Jan 4, 2016

The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School

via The Occidental Observer

“Sexual morality — as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it — seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.”
 - Sigmund Freud, 1908.

“There will be other forms in addition to our classic marriage…We will experience a broader spectrum of socially accepted forms of sexual life.”
-Volkmar Sigusch, 2015.

Volkmar Sigusch
 Volkmar Sigusch (1940- ) may not be a familiar name to TOO readers, but for those concerned about the modern assault on traditional attitudes to gender and sexuality it should be. You might have encountered the term ‘cisgender,’ a Sigusch creation that is rapidly gaining traction in common speech. For those unfamiliar with it, it has come to replace “normal” and even the more deviant-friendly term ‘heterosexual.’ Specifically, the term refers to those “who feel there is a match between their assigned sex and the gender they feel themselves to be. You are cisgender if your birth certificate says you’re male and you identify yourself as a man.” The goal behind inventing such a bizarre and convoluted label for that which is natural and healthy is, of course, to further dilute the identity of the present and coming generations, and convince us all that there is no “normal,” only different positions within an ever more colorful spectrum.

By undermining the meaning of what it is to be male and female, one undermines the healthy concept of the family. And when the healthy concept of the family possessed by a given group is undermined, that group is pushed ever closer to genocide via (using the United Nations lexicon) “deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and “imposing measures intended to prevent births.” The bumper crop of terms like ‘cisgender’, cooked up with alarming frequency by the “sexologists,” helps reduce marriage between a man and a woman and the raising of children within that union, to a mere “option” on a veritable menu of possible sexualities, gender identities, and family structures. In this brave new world there is no “normal” or “ideal” since all “models” are allegedly valid and equal.

This ideology, militant in both theory and execution, stands in opposition to the fact that healthy sexual relationships between males and females stand so far above the other “options” as to represent a gulf, rather than a spectrum, in human behavior. As F. Roger Devlin has so incisively pointed out, heterosexuality is “the natural life cycle of our species” (and all other species) while homosexuality is merely “a way for a few people with exotic tastes to achieve orgasm.” Any argument of equivalence must necessarily be preoccupied with endless abstractions, particularly abstractions surrounding the nature of romantic love, in order to push the debate away from this all-consuming biological fact.

In the same way that we witnessed the tremendous push for “marriage equality,” we have also witnessed the recent championing of those individuals who suffer from the unfortunate delusion that they have been born into the wrong body. While “transgenderism” is a severe mental illness by any definition of the term, the healthy and the normal are now lowered to the same level as these, and other, extremely dysfunctional people. Cultural relativism, once tactically deployed within the West in order to create an artificial parity between Western greatness and the meagre achievements of less advanced races and cultures, is now being deployed within our race and culture to create an artificial parity between the healthy, and the lifestyles of the degenerate and the insane. Much as in the promotion of degenerate art, the end result in both instances is the lowering of the healthy and the superior, and the raising up of the deformed, the sick, and the demented.

The image on the left is that of a pregnant woman suffering from the delusion that she is male. This “family” of the future is intended to achieve parity with, if not superiority over, the healthy family unit of old pictured on the right — the very key to our existence

But who precisely is introducing these terms and ideas, and thus engineering dramatic change in Western society? In our attempt to answer this question, we might first return to Volkmar Sigusch. Sigusch, a German, is a self-described “sexologist,” physician and sociologist. As founder and co-editor of Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung (Journal for Sexual Research), and Director of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Science) at the Goethe University in Frankfurt from 1973 to 2006, Sigusch has been described by Der Spiegel as “one of the main thinkers behind the sexual revolution of the 1960s.” The reasons why the young would-be physician evolved into a cultural radical are quite easy to surmise. After fleeing East Germany, Sigusch studied medicine, psychology and philosophy at Frankfurt. I posit the argument that it was the latter discipline that truly shaped Sigusch and did most to determine his future work. I argue this because he studied philosophy under none other than Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, both of whom had by that date returned from the United States and re-established the notorious Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. Sigusch, a pioneer in the ongoing sexual revolution, is a Frankfurt School protégé.

The following analysis is concerned with the ongoing role of the Jewish-dominated “Culture of Critique” in advancing theories and trends designed to atomize our society. In particular it focusses on Jewish intellectual and political support for the sexually abnormal and explains it as an extension and product of the Frankfurt School’s view that “the unique role of Judaism in world history was to vindicate the concept of difference against the homogenizing forces thought to represent the essence of Western civilization. (My emphasis) ”[1] Kevin MacDonald has noted that the Frankfurt School categorized healthy Western norms, nationalisms, and close family relationships as an indication of psychiatric disorder. By contrast, in the last few decades of the nineteenth century Jewish intellectuals began championing Western society’s outcasts and non-conformers. Using these outcasts, Jewish intellectuals could fight a proxy war against Western homogeneity, and wage a clandestine campaign for the acceptance of pluralism.

By subtly supporting the position of the socially and sexually deviant, these Jewish figures could gain acceptance or inconspicuousness in the newly atomized society, while simultaneously undermining the very health of the homogenous nation.  As MacDonald has noted, the Frankfurt School offered one major prescription for the sick Western world: “radical individualism and the acceptance of pluralism. People have an inherent right to be different from others and to be accepted by others as different. Indeed, to become differentiated from others is to achieve the highest level of humanity.”[2] Following from this, in a society that has succumbed to Frankfurt School ideology one would expect to find endless terms for endless identities, genders, lifestyle choices, cliques and subcultures.

An excellent example of this nightmare becoming reality is one of the latest terms concocted within our atomized society:  Otherkin. According to Google, Otherkin are people who identify as partially or entirely non-human. Some say that they are, in spirit if not in body, not human. In any normal, healthy society this nonsense would be regarded as puerile or insane, and it certainly wouldn’t be indulged. But today, in the wake of Frankfurt School victory, the Otherkin community is just one of several growing realms for the bizarre.

Equally, in a society that has succumbed to Frankfurt School ideology one would expect to find that those most markedly different from the normal and healthy would be held up as alleged examples of the best of humanity. In this regard we need only point to the astonishing and gratuitous plaudits heaped upon Bruce Jenner, and his selection as “Woman of the Year” by Glamour magazine. These developments should rightly be seen as the triumph of the Frankfurt School. However, alongside, and running through, the Frankfurt School were several other Jewish intellectual currents. Among the most important were Freudian psychoanalysis and Jewish sexology. It is to the twisted and complex history of the latter that we now turn our attention, and we will follow its path from its deepest origins to the activities of Volkmar “Cisgender” Sugusch in the present. It is the history of the engineered decomposition of a once healthy society.

Sexology: Its Non-Jewish Currents

As with several Frankfurt school protégés, Volkmar Sigusch found himself being steered into precociously high positions from a young age. In 1972, he became the then-youngest German professor of medicine at the University of Frankfurt, when he was awarded the first-ever professorship in “sexology.” The “discipline” of sexology itself deserves some discussion. Firstly, it cannot be described as a “Jewish discipline” in the same way that psychoanalysis can be. Rather, it was a discipline that started with both Jewish and non-Jewish roots, being eventually fully co-opted by Jews and used for the furtherance of Jewish interests. The first serious academic study involving sexual pathology and psychiatry is generally attributed to the Austro-German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840–1902) and his Psychopathia Sexualis (1886). In this work, Krafft-Ebing classified homosexuality as a perversion and “most sexologists following his lead judged it pathological.”[3] One of those following Krafft-Ebing’s lead, and consequently one of the founders of modern sexology was the Englishman Havelock Ellis (1859–1939).

Havelock Ellis

Havelock Ellis pioneered the non-Jewish strand of sexology by building on the roots of the earliest German-language writing on sexual behavior among humans. Among the most crucial of these early writings was that of von Krafft-Ebing. In Psychopathia Sexualis the German set the tone and structure for non-Jewish investigations into homosexuality by arguing that there were essentially four stages of “sexual inversion,” his term for homosexuality.[4] The first stage is a simple perversion of the sexual instinct, which results in no deformity of the personality itself. As an example of this type we might point to contemporaries like Douglas Murray or Jack Donovan who exhibit no noticeably unusual character traits beyond the inversion of their sexual instinct. The second stage involves defeminatio in which the whole personality of the individual undergoes a change of disposition in harmony with the changed sexual instinct. In these cases we see the effeminate, conspicuously perverted, types who are the main vectors of sexually transmitted diseases among inverts. The third stage involves a transition to metamorphosis sexualis paranoica, in which the subject at times suffers from the delusion that there has been an actual change of sex. Finally, von Krafft-Ebing argued that the fourth stage was full-blown metamorphosis sexualis paranoica, involving systematic delusions as to change in sex. In this category we may place the now much-celebrated Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.

What united the early German scholars and the slightly later English-language pioneers of similar studies was the categorization of these behaviors as psychological disorders. Additionally, these studies were carried out during periods when birth rates were declining and, as such, the field merged more than a little with that of eugenics. Havelock Ellis himself was Vice-President of the Eugenics Education Society, the forerunner of the Galton Institute. Ellis took von Krafft-Ebing’s work further in his own Sexual Inversion (1901), in which he argued that homosexuals and those experiencing metamorphosis sexualis paranoica were (v) “congenital subjects of abnormality,” and “suffering intensely from abnormal organization.” Ellis concurred with von Krafft-Ebing (37) that such a disorder was “a functional sign of degeneration, as a partial manifestation of a neuropathic and psychopathic state.”

Ellis also went further than von Krafft-Ebing by attempting to explain why efforts should be undertaken by the state to prevent such behaviors becoming accepted and thus more commonplace. In other words, he opposed the public culture of homosexuality that has become increasingly pre-dominant since the 1960s counter-cultural revolution. Like many modern-day conservative commentators, and indeed the state of Russia today, Ellis argued that sexual inversion was “organic” only in very few cases but that its prevalence could be exacerbated in a given society due to environmental factors, particularly propaganda indicating to the otherwise normal, young, and impressionable that such behaviors and lifestyles are fashionable. One of these factors was urban life itself which (30) “renders easier the exhibition and satisfaction of this as of all other forms of perversion.” Also, although both Parmenides and Aristotle argued that heredity played a large role in the homosexuality of the Greeks, and more especially the Dorians, Ellis argued that the prevalence of sexual inversion in Greek society was rooted more in the human “herd instinct” and was due more (29) to a “state of social feeling that, however it originated, induced a large proportion of the ordinary population to adopt homosexuality as a fashion.” Once a society adopted this fashion, it contributed (239) to the “demoralizing of the manhood of a nation,” and was a sign of impending national or civilizational collapse into decadence and despondency. The goal was thus to avoid a situation in which such behaviors were “normalized” and, more crucially, to prevent the behaviors associated with these psychological disorders from becoming fashionable.

Ellis’ approach to the abnormality of sexual inversion was far from totalitarian. He argued (193) that little could be done to help the congenital invert but that “sound social hygiene should render difficult the acquisition of homosexual perversity.” Homosexuals should be prevented from coming into close contact with children since his studies showed (199) that this reduced the incidence of “acquired perversity in others” via abuse and ensuing psychological disturbance. Adhering even to just this measure would act rapidly to reduce “artificial homosexuality among the general population.” Ellis argued that it was both cruel and undesirable for society to make congenital inverts act like those around them, and especially undesirable for them to be encouraged to procreate. Ellis collected data showing (198) that the descendants of sexual inverts tended to constitute families of “neurotic and failing stock.” Rather Ellis believed (198) that occurrences of sexual inversion may be a way for Nature to begin closing a faulty branch of the family tree: “The tendency to sexual inversion in eccentric and neurotic families seems merely to be Nature’s merciful method of winding up a concern which, from her point of view, has ceased to be profitable.” For sexual inverts, according to Ellis, “the inadvisability of parenthood remains.”

For Ellis, debates about the tolerance of homosexual behavior should be lifted from the moral and religious sphere and placed squarely in the sphere of demographics and national health. However, he noted that the two spheres (206) overlapped in times of demographic crisis:
Wherever the enlargement of the population becomes a strongly-felt social need — as it was among the Jews in their exaltation of family-life, and as it was when the European nations were constituted, — there homosexuality has been regarded as a crime, even punishable with death. The Incas of ancient Peru, in the fury of their devastation, even destroyed a whole town where sodomy had once been detected. [5]
Particularly relevant to our contemporary society, Ellis also astutely pointed out (206) that “there seems to be a certain relationship between the social reaction against homosexuality and against infanticide. Where the one is regarded leniently and favorably, there generally the other is also; where the one is stamped out, the other is usually stamped out.” Ellis’ astute remarks on the context behind the Jewish outlawing of homosexuality, and the use of violence against it by ancient cultures such as the Peruvians, bear further reflection. This is particularly the case given that there is a strain of inverts within our movement who propagandize their cause by weakly arguing that antipathy towards sexual inversion is due to the influence of “Judeo-Christian morals” rather than ethnically universal concerns around demographic health.

This demographic concern was vital to the interpretations and views of non-Jewish sexologists. Since homosexuality, permitted to spread via fashion, leading to “acquired perversion” in the young, is socially linked to acceptance of abortion and infanticide, it acts to “check the population” and should thus be controlled and quarantined in a state that wishes to improve its demographic health.

The means of quarantine suggested by Ellis were not harsh or unreasonable. Society should refrain (215) from crushing the subject of abnormality with shame but, in an eerie premonition of the “Pride parades,” he argued that society should never allow the invert to “flout his perversion in its face and assume that he is of finer clay than the vulgar herd.” Since the genetic dead-end facing inverts was, in Ellis’ view, penalty enough, society should confine its approach to the sexually abnormal to the “protection of the helpless member of society against the invert.” Essentially, Ellis’ advice was to decriminalize the behavior of inverts and end societal shame surrounding it, but also to prevent inverts from flouting their abnormality, and from having physical, pedagogical or ideological access to children. Such was the approach of a broad swathe of opinion in mainstream (non-Jewish) sexology up to Weimar period. And this is largely the position taken by the Russian state today.
The research and theories on homosexuality initiated by Kraft-Ebbing and Ellis are more than a century old, so there is no reason to take them as gospel truth. However, this strain of research, had it retained its dominance, may well have perpetuated an adaptive public culture that privileged heterosexuality, male-female bonding, and the rearing of children.

There was, however, another strain of thought within the embryonic field of sexology, and it is to this strain that the modern toleration and promotion of sexual delinquency owes its most significant debt. This strain can be identified as a Jewish intellectual concoction because its four key thinkers and ethnically activists were the nineteenth-century German-Jewish psychiatrists Albert Moll, Iwan Bloch, Magnus Hirschfeld and Albert Eulenberg, with able support from other Jewish figures like Hermann Joseph Lowenstein, Julius Wolf, Max Marcuse, and Eduard Bernstein. Despite some occasional minor disagreements between them, these Jewish sexologists and social commentators were united in advancing theories of sexual inversion that moved away from interpretations involving themes like degeneration, demographic decline and biological reality, and instead towards Talmudic abstractions involving the nature of romantic love and the allegedly fluid nature of gender and sex. As one might predict, running through all of their works is a clear preoccupation with the need for “tolerance” and social pluralism, the denial of human difference, and a fanatical opposition towards non-Jewish attempts to develop racial science. It is to the specific theories and machinations of these individuals that we now turn our attention.

[1][1] K. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth Century Intellectual and Political Movements (2002), 161.
[2] Ibid, 164.
[3] E. Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 7.
[4] R. von Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia Sexualis (Eighth Edition, 1893), 188.
[5] For Ellis as an evolutionist, a good indication of the pathology of homosexuality is that it is a reproductive dead end. Homosexuality has always been a puzzle to evolutionary biologists given that same-sex attraction would tend to lower reproductive success. However, since homosexuality has generally been stigmatized in historical societies, men with homosexual tendencies often married and procreated in order to avoid the penalties of being publicly homosexual — Ellis’ example of Orthodox Judaism being a case in point given the very intense pressures to have children combined with official condemnation of homosexuality in traditional Jewish society. This would tend to keep genes for homosexuality in the population, and perhaps even result in high levels of homosexuality, as some observers have noted to the case among Jews. In the contemporary world where homosexuality has become far more accepted, pressures for marriage and family are greatly lessened, constituting a selection pressure against genes predisposing for homosexuality. Ironically therefore, the public culture of homosexuality actually results in selection against genes predisposing for homosexuality, even while (if Ellis is correct) encouraging some to be homosexual who would not be so inclined if the culture retained sanctions against homosexuality.

Black Lives Matter: Hysteria and Lies

via American Renaissance

Today’s best argument for white racial consciousness.

Osmosis and Western Civilization

via RightOn

Summary: What can the lives of cells tell us about what liberalism is attempting to do to Western civilization?

What happens when a saltwater fish is placed in a container with freshwater? What happens when a paramecium is placed in distilled water? In both cases, the organism swells until its internal pressure kills it.

In every cell, a membrane separates the interior of the biological system of the cell from the outside environment. This membrane is selectively permeable so that the cell can regulate its own levels of nutrients and chemicals, but without inundating itself, which would cause it to die like the swelling fish and paramecium.

When a cell is high in salts, it allows more water into the cell through the action of a small transmembrane protein called an aquaporin. These allow more water molecules to come through the membrane, acting as a gatekeeper, because the natural tendency of water molecules is to flow from areas of lower concentration of salts to higher concentration areas. In this way, the movement of the water creates equality in the concentrations of solute, achieving the isotony.

Societies are systems like cells. Their borders are like cell membranes, admitting only what the society needs against the constant pressure from the outside to get in. This creates the conditions required for life to be possible.

The egalitarian mindset of Western liberalism sees the world as a place that needs to be equalized so that the world achieves an idealized balance where every part of humankind has the same amount of resources. Speaking of the devil, does a non-Western liberalism exist? Only the Western cell feels this equality is necessary, where the rest of the world, like water, only knows an urge to rush in, creating the swelling that dooms the cell.

One of the first formulas that liberalism has utilized has been the allocation of resources to developing countries through campaigns, concerts, and aid groups such as Doctors Without Borders. This allocation of aid, although it has been successful in the media, has not had the desired result; thus, the advance towards human equality has been sought through more aggressive methods.

Welfare and resources are the salts of societies. A society that has a high welfare concentration will find itself under pressure from population growth, which, like the water, always pushes inward, and if it is not resisted by the membrane, it will rapidly exceed the carrying capacity of the social welfare systems. The difference in concentration of salts causes a mental crisis for planetary social justice warriors. They find themselves disturbed by anything but total equality, even if that means death for their society, because inequality means a failure of the solidarity of all humanity solely on the basis of their all being human. These neurotic people will only feel safe when their quality of being human is the only criterion for inclusion, because in that way, even the neurotics will be included.

On the basis of the assumption that human beings are all equal because they belong to the same species, liberalism assumes that human groups can easily be displaced from one region of the planet to another. It has a hope, rather than a factual basis, to believe that the Earth can be a single, global village where solving inequality is as simple as moving people from areas of low social welfare to wealthier areas.

Acting through political correctness, liberalism sends signals to the aquaporin, instructing it to let in more populations from outside. Out of a desire to equalize concentrations between the cell and the rest of the global village, this enables a constant flow of humans from low-wealth zones into high-wealth zones, which causes the latter to swell to the bursting point.

On a realistic level, Western societies cannot survive this influx. If liberalism were merely motivated by a desire to achieve equality, it would stop the flow when carrying capacity was reached. But inherent to liberalism is the idea that the West must atone for what are assumed to be past injustices, and that to atone for its “sins” it must obliterate itself: a sacrifice of wealth for the benefit of the rest of the world.

Let us look at the death of a cell placed in distilled water. It does not detect any salts, so it absorbs an enormous volume of water, swelling until it explodes. To avoid this result, cells have mechanisms for expelling extra water, but liberalism is extremely suicidal and opposes any such measures. As a result, liberals will perish alongside the rest when the cellular structure of Western society expands beyond its limits, bursting and leaving behind a Third World chaos in which all liberal perspectives will be nothing more than a distant, useless memory.

The Devil Has a Name: Who’s Behind Miley Cyrus’s Antics?

via TradYouth

In a February 2011 interview with GQ , the mostly forgotten Billy Ray Cyrus spoke in depth on the downward spiral of his daughter Miley. While no stranger to whoring for fame, Billy Ray’s fatherly anguish was intense and palpable. But instead of identifying the flesh and blood featherless bipeds who had abducted his daughter and turned her into the locus for the celebration of indignity and sickness, Billy Ray’s Achy Breaky Heart sought supernatural explanations, likely due to his patented synthesis of stupidity and pissantery:
GQ: Do you really see it in such clearly spiritual terms—that your family was under attack by Satan?
BRC: I think we are right now. No doubt. There’s no doubt about it.
GQ: And why is that happening?
BRC: It’s the way it is. There has always been a battle between good and evil. Always will be. You think, ‘This is a chance to make family entertainment, bring families together…” And look what it’s turned into.
These statements contradict what he told the press around the same time as the GQ interview; which was comparatively blunt :
“I’m scared for her. She’s got a lot of people around her that’s putting her in a great deal of danger.”
Obviously, Billy Ray did not have the character to stand up like a man and fight for his daughter’s well-being and honor against these “dangerous people”. After all, Mr. Hannah Montana didn’t want to burn any bridges to the devil, and three years later he managed to renew his “faustian pact” with a grotesquely pornographic, miscegenation-ridden, rap-infused catastrophic failure of a sequel (54,027 thumbs down on youtube vs 21,651 thumbs up) to his simple and innocent 1992 country hit:

Hannah Montana “Grows Up”

Annie Liebovitz’s pedophilic portrayal of 15 year old Miley Cyrus in the 2008 edition of Vanity Fair.
Annie Leibovitz’s sexualized portrayal of 15 year old Miley Cyrus in a 2008 release of Vanity Fair.
The Disney name, for reasons that defy common sense, evokes trust in parents who see fit to allow the television to raise their children. While it’s the Jew Bob Iger aggressively politicizing Mickey’s ears from behind the scenes, it is cloaked beneath the artistic, volkish, beautiful vision built from scratch by German-American founder and “anti-Semitic” clairvoyant Walt.

From circa 2006 to 2011, millions of families throughout our globalized world gathered in front of the Jude-tube to watch the teenage tribute to materialism, feminism, and ugly careerism known as Hannah Montana. The family the show follows is a crude stereotype of the “country bumpkin” Billy Ray worked hard to cultivate and transform into a profitable niche, but in spite of all the passive propaganda (including Miley Cyrus herself claiming it was patterned after Sex in the City, minus the sex ), the show was mostly free of pornography, gore, and suggestiveness–a rare find for parents in the 21st century.

This, however, was not always consistent, as Miley Cyrus’ increasingly exhibited family “unfriendly” behavior off the screen. 2008 can be pinpointed as the beginning of Cyrus’ descent into madness, when the Jewish fuzz-bumper Annie Leibovitz–the “Leonardo Da Vinci” of the modern world who you might know from her latest [in]famous portrayal of Judeo-America’s Mona Lisa, “Caitlyn Jenner,” as well as a greater portfolio featuring other trashy, anti-white, aesthetically repugnant takes on mentally ill, talentless, morally bankrupt scumbags made aristocrats by the Judeo-capitalists. Leibovitz and Vanity Fair aggressively pursued America’s folksy sweetheart to be featured in a sexually charged photoshoot.

By 2008, the Hannah Montana franchise was already valued at a whooping $1 billion dollars, and the people supplying this money were the splurging parents of kids between toddler and tween. For good reason, the Jews of Disney scrambled for public relations control when the topless photos of the underage sitcom star encountered great social controversy, a Disney Channel statement released in its wake read:
“Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines”
“Nobody says no to Annie” is the mantra of the show business world in respects to Leibovitz. Bolstered by an intricate network known as the Jewish media, Billy Ray’s devil, whose camera is wielded as a racial mallet against the foundations of Western civilization (self-restraint, beauty, moderation in sex and vice), has been granted the power to immortalize. Most 15 year old girls, without strong and keen fathers to protect them, would find the premise of defying the standard child-star trajectory and being recorded in history forever to be very appealing. Most 15 year old girls, additionally, want to act like grown ups, and what’s more “grown up” in the Jewish saboteurs infantilization of our culture than sexual provocation and making your own pornography?

2013: The Devil Makes Her Twerk

 L: Britney Spears before working with the Jew Larry Rudolph; R: After
L: Britney Spears before working with
the Jew Larry Rudolph; R: After

The Annie Liebovitz controversy was an important signal to the Jewish establishment regarding the lack of responsible supervision over Miley Cyrus, and her potential as a vehicle for aggression in their war against mankind. When Hannah Montana came to an end, and Cyrus’ music career began to wane, she signed with the Jew manager Larry Rudolph, and her behavior has gotten more bizarre and viscerally offensive ever since.

Rudolph has specialized in “rejuvenating” the careers of child stars. The sleazy Ashkenazi pimp, in fact, has been credited with the short-lived pop fad of Cyrus’ fellow ex-Disney channel star Britney Spears, who at barely 16 years of age premiered in the 1999 Baby One More Time , where the Jew Nigel Dick collaborated closely with Rudolph to feature the teenage girl gyrating invitingly in pig tails and an erotically tailored catholic school uniform begging men to “hit her” (the song itself was written and produced by almost certain Jew Martin Sandberg aka “Max Martin”, and was played on loop on MTV and the radio until it grew on America’s young shiksas).

The media masters, it appears, get people like Spears and Cyrus into your living room by introducing them as sweet and innocent kids, then once children start looking at them as role models, suddenly “grow them up”. We all know how Spears ended up, and she was eventually retired after a very public and humiliating psychological break down–it is this, not just profits, that Jews seek for the masses.

Fast forward to 2013, and Rudolph found himself sucking on the neck of a new host. Cyrus’ obscene “twerking” (a dance meant to simulate sex, commonly practiced by negroes) performance at the Video Music Awards won her jeers and made people start asking questions about her mental state. But Jew Rudolph commented that it “could not have gone better“. Rudolph, a flesh and blood man and certainly not a supernatural entity, has been singled out as the main conduit for Cyrus’ demeaning behavior:
“One day she was a sweet smiling Disney darling, and the next she was a sexually-aggressive, body baring songstress intent on twerking and tonguing her way to the top of the charts.
How did this happen?
Well for one, she hired Britney Spears’ manager, Larry Rudolph.
In March, Cyrus signed up with Rudolph, the man best known for guiding the career of Britney Spears from Mouseketeer to pop singing sex symbol.”
Miley Cyrus "twerking" at the 2013 VMAs
Miley Cyrus “twerking” for living
With Rudolph at the helm, Cyrus was trained by his people in the art of cultural decline. Millions of impressionable young girls who had followed Cyrus since her Hannah Montana days were subjected to something alien, crude, undignified, and primitive. Unsurprisingly, Cyrus’ “twerking” act was not a lapse in judgment, but in fact, meticulously choreographed by what Esquire Magazine describes as a “hip young Jewish woman from Brooklyn” named Diane Martel.

Reactions to Miley Cyrus performing a public sex act with subhuman ecstacy, where her tongue was fully out of her mouth the entire time she was being dry humped in front of millions, were largely negative. Even outraged blacks, accustomed to seeing such behavior, like “Charlamagne Tha God”, said: “Why you wanna be on this nigga side so bad? I’m trying to cross over.”

Esquire extrapolates in between the lines on the political agenda behind the performance:
“Miley’s application for a hood pass and desire to “corrupt” a nation full of young, white girls to back that thing up has many folks scratching their heads.”
The Jew Martel is no stranger to “tha game”, she experimented first on American negroes without their knowledge by creating the “look and feel of hip-hop’s cultural iconography in the 90s”, and was behind many famous videos that established the “urban aesthetic” of rappers like Wu-Tang Clan, Redman, and Mary J. Blige.

Esquire continues:
“Martel invented Miley’s street cred by reconstructing the manic claustrophobia of Wu-Tang’s late, great ODB, and transporting it to the mansion-sized, Laurel Canyon circle-twerk bacchanal of Cyrus’s “We Can’t Stop”.
Diane Martel was also the architect behind Miley Cyrus’s 2013 VMA performance.”
The twerking episode was one of many subsequent nasties, but nothing beats the devil’s latest lewd contribution, undoubtedly consented to not by Miley, but the drugs she has been plied with for years.

Her Latest Outrage: A Sexualized Infant

Many people have commented on the contemporary push for normalizing child molestation, whether it’s the infamous “op ed” from Jew-infested Salon’s in-house pedophile done under the guise of “tolerance”, or the New York Times Jew Margo Kaplan’s “Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime” under the thin veneer of science, Jew Louis CK talking about screwing kids shielded by comedy, or mentally ill Yid laughing stock Shia Labeouf in clothes meant to make him look naked putting his face in the crotch of a prepubescent girl done under the cover of “performance art”. Anglo-Saxon semantics-culture is the easiest rubik’s cube the Talmudically trained debaters have ever beaten.

But Miley’s latest music video feels the climate is comfortable enough to not come up with an alibi. The video features Cyrus in a diaper and bonnet opening her legs up to the camera, rolling her tongue all over a pacifier to the lyrics:
I don’t really want an older you
I heard I change my mind with you often
Baby talk is creeping me out
Fuck me so you stop baby talking
By 3:52, Cyrus is in a baby’s crib, wearing an outfit that hardly even hides her fork, while moving in the cow girl position mouthing the hook “Fuck Me, stop baby talking”.

Tracing this video’s origins, we find the same Jews Jewing about. MTV reports Diane Martel, described as much “talked-about”, as the director of the video. What’s the damn point? Despite her large, established, female die-hard fanbase that has stuck by her since Hannah Montana, Miley’s video has 180,000 youtube disapprovals (and growing) and a pyrrhic positive rating of almost 192,000. Hardly smart to split your audience like that by portraying something so viscerally and pointlessly offensive if profit’s your only motive. No amount of rationalization can take away what everyone can plainly see this video is edging society towards.

Outside of the general evil of pedophilia, the purpose of bringing this insanity into the mainstream is to sow distrust between adults and children. Paradoxically, in cultures where homosexuality is supposedly accepted and the sexual revolution is rife (America, Sweden, Germany), a purely platonic hug between two men will be (understandably) feared and construed as a potential queer come-on, while in Iran where fags are put to death two men or two women have no qualms walking down the street hand in hand without sexual insinuations.

Our world is so “Pozzed” that men on certain airlines are forced to undergo the embarrassment of changing seats when placed next to minors on airplanes, under the assumption that all adult males are child-molesters. Jews have a vested interest in eroding non-sexual intimacy and friendship among Gentiles and whites, as this is how mammals establish trust, which then turns to social capital, and finally to revolution.

Imagine if pedophilia becomes normalized against the people’s will, like “gay marriage” was. No parent will ever be able to share a bed or hug their own children ever again. You won’t be able to have your grandchildren on your lap, or tickle your nieces or nephews without suspicion, or at the very least, people having the depressing thought in the back of their minds. If you think the world is ugly today, it will only get worse unless we get together politically.

It’s impossible to know for sure, but Miley Cyrus’ career evolution was probably planned from the start of Hannah Montana. Imagine being the parent of a 5 year old girl who idolized the tender small town character of 2007 and then being in the awkward spot of forbidding her today from going to gratuitous tributes and promotions of animal behavior, pedophilia, drug use, immaturity, race-mixing, and who knows what else at a contemporary Cyrus performance.

Some people call him devil, others call him “liberal”, even more refer to him as “dangerous people”. But I won’t mince words: his name is Jew. And if we don’t exorcise him out of our country, the gangrenous sore will continue to grow.

Crossing the Mental Potomac

via Radix

They say any press is good press, and if that’s the metric the alt right has been surging. From The New Yorker to The Washington Post our movement and its leaders have been quoted in the wake of the Trump phenomenon more than ever before. 

Of course, Conservatism inc. has not allowed this publicity to go unnoticed. The boring ex-cub reporter from National Review Bestsy Woodruff clacked and clucked about “evil” nazis and (gasp) Islamophobia over at The Daily Beast. Over at The Weekly Standard though, one Benjamin Welton seems to want to try to understand exactly who we are:
Indeed, the true conflict facing Republicans is not with the social democrats who've taken over the American left, but within the soul of American conservatives. Namely, a new, highly heterogeneous force in right-wing politics is taking hold, and they have their sights set firmly on the Republican "establishment." Known collectively as the "alternative right," this amalgam includes neo-reactionaries, monarchists, nativists, populists, and even a few self-declared fascists. They mostly congregate online, with a large swath of blogs and websites dedicated to their concerns. As an example of how truly diverse the alt right is, major and proverbial watering holes for them include everything from Breitbart and the libertarian-leaning Taki Mag to Alternative Right—a blog that openly supports white nationalism.”
It seems as if someone has been clicking around the dark side of the internet (I hope the Standard’s IT don’t double as commisars!) But, yes, Ben, we are heterogenous, what unites us is a creeping and true suspicion that, yes, something is very rotten in Denmark. Something that just supporting the GOP and electing the next “True Reagan Conservative” won’t solve. We want to build a future for ourselves and our grandchildren, not the Republican Party.

As Richard Spencer recently said to The Washington Post about Donald Trump, who conjures:
[A]n unconscious vision that white people have — that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country. I think that scares us. They probably aren’t able to articulate it. I think it’s there.
This is exactly true. To many inside the beltway we are monsters that are in your own words, Mr. Welton, “the real threat to the Republican party as it is currently constituted”. Well said, our loyalties are to our people and our identity as Europeans rather than to the abstract shibboleths of a dying political party from the End of History.

You correctly also note that we don’t play into the left’s morality game. That we:
Rather than concede the moral high ground to the left, the alt right turns the left's moralism on its head and makes it a badge of honor to be called "racist," "homophobic," and "sexist." Instead of the GOP establishment's soup of globalism, free markets, and foreign interventions, the alt Right has resurrected some ghosts from the conservative past in pushing for protectionism, national capitalism, and an emphasis on protecting American lives at home, not abroad.
Again, all true. We hold to the radical truths that preferenes for one’s own, honor for one’s ancestors, and working towards a vision of the future for our people is true, noble, and right. We also don’t deny the biological reality that there are differences among the races and sexes. In short what we offer is a more natural, in all senses of the word, view of the world. One not rooted in trying to one up the Left's insane pseudo-morality or predicated on economistic bean counting.

To anyone reading this curious about what exactly the “alt Right” is, have a look at Richard Spencer’s latest video and browse Radix’s archives. Don’t let the beltway do your thinking for you, I’m sure you’ll find yourself nodding along more than you thought you would.

Don’t be afraid to think different. Or as we would say, don’t be afaid to become who you are. The only thing you have to cross is the mental Potomac!

Leading Politicians Admit They Want to Turn Australia "Eurasian"

via White GeNOcide Project

Statistics from Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection show that most immigrants from 2014-2015 came from India, with China coming in a close second. In total, around 50% to 60% of immigrants came from non-Western countries.

Immigration statistics from just a few decades ago show that there has been a huge turn-around from when most immigrants came from Europe, and which has put Australia on track to becoming minority White.

Did this just happen by accident? Read on and judge for yourself.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s, some of Australia’s politicians were privately talking about how they were going to make the country “Eurasian”.

In 1983, former Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden said “There’s already a large and growing Asian population ib Australia and it is inevitable in my view that Australia will become a Eurasian country over the next century or two. Australian Asians and Europeans will marry another and a new race will emerge; I happen to think that’s desirable.”

“[We] should welcome the process of gradually becoming a Eurasian-type society. We will not just become a multicultural society – which seems to me to be a soft sort of terminology anyway – we will become a Eurasian society and be the better for it.”

Former Liberal Prime Minister, John Gorton, put this in even more blatant words:
“I think that if we build up inside Australia a proportion of people without White skins, then there will be a complete lack of consciousness that it is being built up … and that we will arrive at a state where we will have a multi-racial country without racial tensions – and perhaps the first in the world.”

This is why we call these guys anti-White. They want White genocide – despite how much they call it “diversity”.

The Man of Sorrows Is the Counter-Revolution

via Cambria Will not Yield

Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying,
Sealed in the stone-cold Tomb.

-John Henry Hopkins, Jr.

I always place more importance on anecdotal evidence than on statistical evidence, because anecdotal evidence comes from flesh and blood human beings, while statistical evidence comes from… I don’t know where it comes from – that is the problem with it. Over the years I’ve collected a large body of anecdotal evidence indicating that there is a huge discrepancy between the ruling liberal elite, which consists of the intellectuals in church and state, and the grazers. The grazers do the liberals’ bidding because the liberals are in power, but they don’t believe in racial Babylon with the same intensity as the liberals, which is why the grazer will say some things in private, once you have made the first anti-Babylonian remark, which suggests that the white everyman still has some light left in his soul. But the light soon fades, because the liberals have overmanned the grazer’s soul. When the grazer makes a criticism of the liberals’ multi-racial utopia, he feels guilty, like a man in olden days who might tell a dirty joke in the church parking lot. Of course, now dirty jokes are told from the church pulpits while ‘racist’ comments have become the parking lot dirty jokes.

The grazer submits to liberal rule, because he believes that intelligence is morality. To be willfully stupid, which means clinging to prejudices stemming from the traditions, manners, and customs of the antique Europeans, is morally wrong, because the Europeans of the past were racist and therefore stupid. (1) Thus the fear of being racist and unintelligent makes moral cowards of the white grazers. It was inevitable that Trump would become the candidate for ‘stupid’ people, because Trump, like Reagan before him, has dipped his little toe into the waters of prejudice and blood wisdom. It is only a little toe, but that little mite of reality is too much for the liberals, so they have brought out the propaganda machines to destroy Trump.

The Europeans will be losers so long as they continue to believe in democracy. A candidate such as Trump is not a leader who can lead his people out of the wilderness, but he does represent a significant rear guard for the retreating Europeans. They can use a rear guard, but then they must regroup and return to the fray, shorn of their moral cowardice and armed with the anti-democratic prejudices of their European forefathers.

Even if there was no Moslem menace, the black barbarian menace left unchecked is enough to destroy the European people. The Moslem onslaught is just another form of the same liberal attack against Christ and the Christ-bearing race. Have the liberals’ gone too far in this, their latest attack on the European people? There certainly has been more open criticism by the grazers of the liberals’ Moslem gambit than of any other liberal stratagem. Because I love my people and want them to survive, it is my deepest hope that the liberals have overplayed their hand and this liberal-sponsored Moslem invasion will trigger a white counter-revolutionary movement that will cleanse the European nations of liberalism. But in truth I don’t see that happening, because the opposition to the liberals’ Moslem initiative has been launched in the name of liberalism. Critics of the Moslem invasion have stressed the incompatibility of Islam and classical liberalism. The Moslems believe in mass rape, the Moslems believe in the murder of the infidel, the Moslems believe in a Moslem theocracy, and the list goes on and on. How can the liberals countenance such a religion that is seemingly against all they hold sacred? The answer is simple. The first liberal was the devil — very few liberals believe in the devil, but that is not important to the devil — what he wants is his will, and he wills the destruction of the Christ-bearing race. Any ideology opposed to the Christ-bearing race is therefore a good ideology. In that classic song of Tennessee Ernie Ford, “16 Tons,” he sings of one fist of iron and the other of steel: “If the right one don’t get you, the left one will.” Such is the plan of the devil: “If my colored barbarians don’t get you, the Moslems will.” The Moslems’ attack is largely against whites, because of their past connection to the Christian faith, but the Moslems have also launched attacks against non-white Christians in their own nations. This is one of the reasons the liberals have had a much harder time convincing the grazers of the innate goodness of the Moslems; they can’t cloak their support of the Moslems by claiming it is ‘racist’ and therefore stupid to oppose them. But the liberals’ Moslem narrative will ultimately prevail so long as the opposition keeps citing classical liberalism as the alternative to Islam. Liberalism in its classical form or in its modern, mad-dog form is from the devil, and we cannot seek redemption from the devil. If we do, we will end up like Macbeth, cursing the powers of darkness, who led us to our destruction:
And be these juggling fiends no more believ’d
That palter with us in a double sense,
That keep the word of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope.
Macbeth stepped outside of God’s grace in order to obtain a crown for his wife, a crown gotten through regicide. How can we oppose liberalism by invoking liberal principles? It is only when we break with the liberal, regicide governments of Europe that we can begin to climb out of the hellhole of multicultural death-in-life. In the works of Britain’s two greatest novelists, Walter Scott and Charles Dickens, there is almost always a character whom the evil-doers disregard as too stupid and inconsequential to be of any danger to them. But it is the stupid, inconsequential man who steps out of the shadows and defeats the evil-doers. It is the ‘stupid’ Quentin Durward who foils the evil Louis XI, and it is the comical, ineffectual Wilkins Micawber who foils the villainous Uriah Heep. This spiritual dynamic also occurs again and again in the European fairy tales. It is the third dumb brother who prevails where the ‘smart’ brothers fail, because the third dumb brother is pure of heart. And is not the origin of all the third dumb brother novels and fairy tales to be found in the story of our Lord and Savior? Was not Christ the inconsequential stone whom the builders rejected? Yes, He was. He was “despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” It was that Man, the Man of Sorrows, whom our people accepted as their Savior. “Angels above Him told us to love Him,” and our people did just that! They made a hero of the inconsequential babe in the manger, who grew up to be an ingloriously crucified criminal. “Is He your savior?” the smart men jeered. “Yes, He is our Lord and Savior,” the Europeans proclaimed with one voice. Away from the theologians who bid us look to their systems instead of Christ, away from the liberals who spit on the stupid, prejudiced Christians of old Europe, stands Christ. He is only an inconsequential shadow to the men and women of Liberaldom, but He is watching us, He is always watching us. And when we call on Him by name, He will step out of the shadows and lead us into battle.

There are ‘no-go’ zones in Europe where white Europeans dare not go, because the Moslems have taken over in those areas. In the United States there are thousands of black, no-go zones, where it is certain death for whites foolish enough to enter. Why are whites in retreat in their own nations? Isn’t it obvious? The rulers of the white nations have coalesced with the heathens and the barbarians of color to destroy the white race. And without a fighting faith, the whites are defenseless against the Moslem and colored onslaught. ‘The democratic way’ is not a fighting faith; ‘Three cheers for multiculturalism,’ is not a fighting faith. ‘By the Cross We Conquer,’ is a fighting faith.

It is time, past time, to acknowledge that white people are a conquered people, cowering and hiding in the lands that used to be their own. But there is no need to accept our conquered state as final. Now, when we seem like inconsequential weaklings, whose women are regarded as the property of heathens and colored barbarians and whose men are regarded as cowards, is the time to strike back. The world belongs to the Christ-bearing people; nothing will be denied them providing they leave the belly of the liberal leviathan and take up the banner of Christ crucified, Christ risen.

Burke saw what was coming. The devil was in the midst of us. In the form of a gigantic vulture, he spread his wings over all of Europe and remade Christendom into Liberaldom. He was unopposed, because he neutralized the opposition. Burke’s rejection by his own party was symptomatic of all of Europe’s reaction to liberalism. To oppose utopia was to oppose science, democracy, and the universal brotherhood of man. But how can there be a universal brotherhood of man when we deny our common hope? The headlong flight of the demon-possessed swine, their flight from the living God, led them over a cliff. That is what liberalism represents, the flight of the swine. That image, of the swine going over the cliff, should be on all the flags of Europe, so long as Europeans bend their knees to the satanic vulture.

Who will turn from that vulture of death? The men of blood, the last Europeans, will not bow down to Satan. Late at night in secret spots, in caves, in basements, and in deserted, wooded places where the utopian liberals formerly planned their revenges on Christian men, the Christian men will plan their counter-attack. This Christmas I heard a white choir perform “We Three Kings of Orient Are” in a very fast, martial style. The words, “sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying,” took on an added significance when sung in that style. For me, the song became a Christian counter-revolutionary song. Is Christ, the inconsequential man of sorrows, the leader who will lead us out of the liberals’ utopian hell? Yes, He is.
Glorious now, behold Him arise,
King and God, and Sacrifice!
Heaven sings Alleluia!
Alleluia! the earth replies.
And if that sounds too fantastic for white men, it is because they have suffered from an intellectual contraction of the blood for the past 100 years. Once their hearts reconnect with Christian Europe they will no longer fear the liberals and their murderous heathen and colored allies. It will be time for Satan’s multitudinous legions to fear Europeans, the men who were born to champion the sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying God who was rejected and remains rejected by the builders of a utopian hell on earth.

(1) It never ceases to amaze and disgust me when I see and hear European clergymen joining in the liberal chorus that sings an unending hymn of hatred, hatred of the antique Europeans. If they hate the people who were closest to Christ and want to eradicate their culture and their descendants from the face of the earth, then what should we conclude? They serve the liberals who fly the swinish flag of Satan.

Jewish Racialism and Jewish Capitalism: "Barton Fink"

via Alternative Right

The Coen brothers, a directing/producing brotherly duo, are perhaps the boldest and most creative auteurs of modern-day American cinema. Their work varies wildly; it is “all over the map,” thematically-speaking, yet always distinctively itself. Some Coen brothers’ films are bizarre and phantasmagorical; others are zanily comedic, and still others can best be described as brutally horrifying. Barton Fink is a unique combination of all three of these types, and something else besides: it is a savage satire of a Jewish-run film industry, as well as being an unflinching examination of brazen hypocrisies often seen in Jewish-led political radicalism. Joel and Ethan Coen are, of course, Jews themselves, which is perhaps why they were able to get away with such a jarringly “Semitically-incorrect” depiction in the first place. (See also Kevin MacDonald’s review of their A Serious Man.)

Barton Fink follows an ambitious New York playwright, the titular hero, on a terrifying descent into psychological darkness and mental chaos. Yet despite its undeniably grim subject matter, it is also at times an uproariously funny movie. Such an unlikely intersection of the comic and the horrific is, of course, a frequent feature of the Coens’ cinematic fare.

The character of Barton Fink is clearly modeled after Clifford Odets and other left-wing Jewish writers of the 1930s and 40s. Like Odets, the real-life author of the radical ensemble piece Waiting for Lefty, Fink seeks to create a theater “of and about the common man,” which could enable a social transformation, one of presumably Communistic orientation (though his precise ideology is never mentioned). Barton has recently written a critically-acclaimed off-Broadway play filled with working-class characters looking ahead to a hopeful future of joyous revolution, but he is unable to enjoy his success; he tells his agent that he doesn’t wish to become “complacent” and soft. Barton’s agent informs him that he’s been able to secure him a gig as a screenwriter in Hollywood for a major studio which will pay him handsomely for his efforts. Barton demurs at first, but allows himself to be talked into taking the job.

The next thing he knows, the young, up-and-coming writer finds himself checked into the Earle, a creaky old L.A. hotel that seems to be coming apart at the seams. It is here that he comes face to face with what appears to be a quintessential specimen of the “common man,” in the person of Charlie Meadows (John Goodman), a corpulent, garrulous, somewhat annoying but seemingly good-hearted insurance salesman whose room adjoins Barton’s on the sixth floor.

During Barton’s interactions with Charlie, we see this aspiring artist’s soul laid bare, and it’s not a pretty sight. Though not a bad man, Fink is without question an insufferable prig, a hypocrite, and a bore; in truth, he evinces little compassion for the plight of the “common man,” but would rather talk endlessly about himself. He lectures Charlie, whom he takes to be “an average, working stiff” about the pain and enormous effort that it takes to dedicate oneself to “the life of the mind.” Charlie tries to interject a few times, offering to “tell some stories,” but Barton always cuts him off to rant anew about how shameful it is that playwrights aren’t properly interested in common folk, how they would rather insulate themselves from reality than deal with it. The painful irony of this circumstance is obvious to everyone except poor, oblivious, self-deluded Barton himself.

Barton’s condescension towards Charlie is portrayed as symptomatic of the urban, educated lefty’s thinly-disguised contempt for the middle-American worker. The cultural divide is indeed so sharp as to be insurmountable between the two men; obviously, the shrill, hectoring Fink and the wry, soft-spoken cornball rube Meadows have little, if anything, in common. Yet their failure to connect is due almost entirely to the East-coast born, avant-garde writer’s narcissism, high-mindedness and lack of empathy for the very sort of man he claims to support. And it shouldn’t escape our notice that the paradigmatic insufferable intellectual in this film is a Jew with almost-exaggerated Ashkenazi features and attributes, from his tightly kinked hair to his thick glasses and propensity to pontificate aggressively in a brisk Brooklyn accent. (The most inspired aspect here might just be in the casting; gentile Italian-American Turturro transforms into uber-Jew Fink, while Jewish John Goodman is utterly convincing as the ultra-goy, tubby American heartlander Meadows.)

Barton, of course, gravely underestimates Charlie, who, as he finds out later, is not nearly so “common” as Barton had at first assumed. And it is Charlie who soon pointedly informs Barton as to his fatal flaw: his unwillingness to step outside of his preening self-important regard for himself as an artist, living a highfalutin “life of the mind,” to take an actual interest in his fellow man. “You… don’t… LISTEN!” Charlie exclaims at a key moment, and the audience finds it hard to disagree.

"I'll show you a life of the mind!!!" John Goodman as Charlie Meadows

Later, after a severe bout with writer’s block, and a spate of surreal and nightmarish tribulations, Barton finally finishes a screenplay that, in his fevered state, he takes to be a masterpiece. He rushes out on the town and we see him jitterbugging manically with a woman at a dance club, to the strains of big band music. When a group of sailors asks to “have a turn” dancing with the girl, Barton haughtily refuses. “Get away from me, you monsters!” he yells. “I’m a writer– I CREATE for a living!” The sailors respond by regaling Barton with insults like “four-eyes,” clearly regarding him as a laughably out-of-touch egghead. Eventually, one of them throws a punch, and an all-out brawl breaks out in the club, with Barton managing to sneak away, nursing a busted lip. This confrontation reinforces the conflict between the Jewish intellectual (who by this point has dropped all pretense of empathy and openly regards the square-jawed goyish white-bread sailor-types as “monsters”) and the predominantly gentile, so-called “common man.”

But while Barton Fink has many flaws, he is also a pitiable victim; by the end of the movie, he has essentially become the property of studio honcho Jack Lipnick (Michael Lerner), a brash, loud, frightening and hysterically tyrannical man, who proudly declares himself to be “bigger and meaner than any other kike in this town.” Lipnik flaunts his Jewish identity, and openly recognizes that Jews (or “kikes,” as he unashamedly calls his own kind) run Hollywood. He feigns reverence for Fink’s writing prowess at first, but eventually shows his true colors; in the final scene, he appears in an ostentatious American general’s uniform, grumbling about the perfidious “yellow bastards” who attacked Pearl Harbor, and berating Fink’s “fruity” script. “It won’t wash!” he hollers. “We won’t put (wrestling star) Walter Beery into a fruity movie about suffering!”

Jack Lipnick (Micheal Learner): "meaner than any other kike in this town!"
When Fink feebly protests that he tried to create “something beautiful” with the screenplay, Lipnik lays him out with a hard truth. “You think the whole world revolves around whatever rattles inside that little kike head of yours?” he demands. “You think you’re the only writer that can give me that ‘Barton Fink’ feeling? I’ve got a HUNDRED writers that can give me that ‘Barton Fink’ feeling!” The ruthless studio “Fuhrer” then contemptuously tells Barton to get out of his sight, with an ominous warning: “There’s a war on.”


By the time the movie ends, the formerly proud Jewish playwright is laid low, having become a mere cog in the machine of the Jewish-run studio system, which is now only propagandizing for war (one imagines, to further Jewish interests in opposing Nazi Germany, although the film only very gingerly makes this extremely sensitive point). Fink, the Jewish radical is now under the thumb of Lipnick, the fearsome Jewish capitalist, and “goys” like the hapless sailors Barton encountered in the dance club will soon begin to die in droves on foreign shores, victims of a massive world war in which they are but pawns.

It would be reductionist, of course, to claim that the devastatingly satirical portrayal of Jewish radicalism and Jewish power is the essential thrust of Barton Fink. To be sure, the central theme of the movie transcends ethnic particularities. Self-indulgent artistic pretension and hypocrisy afflicts all types of people, Jew and non-Jew; Black, White, Red, Yellow, and Brown.

Still, the broader cinematic canvas of Barton Fink includes a daring, provocative, and honest examination of Jewish power and its wide-ranging manifestations and cultural ramifications. And as the latest spate of purges of thought criminals like Sanchez, Thomas, and Nasr attests, this is still a very live subject today, unlikely to fade into irrelevance anytime soon.

Across the Abyss from Jew to Host: A Quote from Adolf Hitler on the Jewish Denigration of a Host's Soil

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

"At this stage finance and trade had become his complete monopoly. Finally, his usurious rate of interest aroused opposition and the increasing impudence which the Jew began to manifest all round stirred up popular indignation, while his display of wealth gave rise to popular envy. The cup of his iniquity became full to the brim when he included landed property among his commercial wares and degraded the soil to the level of a market commodity. Since he himself never cultivated the soil but considered it as an object to be exploited, on which the peasant may still remain but only on condition that he submits to the most heartless exactions of his new master, public antipathy against the Jew steadily increased and finally turned into open animosity. His extortionate tyranny became so unbearable that people rebelled against his control and used physical violence against him. They began to scrutinize this foreigner somewhat more closely, and then began to discover the repulsive traits and characteristics inherent in him, until finally an abyss opened between the Jews and their hosts, across which abyss there could be no further contact." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

2015: The Year in White Nationalism

via Counter-Currents

2015 was a very good year for White Nationalism, European ethnonationalism, and allied movements, and I have every reason to hope that 2016 will be even better.

History is Full of Surprises

If history teaches us anything, it is that she is full of surprises. For instance, did any of us predict last year that in 2015, Donald Trump would be running for President of the United States? At the 2015 American Renaissance Conference, Peter Brimelow said that the immigration debate could be changed by a single speech, and he was right. That’s exactly what Trump did. Trump simply ignored the Republican consensus and started talking about immigration restriction, the Muslim problem, economic nationalism, and the scourge of political correctness. A significant percentage of the electorate is enthusiastic and grateful.

These issues, furthermore, are not going away, even if Trump does not win the Republican nomination or the Presidency. Like an icebreaker, Trump has plowed through the frozen crust of the artificial political consensus, smashing it to bits and releasing the turbulent populist currents beneath. It is our job to crowd into the breach, widen it, and turn every outcome in our direction.

We have the power to turn Trump to our advantage no matter what the outcome of his candidacy. If he is stymied by the cuckservatives, we can radicalize his supporters. If he is defeated by the Democrats, we can agitate and radicalize all Republican voters. If he is elected but stymied by Congress, that can also work to our benefit. And if Trump manages to break through all opposition and actually cut off immigration, we can work to move the goalposts further toward an ethnostate. For White Nationalists, the Trump candidacy is a “heads we win, tails they lose” opportunity. I like those odds.

Jan Davidsz de Heem, Still-Life with with Champagne Glass and Pipe, 1642
Jan Davidsz de Heem, Still Life with Champagne Glass and Pipe, 1642

Better is Always Better

There is a lot of good news from Europe. Here are just a few highlights.
1. In France, in the first round of the 2015 regional elections, the National Front placed first in 6 of 13 regions and got more votes than either of the major establishment parties. In Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, Marine Le Pen won 40.6% of the vote. In Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen won 40.55% of the vote. In the runoffs, however, the Socialists and Center-Right colluded to make sure that the National Front won no seats.

The National Front did, however, win 6,018,672 votes in the first round and 6,820,147 in the second. Compare this to the 4,712,461 votes  (24.9%) the National Front won in the 2014 EU election — more than any other party — which brought them 24 of France’s 74 seats in the European Parliament. This represents real progress. And the Socialist party’s decision to send their voters to the Center-Right is a teachable moment. It shows that they are more interested in keeping the National Front out of power than in representing the interests of their constituents.

Marine Le Pen has a year-and-a-half to build a winning constituency for the 2017 Presidential elections. And given that the establishment parties are doing nothing to halt the ethnic conflicts that send more and more voters to the National Front, events will be arguing in Le Pen’s favor the whole time.

I pay close attention to France, because of all the major countries in Europe, France is the most likely to elect a nationalist government, stop immigration, and start repatriation. If France goes nationalist, other European nations will follow. Furthermore, France has an independent nuclear deterrent and the most autarkic economy in Europe. She cannot be treated like Serbia or Austria.

2. The best electoral news of 2015 comes from Poland, where the populist and euro-skeptic Law and Justice Party is now in power. Astonishingly, the Left-wing parties did not win a single seat. For more details, read Jarosław Ostrogniew’s Counter-Currents article, “The Polish Parliamentary Elections of 2015.”

3. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán has openly opposed immigration and multiculturalism and taken action to stem the invasion of refugees from the Muslim world. His defiance has encouraged nationalist and populist forces in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.

4. On June 18, 2015, the nationalist/populist/immigration restrictionist Danish People’s Party won 21.155 of the votes and 37 seats in the Danish parliament, up from 12.3% and 23 seats in the 2011 election. The Danish People’s Party is now the number 2 party in the parliament, having eclipsed the Center-Right Venstre Party, which suffered a severe reversal in 2015.

5. Last year at this time I reported that the Sweden Democrats, another Right-populist, immigration restrictionist party, had won 12.9% of the vote in the 2014 general election, taking 49 seats in parliament (14% of the total). Based on an August Metro newspaper poll, the Sweden Democrats now have the support of 25.2% of voters, putting them ahead of both the ruling Social Democrats with 23.4% and the Center-Right Moderates with 21%.

Worse is Sometimes Better Too

Racial, ethnic, and religious diversity are sources of conflict when they have to coexist within the same political system. There are two ways to learn this: the easy way of reason — and the hard road of experience, that is to say: suffering. And when one learns this lesson, there are two ways to fix the problem: though peaceful ethnic separation — or violent ethnic cleansing.

Unfortunately, more people learn through suffering than reason, which is the source of the saying “Worse is Better,” which means: the worse for the system, the better for those of us offering an alternative. The system is on a collision course with ethnic reality. For White Nationalists, it can’t come fast enough, because our people are more likely to react to quick and sudden ethnic displacement than to our present slow decline into extinction.

1. In this light, 2015’s massive invasion of Europe by more than a million so-called refugees from the Middle East and Africa, most of them Muslim, has been a boon to White Nationalism. The speed and the scale of the migration — and the sight of overloaded boats and marching columns, most of them of young, fighting-age men — look to most people like an invasion, which is correct. Thus many Europeans are finally reacting appropriately. The days of the multicultural experiment are numbered. The only question is when it ends and how: through an amicable divorce or a bloody civil war? Will moderate nationalist parties be allowed to take power and fix the problems, or will the establishment block peaceful reforms until there is an explosion and Europe is cleansed with fire and blood?

2. For the same reason, the continuing Black Lives Matter agitation in American cities and on college campuses also plays into our hands. It is a delicious spectacle to see liberals and Leftists consumed by their own creatures. Because of their low average intelligence and high levels of impulsive and psychopathic personality traits, blacks act essentially like a race of dangerous, overgrown children. They need adult supervision or they will descend into Lord of the Flies levels of barbarism. They hold irrational beliefs and tender unworkable demands. A society that cannot say “No” to them will simply be destroyed, and the Leftists in academia and large cities who have been suckling these vipers will be the first to feel their teeth. In 2014, I thought that pandering to blacks might have peaked, and I predicted that in 2015, authorities would start saying “No.” I was mistaken, but I’m not broken up about it. The prospect of seeing college presidents and big city mayors roasting on figurative spits in 2016 is consolation enough.


A Prediction for 2016

I have many plans for 2016, but only one prediction: I believe that in the next year to 18 months, the first state will leave the European Union, and I hope many others will follow.

I want to wish all our readers, authors, volunteers, donors, and friends around the world a very Fashy New Year.

More Proof American Taxpayers Subsidizing Jewish Terrorism in Israel

via DavidDuke.com

Jewish terrorism against Arabs is being subsidized by US tax money, a complaint filed with the New York State Attorney General’s Office alleges. It centers on a non-profit organization that provides money to Jews accused of violence against Palestinians.
The Israeli organization Honenu provides financial support to Jews convicted of or on trial for violent acts against Palestinians – including so-called “price tag” attacks in the West Bank.

The complaint centers around the fact that the non-profit is tax-exempt, implying that taxpayers are essentially subsidizing a non-profit that defends those convicted of extreme violence.

“Just as we would be furious to learn of tax-exempt money going to Hamas or ISIS, we must not allow US taxpayers to subsidize money that is given strings-free to members of our own people who are accused or convicted of terror,” the executive director of T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, Rabbi Jill Jacobs, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
T’ruah, a Jewish organization which aims to “respect and protect the human rights of all people,” filed the complaint to the charities bureau of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on Monday.

The complaint urges the attorney general to investigate Honenu and its fiscal sponsor, the Central Fund of Israel, both of which are located in New York.

Honenu has had a New York-based franchising branch since 2003. In 2010, the last year for which data is listed, the organization raised $233,700 in the US, according to tax filings.

Much of Honenu’s money is used for the defense of Jews on trial for violence against Arabs, as well as those who have refused to vacate illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Some of the cash, however, is spent on helping Jewish extremists, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported, citing a recent Channel 10 expose of Honenu.
In 2013, Honenu sent funds to the family of a Israeli convicted of killing seven Palestinians in May 1990; the families of two Jewish-Israelis convicted of attempted murder for trying to plant a bomb at a girls school in eastern Jerusalem in 2002; and the son of a former Israeli Knesset member who kidnapped and abused a Palestinian boy in 2010.

This information has prompted Honenu’s critics, including T’ruah, to compare the organization to Hamas.

“Honenu is doing exactly what Hamas and the PLO have been criticized for — providing personal support, if not incentives, for those who commit terrorist acts against others,” says the complaint, which was filed Monday.

According to documents obtained by Channel 10, Honenu’s 2013 budget was approximately $600,000. About one-quarter of the money went to lawyers defending those on trial for actions against Arabs, or for activities in the West Bank. About $50,000 went directly to Jewish prisoners.
However, Honenu maintains that it is doing nothing wrong, and is operating lawfully.

The non-profit’s website promises that “soldiers and civilians who find themselves in legal entanglements due to defending themselves against Arab aggression, or due to their love for Israel, have an organization that will come to their aid 24 hours a day.”

A lawyer for the organization, Zion Amir, told Channel 10 that “they respect the court’s rulings… they don’t decide who is good and who is bad, they don’t determine who is guilty and who is innocent. They operate within the bounds of the law.”

The filing comes just weeks after an arson attack by suspected right-wing Jewish settlers killed an 18-month-old Palestinian child and his father in a house in the occupied West Bank.