Dragging myself to “work” one morning a couple weeks back -- and yes, only now writing about it, now that “work” has given me a little leisure to do so, thank you very much -- I espied a copy of the Arts section of the Times lying atop, appropriately, a trashcan. Apparently unsoiled, it gave promise of an opportunity to examine the new cultural outrages perpetrated therein, without either adding my own pitiful pence to their vast horde of Rheingold, nor wasting my time -- and ten “free” views per month or whatever -- on their website.
And I was not disappointed, finding this on the very front page:
Rockwell Biography Angers His Family
By JULIE BOSMAN
December 2, 2013
Fortunately, the Times has mercy on its readers, and provides the “evidence,” thus obviating the need to wade in La Solomon’s mud pit. Here then, in toto, are Judge Solomon’s two bits of “evidence” -- make sure ladies, children, and the faint-hearted are out of the room, gentlemen:
In the book, Ms. Solomon raises the question of whether Rockwell was gay, writing that he “demonstrated an intense need for emotional and physical closeness with men,” and that his marriages may have been a strategy for “controlling his homoerotic desires.” She described a camping trip in Quebec that Rockwell took with his male assistant, during which the men swam and played cards together late into the night, and Rockwell noted in his diaries that his assistant looked “most fetching in his long flannels.” There is nothing, Ms. Solomon cautioned in the book, “to suggest that he had sex with men.”
Later in the book, Ms. Solomon writes that “we are made to wonder whether Rockwell’s complicated interest in the depiction of preadolescent boys was shadowed by pedophilic impulses.” She again added a disclaimer: “There is no evidence that he acted on his impulses or behaved in a way that was inappropriate for its time.”
Brrr! Fair makes the blood run cold! What an inhuman monster! Admiring a man in long flannels; what’s next, a remake of American Gigolo starring Percy Kilbride? I knew we had to keep the fags our of our military’s showers, lest they get fired up over our firm Marine buttocks -- Hell, they‘re only human, I suppose -- but apparently we’re not even safe in our union suits!
Alright, I know it's not a union suit, but you get the point.
And doncha love that “we are made to wonder” -- who’s this ‘we’, the reader being brainwashed by Tribeswoman Solomon? And then the coy “no evidence that he acted on his impulses” … which “impulses” have yet to be established -- leaving the naïve reader with the impression that what needs proof is the action, not the insinuated impulse.
Oh, what subtle skill 2000 years of perfidy can develop!
Of course, all we really have here -- if true -- is Rockwell’s participation in the long tradition in Western art of the Cult of the Beautiful Boy, the chief modern theorists of which are, oddly enough, two ladies: Camille Paglia (“The Beautiful Boy as Destroyer” in Sexual Personae, 1990) and Germaine Greer (The Beautiful Boy, 2003).
(For the similar cult in the medieval poetry of supposedly “homophobic“ Islam, see Peter Lamborn Wilson’s Scandal: Essays in Islamic Heresy (1998), and for a similarly hysterical denounciation, see Muhammad Knight’s abortive “biography” of Wilson, oddly titled William S. Burroughs Vs. the Qur'an.
And if Rockwell did feel a need for “closeness with men” and was able to occasionally respond physically to a young man in long johns, this is no more than the perfectly healthy ambisexuality of the human animal, as James Neill establishes, with the mountains of evidence so conspicuously absent from La Solomon’s smear job; so much evidence, in fact, that you would be well advised to read my review-essay on Neill’s book first -- get it here, .99 cents, cheap!
Nothing to see here; unless, of course, you’re a crazy “family values” Judaic inflamed with a hatred of both “queers” and Western culture, especially as manifested in pre-1950s America -- which Solomon no doubt thinks is just one big incubator for “the Holocaust”.
However, looked at critically, the kerfuffle in quite instructive. What a perfect storm of motives and reactions, exposing to the light of day -- for those who can SEE -- the operations of the Smearbund.
First, the “scholarly” (i.e., made up junk written by a Tribesperson) hatchet job.
Then, excite a “controversy” so that the accusation, hidden in the unread and unreadable Talmudic verbiage, can be aired in the chat columns of the broadsheets, tabloids, and “news accumulators” like Gawker, Slate or HuffPo, which is all anyone reads anyway, so as to have the latest cultural tidbit to exchange with the like-minded so as to weld or reaffirm ones membership in The Elite.
“Did you hear what that moron Sarah Palin said?” As if one habitually listened to her, or anyone’s, speeches. And notice how one always “knows” just what recent morsel is being referenced, as per the script.
“Did you hear that Norman Rockwell was a big old poofter? No, that doesn’t make him cool, he was the bad kind, so repressed that he didn’t even know he was, and a child molester too. Too bad he’s not around anymore, I’d like him to rape one of Sarah Palin’s cross-eyed brats!”
And note the further subtlety: that, while Julie and the Times are sure to have already done their job promoting the work of fellow Tribeswoman Solomon, with grants and book contracts, followed by no doubt a puff review, and constant “best-seller list” appearances, the whole ethnic networking scam, not even most Times readers, to say nothing of those of us who only get the trashcan edition, would have know a thing about the “controversy” if the family hadn’t got its nose out of joint and stuck it in, as the Times smugly notes:
The Rockwell family’s statements have drawn a sudden spotlight to portions of the book that, until now, had not been the center of discussions of the book in the press.
Ah, the goyim -- what would we do without ye?
Even those self-appointed guardians of the West, rushing to defend Rockwell against “the perfidious Jews” suffer from the same “already surrendered” mentality.
Take, for example, Michael Hoffman, to whom one might apply with more justice the slogan of the IFC cable network: Always on, slightly off.
On, as in, always on the alert to detect the hand of our Enemy, and his machinations, no matter -- or especially -- how occult or downright mystical.
Off, as in, always seeing things from the perspective of what appears to be a rugged, barely literate 16th century Protestant heretic, living in a one-cult village deep in the Alps. The Jews really were God’s people until they rejected Christ. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid the hand of the Devil, whether in Rabbinic Judaism or Roman Catholicism; etc. Recreating the intellectual atmos of a Jeremias Gotthelf tale in modern Idaho is quite an achievement, if only for its sheer perversity.
And so with “In Defense of Norman Rockwell” by Michael Hoffman (December 11, 2013). “On”: he seems to be working from the original book right from the start, not a random find on a trashcan. He cites a further critical discussion on First Things. Etc.
But, also, “off”: Notice how, just like the Rockwell family, he falls right into the trap: yes, indeed it would be a horrible thing if Rockwell, like every significant Western artist, had any tinge of the Cult of the Beautiful Boy -- but fortunately, it’s just not true! Whew!
And so Hoffman goes off on a typical excursus, documenting, from the Talmud to today, the Judaic doctrine that all goyim are perverts, and as well, that the Judaic has no duty of telling the truth about the goyim. Put the two together, and you get the Rockwell smear. QED!
What Hoffman doesn’t notice is what Schopenhauer used to call the “first false step”: the smear only works if you accept the prior Judaic devaluation of the Cult.
Thus is Judaism’s uniquely unnatural -- and thus, truly deserving the word perverted -- homophobia continually renewed and preserved, even -- especially -- by they greatest “enemies”.
And let us draw the curtain on this sorry spat by pointing out what lies at the heart of this, like all Judaic rages against White culture, especially Realism in the arts:
“The 19th century hatred of Realism is Caliban's enraged reaction to seeing his own face in the mirror.” -- Oscar Wilde
