Was he really a Nazi? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Charlie
- Start date
Brother Schenker
Founding member
It's now time to ask the root question:
If evidence somehow turned up "proving" Buk was a nazi, would you enjoy his books any less? What about being a fag? Anti-Black? Anti-Mexican? A pedophile? A serial killer? A baby killer? A puppy killer? A republican? A secret admirer of Jerry Falwell or Geraldo Rivera? A supporter of the war against drug users?
I might be puzzled or amused or even embarrassed for him, but it wouldn't put me off his books.
Humans can't control what impells or urges them from within. We can't control our desires and can't choose what we find attractive. We can't pick our desires or repulsions. We might be able to fake acceptable behavior in public...put on a show for the parole board or the job or just anytime we're outside of 4 walls, but those unacceptable, unfashionable or presently unpopular desires and attractions and impulses will keep on burning.
Peace to all of you good people. Peace, and rainbows, and cotton candy, and tiny yellow buttercups & purple forget-me-nots.
If evidence somehow turned up "proving" Buk was a nazi, would you enjoy his books any less? What about being a fag? Anti-Black? Anti-Mexican? A pedophile? A serial killer? A baby killer? A puppy killer? A republican? A secret admirer of Jerry Falwell or Geraldo Rivera? A supporter of the war against drug users?
I might be puzzled or amused or even embarrassed for him, but it wouldn't put me off his books.
Humans can't control what impells or urges them from within. We can't control our desires and can't choose what we find attractive. We can't pick our desires or repulsions. We might be able to fake acceptable behavior in public...put on a show for the parole board or the job or just anytime we're outside of 4 walls, but those unacceptable, unfashionable or presently unpopular desires and attractions and impulses will keep on burning.
Peace to all of you good people. Peace, and rainbows, and cotton candy, and tiny yellow buttercups & purple forget-me-nots.
right, as posted in another thread, the seperation of art and the artist.Brother Schenker said:
dave11 said:
What I am wondering is this: Did you write this post to stir up a controversy around here? Did you do it to feed on much needed attention? Or are you simply a tad simple?
Well, in case you did it for attention, I shall adhere. I shall comply, and I shall do so since I too am a sucker for attention.
You claim you cannot define a nazi. Yes, you can most certainly label someone nazi. Those sympathetic to Mein Kampf and the policies of NSDAP (Die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) are a nazi. Easy.
Hating jews makes you anti-semittic, not a nazi. And for the record, hating muslims also makes you anti-senittic. Actually, hating anyone aboriginal from the middle east/palestine/israel area makes you an anti-semittic. (Thus you can hate christians and atheists and rightfull be called anti-semittic if they happen to come from or live in Palestine or Israel.)
Also, you claim the nazis had silly uniforms. You can say alot about the nazis, but their uniforms kick ass. I mean, they had black uniform hats with a grinning SKULL on it and below, written in gothic text, the words 'Gott mit uns' (God is with us). You don't get more hardcore than that.
Bukowski was no jew hater. Saying one place (which you oddly enough cannot even document) that you put on your 'jewish mouthpiece' to legally hurt someone does not make you a jew hater. It is a commonly used expression since it was extremely difficult to prosecute jews after wwII as everyone was deathly afraid of being labelled a nazi, or anti-semittic.
You come here, to Bukowski.net, a fan site dedicated to the genius of Bukowski and start off with
. Then you start off rambling on about how people stereotype other people and that the only reason people read Bukowski is due to fashion. Have you read Bukowski? And if you have, then are you saying you did so just because it is the fashionable thing to do? Thus labelling yourself a tool?
Further: A non jew is someone not jewish. Why is that so hard to grasp?
You also call every single christian man around a fucking moron since they worship a jew and thus must be jewish themselves. This is just amateurish, at best. Read the new testament before you say such things. Using that logic all christians should hate jews since the jews killed Jesus then, right? Of course not.
You claim jews are the most hated people on earth. No, they're not. Muslims are way more stigmatized than you guys. But I have to admit, that whole Israel thing you guys got going kinda pisses me off. Isrealic jews treat muslims much the same way nazis treated jews. Ironic? You be the judge.
