The earth seemed unearthly.  We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there – there you could look at a thing monstrous and free.”

Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad

http://facweb.bhc.edu/academics/science/harwoodr/geog105/Reading/HeartofDarkness.htm

Upon hearing those words spoken by the venerable Staeck, someone well versed in Spielberg and Wiesel but completely ignorant of Breker would think that the Schwerin residents were financing an art exhibition depicting oppressed minorities being shoved into ovens, children being tortured and starved, infants being bayoneted and thrown into fire pits, and other such despicable crimes being committed against humanity.

Upon being confronted, however, by the actual subject matter of Breker’s art, such a well-versed someone would surely be thrown into a state of complete malfunction, for he would see before him the artistic representation of beauty, maternity, health, strength, valour and companionship—all of which were, once upon a normal and not-too-long-ago time, universal and apolitical concepts and the natural subject of art dating from Classical Greece through to Romantic Europe.

But we live in a time where degeneracy is beauty, and State and Media and Academia have been working tirelessly for the last 100 years to make sure that degeneracy will never again be called degeneracy, but only and always progress.  Consequently, our benevolent Marxist autocrats view the work of such a Breker as something very dangerous, for it shines an unruly light on National Socialist mores while promoting the very antithesis of what the Judeo-West stands for.

Yes, of course we know about the labour camps Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, Majdanek, et al..  What of them?  They housed, by and large, criminals, communists and communist sympathisers.  We should instead try to focus on the real crimes against humanity, for if we can acknowledge the Holodomor, the Gulag, Katyn, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Palestine, Iraq and a slew of other injustices, then we can also set aside our biased and conditioned opinions—if only for a moment—and acknowledge that the Nuremberg trials were a murderous farce of unprecedented hypocrisy.

And what does this leave us with? Criminal governments with criminal legacies, fattening their gluttonous canaille with the physical images of Judeo-Western ideology:

	Woman by Willem de Kooning, oil, enamel and charcoal on paper mounted on board, 1947Sold for $2,539,500
	Orestes by Willem de Kooning, enamel and paper collage on board, 24 1/8 by 36 1/8 inches, 1947Sold for $13,209,500
	Ninth Street by Franz Kline, oil on canvas, 60 by 78 inches, 1951Sold for $2,860,000
	White Fire I by Barnett Newman, oil on canvas, 47 7/8 by 59 ¾ inches, 1954Sold for $3,859,500
	Reclining Bather by Roy Lichtenstein, oil and magna on canvas, 60 by 90 inches, 1977Sold for $2,099,500
	Fountain by Marcel Duchamp, porcelain urinal, 60 cm, 1917Sold for $1,300,000
	Mademoiselle Néon by Jean Dubuffet, oil and sand on canvas, 36 by 28 3/4 inches, 1948Sold for $1,109,500
	Painter in Bed by Philip Guston, oil on canvas, 59 1/2 by 104 inches, 1973Sold for $1,707,500

Marxist propagandists have been quick to label this display of sheer retardation as nothing more than a “gaffe” and a “miscue”.  It would seem that they’ve also told Johnson exactly what to say in his own defense, for I’ve every reason to doubt that this cerebrally impoverished fellow could possibly understand terms such as “metaphor”, “infrastructure”, “adverse” and “fragile ecosystem”–all of which are to be found in his explanation. 

Many before me have sounded the horn.  “What is it?” asked the ruling elite.  “Negro, sir!  Straight ahead!”  answered the vigilant European man.  But our captain paid no heed.  Nay, a malicious smirk seemed to appear on his face as he called out, “Full steam ahead!”  And we headed straight for the Negro with all the engines hammering away at our present, our future, our past, our everything.  Now too many compartments have been flooded.  America will capsize.  Europa as well.

 Halfway through supper Prince Andrew leaned his elbows on the table and, with a look of nervous agitation such as Pierre had never before seen on his face, began to talk- as one who has long had something on his mind and suddenly determines to speak out.

“Never, never marry, my dear fellow! That’s my advice: never marry till you can say to yourself that you have done all you are capable of, and until you have ceased to love the woman of your choice and have seen her plainly as she is, or else you will make a cruel and irrevocable mistake. Marry when you are old and good for nothing- or all that is good and noble in you will be lost. It will all be wasted on trifles. Yes! Yes! Yes! Don’t look at me with such surprise. If you marry expecting anything from yourself in the future, you will feel at every step that for you all is ended, all is closed except the drawing room, where you will be ranged side by side with a court lackey and an idiot!… But what’s the good?…” and he waved his arm.

Pierre took off his spectacles, which made his face seem different and the good-natured expression still more apparent, and gazed at his friend in amazement.

“My wife,” continued Prince Andrew, “is an excellent woman, one of those rare women with whom a man’s honor is safe; but, O God, what would I not give now to be unmarried! You are the first and only one to whom I mention this, because I like you.”

As he said this Prince Andrew was less than ever like that Bolkonski who had lolled in Anna Pavlovna’s easy chairs and with half-closed eyes had uttered French phrases between his teeth. Every muscle of his thin face was now quivering with nervous excitement; his eyes, in which the fire of life had seemed extinguished, now flashed with brilliant light. It was evident that the more lifeless he seemed at ordinary times, the more impassioned he became in these moments of almost morbid irritation.

“You don’t understand why I say this,” he continued, “but it is the whole story of life. You talk of Bonaparte and his career,” said he (though Pierre had not mentioned Bonaparte), “but Bonaparte when he worked went step by step toward his goal. He was free, he had nothing but his aim to consider, and he reached it. But tie yourself up with a woman and, like a chained convict, you lose all freedom! And all you have of hope and strength merely weighs you down and torments you with regret. Drawing rooms, gossip, balls, vanity, and triviality- these are the enchanted circle I cannot escape from. I am now going to the war, the greatest war there ever was, and I know nothing and am fit for nothing. I am very amiable and have a caustic wit,” continued Prince Andrew, “and at Anna Pavlovna’s they listen to me. And that stupid set without whom my wife cannot exist, and those women… If you only knew what those society women are, and women in general! My father is right. Selfish, vain, stupid, trivial in everything- that’s what women are when you see them in their true colors! When you meet them in society it seems as if there were something in them, but there’s nothing, nothing, nothing! No, don’t marry, my dear fellow; don’t marry!” concluded Prince Andrew.

http://tolstoy.thefreelibrary.com/War-and-Peace/1-8

But what about the EU trillions?  Where exactly did they come from and where did they go?  Well, Marxists would have you believe that the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and all the other central banks in Europe are government entities.  If that were so then European governments wouldn’t be borrowing money from themselves at interest, but rather creating interest-free money.  That, however, will never be permitted to take place, for the mere concept of a nation printing its own interest-free money sends Marxists into maniacal Talmudic seizures, let alone the implementation of this concept.  No, Europe’s central banks are as much government entities as is the Federal Reserve, that is to say, not at all.  Not a single European country prints its own interest-free money, meaning that every single European country is the property of Marxists.  Marxists lend us $1, yet they demand $1.10 back, but how can we pay back $1.10 if they are the only ones who can legally create our money?  We can’t, and there’s the rabbinical rub, and there’s the indentured goy.

Europe’s central banks created the $5.3 trillion literally out of thin air.  Some squat, dysgenic individual sitting at a computer in a plush office, with a menorah in the background and a blonde shiksa secretary right outside, punched in a holocaust of 0s with his stubby fingers and created trillions where there weren’t any trillions before.  Those trillions were then lent to European governments at an interest of 5%, and the governments, in turn, gave the trillions back to the central bankers.  The central bankers then took the $5.3 trillion and, putting fractional reserve banking policies into action, created an additional $45 trillion out of thin air, with which they’ve been buying up everything in Europe and the world that they don’t already own. 

In the meantime, European taxpayers are toiling away and paying these central bankers $265 billion annually in interest alone on the $5.3 trillion that they have given them.  That is to say, European taxpayers are paying $265 billion in interest alone for the privilege of giving trillions of dollars to their tyrannical oppressors.  Never has servitude been so expensive.  Never have slaves been so willing.

The first text dealing with Black Africans is a short chapter in the Bundahisn [ Bd] (literally, “Creation of the Origins”). Bd is a Pahlavi compendium of tra- ditional lore, which although composed in post-Sasanian times, during the Muslim period (circa the 9th century CE), it is mostly based on older sources, to which some later information has been added. Zoroastrian views on the Blacks are expressed in the “Greater” (or, “Iranian”) Bd XIVb.7This short chapter traces several non-human species-such as apes, bears, “forest- inhabitants” (?), “tailed ones” (?) to the progeny of the first human couple and the dews, Zoroastrian “demons.” As for the Blacks, they are said to be the result of the mental intercourse of a dew and a parig (female “demon”) with an unspecified “young girl” and an unspecified “young man,” respectively. On the basis of a par- allel text, it could be conjectured that the “young man and young girl” were per- ceived as not belonging to the progeny of the first human couple. In other words, they were understood as belonging to a different species than the other human beings:…1. The (Avestan text) says, too: “Yim,9 when his royal glory departed from him, took a female dew to wife, and gave his sister Yamig to a dew to wife, because of his fear of the dezs; the apes, the bears, the forest-inhabitants, the tailed ones, and other noxious “sorts” (species) arose from them; and his (Yim’s) lineage did not progress therefrom.” 2. Regarding the Black people, the (Avestan text) says: “During his sovereignty, AR 1- Dahak’0 let loose” a d&w on a young girl and let loose a young man on a partg, and they (the female counterparts) had sex with the visible image of the male (counterparts of each other); through this new way of the action the Black people appeared.” 3. When Fred-on2 came, they (the Black people) rushed off’3 from the Lands of Iran and settled on the coast of the sea. Now, after the Arab onslaught,’4 they have again rushed to’5 the Lands of Iran. … In another passage of the Bundahiin (Bd XIV.36-39) it is stated that all of humanity originated from one human couple.’8 This includes fifteen sardags (“sorts,” or “species,” “races”) living in the seven kisfwars, that is “climes,” or “continents” (not to be confused with what we call “continents” now), but also another ten sardags of fabulous creatures, such as “those with eyes in their breasts, those who have wings like bats,” and monkeys, too. It was only later that two new sardags sprung, due to the intermixture caused by the Adversary,’9 namely the “Blackmen” and another sardag, ( ). The text of the passage in question20 reads as follows: did pad wahan Y petyarag, gumeziinih bud ciyon Zangig ke abig ud zamigig bawed ud ( ) ke ab ud zamig har do ziwed. “Again, because of the Adversary, the Mixture occured, such as Zangig, who are (those) of water and (those) of earth, and (Y), who live in both water and earth.” Zoroastrian Sources on Black People Author(s): Dan Shapira Source: Arabica, T. 49, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 117-122

Quote:

