Gustav Klimt & 'fin de siecle' Vienna.

The painting above, one a portrait of the famous philosopher, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s sister, Margaret Stonborough-Wittgenstein was close to this sibling, the second youngest; during WW2, he came to save her life, handing over to Hitler, most of his share of the Wittgenstein wealth. The philosopher turned heaven and hell to save her, and the young philosopher,paid a price. 

The Vienna Secession is considered by most art historians as the first “Art Noveau” movement at the turn of the century. (Some would argue this point)

Klimt was academically trained in the “realist” or “neo-classical” style thus his later work in experimentation as part of the “Vienna Secession” revealed a sophisticated technique. (The traditionalists’ of the time labeled his work “pornographic”)

The so-called mandate of the Vienna Secession, (although they claimed to have no mandate) was to provide the opportunity for new artists with varying styles to get their work shown. Preceding German Expressionism, the artist moved from “artisan” to “artist”, no more dependent on rich patronage to merely paint “portraits” of the wealthy, but brings art forward away from neo-classicism, so prevalent in pre WW 1 Austria at the time.

Pre WW1 Vienna has had a revival of fascination for academics and historians over the last twenty years. It was a the centre of “culture” in Europe, or as the journalist and radical, Karl Kraus wrote during this period, fin de siecle Vienna was the “research laboratory for world destruction”. Vienna was a hot bed of innovation: the birth place of Zionism and Nazism; Sigmund Freud developed Psychoanalysis, (Margarete shown above was one of Freud’s patients) and architecture, planted so firmly in neo-classicism or the neo-gothic style brought the art form into what is now called modernism, led by a friend of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Adolf Loos.

The reason this particular painting has a strange attraction for me is that it reveals, although subtly, Art’s radical change just prior and after WW1. The world changed drastically after WW1, and fin de siecle Vienna was at the centre of this change in artistic sensibilities and overall “culture” across the board.

Karl Kraus’ words, that Vienna was a “research laboratory for world destruction” in retrospect were certainly prophetic.

Artists, writers, philosophers, architects, poets and scientists moved forward during a time Europe experienced two world wars which could have led to the destruction of the entire planet with the introduction of the Atomic bomb.

For me, history irrevocably shifted in fin de siecle Vienna – and the artist, Gustav Klimt was a major contributor to this radical change.

The Nymphs, Jason and the Argonauts, and JW Waterhouse.

My favourite art movement aside from German Expressionism was the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, and my favourite artist from that time would have to be John William Waterhouse.

Waterhouse, like most of the Pre-Raphaelites, painted exotic scenes from poetry, myth and legends. It is a neo-classic style that more often tells a story, depicting a particular dramatic moment.

In a previous BLOG entry, I wrote about visiting the Victorian National Gallery and witnessing the original ‘Ulysses and the Sirens’ by Waterhouse, and how seeing the original painting against my print, that has hung on my walls for years, was a much more meaningful experience, as one can see aspects in the painting that one cannot see in a mere copy.

What is most interesting about most all of Waterhouse’s paintings is that he used the same model for most of his work. She was one of the best kept secrets in the art world for many years. Most of J.W.’s paintings, whether depicting Sirens, Nymphs, garden scenes or historical representations, this model’s face is in just about every painting. Who was she and what was Waterhouse’s relationship with her that captivated him so, inspiring so many beautiful paintings?

We have come to discover that her name was Muriel Foster. She is the quintessence of classical beauty with that lovely face and slender figure. It was only in 1981, where a sketch by Waterhouse was discovered, and written along the bottom of the drawing bears her name.

She first appears at the speculative age of fifteen in Waterhouse’s 'La Belle Dame Sans Merci', where, from that point on, she appears in most of his paintings until his last unfinished work because of his death, 'The Enchanted Garden', which is considered the artists’ best work despite being unfinished.

We see Muriel Foster grow older with utter grace in Waterhouse’s paintings, the most distinctive being 'My Sweet Rose', seeing her in a beautiful bohemian green gown, her elegant red hair, tied back, smelling a rose, and her lovely slender hands touching the flowers.