Okay, so being 1/8th of a jew does not make you a jew. Why are you rambling on about this here on Bukowski.net? What on earth does this have anything to do with whether or not buk was a nazi? Or are you just boasting your own heritage?
But, I have to say that your fine wording of 'Bukowski's crap' followed by 'Bukowski was a decent writer' takes the cake.
Bukowski was a great writer of great literature. He was not a nazi, he was not a racist, he was an alcoholic, he was heterophilic and he died in 1994. These are the facts, no more as I see it.
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
dave11 said:
Some truth here, as far as it goes, in that the lowlife persona is what originally attracts most readers, but I think the quality of the writing is what keeps them coming back for more. Personally I greatly admire the work, but have mixed feelings about the self-destructive man behind it. But the same could be said for many writers, painters, musicians.
David
mjp said:
Yes you're referring to the short story 'Politics'.
Here's Bukowski, with his German name and heritage, writing in the early 70s about something that he did in the late 30s, when he was about 18/19.
At L.A. City College just before World War II, I posed as a Nazi. I hardly knew Hitler from Hercules and cared less. It was just that sitting in class and hearing all the patriots preach how we should go over and do the beast in, I grew bored. I decided to become the opposition. I didn't even bother to read up on Adolf, I simply spouted anything that I felt was evil or maniacal.
However, I really didn't have any political beliefs. It was a way of floating free.
However, I really didn't have any political beliefs. It was a way of floating free.
[...]
I didn't care about the Communist menace or the Nazi menace. I wanted to get drunk, I wanted to fuck, I wanted a good meal, I wanted to sing over a glass of beer in a dirty bar and smoke a cigar. I wasn't aware. I was a dupe, a tool.
I can't say whether Bukowski definitely was or wasn't sympathetic to the Nazi 'cause' - I can only form an opinion based on what I have read in his books and heard him say in interviews. I think much of what he wrote and said is very revealing while anyone else's testamony is circumstantial at best.
For example, I haven't read Ben Pleasant's book Visceral Bukowski, but a few years ago I did read his article WHEN BUKOWSKI WAS A NAZI on the Hollywood Investigator site. I wasn't convinced.
It seems to me that in the 70s (and today) when the realities of the holocaust were common knowledge, it was very easy to say that Bukowski was an idiot for even posing as a Nazi. Would it be so easy if it was 1939 and you were of German decent? Would you feel ostracised by the anti-German 'propaganda'? Bukowski always thought of himself as being different, not belonging, an outsider, and while this is not so unusual for a teenager today I get the impression that before the late 40s / early 50s the experience of being a teenager was quite different, with people generally switching from childhood to adulthood without being what we might call 'a teenager'. It used to be that 'young adults' could almost instinctively follow the route their parents had, almost without exception, with jobs for life and in many parts of the world, conscription to military service. History seems to suggest that WWII was the main catalyst for the change in teenage expectations and experiences and this seems to fit with Bukowski too. Much of his character was nurtured in the days before the civil rights movements, before rock and roll, before the massive changes in world politics and before anyone knew what the third reich thought the final solution was.
I think I need a beer before I meander any further... Maybe I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about either...
Was Bukowski a Nazi sympathiser? I doubt it. Did he have prejudices? Probably.
Was he sometimes a disagreeable asshole? Obviously.
"dogshit" Defined
You bring up a few items in your indignant rant, and I?d like to address them individually (if I may).
Here, you are questioning Jimmy Snerp's request for a clarification of terms, which is a quite reasonable request on her part. I would have to say that all she might be pointing out is that many Germans that joined the party early on, did so because of the deplorable state the German economy was in during the post WWI era, not because of a liking for their racist policies and ideology. By the time they were collectively under the stranglehold of murderous dogs, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle and they sailed into hell with everyone else. Are you advocating hating all Germans forever because of this misstep (as big as it was)?
If you have some evidence for this statement, please enlighten us. I have looked with a critical eye at most of his writings and cannot find said evidence (and, like hank solo, find Ben Pleasant?s account to be less than convincing?filled as it is with innuendo and conjecture; but, next time I see his daughter?s mother, FrancEyE, I?ll ask her what her thoughts are on the matter). My hunting for his true sentiments include searching his personal correspondence where he made most of his inner, private feelings quite plain. So you must have done better scholarship than I, and I?m most intrigued to hear your sources for the accusations.
You?re playing a little fast and loose with the personal and racial epithets here, but I must call you on your deplorable, unskilled and naive attempt at logic. I have no idea what you do for a living; I just hope it has nothing to do with computers, mathematics or the legal profession?you do show a unschooled command of what one might call the ?parallel metaphor.? Like many who argue for a living on TV, you commit the fallacy of the rampant ?non sequitur.? To use a proper example of African-Americans as a parallel; you might employ a comparison of winning a basketball game with a superior player of such exhibited skills (not your ?watermelon? remark). And, as such, anyone who doesn?t have their head up their ass, must agree that, given the socio-economic, educational and cultural construction of the U. S. Of A., there is a certain domination in certain professions that lend themselves to a given ethnic preponderance. So, please, as a part-Jew (to be dealt with later), Nordic logician who is in the computer business, you hurt my stereotypical logistical mind by falling so short of the mark (and I would expect more or better from a fellow Jew).
See the above; I think this has been dispelled and disbursed there, quite effectively. You are the one, I might add, that is throwing around the racial slurs; and I, for one, am quite offended by the gross insensitivity of your remarks and absurdity. Please don?t piss me off; you wouldn?t like the consequences (as the Hulk says).
Thank you for making my argument partly for me; albeit in your clumsy, offensive, racist and ineffectual way.
You can this shit to the hundreds of thousands that, having up to 1/64 of the blood in their veins, died in Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, etc.; going to the gas chambers right along with those who were 100% bonafide Jews. You may not consider them Jews, but Hitler certainly did. Also, it depends on who your rabbinical authority is. I suppose you don?t consider that Sammy Davis Jr., was a jew, either? I rest my case.
You just can?t get off the stereotyping, can you? Someone would begin to believe you might have a problem here.
Christ, one of the most successful rabbis ever; yes, we agree.
Others have answered this most adequately, so I won?t add much; other than to say that: you may read Buk because of fashion, but don?t be such a generalization-ist as to assume everyone arrived here out of a sharing of your concomitant superficial impulses. There are some here who actually are students of the word and literature in these cyber-environs, and have much more understanding of such matters than, it seems, you exhibit. Lowry or Dostoevsky, not withstanding, Buk has a depth of understanding about humanity and a flair for the language that, given sufficient time and contemplation by the academics (many with head presently inserted in posteriors), may well be recognized as the 20th century?s foremost author?boozing and such, forgotten in the mists of time.
SD
You bring up a few items in your indignant rant, and I?d like to address them individually (if I may).
dave11 said:
Here, you are questioning Jimmy Snerp's request for a clarification of terms, which is a quite reasonable request on her part. I would have to say that all she might be pointing out is that many Germans that joined the party early on, did so because of the deplorable state the German economy was in during the post WWI era, not because of a liking for their racist policies and ideology. By the time they were collectively under the stranglehold of murderous dogs, it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle and they sailed into hell with everyone else. Are you advocating hating all Germans forever because of this misstep (as big as it was)?
dave11 said:
If you have some evidence for this statement, please enlighten us. I have looked with a critical eye at most of his writings and cannot find said evidence (and, like hank solo, find Ben Pleasant?s account to be less than convincing?filled as it is with innuendo and conjecture; but, next time I see his daughter?s mother, FrancEyE, I?ll ask her what her thoughts are on the matter). My hunting for his true sentiments include searching his personal correspondence where he made most of his inner, private feelings quite plain. So you must have done better scholarship than I, and I?m most intrigued to hear your sources for the accusations.
dave11 said:
You?re playing a little fast and loose with the personal and racial epithets here, but I must call you on your deplorable, unskilled and naive attempt at logic. I have no idea what you do for a living; I just hope it has nothing to do with computers, mathematics or the legal profession?you do show a unschooled command of what one might call the ?parallel metaphor.? Like many who argue for a living on TV, you commit the fallacy of the rampant ?non sequitur.? To use a proper example of African-Americans as a parallel; you might employ a comparison of winning a basketball game with a superior player of such exhibited skills (not your ?watermelon? remark). And, as such, anyone who doesn?t have their head up their ass, must agree that, given the socio-economic, educational and cultural construction of the U. S. Of A., there is a certain domination in certain professions that lend themselves to a given ethnic preponderance. So, please, as a part-Jew (to be dealt with later), Nordic logician who is in the computer business, you hurt my stereotypical logistical mind by falling so short of the mark (and I would expect more or better from a fellow Jew).
dave11 said:
See the above; I think this has been dispelled and disbursed there, quite effectively. You are the one, I might add, that is throwing around the racial slurs; and I, for one, am quite offended by the gross insensitivity of your remarks and absurdity. Please don?t piss me off; you wouldn?t like the consequences (as the Hulk says).
dave11 said:
Thank you for making my argument partly for me; albeit in your clumsy, offensive, racist and ineffectual way.
dave11 said:
You can this shit to the hundreds of thousands that, having up to 1/64 of the blood in their veins, died in Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, etc.; going to the gas chambers right along with those who were 100% bonafide Jews. You may not consider them Jews, but Hitler certainly did. Also, it depends on who your rabbinical authority is. I suppose you don?t consider that Sammy Davis Jr., was a jew, either? I rest my case.
dave11 said:
You just can?t get off the stereotyping, can you? Someone would begin to believe you might have a problem here.
dave11 said:
Christ, one of the most successful rabbis ever; yes, we agree.
dave11 said:
Others have answered this most adequately, so I won?t add much; other than to say that: you may read Buk because of fashion, but don?t be such a generalization-ist as to assume everyone arrived here out of a sharing of your concomitant superficial impulses. There are some here who actually are students of the word and literature in these cyber-environs, and have much more understanding of such matters than, it seems, you exhibit. Lowry or Dostoevsky, not withstanding, Buk has a depth of understanding about humanity and a flair for the language that, given sufficient time and contemplation by the academics (many with head presently inserted in posteriors), may well be recognized as the 20th century?s foremost author?boozing and such, forgotten in the mists of time.
SD
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
What Jews were running the publishing firms that were publishing Bukowski? Are you talking about John Martin, Jon & Lou Webb, Marvin Malone? This, of course, is where it just gets silly. Maybe the CEO of harpercollins is a Jew (I don't know), but not only would Bukowski have done fine without Harper Collins help, but he died 8 years before they began doing business. It was the people above the published Buk. Not only are none of them Jews (to my knowledge), but none of them can be called CEOs. They were all damn fine publishers that did it for the love of the word. Most of them made very little money at it. The statement about ceos shows your ignoprance of the issues. Bukowski was not some media darling corporate sponsored poet that was the darling of Madison Avenue.dave11 said:
Jews, like everyone have their good and bad points, but those points are not based on their religion. It is based on some people being kind and some being assholes. I can point out the most evil jew and the most caring Jew. The same goes with any race, religion, nationality.
Somehow, I think that this is your real point here: To stir things up and then leave. Why else would you post on a Bukowski site and call his writing 'crap'? If you don't like him, then don't buy his books. That goes for all people, of all races, religions, etc....
Bill (1/4 Jew) Roberts
bospress.net said:
We 1/4s and 1/8s should get together and have a family reunion, semi-bar mitzvah, something of that order. Ya gotta love this site; the wildest concepts, conjectures and communications (no alliteration intended) get aired. THIS is what Buk probably intended (had he been prescient and seen the advent of the Net); that humanity should get to take a long look in the mirror, and see it?s collective bloodshot eyes and shaky hands. Great points, Mr. Bill.
And Bro Schen: I take back what I said about you being the bad boy (said in jest only, BTW); I want to say that you do get most articulate when you will, and I like what you said, also; (for what that?s worth).
SD
Has anybody mentioned that Buk says he admires Adolf Hitler in chapter 16 of the Bukowski Tapes: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5953823087198627125&q=bukowski+tapes ;)hank solo said:
mjp
Founding member
Oh man, just when the dust is settling...Erik said:
No one wakes up and thinks, "I believe I'll take part in some genocide today!" Societal realities shape everything and everyone. If you want to understand how "normal" Germans were caught up in nazism, read Hitler's Willing Executioners. It explains it as well as I've ever seen it explained. We all get caught up in things that don't look so great in retrospect. It's a human weakness. We're afraid, and it's easier to follow the crowd, even if the crowd is insane.