The negative attitude toward blacks is reflected in the connotations of the Persian word Zangi (Arabic, Zanj, singular or plural). This word, used in Islamic Iranian writings to meaA an Egyptian, an Ethiopian, and most common- ly, a native of East Africa or Zangbar (Zanzibar), also means “an uncivilized and stupid” person (mardum-i biya- bani va ablah).31 The compound zangi-sirisht (one who has the Zangi’s nature or temperament) means “violent, bad- tempered,”32 while zangi-yi mast (an intoxicated Zangi) suggests a “person with unkempt hair and thick lips.”33 Misl-i muy-i Zangi (like a Zangi’s hair) suggests disorder and confusion (Amsal va hikam, pp. 1493, 11. 2-7). The negative associations of the color black and the positive ones of white are revealed in rusiyahi and rusifidi (literally to be black/white34 in the face), suggesting shame and disgrace and pride and honor respectively (Amsal va hikam, p. 883, 11. 3, 8).35 The color black also sug- gests a defect or flaw, as in the proverb “You can’t wash the Zangi white.” “Do not hope for any good from the ig- noble,/ For the Zangi will not turn white by washing,” says Firdawsi. “For all your efforts the branch of willow will not blossom,/ Nor will a bath make the Zangi white,” says Sa’di (quoted in Amsal va hikam, p. 918, 1. 28; and p. 926, 1. 17). The saying “to call a Zangi Kafur” (a white sub- stance) is meant to suggest the unworthiness of such appli- cation (Amsal va hikam, p. 423, 11. 10-14). Used metaphorically, zangi connotes darkness, evil, sin, or a state of error. In the Shahnamah (c. 1010), “The world turned black like the face of the Zangi,” suggests the arrival of night or the rising of dust, as for example, in the battlefield.36 Describing a black man embracing a white woman, Sa’di (c. 1184-1292) says, “so tightly he’d taken her within his hold/ That you might think the day was covered by the night.” When the black man releases the woman, the poet remarks, “The baleful cloud from o’er the garden passed,! That egg appeared from underneath the crow!”37 In the col- lection of tales Marzuban namah (1210-15), night and day are personified as Zangi and Rumi (Anatolian) flunkies (text and trans. p. 34). The poet Nasir-i Khusraw (b. 1003) per- sonifies night as an old and ugly (na’khub-i pir) Zangi, one who nevertheless gives birth to a handsome Anatolian slave boy.38 zangi is also used to mean a crow or a raven, both dark unloved birds with jarring voices. In a poem on the vicissitudes of this world, Nasir-i Khusraw complains about evil-sounding Zangis (i.e., crows) putting to flight a host of nightingales (p. 8S). Similar imagery is used by Nizami (1140-1202), who calls a host of white soldiers Anatolian pheasants and the black men they are fighting against ravens of Zanj (Sharafnamah, p. 125)….Persian expressions and proverbs reveal that Iranians considered negroid features and the black skin color to be ugly. The saying “He/she is a Qurayshi and I a Habashi (Ethiopian)” means “He/she is beautiful and I am ugly” (Amsal va hikam, p. 313, 11. 3-5). “Like a barzangi” sug- gests a “large man with a thick neck and a husky mustache” (Amsal va hikam, p. 1407, 1. 19). “Like a kaka siyah” suggests a person with “dishevelled hair and thick lips, angry and grumbling” (Amsal va hikam, p. 1468, 1. 23). The ugliness of the Zanj is the theme of an anecdote fre- quently alluded to in Iranian literature: A Zangi found a mirror and viewed his reflection in it. He saw a flat nose, an ugly face, a char- coal complexion, and inflamed eyes. Because the mirror did not hide his deficiencies, he tossed it to the ground quickly, saying, “Whoever owned this ugly thing threw it away because of its ugli- ness . 1 1 To keep temptation away from women, the Qabusnamah recommends only castrated black slave for service in the women’s apartment and warns the potential slave-buyer against choosing a slave who has “a white skin” or “a ruddy complexion” (p. 97; trans. p. 102).42 The Zanj opponents of Alexander in Nizami’s Sharaf- namah are “terrifying” and “ugly, with the hairless face of a beardless man (kusah),” and with “thick, hanging lips” and “pitch-colored skin” (pp. 108-11). Darabnamah–a twelfth-century romance about the adventures of Darab, Burandukht, and Alexander–includes several unflattering descriptions of blacks. The queen of a black tribe is “blacker than raven’s feather, her figure like a half- burnt plane tree–all stick and bones–her mouth like a trough, her teeth like a sheep’s ribs and yellower than saffron, their tips sticking out of her mouth… .Two chil- dren, like the offspring of a demon [afreet],were hanging from her neck.” She falls in love with Darab and enters his bed at night. Awaking, he takes her for a demon and hurls her into the sea.43 Elsewhere the romance contrasts the beauty of Turkish and Anatolian slave girls with the ugliness of a black queen and her female attendants. The white slave girls are “moon-faced and black-haired, with long wavy tresses and dark beauty spots…. ” In their gorgeous gowns and bejeweled headgear, they line up to re- ceive the black women, who, upon removing their veils, are discovered to be “black, with eyes like a cow’s eyes, noses flared like a buffalo’s nose, and with hanging lower lips .” Moved by this disparity, the heroine, Burandukht, offers “many thanks to God, for who [else] could create such ugly faces?” (II, 315).44In addition to being considered ugly, blacks are thought to have foul body odor or foul breath. In the Gulistan (1258), Sa’di