As it happen to be the Victorian era, where sexual hypocrisy reigned supreme, and most artists at the time always sketched their models in the nude at the start of their specific project, (A common practice of the time) rumour did and has run out of control about their ‘true’ relationship.

In present time, who really cares, but I have my own thoughts on the matter…that she was his lover, inspiration and ‘muse’. Waterhouse had all the middleclass façades: a good family man who preferred to live in Italy than London. He had six children and loved them dearly, supporting his family from his art.

In Hylas and the Nymphs, Ms. Foster’s face is on all of the dangerous water beings.

This story is from Greek mythology, where Hercules and his long time companion, Hylas, travelled with Jason and the Argonauts in search of the Golden Fleece. It was known throughout the ancient world of Hylas’s beauty…he was sought after by many queens and royalty because of his incredible beauty. Because of his unbending loyalty to Hercules, half human and half god, promised to never leave his side.

In the painting by Waterhouse, are Hylas’ last few moments before being pulled into the magical pond of the enticing nymphs, who could not resist taking him, because of his incredible beauty.

This happened on an unknown island where Jason and his crew stopped to retrieve water and food to continue their quest.

It was time to set sale but Hylas had not returned. Hercules searched the island for hours for his friend but he has already been taken to another world. Hercules refused to leave without his long time companion. Jason promised to return once his quest for the Golden Fleece had been accomplished.

Hercules wandered the island for many years in search of Hylas, his echoing screams unrelenting. It was there on that small island that Hercules died of a broken heart, never to see his beloved Hylas again.

This painting depicts the exact second where Hylas looses his life...taken by the nymphs, all of them with the face of Muriel Foster.

This is a wonderful painting focusing on a specific dramatic scene in the tale. The print, the second one I purchased of Waterhouse, has a significant meaning for me, that is to say, love lost, beauty and the steadfast loyalty of a friend.

War on Twitter – can there be Reconciliation?

Since a young lad sitting around the family dinner table, there was not a weekend that went by, where some political argument didn't rage into the night. My father was an engineer, who had worked on dubious projects he would never discuss with any of us, including my mother. But good old dad loved to play “devil's advocate”.

Depending on the topic under discussion, dad would wait and access the majority opinion in the group, to only swoop in without warning with a cogent argument. He never used personal arguments, attacking the man: ad hominum. The problem with today's incendiary political times. Ad hominum arguments seem to prevail, particularly on Twitter.

I opened a Twitter account around a year into Trump's presidency. My reason for joining so late is varied, however, I thought, considering the POTUS uses Twitter to announce policy, sack people in his administration, and post personal opinions, not being a “Twitter-person” seemed to be apolitical, and really, there is no such thing as apolitical. So I opened an account.

The first person I followed, naturally, was president Trump. For me at the time, this was really exciting. I was actually following the president of the United States, who tweeted on a daily sometimes hourly basis. In the back of my mind, at last, I had an inside source into the Trump WH: the President. No really, this was exciting. The more I tweeted, the more I discovered people's politics I agreed with, the more individuals who I looked up to in a way, I began to follow. I have learned now, that this was a mistake.

Most of us on social media are aware of the Troll. A troll is a contributor on social media who attacks you, wantonly looking for a reaction, a trigger, in order to get you upset. Trolls desire an irrational response, and once getting that reaction, attack that reaction - “You snowflake.” “Libtard” “Faggot” and sometime altogether worse. That said, the longer I was on Twitter, the more trolls I observed, the more I had come to recognise them. Generally, I would ignore these people or “bots”, but occasionally, I would challenge them with facts and, not surprisingly, the trolling would stop. On the weekend, I commented on the current “children at the border” situation. The inhuman separating of children from their parents. I was instantly attacked from the right.

“Where did you get this from, MSM?”

I will not dictate the conversation word for word, only to say it began with this person attacking me, ad hominum arguments. It was then I decided not to react emotionally, but to argue with only facts.

