Modernity: the Judaeo-Masonic cult of ugly

About these ads
Leave a comment

6 Comments

  1. apollonian

     /  June 7, 2014

    Present-Day Art Is Judeo-Masonic In Nature, True, BUT It’s Derived From Platonic-Subjectivism Which Scruton Doesn’t Grasp

    This video by Scruton on “beauty” is fm a BBC production, BBC notorious Jew-bolsheviki -oriented; so WHY would they (Jew-dominated BBC) bad-mouth or denounce or even criticize Judeo-masonry?

    On the contrary, wouldn’t BBC rather do the opposite, in way of glorifying Judeo-masonry? I’m not aware “Judeo-masonry” is even mentioned in the entire vid. Scruton merely denounces post-modern art for emphasizing non-essentials, aside fm beauty and the classic conception. Maybe I’ll go through the vid again to clarify specific pt.s made by Scruton.

    But having watched and listened to the vid one time, I note the conclusion by Scruton, at the very end, that “beauty,” according to him, is the opposite/anti-thesis of the “suffering” we go through in life, beauty then being an alternative and companion to religion.

    Further, I’ll note that Scruton is avowed Platonist, citing Plato several times in the vid, and calls Immanuel Kant the “greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment” era (roughly 1648 through 1789, or so).

    So the necessary question arises regarding the basic theme of this blog-article and subject-matter–what then is Judeo-masonry at philosophic root?–isn’t it Platonism, mysticism, and subjectivism?–this, against Christian TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), truth then requiring the Aristotelian objective reality (God-created) serving as necessary criterion/premise to Christian TRUTH?

    For isn’t the anti-Christ problem of Judeo-masonry the fact/idea of that basic subjectivism which then rejects Christ and TRUTH, truth based upon the God-given/created, hence objective reality which serves as premise/criterion for truth?

    Thus in subjectivism the only reality is what’s in the mind, there being nothing outside the mind–against Aristotle who poses the objective reality, God-given according to Christianity.

    Thus in subjectivism man becomes God unto himself, everything mere product of the mind’s creation and imagination–isn’t this the essence of satanism, hence masonry/Talmudism?

    Thus Scruton sums up his expo by asserting beauty is anti-thesis of suffering, but doesn’t really seem to say much as to how this all takes place, and he attempts to demonstrate this at the very end of the vid by means of the piano recitation by the Italian guy.

    Scruton also tries to contrast the art of Delacroix and his painting of his bed against the modern lady (who was interviewed by David Frost), but it really only consists of more assertions by Scruton and making use of rather a contrived straw-man -type of travesty in way of the modern lady with whom it’s hard to sympathize, in truth, but still the question remaining as to whether the modern lady is significant enough to serve as anti-thesis, and assuming Delacroix is any kind of ideal in the first place.

    So Scruton ends up only criticizing the present-day “post-modern” art, which it surely deserves, BUT only by selectively citing premises and criteria which post-modernism is founded upon in first place, the subjectivism of Plato and Kant. Additionally, “beauty” isn’t really defined by Scruton in any significant manner, and the effect is that Scruton in truth actually defends the basic principles of Judeo-masonry merely by pretending the present-day art isn’t really, properly derived fm basic premises of Judeo-masonry, which is Platonism/subjectivism, and which assertion/conclusion he can’t and doesn’t prove.

    Reply
  2. Fresh

     /  June 13, 2014

    Your comments seem intelligent and informed. Unfortunately, they’re a bit above my head and I don’t think I’d add value to anything you said. My contribution is just to make a couple comments about how I see art in general.

    Some beauty is subjective—but much of it is objective. I think it’s important to hammer that point with people—because it’s been hammered out by the forces of relativism for so long. Relativism is a wicked ideology—no matter what it’s applied to (politics, art, social issues, morality, athletics, or any other human pursuit.) I was not surprised to learn that BHO included a barb against “absolutism” in his 2nd inaugural speech. Yes—let’s live in a society where nothing really means what it could mean, or might mean, or used to mean… or maybe it still means that, but we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it the next time. Such crap.

    I’m not well-versed in the formal definitions of various artistic movements—but I know bullsh!t when I see it, and a lot of the so-called “art” that’s been passed off in recent decades is garbage. Furthermore, the cultural assault that’s come with it (e.g., “piss-Christ”) speaks volumes about the cultural depravity of some segments of our society. To some—art is the thing you do when you fail at everything else—precisely because you can’t fail at it. That’s the belief—you can’t fail at it. But you can fail at it—and people do, but they don’t get told that they failed, or that they suck. Everyone gets a trophy—nobody gets offended. Isn’t this blissful?

    As a young artist, with little wisdom to my name, I made a decision about myself which was nonetheless wise, and which has stuck with me to this very day. I decided that the underpinning of my artistic philosophy would be as follows: “make stuff that looks cool—because that’s what I like to make, and that’s what I like to show people.” I’d love to hear a professional art critic’s reaction to that “philosophy” today!

    It sounds rather unsophisticated, of course—but that was (and is) the whole point. I grasped the notion that art didn’t need to be sophisticated—it just needed to be good. Looking back on it now, I realize that the invisible cultural pressures off that time were so weird. “Sophisticated” so often meant “unintelligible.” I remember thinking about becoming an artist, and starting to look around at who the culture regarded as important. I watched the movie Basqiat—and I just remember thinking, “man, art is depressing—and everyone around it is depressing and shallow.” I smelled the falsehood. I decided that I didn’t want to be an artist—that I just wanted to make art.