In Rwanda one million people were killed in one 100 day period. Serbia, Iraq - genocide didn't go away at the end of WWII, and Hitler didn't invent it. One hundred million dead African slaves, entire nations of native tribes erased from North America - as someone once said, "people are not good to each other"...
I suppose they never will be.
I don't ask them to be.
but sometimes I think about
it.
the beads will swing
the clouds will cloud
and the killer will behead the child
like taking a bite out of an ice cream cone.
too much
too little
too fat
too thin
or nobody
more haters than lovers.
people are not good to each other.
perhaps if they were
our deaths would not be so sad.
So by all means, call Bukowski a nazi and whoever else a filthy Jew, and why don't we just throw in all the epithets we can think of here to balance the scale so everyone can feel equally like a piece of shit.
Then can we move on?
You can't have a rational discussion, argument, whatever you want to call it once the NAZI ghost has been introduced. It's too polarizing. Why don't we just discuss religion or whether PCs or Macs are better.
Oy.
Brother Schenker
Founding member
mjp said:
Whoa, didn't know you had it in you mjp!;)
Usually we just get drips & drabs from your part of the universe.
Bless your heart for mentioning Rwanda.
I'm assuming the poem was by Buk...who else could come up with that ice cream cone line? Brilliant. The whole thing.
The biggest thing lacking in the human race is empathy. People failing to see themselves in others. People failing to imagine all the angles---or simply more than just one.
We hate the haters.
We kill the killers.
And we deny this IS Hell.
Liars, liars, pants on fire...
mjp
Founding member
Yeah, it's here too: https://web.archive.org/web/2020/https://bukowski.net/poems/the_crunch.phpcirerita said:
I figured everyone knew that one. ;)
yeah, Mac Davis rocks.chronic said:
I loved the Mac Davis Show when I was young.
Good one MJ.mjp said:
To the point as always.
I just wanted to pinprick some of the posters trying to write off Buk's dark subjects as the insecure musings of a high school adolescent wanting to "be different", and who really didn't understand what he was doing.
There's a lot more to it than that. Notice that in the same chapter 16 of the Bukowski-tapes, Buk says "I hope I'm wrong", when commenting on the evil viciousness of mankind.
Of course it would be ridiculous concluding that Buk was a "Nazg?l" from the isolated Adolf-statement. The poem you quoted puts this to rest well enough. But trying to smooth over the unsettling side of Buk is just as bad as trying to nazify him, in my opinion; maybe even worse.
Bukowski wasn't a cozy-wozy (or even "eBayish":rolleyes: ) sort of guy. Like all great poets he was receptive to all sides of the human condition. This isn't necessarily a nice ability to have, and it doesn't make you a "comfortable" person to be around. Some of Buk's wild, off-the-cuff statements can be attributed to his "receptiveness", if you know what I mean. Words come out before he has a chance to process/censure them. Thats part of his gift/curse/genius. Most of us are "blessed" with a dullness of mind that lets us forget the evil things going down in the world at all times. Buk's poems (like the one you quoted) help us remember.
And being aware of something, f.ex. the Adolf-phenomenon, doesn't necessarily make you a part of the phenomenon. On the other hand NOT being aware of it, or trying to smooth it over or forget it (having fun on eBay:p ), can very easily get you into trouble... just ask the Germans...
But I DO wish that this thread didn't have the N-word in it. I do. It does tend to sidetrack ppl a bit. So I'm all for putting it to rest....;)
zoom man
Founding member
Erik said:
Yeah, please close this thread.....
Nazi and Buk don't belong together....
I've got young kids here (in the city) spraying swastikas (SP?) on everything,
Trying to be funny....
And their ignorance is so ___________
I don't think Buk would have approved at all...
Brother Schenker
Founding member
zoom man said:
Fuck that shit.
Instead, please let us not ask for threads to be closed just because they make us uncomfortable. Let us not ask them to be closed for any reason.
Let us not promote censorship...
mjp has closed threads in the past...2 of which I was involved in...but I think he closed them because they were turning into flame-fests...which is understandable...
