Jul 8, 2015

The Cult of White Extinction, and How to Reverse It

via American Renaissance

It is a tragedy when something of value ends, and an even greater tragedy when it need not have ended. The declining number of whites is leading to just such a tragedy. What are the causes of this decline and what are the cures? The crisis we face is largely self-imposed. Our physical circumstances are far less daunting than those our ancestors faced, but we are here because they survived. Today, our challenges are sociological and psychological rather than material.

The continuation of the white race has obvious merit. Both biologically and culturally, whites are a vitally important sub-species of Homo sapiens. Our appearance–our variety in hair and eye color, hair texture, and ethnic variations–is unique and beautiful. The contributions of whites to culture, art, science, philosophy, and societal structures are unequaled.

The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp by Rembrandt
The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp by Rembrandt

And yet, the decline of whites is usually treated as if it were a trivial matter or even a good thing. Susan Sontag famously complained that “the white race is the cancer of human history.” Somewhat more mildly, William H. Frey of the Brookings Institution says that without non-white immigrants the United States would face “a bleak future,” and he wants to “share the good news about diversity.”

The decline of whites can be expressed in terms of total fertility rate (TFR), or the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime. The TFR for a replacement level population is about 2.1 children per woman (rather than 2.0, to account for women who do not survive to reproductive age). Unfortunately, as the table below shows, whites in the United States have been below replacement level for decades. Even rates such as 1.85 and 1.79 are overstated because the Census Bureau reports only the race of the mother, not that of the child.

TotalFertility

Here are TFRs for other white countries:
Lithuania: 1.29
Ukraine: 1.30
Romania: 1.32
Poland: 1.33
Slovenia: 1.33
Latvia: 1.35
Slovakia: 1.39
Greece: 1.41
Italy: 1.42
Serbia: 1.42
Hungary: 1.42
Germany: 1.43
Austria: 1.43
Czech Republic: 1.43
Bulgaria: 1.44
Croatia: 1.45
Estonia: 1.46
Spain: 1.48
Portugal: 1.52
Switzerland: 1.54
Canada: 1.59
Russia: 1.61
Armenia: 1.64
Belgium: 1.65
Denmark: 1.73
Finland: 1.73
Australia: 1.77
Luxembourg: 1.77
Netherlands: 1.78
Norway: 1.86
Iceland: 1.88
Sweden: 1.88
U.K.: 1.90
Ireland: 2.00
New Zealand: 2.05
France: 2.08

These figures, already low, do not state the race of the mother or of the child. Therefore, the real TFR for whites would be lower for nations with significant non-white immigrant populations, such as Belgium, the United Kingdom, and France.

In the United States, which has seen considerably more non-white immigration than any European country, white babies have been less than 50 percent of all births since 2013. At the same time, deaths of whites outpace births–by 61,841 from 2013 to 2014.

Western Civilization cannot be sustained without whites, and from a Western perspective, life without Western Civilization has little appeal. Many people confuse the products of Western Civilization with its essence. We see this in the Peoples Republic of China where, at least in the major cities, there are advanced infrastructure and technology, yet underneath there is a harsh, intellectually constraining social structure. It is not Western. Many people predicted that China’s transition to semi-capitalism and industrialization would cause other changes that would align China with the Western model. This did not happen, because the Chinese are Chinese. The trappings of Western Civilization do not turn the Chinese into Westerners.

Beijing skyline.
Beijing skyline.

The essence of our civilization cannot be sustained by the “things” we have produced. The ruins of ancient civilizations are fascinating, but they are still cold and dead if there are no descendants of the people who created them to give them life and meaning. Other races will not use what we built to continue our civilization. The magnificent Greek Orthodox Church, Hagia Sophia, in Constantinople (now called “Istanbul”) was desecrated and converted into a mosque and then into a museum. We can try to impress the intellectual works of the West on those who are replacing us, but they will follow their own ways and reject ours. The only way to sustain our civilization is through our descendants.

To the extent that whites even think about the prospect of becoming a minority, they probably believe they will still prosper because of their skills and abilities. This ignores the extent to which quantity has a quality of its own. As whites become a minority, they can hold a country together only for so long. In the end, if they are overwhelmed demographically, they will be overwhelmed culturally and spiritually as well.

Another consequence of the decline of whites will be destruction of the environment. It is whites who build and sustain environmental movements. Even at start of the industrial revolution, William Blake longed for a greener, more pastoral England in his poem “Jerusalem.”
And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen? . . .
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills? . . .
China treats the environment callously. Africans kill endangered species for food and sell their body parts as medicine or aphrodisiacs to Asians. Even the wealthy and civilized Japanese would rather eat the whales than save them. Squalor and density that are anathema to a Westerner are common in the rest of the world. The preservation of the environment needs more–not fewer–whites. Whites who think they are “saving the planet” by not having children have got it completely wrong.

RhinoPoached

Why are whites failing to reproduce themselves? There are several reasons. One is the litany of anti-white propaganda from the media, academia, government, anti-white activists and sometimes even from ordinary whites. This constant anti-white message may dissuade some whites from having children. Germany, where 30 percent of women are childless–the highest rate in the world–may be especially afflicted because of its history. Its working-age population is projected to decline more rapidly than any country on earth. At the same time, Chancellor Angela Merkel says Germany is becoming “a country of immigrants,” and urges Germans to welcome non-European refugees.

The economic and societal pressures of globalization also depress white birthrates. People reproduce more when there is less stress. Economic shocks, offshoring, outsourcing, immigration, “affirmative action,” and constant demands for higher productivity worry whites to the point that they are hesitant to have children or even get married. Blacks, Muslims, and Hispanics are willing to have children under financial circumstances whites would consider irresponsible.

Feminism is also an important factor in the decline in fertility in the West. White women have always been especially susceptible to feminism, and many are now indoctrinated to see white men as oppressors, and to try to be independent from them in every way. It can be argued that modern feminism carried to its extreme is almost a death cult, to the extent that it teaches that men and child bearing are essentially superfluous. Relations between men and women, especially younger ones, are surely at a historical nadir.

Femen

Feminism coupled with economic pressures has created a class of people I call “nuns” and “monks”–women and men in professional life who never marry or have children. From what I have seen in my corporate career, the nuns began with the baby boomers, while the monks started later. Furthermore, modern corporate policies prescribe draconian penalties for even perceived flirtation, so the monks and nuns dare not venture beyond professional relationships with each other. These people are certainly not having a wild time at work, and from what I know about them, their life outside work is tepid, especially as they get older.

I still see a lot more nuns than monks. Corporations like them because they devote all their talents and energy into their work instead of raising a family. A lot of good genes have been lost to artificial entities that exist only from financial quarter to financial quarter.

Another recent phenomenon has been the “childless by choice” mantra of couples who are physically and financially able to have children. The “DINK” (double income, no kids) trend is another reason for white decline. Today, many whites are so narcissistic, so unable to look beyond their own material ambitions, that they have no room in their lives for children. Of course, without modern birth control, none of this would be possible.

An example of a modern “compromise” with selfishness is the one-child-by-choice household. In China the government had to force parents to limit themselves to one child, but in the West many people do it voluntarily. If everyone did it, each generation would be 50 percent smaller than the one before. This practice also leaves children without siblings, which is utterly unnatural, and means that, as adults, they are without an essential support group in a precarious world.

Ultimately, it is a collective choice to go extinct or not, but voluntary childlessness is contrary to nature. We must purge ourselves of sick and destructive ideas that have arisen only in the past few decades.

One of the sickest ideas of our time is that children are a bother and a distraction from the life that really matters. In our society, you will look mostly in vain for descriptions of the intense joy that comes from creating another being that is part of you. The closest we usually get is the story about some celebrity who has gone from “baby bump” to mother, and who tells the tabloids that little Brittney is just “awesome.” There is almost complete silence about the joy that children bring to fathers.

Father and Son

I have led an interesting, challenging, well-traveled life, but I can state unequivocally that being a father trumps every other experience by far. And I should know: I have four children, from pre-teen to early twenties. You will feel no love that equals the love you feel for your children, and nothing is more rewarding than the love they show you in return. Your children may very well become your best friends . . . for life. Being a parent will draw you out of the confines of your own existence in a way that nothing else can, dramatically broadening your perspective and calling to life deep reserves of emotion and attachment you never knew were there. Bringing forth the next generation is the central miracle of Nature, and no one who has not experienced it can claim to have fully lived.

Being a parent will sharpen your perception of the present, and focus your concerns about the future. And it will give you the incomparable pleasure of raising a child in the learning and traditions of Western Civilization. It is thrilling to see your child’s eyes light up with the awareness of our Western heritage, and become the living embodiment of it.

Jean Raspail writes in his prescient novel Camp of the Saints that “only a white woman can have a white baby.” It also takes a white man. Both men and women must escape the animosities between the sexes that have accumulated over the past few decades and return to the beautiful and natural state of family and creation. A women’s fertility declines after her mid-twenties, so it is prudent to start having children early.

Of course, children can be a challenge and a frustration, but do not forget that every one of your ancestors met the same challenge and frustration. If we do not do our duty–and partake in our share of joy–there will be nothing left but the memory of our civilization. Given the proclivities of certain barbaric groups, perhaps not even that.

Survival is the first law. The 21st century may therefore require a broader concept of family if that is what it takes to make more white children. We should not immediately reject cohabitation, single motherhood, mistresses, or polygamy. How is society hurt if a wealthy, desirable man has children with more than one wife, especially if she would otherwise have had no children or been unable to support them? Homosexual couples could have and rear white children and thus tip the balance in our favor. Which is more important: survival or tradition? All whites are in this together, whatever their orientation or circumstances.

There are also things that whites should not do. They should never waste their energy rearing other groups’ children. It is almost exclusively whites who have the bizarre desire to adopt children of other races. This is yet another practice that contributes to our decline. Other racial groups must rear the children they produce, not us.

Mitt Romney with his newly adopted grandchild.
Mitt Romney with his newly adopted grandchild

At the same time, other groups exploit our altruism and appeal to the vainglorious “compassion” of white elites for other races. “Refugees” know they can count on the foolish generosity of Americans and Europeans who have already perfected state-run wealth transfers from our families to those of non-whites. Government policies help destroy white communities through forced integration and Section 8 housing. Our government even sends young men–and now even young women–to their deaths in futile attempts to civilize Islamic tribes in the Middle East.

Our European cousins are just as determined to throw away their birthright as we are.

Whites must understand that other races are, at best, utterly indifferent to our survival, and that hundreds of millions of non-whites will swarm into our homelands and dispossess us if we let them. To survive, we must throw off the suicidal thinking of the last few decades and rekindle the racial consciousness that was common among our ancestors.

Our survival and the continuation of Western Civilization must be our only priorities. Our rulers may try to swamp us with immigrants and “refugees,” but our own reproduction is something that we–and only we–control. No one can take that away from us, and it is the one sure way to turn back the demographic tide.

Where the Right Went Wrong

via Radix

“The arch of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Our President seems to be particularly fond of this quote from Dr. Martin Luther King (or whoever might have actually originally said it). Those of us in the real Right, and in the real Left, too, recoil at this sort of Whiggish interpretation of history, but for most people, it’s just commonsense. Some people and ideas are “ahead of their time,” and some are “on the wrong side of history.” The vast majority of Westerners achieve an intuitive understanding of this at a very young age, and whether they grow up to become university professors or adults who are unable to locate France on a map, most maintain this belief all their lives. 

Of course this is a simplistic outlook, but if we limit our historical timeline to the Modern Age, it is basically true (relative to contemporary moral opinion). The problem with this view is that it is treated as some deep teleological truth, when it is essentially just a tautology. The whole point of dividing history into “ages” is to identify and demarcate eras according to their guiding socio-political spirit. So naturally, a man-of-his-time will feel like his immediate ancestors were moving in the right direction—his beliefs are the result of their actions. Socio-political evolution moves in one direction . . . until a powerful enough force stops it and creates a new age. The spirit that has guided our civilization since at least the Enlightenment is Egalitarian Universalism. But why? Why has the Right failed to overthrow this verdict, or turn it in its favor? Why, since the Enlightenment, are those on the Left generally “ahead of their time,” while the Right is “on the wrong side of history?”

The answer, I think, is that the Right has always been practically synonymous with Conservatism, which has always been a ramshackle collection of contradictory positions that can not rationally defend itself. The Left is also a very diverse grouping, but unlike the Right, everything that is of the Left flows from, and is mostly logically consistent with, their articulated first principle. Which, again, is Egalitarianism. The specific points of emphasis may change, certain issues may be discarded, and they may even at times appear to contradict their own expressed ideals, but every manifestation of the Left is a coherent extension of a foundational belief in equality. In contrast, “the Right” is just a name we give to any reaction against the Left. For most of modern history, the Right has simply defended the status quo against attack from the Left, or argued for a return to a previous arrangement. In hindsight, we can say that the Right is usually defined by its relative support for inequality, but this is more a coincidence of favoring old ways over new than it is a coherent abstract ideal.

This is important because an ideology without an attractive abstract core to direct it will always be a house of cards, especially if the ideology is coming from the Right. Unlike that of the Left, the morality of the Right is not in-step with human intuition; it can only be arrived at intellectually, and even here, the path is not straightforward. Our circle often derides Conservatism as retrograde Liberalism, but perhaps the Right should have embraced Liberalism (not the Left) from the start.

The (Pre)Existing Institutional Morality (The Right) vs Our Intuitive Morality (The Left)

To be fair to the Right, the Left has a lot of built-in advantages. First of all, they were the first-in-the-field. The modern Right/Left dichotomy only exists because the Left emerged to challenge the existing regime. This regime, essentially a Medieval holdover of warlords and priests, was in a terrible position to defend itself in an age of scientific discovery and commercial expansion. Of course that did not stop them from trying. The modern Right is descended from this futile defense, and it has been on-the-back-foot ever since. And really, the basic ideas of the Left have always appealed to people. The requirement to be kind to the stranger is a common thread throughout history, and populist politics thrived in the ancient world. Most fundamentally—and perhaps this opinion reflects my White Privilege in assuming my experiences to be universal—it seems that any civilization that has reached a certain level of moral sophistication, Egalitarian Universalism is the default ideal. It is, to quote my own book, “the path of least intellectual resistance.” Universalist morality as the ideal is a truism to most people, not just because of the triumph of liberalism but because it is an easy-to-follow and convincing logical justification of what most people are already emotionally and intuitively inclined to believe is true. The only question left on the table is whether or not Implementation of the latest Leftist innovation is practical.

From the beginning, the modern Right has been caught in a vicious nature-nurture cycle. Again, the Right began its life defending an outmoded societal model. Advances in scientific understanding directly contradicted Church teachings, and it was hard to argue that de facto power of the rising commercial class did not entitle them to some measure of increased political power. An aristocracy of warlords maintaining order was plainly less vital in the Post-Westphalian world; homicide rates were a tiny fraction of what they were in Medieval times[1], and technological changes undermined the necessity of a privileged warrior class.

And one disadvantage leads to another; when one side champions logic and the other side champions faith, which side do you think is going to attract more intelligent partisans? And so for most of modern history, the Right has gathered in those who instinctively fear change, or who have too practical a cast-of-mind to entertain it. While those who are more open to the world of ideas have, by and large, found their home on the Left.

