by Arthur Thief
IF YOU ARE READING this, hello! You may call me Art Thief.
Normally I prefer a more formal mode of writing, however as this is an introduction I feel a friendlier, more personal tone in the first person voice is apropos.
I have been offering commentary on various National Vanguard articles for several years now, very shortly after I stumbled across the site some time around the election of Donald Trump. It was on one of my first comments (if not my very first) that I began using this nom de guerre, Art Thief. It was here, on an article regarding the confiscation of fine art works from the Jews during the National Socialist period in Germany in the latter 1930s.
I would like to take a moment to truly expound upon and explain that comment and lay to bed some myths, misconceptions, and general perfidy contained in the accusation that “the Nazis stole art from the Jews.” That accusation cannot be held to be true by any internally consistent moral code espoused by those who have leveled it. The article linked above focuses solely upon that hypocrisy, ceding the moral ground of the accusation of theft, by focusing upon the fact that Germany was subsequently plundered by the victorious Allies at the end of that conflict. As I state in my comment, this is a grave error and an unnecessary concession. For those who prefer brevity, my comment should suffice; however, for those that prefer a more rigorous analysis in determining moral rightness, please read on.
The entire argument is of course an odd duck; why on Earth would anyone spare the mental effort and emotional energy in concern with the “theft” of any quantity or quality of art, especially in light of the fact that much if not all of it was subsequently recovered upon Germany’s defeat, given the other far more horrible accusations against the Germans which are generally accepted as true? Does quibbling about a few daubs, or even a host of masterpieces, really matter against a backdrop of supposedly millions of murders?
I have several ideas as to why this myth has not been consigned to the memory hole, with Western edutainment happily cranking out reams of lurid “Holocaust” propaganda, but that is a topic for another time. To put it shortly, I believe this is an effort to establish a buttress against the erosion of the Holocaust narrative by ensuring there is a multidimensional emotional programming ensuring that the listener automatically equates “the Nazis” to evil in all forms, and thus to more readily accept a blatantly false and even ludicrous accusation against them, or more quickly reject an otherwise sound and well-presented opinion or belief from them. In short, it is to ensure that even when doubt is created around the Holocaust, the Western mind is still primed with “Nazis bad” — and thus can more easily lay those doubts to rest.
This, in turn, is why I feel it necessary to ensure we do not cede moral advantage on this — or any similar — topic.
The accusation’s particulars are as follows.
According to the hype, the National Socialists stole — the word “confiscated” is never used in this case — art in the form of paintings, sculptures, and architectural pieces from the Jews and other undesirables as they were expelled from Germany and occupied territories. It is usually alleged that they simply stashed these pieces away. No reason is ever given for this; the purpose of the accusation is to prove that “Nazis” are the epitome of evil, so any further explanation other than “evil Nazis” is not needed.
Interestingly, the Jews’ own modern arts carry clues to these questions and their answers, such as the movie Rush Hour; though, they of course do not see the hypocrisy that such exposes. However, this is getting ahead of myself.
The narrative goes on to allege that when the Allies “liberated” conquered Germany, vast troves of this confiscated art (one article insists that over 1,500 paintings were recently recovered from one hold-out alone) were discovered in underground vaults, warehouses, and the private collections of National Socialist officials. We are then told that where possible, this has been returned to those who supposedly were the rightful owners or their heirs — or simply given to the State of Israel.
However, there are some points that should be absolutely clarified. The first is that by and large, these artifacts were not “stolen,” however much one might like to paint the National Socialists with the “bad” brush. The National Socialists were the legitimate national authority in Germany at the time, and their policies were law. This was the confiscation of property under law, no more a “theft” than the imposition of a tax or tariff; the majority of those commenting on these events as a “theft” would never deign to call taxation theft, let alone slavery reparations; indeed, as the original article points out, these pieces and more were subsequently plundered by the Allies. Likewise, even tax-objecting Republicans seem to generally have no issue with confiscating the property of drug cartel kingpins, “terrorists,” or even the “Nazis” against whom they leveled this accusation.