All that aside, I still think you wrote a good post, zoom man...and maybe you were just sort of/kind of/maybe/perhaps joking about the request to close this thread and I've missed the boat and jumped in here acting like some sort of quasi-hero of the First Ammendment. If so, shame on me!
I agree totally with the above post.
Also; here is a fun fact: I admire Goebbels. He was the inventor of Propaganda, or at least the first guy to make good use of it. Using speeches, movies, posters and radio he spellbound an entire people into utter dogshit.
You have to admire that. Now, I do know the guy was a prick, but you still gotta admire that sort of talent.
Flaaaame away.
Also; here is a fun fact: I admire Goebbels. He was the inventor of Propaganda, or at least the first guy to make good use of it. Using speeches, movies, posters and radio he spellbound an entire people into utter dogshit.
You have to admire that. Now, I do know the guy was a prick, but you still gotta admire that sort of talent.
Flaaaame away.
Not quite. For example: most Roman sculptures were made for propaganda purposes. Thus most sculptures of Cesar were not made to resemble him but to impress the members of the empire living far away. Art - at least sculpturing - was the propaganda of the day.oneiros said:
Like the Bible says: "there's nothing new under the sun."
Ah, Erik, my fellow Ryge (western Viking):
As much as the Roman empire, the Greek empire, the Ottoman empire etc used techniques wich today might be called propaganda, I would have to disagree that they were.
The statues you are reffering to are similar to the French courts use of portraits. They had their portraits made showing themselves as heroic, beautiful etc. (Napoleon was extreme in this). This was done to impress their subjects, but not in a pure propagandistic (is that a word?) way. Propaganda is the ART in which you use commercial channels to spellbind, convince or trick a populace into a specific political view.
I can agree the Romans, French etc tried to impress their subjects, but they seldom used statues, paintings etc to convince the populace of the correctness of the State's policies. The emperor (C?sar) was infallible to the public. His word was law, and not up to debate by the common man. The same goes for the French emperors the Muslim Emirs etc.
Aaaand, go debate.
As much as the Roman empire, the Greek empire, the Ottoman empire etc used techniques wich today might be called propaganda, I would have to disagree that they were.
The statues you are reffering to are similar to the French courts use of portraits. They had their portraits made showing themselves as heroic, beautiful etc. (Napoleon was extreme in this). This was done to impress their subjects, but not in a pure propagandistic (is that a word?) way. Propaganda is the ART in which you use commercial channels to spellbind, convince or trick a populace into a specific political view.
I can agree the Romans, French etc tried to impress their subjects, but they seldom used statues, paintings etc to convince the populace of the correctness of the State's policies. The emperor (C?sar) was infallible to the public. His word was law, and not up to debate by the common man. The same goes for the French emperors the Muslim Emirs etc.
Aaaand, go debate.
M
MULLINAX
Hitler may have been sired by a Jewish man and Bukowski's maternal grandmother, according to evidence supplied by Pleasants, was named Israel. Only Pleasants seems to get all excited over this "fact". Does it matter? More discussion and revelations are needed to get to the bottom of this quandry.
No. I do not admire Goebbels. He was a murderer. Your admiration is sickening. Are you serious?
No. I do not admire Goebbels. He was a murderer. Your admiration is sickening. Are you serious?
jordan
lothario speedwagon
goebbels was a "prick". and hitler... what a knucklehead! and mengele... a total boob!!!
maybe you can admire how goebbels was able to work the system of information dissemination toward his ends, just like you might be able to admire how eichmann was able to manage the final solution so efficiently... but saying that you admire goebbels even though he was such a "prick" seems to be taking things a little far.
maybe you can admire how goebbels was able to work the system of information dissemination toward his ends, just like you might be able to admire how eichmann was able to manage the final solution so efficiently... but saying that you admire goebbels even though he was such a "prick" seems to be taking things a little far.
Art isnt good or bad,its art....although i agree that Nazipropaganda wasnt art,just quite clever and most of all consequent,unprejudiced by the idea of "GOOD" and "BAD".
Thats one thing propaganda has in common with arts,it denies old values and tries to establish new ones.
Just the goals are usually different.
...as Mr.Bukowski said:"they have escaped all teaching", which is a fundamental step to become free,but what you do with that freedom is then entirely your responsibility.
The SchickelgruberGang made a "bad" decision.
