President Barack Obama, the European Union, and Rougemont Bankers, launched a Economic Cold war against Putin. Denis de Rougemont was titled ‘The Prince of European Culture’. He was at the first Bilderberg meeting, and is considered a co-founder of the European Union. Frederich the Great granted the Rougemonts of Neufchatel a title of old nobility when he came to this area in Switzerland.
Rougemont was the Director of Congress of Cultural Freedom that employed Writers and Artists against the Soviet Block. There is a creative subconscious that may have created a psychic force that brought many to a vortex that a core group created, and was like a psychic internet. The Roza Mira of Russian is sustained outside this Western Vortex, but, subliminal messages are being exchanged by what you might call Art Angels.
This question needs to be asked…..Was Thomas Pynchon recruited by the CIA? Pynchon’s ‘Under the Rose’ is a study in surrealism and espionage. Duchamps, Pynchon, and Rougemont, could have had some very interesting conversations on what makes the world tick.
If Mary Ann and Thomas were married, then he is kin to the artist Rosamond, the Bentons, and the Grand Master of the Swan Brethren who signed his name with the image of a rose. We are gathering in the rose garden on Alpenglow.
The Rosemondts were Swan Brethren. Only members of the Dutch Royal Family can be members today. They wear a broach that depicts a closed rose with the word SICUT that is from the Torah.
2:2. As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters.
Sicut lilium inter spinas sic amica mea inter filias
Godschalk Rosemondt appears to have been the Grand Master of the Swan Brthren because he signs his name with an image of the same rose, but fully open. I believe he represents the revived Merovingians of Toxandria. Is he Lowhengrin of the Grail? Did the Rosamond family go to Jerusalem in search of the secret of eternal life. Did they find it? Did they lose this secret I was destined to reborn?
Moon = Rosamon
Rose Selavy + Sara Moon
Posted on December 4, 2011 by Royal Rosamond Press
The really famous world artist, Marcel Duchamp, dressed in drag and called himself ‘Rose Selavy’. When he came to America, Vogue magazine did an article about him, and exposed him to celebrity status – American Style – where he lay his famous signature on his fans and other items in order to generate more fame – and money! This inspired Duchamp to render a check to pay for his dental work. His dentist took this check as payment understanding it would be famous one day and worth more the the cost of his work.
When Christine Roosamoon died, she left behind thousands of unsigned lithographs. Stacey Pierrot petitioned the probate court for an Estate Seal in order to apply the ROSAMOND signature from the Land of the Dead. This Seal of the Dead was a metal object that was applied to a the lower right hand corner of these prints, and the paper was raised up in a intaglio manner to make an embossed signature that can be read by the blind. This made Pierrot an Art Check Writer, who loves her bank! How can she blame Mr. Sara Moon for his attachements, his, blood-sucking?
Duchamp was a friend of Denis De Rougemont ‘The Prince of European Culture’ and co-founder of the European Union, that is rewriting its Constitution in order to keep the European Economy from collapsing. Rougemont may be our kinsfolk.
Sane folk understand the Banks of the World committed massive fraud on the people, while stupid Republican want to believe the Poor Parasitical People are to blame. This is because they are into Stupid Voo-Doo Economics, where we find Mr. Lucky Jesus handing out autographs like crazy to his – Chosen Ones!
Vogue refused to put Duchamp’s painting they commissioned on the cover of their magazine. Did in of Rena’s siters appear in Vogue? How about Steven Silverstein’s images? Did Duchamp understand fashion models were all the vogue, and thus he became one?
Pynchon on “Under the Rose”
In reference to “Under the Rose” in his Slow Learner introduction, Pynchon details three major ideas related, but not restricted, to writing. First, he deals with the notion of ignorance. [“Ignorance is not just a blank space on a person’s mental map. It has contours and coherence, and for all I know rules of operation as well”(p. 15).] Pynchon pilfered Baedeker’s guide to Egypt for material for “Under the Rose,” and in this admission addresses plagarism, the need to corroborate one’s data, and the importance about writing of what one knows while realizing what one does not know. He then notes that a “shadowy” sense of history led to the question underlying the story: “is history personal or statistical?”(p. 18). Finally, Pynchon suggests the influence of his understanding of Surrealism at the time he wrote “Under the Rose” upon the work. He criticizes his lack of management of the diverse elements combined within the frame of “Under the Rose.”
Things “under the rose,” or sub rosa, are prevalent in Pynchon. These terms are used in V., The Crying of Lot 49 and Gravity’s Rainbow. Espionage is the most obvious system of secrecy in this short story. A variety of elements or systems may be recognized as sub-versions of the rose. Victoria Wren’s sexual aura (bud or bloom?) is paralleled to the Yorkshire sunset which reminds Porpentine of Home–but it is under the Egyptian sun that the English Porpentine feels exposed to the “danger” of becoming Eastern. Her sexuality is also linked to religious love, under which Porpentine’s sense of morality tends towards a general regard for humanity as opposed to an identification with individuals. Porpentine notes that his own generation “has budded, bloomed, and, sensing some blight in the air, folded its petals up again like certain flowers at sunset”(p. 114). Pynchon uses vocabulary of location such as the “rue de Rosette,” the “Rosetta arm” of the Nile and the “Quartier Rosetti.” Spying, sexuality, issues of Imperialism and the subaltern, systems of faith and morality (in particular, related to a Christian model), time and spatial orientation are all themes which Pynchon develops in his later works. In many ways, “Under the Rose” may be read as a type of allegory in which Porpentine the protagonist tries to protect himself from decadence as he struggles to understand the system under which he is living.
Duchamp gave a “loose” translation of L.H.O.O.Q. as “there is fire
down below” in a late interview (Schwarz 203). Steefel points out
that, when spoken in English, L.H.O.O.Q. sounds like “LOOK” “
Denis de Rougemont was a good friend of Marcel Duchamp, the surrealist, who created a fictional character, Rose Selavy. Another surrealist, Philippe de Chérisey, forged the Priory de Sion documents – as a prank! Here is an original Merry Prankster!
“Orange Sunshine reads so much like classic Thomas Pynchon—with its mind-bending and hilarious tale of a secret society of mystic surfers who bomb Southern California with LSD—that the reader has to wonder: Is ‘Nick Schou’ a pseudonym?”—Mike Davis, author of City of Quartz, Planet of Slums, and In Praise of Barbarians
It’s a California reminiscent of the one Tom Wolfe depicted in “The Pump House Gang” and “The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test,” a place that stands in sharp contrast to the capitalistic conformity of the “Midol America” that Mr. Pynchon had suggested would arrive in the Reaganite ’80s. The hero of “Inherent Vice” worries that “the Psychedelic Sixties, this little parenthesis of light, might close after all, and all be lost, taken back into darkness,” that “everything in this dream of prerevolution was in fact doomed to end,” with the “faithless, money-driven world” reasserting “its control over all the lives it felt entitled to touch, fondle and molest.”
Russia fought back on Wednesday over new U.S. and EU sanctions imposed over Ukraine, where fighting between Moscow-backed rebels and government troops has intensified since a Malaysian airliner was shot down.
The worst confrontation between Moscow and the West entered a new phase this week since the United States and European Union took by far the strongest international steps yet against Moscow over its support for Ukraine’s rebels.
New EU and U.S. sanctions unveiled on Tuesday restrict sales of arms and equipment for the oil industry, while Russian state banks are barred from raising money in Western capital markets.
Moscow called the sanctions “destructive and myopic” and said Europe and the United States would suffer. On Wednesday it banned imports of Polish fruit and vegetables and said it might expand the ban to the entire EU. Russian banks said they would seek financing in Asia. Novatek, a big Russian gas company that works with French firm Total, said it was studying the impact of sanctions on its international joint ventures.
On the ground in Ukraine, heavy fighting has been taking place near the site where Malaysian flight MH17 crashed into wheat and sunflower fields on July 17, shot down by what Washington and Brussels believe was a missile supplied by Russia.
Thirty-six books and several hundred refereed articles. His most recent book is The Left Strikes Back (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998).
Frances Stonor Saunders, Who Paid the Piper: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (London: Granta Books), £20.
This book provides a detailed account of the ways in which the CIA penetrated and influenced a vast array of cultural organizations, through its front groups and via friendly philanthropic organizations like the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. The author, Frances Stonor Saunders, details how and why the CIA ran cultural congresses, mounted exhibits, and organized concerts. The CIA also published and translated well-known authors who toed the Washington line, sponsored abstract art to counteract art with any social content and, throughout the world, subsidized journals that criticized Marxism, communism, and revolutionary politics and apologized for, or ignored, violent and destructive imperialist U.S. policies. The CIA was able to harness some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West in service of these policies, to the extent that some intellectuals were directly on the CIA payroll. Many were knowingly involved with CIA “projects,” and others drifted in and out of its orbit, claiming ignorance of the CIA connection after their CIA sponsors were publicly exposed during the late 1960s and the Vietnam war, after the turn of the political tide to the left.
U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.
The CIA, under the prodding of Sidney Hook and Melvin Lasky, was instrumental in funding the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a kind of cultural NATO that grouped together all sorts of “anti-Stalinist” leftists and rightists. They were completely free to defend Western cultural and political values, attack “Stalinist totalitarianism” and to tiptoe gently around U.S. racism and imperialism. Occasionally, a piece marginally critical of U.S. mass society was printed in the CIA-subsidized journals.
What was particularly bizarre about this collection of CIA-funded intellectuals was not only their political partisanship, but their pretense that they were disinterested seekers of truth, iconoclastic humanists, freespirited intellectuals, or artists for art’s sake, who counterposed themselves to the corrupted “committed” house “hacks” of the Stalinist apparatus.
It is impossible to believe their claims of ignorance of CIA ties. How could they ignore the absence in the journals of any basic criticism of the numerous lynchings throughout the southern United States during the whole period? How could they ignore the absence, during their cultural congresses, of criticism of U.S. imperialist intervention in Guatemala, Iran, Greece, and Korea that led to millions of deaths? How could they ignore the gross apologies of every imperialist crime of their day in the journals in which they wrote? They were all soldiers: some glib, vitriolic, crude, and polemical, like Hook and Lasky; others elegant essayists like Stephen Spender or self-righteous informers like George Orwell. Saunders portrays the WASP Ivy League elite at the CIA holding the strings, and the vitriolic Jewish ex-leftists snarling at leftist dissidents. When the truth came out in the late 1960s and New York, Paris, and London “intellectuals” feigned indignation at having been used, the CIA retaliated. Tom Braden, who directed the International Organizations Branch of the CIA, blew their cover by detailing how they all had to have known who paid their salaries and stipends (397-404).
Rrose Sélavy, or Rose Sélavy, was one of the pseudonyms of artist Marcel Duchamp. The name, a pun, sounds like the French phrase “Eros, c’est la vie”, which translates to English as “eros, that’s life”. It has also been read as “arroser la vie” (“to make a toast to life”).
Sélavy emerged in 1921 in a series of photographs by Man Ray of Duchamp dressed as a woman. Through the 1920s, Man Ray and Duchamp collaborated on more photos of Sélavy. Duchamp later used the name as the byline on written material and signed several creations with it.
Duchamp used the name in the title of at least one sculpture, Why Not Sneeze, Rose Sélavy? (1921). The sculpture, a type of readymade called an assemblage, consists of an oral thermometer, a couple dozen small cubes of marble resembling sugar cubes inside a birdcage. Sélavy also appears on the label of Belle Haleine, Eau de Voilette (1921), a readymade that is a perfume bottle in the original box. Duchamp also signed his film Anemic Cinema (1926) with the Sélavy name.
From 1922 the name Rrose Sélavy also started appearing in a series of aphorisms, puns and spoonerisms by the French surrealist poet Robert Desnos. Desnos tried to portray Rrose Sélavy as a long lost aristocrat and rightful queen of France. Aphorism 13 paid homage to Marcel Duchamp: “Rrose Sélavy connaît bien le marchand du sel” [in English: “Rrose Sélavy knows the merchant of salt well”; in French the final words sound like Mar-champ Du-cel — Duchamp’s compiled notes are titled ‘Salt Seller’]. (Note that the ‘salt seller’ aphorism – “mar-chand-du-sel” – is a phonetic rearrangement of the syllables in the artist’s actual name: “mar-cel-du-champ.”) In 1939 a collection of these aphorisms was published under the name of Rrose Sélavy, entitled Poils et coups de pieds en tous genres.
The inspiration of the name Rrose Sélavy has been viewed to be Belle da Costa Greene, J.P. Morgan’s librarian of The Morgan Library & Museum (formerly The Pierpont Morgan Library) who, following his death, became the Library’s director, working there for a total of forty-three years. Empowered by J.P. Morgan, and then by his son Jack, Greene built the collection buying and selling rare manuscripts, books and art.
The late Ilmar Laaban – an Estonian poet, lecturer, polyglot and intellectual who died in exile in Sweden, who is often called “the father of Estonian surrealism”, wrote a collection of poetry called “Rroosi Selaviste” in Estonian that is based on wordplay and puns. Rroosi Selaviste (published 1957) is without a doubt one of his major accomplishments – a playful homage to his native tongue that not only shows the suppleness of the Estonian language, but also showcases Laaban’s virtuosity as a wordsmith.
Niandra LaDes, an alter ego by John Frusciante, was based on Rrose Sélavy. This character is also featured on the cover of Frusciante’s 1994 album Niandra LaDes and Usually Just a T-Shirt, which is a screenshot from a film by Frusciante’s then-girlfriend, Toni Oswald. This film remains unreleased, though a tradition among the avant-garde is to show the film in the proximity of items bearing a similar resemblance to a Duchampian “fountain”. [2
You know, I like signing all those things – it devalues them,” Duchamp confided to Richard Hamilton at the Pasadena Art Museum. (Tomkins 1965, p. 68.) A retrospective of his work had just opened (1963) and without reluctance Duchamp spent the morning signing papers, posters and other objects. His fame in America was greater than ever, and as Duchamp recalled himself he would sign anything in those days. (cf. Judovitz 1995, p. 162.) Many more shows were put together in the years to follow. Vogue interviewed Duchamp, museums organized round table discussions where Duchamp himself would frequently show up, and slowly a body of literature emerged that vainly tried to pin down the meaning of his work.
A little over a year after Pasadena, the same ritual took place: a show opened at the Cordier & Ekstrom Gallery in New York and an unknown man entered.(1) Philippe Bruno, more of a groupie than an art collector, had cut out all newspaper reviews of the show and pasted them in his copy of the show’s catalogue. If Duchamp could sign this please, maybe on the blank check that was attached with a paperclip to the page where the Tzanck Check was reproduced (facing L.H.O.O.Q.)…
Her sexuality is also linked to religious love, under which Porpentine’s sense of morality tends towards a general regard for humanity as opposed to an identification with individuals. Porpentine notes that his own generation “has budded, bloomed, and, sensing some blight in the air, folded its petals up again like certain flowers at sunset”(p. 114). Pynchon uses vocabulary of location such as the “rue de Rosette,” the “Rosetta arm” of the Nile and the “Quartier Rosetti.”
“Under The Rose” in Slow Learner:
“An alignment like this, he felt, could only have taken place in a Western World where spying was becoming less an individual than a group enterprise, where the events of 1848 and the activities of anarchists and radicals all over the Continent seemed to proclaim that history was being made no longer through the Virtù of single princes but rather by man in the mass; by trends and tendencies and impersonal curves on a lattice of pale blue lines. […] For he and Moldweorp [who works nominally for the Germans], Porpentine knew, were cut from the same pattern: comrade Machiavellians, still playing the games of Renaissance Italian politics in a world that had outgrown them.” (p.107)
“It was no longer single combat. Had it ever been? Lepsius, Bongo-Shaftsbury, all the others, had been more than merely tools or physical extensions of Moldweorp. They were all in it; all had a stake, acted as a unit. Under orders. Whose orders? Anything human? He doubted: like a bright hallucination against Cairo’s night-sky he saw (it may have been only a line of clouds) a bell-shaped curve, remembered perhaps from some younger F.O. operative’s mathematics text. Unlike Constantine on the verge of battle, he could not afford, this late, to be converted at any sign. Only curse himself, silent, for wanting so to believe in a fight according to the duello, even in this period of history. But they — no, it — had not been playing those rules. Only statistical odds. When had he stopped facing an adversary and taken on a Force, a Quantity?” (pp.134-35)
Duchamp gave a “loose” translation of L.H.O.O.Q. as “there is fire
down below” in a late interview (Schwarz 203). Steefel points out
that, when spoken in English, L.H.O.O.Q. sounds like “LOOK” “