after the Cold War. This has been sold as democratic, but as a matter of political theory, promoting low
art in the place of high or “aristocratic” art is obviously more closely tied to Marxism. America has
been a Democracy from the beginning, but almost no one had any problem with the art in museums
until Marxism arrived. This is because Democracy or Republicanism didn't create the idea that
museum art belonged only to the upper classes. Republicanism as practiced in the US through the 19
century only promoted the idea that museums were for everyone, and that everyone should be given the
education to enjoy them. The idea of tearing them down and replacing them with a collection of
vulgarities never occurred to anyone in those days. It was Marxism that was used (perhaps pushed) to
suggest that the pastimes of the rich and poor were intrinsically different, and that the institutions of the
rich should be pulled down and replaced by proletarian creations. Therefore, the idea that Modern Art
is anti-leftist in any way is absurd. It may be anti-Democratic—if only because it has been promoted
by fascists—but it can't be anti-Marxist since the whole idea of destroying “aristocratic art” came from
Marxists. You see how the alliance here is between fascists and Marxists, just as in the Soviet Union.
Those like the Rockefellers, who wanted complete control over both politics and economics, allied
themselves early on to what was then Marxist or anti-aristocratic art. Primarily they did it because it
they had invested in it, and they had to protect that investment. But they found that Marxism also
competed with and weakened the existing Democratic principles, which of course was an added benefit
to those who wished for complete control. While 19
century progressives only wanted fairness, 20
century progressives—spurred on by a pushed Marxism—wanted revenge. They wanted revenge not
only on those who had money, but perhaps even more on those who had talent. In the creative markets,
it was revenge against talent that had more to do with the new theories than revenge against money.
Both the Futurists and the Dadaists were driven by what Nietzsche had called ressentiment—an
unabashed hatred of those who could do anything they couldn't. In art, the 20
century was the played-
out theory of Futurism, as I have shown elsewhere.
But either way—whether it was hatred for those
with money or talent—it played right into the hands of the Rockefellers and other billionaires (at least
as long as they were hidden). Every time a market was destroyed, for whatever reason, they could
jump in and reconstruct it on their own terms. Therefore, any sort of destabilization was welcomed by
them, and after a while they began to create it. And every time they recreated a market, they rebuilt it
on a lower level.
The entire 20
century reads like an inversion of sense, with the Russians killing a Czar, incorporating
Marxism, and then holding on proudly to the vestiges of the old art with the ballet, the paintings in the
Hermitage, and the old realist schools; while at the same time the US is promoting lotto tickets, slashed
canvases, cans of excrement, soup cans, and pornography as art, and claiming to do it to fight
Communism. Even more farcical is that when we lift the curtain, we find families like the Rockefellers
—who believe in Democracy about as strongly as the Stuarts or Bourbons did—running the show.
Although Modern Art is supposed to come from the furthest reaches of the left—think of the far-right
Jesse Helms railing against the NEA in Congress in 1989—when we look closer we see the
Rockefellers and the CIA behind MOMA. And when we finally get the whole picture in focus, we find
them claiming Modernism was promoted in the 1950's because it was anti-leftist. Madness.
Those such as MOMA director Alfred Barr were paid to invert this truth, but in hindsight the truth is
pretty easy to see regardless. In a series of articles going back to the 1940s, Barr argued that
totalitarianism and realism went together, but that abstract art was an art of freedom and democracy.
Given what we know now—that abstract art was actually sponsored by fascist old-money families who
were trying to suppress any real uprisings—that argument crumbles into dust. Pollock and the rest
weren't free-style progressives, they were stooges bought off by the billionaires. They were fake artists
hired to pose as real artists, so that real artists could be killed off. They were puppets of the cloaked
fascists. And that applies to all the famous “avant garde” phonies to this day, who preen as
How to C#: Basic SDK Concept of XDoc.PDF for .NET
You may add PDF document protection functionality into your C# program. Hyperlink Edit. XDoc.PDF for .NET allows C# developers to edit hyperlink of PDF document add link to pdf file; pdf edit hyperlink
progressives while being fronts for the Rockefellers. None of this ended with the end of the Cold War
or the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is ongoing to this day. Modernism continues to be propped up by the
Plutocrats and their million hired mouthpieces and moneybags, against the will of the people, the will
of Congress, and the will of all real artists. And this is sold back to us as progressive.
As I have said before, Modernism was never promoted to combat Communism. In that sense this
leaking of the program by Saunders and the Independent may just be one more turn of the screw.
Modernism as promoted by the Rockefellers, the CIA, and the major museums and galleries hasn't been
about fighting Communism, much less about promoting Democracy. It has been about promoting
Fascism. It has been about control, pure and simple. With the manufactured rise of Modernism, the
monied interests of all kinds obtained greater and greater control over artists, markets, and all possible
spin-offs of the markets, including political propaganda. What had been the natural history of art,
determined by artists and patrons, would now become unnatural, determined completely by the
plutocracy in secret, for secret purposes, by secret agencies.
[Addendum: see my newer paper on Marx
, where I show that Marx himself was a cloaked plutocrat
and an agent, and that Marxism has been a front for the Industrialists from the very beginning.]
Those purposes were many, but the original one and still the main one was to protect the original
investments. Remember, Abby Rockefeller began collecting Modern Art in about 1925. Some rich
ladies start art galleries, but that wasn't enough for the wife of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. No, she wanted
to start a major museum, and did. She founded MOMA moments after the Wall Street Crash of 1929,
and although the paid historians go to some effort to assure us that was a coincidence, we aren't
convinced. Most people of the time didn't have a way to protect their investments, but of course the
Rockefellers did. They knew what would happen before it happened, and they knew because they were
causing it to happen. At any rate, Abby was soon heavily invested in Modern Art, and within a couple
of decades, many of the other Rockefellers were as well. Nelson Rockefeller alone had collected over
2,500 pieces of Modern Art, and thousands more covered the walls of the Rockefeller owned Chase-
Manhattan banks. Although some of the superwealthy may have resisted this initial investment on
grounds of taste, their light resistance was overcome when they saw how well this protected investment
paid out. Since the Rockefellers had infinite amounts of money to promote their new investment—and
since they could also use the government to promote and protect their investment—it was a guaranteed
So you see, Abby's original investment seeded the whole tragedy. Once it was done it couldn't be
undone. The Rockefellers couldn't let her foray into art fail, and once the whole thing started it couldn't
be stopped. It grew and grew and grew like kudzu, until it took over the entire art market. Even before
the Second World War, the Rockefellers had already begun to use Intelligence—which they considered
their own private staff—to promote and ensure the success of Modernism. And this is still going on.
The market is still controlled by the families of the investors, and they still use the government—
including Intelligence—to guarantee their investments. This explains why the major newspapers and
magazines print a constant barrage of promotion for Modernism and the avant garde to this day,
although their readers care nothing for it. They are protecting the investments of their owners. It also
explains why places like Forbes**
or the Wall Street Journal
have long published articles
realism: they were destroying the competition. This is still happening, which means traditional art
requires constant suppression. Without strong outside influence, Modernism and postmodernism
would die immediate deaths, to be replaced with quality creations by real artists.
And yet another thing is revealed in all this. In recent papers I have mentioned the Church Committee
hearings in the Senate
, from 1975-76, which investigated improper reach by the Intelligence
communities during the term of Nixon (and before). President Ford appointed Vice President Nelson
Rockefeller to head a simultaneous investigation of the CIA from the White House. Knowing what we
now know, we have to laugh. That was essentially appointing the CIA to investigate itself. What the
Rockefellers did is leak inessential and tangential information to the Senate, while at the same time
whitewashing it and spinning that information. After Watergate, they knew they had to declassify a
few things, to make the public think something was being done. But they weren't about to reveal
anything important, and they weren't about to be forced to rollback one centimeter. They used their
people in the press—like Paul Harvey and many others—to imply that the investigation was treasonous
and that it would hurt the long-term viability of Intelligence. But the truth is, Intelligence was already
so powerful at the time it was able to use the event to actually expand. It was almost like a test. The
CIA was being tested to see how successfully it could snow the Congress and the American people, in a
public forum. It was so incredibly successful that it was encouraged to expand. It could see that there
were no limits to its power, so why even pretend to obey the laws or the Constitution? This is what led
to ever larger manufactured events, culminating in 911.
Ironically, this success also led to the rise of DHS and NSA, which have both now become so large
they begin to compete with or overshadow the CIA. We no longer have a government, we just have
competing Intelligence agencies squabbling for markets and power in the dark. In China, where
Intelligence is a monad, they would take the time to shut down a small-time “blogger” like me, even
though I am just a nuisance. But here in the States, they have bigger fish to fry. They know that my
readers and I don't have the resources to seriously inconvenience them, so we can write and think what
we wish. That is the source of any continued freedom you and I still have, not the Constitution or
Congress or the Courts. The Agencies don't care what you think. The truth can't harm them. It has
gotten to the point where they leak the truth themselves, to inconvenience one another—or just for fun.
The secret agencies are so powerful they don't even have to be secret anymore. Haven't you noticed
how all the movies and TV shows are about the CIA now? They write about themselves, because that
is what they know and because they can. So what if you see through them? Suppose you learn the
whole truth? Suppose you decode the MATRIX? What are you going to do about it? Same thing you
are doing now: nothing.
What you don't understand is that the government isn't spying on me or you and isn't buying hollow-
point ammunition out of fear of me or you. The agencies learned a long time ago that the American
people don't have the gumption for a revolution. They know we don't have the wherewithal to take
over a rural post office, much less the Federal Government. The agencies are scared of eachother. As
we have seen, this fear causes even more expansion and more chaos on a daily basis. The Intelligence
agencies are so large they have even begun to threaten the military budgets, which brings another
player into the game. So it is not another World War you should be most concerned about, it is another
Civil War, and it is already going on. The only good news is that you will probably not be involved
directly, except as an ignorant financial casualty. They will not draft you or garrison your home or burn
your city. They will only continue to co-opt your capital to fund their (mostly) hidden battles. So your
best bet is to live day-to-day and collect only things they don't want: like, say, old books, heirloom
seeds, or realist art.
And so the mystery is solved, though it gives me little satisfaction at last. All the honest people, in art
and out of it, who have over the years struggled to understand why art has become what it has, are now
answered. It was no accident, no natural outcome of culture, no fruition of individual choices, no
historical necessity. Those who thought it must be an evil plan all along are proved correct, for that is
exactly what it was. It appears that art history was destroyed on purpose, with full premeditation and as
part of a grand black architecture, only to further enrich those who were already obscenely rich. In this
way it was a precursor to and analogy of the banking manipulation, the stock market manipulation, the
energy manipulation, the pharmaceutical manipulation, the GMO manipulation, the military
manipulation, and the fake war on terror, in which more and more millionaires become billionaires by
destroying a real market and setting up a fake market in its place. This is the New World Order—
though it isn't new—and fake art has long had its place in it.
[Addendum: in a newer paper
, I show that I still hadn't hit bedrock in this paper. Although down the
rabbit hole, I was still at least two floors up from the basement. It turns out that protecting the original
investment had little to do with it. Propaganda was also only a sidelight. Money laundering may
have been the main line all along.]
That article in the Independent told us that the CIA was actually much more progressive than Congress
and the President in the 1950's and 60's, being composed of agents who collected art and wrote novels
in their spare time. I find that hard to believe, but let us suppose there were and are some agents then
and now who are progressive, patriotic, or well meaning. Can they be happy about the fact that the
country is being controlled, manipulated, and now destroyed, simply to further enrich some old
families? Can they be happy about what art has become? I don't see how. Again, this may explain the
split we now seem to see. It may be that the Praetorian Guard has grown weary of its own Caesars, and
that Nero is watching his back.