They escaped the others but they didnt escape from themselves.
..and they most probably had an unfulfilled sex life,too.:)
Thats one thing propaganda has in common with arts,it denies old values and tries to establish new ones.
Just the goals are usually different.
...as Mr.Bukowski said:"they have escaped all teaching", which is a fundamental step to become free,but what you do with that freedom is then entirely your responsibility.
The SchickelgruberGang made a "bad" decision.
They escaped the others but they didnt escape from themselves.
..and they most probably had an unfulfilled sex life,too.:)
the only good poet
One retreat after another without peace.
if we considered "our" beliefs we might never post. :)
zoom man
Founding member
http://www.laweekly.com/columns/a-considerable-town/bukowskis-ruin/17756/
Yeah, okay, a little dated, but I hadn't seen this.....
Yeah, okay, a little dated, but I hadn't seen this.....
A person has to fight a long time before they see what they're actually fighting against, and that can be a very long process and an awefull struggle. During that time is it possible not to offend anyone? It must feel like we're offending everyone, because that's the nature of the trap. I don't believe the struggle arises out of a malicious intent but as a cause of being a victim of it.
I don't think Pleasants explicitly says Bukowski was a Nazi, and I while I was reading it I didn't think Pleasants was attacking Buk or mischaracterizing him or lying. I heard in the book was Buk possibly exaggerating the Nazi angle, maybe revealing some latent or halfhearted sympathies, and Pleasants still wondering how serious it was. That stuff only tweaked my previous understanding of the subject from other reading, it didn't overhaul it. I think the anti-Pleasants crowd is getting a little carried away over this. Maybe they're jealous of someone who used to drink with Buk. I am. But seriously, I think Visceral Bukowski was pretty good, and nothing about it offended my Buk fan sensibilities.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
If you look over more of the posts, you will see that there are people on this forum that corresponded with, drank with, & slept with Buk. I'm not sure if I would say that we are jealous that anyone knew him and then had a nasty falling out with him. Me, I would rather keep my heroes at arm length and avoid the kind of hurt when someone that you idolize comes out and writes nasty things about you.
The argument was that the statements are made with no evidence and with the author being the only source. Clearly Buk talked a lot to a lot of people over a VERY long time. If he talked about being a NAZI, it would certainly have been to more than one person with no witnesses.
Plus, this is not the only anti-Buk piece that we are referring to. There is the anti-Buk, Patchen piece.
Bill
p.s. Not to rehash this rumor, but if he was a NAZI, he certainly was a poor excuse for one, what with his Jewish friends (Red Stodolsky for one) and his gay friends.
The argument was that the statements are made with no evidence and with the author being the only source. Clearly Buk talked a lot to a lot of people over a VERY long time. If he talked about being a NAZI, it would certainly have been to more than one person with no witnesses.
Plus, this is not the only anti-Buk piece that we are referring to. There is the anti-Buk, Patchen piece.
Bill
p.s. Not to rehash this rumor, but if he was a NAZI, he certainly was a poor excuse for one, what with his Jewish friends (Red Stodolsky for one) and his gay friends.
mjp
Founding member
And I think you must have read that chapter of the book after taking a handful of genuine 1973 Quaaludes.
Pleasants wasn't "wondering." How the hell is, "an understanding of Bukowski's Nazi loyalties is key to everything he ever wrote" "wondering?" It's the most stupid thing I've ever read anyone say about anything, but it certainly isn't "wondering."
The fact remains, and will remain forever and ever, that it was the height of cowardice to wait until after Bukowski's death to publish a book with that slant ("whenever discussing Hitler his eyes brightened") and those accusations.
When Pleasants dies (very soon, I pray to the good LORD BABY JESUS), I am going to write an article about the conversations we had. You know, my memories of them. How his eyes brightened when he saw young boys on the street and how wistfully, and with great affection, he discussed his enthusiastic practice of pedophilia, and reminisced about sex with his mother. After her death.
Who will be able to dispute that my memories of our conversations are untrue?
"If you look over more of the posts, you will see that there are people on this forum that corresponded with, drank with, & slept with Buk."
OK, I see what you mean. And I'm jealous of you.
"Pleasants wasn't "wondering.""
You know, maybe that was me. I can see that I probably took Pleasants's conviction lightly and tempered it with my own attitude toward the topic, which I think is that Buk said things to be provocative. So what I heard Pleasants saying may not have been what others heard. I still don't think Pleasants lied about Buk's comments. If Bukowski's eyes brightened when talking about Hitler, it was because he was thinking "ah-ha I can rattle his cage awhile," which seems to be one of Bukowski's favorite sports. I can relate to that.
Well, back to my 1973 quaaludes.
OK, I see what you mean. And I'm jealous of you.
"Pleasants wasn't "wondering.""
You know, maybe that was me. I can see that I probably took Pleasants's conviction lightly and tempered it with my own attitude toward the topic, which I think is that Buk said things to be provocative. So what I heard Pleasants saying may not have been what others heard. I still don't think Pleasants lied about Buk's comments. If Bukowski's eyes brightened when talking about Hitler, it was because he was thinking "ah-ha I can rattle his cage awhile," which seems to be one of Bukowski's favorite sports. I can relate to that.
Well, back to my 1973 quaaludes.
hey. don't Bogart.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
My point being that because someone went to Bukowski's house a few times in the 70's does not make me all glossy-eyed. Me, I never met him, never corresponded with him, etc, etc.
And it is cool be jealous of me anyway....
Bill
I don't think so
In Ham on Rye, Bukowski wrote:
When I was a kid and Max Schmeling K.O.'d Joe Louis, I had run out into the street looking for my buddies, yelling "Hey, Max Schmeling K.O.'d Joe Louis!" And nobody answered me, nobody said anything, they had just walked away with their heads down. [end.]
Others may have posted similar thoughts, but I'd say there were times when Bukowski appeared to strongly identify with German culture and his enthusiasm blurted out of him; but I never felt that Buk's identification of things German justified any serious criticism that he was a Nazi in application, outlook or philosophy. Instead, I always felt that he was unconscious of or playing off of other people's reactions, as in the case of Schmeling's victory or Hitler's rise to power. I believe he also wrote childhood stories of the German air ace, Baron von Richthofen. And why shouldn't he, being half-German? It was in his blood. Although he was born in Germany and was there only a short time before coming to America, his mother Katharina was a native German. The German vibe was in his genes and he grew up in it... I also think he enjoyed his visit to Germany with Linda in 1978, and seemed to feel right at home there. Overall, however, I think he made it plain in his writings that he was basically apolitical, including any serious interest in Nazism; it seems ridiculous for anyone to have to point this out... For the critics who hate him - and there are plenty enough out there - the accusations of Bukowski's supposed Nazism is their feeble attempt to cut his reputation down to size and make it seem like he's not worth reading. And the reason why that cheap-shot strategy hasn't worked overall is because the charge isn't true.
In Ham on Rye, Bukowski wrote:
When I was a kid and Max Schmeling K.O.'d Joe Louis, I had run out into the street looking for my buddies, yelling "Hey, Max Schmeling K.O.'d Joe Louis!" And nobody answered me, nobody said anything, they had just walked away with their heads down. [end.]
Others may have posted similar thoughts, but I'd say there were times when Bukowski appeared to strongly identify with German culture and his enthusiasm blurted out of him; but I never felt that Buk's identification of things German justified any serious criticism that he was a Nazi in application, outlook or philosophy. Instead, I always felt that he was unconscious of or playing off of other people's reactions, as in the case of Schmeling's victory or Hitler's rise to power. I believe he also wrote childhood stories of the German air ace, Baron von Richthofen. And why shouldn't he, being half-German? It was in his blood. Although he was born in Germany and was there only a short time before coming to America, his mother Katharina was a native German. The German vibe was in his genes and he grew up in it... I also think he enjoyed his visit to Germany with Linda in 1978, and seemed to feel right at home there. Overall, however, I think he made it plain in his writings that he was basically apolitical, including any serious interest in Nazism; it seems ridiculous for anyone to have to point this out... For the critics who hate him - and there are plenty enough out there - the accusations of Bukowski's supposed Nazism is their feeble attempt to cut his reputation down to size and make it seem like he's not worth reading. And the reason why that cheap-shot strategy hasn't worked overall is because the charge isn't true.
