I wish I learned this in school…

The biggest problem with mathematics is that there’s no obvious way to utilize them to promote boys chopping off their penises.

But the Jews won’t let that stop them.

They won’t rest until every class in the high-school curriculum is fully dedicated to destroying the White race and putting civilization further under their control.

Enter “critical mathematics.” And yes, that’s “critical” as in “critical theory.”

Campus Reform:

A professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago is encouraging others to teach “math for social justice” to help fight the “oppressive status quo” in the United States.

“The Struggle is Pedagogical: Learning To Teach Critical Mathematics” was penned by Professor Eric Gutstein, who writes in a new textbook that the time is nigh for social justice math considering the “racist and sexist billionaire in the White House.”

Not only does Gutstein have a Jew name, but his voice is gay as all hell.

No wonder he’s so pent up about “social justice.”

If he doesn’t brainwash an entire generation of gentiles into his Jew-Marxist ideology, he’ll likely wind up stuck between an oven and a bog.

Gutstein, who notes that he once taught a “math for social justice” class at the Social Justice High School in Chicago, argues that teaching “critical mathematics” isn’t an option for math teachers, but rather, a “responsibility to our future.”

And by “our future,” he really means the future of Jew faggots like him. Certainly not the future of normal White men.

We’ll do just fine with regular old mathematics, thank you.

“We are in an historical period that challenges us to action in ways that we probably cannot fully understand,” Gutstein asserts.

“Teaching in critical ways is not optional in the present juncture. We have a responsibility to our future and our planet, to life and all species,” he adds. “What we do in the classroom matters, for today and tomorrow, and the myriad possibilities for resistance and transformation are inextricably and dialectically related to the intensity of the crises we face.”

You need to resist reality, goyim. And also, transform your entire your entire society – because of the six million.

Otherwise, an incalculable number of feelings are at risk of being hurt.

Only heartless neon-Nazis could be indifferent to that, of course.

Reflecting on his longstanding commitment to social justice, Gutstein laments that he has had difficulties converting other math teachers into vectors of “social justice pedagogies” to promote “revolutionary” and “radical” teachings.

“Revolutionary” and “radical” teachings?

Sounds familiar.

Somehow, math is now an indoctrination course for becoming a commie faggot.

Traditional mathematics education, he complains, “is not sufficient and does not address many issues” necessary to “critical mathematics.”

He’s not even hiding that he’s a Frankfurt school commie subversive. Critical theory is just Marxism repackaged by kikes to apply to culture instead of economics.

This is also known as “cultural Marxism.”

“For example, how does one shift contexts from ostensibly apolitical ones to those that are explicitly political (assuming one’s mathematics teaching is contextualized at all)?” he asks. “How does a teacher know what contexts to choose? How to teach about them in ways that bring community wisdom into the experience?”

Yeah, mathematical rigor is only “appropriate” in a context where it could advantage Jews and brown people. For example, “2+2=5” is mathematically false, but if a Black student answers this and would fail the test if judged factually, then it’s true in terms of social justice.

So it’s important that math teachers instruct their students that absolute truth is kind of important, but not nearly important as uncritical submission to the dictates of Jews.

While Gutstein did not immediately reply to an inquiry on what “critical mathematics” refers to, he did co-author the 2015 book Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by The Numbers, in which he asserts that math classes can help students to “deepen their understanding of important social issues, such as racism and sexism, as well as ecology and social class.”

Now, Gutstein teaches aspiring educators at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

In other words, we’ve got a whole generation of teachers who’ll be even worse SJW lunatics than the batch we’re suffering through now.

*Shudder.*

Luckily, it won’t really matter, since generation Z is already red-pilled enough to get this shit sorted out for good.

All commie teachers will get the rope – in Minecraft.

ALSO

This is officially a meme-along thread. Take this meme template and post your best work in the comments!

These poor kids have nothing but a barren field to study in, smdh. Wait, actually, I think the school is behind those trees. Never mind.

How do you achieve equality?

We already know that all featherless bipeds are exactly the same genetically. So the only possible variable here is the environment. This is what we can play with.

Early ideas involved trying to create an “equal” learning environment for all students, but that only made inequality worse. Further research shows that White kids are so bursting full of privilege from their obscenely wealthy upbringing that it nullifies any egalitarian policy we might enact later on.

But not all is lost. There’s an obvious solution here. If we put White kids in hellish torture camps where they’ll be browbeaten, humiliated and demoralized continuously, we might actually be able to finally achieve true equality.

Fox News:

A public high school in Minnesota implemented a required, race-based English course aimed at eradicating “white privilege,” but it wasn’t billed that way to students or parents, according to a public policy organization.

“Pre-AP English 10 constitutes an abuse of parents’ trust, taxpayers’ money and — most importantly — vulnerable children,” Katherine Kersten, a senior policy fellow for the Center of the American Experiment, told Fox News. “Edina citizens should hold district leaders accountable for substituting political indoctrination for a real education.”

The Minnesota-based think tank started researching Edina public schools after they heard students, parents, and teachers in Edina complaining about the aftermath of the 2016 election, when 80 staff members — most teachers — co-signed an editorial in the student newspaper bashing President-elect Donald Trump and aligning themselves with the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton.

“Many of you [students] have made clear … that right now, you don’t feel physically safe,” the article read. “Know that we will do all that we can … to fight for you,” and that “we will teach rebellion against a broken world.”

By “we” they actually meant this bitch:

This is the face of a creature who enjoys making White males suffer.

Kersten discovered a required 10th grade English course adopted in 2013 by Edina, focused on colonization, immigration, and social constructions of race, class, and gender. Kersten published a broader finding in a cover story titled: “Whose Values? Educational excellence threatened by ideology in Edina schools.”

Students, especially young, white males, said they constantly were humiliated.

One of the boys wrote on the “Rate My Professor” website that the class should be renamed, “Why White Males Are Bad, and How Oppressive They Are.”

Once again, generation Z never fails to impress.

#Woke.

While the school sold the course in one way, English teacher Jackie Roehl, one of the principal designers of the course, shared a more candid version in a book written for teachers called: “More Courageous Conversations About Race.”

I’m feeling more equal already!

“Understanding Critical race theory was a significant reason behind our school taking another step on our equity journey — incorporating a study of Critical race theory into our sophomore English classes,” Roehl wrote. “English teachers felt that our district’s mission to give all learners the ‘ethical values necessary to thrive in a rapidly changing, culturally diverse, global society’ could not be fully met without explicit discussions of race, racism, and Whiteness.”

Wew. This dumbass just went ahead and spilled the beans right out.

Well, it’s not surprising. She doesn’t look like she gets around much outside of her shitlib echo chamber.

“Teacher of the year.”

“Critical theory” is a purely Jewish attack on Western civilization. It’s the product of the Frankfurt school, and what Kevin McDonald alludes to with the title of his book “The culture of critique.”

“Critical race theory” is pretty much explicitly neo-Marxist racial communism.