The casual observer might expect that in an age of mass democracy, instinctive fear would win out over intellect. In the short term, it often does, but only in the short term. It begins losing its power over us almost from the moment we first feel it. The politics of the intellect follow the exact opposite trajectory. Remote from our immediate concerns, and contrary to our habits, our initial impulse is to ignore it or rationalize it away, but the argument remains lodged in our mind until our conscience can no longer deny its truth. So the Right wins plenty of elections, but the political center keeps moving to the Left. And it is not as if the Left must rely only on pure intellect; they have their own emotional arguments—even outside of the intuitive morality mentioned above (e.g. envy of the in-group).

Toward a More Mature Liberalism

Contemporary Conservatism as a whole may not be a coherent ideology, but it does contain a coherent political core value—namely, “freedom.” Tellingly, mainstream Conservatism’s more literal understanding of freedom (relative to Leftist ideas) has attracted more able defenders and stood-up over time a lot better than has their social agenda. Their battle against expanding government in general may be a Sisyphean struggle, but in many significant areas—welfare, tax rates, gun control, school choice, specific business regulations—the political tide moves back and forth. There are monied interests behind many of these issues, and it helps that these are not “all or nothing” disagreements, but the exception is great enough that it must at least be recognized. And once recognized, I do not think it can be explained away so simply. The “freedom agenda” has a reasonably attractive and coherent abstract core and an appreciable number of smart idealistic adherents.

It is impossible to prove a negative, but every ideological movement that is able to stand its ground across multiple generations has had those two traits—an abstract core and idealistic smart people—in common. I am going to assume that that is not a coincidence. I make this assumption because, well, it seems to be commonsense, but also because I have known a few smart people in my time, and this seems to be the way they think, especially if morality is the primary object of their contemplation.

Social conservatism, conversely, does not spring from an abstract first principle, and so does not have the force of smart idealistic crusaders behind it. It is nothing more than an instinctive defense of what was. Their ideological explanations are rationalizations of their prejudices (in the true meaning of the word), and this is transparent to every discerning observer. So, again and again, they lose. I happen to agree with social conservatives on many issues, but never have I been convinced by the eloquence of their arguments.

To be sure, the freedom agenda exists entirely under the umbrella of Liberalism. One may assign many demerits to the libertarian wing of the Right, but I dare say that its adherence to Liberalism should not be included among them. I think, perhaps, that the Right’s “original sin” is that it is grounded in a rejection of Liberalism. As I hope I have explained in such a way that my audience can understand, an ideological movement must have a logical, moral, abstract first principle, if it is to be successful—and again, this goes double if the ideology is coming from a place on the Right. Achieving this seems to almost require some level of obedience to Liberalism. Reason over faith and freedom of speech are so logically impregnable that they may as well be scientific laws. Meritocracy, democracy, a first principle founded on individual happiness, if carefully designed, are very near the same status, technically still theories perhaps, but without any serious rivals.

Instead of embracing the truths offered by Liberalism and the Enlightenment, and carving its own path from there, the Right chose to defend an outmoded order, and we have all been the worse for it. The Right refused Kant’s call for man to emerge from his “self-imposed immaturity.” Given that the dominant political wing of Enlightenment thought soon morphed into a direct challenge to the preexisting order, the path taken by the Right was “natural,” if I may be permitted to use that word to describe a thing that I disparage, but the result has been a stunting of the West’s moral philosophical development. Without a worthy challenger, a logical and idealistic challenger, the Left is rarely forced to rethink its foundational assumptions, so it simply continues to extrapolate from the same base of beliefs. The Enlightenment seemed to offer boundless moral possibilities, and yet Western man is left with a false either/or choice.[2] If it seems like I am repeating myself, it is only because since the Right made its initial wrong turn, the same dilemmas plague it at every turn. (And having listened to a bit of Conservative talk-radio, I know that Right-wing audiences need to have each point repeated for them at least three times before they get it.)

The essence of the Right is an unequal order. But the first principle must not be because it is natural, or in keeping with any given tradition; these rationales crumble under logical examination.[3] It must not be a reality that is accepted, but an ideal that is worth achieving. It must be an ideal that has human happiness as its aim; it must consider what the individual does want, and attempt to answer what he should want.

To make this concrete, there is no intrinsic conflict between ethno-nationalism and the core spirit of Liberalism. Ethno-nationalism flows from a logical, idealistic, abstract ideology of individual happiness—particularism. The starting point for particularism is that the individual should want to perpetuate himself, and therefore the state should be a means to this end. However, self-perpetuation means different things to different people. So the idea is that there ought to be a far greater multiplicity of states, representing as many human spirits as possible in order that the state may represent the individual’s will as closely as possible. The nature of the individual’s bond with his fellow citizens could be ethnic, religious, ideological, anything that is willed with sufficient power. The only limiting principle is the viability of the state, and its society, to perpetuate itself.

I do not run from the fact that ethno-nationalism is unyieldingly unequal: if you do not have the right lineage, you can not be part of the ethno-state. For the same reason, it permits less freedom. But looked at another way, it is profoundly egalitarian in that it attempts to provide a far more intimate happiness to the individual, and it is far more liberating in that it allows far more space for individual expression to actually make itself felt. The libertarian will counter that his proposals go further on both these fronts, but if it does not create or contribute to a lasting community, the individual will is not really willing anything. (This formulation, by the way, is entirely in sync with the Enlightened Social Contract theory of limiting a thing in order to preserve it.) In practice, particularism could get messy sometimes, but basing our arguments on the preservation of order has just gotten us where we are today.

Ryan Andrews is the author of The Birth of Prudence, which was published by VDare last year.

Notes:

  1. The homicide rate in 17th century England was only three times higher than it is now—which is about the same as the current US rate. Three or four centuries earlier, it would have been several times that high. The homicide rate in Amsterdam plummeted from 47 per 100,000 in the mid-15th century to between 1 and 1.5 per 100,000 in the early 19th century.
  2. The rise of a multi-party system in many European countries, in which parties sometimes blend ideas that are conventionally thought of as Right and Left, may be a small step toward correcting this situation.
  3. Truth be told, the ideological constructions of the Dark Enlightenment are based on little more than aesthetic preference, which its adherents attempt to justify by a utilitarian theory built on flimsy first-order philosophizing. Just a few tugs on its loose threads, and the whole thing is reduced to rubble. Which is utterly unsurprising, given the fate of the model on which they have based their recreation.

This Is What Happened to Randolph Scott

via TradYouth

The Statler Brothers might not have been
able to put it in words, but it’s no secret
who killed Randolph Scott
Whatever happened to Randolph Scott?  The Statler Brothers posed this question in their hit song by the same title.  Unsurprisingly, America failed to take the question seriously.  Fortunately for us, the question remains enshrined in the Statlers’s music.

Randolph Scott was the epitome of masculinity and white male identity during his time.  He acted or otherwise performed in nearly every genre of movie that was being produced at the time.  More than anything else he is remembered as a western movie hero.

Randolph Scott was before my time, but whatever happened to him didn’t happen to just the entertainment industry alone.  That’s where the Statlers missed a beat.

The Statlers released their hit song in 1973.  This was right in the middle of a series of watershed moments for Liberalism and counter-culture movements.  The music and movie industries would have been the first place that these changes would be seen, but the causes for the symptoms happened years earlier.

The gay liberation movement started picking up steam in the early 60s.  This was characterized by a heretofore unseen and radical expression of homosexual identity that was previously taboo.  Sodomy and homosexual relations were criminal offenses in 1963, but judging by recent Supreme Court rulings on same-sex marriages you can see how seriously those laws were taken between then and now.  The feminist movement seemed to be following the gay movement, and the two working in tandem were a severe challenge against then-normal conceptions of male identity.  Second Wave Feminism broke in the early 60s and was one of the earliest instances of women demanding a more equal equality.  This was the wave of feminism that culminated in Roe v. Wade by which the Supreme Court said that women were permitted to have abortions on demand.

The Greatest Generation lost control of media to the Baby Boomers, but this was only bound to happen.  The Baby Boomers are, among other things, the first generation to have a better quality of life than their parents (and their own children).  The Vietnam draft didn’t start until the late 60s, so the Baby Boomer generation was, up to that point, raised during a time of peace.  Neither did the Baby Boomers live during the Great Depression.  This was an entire generation that turned decadent while lazing in the shade of their parents’s security. It’s no wonder that the Boomers were less conservative than their parents, they had no incentive, reason or justification for doing so.


The long-standing Movie Picture Production Code was also discontinued in 1968.  The MPPC was informally known as the Hays Code after Will H. Hays who was president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America from 1922-45.  The Hays Code was eventually put away with after an intervention by the Supreme Court.  The Movie Production Association of America film rating system replaced the Hays Code, and this is where the G, PG, R and X ratings were introduced.  The Statlers specifically mentioned this in their song, remarking that “you gotta take your analyst along to see if it’s fit to see..”

The number two movie in 1968 was Barbarella.  IMDB describes Barbarella as a story in which “a highly sexual woman is assigned with finding and stopping the evil Durand-Durand. Along the way, she encounters various unusual people.”  The number three movie in 1968 was Planet of the Apes.  IMDB describes its story as one in which “an astronaut crew crash lands on a planet in the distant future where intelligent talking apes are the dominant species, and humans are the oppressed and enslaved.”  The two major selling points of Barbarella and Planet of the Apes were licentious or suggestive nudity and white slavery, both of which were explicitly forbidden under the Hays Code.  For all the movie buffs out there, 2001: A Space Odyssey was number one, but I dare say there was some serious artistic expression happening there.  I don’t believe that these problems could have been avoided had the Supreme Court affirmed the Hays Code, but that’s an aside.  The point is that a paradigm shift in Hollywood movie-making had occurred.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 also fundamentally changed the stock from which new immigrants were accepted.  Between 1921 and 1965 American immigration policy was designed to maintain ethnic identity.  There were quotas for who could immigrate to America.  The 1965 act started selecting immigrants based on skills and family relations.  America is also one of the few countries that still permits chain migration for non-nuclear family members.  You can see how this very quickly gets away from selecting immigrants of any national origin based on skills alone.  What this did accomplish was a rapid and drastic drop in the number of white immigrants from Western European countries.

A stark and fundamental change in American identity and culture happened in less than 20 years, and the then-traditional understanding of what was masculine was dumped in favor of something more cosmopolitan and liberal.  Conservative and traditional conceptions of masculinity and sexuality were not abandoned, they were burned to the ground.  Not even the Duke was immune to this change.  John Wayne’s acting career was all but wrapped up and finished by the time that the Statlers released Randolph Scott.  Wayne’s 1956 The Searchers made it clear in no uncertain terms that the hyper-masculine male identity that men of all ages to that point had known was not welcome or accepted in Modern society.

Inside a period of 20 years the entire movie, entertainment and lifestyle industry became fundamentally hostile towards heterosexual white males.  The US Supreme Court takes much blame for this, and their recent ruling on same-sex marriage only affirms that SCOTUS will always let down America when it really matters.  However, the SCOTUS can’t rule on a matter until it is brought to them.  If there’s anyone who we should be blaming, it’s the organized and well-financed Jewish lobby.  That’s what happened to Randolph Scott.  The Statlers didn’t know what happened.  America didn’t know what happened.  They all felt it and they all could see it happening, but none could put their finger on it.  That sense of creeping calamity and betrayal somehow managed to work itself out through a remaining vestige conservative culture, but by the time it was too late.

Chasing the Red Cape of Jewish Misrepresentative Terms against Our Interests

via Majority Rights

It is clear that Jewish planners take concepts and terms that would be helpful to our group organization and well being, then reverse, distort beyond reason or confuse the meaning that the terms would signify in application to Whites.

I’ve discussed this before but how their deception functions on two levels to our detriment bears farther differentiation.

The two levels of deception are well captured in the analogy that misrepresentative terms are like “red capes” to the charging bull.

They have right-wing White Nationalists charging after the false representation on the level of the misrepresentative term.

At the same time WN become turned-off or hostile to the underlying idea which would be good for them/us.

1. “The” Left misrepresented as universal liberalism applied to Whites is the most fundamental “red cape.”

The underlying idea of the left is social unionization. There are people in the union and people out of the union, therefore it cannot be universal or liberal. On the contrary. In fact, Jewish interests do not apply it as universal except to Whites.

This causes WN to chase this “red cape” of “The” Left which is really imposed liberalism upon them.

At the same time, because of the perversion of the term and abuses of Whites that go on under this false rubric, Whites become repulsed and in fact fight against what is the most important underlying social organizing concept [for group defense, accountability, agency, warrant, our human ecology]: the unionization of our peoples. It would keep an eye on the most dangerous traitors, elite ones, keeping them accountable as members of the class, while also keeping rank and file Whites accountable and incentivized to participate.

All of the usual Marxist and other Jewish distortions such as abolition of private property, communal child rearing, race and gender blurring, no free enterprise that would create wealth for the industrious and innovative, etc. would be set aside as Not representing the “White” left / native nationalist left.

There would not be an imposed economic class division in a White Left, but rather the nation of people would be the class: class, union, nation and people (in our case Whites and native Whites) would be synonymous.

In subjecting us to the red cape of “The Left” misrepresented as universal liberalism as applied to Whites and altercasting us as “the right”, we develop Cartesian anxiety for our Augustinian nature, and desperately adopt objectivism to the extent of reaching for unassailable warrant. This has the effect of taking us beyond accountability to our subjective and relative social group interests. It makes us look and act less humanely. It scares our own people and it should as we are not only easily made to look like “the bad guys”, but are, in fact, dangerous in being bereft of sufficient accountability; made easy to defeat as the factual necessity of our cooperation is not sufficiently recognized and we remain disorganized in obsolete philosophy.

2. Equality: Chasing this red cape really makes WN look bad, as they argue for inequality. It casts discourse in elitist and conflictual terms straight-away; more, it is not accurately descriptive as it relies on false comparisons.

The underlying concepts that YKW are trying to divert WN from grasping is the disposition to look first for qualitative sameness and difference. Within and between social paradigms there can be logics incommensurate to comparison but nevertheless amenable to symbiotic, non-conflictual functions, particularly if those respectful terms are invoked.

3. Social Constructionism and Hermeneutics: These concepts devised to counteract Cartesian runaway and facilitate systemic homeostasis instead have been misrepresented by Jewish interests with the red cape distortion that people and groups can just be whatever they imagine they might construct of themselves. Thus, the lie persists that these concepts are anti-empirical and anti-science. On the contrary, that would contradict the very anti-Cartesian premises of these ideas; in fact, these ideas are meant to enhance and make more accurately descriptive the conduct of science and reality testing. They are meant to correct the “scientism” which can result from myopic focus on narrow units of analysis only, such as the individual strictly, moment or episode, to the detriment of the broad view on systemic homeostasis.

These concepts importantly serve to correct the bad science put forth as evidence for anti-racistm, scientism evident in the statement by Spencer Wells of National Geographic’s Human Genome Project -

Spencer Wells, Population Geneticist

“Racism is not only socially divisive, but also scientifically incorrect. We are all descendants of people who lived in Africa recently. We are all Africans under the skin.”

by which he means that there are no important differences to justify discrimination.
While maintenance of the social group must admit to at least a tad of relativism and subjectivity in its interests, this admission is also an “admission” of a modicum of agency and choice; which thus lends itself by this admission to the stabilizing gauge of group criteria and the answerable, corrective means of its social accountability. This is stable in a way that attempts of pure objectivism are not - as its lack of social accountability tends to have the reflexive effect of hyper-relatvism. Spencer Well’s objectivism has the reflexive effect of being susceptible to having him espouse a destructive hyper-relativism in line with that espoused by pedestrian liberals or Marxist Jews.

Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper could correct this by adding dimensions of subjective and relative social accountability, coherence in historical process, accountability to historical social capital, manifest and situated delimitations, agency in racial re-construction, warrant in manifest and situated group evolution, but the Jewish red capes over these terms reverse the whole anti-Cartesian program that these concepts are meant to correct. Indeed, anti-racism is Cartesian.

However, for the massive perversion and misrepresentation of these concepts they have turned-off Whites and in fact have them arguing against the valuable underlying concepts which in no way deny physical and social constraints to free choice but nevertheless would facilitate coherence, accountability, agency and the warrant of our race to exist: That is what we seek in rigour - warranted assertability.

Social constructionism and hermeneutics proper facilitate that. Jewish interests with their red cape distortions do not want you to have that.

As is the case with “Pragmatist” philosophy, you can tell if you are chasing the red cape if you have to put the word “mere” before what those presenting the concept are saying in order to make sense of their argument: if they are suggesting something is a ‘mere’ social construct”, then there is no physical, interactive and interpersonal accountability, it is Cartesian.

4. Post Modernity: Jewish interests know that modernity by itself is viciously self perpetuating, paradoxic, impervious and destructive to healthy traditions and forms; whereas post modernity properly understood allows us to take the best of modernity and time tested forms and ways.

The red cape misrepresentation is a “dada” definition (or non-definition, as it were) of post modernity as opposed to a deliberate and thoughtful management of modernity and traditional forms and ways.

5. Multiculturalism and diversity: Jewish academics have reversed these terms to where outside groups are introduced to one another in order to blend away and subvert healthy, managed differences within and between groups. Then again, to chase the red cape and argue against the terms is to argue for integration with outsiders, e.g., non-Whites.

6. “Marginals” is a concept that goes along with hermeneutics and group maintenance; Jews have set up a red cape of presenting “marginals” as those outside the group with the intention of their being agents of change in overthrowing group homeostasis.

Chasing this red cape has WN arguing against humanitarian outreach to those within the group but most at risk to non-Whites; our marginals potentially have the greatest incentive to see to it that the White ecological system is maintained; they can lend perspective, feedback and accountability. It is important to note that one can be marginalized for being exceptionally talented and intelligent as well.

7. Hippies and the Sixties: These terms have been misrepresented as synonymous for White men being responsible for the Jewish radicalism of sexual revolution and black civil “rights”, viz. prerogative over Whites.

Chasing this red cape is a diversion from the call for a reasigment of White men as having intrinsic value - Being - as opposed to being expendable in wars not of the bounded interests of our people; as opposed to chasing the red cape of universal traditional manhood in service of a universalizaing religious ideal, international corporations, oligarchs and the YKW; and in charging this red cape, the intrinsic value of White people overall, as the unit to be defended, is argued against - WN are arguing against our own deepest interests again, against the warrant to exist. The very thing we need most is prohibited by a Jewish language game in which they form coalitions with black power, feminism AND misinformed traditional women, to deny our being, our reality, value and warrant to exist in midtdasein - the non-Cartesian being there* amidst our people.

* or “being of”, as GW prefers.

8. Social justice warriors - of course those doing the Jews’ bidding are not pursuing true social justice, but to argue against the term, “social justice warrior”, is to fall for the masters of discourse’s red cape once again.

9. The Jewish affectation of Christianity posed as “the moral order” for Europeans. The necessary good of a European moral order is dismissed right along with the red cape of Christianity or some “false” version of Christianity.


Unlike right-wing of WN, I’m not chasing the red cape of Jewish twisted terms, I’ve gored the sucker through the mouth.

We are the White justice warriors and I invite you to join me in some bull-steak now that we’ve sorted away the bullshit…

Why the Left Keeps Winning & How to Fight Back
Colin Liddell

http://www.counter-currents.com

Working from false premises he arrives at a false conclusion as to why “the left” wins.
His false premise is that the left absolutizes. On the contrary, the left organizes relative classificatory unions of people to make sense of perceptual catgegorizations and provide social accountablity.

That is why they win. They make human scaled sense.

Perceptual catgegorizations are impossible to do without and when otherwise prohibited (as in “anti-racism”) will tend to organize by default according to those categories hardest to ignore - saliently females and blacks.

This phenomenon puts the lie to the charge that “the left” as not dealing with reality and empirical sense. On the contrary, it is the right which blinds and wishes to ignore these relative, human sized social classifications - between the microscopic and the universal.

At the same time, as the right chases the red flag (as Liddell and Johnson do and would have you do), viz. the Jewish presentation of “liberalism” for Whites as “the left” and unionizations of any but White males, they are having White men argue against their own unionization of theirs and their co-evolutionary female’s relative interests as peoples.

Drawing clear lines around the White race and its subcategories as distinct from Jews and other non-Whites is not the same as being absolutizing in some non-optimal sense.

The reason is because it is a separatist idea, not an elitist notion with a plan to exploit or genocide the other. Therefore, whether we over-rate Jewish power and influence or underestimate its extent is not ultimately important because we have not committed ourselves to any irreversible program.

Before Muslims, Oslo Was an Almost Rape-Free City

via Halal Pork

Before Muslims Oslo was virtually a rape-free city, inhabited by people who had been brought up on civilized notions of mutual respect and tolerance. No longer. It SICKENS AND OUTRAGES me to no end when foreign nationals import some of their Stone Age, bestial "cultural/religious ways" to impose on a host country!

Jenji Kohan and the Jewish Hyper-Sexualization of Western Culture

via The Occidental Observer

Jenji Kohan
As detailed in The Culture of Critique, Freud and his followers regarded anti-Semitism was a universal pathology which had its roots in sexual repression. The theoretical basis for this can be found in Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality where he linked aggression to the frustration of human drives — especially the sex drive. Kevin MacDonald notes that: “Although Freud himself later developed the idea of a death instinct to explain aggression, a consistent theme of the Freudian critique of Western culture, as exemplified for example by Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich, has been that the liberation of sexual repressions would lead to lowered aggression and usher in an era of universal love.”[1]

According to this view, anti-Semitism, regarded as a form of aggression, results from the denial of sexuality, and the role of the Jewish mission of psychoanalysis was to end anti-Semitism by freeing humanity of its sexual repressions. Individuals preoccupied with sex were considered unlikely to concern themselves with the activities of Jews, much less to organize politically against them. People who spend most of their time in search of sexual stimulation are unlikely to organize pogroms or threaten the rich and powerful Jewish establishment. In his widely cited 2004 essay from the Jewish Quarterly Nathan Abrams observed that:
Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction.
Goodman wrote of the “beautiful cultural consequences” that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would “ennoble all our art” and “humanize sexuality.”
The hyper-sexualization of Western culture (the most conspicuous result of the Jewish takeover and virtual monopolization of the Western media and entertainment industries) can, therefore, be viewed as the practical ethno-political application of psychoanalytic theory to a traditional Western culture regarded as inherently authoritarian, fascistic and anti-Semitic due to its “repressive” sexual morality. MacDonald points out that “psychoanalysis has been a veritable treasure trove of ideas for those intent on developing radical critiques of Western culture” with these ideas influencing thought in a wide range of areas, “including sociology, child rearing, criminology, anthropology, literary criticism, art, literature, and the popular media.”[2]

I recently noted how Daniel Jonah Goldhagen claims to be bewildered by Billy Graham’s “nutty” comment in his secretly recorded conversation with President Nixon in 1972 that Jews were “the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,” and that so severe was the danger that Jews pose that their “stranglehold has got to be broken or this country’s going down the drain.”[3] Of course Goldhagen is uninterested in whether Graham’s assertion has any grounding in empirical reality — whether Jews actually are the ones mainly responsible for “putting out the pornographic stuff,” and are thereby undermining the cultural foundations and supports for high-investment parenting and sending the country “down the drain.” A quick look at the output of Hollywood, and the individuals responsible for it, is, however, enough to confirm that Graham’s assertion is absolutely correct. Not only have Jews long dominated the pornography industry, they have also been pivotal in “mainstreaming” pornographic themes and images through the movies and TV programs they produce.

Jenji Kohan — From Weeds to Orange is the New Black

To take just one of countless possible examples, consider the enormously popular program Orange is the New Black (hereafter OItNB). This show is the brainchild of screenwriter and executive producer Jenji Kohan who comes from a prominent Jewish show business family. Her father, Buz Kohan, a frequent writer for the Academy Awards, is the recipient of 11 Emmy Awards in a career that spans five decades. Her mother, Rhea Kohan, is a novelist, while her eldest brother, David, is the co-creator and producer of the gay-themed NBC sitcom Will & Grace. According to Danielle Berrin, writing for the “Hollywood Jew” section of The Jewish Journal:
Kohan could be the Jewish girl next door. But there is edginess to her — her hair perpetually tousled, and she always wears those signature eyeglasses with the art-deco glamour. … Her earliest fantasy was to be a famous actress-singer named Rainbow Star. But she couldn’t act. Or sing. Years later, after some time working in television, Kohan considered rabbinical school. But none of those whims proved as powerful as her (very Jewish) birthright, which has catapulted Kohan to many a writer’s highest aspiration, helming her own TV show.
Kohan worked for her brother David on Will & Grace during her early years, but decided his brand of humor was too tame. “David took the big, commercial, funny route; I was always a little darker personally,” she explains, “and not terrific within the system. I had to make my own way.” It was with specific reference to her brother David and the plethora of activist Hollywood Jews like him, that Vice President Joe Biden noted in 2013 how Jewish influence on American culture had been “immense.” Speaking of the prominent roles Jews had played in transforming American attitudes toward civil rights, feminism, and homosexual rights, he noted that:
What affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else. … It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace [gay marriage]. Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.
In a similar vein, the Jewish writer and intellectual Chaim Bermant observed that “the Jews that came to dominate Hollywood” between them “did more to determine American attitudes and tastes than the churches or even the schools.”[4] This is hardly surprising given that, as cultivation theory and social learning theory postulate, exposure to media content leads to increased sympathy for the values embedded in the content, as well as an increased propensity to regard the fictional portrayals as representations of reality.

Noting how right from Hollywood’s founding Jewish ethnic networking and nepotism quickly led to an industry completely dominated by Jews, Bermant wryly observed that “Hollywood, the place, as it was said, where ‘the son-in-law also rises’ was the last redoubt of nepotism, but nepotism was perhaps one of its saving virtues, for it indicated, if only at a crude level, that it was not wholly devoid of charity.”[5] Jewish family and ethnic networking played an inevitable role in Kohen’s ascent to eventually “helming” her own show. She recounts how:
I started writing. … I quit all of my crappy odd jobs, and I moved in with [a friend who] was living in Santa Cruz. And every day we would go to these little cafes in Santa Cruz, and I would work on spec scripts and study these videotapes I had recorded off television of Roseanne and Seinfeld and The Simpsons. … What ended up happening was, my sister-in-law’s father worked in a building with an agent and gave him my scripts in an elevator. And he read them, and I was on a show by spring. And it took off from there, and I never stopped working.
Kohan became a screenwriter for numerous dramas and comedies, including Sex and the City (created by Jewish writer, director and producer Darren Star), Gilmore Girls (created by Jewish writer, director and producer Amy Sherman), Mad About You (created by Jewish writer and actor Paul Reiser and Jewish writer and producer Danny Jacobson), and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (created by Jewish writer and actor Andy Borowitz and wife Susan Borowitz).

In 2005 she was given the opportunity to write and produce her own show, which led to the dark comic satire Weeds — a show about the “peculiar nature of American domesticity.” Originally set in the fictional suburb of Agrestic (later Majestic), the show follows the widowed, single mother Nancy Botwin (Mary-Louise Parker), who becomes a drug dealer in order to maintain her middle class lifestyle. With the help of various disreputable characters and her useless and immature brother-in-law Andy (who is representative of Hollywood’s routinely unflattering depictions of White men), she raises her two sons, Silas and Shane.

The Jewish Journal notes how Weeds “routinely deals with many of the most provocative, controversial themes on television. Any given season has its share of lawlessness, illicit relationships and an astonishing Freudian subtext (in one episode, Nancy catches her youngest son masturbating to a nude photograph of her).” Freudian themes continue to exert an enduring influence over the Jewish shapers of Western minds, like Kohan, despite that fact that these ideas have long ceased to play any role whatever in mainstream developmental psychology.

According to the Jewish Journal, Kohan’s “refusal to limit herself in her show’s creative content has made moral ambiguity a Weeds trademark. No topic is too grim, no character too depraved.” In giving her the scope to explore these depraved characters, and to mine them for humor and ask questions, Kohan claimed that Weeds allowed her to get in touch with her Jewish identity, noting that, “For me, the essence of my Judaism is to ask questions — ask why, ask more. And in a way, the show allows me to follow that path of Judaism.”

After the critically-acclaimed Weeds, which ended in 2012, Kohan adapted the (half-Jewish) author Piper Kerman‘s memoir Orange is the New Black about her experiences in a minimum-security women’s prison. This series revolves around the “clueless bisexual blonde” Piper Chapman (played by Taylor Schilling) who is sentenced to 15 months in prison for transporting drug money for her drug trafficking former girlfriend Alex Vause (Laura Prepon). This offense occurred ten years before the start of the series, and Piper has since moved on to enjoying a quiet, law-abiding life among New York’s upper middle class. Her sudden and unexpected arrest completely disrupts her relationships with her fiancĂ© and family. In prison, Piper is reunited with Alex (who named Piper in her trial, resulting in her ex-girlfriend’s arrest and imprisonment), and they re-examine their relationship and deal with their fellow prisoners. OItNB often uses flashbacks of significant events from the various inmates’ backgrounds to explain how they came to be in prison and to fill in their backstories.

OItNB is an incredibly degenerate show that inverts traditional Western morality and glamorizes homosexuality. The main themes of the show are that committed heterosexual relationships are abnormal and that Christianity is an evil creed, which, owing to its stifling sexual morality, leads its practitioners to become hypocritical bigots with twisted, neurotic personalities. The Christian “villain” in the show was sent to prison for killing a group of abortionists after receiving an abortion herself. Every woman in the prison, with the exception of the Christian villain, is in a lesbian relationship with one of their fellow inmates — even a nun.

The crazy Christian “villain” in Orange is the New Black
The crazy Christian “villain” in Orange is the New Black

Hollywood’s Jewish movers and shakers love to debase Christianity and Catholicism by depicting nuns in sexual roles. Notoriously, the opening scene of the pilot of Californication, a program starring and produced by the Jewish actor David Duchovny (whose father was a publicist for the American Jewish Committee), depicts a nun performing oral sex on Duchovny’s character Hank Moody in a church. This pornographic debasement of Christian symbols by Jews is a blatant way of defiling Christian culture. Kohan certainly has no qualms about such depictions, noting that: “When people have these sacred cows, my urge is to tip them.” Of course anyone attempting to “tip” a Jewish sacred cow will quickly find himself on an ADL and SPLC hit list, will likely lose his job, and if a public figure, will be relentlessly attacked by the Jewish-controlled media.