It was after a few hours that this person came back, acknowledging my point of view. He said that if ever I wanted to discuss politics, he was open to it. This surprised me, but it also gave me a little hope.

Despite one's political differences, it is possible to at least acknowledge another point of view. That, really, it is possible to have a discussion on social media without being sarcastic, attacking one personally and possibly, reaching some consensus.

In this particular argument with my twitter-person, we reached a consensus, that separating children from their parents is wrong. He acknowledged this despite being a staunch Trump supporter. I found this to be a win of sorts. Because to only huddle with those who agree with you, nothing can change. However engaging with other's with different ideas, no matter contrary to your own, with honest discussion, things can change – for the better.

Paul - the First Heretic

St. Paul and his False Christianity

Saul of Tarsus aka Paul near singlehandedly usurped the oral apostolic tradition, those men who initially preached the Word, and walked, listened and personally knew Jesus of Nazareth. After Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension, obeying their master’s command, travelled and taught Jews, Gentiles and anyone that was prepared to learn the true path to His Father. Paul’s remarkable energy, intelligence and over-compensated ego, traversed the country hailing the infant religion throughout the Middle East, Asia Minor and certain areas of Europe. This new zealot of “The Way” recorded his self-proclaimed, personal connection to the Divine. These God inspired words and thoughts, the zealot scribed in many letters, which were copied and disseminated throughout the ancient world. Paul’s “divinely” inspired writings influenced many, evolving to become the most popular religion on the planet.

History can be a hard task master. The winds of change catapulted the original followers of Jesus into a darkness of anonymity. The inner circle of Christs’ most devout disciples, were dispersed in all directions, across the Middle East.  This cruel deconstruction of the first converts to Christ was largely due to theological in-fighting, and later, the “Great Rebellion”, the violent Jewish uprising against the Roman occupation, resulting in the near genocide of the Jewish population living in Judea during 70-74 CE. According to Josephus, a Jewish historian and Roman citizen recorded that over one million Semites perished in the conflict. Combine the unrelenting Roman persecution of the early Christians; it is remarkable the church survived at all. Early on in the movement, we must include civil unrest simmering under the surface across Judea because of Roman occupation. More pressing again, however, specifically, the internal conflict, manifesting in religious power struggles between Conservative Jews, Moderate Jews, and Christian Jews, concerning the Law in relation to Gentiles coming into the fold. In the end, a complete separation from the Jewish Christian sect, resulting in Gentile dominance, due to the heretical teachings of Paul, in the Church.

Information about this tumultuous time is limited to a few sources. According to the scribe of the Acts, Luke, an alleged publican, whom we are told was a devout follower of St Paul, informed us subtly that the holy teachings during this period were unstable. The “prince of the apostles”, for example, is conspicuously absent after Chapter 12.  Peter is mentioned again, perhaps twice, to then drop off the map completely. The Apocrypha texts, The Gospel of Peter, et al, decidedly viewed as unreliable, attempt to fill in the blanks, but most read like fiction or mythical tales.  If Peter did travel to Rome, converting numerous Roman Gentiles, and consequently martyred, this would only further substantiate our thesis. (See Chapter xx)

The Acts of the Apostles inform the reader of a disturbing and sudden shift for the new Christians. Rising from this intended, imposed violence, and theological conflict between the radical Orthodox Jews, Christian Jews and Gentile converts’, reaches a violent pitch, a drastic and vastly heretical interpretation of Christianity goes on to rise 

Regarded and interpreted by many theologians, the man’s fanatical genius for confusion and pubescent bravado, Paul of Tarsus, turned his back on the inner circle of Christian Jews. He then confronted the “lead” apostle, and later wrote about the hypocrisy of Simon Peter in a letter, wallowing in doubt between the Orthodox hierarchy, ordering all gentile converts to adhere to the Law, demanding circumcision, or to follow Paul’s interpretation of the Word of Jesus, revealing the path of faith, redemption and salvation. We see Peter’s sudden reversal of loyalty, having previously sent a vision by the Spirit informing him that Gentiles are not unclean, thus the first of gentiles blessed by the Holy Spirit .He hypocritically sides with the Jewish elders, turning his back on Paul. The Nazarene told the apostles their mission and stewardship, to travel into friendly lands and enemy land, too, There is never a command to avoid gentiles, but to tell all about the son of man. Peter betrayed Jesus by denying Him once before his death, only to betray him again after death. Granted, he was given responsibility to convert the circumcised, and Paul assigned to the gentiles, however, he turns his back on the Nazarene, again.     