If you haven't studied that article at the Independent, you had better do so immediately. You had better
think about it long and hard. Only after that, return to this paper. Otherwise you won't follow me. You
will think I am a “conspiracy theorist”, or that I have gone mad, or that I am making excuses for
myself. How many times have I heard that over the years? But it isn't a theory, and it was never my
theory anyway. I had other theories about why art had become what it is, but the CIA and the
Rockefellers were never a part of it. I had long thought that art was mainly beneath the notice of the
government. I was never close to unwinding what the government was up to, since I couldn't begin to
see how Modernism helped it. I could never see how destroying art was in the interest of anyone
except bad artists and people with no taste. The idea that the NEA was actually run by fascist old
families who were protecting their 90-year-old investments was the furthest thing from my mind. And,
you know, this is what protected the secret: it was too ridiculous for anyone to propose on his own.
But it isn't a theory, since it has been admitted. They have confessed. They are still trying to spin it,
even in their confession, but it doesn't matter. It is all in the open now and we can see it for what it
was. It takes very little extrapolation from the confessions published at the Independent to conclude
that all the arts were taken over by the government, at the behest of those who were in control of the
government (like the Rockefellers, Morgans, Fords, MacArthurs, Carnegies, Vanderbilts, etc.), and
redefined to make them easier to control. At first this control just ensured the original investments, but
later this Modern Art could be further stripped down and vulgarized and used to promote things no one
would think the government would be promoting, like drug use, homosexuality, the destruction of the
family, and the destruction of the church. And this takeover predates WW2 by decades. In fact, it
predates WW1, as I think you will find if you pursue this research.
To give you an example I didn't get to in my last paper, we may look at The Great Gatsby, published in
1925 [same year that Abby Rockefeller began investing in Modern Art]. Once I had proved to myself
that the Beat Generation had been manufactured, I began to look at other famous poets and writers, and
my suspicions fell immediately on F. Scott Fitzgerald, whom I have always considered to be vastly
overrated. I only did a cursory analysis of the timeline, but I quickly uncovered some red flags.
Although I don't have enough evidence to claim Fitzgerald was ever hired by Intelligence (yet), I did
find evidence that his fame was later created by them. It is known that The Great Gatsby was a flop
when it came out. Neither the critics nor the public were impressed. So why is it now so famous?
Why was it second on the Modern Library list
of best novels in 1998? Well, although only 25,000
copies sold between 1925 and 1942, the Council on Books in Wartime (CBW) printed 155,000 copies
in 1942 and distributed them free during WW2. Do the math, please. That means the book sold fewer
than 1,500 copies per year, based on its previous levels of promotion (which were not low). They then
printed in one year more than six times as many copies as were sold in 17 years. That is a promotion
more than 100 times (6.2 x 17 = 105.4) the demand, which surely qualifies as unnatural. It isn't
capitalism, it isn't supply and demand, it isn't even advertising. It is the creation of opinion. It is
dogma. It is cultural fascism. What they did with The Great Gatsby they have done with many of the
other books on the lists.
We are told that this CBW was a non-profit NGO created by booksellers, publishers, librarians and
authors, but that is a whitewash. Even Wikipedia admits
the CBW “cooperated with the Office of War
Information,” which indicates it was at best a joint public/private initiative and at worst another
example of government propaganda hiding behind an NGO front. Knowing what we now know about
other such ventures, the odds are approaching 1 in 1 that it is the latter. At the link above, you will find
that the aim of the CBW was
to channel the use of books as "weapons in the war of ideas" (the Council's motto). Its primary aim was the
promotion of books to influence the thinking of the American people regarding World War II. . . . The Council
attempted to achieve its goals by acting as a clearinghouse for book-related ideas, by being an intermediary
between the book-trade industry and government agencies, by offering advice to publishers, and by handling all
forms of public relations including distribution of reading lists and pamphlets, lectures, radio programs, newsreels,
and book promotion and publication.
