The most up-to-date contextualizing of the above remarks have been provided by Norman Finkelstein’s recent book entitled “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering”. Finkelstein’s book would not have achieved publication and some degree of general distribution, had not the author been a Jew and therefore permitted to some extent to be irreverent towards the Holocaust agitators of our times. Ian Lumsden, of the Beaverbrook Art Gallery, who is probably not a Jew, will be lucky if he retains his job, even after abjectly apologizing for his temerarious comments about “Nazi Loot” (Citizen, 6 Jan., pg. A-15).

“The trail gets murky”, in the case of the Vuillard painting in our National Gallery (Ottawa Citizen, 6 Jan., pg. B-1). No doubt there will be many such trails in the years to come. I suspect that there will be many unjust settlements, as was the case with the banks in similar circumstances, viz., guilty until proven innocent.

Adolf Hitler was a good representational painter. Sadly, this happens to be the truth of the matter. Coming from the lower middle class of Austria, he cannot have been sympathetic towards modernism in art; nor could he have been a successful major artist, given the spirit of his time and place. Like the rest of us, Hitler was a mixture of virtue and vice; but these two elements burned more brightly and more incongruously in him than in most people. Germany got Hitler, not because of that Country’s unusual corruption, but due to the tremendous stresses within the social fabric of a great nation in the aftermath of a major defeat in war and the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm, followed by a civil war that involved takeover of some provinces by Bolshevik revolutionaries, etc., etc. The tragic elements of this business have been too muted by far in the approved narratives.

Vuillard’s Le Salon de Madame Aron (Citizen, 6 Jan., pg. B-1) and Cézanne’s Portrait de paysan (Citizen, 5 Jan., pg. A-13) demonstrate very well how one “pure aesthetic” quality (colour harmony and monumental composition, respectively) can be made to seem to be enough to constitute a great work of art. A useful definition that may serve to counter such sophisticated misapprehensions, is given by the sculptor F.W. Ruckstull. Paraphrasing Ruckstull: Great art shows a noble subject, a sublime composition, fine expressiveness in human features and other details, true and effective drawing, varied and rich colouring, and a surface technique that is appropriate and inoffensive in its originality or personal quality. The Result: Strong, lasting, and refined emotion is evoked in the beholder. Should Ruckstull’s test be applied strenuously, what a salutary purging of pretentiousness and sheer evil perversity would take place within our national holdings of art!

An anecdote will put the emerging shakedown campaign associated with the recovery of Nazi loot (as signalled by the copious Citizen coverage of the Lumsden affair) in perspective. The story comes from a non-fiction book by Vicomte Leon de Poncins entitled “Judaism and the Vatican” (1967). De Poncins tells about a prominent Jewish lawyer and “fighter for the restitution of Jewish properties in Austria confiscated by the Germans”. This man was wealthy and was known to have contributed large sums to the arts. He was a leading intervenor on behalf of Jews at the great Vatican Council, and was received in audience by Pope Paul VI.

This Austrian Jew (Professor Hans Deutsch) was arrested in Bonn, Germany, on 3 Nov., 1964, as reported in Le Monde, and “accused of having embezzled nearly 35,000,000 marks, and of having induced third parties to make false statements”. A few days later, Paris-Presse reported that “Former SS Chief … Frederick Wilke … joined Deutsch in prison at Bonn. His evidence would have enabled the barrister to pull off the swindle (in regard to the famous Hatvany collection of paintings) of which he is accused”. It turned out that the collection “had not been stolen by the Nazis, but by the Russians in 1944”.

The affair of the Hatvany Collection belongs to the true history of the Holocaust myth and associated mythology as it has unfolded after the War. False witnesses have abounded and some have thrived exceedingly - the classic case is that of Elie Wiesel who was most succinctly and reliably exposed by Professor Robert Faurisson in his article entitled “A Prominent False Witness: Elie Wiesel”, published by the Institute for Historical Review, U.S.A., late 1980’s.

The leading Jewish political advocacy organizations as well as many prominent Jewish individuals have shown us, in no uncertain manner, their characteristic mode of brutal intimidation when engaging in Holocaust promotion and enforcement throughout the World, including Canada. One example was Ben Hecht, not long after the War and during the British mandate in Palestine, when he said: “There is a song in my heart whenever I hear of a British soldier being killed in Palestine”. (The Trumpet in the Hall, by Bernard Fergusson, 1970.) By no means is this ugly partisan spirit exceptional or coming from the Jewish rabble only. A quite similar spirit is shown, as I see it, by Moshe Ronen when he “takes note” of Ian Lumsden’s apology but does not accept it (Citizen, 6 Jan., pg. A-2). Of course the apology should not have been made, but in his position Lumsden dared not withhold it; and he may even believe what he has said - so vile and debilitating is the spell that the Holocaust has cast over our whole Country, and especially our administrators and officials.

----------