Labelling Kohan a “force of nature” Time Magazine notes how her “characters are a breathtaking riot of color and sexual orientation onscreen. Jenji shows a passion for diversity by creating characters of all backgrounds who are three-dimensional, flawed and sometimes unpleasant, but always human.” The perennial Hollywood themes of the nobility of sexual liberation and race mixing are particularly salient in OItNB. Asked in an interview why she included so much gratuitous sex in her show, Kohan responded by declaring that:
I want more fucking, everywhere. That’s one of my things. It expresses everything. It’s comfort, it’s release, it’s brutality, it’s companionship.  It’s so many things.  We’re all doing it. We’re all thinking about it. We don’t see it enough. Part of it is a dance with the [mostly non-Jewish] actors because it’s very vulnerable for them to do it. But if I had my way, there would be so much more, in everything. It’s so vital and integral in life, and it should be reflected in what we’re watching, if we’re reflecting our experiences. And it’s hot. I love the sex stuff, and I want more.
Kohan likewise told The Hollywood Reporter: “I love graphic sex, the more sex the better. Very often it’s convincing the actors to get naked. … You hope everyone will just be cool about it, and then they’re not. There’s a lot of convincing and making people feel comfortable.” Hollywood’s Jewish bigwigs have long used their power to make or break careers as a golden opportunity to gain access to, and sexually exploit, non-Jewish actresses and actors (and children). Bermant acknowledges that “the Jewish businessman has never turned a blind eye (a furtive eye sometimes, but never a blind one) to such attractions. The Rabbis have always been aware of a lascivious streak in the Jewish character.”[6]

Netflix, which airs OItNB, has been fully supportive of the sexually explicit content of OItNB, only intervening once according to Kohan. “We have some male frontal nudity this season, but I don’t think it’s going to be erect.” For comparison, Kohan noted the comparatively strict guidelines that Showtime (a wholly owned subsidiary of Sumner Redstone’s CBS) set for a scene in Weeds, in which “a dildo and lube were allowed to be shown on screen, but the character was not allowed to be seen applying the lube to the dildo.”

Some of the cast of Orange is the New Black
Some of the cast of Orange is the New Black

Elsewhere Kohan has opined that: “I think people need to accept their sexuality no matter what environment they’re in,” and observed how she is “a great subscriber to the Kinsey scale, where 10% is absolutely straight and 10% is absolutely gay and everyone sort of floats in the middle, everyone else.” Here Kohan echoes the Freudian “argument” that “a disposition to perversions is an original and universal disposition of the human sexual instinct.”

An article in Rolling Stone notes that OItNB has been at the forefront of TV shows challenging viewers’ perceptions of sexuality and gender identity, specifically thanks to the performance of “trans actress” Laverne Cox, who plays Sophia Burset, and openly gay actress Lea DeLaria, who plays Carrie “Big Boo” Black. Kohan points out that in her show “transgenderism” is “not confronted,” but is “seamlessly woven” into the tale of protagonist Piper Chapman’s time in a minimum security federal prison. “It’s not ‘The Very Special Episode about the trans character,’” she notes, “It’s normalized in this conversation.” One source, noting how OItNB has succeeded in normalizing sexual perversion and the idea of the “fluid” nature of gender identity, observed that:
This is the show, after all, that made Laverne Cox a household name as much for her sophisticated intersectional politics as for her laugh-out-loud beauty. A trans woman of color and the first trans actor to be nominated for an Emmy, Cox has consistently questioned the popular notion that visibility in itself is enough to bring about social change, instead using her position to publicize LGBTQ activism and to call attention to issues of inequality and injustice. Orange is the New Black makes its feminist points in a slyly subversive way: its radical themes combine with compelling storytelling as we are plunged, cellmate-like, into intimacy with the characters.

Orange is the New Black has made black “transsexual” Laverne Cox a “household name”
Orange is the New Black has made black “transsexual” Laverne Cox a “household name”

In response to news that one of the female staff writers on OItNB had divorced her husband and is now dating a star of the show after she said writing the show made her realize she was a lesbian, Kohan quipped: “I turned her gay. I made her gay. I felt like there wasn’t enough balance in the room, so I have a magic wand and I make people gay.”

Despite these flippant remarks, there is sound evidence that sexual orientation is, to a significant extent, environmentally determined. A 2006 Danish study found that, based on an analysis of two million men and women, social and family factors played a significant role in determining sexual orientation. In an interview, one of the study’s authors stressed that: “Prenatal factors cannot account for the variation in human sexual orientations,” and that “whatever ingredients determine a person’s sexual preferences and marital choices, our population-based study shows that environmental factors are important.” Culture likely mediates human sexuality through exerting an inhibitory or disinhibitory influence on certain sexual behaviors. Through its positive portrayal of homosexuality and “transgenderism,” OItNB clearly encourages marginal or confused individuals, such as the staff writer on the show, to identity as homosexual.

OItNB was showered with 12 Primetime Emmy Award nominations for its first season. Predictably, the show has also been universally lauded in the Jewish-controlled media. A Washington Post reviewer extolled the show’s “characters and ambitious writing and acting”, and noted how
in one of the new episodes, there is protracted debate about the location of the urethra in relation to the vagina — a matter definitively settled by Burset, a transgender inmate (played by Laverne Cox) — and a competition between two lesbian inmates, Big Boo and Nichols (Lea DeLaria and Natasha Lyonne) to see who can seduce the largest number of inmates, with a special emphasis on orgasm.
Observations like these seemingly pass for serious cultural commentary in one of America’s most prominent and influential media outlets these days.

Sexual Liberation — Great for Goyim, But Not for Jews

As this critic’s remarks indicate, anything goes on OItNB — except anything deemed racist, pro-Christian, or anti-LGBT. Kohan’s own life, however, conforms to more traditional Jewish standards. She is married to freelance journalist Christopher Noxon, with whom she has three children. Kohan claims that it is her conventional domestic life that propels her into the darker corners of storytelling. She’s attracted to seedier material because, as she puts it, “This is my rebellion, this is my fun.” In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, she recalled how her desire to include a character named Yael character in Weeds was borne of the Jewish milieu within which she raised her children. “My children attend a Jewish school,” she said at the time. “I met a lot of Israeli mothers there, and the character of Yael is a tribute to those mothers. They’re so terrific. All the Israeli mothers I’ve met are terrific, and so is Meital. Yael is a character I constructed from all the mothers in our school. I always check where people are in relation to their Judaism.”

The tendency of Jewish subverters of Western culture (like Kohan) to not personally practice what they promote for their intended audience is striking. Another noteworthy exemplar of this tendency is the Jewish entrepreneur and “King of Infidelity” Noel Biderman, the founder and CEO of the company that operates a dating website named Ashley Madison which is designed to make it easy for married people to arrange adulterous affairs. The slogan of the company (which Biderman himself came up with) is: “Life is short. Have an affair.” While promoting infidelity (and profiting handsomely from it), Biderman himself says he is a happily married father of two and does not cheat. In an interview with the “A Current Affair” program in Australia, he admitted that if he found out his own wife was accessing his cheater’s site, “I would be devastated.”

The Jewish “King of Infidelity” Noel Biderman
The Jewish “King of Infidelity” Noel Biderman

Former Chief British Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, writing in the Encyclopaedia of Modern Jewish Culture, observes that while “the sexual revolution of the 1960s found some Jewish protagonists,” within Jewish communities “the primary response was a strong defence of tradition.” Within diaspora Jewish communities, sexual liberation was regarded as a direct threat to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, where “not only ethical values were at stake.” Noting that “Images of marriage and family pervade Jewish theological language about the covenantal relationship between God and Israel,” Sacks observes that, “the stability and fertility of families is crucial to the demographics of Jewish survival.”[7] As these comments indicate, healthy, functional societies coalesce around the propagation and protection of children. While Jews have endeavoured to sustain this coalescence within Jewish communities, they have actively sought to sabotage it within non-Jewish communities.

An egregious recent manifestation of this cultural sabotage concerns the one time child star Miley Cyrus who recently declared: “I am literally [sexually] open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. … I don’t relate to being boy or girl, and I don’t have to have my partner relate to boy or girl.” Cyrus’s transition from innocent child star to leading sluttish propagandist for complete sexual liberation and “gender fluidity” can be directly ascribed to the malign influence exerted by her Jewish manager Larry Rudolph. As Britain’s Daily Mirror reported:
Take a pretty young girl with a clean ­image, turn her into a showbiz sex ­goddess and watch the money roll in. That is what has happened to Miley Cyrus. And her steamy interviews plus semi-naked “twerking” routine are looking like a deliberate career switch under the guidance of a calculating manager, reports the Sunday People.
Step forward Larry Rudolph. For Miley, the former Hannah Montana child actress turned queen of sleaze, is just the latest in a string of raunchy products from his stable. Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Jessica Simpson are all his creations as well. The multi-millionaire businessman and former lawyer specializes in helping performers make the transition from child star to adult entertainer.
Middle America was outraged by the sight of former Disney princess Miley, 21, wearing a flesh-colored latex bikini and gyrating suggestively against singer Robin Thicke at the MTV Video Music Awards in August. How could the sweet little thing who played children’s TV favorite Hannah for eight years sink so low, asked disgusted parents’ groups. But her televised performance was seen by 50 million people. And cheering her on were Rudolph and her mum and co-manager, Tish Finley.
Rudolph, 50, a talent manager for 15 years, has been working with the singer since last spring. And he told the Hollywood Reporter magazine he thought that Miley’s performance at the VMAs was an absolute corker. He declared: “We were all cheering from the side of the stage. It could not have gone better. The fans got it. The rest eventually will.” Rudolph’s skills have made him worth an ­estimated £13 million but he came from humble beginnings in the Bronx area of New York.

Miley Cyrus with her Jewish manager Larry Rudolph
Miley Cyrus with her Jewish manager Larry Rudolph


Catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones has posited that the Jewish promotion of sexual license (and the increasingly full gamut of sexual perversions and gender-identity dysfunctions) is, effectively, a way of exercising political control over non-Jewish populations — a way of rendering them politically tractable by making them slaves to their passions. An example that Jones frequently cites of Jews deliberately using the sexualization of culture to destabilize an enemy is the actions of Israeli soldiers after they took over Palestinian TV stations in 2002, where they immediately started broadcasting an endless stream pornography over the airwaves. Jones notes that:
The Israelis have recently shown themselves well-versed in what one could call the military use of pornography. At 4:30 PM on March 30, 2002, Israeli military forces took over Palestinian TV stations when they occupied Ramallah in the West Bank, immediately shutting them down. What followed was a little more unusual. Shortly after occupying the Al-Watan TV station, the Israeli forces began broadcasting pornography over its transmitter. Eventually, according to a report from The Advertiser, an Australian newspaper, the Israelis expanded their cultural offensive against the Palestinian people by broadcasting pornography over two other Palestinian stations, the Ammwaj and Al-Sharaq channels. One 52-year-old Palestinian mother of three children, according to the report in The Advertiser, complained about “the deliberate psychological damage caused by these broadcasts.”
Whether one accepts Jones’ thesis or not, the Jewish hyper-sexualization of Western culture and assault on White heterosexual normativity is too ubiquitous and longstanding a phenomenon to not to have a firm ethno-political basis. Regarding the overwhelming political support of Jews for sexual minorities, the late Jewish author Charles Silberman pointed out that, “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief—one firmly rooted in history—that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”[8] The Jewish professor of English at the University of Massachusetts, Josh Lambert, likewise noted that Jewish lawyers “believe that minority discourse deserves protection” on the basis that “the Holocaust was the ultimate suppression of minorities” and, consequently, for Jews, “the right for free speech became a fight for minority rights.”

The Consequences of the Jewish Hyper-Sexualization of Western Culture
The consequences of the erosion of traditional Western shaming code which enforced constraints on sexuality (the result of the triumph of the psychoanalytic and radical critiques of Western culture since the 1960s when the controls on Hollywood’s depiction of sexuality that originated in the 1920s effectively collapsed) have been far more deleterious to those lower IQ groups that are genetically predisposed to precocious sexuality than to diaspora Jews (higher intelligence being correlated with later age of marriage, lower levels of illegitimacy, single parenting, and  divorce). A 2006 study in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that: “The strong relationship between media and adolescents’ sexual expression” is due to “the media’s role as an important source of sexual socialization for teenagers.” According to psychologists Richard Jackson Harris and Fred W. Sandborn in their book A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication: “Teenagers who watch heavy diet of television with sexual content were twice as likely to engage in sexual intercourse over the following year as teens who were light viewers of sexual content, even after controlling for other possible factors”[9] (see also “Research on Pornography and the Sexualization of Culture”).

The hyper-sexualization of Western culture has led to soaring rates of sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents. There has been an alarming rise in gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis across the United States. There has also been a surge in child-on-child sexual abuse throughout the Western world. Joe Tucci, chief executive of the Australian Childhood Foundation attributes this dramatic upsurge to the fact that nowadays children “have this diet of easily accessible porn, sexual imagery and distorted values around relationships and they put those things together and they start engaging in sexual behavior.” Social commentator Melinda Tankard Reist plaintively asks, “How much worse does it have to get? How many more five-year-olds do we want to have in treatment programs until we say that maybe it shouldn’t be a free-for-all where kids can access torture porn and rape porn and incest porn? Children are being groomed to think this stuff is normal.” It hardly needs saying that, as a result of programs like Jenji Kohan’s OItNB, the division between pornography and popular entertainment is rapidly dissolving.

The “pornification” of popular culture proceeds apace Kevin MacDonald notes that “the most basic mistake Freud made was the systematic conflation of sex and love. This was also his most subversive mistake, and one cannot emphasize the absolutely disastrous consequences of accepting the Freudian view that sexual liberation would have salutary effects on society.” The psychoanalytic emphasis on the benefits of sexual liberation is “fundamentally a program that promotes low investment parenting styles.”[10] By contrast, traditional Western religious and secular institutions resulted in a “highly egalitarian mating system that is associated with high-investment parenting. These institutions provided a central role for pair bonding, conjugality, and companionship as the basis for marriage. However, when these institutions were subjected to the radical critique presented by psychoanalysis, they came to be seen as engendering neurosis, and Western society itself was viewed as pathogenic.[11]  

The net result of the Jewish engineered sexual revolution has, as Kevin MacDonald has noted, been the establishment of a society controlled by a Jewish “cognitive elite” who politically, economically and socially dominate “a growing mass of individuals who are intellectually incompetent, irresponsible as parents, prone to requiring public assistance, and prone to criminal behavior, psychiatric disorders, and substance abuse.”[12] Meanwhile, at the other end of the social spectrum, Jewish activists have recruited the most intellectually capable elements from within White populations and used them (through a Jewish-sanctioned public school curriculum and a perverted system of financial incentives) to harm communities of their own biological origin.

The Jewish hyper-sexualization of Western culture seems to only intensify with each passing year, as the line between pornography and popular entertainment blurs. To protect White communities from the insidious influence of Hollywood we clearly need, in addition to exposing the ethnic agenda behind its output, develop an alternative and widely accessible media of our own that reinforces the cultural supports for healthy White families. While significant progress can doubtless be made towards developing an alternative media infrastructure through using new communications technologies, breaking the Jewish mass media and entertainment monopoly will ultimately require the acquisition and deployment of very considerable financial resources.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 113. 
[2] Ibid. 138-39.
[3] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, The Devil That Never Dies (New York NY: Little, Brown & Co., 2013), 91-92.
[4] Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 91.
[5][5] Ibid. 94.
[6] Ibid. 107.
[7][7] Jonathan Sacks, Encyclopedia of Modern Jewish Culture, Ed. By Glenda Abramson (Abingdon, Oxon; Routledge, 2004), 245.
[8] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 85.
[9] Richard Jackson & Fred W. Sanborn, Media Affects: Advances in Theory and Research (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2009), 313.
[10] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 136.
[11][11] Ibid. 138.
[12] MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 151.