* ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Present-Day Art Is Judeo-Masonic In Nature, True, BUT It's Derived From Platonic-Subjectivism Which Scruton Doesn't Grasp
(Apollonian, 7 Jun 14)
This video by Scruton (ck link, above) on "beauty" is fm a BBC production, BBC notorious Jew-bolsheviki -oriented; so WHY would they (Jew-dominated BBC) bad-mouth or denounce or even criticize Judeo-masonry?
On the contrary, wouldn't BBC rather do the opposite, in way of glorifying Judeo-masonry? I'm not aware "Judeo-masonry" is even mentioned in the entire vid. Scruton merely denounces post-modern art for emphasizing non-essentials, aside fm beauty and the classic conception. Maybe I'll go through the vid again to clarify specific pt.s made by Scruton.
But having watched and listened to the vid one time, I note the conclusion by Scruton, at the very end, that "beauty," according to him, is the opposite/anti-thesis of the "suffering" we go through in life, beauty then being an alternative and companion to religion.
Further, I'll note that Scruton is avowed Platonist, citing Plato several times in the vid, and calls Immanuel Kant the "greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment" era (roughly 1648 through 1789, or so).
So the necessary question arises regarding the basic theme of this blog-article and subject-matter--what then is Judeo-masonry at philosophic root?--isn't it Platonism, mysticism, and subjectivism?--this, against Christian TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), truth then requiring the Aristotelian objective reality (God-created) serving as necessary criterion/premise to Christian TRUTH?
For isn't the anti-Christ problem of Judeo-masonry the fact/idea of that basic subjectivism which then rejects Christ and TRUTH, truth based upon the God-given/created, hence objective reality which serves as premise/criterion for truth?
Thus in subjectivism the only reality is what's in the mind, there being nothing outside the mind--against Aristotle who poses the objective reality, God-given according to Christianity.
Thus in subjectivism man becomes God unto himself, everything mere product of the mind's creation and imagination--isn't this the essence of satanism, hence masonry/Talmudism?
Thus Scruton sums up his expo by asserting beauty is anti-thesis of suffering, but doesn't really seem to say much as to how this all takes place, and he attempts to demonstrate this at the very end of the vid by means of the piano recitation by the Italian guy.
Scruton also tries to contrast the art of Delacroix and his painting of his bed against the modern lady (who was interviewed by David Frost), but it really only consists of more assertions by Scruton and making use of rather a contrived straw-man -type of travesty in way of the modern lady with whom it's hard to sympathize, in truth, but still the question remaining as to whether the modern lady is significant enough to serve as anti-thesis, and assuming Delacroix is any kind of ideal in the first place.
So Scruton ends up only criticizing the present-day "post-modern" art, which it surely deserves, BUT only by selectively citing premises and criteria which post-modernism is founded upon in first place, the subjectivism of Plato and Kant. Additionally, "beauty" isn't really defined by Scruton in any significant manner, and the effect is that Scruton in truth actually defends the basic principles of Judeo-masonry merely by pretending the present-day art isn't really, properly derived fm basic premises of Judeo-masonry, which is Platonism/subjectivism, and which assertion/conclusion he can't and doesn't prove.