How the Illuminati Destroyed American Poetry
April 14, 2010
Interview with scholar-activist Stephen Volk, author of "The American Poerty Holocaust," a book about how Socialists and Communists, led by the Jewish critic Louis Untermeyer, changed the literary sensibility of America.PART ONE
Can you tell me a little about yourself? Your background? You are definitely a very serious scholar. Do you teach English? Are you a Catholic? How would you characterize yourself?
"Upon entering the second grade, I tested out at 8.5 level
English. This I attribute to benevolent gifts from God - in the forms of
talent and ability and a mother who read voluminous amounts to me
daily... I
was born into a traditional Catholic family and have very strong
memories of Catholic life, worship and liturgy, prior to Vatican II. I
attempt to show the contrasts in a satirical novel with a serious
purpose, Museum of Heretics. But
while I write in other genres, my main talents and interests, like the
great North American poet Stanton A. Coblentz, are in true poetry "
How would you
characterize the change in poetic sensibility effected by the
materialists?
It was truly a literary revolution, underway at the same time of the Bolshevik Revolution. Both can be traced to the same people in early 20th-century New York. The conscious agenda to promote the materialist and naturalist world view which marginalized and then destroyed the appreciation of true poetry.
Beginning with Walt Whitman and his socialist following in England, internationalist and socialist Louis Untermeyer - with the backing of such shadow-government notables as Samuel Untermeyer - used his contacts in the New York Times to promote his "new poetry" based on socialist Walt Whitman. Years before, in 1907, we see the young Carl Sandburg marrying a socialist, giving socialist lectures on Whitman and supporting socialist political figures.
Before long, Untermeyer introduced the young Robert Frost to his circle of communist friends. Between them, the three won ten Pulitzer Prizes - modern materialist/naturalist poetry now fraudulently rewarded - while true poetry was ignored. Amy Lowell, Untermeyer, Sandburg, Frost, Ezra Pound, Cummings, and their imitators, propagated the "new poetry."
It's easy to overlook W.H. Auden was a socialist and that Ezra Pound brought T.S. Eliot to the attention of satanist-influenced James Joyce. The unparalleled literary scholar C.S. Lewis blatantly told Eliot that what he was doing was evil.
Most recently, in October 2009, leftist Hillary Clinton unveiled a Walt Whitman statue in Moscow. But to those who know true poetry, Walt Whitman certainly is not the "Father of American Poetry." And Louis Untermeyer as the self-proclaimed "Father of Modern Poetry" is misleading.
The word "Father" is too warm. It's more appropriate to call Untermeyer the "Ringleader of Modern Poetry" and "Destroyer of True Poetry." The Masonic plan to "de-Christian the value of western civilization with modern ideas" was consistent throughout Untermeyer's destructive career.
It was truly a literary revolution, underway at the same time of the Bolshevik Revolution. Both can be traced to the same people in early 20th-century New York. The conscious agenda to promote the materialist and naturalist world view which marginalized and then destroyed the appreciation of true poetry.
Beginning with Walt Whitman and his socialist following in England, internationalist and socialist Louis Untermeyer - with the backing of such shadow-government notables as Samuel Untermeyer - used his contacts in the New York Times to promote his "new poetry" based on socialist Walt Whitman. Years before, in 1907, we see the young Carl Sandburg marrying a socialist, giving socialist lectures on Whitman and supporting socialist political figures.
Before long, Untermeyer introduced the young Robert Frost to his circle of communist friends. Between them, the three won ten Pulitzer Prizes - modern materialist/naturalist poetry now fraudulently rewarded - while true poetry was ignored. Amy Lowell, Untermeyer, Sandburg, Frost, Ezra Pound, Cummings, and their imitators, propagated the "new poetry."
It's easy to overlook W.H. Auden was a socialist and that Ezra Pound brought T.S. Eliot to the attention of satanist-influenced James Joyce. The unparalleled literary scholar C.S. Lewis blatantly told Eliot that what he was doing was evil.
Most recently, in October 2009, leftist Hillary Clinton unveiled a Walt Whitman statue in Moscow. But to those who know true poetry, Walt Whitman certainly is not the "Father of American Poetry." And Louis Untermeyer as the self-proclaimed "Father of Modern Poetry" is misleading.
The word "Father" is too warm. It's more appropriate to call Untermeyer the "Ringleader of Modern Poetry" and "Destroyer of True Poetry." The Masonic plan to "de-Christian the value of western civilization with modern ideas" was consistent throughout Untermeyer's destructive career.
Name some poets. Frost, Cummings,
Williams - would the
word solipsistic describe them? Inability to know truth, reality?
Preoccupation with the mundane, eschewing the Divine?
I very much like your question would the word solipsistic describe them? Solipsistic is the view that the self is all that can be known to exist. With modern poetry, this can be true on several levels. Modern poetry is subjective rather than objective. It was the great poets with great subject matter who addressed topics outside themselves, to include the epic, the beautiful, the noble, the spiritual, elements with rhythm and rhyme and the host of literary devices to make true poetry great!
In severe contrast, the materialist and naturalist modern poet ("modern poet" is an oxymoron) writes from the subjective rather than the objective. There are no absolutes, no Law of Nature or Moral Sense (which, by the way, is what Prospero is in Shakespeare's The Tempest) and no accountability to an afterlife or to God.
In the modern poet reigns the unregenerated, anti-everything-traditional, self. It is pantheistic, I suppose, in that to the pantheist, "All perceptions are correct."
There are no Absolutes. Real poetry to modern poets started with Walt Whitman, though Whitman himself confessed that he was attempting to bridge the gap between poetry and prose, thereby creating a genre that is not poetry. But the modern poets continue this false premise that theirs is poetry, when it is actually a socialist-materialist "bridging of the gap." This is greatly elaborated on in The American Poetry Holocaust.
I very much like your question would the word solipsistic describe them? Solipsistic is the view that the self is all that can be known to exist. With modern poetry, this can be true on several levels. Modern poetry is subjective rather than objective. It was the great poets with great subject matter who addressed topics outside themselves, to include the epic, the beautiful, the noble, the spiritual, elements with rhythm and rhyme and the host of literary devices to make true poetry great!
In severe contrast, the materialist and naturalist modern poet ("modern poet" is an oxymoron) writes from the subjective rather than the objective. There are no absolutes, no Law of Nature or Moral Sense (which, by the way, is what Prospero is in Shakespeare's The Tempest) and no accountability to an afterlife or to God.
In the modern poet reigns the unregenerated, anti-everything-traditional, self. It is pantheistic, I suppose, in that to the pantheist, "All perceptions are correct."
There are no Absolutes. Real poetry to modern poets started with Walt Whitman, though Whitman himself confessed that he was attempting to bridge the gap between poetry and prose, thereby creating a genre that is not poetry. But the modern poets continue this false premise that theirs is poetry, when it is actually a socialist-materialist "bridging of the gap." This is greatly elaborated on in The American Poetry Holocaust.
Do they have a
deliberate satanic agenda?
Wittingly or unwittingly, yes, it is very clearly a satanic
agenda. Their ideological predecessors were Spinoza, Rousseau, Voltaire,
Heinrich Heine. It is like asking if these had a satanic agenda. If you
understand these, you understand Louis Untermeyer.
The Jewish Spinoza was so radical he was banned from his synagogue. His were the mustard seeds of modernism watered by Untermeyer in the 20th century. The crop expanded through Untermeyer's cliquish contacts in the liberal publishing and educational worlds. It was an unrestrained literary scam, but Untermeyer had the liberal media and liberal educational entrenchment supporting him.
On Satan's part, there is a deliberate agenda. But I think there are more modern poets unaware than aware of that source. It is the essence of Satan to endlessly oppose anything of God's creation - his dark passion to pervert and endlessly distort the God-given talents and abilities of true poets. Satan wins a big part of the battle when he convinces the materialist that "I AM WHO AM NOT." Very clever and, tragically, often effective.
The Jewish Spinoza was so radical he was banned from his synagogue. His were the mustard seeds of modernism watered by Untermeyer in the 20th century. The crop expanded through Untermeyer's cliquish contacts in the liberal publishing and educational worlds. It was an unrestrained literary scam, but Untermeyer had the liberal media and liberal educational entrenchment supporting him.
On Satan's part, there is a deliberate agenda. But I think there are more modern poets unaware than aware of that source. It is the essence of Satan to endlessly oppose anything of God's creation - his dark passion to pervert and endlessly distort the God-given talents and abilities of true poets. Satan wins a big part of the battle when he convinces the materialist that "I AM WHO AM NOT." Very clever and, tragically, often effective.
How would you define Satanism?
Liberalism, as defined by Fr. Felix Sarda Salvany, is sin.
Liberalism is radical immorality. As God is perfectly and purely moral,
and the Law of Nature and Moral Sense is moral, as the Ten Commandments
are moral, opposition to these has satanism as its source.
Louis Untermeyer's naturalistic treatment of Moses in his 1920's novel, was revealing. We see many jumping on the liberal bandwagon with secularism as the highest values. Many of these are not overt satanists but through ignorance are conformed to Satan's image.
On the other hand, you do see groups of satanists - Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis comes to mind, which boast an amazing number of professionals in North America, including those who write modern poetry - and who are far different from the amateur modern poet, local-neighborhood-satanist, who will steal hosts from the local Catholic Church to use in rituals. It would seem most modern poets are unwitting and useful dupes... blind in their pretentiousness and condescension and pride. We are to have compassion on these and help show them the way, to open their eyes, as far as it is possible...
Thursday- Part Two: What We Have Lost
Louis Untermeyer's naturalistic treatment of Moses in his 1920's novel, was revealing. We see many jumping on the liberal bandwagon with secularism as the highest values. Many of these are not overt satanists but through ignorance are conformed to Satan's image.
On the other hand, you do see groups of satanists - Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis comes to mind, which boast an amazing number of professionals in North America, including those who write modern poetry - and who are far different from the amateur modern poet, local-neighborhood-satanist, who will steal hosts from the local Catholic Church to use in rituals. It would seem most modern poets are unwitting and useful dupes... blind in their pretentiousness and condescension and pride. We are to have compassion on these and help show them the way, to open their eyes, as far as it is possible...
Thursday- Part Two: What We Have Lost
Christine said (April 15, 2010):
Thanks for the post about poetry. Now I know why I can't stand the modern variety. Man, these people are a bunch of killjoys!
Don't know about Canada, but here is an example of the sculpture scene down here: if you try to get competent training in sculpture outside a graphic design school, forget it. Most sculpture teachers refuse to pass on their skills to others.
They will, however, fraudulently take their students' money while pretending to teach. The excuse I've heard is that most art teachers, who are mostly artists themselves, don't want the competition.
Aren't you glad the plumbing schools don't take that view? If they did, we couldn't bathe, brush our teeth, drink water, etc.
Take care,