A “weapon in the war of ideas” is of course the definition of propaganda. And that last sentence
doesn't fit the definition of an NGO. An NGO is an entity “that operates independently from any form
of government.” Being an “intermediary between an industry and a government agency” is not
“operating independently from any form of government.” The words “cooperated” and “intermediary”
are being used to hide the fact that the government and publishers were working together to promote art
they wished to promote, for whatever reasons they had at the time.
You see, the question is, was this agency working with the government or not? We are told it was.
Therefore it was not independent of the government. You cannot work with someone and be
independent of them at the same time. That would be like someone asking about your girl Gertrude
and you saying, “Well, yes, I married her, but we are still single.” Beyond that little reminder of the
definitions of words, we should know that we are being snowed in much bigger ways here. It isn't just
words that are being redefined as their opposites, it is these word games being used to cover huge lies.
The truth is, both the government agencies and the NGO's were just fronts for greater powers. Both
were controlled by the same invisible hands. Remember, government is just another tool of the very
wealthy. Those in the agencies, government or non-government, aren't making the big decisions. They
don't call the shots. It is the hidden oligarchy which does that.
But why would these rich people wish to promote the ideas in The Great Gatsby? Its claim to being
great literature aside, the book doesn't encourage the sort of patriotism the CBW or the OWI would
seem to be interested in. Since the book is mainly a stringing together of adultery, domestic violence,
and pointless deaths, with no feel of being any kind of morality play warning against any of these
things, we may be surprised to find the government giving it away for free as part of a giant
propaganda sweep. I think it is clear that Fitzgerald was not being promoted as part of the war effort.
He was being promoted as part of the century-long promotion of decadence and dissolution. The
government needed to dissolve everything that had come before in order to replace it with its own new
products. Among those things that had come before were art, the family, stability, morality, the church,
self-reliance and self-determination. You don't see the government or any NGO's giving out for free
150,000 copies of Emerson's Self-Reliance, do you? How about Thoreau's Civil Disobedience? Do
you think the CBW gave out any copies of that?
Which brings us back to Wolfe. It is now clear to me that Wolfe was hired as opposition control. He
told us what we wanted to hear and then misdirected our anger to the wrong party. The whole point of
The Painted Word seems to be to make people like me think that critics were the bad guys in this story.
Wolfe goes after the critics Greenberg, Rosenberg, and Steinberg, making us think they are the top of
the food chain. Wolfe had done the same thing the year before, attacking Hilton Kramer in 1974 for
attacking realists. So Wolfe, while appearing to be our champion, was probably only an infiltrator.
And I bought it. As so many of my precursors must have been led to concentrate on these critics in the
1970's and 80's, I was led to do so in the 1990's. One of my first articles was written to analyze and
answer Clement Greenberg. It was later published by Artrenewal, and it is still on my website. But
since Greenberg was probably just another CIA hire,
posting his pontifications from Langley, Virginia
or some such place, all my effort was wasted. Like the rest, I was chasing puppets and ignoring the
invisible puppetmasters. Wolfe sent me on a two-decade wild goose chase, a chase that has only just
ended with his feathers in my hands.
This also explains why Wolfe was attacked in such strange ways in 1975, and why he brushed it off
with a grin, soon leaving the fight to concentrate on other things. One critic called Wolfe a Manchurian
Candidate. Agents would call eachother Manchurian Candidates, wouldn't they? You write what you
know. Four others, including the critics for TIME, The New York Times Review of Books, and
, used odd images of pornography to attack Wolfe. In three he was a boy at an X-rated
movie who couldn't understand the plot. The other compared him to Linda Lovelace in Deepthroat.