Another point to clarify is the nature and origin of the art; in fact, this is the center point of my argument. Based on a DuckDuckGo image search of “stolen nazi art,” I find two distinct classes of images. The first are photos taken at the time, either of National Socialist officials posing with or examining “stolen” art, or of Allied soldiers uncovering the “stashes of stolen art.” The majority in this category are classical pieces: sculpture, paintings, and even the odd architectural piece such as a marble column, and all in the classical and neoclassical and other high European art traditions. Most of these are very much of the Gothic and other Germanic styles. The second category are full-color modern images of art in an abstract, modernist style with no evidence linking them to having been directly lifted from a “Nazi stash.” Indeed, the majority of the articles found in my search describe the pieces having been liberated from individuals’ private collections many decades later. We are given only the accusation itself to tie these pieces to the National Socialists. There are a few pieces that straddle the line between the categories (modernist but still German, such as pieces by Klimt), but these and the first category all share a thing in common: They are German. None of the art that can be directly tied to having been confiscated as a matter of National Socialist policy (a private collection by a Brownshirt who broke Party rules on Kristalknacht and engaged in actual theft do not count, nor should they) is art by or for Jews or any other foreign people. Every bit of it is distinctly German; the pieces that can be confirmed via being specifically identified are in fact German, and this point is paramount.
Before stressing this point I will concede one thing to all of these articles: The art “stolen” was priceless and utterly irreplaceable, of a nature that cheap copies will not suffice to serve in their place.
Returning to my point, the entire nature of the “stolen” collections were that they were uniquely, utterly, and irreplaceably German. The vast majority of the outliers are still entirely European.
We must also stress the nature of the “theft” itself, as well; when we are told of “stashes” and shown images of art being recovered from abandoned mines, castles, and old warehouses the question of “why” hangs overhead. For a time, the Jews passed off stories of monocle-wearing insane and austere Germans of a militaristic bent who absolutely hated culture; in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, we are fed the idea that the “Nazi” idea of culture consisted only of book-burning, military garb, and waving the Swastika while the Koniggratzer Marsch blares on. However, such caricature does not have explanatory power, especially when the truth is readily available. It is well known and widely acknowledged that Hitler intended for Berlin to become the singular cultural center for all of Europe, and planned great opera houses and art galleries for the city. The articles one is directed to when clicking the image search results for said “stolen” art openly acknowledge: These pieces were intended for display in such museums, to be shared for the enjoyment of all of Europe.
Lastly, I will concede that indeed, Jews bore the brunt of this confiscation; and also that the National Socialists appropriated the art from the private collections of industrialists, the aristocracy, and every-day Germans; even the private collections of Party members were not safe, as some of the images show Goebbels and Himmler personally surrendering some of their pieces to Hitler himself.
So let us, before we move on, take a moment to state briefly and succinctly the actuals of this massive alleged larceny. The National Socialists, by official public policy, confiscated priceless and irreplaceable artifacts of European, especially Germanic, culture and history from the private collections of departing foreigners, criminals, privileged aristocracy, and the wealthy for the express but sadly unrealized purpose of being placed on display to the world for the education, morale, and spirit of the very people who were the source of those works.
This is our “great crime.”
So we turn now to the great “victims.” I will not waste space here on excoriations of Jewish perfidy, or their crossover into the fallen aristocracy; such is beyond the scope of this piece, and this site has ample work on the subject. It will suffice, instead, to restate simply a core part of the accusation itself: These priceless and irreplaceable pieces of a culture’s history and spirit were in private collections.
I cannot stress this enough: The nature of the supposed crime in question is that the National Socialists “stole” art in that they brought priceless and irreplaceable artifacts of German history, culture, and spirit out of hidden, private collections which were effectively nonexistent to the German public, in order to display them publicly for the education, morale, and spirit of the German people. Much of these works were, prior to the National Socialist government seizing them, in the hands of people openly hostile to the German people and in many cases on their way out of the country with the intent of taking these — again, unique, irreplaceable and priceless — artifacts of German heritage out of Germany, potentially forever.