And if you think this crap is limited to this school only, then I have some bad news for you. A short look at the Amazon page for the book mentioned above shows that this is a required coursebook for students, presumably in “education” courses.

In other words, future teachers are being formed using this material.

And that, actually, makes me very happy. This crap is so extreme in it’s anti-White bias that it’s certain to cause a huge backlash from White students, as is already the case in this school.

The Jews are doing our work for us in turning an entire generation of school children into hardcore Nazis.

That poor dog is more human than any Jew could ever be.

We all know that dogs are man’s best friend.

But if that’s true, how can we be so cruel as to let even a single one in the care of Jews? Because if you think these kikes do normal dog stuff with these animals, you’re sadly mistaken.

Much like everything else, to a Jew a pet is nothing but a tool to satisfy their perverse, neurotic urges.

For example, they might get dogs to breastfeed on some Jewess’ milk. The whole thing would be photographed as well, presumably so as to shame the dog’s ancestors even further.

We need to get PETA involved.

RT:

A Slovenian artist breastfed her dogs and fertilized one of her eggs with a dog cell as part of an award-winning three-month art project. She also produced a video documenting the creative process behind the bizarre venture.

The creature in question.

Maja Smrekar lived in seclusion with her dogs as part of the lengthy artistic experiment, which was titled “K-9_topology.”

During that time, she triggered her body to produce breast milk by systematic breast pumping. She then breastfed her puppy Ada to explore “the social and ideological instrumentalization of the female body and breastfeeding.”

In case you were wondering what that meant, don’t bother. It’s just Jew nonsense. This is the sort of phrases they use in critical theory circles in order to obfuscate the fact that their ideas are meaningless or childishly simplistic.

Search “critical theory” and this is the type of crap you’ll find.

Modern “artists” often adopt this kind of obscure language in order to compensate for the fact that their “art” usually consists of them grossing people out with their body fluids, rather than creating works of beauty and skill.

Smrekar also took a fat cell from another dog, Byron, and used it to fertilize one of her eggs using a method similar to IVF.The fat cell was a non-sexual cell, so no dog’s sperm was used in the project.

Thank God.

Imagine if a dog had been born contaminated with Jew DNA.

Who authorized such reckless science?

The artist said on her website that the project grew out of the “observation of zeitgeist through the so called thanatopolitical dimension of contemporary biopolitical practices.” She created a video (parts NSFW) depicting all the stages of the artistic work.

Despite the bizarre nature of the project, it proved remarkably popular with experts and was awarded the top prize in the Hybrid art section of the Prix Ars Electronica, one of the best known prizes in the field of electronic and interactive art.

“Experts” and “art critics” love this sort of stuff, precisely because it’s so insane and unpleasant that normal people inevitably hate it. That means that by “appreciating” this type of art, they can pretend to have distinguished tastes superior to the worthless proles.

Of course, they also love the specifically Jewish character of this “art performance.”

The “artist” writes on her website:

I would identify very much with a character from the novel titled “Adam Ben Kelev” of the Israeli writer Yoram Kaniuk, who takes the concept of being treated like a dog to its absurdist limits by exploring the extreme case of survivor’s guilt after the war, while poses familiar questions about who is sane in an insane world.

First published in Hebrew in 1969, this maniacal masterpiece has come to be recognised as one of the central works of Holocaust literature. It is about a famous performing artist Adam Stein who scooped up by the Nazis, is forced to accept a Faustian arrangement: he lives in comfort at a concentration camp as the pet dog along with a real German Shepherd of Commandant Klein, a Nazi officer who remembers Adam’s night club animal act. When not a pet, Adam is forced to play the violin and serenade his fellow prisoners, including his wife and daughter, as they are marched to the gas chambers.

Yeah, I can see the inspiration… Sickening.

This sick, perverted display is actually supposed to be some kind of Jewish holocaust role-playing fantasy. And the art critics are loving it – which isn’t surprising, considering the overwhelmingly Jewish nature of that field.

This only goes to show that the entire field of modern art needs to be cleansed with fire.

Sigmund Freud

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9

“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.” – Dr. Nathan Abrams¹

The single most important figure in the sexualization of the West was the self-described “fanatical Jew,” Sigmund Freud.²

Freud was born to Galician Jews in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1856, and from the age of four lived in Vienna, where he would develop the theories of “psychoanalysis” and found the psychoanalytic movement.

By 1906, all 17 members of the psychoanalytic movement were strongly-identified Jews, giving psychoanalysis the well-earned reputation of being a “Jewish science.”³

Freud evidently saw himself at war with the gentile world, frequently comparing himself to his role model, the Semitic general who went to war with Rome, Hannibal.⁴ He considered all gentiles as anti-Semites, once saying: “Basically, all are anti-Semites. They are everywhere. Frequently anti-Semitism is latent and hidden, but it is there.”⁵

Freud claimed – without any real evidence – that humans are sexual from birth, that we all want to have sex with our parents, and, most importantly, that the “sexual repression” of children leads to neuroses and other mental illnesses later in life.

All liberalizations in sexual guidelines can be traced back to his theories to one degree or another.

For instance, anti-obscenity lawyer Edward de Grazia wrote that the first significant liberalizing landmark court case on obscenity, the 1933 Ulysses decision (discussed in part 1), was a “brave undertaking, one that only the spread of Freud’s new ideas on human sexuality and unconscious could have induced grown men, at least if they were judges, to engage in.”⁶

The first journal dedicated to “sexology,” which attempts to rationalize perversion under the guise of science, featured an article penned by Freud, in 1908.

The publisher of the journal was the Jew Magnus Hirshfeld – the “Einstein of Sex” – who would go on to co-found the first sexology clinic with Iwan Bloch (known as the “father of sexology”) and Albert Eulenberg, in 1913.

The second clinic of this nature was founded just months later by their rival, Albert Moll, and editorship of Hirschfeld’s journal was turned over to Max Marcuse.⁷

All were Jews.

Magnus Hirschfeld

In 1919, Hirschfeld founded the Institute for Sexology, the first of its kind, in Berlin, and this became the internationally recognized center of sexology research.

There was a museum of sex perversions inside which, according to Christopher Isherwood, a homosexual author with a taste for young boys who had visited there, was filled with

whips and chains and torture instruments designed for the practitioners of pleasure-gain; high-heeled, intricately decorated boots for the fetishists; lacy female undies which had been worn by ferociously masculine Prussian officers beneath their uniforms.⁸

The institute was adorned with portraits of transvestites, and carried out the first “sex change” operations.⁹ Indeed, the now widely known concept of “transgenderism” comes directly from Hirshfeld. It was originally called “transsexualism.”

Hirshfeld also lobbied for 30 years to overturn Germany’s famous ‘paragraph 175 law,’ which criminalized sodomy, and staged the first congress for “homosexual rights.”

Hitler, as leader of the rising National Socialist party while the Institute for Sexology was thriving, called Hirshfeld “the most dangerous Jew in Germany.”

On a speaking tour when Hitler came to power in 1933, Hirshfeld self-exiled, knowing full well he was no longer welcome back in his former host country. He died two years later, while in France.

On May 6^th, 1933, the Institute was raided by National Socialist students. They carried off a bust of Hirshfeld and some 10,000 books, articles and documents and burned them in a giant bonfire, symbolically and literally cleansing their nation of Jewish poison.

Most of the photos of the Nazis burning books are of the Hirshfeld bonfire.

Other books burned by the National Socialists included those of Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich (see part 6).

Jews being at the heart of the pseudo-scientific justifications for the sexualization of society follows logically with their historic over-representation as pimps, pornographers and sex offenders, as well as the sexually and morally subversive nature of their “activities in the press, in art, in literature and theatre,” as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf.

After struggling for years to come to terms with the Jewish question, and rejecting the anti-Semitic literature of his time as “too sensational to be true,” this highly unsavory aspect of the Jews is what finally turned Hitler against them:

All unctuous protests were now more or less futile. One needed only to look at the posters announcing the hideous productions of the cinema and theatre, and study the names of the authors who were highly lauded there in order to become permanently adamant on Jewish questions.

Here was a pestilence, a moral pestilence, with which the public was being infected. It was worse than the Black Plague of long ago. And in what mighty doses this poison was manufactured and distributed. . . .

The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of people who formed scarcely one percent of the nation – that fact could not be gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted.¹⁰

Although Hirshfeld’s operation was shut down in 1933, its successor, the Kinsey Institute, headed by the sado-masochistic, homosexual psychopath Alfred Kinsey, opened up shop in America in 1938, and went to work subverting the sexual morality of America by faking statistical data.

In 1948 Alfred Kinsey’s book Sexuality in the Human Male was unleashed into American discourse like a malicious virus. The book was made up of data collected through alleged interviews of subjects’ “sexual histories,” using a questionnaire largely based on one that had been used by Hirschfeld.¹¹

It made an incredible amount of outrageous claims such as that 50% of men cheated on their wives, 69% had used prostitutes, 67-97% had premarital sex, 37% – “more than one male in three,” as Kinsey gleefully put it – had a homosexual experience, and 50% of farm boys had sex with animals.

The book was a runaway hit, selling an astonishing 200,000 copies in just two months. “Not since Gone with the Wind had booksellers seen anything like it,” noted Time magazine¹²

Kinsey took Freud’s theories of child sexuality to the extreme. “[I]t has been assumed” that infants are sexual, Kinsey wrote, citing “Freud and the psychoanalysts.” But, he goes on, there are “few specific data” to prove it.¹³

So he and his team set out to do just that, to “prove” that infants are sexual. They proceeded to sexually molest innumerable children, and then carefully documented and wrote about it openly and in great detail.

The pedophiles sexually stimulated the children, and then recorded when they thought the children had “orgasms.” One of Kinsey’s conclusions drawn from this “research” was that – and I’m not making this up – “it is probable that half or more of the boys in an uninhibited society could reach climax by the time they were three or four years of age.”¹⁴

One of many charts in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male which documents the Kinsey Institute’s systematic sexual abuse of children, inspired by Freud’s teachings about “infantile sexuality.”¹⁵ (Read the full chapter on children’s “orgasms” here, if you have the stomach for it).

In 1953, Kinsey released his second report, Sexuality in the Human Female, in which he unsurprisingly made similar outrageous claims.

These reports were a necessary prerequisite for the sexual revolution. Here was seemingly credible scientific data – very well-funded and heavily promoted – that claimed the majority of Americans were already secretly sexual degenerates, and that, as Charles Socarides M.D. put it,

all types of sexual activity – sex with the opposite sex, sex with the same sex, sex with both sexes, sex with children, sex with whips and chains, fisting sex, sex with animals – any kind of sex was normal and common.¹⁶

Jewish anti-obscenity law activists and “sex-reformers” immediately sprang into action to capitalize on Kinsey’s bogus data, which, taken at face value, showed that 95% of males and 80% of females were guilty of punishable sex crimes.

America’s most prominent anti-obscenity figure of the time, the ACLU’s Morris Ernst (discussed further in part 1), who was also Kinsey’s lawyer, co-wrote a book based on the Kinsey reports with another Jew, David Goldstein Loth, called American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report.

In this book, which was published the very same year as Sexuality in the Human Male (1948), Ernst & Loth advocated for the repeal of all of the 52 existing sex crime laws.¹⁷ They claimed that “virtually every page of the Kinsey Report touches some section of the legal code” and thus the law “falls lamentably short of being based on a knowledge of the facts.”¹⁸

Herbert Wechsler, a Jew who served on the judge’s panel at Nuremberg, then introduced Kinsey’s “data” to the law community at large with his 1952 article in the Harvard Law Review, ‘The Challenge of a Model Penal Code,’ where he argued that the incarceration rate for sex criminals was way too high.¹⁹

Wechsler went on to become the director of the American Law Institute (ALI), and was Chief Reporter on its drafting of the 1955 Model Penal Code (MPC).

The ALI-MPC called for the reduction of penalty, or outright abolition, of all sex-based laws such as those against sodomy, homosexuality, oral sex, prostitution, adultery, and bestiality.

It was adopted all or in part in every state over the next two decades, and all of its footnotes regarding the sex laws – without exception – cite the Kinsey reports as the sole evidence for the need to liberalize them.²⁰

Herbert Wechsler with Jewish Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

The Jew Gershon Legman called Kinsey’s work “statistical hokum,” crafted for the “propagandistic purpose of respectabilizing homosexuality and certain other perversions.”²¹

Given the source, this is a pretty incredible statement.

Legman was one of Kinsey’s assistants, and was himself a significant figure in the sexualization of America, even taking credit for the slogan “make love, not war” (he had also worked as an assistant to Samuel Roth, discussed in part 3, and was an associate of Fredric Wertham in his crusade against comic-books, discussed in part 2).

“Legman is the person, more than any other, who made research into erotic folklore and erotic verbal behavior academically respectable,” a Professor Jackson is quoted in the NY Times as saying. ”He’s utterly famous in the world of erotica for what he did — for making these materials accessible by providing them freely to anyone who asked and for finding stuff that nobody else knew about.”²²

The online Jewish publication Tablet writes of Legman:

Mr. Legman is best known as the author of a two-volume psychoanalytic study of sexual and scatological humor titled ”Rationale of the Dirty Joke” and as an anthologist of limericks. He also published books on violence in comic books, oral sex and aspects of erotic folklore.

He accumulated what has been described as one of the world’s largest collections of published and unpublished erotic and scatological literature . . . In interviews, he also said he had developed a vibrator in the late 1930’s and coined the phrase ”Make love, not war” during a talk at the University of Ohio in 1963.²³

Legman claimed that some classmates wrote the word ‘kosher’ with “horse-shit juice” on his forehead when he was a child. The lasting impression of this (presumably fabricated) event is what led him, he further claimed, to what became a lifelong dedication to the Freudian belief that the suppression of sex leads to violence and anti-Semitism.

In 1949 he published a book titled Love & Death, in which he used this bizarre Freudian logic to make a case for the liberalization of obscenity laws.

Gershon Legman

“Legman’s book,” Josh Lambert assures us in Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture, “not now widely read, was hardly obscure.”²⁴

And now that it was post-WWII, Legman’s argument had a powerful lever: “[Love & Death] derives much of its rhetorical force and impetus from the Holocaust. His stated purpose was to advocate the repeal of American obscenity laws, and the genocide of the Jews motivated him in that project and provided him with useful evidence.”²⁵

Legman was far from alone in the contention that sexual liberation would make the world safer for Jews, and that the Holocaust could be used as leverage in this regard.

In Unclean Lips, Lambert gives us details on many other Jews who thought this way, such as Abraham Maslow and Albert Ellis, who were two of the most influential Freudian psychologist/sexology thinkers, and Ludwig Lewisohn, who Lambert writes was “by far the most prominent Jewish writer in interwar America,” indicating just how mainstream this point of view is among the Jewish community.²⁶

In 1923, a group of Freudo-Marxist Jews founded the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany. A decade later, when Hitler came to power, the Institute shut down and they were forced out of Germany. They came to America and resumed their work at Columbia University in New York, and became known as the “Frankfurt School.”

The Frankfurt School developed what is known as “Critical Theory.” Critical Theory is basically an overt Jewish intellectual assault on the Western world, done under the guise of high-minded idealism and weaponized pseudo-morality. It works to tear down, criticize, and “deconstruct” all of Western civilization and culture, by purporting to show how it is inherently and historically racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, homophobic, etc.

In essence, it is the Jewish reverse engineering of civilization, with the sexual morality that civilization has been built on a primary target for deconstruction, as the Freudian notion of “sexual repression” is frequently claimed to be at the root of many of the world’s problems.

The 1947 book Dialectic of Enlightenment by the Jews Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer – described as being “undoubtedly the most influential publication of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory” – portrays anti-Semitism as a mental illness in gentiles (Jewish behavior never figures into the equation, of course), and claims that civilization itself is repressive and evil.

In “sexuality’s better, prepatriarchal past,” before civilization, capitalism, and Christianity, human beings lived in harmony without sexual repression or inequality, they claim, noting approvingly of “primitive orgies.”²⁷

The “National Socialist terror,” it is alleged to be shown in Dialectic of Enlightenment, “was not an aberration of modern history but was rooted deeply in the fundamental characteristics of Western civilization.”²⁸

Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno.

The Frankfurt School Jews are most well known for writing The Authoritarian Personality. Part of the “Studies in Prejudice” series, which was funded by the American Jewish Committee, the Authoritarian Personality pathologized everyone with even slightly right-leaning views (read: the vast majority of all people in all of human history).

They came up with the “F-scale,” which supposedly measures people’s fascistic tendencies. Anyone included in the study who displayed either a concern with sexual morality, distrust toward Jews, or a traditional view on gender roles, gets a high rating on the F-scale, and is portrayed as mentally ill.

Their sickness, these Jews claimed, most likely stems from sexual repression, closet homosexuality, and authoritarian upbringing. And they probably have deep-seated “sado-masochistic” tendencies. And they are probably just projecting their own frustrations and insecurities onto weaker people, in order to make themselves feel better – “scapegoating.”²⁹

Pretty vicious stuff, to be sure, but this is what much of our universities – namely, the social sciences – believe and teach, and this obviously has a very real effect on how our society views and treats sexuality.

“No volume published since the war in the field of social psychology has had a greater impact on the direction of the actual empirical work being carried on in the universities today,” reads a quote on the book’s Wikipedia page.

All of the above helped lay the intellectual groundwork for the sexual revolution that was carried out by the 1960s “counterculture,” which was led politically by the “New Left.”

Jews in general were vastly overrepresented among the New Left radicals and intellectuals, despite comprising only around 2% of the American population.

Professor Ernest Van Den Haag wrote in his 1969 book, The Jewish Mystique: “Although very few Jews are radicals, very many radicals are Jews: out of one hundred Jews, five may be radicals, but out of ten radicals five are likely to be Jewish.”³⁰

Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was the premier New Left group. At its peak in 1968, the SDS had around 100,000 known members in 400 chapters. Scholars have estimated that over 60% of its leadership, and 30-50% of its rank and file membership nationwide, were Jews.³¹

Some more focused studies turned up even higher percentiles. For instance, a study conducted at the University of California found that 83% of leftist radicals had Jewish backgrounds, and one at the University of Michigan a full 90%.³²

The true figures, it must be noted, were actually even higher, as many racially Jewish leftists passed themselves off as “atheists.”³³

“Smash monogamy!” became one of the New Left’s revolutionary battle cries. The Jewish leader of SDS, Mark Rudd, wrote of the rampant sexual degeneracy that was being unleashed by these radicals in his book Underground: My Life with the SDS and the Weathermen:

It was a moment of extreme sexual experimentation. Group sex, homosexuality, casual sexual hook-ups were all tried as we attempted to break out of the repression of the past into the revolutionary future.

On one ride from Chicago to Detroit, all fourteen or so of us, except perhaps the driver, writhed naked on the floor of the van while hurtling down the interstate, legs, arms, torsos, genitals interlocked with no particular identity attached.³⁴

Mark Rudd

The Frankfurt School Jew who had by far the most direct influence on the sexual revolution was Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse was nicknamed the “Father of the New Left.” During the 1968 leftist riots in France, which nearly toppled its conservative President Charles de Gaulle, students carried banners with the slogan “Marx, Mao, Marcuse.”

David Allyn writes in his book on the history of the sexual revolution, Make Love, Not War: “For young radicals, the ideas in Herbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization (1955) were the cornerstone of the [sexual] revolution.”³⁵

Marcuse’s writings on sexual liberation were very, very strange.

They were based largely on Freud’s fantastical theory of “polymorphous perversity.” This is the theory that children are sexual from birth and receive sexual, or “erotic” pleasure from all parts of their body, until they are “repressed” by society. This happens at around 5 years old, and afterwards their sexuality becomes centralized in their sexual organ, and they get “amnesia” about their prior state of polymorphous perversity.

Freud himself wasn’t a sexual liberationist though. He believed that the suppression of sexuality is necessary in order for civilization to exist. He wrote in Civilization and Its Discontents that “it is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built up upon a renunciation of instinct[ual gratifications].”³⁶

Marcuse disagreed with this sentiment and argued that since civilization had reached such a level of comfort and affluence, it could withstand the releasing of sexual passion, and a return to this “polymorphous perversity.” His theoretical sexual utopia would result, he wrote, in “a reactivation of all erotogenic zones, and, consequently, in a resurgence of pregenital polyamorous sexuality” and this would make “the body in its entirety . . . an instrument of pleasure.”³⁷

One could hardly get more abstract than that.