This was a major clue, though no one read it right at the time. How could three major critics hit on the
same “boy in an X-rated movie” slur at the same time, unless they were being fed script from the same
Agency? As we now see, the whole tempest was manufactured. This was one wing of the CIA
attacking another wing, both giving the other credence in opposition. None of these critics, including
Wolfe, cared anything about art or the defense of any kind of it. They were simply keeping your eyes
off the puppetmasters. Whether you were pro or con Greenberg was not the point. The point was to
keep your eyes on Greenberg and all these other writers and artists and off the Rockefellers and the
It explains why Wolfe, despite seeming to be a champion of realism, never did anything about it. Don't
you find it odd that these defenders of realism never discover someone or something to promote? You
will say I am just complaining because Wolfe never promoted me, but that isn't the point. He never
None of them ever do. Although they have entrée into all the major magazines and
publishing houses, you never see any of them review a realist, much less promote one.
This also explains Adam Gopnik's recent failure to promote Jacob Collins
, though we can see he
wanted to. Since Gopnik, a prominent art critic for the New Yorker, was so interested in Collins, the
natural and logical thing for him to do was to review one of Jacob's shows, or promote him in a
straightforward manner. This is what art critics used to do, back before the Rockefellers and
Intelligence took over art. Why didn't he? He wasn't allowed to.
It also explains Robert Hughes and his fall from mainstream grace
. It appears to me that Hughes was
probably on the payroll back then like the rest, but finally turned in his Agency pin sometime in the
1990's. He is the only one I know of who turned his boat 180
and began sailing boldly back into the
wind. That is why his writings are no longer published on this side of the pond, and why his films are
blacklisted as well.
We were reminded in my last paper that Modernism was very unpopular in the 50's and 60's. The
Independent admitted it, telling the story of how President Truman expressed the common opinion
when he said, “If that's art, I'm a Hottentot.” Well, Modernism is still very unpopular. Among normal
people, it is just as unpopular as it was then, and only Agents, paid academics, and some
impressionable youths claim to like it. That being so, you may ask why no rich or famous person in
any field ever promotes anything but Modernism. Don't you find it odd that there seems to be
absolutely no split, not even a 90/10 split, Modern to Traditional? No top writers promote traditional
art, no movie stars buy it, no rock stars, no TV personalities, no computer geeks, no billionaires, no
derivatives traders, no bankers, no politicians, NO ONE FAMOUS. In the land of the free, in a country
that is supposed to be bipartisan and politically divided, that is supposed to question authority and think
outside box, etc, etc, no one buys, promotes, or talks about realism except Tom Wolfe, and he only talks
about it every thirty years or so, in abstract terms. Don't you find that the least bit curious?
I will told that Andrew Lloyd Webber collects realism, but that is Victorian realism, not 20
realism. Apparently you are still allowed to collect realism before 1890, since it doesn't directly
compete with Modernism. And Webber is not American. As a Baron created by the Queen, he is
allowed to like old realism if he wants to. You aren't.
Although we are told the market is pluralistic, the major magazines, museums, exhibitions, and awards
all go to the Moderns. The realists have nothing. Not even a small slice. NOTHING. Yes, the realists
have their own separate market, but it is considered downmarket and ahistorical, and is completely
ignored by the mainstream—except as a target of vitriol and slander. The total value of the realist
market isn't 1 in 10,000 that of the Modern market.
Realism is completely ignored by the mainstream because it is completely ignored by the Rockefellers,
the CIA, and the government. Why? Because it does not fit their agenda. Real art is not controllable,
it isn't as easily propagandized, and it isn't as easy to inflate as a fake commodity. Real people have
some feel for real art, which means they can understand and therefore estimate its real value. The new
salesmen don't want that. They want art which they can inflate in value by thousands or millions of
times, and to do that they need objects that people can't make heads nor tails of. Real things have a
grounding, but only fake things are limitless.
With this in mind, I encourage you to revisit Wolfe's oeuvre. But even before we get there, we have red
flags popping up everywhere. Wolfe attended the American Studies doctoral program at Yale. Do you
remember what we learned from my last paper? Quoting from the Independent:
At this time [1950's and 60's] the new Agency, staffed mainly by Yale and Harvard graduates, many of whom
collected art and wrote novels in their spare time. . . .
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested