customs on the ship's return, some of these can now be found in BT 98 (for example the muster of the Otter in BT 98/68 no 127). However, only those for Liverpool survive before 1807. Some musters and crew lists may survive in the archives of port towns and cities.

Information relating to goods imported to and exported from Africa can be found in the duty ledgers, accounts and correspondence of the African companies in T 70, especially among records of their forts, factories and settlements on the West Coast of Africa. Other papers can be found in the correspondence and registers of the Board of Customs (CUST 3 and CUST 17), the Board of Trade (CO 388 to CO 391), the Treasury (T 1), and in the Port Books (E 190)."

Every northwestern nazi sympathizer seems to want to spin this mans horrible and yes, EVIL, beliefs as if its some kind of 'left wing attack' on social norms and social etiquette. No. Racism is not normal. Bigotry is not the standard nor should it be. Antisemetism is not 'and underground trendy mode of thought for the self analytical', its HATE, pure and simple. The same kind of hate that lead to the holocaust, and unless people stick up to to EVIL beliefs of people like Krafft, their message of HATE spreads unencumbered.

Ive also noticed that people seem to swear that Krafft and supporters of his racial/antisemetic ideas have several black, hispanic and left leaning friends. Odd that Ive yet to meet a black or jewish or hispanic or left leaning person who admits to being friends with an antisemite or racist. Yet everyone of these losers claims to be perfectly formal with the people they disparage and hate online or amongst others. Lies or self delusion?

I just went through a list in my head and disregarded every painter, artist, writer, poet, playwright, performer and musician who could be considered fucked-up, racist, masogynistic, sexually deviant- then the addicts, theives, adulterers, liars, bigots, and generally aggressive assholes who hate everyone. I feel satisfyingly self-righteous, how ever- there is no decent art, music, or literature left for me to love. The period of the renaissance, among others, doesn't even exist anymore for me.

I will definitely require a full and in depth examination into everyone's skeleton filled closets before I ever mistakenly appreciate morally corrupt art again. Good luck to you Jen Graves, as an art critic- you have a very difficult job ahead of you. No longer can you simply argue over asthetics, you are expected to vet everyone's dirty little secrets before you can judge their art. Good luck liking anything ever again.

Dear 217,

My words were "For a country - that prior to 1965 - was overwhelmingly white" and I lived in that country and it was nothing like the picture portrayed today. In NYC, too, so I knew what the heck diversity was long before you even heard the word. Also, I refer to the nation and you appear to be referring to - what - the land???? This nation - the United States - was created by whites for whites.

I think you did inflate the numbers or rather your sources did. 400,000 doesn't quite have the ring 30,000,000 does. And, what about their offspring? I think Henry Louis Gates probably has that number right. Others have also stated that same figure. Where are your links?

I don't see one post here that says slavery or war was wonderful. Your perceptions are off track. Just like all these anti-haters are the ones mostly calling the names. A white person cannot say anything about blacks, Jews or other minorities - no matter how truthful - without being branded racist, Nazi, etc. That is how you silence the truth. Well, more and more people are starting to see this and are waking up.

"Are you one of those? Or are you just a racist?" - Ceaer

This probably would never be leveled against a black or hispanic. Because you mainly attack whites. Isn't that hateful? I only see white people being dragged through the mud here.

"Your unsubstantiated figure of 400,000 would mean only 1200 slaves a year were imported into the US? Hmmm?"

Slaves came in groups. Perhaps several thousand at once and then it would be months - or longer - before any more arrived. What do you think there was a steady flow? Did you know most of the slave ships were owned and operated by Jews? I bet not. There were even Jewish slaveholders and black slaveholders but only whites are attacked when it comes to slavery despite the fact that it was whites that abolished it.

It seems you can't handle the truth. The horror stories just aren't quite as horrific as you'd like them. Where is your compassion for the people bombed in Dresden? They were civilians. You know something else... it was the British and Americans who bombed civilians first, not the Nazis. They retaliated. I don't see any sympathy here for the Palestians or Syrians or Afghans - many of whom are innocent civilians. But a black man is doing the bombing so it must be morally right.

Also, why were only Nazis held at trial during Nuremberg? What about Italians and Japanese? I mean the Japanese were known for their horrific torture of Allied prisoners of war? If you really dug in deep about that, you'd know the whole thing was staged.

And, because some of the posters here aren't attacking Krafft they're called Nazis and everything else. I mean it is so typical. You defend lies, exaggerations, and misinformation.

BTW, Martin Luther King was a communist and so was Rosa Parks. Read the Verona Project documents (Library of Congress). In fact, Joe McCarthy was vindicated by the Soviets after they released the Verona documents. He was 99% accurate. But you've been taught to hate Joe McCarthy without really ever investigating that whole situation. Of course, our media never lets that one get through.

Do you know there are riots in Greece right now? Do you know there are protests in Ireland and France right now? Our media is silent on these issues because they want to keep Americans uninformed.

Recent scientific evidence (Kennewick Man et al) points out that Caucasians were here earlier than previously believed.

Did you know it was the Americans that gave the Soviets the plans to building atomic weapons as well as their first supply of enriched uranium.

Read "From Major Jordan's Diaries":

http://arcticbeacon.com/books/Maj_Geo_Ra…

Our reality is a facade. You have no idea what the truth is.

Go listen to YouTube clips of Antony Sutton and Eustace Mullins. You might just truly learn something. It all starts with the money supply and the you-know-who who controls it......

219

Your link doesn't show a damn thing.

Charlie isn't funny. After you hit the same shock button a hundred times, it doesn't make you laugh anymore..... There may have been a point to it, years ago, but can we move on now?

It's not possible to outrage anyone about anything, so we might need to try something different.

I hope it's not too late to jump in here. Several years back my wife was given a Krafft ceramic as a gift. It was immediately relegated to our personal wunderkammer where it sat among a random display of cultural artifacts and curiosities that I have been accumulating since childhood. Considering the recent revelations of Kraffts personal views I find it coincidentally appropriate that the piece has spent the last year nudged up against another artifact of the american right; the actual... the original... "Get a Brain Morans!" tea party sign. Now if only I could afford a modestly sized Currin to round out my collection. ;]

Respectfully,

Jerry Saltz
http://www.facebook.com/jerry.saltz

The author forgot to mention that the journal with the scholarly-sounding title, Institute for Historical Review, is a publication devoted solely to pseudoscholarship denying the Holocaust, and frequently featuring the writings of internationally known Jew-haters like Fred Leuchter, Ernst Zundel, and David Irving:
http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/hist…,
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/in…

David Irving, of course, is the British author who sued Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust, for libel. Because he sued in a British court of law, Lipstadt found herself in the peculiar position of having to prove she didn't libel Irving, as opposed to him having to prove he was libeled, which would be the burden of proof in a US court of law.

@157: The Turner Diaries sums up what the goal is and how to achieve it.

@200: I'm sure he did cry. It was evidence he's wrong.

All: I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity, eh? I just came over here to get my weekly Savage, and this distracted me. I never heard of the guy before now.

225
Apparently you didnt read my 219 link to the British National Archives that show 12 million slaves going through the London port alone prior to 1810.
It also notes that 5 million went out of Portugal, and that there were many other european shipping ports besides these two.
If use this link you can read all about it;
This link works for me.
And the British Customs kept good records since they were taxing the slave trade.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/recor…

PS 225,
You call yourself "seeking reality" but you give me a phony reference? Here is an example:

You wrote in 225," Martin Luther King was a communist and so was Rosa Parks. Read the Verona Project documents."
I just read them, and there is no reference at all to MLK or to Rosa Parks because the Verona project documents only relate to events in WW2 prior to 1945. There is nothing at all in there about these people who would have been children then
Also the Verona Documents have been widely discredited.
And you, "seeking reality", discredit yourself by giving me such a phony reference that has nothing to do with MLK and only wastes my time.
The link here covers the Verona Documents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_proj…

"By 1976 the FBI had acknowledged that it had NOT obtained any evidence that King himself or the SCLC were actually involved with any communist organizations.[185]"This was after a lengthy and detailed investigation.

MLK wrote and spoke extensively and there is not one thing he said or wrote that suggested he supported "communism" and the state ownership of the means of production.

look man, of course history gets spun around to serve the spinner. what's new about that? what gets me is that we all go wacko crazy everytime someone accuses the spinner of spinning (especially when it comes to the holocaust). i mean if this country is going to allow the tea party to put a strangle hold on all of us trying to "tribe", well why can't krafft speak his mind? also, if he was to say the samething about the native american genecide that allows all of us to live and breathe in the great USA, i wonder if the backlash would cause this kind stone throwing.

231/232

Just an FYI... I would not turn to Wikipedia for cold, hard facts.

You didn't read anything. If you read the Verona documents, it would takes weeks. Read the non-fiction book called "The Versona Project." It's a good start:

http://www.amazon.com/Venona-Decoding-So…

And, your link sent me to a page to do research not an informational display. I gave you a link to where Henry Louis Gates, the Harvard Professor, acknowleged only around 388,000 slaves were brought into the states. He has every advantage to inflate that number and chose not to. He also refers to his sources.

And regarding MLK, the FBI files on King were sealed until 2025 or 2027. You know very little about MLK. Most of the real information was sealed. I do not know how old your are but I believe it is considerably younger than me.

I see tea party comments by others on here, and their view of the tea party comes from where? Direct contact or through the media? The media. Remember, owned and controlled by the Rothschild family. I am not a "tea partier" but I cannot understand why any American would have a problem with an organization that requests lower taxes and government oversight. You would think it's filled with a bunch of baby killers the way people react to it.

The whole civil rights movement was initiated and funded through mostly Jewish organizations (NAACP) and communist organizations. Facts.

My point is not the symantics of arguments, I am telling you we are all living in a fishbowl. The financial system is about to collapse, our government is out of control, the population has been dumbed-down to the point of total ignorance, we have military operations going on in Miami, drones flying over Montana, and we are arguing about something from the past.

Wake up and analyze things for yourself. Remove all prior beliefs from your head and look at the things with a fresh mind. Then try to determine what makes sense and what doesn't.

Both communism and Zionism came out of the House of Rothschild. They are mechanisms to control populations. I believe Zionism came out of their Vienna base in the 1880's and Theodore Herzl was their front man. It focused on labor. Communism, I believe, out of Frankfort but not sure of the time period. It's out there I just don't have time to go back and forth. Spent too much time here.

Do you know what compartmentilization means? And gaslighting? Look them up and I mean the forms that refer to government operations.

Whether you choose to confirm any of this or not, I can't control. I am just telling you your world will collapse soon and it is intentional. One day, something will set off a change in your perceptions. I think many of us start off like you and then we observe something that clicks. And then, there is no going back.

I am off to other things so I won't be responding again. I do, however, wish you well. And, good luck, you'll need it.

Just keep in mind, the strategy is misinform, divide, conquer. It's as old as man.

231/232

Just an FYI... I would not turn to Wikipedia for cold, hard facts.

I apologize, it's Vernona. You didn't read anything. If you read the Venona documents, it would takes weeks. Read the non-fiction book called "The Vernona Project." It's a good start:

http://www.amazon.com/Venona-Decoding-So…

And, your link sent me to a page to do research not an informational display. I gave you a link to where Henry Louis Gates, the Harvard Professor, acknowleged only around 388,000 slaves were brought into the states. He has every advantage to inflate that number and chose not to. He also refers to his sources.

And regarding MLK, the FBI files on King were sealed until 2025 or 2027. You know very little about MLK. Most of the real information was sealed. I do not know how old your are but I believe it is considerably younger than me.

I see tea party comments by others on here, and their view of the tea party comes from where? Direct contact or through the media? The media. Remember, owned and controlled by the Rothschild family. I am not a "tea partier" but I cannot understand why any American would have a problem with an organization that requests lower taxes and government oversight. You would think it's filled with a bunch of baby killers the way people react to it.

The whole civil rights movement was initiated and funded through mostly Jewish organizations (NAACP) and communist organizations.

My point is not the symantics of arguments, I am telling you we are all living in a fishbowl. The financial system is about to collapse, our government is out of control, the population has been dumbed-down to the point of total ignorance, we have military operations going on in Miami, drones flying over Montana, and we are arguing about something from the past.

Wake up and analyze things for yourself. Remove all prior beliefs from your head and look at things with a fresh mind. Then try to determine what makes sense and what doesn't. Logic.

Both communism and zionism came out of the House of Rothschild. They are mechanisms to control populations. I believe Zionism came out of their Vienna base in the 1880's and Theodore Herzl was their front man. It focused on labor. Communism, I believe, out of Frankfort but not sure of the time period. It's out there I just don't have time to go back and forth. Already spent too much time here.

Do you know what compartmentilization means? And gaslighting? Look them up and I mean the forms that refer to government operations. There is a dark-side of government and I a not just referring to ours.

Whether you choose to confirm any of this or not, I can't control. I am just telling you, your world will collapse soon and it is intentional. One day, something will set off a change in your perceptions. I think many of us start off like you and then we observe something that clicks. And then, there is no going back.

I am off to other things so I won't be responding again. I do, however, wish you well. And, good luck. You'll need it.

Just keep in mind, the strategy is misinform, divide, conquer. It's as old as man.

PS - Go YouTube Antony Sutton and Eustace Mullins. Don't read about them, listen to them and determine if they make sense. They were both vilified men who spent the greater part of their lives just trying to give people information. There was no honor, glory or wealth in what they did. In fact, it was the opposite. Why would anyone take on that challenge if not driven solely by conscience?

Jen, I greatly appreciated the research and responses to this Krafft piece. If you do a follow-up you may find this useful. For my own work I'm currently reading The Naked Brain: How the Emerging Neurosociety Is Changing How We Live, Work, and Love by Richard Restak, M.D. and found this on p. 78-9:
""Warning people about false information also tends to make it more familiar later on," according to Ian Skurnik, one of the authors of a paper in the Journal of Consumer Research entitled "How Warnings About False Claims Become Recommendations." "People may correctly remember teh information as false immediately after the warning. But as time passes, if people can't remember the details of the warning but still remember the core piece of information, they will tend to think of it as true."
Could a similar dynamic prevail when it comes to historical events? If so, repeating untruths often enough will increase the likelihood that some people will believe them. An intuitive understanding of the power of this illusion-of-truth effect accounts, I believe, for the vigorous opposition from all parts of the world toward Holocaust denials. In many countries in Europe it's a crive to state publicly that the Holocaut never took place. Why such an extreme response to a patently preposterous claim, a claim that can be refuted by countless sources? Because the cumulative effect of repeated denials coud conceivably lead to a "memory illusion." Our brain is organized in such a way that assertions, if repeated often enough, ten eventually to be accepted as facts. What is the basis for this so-called frequency-validity effect?"

@ 188, Mr. Caear: "You say this is "anti-Nazi'? '...i.e., that there might not be so much difference between Krafft's swastikas and Hitler's.'" Well, she sure doesn't say a word about "Nazis" there , and that statement says nothing 'anti Nazi'. Can't you read and understand English?"
---

I'm just a goy hillbilly. What do I know? I know this much: Miss Jen didn't have to say her piece was anti-Nazi or that Kraft is a Nazi, she does it by associating him with "Hitler" and "swastikas" and "Holocaust denying." I'm not quite as suggestible as you, Mr. Caear.

[WW:] "[P]roof of his communist ideology and training is right in front of their eyes"

"Maybe people like J Edgar Hoover who lived with a man and allegedly wore womens clothing? Are you one of those? Or are you just a racist?"
---

No. I'm not one of them, thanks. I'm just a racially conscious goy. But speaking of MLK, Jr. and communism and race, here's what J. Edgar had to say of communist goals:

"Communists seek to advance the cause of communism by injecting themselves into racial situations and in exploiting them, (1) to intensify the frictions between Negroes and Whites to 'prove' that discrimination against the minorities is an inherent defect of the capitalistic system, (2) to foster domestic disunity by dividing Negroes and Whites into antagonistic, warring factions, (3) to undermine and destroy established authority, (4) to incite racial strife and riotous activity, and (6) to portray the Communist movement as the 'champion' of social protest and the only force capable of ameliorating the conditions of the Negro and the oppressed."
---

Sounds pretty much like the Reverend Doctor MLK's blueprint for agitation using "peaceful civil disobedience," does it not?

@ Mr. Caear: "And to 183, thanks , you made my point"
---

You're welcome. 100 years ago, Communist Jew Israel Cohen authored the book, A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century, in which he wrote the following:
---

"We must realize that our Party's most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races, that for centuries have been oppressed by the whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party ... In America, we will aim for subtle victory.
While enflaming the Negro minority against the Whites, we will instill in the Whites a guilt complex for the exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negroes will be able to intermarry with the Whites, and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."*

*On June 17, 1957, this passage was read into the Congressional Record by Rep. Thomas G. Abernathy.

Best thread ever. Smart people have come out of the woodwork to comment on Slog. Refreshing, shocking, and illuminating - perhaps the same can be said of Krafft. Anyway, too much to learn here already, let's get back to Gingrich and Glenn Beck, the great Slog mediocrity.. Nice history lessons Will, thanks.

234 "seeking reality"
Your link, once again, is to documents relating to soviet espionage going back to WW2, there is no reference there to MLK, Jr.
Your credibility again suffers!
Don't you have anything more recent than reports of WW2 espionage and J Edgars rambling speculation?

Here is my source :

In 1976 the congressional Church Committee reviewed FBI documents and reported that the FBI had concluded there was "NO EVIDENCE" of ANY communist affiliation for King or the SCLC.
That was the conclusion of the FBI, Hoovers own.

Here is my reference.
"Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. United States Senate, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, April 26 (legislative day, April 14), 1976. [AKA "Church Committee Report"]. Archived on COINTELPRO sources website. Transcription and HTML by Paul Wolf. Retrieved April 19, 2005.
Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Book II"

I dont think you or J Edgar understand that "communism" is fundamentally an economic system whereby the state owns the means of production, like in China.

Dear 239.
Your quote does not resemble the Civil Rights movement at all. And I was there in the 60's.
It was the Constitution of the United States that motivated everybody I knew, not "communism".
Nobody cared about "communism" or the state ownership of the means of production, all that crap!

The American Constitution was our highest calling and our guiding light.
I was in Mississippi in the 60's and everybody I knew in the civil rights movement was motivated by principles found in The Constitution.
It was American law that was the primary motivation.
And MLK spoke frequently about the US Constitution as the guiding light, also the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Declaration of Independence, "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", "all men are created equal", etc, read his speeches, it is all about the US Constitution and US principles:

http://usconstitution.com/speeches/marti…

I, and others, were in Mississippi to help people register to VOTE, to exercise their constitutional rights, and some of our fellow "white people " were trying to kill us, in fact they did kill some of us. We were no there to advocate "communism " or to divide people.
You accuse the civil rights movement of "intensifying racial strife"? Apparently you do not know how much strife there already was!

At that time black people could and did get beaten or killed for simply trying to vote.
The local "authorities" were brutal, local cops could rape young black girls and beat and intimidate anybody without any fear of legal consequence.
I'd call that "racial strife"!

the great arc of the arts over the last century has been to reconcile high art and low art, elitist sensibilities with popular sensibilities, art-for-art's-sake with art-with-a-message. hence many brilliant experiments with kitsch, science-fiction, advertising, graffiti, agitprop, and folk art, to name a few.

by reversing this process, i'e., bringing a degenerate art sensibility to high art, charlie is making a conceptual joke - a pretty funny one at that.

by using it to leverage cred in the high art community is also awfully funny.

by using it to leverage cred with those that would murder his mentors and friends is beyond despicable. he's the jock sturges of weapons porn.

@ Mr. Caear: "In 1976 the congressional Church Committee reviewed FBI documents and reported that the FBI had concluded there was "NO EVIDENCE" of ANY communist affiliation for King or the SCLC. That was the conclusion of the FBI, Hoovers own."
---

You're joking, right? You would trust Senator Church's "investigation." Sounds more like a whitewash, like congressional investigations into 9/11 or the JFK assassination or Watergate. Explain why King's FBI surveillance records were sealed for 50 years in 1977.

"I dont think you or J Edgar understand that "communism" is fundamentally an economic system whereby the state owns the means of production..."
---

Why the quotation marks around "communism?" Do you really believe the malignant cancer of communism is simply an alternate economic system? The 100+ million people murdered by Stalin and Mao was over economics? That's a good one.

You should read The Black Book of Communism (available @ Amazon). In The Communist Party: A Manual On Organization, 1975 (also at Amazon) author J. Peters writes: "The other important ally of the American proletariat is their mass of 13,000,000 Negro people in their struggle against national oppression. The Communist Party, as the revolutionary party of the proletariat, is the only party which is courageously and resolutely carrying on a struggle against the double exploitation and national oppression of the Negro people, becoming intense with the developing crisis, [and] can win over the great masses of the Negro people as allies of the Proletariat against the American bourgeosie."

DON'T BE NAIVE! Charles Krafft is actually the occult spawn of Karl Kraft, the Nazis' Nostradamus: [from Wikip]: Krafft moved into the orbit of the National Socialist elite in November 1939 when he made a remarkable prediction. He predicted that the Führer's life would be in danger between 7 and 10 November.
On 8 November, a bomb exploded at the Munich beer hall. There were many injuries but the target, Adolf Hitler, was unscathed because he left the assembly in the hall a few minutes before the explosion. In January 1940, Krafft began work on a pro-German evaluation of Nostradamus. In the spring of 1940 he gave a private horoscope reading for Hitler to an aide. but he never met his leader. Later he boasted to friends that he mentioned that the time for an attack on the USSR was some way off. Hitler, impatient to launch Operation Barbarossa after he had dealt with the West, in fact delayed his operations in the east until the following June. The stunning success of the early days of Barbarossa convinced him that Krafft had great powers....He wrote to a senior official predicting that British bombs would very soon destroy the Propaganda ministry in Berlin (another true statement). The letter was passed on to the Gestapo who viewed it as treasonous. He was incarcerated in foul conditions, contracted typhus, and eventually died on 8 January 1945 in the Buchenwald concentration camp.

245,
Yes, like Capitalism, Communism is an economic system.
And Karl Marx wrote about it.
Take a look, it is ALL about "economics", nothing else at all.
I am surprised you don't know that but it seems most people don't know that.
What else does Marx write about?

And, if you bother to read this, the fundamental principle of communism is "state ownership of the means of production".
That is number one.
You might try going to the source.

When people were getting killed the issue was always political POWER, not economics, two different things. Stalin and Mao were battling for political power. Capitalists have killed people too for the same reason.

As for the Church Committee, you should read the material yourself to decide if it is credible.
You seem prepared to deem it not credible without reading it.
Not all congressional investigations are whitewashes, although the ones you refer to sure appear to be.
To know, one must study their procedure and documents.
But I think one can not make such a judgment without at least reading their material.
The Church Committee based its findings on fbi materials and the fbi spent a lot of time on MLK.
As to why the fbi sealed its records my guess is that they want to cover up their own misdeeds, that's the usual reason.

Thanks to Jen Graves for the article. I unfiended Charlie Krafft as soon as I got the gist of his screeds. Shame on anyone who hasn't. As to his art being revered, not by me. I showed at Roscoe Louie and have been around here a while and never understood what Charlie was trying to do except be clever. I had a drink with him once and found him to be a smart ass blowhard, but yes, smart.
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson (who we all know wasn't perfect, but was right on in this sentiment) "If anyone says dumb-ass shit, that shit should be put on a pedestal for all to see, so reasonable people can talk about it".
The established art scene here is too old and too white. That Charlie was put up with for so long indicates that to be true. Seattle's scene will always be a backwater as long as the old white guys who run the show stay in power. Happily they are old and will be dead soon.
Tony Horn, Old White Artist.

Whatever Mr.Krafft's beliefs are, he is undeniably a talented artist. When did it become fashionable to first like the person in order to like their work? If that was the case we would be denied of works by Caravaggio(I love his work but would not invite him over for a dinner), Picasso(don't like him or his late works) etc.

AN OLD FUCKIN' GOD-DAMN BASTARD AT, Personal Liberty Digest, HAS STATED I HATE JEWS BECAUSE OF MY COMMENTARY IN THIS THREAD. THE FUCKIN' FART HAS A SIBERIAN HUSKY NAMED, "Shadow." I NEED TO SAUTEE THE MUTT IN MY FUCKIN' PISS AND EAT HIM FOR DINNER!

I AM FUCKIN' TIRED OF PEOPLE BEING APOLOGISTS FOR HEBREWS!

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

@ dnt trust me (241): "Best thread ever. Smart people have come out of the woodwork to comment on Slog. Refreshing, shocking, and illuminating ...Nice history lessons Will, thanks."

You're welcome. Credit The Stranger for allowing Politically Incorrect pro-White comments to see the light of day. That is usually not the case in non-WN forums.

This thread has run its course.

@Caear: "Your quote does not resemble the Civil Rights movement at all. And I was there in the 60's. It was the Constitution of the United States that motivated everybody I knew, not 'communism'... Nobody cared about 'communism'...I was in Mississippi in the 60's and everybody I knew in the civil rights movement was motivated by principles found in The Constitution."
---

Good for you, Caear. While you were marching and agitating with "communist" Civil Rights workers in Mississippi to dispossess southern Whites I was in Vietnam killing "communists" and my job there had nothing to do with either the U.S. Constitution or economic systems. It's clear to me that you and I are of opposite mindsets on nearly every issue.

By my way of thinking Capitalism and Communism are both Jew-spawned and detrimental to a healthy White society. I don't expect you to ever agree with me.

on top of that,he's into pedophilia.

I WONDER IF "Thunderbrow's" OTHER NAME IS, "Vigilant," FROM Personal Liberty Digest? NOW, "Thunderbrow/Vigilant," HAS Bob Livingston - A "SLICKER," BUT, STILL GARDEN-VARIETY "OLD FUCKIN' GOD-DAMN BASTARD" - ON HIS SIDE. BUT, I AM THE ONE WHO GENERATES CLICKS. Mr. Livingston, SEE HOW MUCH FUCKIN' DOUGH YOU GENERATE FROM, "Thunderbrow/Vigilant."

YOU OVERPLAYED YOUR HANDS, FUCKIN' GOD-DAMN ASSHOLES!

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

Yeah: A little know fact about Goering: He was actually *beloved* of the Jews, yeah, and they really *gave* him all those priceless treasures of European art before just, sort of disappearing into, you know, retirement, as a group, collectively, without their art, which they'd given to him—to Goering, I mean. Did you know that? It went something like that. Or else I've also heard he inherited all that art from his parents. one or the other, I forget which. Both those facts are, actually, true. I know because I'm clever and I can spell and put sentences together and so I can pull this sh*t out of my ass, just like you repugnant people.

255
You are again making an unwarranted assumption.
None of the people I met or worked with were "marching or agitating".
The only thing we were doing was helping people to register to vote.
And nobody I knew or met were "communists" or even cared about "communism" or its economic theories.
As I recall, the "right to vote" is an American theory.
Apparently you equate the "right to vote" with "dispossessing southern whites"?

You were also fighting Vietnamese in Vietnam. And you, by definition, were fighting against the economic theory expounded by Marx and Engles. They defined "communism", not those latecomers like Stalin or Mao.
Both of them also killed communists in order to achieve political power.
As I recall Marx and Engels didn't kill anybody.
If you leave Marx and Engels out of your analysis of "communism" you are making a huge mistake.
Why do you think they called it "communism" if it was not an economic theory? "Communism" means COMMON ownership or the means of production, that was what it was all about!

PS 255
As far as I know no southern whites were "dispossessed" of anything as a result of the civil rights movement.
The word means "to cause someone to lose something they possess or own", such as property.
So I do not understand what you are referring to.

And I am not a fan of any "ism" regardless of who inspired it.
By the way, Christianity was inspired by a "jew".
Do you also think Christianity is "detrimental to a white society"?

I'm confused by something: this "Holocaust-denying IHR article" (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v21/v21n3p24_webe…) goes on about the 4 million Jews more or less, who are said to have died AT AUSCHWITZ (or Auschwitz's satellite death camp Birkenau, to be more technical). Weber's article should not be too controversial because I myself doubt that many Jews were killed AT AUSCHWITZ (and/or Birkenau).

Hoever, that is beside the point: Auschwitz-Birkenau was not the ONLY location where the Holocaust took place: e.g., in the early stages of the Nazi war on the USSR the Jews of Poland and Ukraine were forced to dig huge graves, then marched into the holes and shot. Scholars may argue about details, but the incontrovertible fact is that majority of the pre-1940 Jewish population of Europe "disappeared" in one way or another in one place or another. They did not all move to Brooklyn.

Nor were Jews the only victims of the Holocaust: several categories of "subhumans," including Communists, Roma and homosexuals, were also murdered. We must also recall that in in the early phases of "Operation Barbarossa" a great number of Soviet POWs were penned up in barbed wire stockages and left to starve. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes…)

And let's not forget all the civilians of whatever nationality or religion who died in the various Blitzkriegs and in the rocket attacks on Britain, for example, as well as all those German civilans who were slain by Allied military action or murdered in retaliatory attacks like the "mini-holocaust" against Dresden or the Soviet detruction of Berlin.

And let's not forget all those soldiers of all the countries involved who died or were crippled or maimed in the European theaters of WW2, nor the uncountable numbers of people all over Europe who were raped by soldiers of whatever nation and left to live with the memory. And last but not least, let us remember the millions of survivors who came through the war more or less unscathed only to have to deal with its aftermath for the next 3 or 4 decades.

Getting bogged down in arguments about how many people of what category were killed in which locations is diversionary and stupid: it is enough to note the larger incontrovertible fact, which is that in Europe the Nazis started a second World War that resulted in a humongous number of deaths and disfigurations in a broad swath from the Pyrenees to the Urals. When you consider that fact, does it really matter exactly how many of exactly what kind of people died in exactly which place at the hands of whom exactly?

I'm confused by something: this "Holocaust-denying IHR article" (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v21/v21n3p24_webe…) goes on about the 4 million Jews more or less, who are said to have died AT AUSCHWITZ (or Auschwitz's satellite death camp Birkenau, to be more technical). Weber's article should not be too controversial because I myself doubt that many Jews were killed AT AUSCHWITZ (and/or Birkenau).

Hoever, that is beside the point: Auschwitz-Birkenau was not the ONLY location where the Holocaust took place: e.g., in the early stages of the Nazi war on the USSR the Jews of Poland and Ukraine were forced to dig huge graves, then marched into the holes and shot. Scholars may argue about details, but the incontrovertible fact is that majority of the pre-1940 Jewish population of Europe "disappeared" in one way or another in one place or another. They did not all move to Brooklyn.

Nor were Jews the only victims of the Holocaust: several categories of "subhumans," including Communists, Roma and homosexuals, were also murdered. We must also recall that in in the early phases of "Operation Barbarossa" a great number of Soviet POWs were penned up in barbed wire stockages and left to starve. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crimes…)

And let's not forget all the civilians of whatever nationality or religion who died in the various Blitzkriegs and in the rocket attacks on Britain, for example, as well as all those German civilans who were slain by Allied military action or murdered in retaliatory attacks like the "mini-holocaust" against Dresden or the Soviet detruction of Berlin.

And let's not forget all those soldiers of all the countries involved who died or were crippled or maimed in the European theaters of WW2, nor the uncountable numbers of people all over Europe who were raped by soldiers of whatever nation and left to live with the memory. And last but not least, let us remember the millions of survivors who came through the war more or less unscathed only to have to deal with its aftermath for the next 3 or 4 decades.

Getting bogged down in arguments about how many people of what category were killed in which locations is diversionary and stupid: it is enough to note the larger incontrovertible fact, which is that in Europe the Nazis started a second World War that resulted in a humongous number of deaths and disfigurations in a broad swath from the Pyrenees to the Urals. When you consider that fact, does it really matter exactly how many of exactly what kind of people died in exactly which place at the hands of whom exactly?

[Dear Mods: my comment was long enough without gettin posted twice. I goofed. Could you please delete the duplicate?

Le Caquin]

By the way, White Nationalism is based on a faulty premise because there is not and never was a White Nation: Poles are white, the French are white, and the Ashkenazi Jews are white, yet they cannot be all one Nation.(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nation)

If by term you mean "White English-speaking Gentile American of European descent" why not use a more specific term? I myself, of British descent on my father's side and German on my mother's, proudly call myself a Honky, and suggest that term be used instead. At least with Honky everybody knows who you mean.

I further sugest the following slogan and cry: HONK! HONK! HONKIES HONK! (Shouted while goose stepping, of course.)

It's pretty clear that Kraftt means to turn this into a criticism of the White and Jewish Left but not too many people here understand that.

Who knows if he actually believes in Holocaust Denial but it's all the more interesting that most libs here and in Seattle don't realize that the subject of Kraftt's work isn't Hitler or Nazism, but us. The liberal establishment that says what is and is not acceptable or politically correct to talk about.

Nazi"death camp" research just in:
42,500 sites:
" Researchers have now cataloged some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, during Hitler’s reign from 1933 to 1945.

The figure is so staggering that even Holocaust scholars had to make sure they had heard it correctly when the lead researchers previewed their findings at an academic forum in late January at the German Historical Institute in Washington

The documented camps include not only “killing centers” but also thousands of forced labor camps, where prisoners manufactured war supplies; prisoner-of-war camps; sites euphemistically named “care” centers, where pregnant women were forced to have abortions or their babies were killed after birth; and brothels, where women were coerced into having sex with German military personnel.

Auschwitz and a handful of other concentration camps have come to symbolize the Nazi killing machine in the public consciousness. Likewise, the Nazi system for imprisoning Jewish families in hometown ghettos has become associated with a single site — the Warsaw Ghetto, famous for the 1943 uprising. But these sites, infamous though they are, represent only a minuscule fraction of the entire German network, the new research makes painfully clear."

Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/sunday…

Does it disturb you even more that most self-called "White" Americans don't seem to mind monsters like that living here?(Than the fact that monsters like that - who at least are PUBLICLY honest about their racism - are living here?)

@ Caear: "By the way, Christianity was inspired by a 'jew'. Do you also think Christianity is 'detrimental to a white society'?"
---

I do. It's a slave religion, not grounded at all in reality. I'm fully aware that Christianity has Jewish roots. Whites shouldn't be worshipping the imaginary Jewish tribal god, Yahweh. We can do better than that. We're from Europe, not the Levant.

@ Le Caquin: "[T]he Ashkenazi Jews are white..."
---

Really? Then why do they call those who oppose their supremacism anti-Semites? You must agree that Semites are not White, right? Why not just anti-Jew?

Can any of you Judeophiles define Semitism for me?

It's hard to believe that any independent-minded thinking person these days still believes in the so-called "Holocaust" of 6,000,000 Jews fable. Mr. Caear, don't you think you can find a better source for proving your "Holocaust" fable than from this morning's Jew-owned New York Times opinion page -- especially from a Jew Times reporter who doubles as a visiting fellow from the GD Jewish "Holocaust" Museum? It's that Jew's job to maintain the myth.

Why is it a jailable offense in many formerly White nations to question the Jew's so-called "Holocaust?" What other subjects can't be questioned without the skeptic going to prison for it? Racial equality? No, we can still say the races are definitely not equal...for now, anyway.

Great artical but I would like to say if Kara Walker denied the horrors of slavery as a black person that is entirely differnt than a non Jew dening the holocaust... I think all museums with Krafts work should sell the art and finance shows of Felix Nussbaum and other artists killed by the Nazis ...to prove to Kraft that indeed the holoaust is no myth...ps as a Jew I would be delighted to be non-white...if being white make me more like kraft.

All this impassioned debating reminds me of Noam Chomsky who believes that Holocaust deniers should be allowed to spew whatever nonsense they want to spew without suffering jail time, but who should also be prepared to be roundly belittled.

Also this: http://newpol.org/content/visit-bikernie… about one of my bosses who returned home, home of Latvian Nazis, for a quick trip only to discover the new Nazis are the same old Nazis. FWIW, he fled the Nazis, landed in the US, joined the Army to that he could go back to Europe and kick some ass.

269
Of course, the NY Times is not the "source".
They are reporting from "the source".
And, yes, the source is the holocaust museum.
But, to fairly judge the "source" one would need to study the material and not simply dismiss it without even looking at it.
Even if one considers the source questionable, it still could contain accurate information, so it is that"information" which one needs to examine.
As a wise man once said:
"Information that is consistent with our pre-existing beliefs is often accepted at face value, whereas evidence that contradicts them is critically scrutinized and discounted. Our beliefs may thus be less responsive than they should to the implications of new information”

I think people should live on evidence based on truth alone not on hearsay. We must learn to know when when we are victims of propaganda and indoctrinations and why? I wonder, who did ever study the Holocaust from all sides? Yet, taboos can be spiritual quest which teaches to love unconditionally, and ultimately lead to an expansion of mind? We need to ask ourselves what are taboos for and who gains? In the past, sexuality was a taboo, now it is not. It seems to be replaced by the Holocaust narrative as new taboo. Question it is "hate speech,"I wonder, "how so?" It is wrong that people lose their job and friends over this taboo.

Even Lord Buddha said. “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

To story of "should" and "must believe" is the reason for all wars in the past but how do we come to truly know things is a different matter. Nobody must be forced to believe anything, not even the Holocaust. One can still be a good person, you see. I think, we all need to restudy history to understand what forces are at work. Interesting to me was Jewish Kabbalah and prophecies. I see no hatred in people sharing their explorations. As long as our intentions are good and life affirming, nothing can go wrong. Who really knows that the Jewish people need 2 Holocausts and 3 World wars before their Messiah can be birthed thrugh the blood of humanity. Imagine with this prophecy comes also a longing and desperation which may not always serve humanity as a whole. Those kind of people, who deeply love all of humanity all equal, must restudy history. People with such dangerous prophecies must be observed and held in check. Their intentions are not always for the good and benefit of all. Best are historians from China or India for researching history from scratch. We in the West are always way to biased either way in our assumption and conclusions.

Other than that, we need to learn to unconditionally listen to each other without having to affirm or deny anything. I suggest Peter Fenner's book, "Radiant Mind." People aren't really so bad. Allowing is the key to happiness. It is not wrong of somebody does not share our opinion, we still share space and laughter. When we finally shut up, we may feel that we love one another. That happens when conditioning and content is gone. Much to you all, and nothing much really happened at all. All is good. :-)

And pensacola, Florida, does not exist because i've never been there

Sweet, this got me very interested in Mr. Kraft. And in his art!
I'm gonna look for where to buy it.

Btw, I don't believe in gas chambers and other exotic stories, either..

Why should you think any less of him because he does not share your belief?

Sweet, this got me very interested in Mr. Kraft. And in his art!
I'm gonna look for where to find it so I can buy it.

Btw, I don't believe in gas chambers and other exotic stories, either..

Why should you think any less of him because he does not share your belief? That is irrational and contrary to the progressiveness of the times we live in.
Those who condemn non-Believers, in any event, deserves to re-live the darkest times of the Middle Ages as witches :-)

To 163 and 167:

You two combined wouldn't know a "point" if it smacked you upside your dreary little skulls.

Sure, Charlie has the "freedom" to express his views. He won't be thrown in jail or the gas chamber. True enough. He'll just have vacuous fools like Jen Graves and you assassinate his character w/o really understanding it, the result of which may destroy his career. He is being banned from college campuses across the country as I write, and France is up in arms and removing his work from exhibits.

Is this "freedom", or a form of suppression and censorship dressed in a PC suit?

This IS THE POINT! Political Correctness demands those who violate it's laws be "assassinated". You people are nothing but mindless PC soldiers taking holier than thou pop-shots at whatever pushes against your tender feelings and stunted conditioning. You are hypocrites of the worst sort.

Talk about intellectually dishonest. Bloody shameful.

It's funny that "Political Correctness" is a phrase only used by racists and shitheels to justify being a racist shitheel, and no actual freedom-loving liberal actually practices it.

GB2Stormfront, PC Hunter.

To clairy: "Is this "freedom", or a form of suppression and censorship dressed in a PC suit?"

One has the "freedom" to espouse racist ideologies and others have the "freedom" to make others aware of abhorrent beliefs through social means.

It would help if you understood what the word "censorship" means. Read more.

Krafft is not the first artist to be pilloried by the witch finder gatekeepers. Judging by the quality of the people on that list it's not a terrible list to be on. It's a list that includes Degas, Pound, Eliot, Lewis, Wagner, Stravinsky, Solzhenitsyn, Liszt, Gandhi, Capote, Mencken, Bukowski, Vidal, Fitzgerald, Carter, Hemingway, Shakespeare, and on...

I'm getting really tired of the thought police. They are the new NKVD. If these busy bees are so concerned with human rights why do we never read articles about how Picasso supported Stalin? On the headstone of war criminal Ilya Ehrenburg's grave is a portrait drawn by Picasso. Not that I want to read any more of these carping snitch pieces...

Jen Graves = NKVD

Charlie Krafft = Gore Vidal

George Orwell = Adolf Hitler

one of these doesn't make very much sense, but which?

@285: "It's a list that includes Degas, Pound, Eliot, Lewis, Wagner, Stravinsky, Solzhenitsyn, Liszt, Gandhi, Capote, Mencken, Bukowski, Vidal, Fitzgerald, Carter, Hemingway, Shakespeare, and on..."

Wow, ALL them were Neo-Nazis? That's amazing!

@287 All the people I mentioned were to varying degrees accused of holding anti-semitic views/sympathies, and as a result have had their work "re-evaluated", usually posthumously, by the brave new cultural gatekeepers. You can add Rodin, Twain, Wells, Chopin, Kant, Heidegger, Goethe, Roald Dahl, Joseph Campbell, Riefenstahl, and Walt Disney to that list.

@289: Opinions on a person and their cultural product are going to be re-evaluated over time, historical context, and current social values.

Did you just buy a Soc101 for dummies book and manage to get a page further before your mind vomited forth any new knowledge you tried to shoehorn in?

Seriously, go back to Stormfront.

@290 I'm just tired of of all this character assassination and it's always done by a certain small leftist clique of bullies. And they never turn the microscope on themselves. They lie, distort, and ignore in order to push their agenda. You never even responded to my point about Picasso because that's what you people do. You only get hysterically offended when you perceive nationalist sympathies, or if someone holds an unpopular view about WW2. Communists, from Lenin to Stalin to Kaganovich to Mao to Pol Pot, killed far more than the National Socialists. But you people never show the same amount of concern for the victims of Communism because you people are brainwashed little parakeets.

@291: It's not character assassination. He's proud of his antisemitism and holocaust denial and you're proud of him for sticking up for your creepy, loathsome beliefs.

Good on ya, fly on back to Stormfront where y'alls can high-five and read from the Protocols.

He was on NPR today and said that he was intellectually curious and came to his conclusions. My question: what studies satisfied his intellectual curiosity? Where did they come from? I have several suggestions that he may wish to read from an intellectual perspective that give a very different backdrop than the one he is saying is contrived. I don't deny a person their perspective - no one should - if you are disappointed in his view, shame on you for buying into it. Every person has a RIGHT to their view - however, if you are going to say that your view was attained through study and intellectual review, then review ALL of the material first - not just what is spoonfed to you - this is how "culture" happens and it is sickening.

@293: Right, research isn't a problem, coming to conclusions and espousing them through "i'm just asking questions, guise!" coward rhetoric.

My first comment containing a reply to JG’s less than sympathetic article on C. Krafft was posted last week Monday the 11th in response to her article on the TAM scandal about Chinese donations. I tried to be cordial but guess there’s the possibility to read it as offering advice to a critic. Link follows (See comment 11):

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/chine…

Two days later there seemed to be an indication that I may have helped provoke a reaction. I’m not about to flaunt my self-importance here. On the subject one seems to experience the appearance of a lot of issues related to the inner-child. I’ll leave the psychologizing open to everyone. JG delivered what appears a final response to the Charles Krafft affair. She removed herself from writing the main article for the next week, wrote a retort (link follows) amplifying her put down of Krafft, his work, fixed it so no one could directly comment on it and quickly buried it under six new slog articles. Reminiscent of Caesar washing his hands maybe? (Note her crabby use of zzzzzzzz…s).

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

My views don’t parallel some of Charlie’s basic disastrous beliefs but believe there is, in the moral frame of a truly liberal/progressive framework, a rightful call to show Charlie understanding, compassion and support as a truly local veteran artist who we might actually celebrate to our betterment. I understand the problems but hold out seeing his reality from the glass half full mentality. What follows is an amendment of my comment on Charlie first incorporated in the other thread:

“One of the major rules of the liberal/progressive tradition is to do no harm. It’s built into this approach to life with roots in Romanticism and the Enlightenment. One style of reporting can be the subjecting elements in a local art world not only to scrutiny but as a victim of an intense drubbing combined with the premise that the reporting comes from higher ground. Such reporting can reach the level of “high” but entertains the danger of the kind of curious exposé found in such periodicals as the National Enquirer. In addition, such reporting faces the danger of violating fundamental social rules about being positive and getting along. Myself, I’m caught on the fence on such reporting. I can find myself lifted on the refreshing and brave calling up of something that seems wrong in the system. It’s revolutionary. But I also feel a part of me cringe when just about any article breeches certain social standards and exposes the supposed dirty laundry of a person, community or institution. The Stanger seems to embrace a style that ensures a foot in all camps and the possibility of doing wrong and thus harm, at times, in print.

(Exemption).

We can recall the article pointing out that the Seattle art community in some way sucks compared to Vancouver’s. We can recall the brazen honesty of an article that accused a local art critic of taking payoffs in the form of the works of an artist to write good reviews of that artist. We might ask were these exposés as balanced as the current one. And then there’s the recent article that would appear to just be telling the facts about a senior truly local artist, Charles Krafft, and find in its text really questionable statements that would seem able to harm the reputation and commerce of this artist, a reportage that leaves out so many good things about this man at hand in the evidence the article claims to use to obtain balance. In some theology there is the wise observation of the sin of omission. One might wish that this recent article on Charlie had been more fair and balanced and revealed more examples of his being quite a good person. We could have been treated a stronger revelation of how Charlie’s rather conservative beliefs don’t necessarily lead to an intelligent conclusion that he should be condemned for his associations. It could be said that the distinction of such nuances are important to any fair analysis. I can imagine some local artists being distraught over one of their own being so pilloried, worrying about what’s dirty in their laundry and wondering how their discursions or imprecise use of language might impact the public valuation of their work.

(Exemption).

I continue to value and enjoy the writing in this column by this author and have no fantasy that we can always agree. I support her role in the local scene and only offer my point of view as a reflection.”

http://www.udreview.com/new-research-pro…

@295: How dare an article publish statements from the artist and link to his personal white supremacist statements. Bias! BIASSSSSSS.

Just because you can ramp up the rhetoric to make it appear academic, doesn't mean that your post contains any meaning within.

"One of the major rules of the liberal/progressive tradition is to do no harm."

These articles aren't harming his reputation, his words and beliefs are harming his reputation. No bizarre "appeal to progressivism" is going to make it a bad idea to expose white supremacists in any scene, be it music, art, certainly politics.