In a nutshell, as Alt-Right blogger Vincent Law put it, Marcuse’s platform was “a promise of a utopia of sex on demand and every single perversity of every single individual fulfilled on the grounds of it being grounded in their childlike innocence.”

Herbert Marcuse

Using the conflict in Vietnam as their linchpin, Marcuse, the New Left, and the counterculture sexual revolutionaries made Legman’s “make love, not war,” the motto and attitude of the day.

“When we chanted ‘make love, not war,’ my draft-resisting friends and I were echoing the words of Frankfurt School theorists,” feminist professor Linda Williams wrote in the book Sex Scene, giving a firsthand account of her time with the New Left.³⁸

Sparked by Marcuse, turned on by music, marijuana, and psychedelics; outraged by the escalations of a war whose injustice was driven home by a draft that affected the entire population of young men, my generation really did think, at least for a moment that making love could be a political act against war.³⁹

The most radical of all New Left groups was the Yippies (slang for ‘Youth International Party’ – the political manifestation of the “hippies”), founded and led by two Jews, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.

The Yippies were heavily promoted in the media at the time, and encouraged the most extreme forms of nation-wrecking hedonism imaginable.

Before protesting the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, which famously got 8 of them arrested and put through a high-profile trial for conspiracy to incite riots, they publicly joked about pouring LSD in the water supply and declared “We will fuck on the beaches! … We demand the Politics of Ecstasy! … Abandon the Creeping Meatball! … And all the time ‘Yippie!”

Jerry Rubin wrote a book called Do It!, which was widely distributed among college campuses, and featured an introduction written by Black Panther icon Eldridge Cleaver, who had previously admitted to raping White women out of racial hatred in his book Soul On Ice.

Cleaver was a hero to the New Left and the counterculture, not in spite of being a rapist of White women, but precisely because he was a rapist of White women, as hard of a pill as that is to swallow.

He wrote:

Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women…I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spread outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of consternation throughout the white race.⁴⁰

White-raping hero of the Jewish counterculture Eldridge Cleaver also unironically invented ‘penis pants.’

Rubin was as mentally insane a Jew as can be, and with the help of the Jewish dominated media, he injected his insanity into the 60s generation by making it “hip.” He told people in a speech to be prepared to “kill your parents,” because they “are our first oppressors.” He called his own mother a “white-skinned no-good sexless asshole cap-toothed cancerous venom of a snake who destroyed me from birth.”⁴¹

“How can you separate politics from sex?” he queried, in one of the more outrageous chapters of Do It!, titled ‘Fuck God.’ “It’s all the same thing: Body Politic.”

POLITICO-SEXUAL REALITY: The naked human body is immoral under Christianity and illegal under Amerikan law. Nudity is called “indecent exposure.” Fuck is a dirty word because you have to be naked to do it. Also it’s fun.

When we start playing with our “private parts,” our parents say, “Don’t do that.” The mother commits a crime against her child when she says “Don’t do that.”

We’re taught that our shit stinks. We’re taught to be ashamed of how we came into the world—fucking. We’re taught that if we dig balling, we should feel guilty.

We’re taught: body pleasure is immoral!
We’re really taught to hate ourselves!

Puritanism leads us to Vietnam. Sexual insecurity results in a supermasculinity trip called imperialism. Amerikan foreign policy especially in Vietnam, makes no sense except sexually. Amerika has a frustrated penis, trying to drive itself into Vietnam’s tiny slit to prove it is The Man.

This crescendo of subversive Jewish filth climaxes with Rubin’s following declaration:

Our tactic is to send niggers and longhair scum invading white middle-class homes, fucking on the living room floor, crashing on the chandeliers, spewing sperm on the Jesus pictures, breaking the furniture, and smashing Sunday school napalm-blood Amerika forever.⁴²

Jerry Rubin, Jewish pied piper of the Hippie generation.

It’s a shame that such blatant assaults on the foundation of our society were tolerated – but here we are.

The main reason they weren’t opposed properly, is because they were coming from Jews, and atrocity stories had catapulted the Jews virtually to untouchable status following World War II.

Anyone who would dare criticize the Jews would be ostracized from polite society, and relegated to the absolute fringes of politics, because they would be seen to be just like the Nazis, who the world now hated with a fiery passion.

We’ll conclude this segment with a quote from one of the few who were brave enough to speak out: Dr. William Pierce, who witnessed this Jewish counterculture upheaval firsthand while working as a physics professor at Oregon State University in the 1960s:

During the Vietnam conflict the Jewish leaders of Students for a Democratic Society, Americans for Democratic Action, the National Student Association, the Student Mobilization Committee, and a hundred other leftist organizations were using the war as a pretext to turn American society upside down.

These groups had virtually taken over the university campuses in America, because the university administrators were afraid that they would be accused of anti-Semitism if they took a stand against them. And the trendy airheads on the campuses, who had been spoiled rotten by a permissive upbringing, easily fell for the propaganda of these organizations, which essentially told them that they could do whatever they wanted to and had no responsibility to anyone or anything.⁴³

The full extent to which the Jews are responsible for the sexual revolution and the sexualization of our culture is impossible to gauge, of course, but as the above evidence – which only scratches the surface – shows, their contribution was enormous.

This fact is going to have to be reckoned with if we ever hope to reverse the damage these sexual revolutionaries have caused.

No history of sexual liberation would be complete, though, without discussing the Jew Wilhelm Reich, from whom the term “sexual revolution” comes, and second-wave feminism, which was one of its main driving forces. These will be the topics of part 6 and part 7.

If you enjoy this series, please consider supporting the author by purchasing a print copy.

Notes

1. Jewish Quarterly, “Triple-exthnics,” Winter 2004
2. Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 1998, p.111
3. Ibid., p.109-110
4. See, e.g., John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity, 1978; also MacDonald, chapter 4
5. Cuddihy, p.78
6. Edward de Grazia, Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius, 1993, p. 31
7. Kinsey Institute Online, ‘About Sexology‘
8. Christopher Isherwood, Christopher and His Kind, 1976, p.16
9. Elena Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom, 2010, p.xi
10. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Murphy Translation), 1925, p.56-57
11. Mancini, p.85
12. Humphrey Zinyuke, Sex, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness: Wisdom for America’s New Sexual Order, 2015, p.79
13. Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 1948, p.163
14. Ibid., p.178
15. Ibid, p.176
16. Judith Reisman, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion in America, 2010, Kindle edition, loc.9482
17. E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, 2000, p.341
18. Morris Ernst & David Loth, American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report, 1948, p.132
19. Herbert Wechsler, “The Challenge of a Model Penal Code,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 7 (May, 1952), pp. 1097-1133
20. Reisman, op. cit. loc.9582
21. Ibid., loc.5700
22. Janny Scott, ‘Gershon Legman, Anthologist of Erotic Humor, Is Dead at 81,’ NY Times, March 14, 1999
23. Josh Lambert, ‘Love and Death,’ Tablet, July 8, 2011
24. Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Jews, Obscenity and American Culture, 2013, p.45
25. Ibid., p.44
26. Ibid., p.33
27. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, 1947, p.82-84
28. Ibid., p.218 (editor’s afterword)
29. Adorno, et. al., The Authoritarian Personality, Studies in Prejudice, Volume 1, 1950, see e.g. chapter 7 and chapter 11
30. Ernest Van Den Haag, The Jewish Mystique, 1968, p.118
31. Stanley Rothman & Robert Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the Left, 1996, p.81; Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance, 2014, p.250
32. Rothman & Lichter, p.81
33. Ibid., p.82
34. Mark Rudd, Underground: My Life in SDS and the Weathermen, 2009, p.164
35. David Allyn, Make Love, Not War: The Sexual Revolution: An Unfettered History, 2000, p.196
36. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 1930, p.23
37. Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, 1955 p.201
38. Eric Schaefer et al., Sex Scene: Media and the Sexual Revolution, 2014, p.66
39. Ibid., p.67
40. Eldridge Cleaver, Soul On Ice, 1968, p.109
41. Kerry Bolton, The Psychotic Left: From Jacobin France to the Occupy Movement, 2013, p.165
42. Jerry Rubin, Do It!, 1970, p.111
43. William Luther Pierce – Transcripts – American Dissident Voices, p.139

One of the reasons I am opposed to heavy indulgence in conspiracy theories, as a rule, is that there are so many facts available that there is no need for theories, and when we do indulge in conspiracy theories, the establishment can then claim that things that are documented fact that we talk about are actually somehow theoretical.

Such a thing happened in the Guardian this week when a Mr. Jason Wilson claimed that cultural Marxism is a “conspiracy theory.”  The article, entitled “‘Cultural Marxism’: a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim” is so bizarre it is hard to even grasp, as he goes through and explains historical facts, which are available on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and claims that they are a theory.

After claiming that anyone who “believes” in cultural Marxism is like Anders Breivik somehow, he goes on to outline this situation.

The tale varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right. It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects things that really happened, only to distort them in the most bizarre ways.

It begins in the 1910s and 1920s. When the socialist revolution failed to materialise beyond the Soviet Union, Marxist thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs tried to explain why. Their answer was that culture and religion blunted the proletariat’s desire to revolt, and the solution was that Marxists should carry out a “long march through the institutions” – universities and schools, government bureaucracies and the media – so that cultural values could be progressively changed from above.

Adapting this, later thinkers of the Frankfurt School decided that the key to destroying capitalism was to mix up Marx with a bit of Freud, since workers were not only economically oppressed, but made orderly by sexual repression and other social conventions. The problem was not only capitalism as an economic system, but the family, gender hierarchies, normal sexuality – in short, the whole suite of traditional western values.

The conspiracy theorists claim that these “cultural Marxists” began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation.

The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think.

Again, all of that information is documented history.  It is just what happened.  Wilson is apparently implying that the theoretical part is that these people had influence on the modern university system.  Or is he suggesting that it is a theory that the university system has great influence on society as a whole?

This is how Wikipedia describes Adorno’s The Authoritarian Personality:

The Authoritarian Personality is a 1950 sociology book by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, researchers working at the University of California, Berkeley, during and shortly after World War II.

The Authoritarian Personality “invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the ‘F scale’ (F for fascist).” The personality type Adorno et al. identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences. These traits include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intellectualism, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and “toughness”, destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex.

Though strongly criticized for bias and methodology, the book was highly influential in American social sciences, particularly in the first decade after its publication: “No volume published since the war in the field of social psychology has had a greater impact on the direction of the actual empirical work being carried on in the universities today.”

Herbert Marcuse is introduced thusly:

Herbert Marcuse (German: [maʀˈkuːzə]; July 19, 1898 – July 29, 1979) was a German American philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist, associated with the Frankfurt School of critical theory. Born in Berlin, Marcuse studied at the universities of Berlin and then at Freiburg, where he received his Ph.D.[2] He was a prominent figure in the Frankfurt-based Institute for Social Research – what later became known as the Frankfurt School. He was married to Sophie Wertheim (1924–1951), Inge Neumann (1955–1972), and Erica Sherover (1976–1979). In his written works, he criticized capitalism, modern technology, historical materialism and entertainment culture, arguing that they represent new forms of social control.

After his studies, in the late 1960s and the 1970s he became known as the preeminent theorist of the New Left and the student movements of Germany, France, and the US. Between 1943 and 1950, Marcuse worked in US Government Service, which helped form the basis of his book Soviet Marxism (1964). Celebrated as the “Father of the New Left”, his best known works are Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man (1964). His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and 1970s, both in the U.S. and internationally.

It simply cannot be logically denied that Critical Theory – which is the combined ideological and philosophical work of the Frankfurt School team – is the basis of modern liberalism. It is a fact, that no one in any liberal arts school would debate.

This Guardian article is simply another example of this new journalistic technique of just saying the complete opposite of what is true, while knowing that anyone can Google it and find out that it is simply a lie. It is a form of psychological warfare, plain and simple, as the idea of just outright lying about such simple things – in this case, literally laying out a history and then at the end calling it a crazy theory – is beyond the normal person’s capacity to process.

I have called this the “peaceful protester” method of journalistic reporting, a reference to Obama referring to both the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government and the riots in Ferguson as “peaceful protests,” even as the public was able to see, right in front of their eyes, the violent mobs burning down bitches.

The rest of the article just goes on to say how horrible it would be if people “believed this theory,” that is, looked it up and found that it was just historical fact. He says it would lead to even more Antisemitism and cause more evil Whites to do a Breivik.

He also says there isn’t actually a program to indoctrinate university students with leftist ideology, which again, is retarded on the face of it.

This new method of journalism must be going to backfire.  I just can’t imagine people are not going to start noticing it.

“White privilege” is a term heard often lately, as an underhanded accusation against whites. It refers to a theoretical set of privileges that whites benefit from beyond those experienced by blacks and other minorities in the community, workplace or schools. Although whites might not even be aware of these supposed advantages, they somehow enjoy unfair benefits that presumably need to be addressed and eliminated in order to really level the playing field and achieve true racial equality.

The term “white privilege” was coined by Theodore W. Allen during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Its roots derive from critical race theory, an offshoot of the Frankfurt School’s critical theory, a Marxist tactic by which criticism is used as a weapon to take down the establishment’s power structure.

On December 24, this reporter interviewed professor Kevin MacDonald on his thoughts about the validity of white privilege.

“There is no such thing,” he said. “It’s a total fabrication put out there just as a way to further affirmative action programs.”

MacDonald, a professor at Caltech,  has written several articles on this issue including a review of an article by Ron Unz, publisher of The American Conservative, entitled “The Myth of American Meritocracy: How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?”

Asked about whether this notion applies to employment opportunities, Dr. MacDonald explained: “These types of accusations are a throwback to pre-civil rights conditions more than half a century ago. Today, the opposite is actually happening. Blacks are being hired at jobs though they are less qualified than whites, due to affirmative action.”

Almost all of the largest Fortune 500 corporations have affirmative action and diversity programs that discriminate against white people in hiring. They also have programs of discrimination that favor non-whites in promotions and advancements. But blacks are often overrepresented at a rate much higher than the 13% of the population they comprise in the U.S.

On March 12, 2012, The Washington Times ran an expose on the racial makeup of the capital’s more than 3,000 public transportation bus and rail drivers for northern Virginia, D.C. and Maryland.

“Ninety-seven percent of the bus and train operators at the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [Metro] are black,” wrote The Times, although blacks comprise only 28% of D.C.’s metropolitan area.

Citing several examples of discrimination, the article noted: “a white male engineer near completion of a Ph.D. was passed over for a management position in favor of a black man who was barely literate. . . . In typical examples, court and Metro records show, a black man who spent eight years in prison for dealing PCP was promoted to a high level management position soon after his release, and whites in the same positions as blacks with far less seniority are inexplicably paid less.”

And these are not low paying jobs, explained The Times. “The average Metro worker had a $60,000 salary, which rises to $69,000 including overtime. That is more than 71% of area residents who had an income in 2010, including 62% of whites, census records show.”

Blacks are also favored over whites in the 11 million government jobs including he U.S. Post Office, which has been called “a work program for blacks.” They make up over 20% of postal employees and the agency’s inefficiency is leading it to bankruptcy as FedEx and UPS are now dominating the parcel business.

Incredibly, it’s estimated blacks make up almost 80% of mailmen in Chicago, according to a statement from Mack Julion, president of the Chicago branch of the National Association of Letter Carriers.

MacDonald explained that the same reverse discrimination is happening with college admissions throughout the country.

“It is well documented that blacks are admitted even to Ivy League universities such as Harvard, with much lower SAT scores than whites,” he said.

The primary admission test today is called the Scholastic Assessment Test, or SAT. The typical score for students entering the nation’s most select colleges such as Harvard, Princeton and CalTech is 750 or above on both the math and verbal SAT.

Of the 153,132 blacks who took the SAT in 2005 in the entire country, only 244 of them scored 750 or above on the math section and 363 scored 750 or above on the verbal portion of the test. Yet in 2011, Harvard admitted 255 blacks as freshmen, 11.8% of a total of 2,158 new students that year.

Meanwhile, whites, who make up 65% of the United States population and tested on average 310 points higher than blacks on their SAT scores, only made up 44% of the admissions. And it gets worse. Of that 44%, 26% percent were Jewish, leaving gentile whites of European ancestry with only 18% representation.

Whites of European descent, whose ancestors actually built Harvard as well as the U.S., only get an 18% representation at their nation’s oldest and most prestigious university, hardly a sign of white privilege.  Blacks, on the other hand, who mostly don’t even qualify for enrolment, get almost a 12% representation even though there are five times as many whites in the country. The fact that Jewish students are over represented 14 times more than their 1.8% population share is very telling. This ratio also applies to the faculty and administration. Larry Summers, a Jew, was Harvard’s president between 2001 and 2006. Harvard is not the exception in these demographics, but more or less the rule with most Ivy League colleges.

“White privilege” is nothing more than a term used to beat whites over the head with white guilt in order to take away what little power they have left.

“When White Americans of the future—quite possibly the very near future—discover the world they have lost and the reasons they lost that world, the results may well be cataclysmic,” warned MacDonald.

Originally published September 28, 2007

Vanishing American wrote a very long and informative post entitled On political correctness, multiculturalism, and their effects. If you have the time I encourage you to read it as a whole and then skip to my comments near the end of this post.

Here I will pull out what I believe to be the most salient bits. For instance, what is it:

Of course we all have a general idea of how and where these poisonous ideas started. Political correctness is also known as ‘cultural Marxism’, and it is an attempt to apply Marxist ideas to the social sphere. Economic or political Marxism focus on the means of production and the economic connection between human beings, or more accurately, between classes of people. In fact, the economic nexus is the explanation for everything in the Marxist world view. Cultural Marxism tends to focus, again, on groups of people, and on the power relationships between them. And of course those with power, or apparent power, are cast in the role of villains in the same way that the rich or the bourgeoisie are the villains in the economic view according to Marx. The downtrodden, the ‘wretched of the earth’, the workers, the exploited classes, are the heroes in that scheme of things. In cultural Marxism, socially ‘exploited’ or oppressed groups, those who are weak in some way, those who are less successful, those who are outsiders or outlaws are the heroes by virtue of their weakness and ascribed victim status. And the system of speech codes and social hierarchies which we call political correctness is just a way of codifying the social order as seen by the cultural Marxists, with minorities, women, gays, and Third Worlders (not necessarily in that order) as the apex of the pyramid. Members of those groups are to be treated with kid gloves, spoken of in exaggeratedly respectful terms, exempted from criticism and from accountability for their actions, and above all, must not be offended in any way, whether by failing to display proper deference or by using a taboo name to designate these groups.

Who originated it and why:

Much of the ferment in leftist thinking occurred in Europe, with the so-called Frankfurt School (link added) and Critical Theory, which attempted to bring down Western culture simply by relentlessly criticizing every aspect of the culture from the angle of every ‘oppressed’ or aggrieved group. It was an attempt to discredit the existing order of things and to foment more dissatisfaction and anger to be channeled into revolt. And of course by this time, the ideas of Gramsci, who advocated infiltrating all the existing institutions to bring them down from within, had mostly supplanted the old-fashioned idea of armed revolt.

How it ate capitalism:

There was a kind of collusion of interests: Hollywood and the entertainment industry wanted to sell titillating movies and music to a ‘repressed’ public, especially to the baby-boom generation, who represented a very lucrative new market. So good old capitalism was happy to collude, wittingly or unwittingly, with the left’s desire to alienate and radicalize the young, and thus bring down Western culture.

How it coincided with (and I would say invited) the Turd World invasion:

At around this same time in the United States, we began to see mass immigration, on a scale unknown previously, and almost exclusively from non-Western, non-white countries. Slowly at first, and then more quickly, our cities began to be transformed, as more and more exotic peoples and their enclaves became an accepted part of the American landscape. However, during the early phase, most of the immigration was limited to big cities, while small-town and rural America remained as it had always been.

How under its rules everybody is special – except the white Christians who founded and built the West:

In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, Americans of European ancestry had become accustomed to learning to use appropriate terms for black people . . . Women declared that ‘women’s libber’ was a slur, and ‘feminist’ was the accepted term. Asians demanded not to be called ‘Oriental’ . . . Homosexuals were soon demanding special rights, including re-labeling as ‘gay’ rather than homosexual . . .
And, thanks to the agitation by home-grown black Moslems, the term ‘Moslem’ was out, and the preferred term ‘Muslim’ was established . . . But this was the beginning in earnest of politically correct language in this country. One of the things which some people quickly objected to was the arbitrary nature of some of the terminology. The frequent changes of names.

All this analysis is spot on. One of the most identifying traits of PC is the use of constantly shifting meaning and euphemism. In support of which I would cite their obsession with framing, proclivity for deconstruction, and enthusiasm for demented postmodernism.

Vanishing American moves on to address the point that:

the West is being defeated by its own values, its own softheartedness and basically humane sensibilites. The Moslems, in Iraq and everywhere they confront us, are doing the same thing: they are turning our virtues into weaknesses by exploiting them. The Mexicans and other illegals who are invading and colonizing our country have our number, too; they know that for every tough gringo, there are half a dozen soft-hearted ones who want to help them, take care of them, treat them as dependent children. Thus we aid in our own destruction.

I’ve heard it said on numerous occasions that Christianity is to blame for this apparent weakness of Western culture. And I’ve heard it said on equally numerous occasions that Anglo-Saxons are the most liberal of all ethnic groups in this country. Look at Britain, they say; Britain is farther down the road of national suicide than other European countries. And here in America, they say, it’s the WASP elites who sell out their country and advocate multiculturalism and ‘diversity’. WASPs invented multiculturalism, I have heard from various people.

. . .

There may be a grain of truth, too, in the charge that Britain and America were more prone to liberalism, given that Britain seems to have more serious problems than say, France or Germany with immigration and multiculturalism. But did the British, or Anglo-Saxons, invent multiculturalism? I see no evidence of that.

All quite right I thought, but there is something to add. Something that is important I restate here for the record because it is something I’ve been grappling with for some time. It took great effort to think it through, and takes even greater effort say it. To do so requires commission of the most mortal sin there is against political correctness.

I started blogging a little over two years ago with only a vague awareness and revulsion at politically correct dogma and a mild curiousity about its origins and rationale. What I have discovered, slowly, is shocking, and it only gets more shocking with each day’s news.

It began with the recognition that the West’s education and mainstream media are biased and has progressed to the understanding that they are in fact engaged in mass brainwashing, an indoctrination with PC dogma under the cover of deliberately inverted language such as “free thought” and “fairness”. It began with the recognition that this PC dogma interferes with the West’s ability to recognize and properly defend itself from the threat of Islamic jihad and has progressed to the understanding that it denies the even larger threat posed by the immigration invasion, which is flooding the West with impoverished, uneducated, dangerous people, including Muslims. It began with the recognition that PC dogma is something believed and propagated by moonbats and progressed to the sad realization that elements of the Right, supposed conservatives, specifically the neocons, are working in concert with the Left in an unholy union called either Globalism or Universalism. It began with an assumption that Jews are white, civilized, and on my side, and has progressed to the tragic and most un-PC of all conclusions that they are indeed my enemy, because their collective words and deeds are destroying my past, present, and future.

As I said, this conclusion has been brewing for a while. Lawrence Auster, a former Jew who often calls out anti-Semitism, helped me recognize the false face of the neocons; and Steve Sailer gave their insane foreign policy a name: Invade the World, Invite the World.

The globalist agenda to erase the world’s borders in the name of increasing trade is supported only by promises written on so much toilet paper. The “economy”, we are told, requires immigration, because it helps the “economy”. Well whatever this “economy” thing is it doesn’t seem so important as to negate the obviously horrible effects of the immigration it supposedly requires. What good will any “economy” be when the only people left in the West are Turd Worlders squabbling over its remains? Likewise the Left’s pipe dreams of “Civil Rights” and “Universal Healthcare”.

Just yesterday I encountered the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. It was a long, dry, scholarly paper by Kevin MacDonald titled Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. You may not want read the whole thing, but at least you should skim and understand it before dismissing me or the sentiments I’m expressing here as anti-Semitic.

A reader named Emerson left a comment for Vanishing American that connected the dots:

I’ve read sources that attributed the origin of Multiculturalism to a Jewish female sociology professor in Canada. I don’t know if that’s true but it seems plausible, as I see the same alien presence running throughout your essay:
Cultural Marxism, Frankfurt School, Marcuse, Fromm, historical culprits behind the Immigration Act of 1965 (Sabath, Dickstein, Celler, Javits, Jocobstein, Perlman, Lehman), Feminist movement (Stein, Freidan, Abzug), the sexual revolution (Freud), 1960s radicals (Hoffman, Horowitz, Elsberg) the Civil Rights movement (SPLC and the Reds), the militant homosexual movement (ACLU, ADL, SPLC), the Universal Nation (Wattenberg, Podhoretz, Kristol, Jacoby, and Shylock), Aztecs marching in our streets (funding by Soros), culminating with the neoconservative movement to initiate genocide on all those nasty Arabs, Persians, Iraqis, Turks, Syrians and Kurds, using the American gentile military.
They do have a history: Jebusites, Hittites, Ammorites, Philistines…
It almost makes one paranoid, or wise.

I’ve also read that multiculturalism was invented to mask the failure of blacks to rise to white standards, after it was obvious that Zangwill’s melting pot didn’t work for blacks or Emma’s refuse, but only worked for Christian Europeans.

Also, your observation is true that the West is being defeated by it’s own values and humane sensibilities. American Christians just don’t grasp the fact that white altruism (Do unto others…) is not a trait of the other races, not even the race that passes itself off as white.

The comment I then left sums up my reasoning and makes the point I wished to reiterate and record here:

I agree with Emerson. And I’d also point out that to criticize Jews is to break the most fundamental of all PC strictures.

Isn’t it absurd that anyone would even think to blame Christianity or WASPs for the rise of PC and its catastrophic consequences? Isn’t this in fact a reversal of the truth? Hasn’t the rise and spread of PC eroded the power of Christianity, WASPs, and whites in general? Blaming them is in effect blaming the victim.

Yes, there are Christians, WASPs, and whites who have fallen for the PC brainwashing. Yes, there are some who have taken it so deeply to heart that they work to expand and protect it. That’s the nature of PC. That is its purpose. To control the minds of the people it seeks to destroy. The left, at its root, is all about destruction.

You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to notice where these ideas originate from and who benefits. But you do have to violate PC to say: Jews. Why is that? Is it factually incorrect to note that the West’s entertainment, mass media, and banking systems are disproportionately controlled, even dominated, by Jews? Am I imagining their inordinate sway in academia? Is it pure speculation to note that these institutions overwhelmingly favor everything PC – they are the very tools by which PC is spread?

If we are going to break the chains of PC then we must not be afraid to speak such truths. The very idea to blame WASPs and Christianity, while ignoring the role of Jews, is an indication just how powerful PC is. But it can and must be broken if we are to fix what is wrong with Western civilization.

Jews are not the only enemy, and not all Jews are enemies. I’m not going to sugar coat what I have to say any more than that.