describes a “negro-slave whose up- per lip was higher than his nostrils whilst the lower one hung down to his neck …. and a fountain of pitch emitted stench from his armpits.”45 In the anonymous romance of Alexander Iskandarnamah (twelfth to fourteenth century), the King of the Zanj, Qatil (literally., killer), is given a breath so foul that the white maidens he violates suffo- cate to death.46 … Some of the Islamic writings surveyed here reveal that Iranians and Arabs saw the black skin color as a pun- ishment inflicted by God, or as one of many physical de- fects resulting from an intemperate climate. These views perhaps attempted to explain or justify the blacks’ enslave- ment by presenting blacks as morally and physically inferior to whites. … A host of negative stereotypes is based on the notion of blacks’ supposed intellectual inferiority or their re- moteness from civilization. Discussing the “Regions of the Zanj,” Iranian geographer al-Qazwini states that “the learned believe that the Zanj are wicked among mankind (sharar al- nas) and for this reason are said to be the beasts among mankind (saba’ al-uns)” (p. 22). He quotes Galen’s ten specific attributes of the Zanj56 and adds that “some among the Zanj eat each other. In their wars they eat the flesh of their enemy and most of them go naked, with no clothes...” … If (various kinds of men) are taken.. .and one placed after another, like the Negro from Zanzibar, in the South-most countries, the Negro does not differ from an animal in anything except the fact that his hands have been lifted from the earth,–in no-other peculi- arity or property,–except for what God wishes. Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent.59 … Notions of the blacks’ primitive condition and pre- sumed weakness of intelligence occur also in literature, as shown in this tale in Sa’di’s Gulistan. Resolved to bestow Egypt “upon the meanest” of his slaves, Harun al- Rashid gave it to “a stupid negro.. .whom he made governor of Egypt but his intellect and discrimination were so limited that when.. .Egyptian agriculturalists complained …that they had sown cotton.. .and that an untimely rain had destroyed it he replied, ‘You ought to have sown wool”‘ … Four Iranian romances of Alexander can be profitably compared and contrasted for their treatment of blacks. … Expand- ing the Zanj episode, the three romances present blacks not only as primitive, but also as infidel savages and cannibals the war against whom is jihad. … The notion of the blacks’ weakness of intelligence also occurs in Iskandarnamah, where the narrator remarks: “The Zanj are slight-witted (kam ‘aql) and God, most high, has created them stupid, ignorant, and foul (palid) ” (p. 454). Unsurprisingly, both here and in Sharafnamah, the fierce but gullible Zanj are deceived and defeated by the cunning Alexander. Sharafnamah, Darabnamah, … Sharafnamah, Darabnamah, and Iskandarnamah also pre- sent blacks as monsters or devils (div, ahriman), cannibal- istic heathens, and enemies of mankind. The blacks in these romances are not domestic slaves, or slave-warriors–the kind of blacks the average Iranian perhaps saw–but fan- tastic creatures of myth, who neither act nor look human. The Zangi who was said to be less intelligent than the ape (Tasawwurat, p. 52; trans., pp. 57-58) might have awakened pity in the reader, but the ferocious Zanj of the above romances, the heathen who persists in cannibalism and re- jects the true God, must have aroused the audience’s fear and hate. The image of the Zanj as savage godless cannibals set on injuring and destroying believers removes them from the human community. … While histories and travels report that the Zanj eat each other, most literary sources picture them eating white people. … Among stereotyped attributes of the Zanj are great merriment, susceptibility to music and drink, and unbridled sexuality. ” … In the Persian Tutinamah, a fourteenth-century col- lection of tales based on the Indian Shukasaptati, many stories deal with the wiles of unfaithful wives. The pun- ishment for the adulteress is often death, but in one tale, where the lover is a Zangi, the emir orders “first that the face of the.. .wife be made as black as that of the Zangi and that the two [blacks] be thrown into consuming flames.“t78 Sa’di’s middle-aged narrator in the Bustan (1257) is repelled by the sight of a black man embracing a white woman (Kulliyat, p. 354; trans. Wickens, p. 182). A black man, long as mid-winter night! In his embrace a girl lay, like the moon Into whose lips he’d sunk his teeth; (Bilgis’ afreet [demon], you’d have said he was: In ugliness a very model for the devil!) Seized by the admonition to good behavior (amr-i bima’ruf), the narrator raises a clamor, forcing the black man to flee: “At my incantation the one of demonic aspect leapt away.” The woman offers the meddler no thanks, calls him “a hypo- critical prayer-mat spreader,” and blames him for spoiling her fun. To the narrator the black man is an afreet,to the woman an object of love and lust she has long sought after. … A woman touched by a black man is soiled and defiled, suggests a tale in Sa’di’s Gulistan (Kulliyat, pp. 106-107; trans. Rahetsak, pp. 111-12). The Negative Images of Blacks in Some Medieval Iranian Writings Author(s): Minoo Southgate Source: Iranian Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Winter, 1984), pp. 3-36 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of International Society for Iranian Studies

Lazar Kaganovich, the judeo-Marxist responsible for the murder of 10 million Ukrainians in the Holodomor, lived in comfort and luxury in Moscow on a regal pension until 1991, when he finally met Yahweh at the ripe old age of 97.  Not only was Kaganovich–one of the biggest murderers in the history of mankind–never tried for any of his crimes, he was rewarded for them! But according to Russia’s newest history textbooks, which were intoduced to the school curriculum under the reign of Vladimir Putin, the Holodomor was merely “managerial expediency” and Stalin, Kaganovich’s partner in crime, was a “successful manager”.  Clearly these textbooks should also be added to the “federal list of extremist literature”, as they deny the Ukrainian Holocaust and honour mass murderers.  They should, except that this law, much like all other “hate crime” legislature, is nothing more than an Orwellian ruse implemented by all the fiddlers on the roof, so that they can “yibby dibby dum” in peace while Rome burns and Romans are butchered by savages.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/3/26/worldupdates/2010-03-26T170629Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-472444-1&sec=Worldupdates

This new creed is very sacred. Certainly more sacred than the creed of Jesus Christ, the religious figure whose image has been immersed in urine and whose mother’s portrait has been composed out of manure and vagina cut-outs from pornographic magazines (mind you, however, all in the name of art). More sacred than the creed of the Prophet Mohammed—peace be upon him—as one particular people of the western lands, the Danes, have proved not too long ago (mind you, however, all in the name of our very valuable and very tangible freedoms).

Yes, there is a holocaust out there whose perpetrators were the incarnation of absolute evil. Sympathising in the slightest with these absolutely evil perpetrators or showing the minutest consideration for any of their beliefs is strictly verboten. In the event that one should be a world-renowned person of genius—like, let us say, Ezra Pound—and dare voice support for these doers of absolute evil without ever intending to kneel and repent before the New Inquisition, one will be dealt with accordingly by being labelled a madman and involuntarily committed to an insane asylum.

But then there are other holocausts, holocausts which, some would say, claimed many more human lives and were greater crimes against humanity than The Holocaust of the New and Only Creed, and are consequently of greater importance. The followers of these other holocausts feel that they should be allowed to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution. They believe that the western states should contribute just as much to the veneration of their holocausts as they do to The Holocaust. And in this time of religious tolerance, does this oppressed minority not have a point? Perhaps it does, but this point stubbornly refuses to be taken.

And who would there be to take it, anyway? Our highest intellectual authority, the Nobel-issuing body, awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature to the Notorious Holocaust Denier and Bolshevik Sympathiser Sartre. Granted, this man, who harboured no hatred whatsoever towards Nature and Beauty and Humanity for his enchanting bedroom eyes, eventually did acknowledge the existence of and shake hands with the Gulag, but it was a very reluctant handshake indeed. During that handshake, one could almost hear him muttering contemptibly under his nose: “Those weak Christian Slavs—all 20 million of them. A piece of bread a day coupled with daylong hard labour in -50 temperatures is nothing to die from.”

He would later go on to describe Che Guavera as “the most complete human being of our age.”  One can only imagine what kind of a complete human being, that is, what kind of a mass-murdering, mass-pillaging, rapist of a revolutionist the Notorious Holocaust Denier and Bolshevik Sympathiser Sartre would have been had he been born strong and healthy in South America or Czarist Russia.