I mean, the story is that some guy who was flirting with Nazi imagery ironically turns out to have Neo-Nazi sympathies. That's why there's novelty and interest in the story. The Jews who bought his art were not pleased to find this out, and the meaning and context of his entire product has been altered by these relevations.

If you don't understand the difference between darkly humorous depictions of Nazis by someone creating a clever interplay of horror, and someone who supports the aims and goals of white supremacy, you probably shouldn't read art criticisms. They're far above what you can comprehend.

Dear Supreme commander of truth (undead ayn rand), I am deeply moved by you personifying me as being capable of appearing academic. For this, I offer you undying thanks and the biggest kiss ever. I’m amazed that I made you mentally stutter though. Of course the major problem with what seems to be a foundation of your approach is that you have succumbed to the atrociously unscholarly foundations of the pop-journalistic piece of Jen Graves on Charlie Krafft. She normally delivers such wonderful bouquets of art news and views to us all. Most of us like her quite a bit but she’s just human. Sadly, she unleashed this unfair and unbalanced diatribe on a good person who isn’t in any way what you seem to think he is, and a bevy of leading contemporary media folks have uncritically caved into acting out a putrefied herd behavior. There’s nothing like a mean meme. Many know the contemporary news media tends to an illness akin to what motivates reality TV, an illness burdened with dishonesty and illusion. How can we expect Jen, being in this system, being contaminated by such pressures and opportunities towards professional fame from slipping? (Can you imagine her, working to grow her own success, mashing an artist, to grow her name?) There’s the pity. I’ve tried like crazy to maintain respect for this one article of hers that drives me nuts. Her arguments against Charlie consist largely of vapid nonsequitors. In this she is attacking an artist of all things with a hubris that is rich in bullshit. You, being a puppet of her offerings are a sub-prophet of the ridiculous.

@295:

“really questionable statements that would seem able to harm the reputation and commerce of this artist”

[yeah – all by charlie himself, certain to harm his reputation - but enhance his commerce (if slightly changing its demographic]

“leaves out so many good things about this man”

[like how he loves his puppy? like how extra-kind he is to his ex-lovers (those whose paintings and reputation he hasn’t taken pains to try and steal)?]

”rather conservative beliefs”

[“the holocaust is a myth” is not rather conservative. it is very conservative]

discursions or imprecise use of language might impact the public valuation of their work

[yeah, what he really meant was “I don’t really know anything about the holocaust”]

[tell him he needs to read up on Romanian history, starting with the Jew Norman Manea, who, unlike Charlie’s “sources”, is no fool when it comes to either National Socialism or Stalinism}

[also tell him that his “friends” burned my 22-year-old daughter to death with gasoline]

nemofred, if Jen and all the others are promoting a false picture of Charlie and the wounded folk like you are looking for a scapegoat they've accomplished something like their expected ends. But in doing this they've made a fool out of you. You’re clearly bleeding and need to find an enemy and it's so understandable why you would jump on just about anybody to vent your pain, but you need to get it right. You are a puppet of Jen's very poorly written article that is the spawn of profoundly errant speculation. Charlie is not your enemy. Bad press and ridiculously poor and immature art curation is. You have not found the correct enemy. You have work to do if you want to be responsible. You'd be better off looking in the South or Idaho. All of you friends of the devil need to look elsewhere. Charlie's a victim like you and your dear lost one. Jen's misdirection is a culpret in a crime against her true beliefs and Charlie, a good man and good artist who is truly Northwest. Someone, with good character and good power needs to intervene in the slaughter of the inoccent.

(Hey, it’s the three-hundreds already!!!!)

if he is a good person, why is he encouraging the truly Northwest murderous bigots who carry the nazi torch?

who killed my friends the goldmarks in seattle?

and crystal's friend bob buchanan in olympia?

and, ultimately, crystal herself?

you know as little of these matters as charles knows from WWII

i need a SCAPEGOAT to allay my dismay at such extremely funny formulations as "martin luther coon???

@295, You aren't seriously engaging with Graves' article. She does not, in fact, make any explicit arguments in the piece, and instead frames it with a set of questions: how does this affect our understanding of his art? what do we now do with his art? is Krafft a Holocaust denier? She only answers the final question, and the evidence drawn from Krafft's mouth and the testimony of his friends and colleagues undeniably demonstrates that yes, Krafft is a holocaust denier and an antisemite. The presentation of her evidence is straightforward, and does not digress into non sequitur (you think it's there? prove it).

As far as answering her other questions, she points to two possibilities in her consultation with Tim Burgard and Jena Scott. Burgard, speaking from an institutional perspective, suggests resolving the issue by keeping Krafft's work on display and presenting a more nuanced explanation of its context. Scott provides a glimpse at how the individual might react, eg. by not collecting the work of, or associating with, an artist whose views you find offensive. These are hardly radical or cruel and unusual propositions. You are mischaracterizing what Graves has said and certainly what she believes. Krafft has thoroughly indicted himself, nothing Graves has written could seriously be regarded as demonization, especially considering she approached this article from an acknowledged position of disbelief as well as a position of interest in the allegations' falsity (she did name Krafft the PNW's best iconoclast, it is a bit embarrassing to learn that he is essentially a troll, though she maintains and, in my opinion, strengthens her credibility by writing this article).

If you really think it is wrong ask the questions Graves has asked, and then offer moderate, evidence based answers, you simply do not understand the importance of context in contemporary art practice, criticism, and scholarship. Not incidentally, these questions are also enormously important to how many people simply perceive, experience, or enjoy art. Not incidentally, people have a right to know, like with any product, how the sausage is made. Essentially, you are not taking Graves seriously.

And this is all without getting into how no one is obligated to give the time of day, let alone a spot in a museum or private collection, to someone who espouses views which represent an existential threat to the millions of Americans Krafft and his White Nationalist buddies consider "not White," Jewish people most obviously.

@301, A good man does not advocate for or ally himself with a cause the fulfillment of which could only be achieved through ethnic cleansing at best and genocide at worst.

@299: Look, you're okay with neo-nazi sentiments. We get that. If you can read Kraft's words and contextualize his art and you're still not getting any creepiness up your spine, you harbor the same antisemetic feelings.

Your inability to be honest isn't our fault. You don't have to like her criticism, but you're still a horrible person and your whole family should be ashamed of your rottenness.

Nazi Charlie is at it again:

http://northwestfront.org/2013/03/charle…

Hmm. First time commenter here. I posted a link to a neo-Nazi podcast featuring Charles Krafft that was uploaded just last night, but either I did it wrong or I don't have the right filters or you're not allowed to link here.

Anyway, the podcast is called Radio Free Northwest and it can be found at northwestfront.org, so if anyone's interested they can go there and find the program and hear what Krafft himself has to say about all this, including this very Stranger article and some acerbic comments on author Jen Graves. Looks like he hasn't changed his spots any.