This must be held up against the backdrop of the state of German art and culture immediately before the rise of Hitler. There are many pieces on this site which cover the absolute degradation that was the Weimar Republic era of Germany. Thus I do not feel it necessary to spend a great deal of time in describing it beyond a few points to illustrate that the “Weimerica” meme is not far off the mark. German culture at that time was plagued with pornography, prostitution — with attendant human trafficking and sexual abuse of children, drug and alcohol abuse, homosexuality and transsexuality, hedonism, a crashing currency, a democracy dominated by the media implantation of memetic emotional programming, skyrocketing suicide rates, racial mixing, loss of a sense of national identity, rise of iconoclastic and anti-Traditional modernism and post-modernism, all-pervasive low-brow entertainment, and a dumbed-down education system.
In a nutshell, while classical German high culture was hidden away, the culture fed to the general public was one of dissolution, decay, and self-destruction. The “art theft” of the National Socialists would have reversed this.
The world war prosecuted against Germany forced this effort to halt at the acquisition stage, and the art had to be sealed away. If anyone doubts the necessity of this, I point to the destruction of Dresden and question his intellectual honesty. Immediately following the war, all of this art was subsequently plundered, and more besides, by its “liberators.” Much of it remains lost to the world today, and Germany is now well back on the track of dissolution paved by the Weimar Republic whose flag she now bears once more.
The original National Vanguard article I mentioned focused upon the hypocrisy of the very nations which plundered Germany accusing the Germans of theft. My comment, and this article, explain that this is the wrong hypocrisy to attack: There was no “theft.” There was the righteous confiscation of a people’s heritage back from pillaging foreigners, an act that, when perpetrated by anyone else except the National Socialists, those that level the accusation would normally laud. They even make movies of it!
Let us turn now to this comment I mentioned. Here it is, in full:
Imagine, if you will, that I get a bunch of wealthy Americans together who, for whatever reason, despise Cambodians. It would only take a few of us, perhaps a small tribe of a dozen independently wealthy individuals.
First, we move to Cambodia as “refugees” (perhaps fleeing Evil American Capitalism or racism?); we hide our wealth and do our best to blend in. We pretend to be largely as poor as, or often poorer, than our Cambodian neighbors. We profess our love of Cambodian culture, participate in civic activities and cultural celebrations but largely keep to ourselves, hoarding our genetics — and wealth — to keep us pure and rich. If anyone notices this, we point out their “racism” and “xenophobia.” Or, perhaps, we use our shared, foreign religion (say, Christianity) as an excuse. The cleverest among us might even point out that this in turn keeps Cambodian culture pure of our influence.
This isolated ethnocentric structure will tend to cause any wealth which enters our community to stay there; over time we become more wealthy and, with this (totally not parasitic, you racist!) drain on their economy from within, Cambodians become that much poorer.
We begin to buy up large amounts of Cambodian cultural artifacts: paintings, original literature, sculpture, architecture — anything tangible. The Cambodians, largely poorer now, must part with these for their daily bread while we obtain — and subsequently hoard them internally, often times not even keeping them to display and enjoy but hidden away in dusty warehouses or even transported away to our White friends abroad — their priceless artifacts for a pittance.
We’d rather just take it, but we are a minority in Cambodia and must content ourselves with commercial means; that’s OK, we’ll continue to get richer because we’re just better at business! In time, the Cambodians have precious little of a tangible nature to serve as focus for culture. No art older than a few dozen years, religious centers not under their control, even education on exactly what “Cambodian culture” entails is hollow without the physical edifices of it. Perhaps the odd ruin exists which was too old, crumbled, and generic to be of any interest to us might remain in Cambodian hands, but these are but the bones of a culture’s evolution and, where they have any value at all, they are fragile and access to them must be controlled.
In time, Cambodians lose any connection with their ancient culture without tangible reminders of it. Cambodian culture now consists only of the new, only of the superficial and new; mindless “entertainment” which does nothing to remind Cambodians of what is good about them, nothing to engender a sense of greatness or uniqueness and — for the vast majority of it — almost all of it produced by us to make us look good, unique, and great.
When Cambodian culture is spoken of now, it is derided, mocked, or even outright denied. “What ‘Cambodian culture?’ we laugh, “What is that exactly? Pornos?'” The Cambodians are now thoroughly demoralized but most don’t know why. They begin to hate themselves. But look! Some fiery young itinerant worker named “Hitero” starts to be a real leader among Cambodians. He’s actually Vietnamese, though. How odd. Now he’s going on like a madman about “our ancient Khmer culture!” as if that is a thing! Wait now he’s throwing us in camps to prepare to kick us out of Cambodia! And he’s stealing all that art we rightfully purchased! Art thief! He must hate culture!
Seriously, we need to stop pretending the “Nazis” ever “stole” any art or wealth, and stop allowing others to lead the discussion with that assumption. We should not ever allow ourselves to be in the position of “The Nazis stole Jews’ art? Oh yeah? Well the Allies did the same and worse after the war!” because the first part of that is not true. Don’t let the enemy control the discussion like that.
The final major point I will make in my narrative explaining that comment, is to describe briefly the 1998 film, Rush Hour.
Rush Hour is an action-comedy film in the “buddy cop” sub-genre produced by (need I identify their ethnicity?) Birnbaum, Glickman, and Sarkissian, starring Chinese martial artist and comedian Chan Kongsang (known as “Jackie Chan”) alongside the American Black stand-up comedian-cum-actor, Chris Tucker. While much of the movie centers around the rather innocent topic of rescuing the kidnapped daughter of a Chinese diplomat, the principal piece we are concerned with (and the driver for the villain’s (Tom Wilkinson) motivation) is the theft of “numerous Chinese cultural treasures,” as Wikipedia kindly describes them for us. In the climax of the film, it is made absolutely clear that the villain had purchased those treasures fairly while he was employed as the British police chief before Hong Kong was transitioned from British rule, but found it unfair he was not allowed to retain ownership when the government of Hong Kong reverted to the Chinese. A few minutes later, said villain receives a wish-fulfillment movie death in a fall from a rooftop, a fall more and less engineered by the protagonists.
So let us be absolutely clear what we are talking about in this movie: a Black-Jewish-Chinese entertainment vehicle firmly establishes through cultural representatives of pretty much every race but Whites that it is immoral to take the priceless cultural treasures of a people from their homeland even if you pay for them, and those people are morally just to retain those treasures by confiscation — and should you object to this you are worthy of being tossed from a building.
So the actions of Hitler, my comment, and Rush Hour in truth have the same plot: A spiritually healthy (or at least nationalist) government has the foresight to seize their peoples’ cultural treasures from the hoards of departing evicted foreigners. While one might point out that one actually happened and the other two are fictions, that is immaterial; my comment and the movie Rush Hour are both intended to highlight a moral position. They are allegorical to the reality of the rights of a nation to its cultural heritage. The only real difference is that one — Hitler — was prosecuting that right for a White people.
That is the hypocrisy. For rescuing his culture from the clutches of enemies, Hitler is an “art thief”; yet it is “socially just” to confiscate the artifacts of the ancient Chinese from a visitor who purchased them.
Today, the plundering of White nations and replacing of their cultures with the base and rotten continues apace. Statues of founding philosophers and war heroes are desecrated and destroyed across America. Priceless millennium-old artifacts of Nordic adventurers are simply removed from museum shelves and destroyed forever by a foreigner “Cultural Minister” who infamously once stated, “Sweden has no culture.” Books disappear from shelves of store and library alike. Grand old paintings by past masters are removed from display and tucked away — safely, we are assured by our enemies.
Conservatives who would call Hitler evil for “stealing art” are aghast, and in their twisted minds see this destruction of our White culture across the world as being akin to Hitler’s “art theft.” This is the opposite of the truth.
In truth, what is happening now is what happened prior to Hitler. In truth, our culture is being “disappeared” by those who want it forever hidden away and destroyed. In truth, we need it to come back to us — to be displayed to the world for our enlightenment and edification.
In truth, we need a new Hitler to steal our art back.
* * *