    That mindset is why I was drawn to graffiti—which was one of the best artistic movements of recent times, in my view. Why? Because it was honest—and real. Graffiti wasn’t about “existentialism,” cocktails or being seen. Graffiti was about NOT being seen. It was about making stuff that looked cool—and making fun of stuff that didn’t. Like I said—real. In a strange way, it also amounted to “performance art” in a sense—because you could spend hours and hours on something, only to find it painted over the next day, and gone forever. And even if it lasted a while—it all got painted over eventually. It was art for art’s sake. Natural expression, exploration and adventure.

    As I said, I’m not an artist—I just make art. I’m sure others could offer more valuable criticism on Damien Hirst and that type of art than I can, but here’s my take on him.

    The shark in the formaldehyde tanks? —f*cking awesome. I don’t care what idea they’re supposed to express. It’s a shark—floating in the middle of the room. The frame is simple and tasteful—and the color of the liquid is absolutely sublime. Is it the pinnacle of artistic accomplishment? No. Is it even art—I can’t say. But it’s a wonder to behold—and fascinating to ponder. Most of all—it’s showcases the real artist and the True Master—God. God made sharks because he felt like it—boo-ya. And for every shark that’s been seen by man’s eye—a million sharks are born, live, die and decompose beneath the depths of the sea. Beauty rarely seen and never fully appreciated—until Damien Hirst’s piece. I haven’t seen it in person, but I don’t necessarily need to—I can see it in my mind. If you’re inclined—and I am—you can marvel at the symmetry, and the asymmetry, and the geometric composition of that joint creation. After that, your eye can run along the contours of that shark—just like it can on a Ferrari, or on a beautiful female figure. Whatever it is that art is supposed to achieve—that does it.

    Today, I call it tasteful, and aesthetically pleasing. But whether its my own, or someone else’s—if art doesn’t “look cool,” it fails as a vehicle for whatever ideas it contains. That’s art to me.

    Oh—I almost forgot the 2nd point I had (yes—all the above was initially one thought that I was going to share—ha!). I was going to say how aesthetically offensive I find almost every part of Freemasonry. Maybe it’s just coincidence—or perhaps it can be explained in more objective terms. Either way, the colors, the symbols, the “temples” and regalia of Freemasonry are just plain ugly. It makes me wonder (more than I already do) how artists like Albrecht Dürer and Leonardo Da Vinci could have been associated with this tacky and tawdry cult. Maybe that’s just how it goes when you’ve decided to worship Satan. Objective failure, all around.

    Reply
  3. apollonian

     /  June 14, 2014

    “Fresh”: ck out the Aristotelian view of art which is expressed in a conscious fashion at http://www.atlassociety.org/objectivism_art. Ayn Rand was Jew, BUT at least basic principles for her phil. of art come fm Aristotle–this is what she says:

    “Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value judgments. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important.”

    There’s more at the source, ref’d above.

    So in other words, ideas, even the most complex, abstract, or significant, get jumbled and confused within our minds. Art then expresses those ideas in CONCRETE fashion–which we can simply see, or hear, or touch (as in sculpture), by means of simple perception–without then having to think too much about it (except then after we’ve looked at the art-work), as we have a CONCRETE representation (the work of art) before us, provided by the artist, so as to focus attn.

    I agree w. u most artists begin w. sub-conscious -type ideas which are not necessarily too clear, even for them, but they like to do and make stuff (art) to putting it out before others so they can see/hear/touch it.

    Reply
  4. Hadrian Antiochus

     /  June 15, 2014

    This is a interesting subject, ancient art still looks better than modern art, the Greek, Romans, Egyptians, Chinese and others really knew what they’re doing.

    Reply
  5. abey

     /  July 16, 2014

    When art becomes Gnosis is when a corrupted mind like a Di vinci even a genius tries to get into the simplicity of the mind of Christ , the sanctuary of a holy mind , the search gets deflected to the source of its corruptions & that which is reflected is from that source- The mind of satan- all the while thinking it to be off Christ . This is the basis of Gnosticism, unto all those Di vinci codes/movies, stories, grail theory all but falsifying the Christ, upon which is freemasonry build off that ‘ole iniquity.
    Now in this regard, to a revelation of a Visionary in the Spirit standing before a glass house, sees 7 women, big built European features, blouses knotted over their navels wearing tight pants over heavy butts suggesting intense sexuality even sodomic, to knotted wombs indicating sexuality on a non reproductive status & they moved on all four parallel to the ground suggesting demons. Now on the long alley of approach were seen a group of revellers carrying what seemed to be a statue of Mary. The revelation- these 7 demons were the 7 spirits, said to be uncurable, taken out of Mary Magdalene by Jesus curing her of an “Illness” which is “Nymphomaniacism” to the 7 demons . European features relates to Freemasonry & in this case French, looking through German glasses. To all that Davinci Gnosticism of the last supper painting, portraying Apostle John as Magdalene unto the Grail Theory but has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene but a lie of Gnosticism, by the vengeance of the 7 demons in her name. French Freemasonry it is, off the three Freemasonry the other two English & American- Egypt at its core in its beliefs- that which enslaved a people physically then, now coming spiritually.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers

%d bloggers like this: