>>184
It's funny, because I've been thinking about that a lot lately. Not really about the impression that art itself is faggy, but I guess more about the impression that art is dominated and gatekept by faggots, which makes a lot of our guys feel like there's no point in trying. I imagine that there are guys who could be talented that are hung up on the idea of "Why spend 10,000 hours mastering an art form when you'll be censored and your work will be ignored?"
You're right, all of our greatest leaders have been artists, or have loved the arts. Hitler loved to paint. Goebbels loved the cinema. Rockwell came from a showbusiness family, he was a showman himself in many ways, and he made magazines (he also wrote books, including at least one children's book). In the modern movement, Murdoch is/was probably our most beloved propagandist, and his affinity for different art forms (games, cartoons, books) is on clear display in his work. Our leaders are almost always artists. To think of art as faggy is to insult all of our leaders, and I would have to wonder why anyone with that general opinion is even interested in NatSoc/Fascism/etc. If someone can't appreciate the beauty and potential of art, what would draw them to the movement in the first place? Contrarianism, maybe, because it seems like the most radical position against the system? There might be some people like that, but I would argue that their understanding