The “lead” apostle, he that was handed the keys to heaven and hell from the Son of Man, caved under the strict presence of the Jewish Elders. Further, our reluctant apostle, on the surface, betwixt and between, appearing as he has for many years: weak with no idea of the virtuous or holding steadfast for others or indeed for himself – a false persona, intent on never dropping his mask- “Fallen Angel as sociopath”, fooling all and sunder  however, this behaviour has never made sense. Once again, Simon Peter, supported by Church Fathers down through the ages, changed his mind about gentile converts siding with the Nazarene elect. Paul then boasts about standing up to the inner circle, calling Peter a hypocrite. The heretic from Tarsus walked away from that meeting, and the inner circle, going against James the Just, in a much more violent manner, than we read in Acts. Reading the exchange between James the Just (Brother to Jesus) and Paul of Tarsus, in their respective Epistles, on closer examination, reveals the schism as anything but peaceful.

To many disturbed and embarrassed followers of Jesus Christ, the “Wind-bag” from Tarsus was victorious. Then and now and in the future, converts to Christianity will no longer be too concerned about their souls’ future health. Paul of Tarsus has guaranteed their blissful salvation in the After Life. All due, of course, because of a humble Jew from Nazareth, having suffered and sacrificing his life to cleanse all our sins. There is no obligation for us to act like honest men, love and put Jesus’ teachings into action – simply believe and have faith - following the ranting promise of this self-proclaimed apostle. Relax and be patient. Our gift of salvation will come upon our death.

The contradictions and abnormal behaviour of Paul of Tarsus, particularly in the Acts, running circles around the original Christian Jews, including James, the brother of Jesus, is difficult to absorb and comprehend. Paul’s behaviour borders on the pathological. James the Just was a respected member of the Semitic community in Jerusalem. He had a sharp mind, observant, and intelligent enough to compromise with Paul of Tarsus, when the Jewish/Gentile controversy was reaching an explosive moment amongst the vastly opinionated Semitic community. The brother of Jesus was a man that held firm to his convictions. He was a unique individual. James was the type of person that always needed to get right to the point, and never suffered fools gladly. Before James was executed, (ordered by a jealous and fearful High Priest of the Sadducees for disobeying the Law) wrote to Paul, arguing that salvation cannot be attained through faith alone; his brother Jesus preached that works, i.e., loving one’s fellow man, giving to the poor and loving God is essential. Faith is important, in so far as motivating one to do good works. James’ execution, we believe, had a drastic effect on the early Christian’s, enabling the inverted and invented writings of Paul to take dominance. 

Again, we can glean from the Acts that Simon Peter was heard to be involved in a religious scandal, causing a significant upset across the Nazarene community. This scandal could have harmed the reputation of the fledgling religion. Again, Simon Peter vanishes from the scene. (See chapter 7.)

Reading the Homilies of Clement 1 and the histories of Flavius Josephus, the leader of the Nazarenes, James the Just, is reported to have been involved in an assault. Anti-Nazarene terrorists invaded a synagogue where James was preaching. After causing havoc verbally, the terrorists started beating on members of the congregation - a full blown riot ensued. A “Saul” attacked James the Just, tossing him down the temple stairs, breaking both his legs. The attacker, believing the apostle was dead, retreated into the night. As said above, some years later, James is charged by a High Priest, Ananus ben Ananus, and brought before a Sanhedrin (council of judges) and condemned to death by stoning for breaking the “Law”. James’ untimely death was a savage blow for the Nazarenes. Josephus the Roman historian, recorded in his texts, that many Jews believed his death sparked the Great Rebellion. Consequently the original apostles’ fall silent, except for St. Paul’s tireless, boastful evangelism.

End of Part 1.

Control the Narrative, Control the World.

The world, more specifically, our "elected politicians" are sociopaths. They fall for the "money deal", rather than being exposed as deviants. As a people, we see this corruption.

Once in a while, a journalist comes forward, without permission, revealing the truth. In many instances, these writers disappear. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and the US colonies in South America, freedom of the press is dying, murdered, to suppress the truth of this corruption.

Under the Obama administration, Truth was suppressed; whistleblowers were targeted, journalists were assassinated, to protect the crimes of the elite.

Now under the Trump regime, so called "leakers" will be punished. Our freedom of the internet is currently under fire.

These selfish people, want absolute control. A source told me, that during the Obama administration, the president and the NSA had a meeting, to "stop" alternative media on the internet. Those in power insisted that information in the media must be "contained". It was decided, not to do so, as the "blowback" would be too strong.

Those who control the narrative, control the world.

Once the internet is controlled, we must find an alternative.

This is important.

Thoughts on the Children

This comment will be short.

There is nothing more evil than exploiting children. The AG and US president's "rule", to separate these children from their parents, simply wanting to escape extreme violence, domestic or political, is draconian at best, and shockingly, fascist at worst.

The Trump administration have made their policies clear. Following the EU right wing playbook, fascist tactics are being used to prevent families, children and political dissidents from entering the country. Kidnapping their children as a deterrent from others' entering the country is ludacris, and stupid. (They will continue to come, because they have no choice)

These children are essentially in solitary confinement. They are fed twice a day, and only aloud one hour in the open yard. One hour to see the sky, the sunshine, only to be returned to their cages.They scream for their mother's on an hourly basis, Only to be punished to STFUP by their jailers.

The jailers are told that if any "media" show up at the gate, to call the police, then their supervisor.

On the walls is a photo of Trump, welcoming them to their new "home". This reminds me of Stalin's gulags, a piture of Stalin on the wall, shaming the prisoners into submission. The Trump administration are using the same exact tactics.

I said this comment would be short.

You come up with your own conclusions.

But this shit should never have happened.

It's wrong.

A Comment on Julian Assange

Assange continues to be in solitary confinement, his health failing, and terribly, his spirit wavering. The UK 'May regime' hold a silly 6 year old bail charge over his head. The Ecuadorian government changed power in their last election, the new one, bowing to the Trump Administration.

Assange revealed the corruption of the American government. More damning, he published thousands of CIA documents, exposing the "gangster tactics" and "war crimes" of this utterly rogue organization. Trump loved Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign, but once in office, like all politicians back to LBJ, followed the CIA, FBI and the entrenched manipulators of government.

The Australian government, however, are simply lap dogs to US policy. It has been so since WW2. Australia is an echo chamber, a reluctant slave of American policy. The evidence speaks for itself. So, except for a few brave journalists, Julian's home country has abandoned him.

We wonder about the many trolls, screamers, critics of Julian Assange? What happened is after releasing the John Podesta emails, the FBI, CIA and other US organisations got scared. Either WiKiLeaks hacked the emails, or more dangerous, their was a whistle-blower amongst the DNC's inner circle.

After the release of these emails, a top advisor in the Clinton campaign was mysteriously shot in the back. A highly speculative murder, considering the context of time.

Suddenly Russia-gate hit the MSM, the bloody Red's have turned our election to a Reality TV Star with zero morals but a loud voice. Hillary Clinton has been nailed by Vladimir Putin. You know the rest, up to present time.

No, Assange is not a Russian agent. Assange does not work for the CIA. Julian Assange is a whistle-blower. He reveals crimes of governments. If you believe otherwise, do some research.

Assange must be granted safe passage home, or a country willing to grant him asylum. A protection from a US government intent on world domination at any cost. A government intent on silencing him, preventing a man from exposing the crimes of the powerful.

As a people, we need WiKiLeaks and Julian Assange, now more than ever, to reveal the truth.

Release Julian Assange.