Fox News has a British guy who does the weekend show who is now actually better than Tucker Carlson.

Steve Hilton should in fact replace Tucker Carlson, who is now refusing to talk about the problems in our own government and instead shill nonstop for the Biden Administration’s anti-China policy.

On Sunday, Hilton discussed the historical fact that the modern “woke” culture is rooted entirely in the Frankfurt School’s critical theory ideology, and that all we are witnessing now is the blooming of a hundred year old plan by the Je – by the European-Style socialists – to overthrow traditional European society.

Hilton breaks down the fact that the Frankfurt school decided to target family, religion and culture as barriers to a communist society. Of course, he doesn’t mention the ethnic element to all of this, but it is simply an historical fact that all of the members of the Frankfurt School were Jewish, and that their stated goal was to “combat anti-Semitism.”

The idea put forward in Theodore Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality” was that if a man identifies strongly with his father, he is more likely to support a “fascist” leader, and that a fascist leader is more likely in turn to persecute the Jews. Thus it was that they decided they had to pick apart the family, to destroy the traditional patriarchy, in order to protect their ethnic interests.

What Hilton does explain very well is how this process took place: Frankfurt member Herbert Marcuse espoused the idea that the university system should be used as a tool for changing the society, and for creating the ideal society that they envisioned: one where religion and family were replaced with allegiance to the state.

Hilton also goes through the history of how this ideology absorbed (and in fact more or less created) racial grievance politics, and spawned the doctrine of “intersectionality.”

I hope that people share this segment with their friends and family members who aren’t quite getting things yet. Discussion of the roots of “cultural Marxism” is a big step in the right direction for the mainstream right, and is at least as important as a change as the inclusion of the term “anti-white” in the Fox News vocabulary.

Even as things look bad, the reality is that we have succeeded in pushing our various narratives onto the mainstream, in ways that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. One thing that I have long pushed for is polarization, where people are forced to pick a side between a right-wing agenda and a left-wing agenda. Most of the work towards that goal has obviously been done by the left itself, but right-wingers are now realizing that there is no room for them in the middle, and that they have to retreat to real right-wing positions or simply get eaten alive.

Normal people are now looking at what is called “far right” as the only viable long-term strategy for staying alive, as the leftist mob continues calling for blood at a blood-curdling pitch. Even amidst all of the bad things that are happening, we should celebrate that.

Whites are going to be a minority in America. Things are going to get worse before they get better. But as long as we are able to get our own people on our side, no odds are too great for us to overcome.

Seattle radio host Jason Rantz has released documents from a homeless shelter run by the government of the city that instructs heroin addicts how to stick heroin up their anal cavities. The instructions appear on a printed paper, apparently posted on a wall at the shelter.

NEW: A Seattle-backed homeless shelter is instructing addicts to smoke heroin & inject drugs rectally. And the shelter is using tax dollars to help get addicts high, buying heroin pipes & syringes, & giving out so-called "booty bumping kits."https://t.co/9Fid30V5QZ

— (((Jason Rantz))) on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) February 22, 2021

Now, you might think: “oh sure, more stuff with sticking things up anuses – imagine my shock.” However, sticking drugs up the anus is a relatively standard behavior of hardened drug users. I remember being a teenager in the 1990s, when the ecstasy craze was going on, and people would brag about sticking those pills up their anuses, because it showed they were hardcore. Also, women would talk about it, presumably for the purpose of titillating male victims of millennial youth culture.

According to the documents obtained by Rantz, which one has to believe the shelter did not expect to appear on the internet, they are also providing people with heroin pipes, as smoking heroin is, according to them (and maybe objectively, I don’t know), a safer alternative to injection.

Although the shelter refers to these as “Heroin pipes” in their announcement (actually it’s fentanyl, which I will explain shortly), they also describe crack pipes as being available. As is widely known, white people prefer opioids, and blacks prefer crack cocaine.

Note that used to be called “heroin addiction” is now generally called “opioid addiction,” as most of the heroin is now in a synthetic form called “fentanyl.” Fentanyl was designed and distributed by a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, a drug company run by a man named Alex Gorsky.

It was initially marketed as a way to stop using heroin. There was something called a “fentanyl patch,” which was marketed as the heroin addict version of a nicotine patch, designed to help you kick the addiction to cigarettes. Quickly, people started opening up these fentanyl patches and smoking the innards. Eventually, it was realized that this fentanyl was much cheaper than heroin, which has to be grown in a field in Afghanistan and then processed, as it can be made in a relatively simple lab. The needed dose is also much smaller, in terms of weight.

Here is an image showing the average dose sizes of each:

Thus, there is really no such thing heroin addiction anymore, as everyone has switched to fentanyl, because it is so much cheaper. This has also led to an increase in overdoses, for the simple logistical reason that it is so much easier to accidentally do too much when you’re dealing with doses that are too small to be measured on most scales we all remember our high school drug dealers using to meter out weed.

It is typically “cut” with something, that is to say, mixed with a benign substance such as aspirin so that the volume is larger and it is easier to measure the dose. However, in such a case, you are trusting whoever did the cutting to have done the job properly (mixed the right amount and mixed it evenly enough that you don’t have chunks of fentanyl popping up in the mix). It is so cheap, that the drug dealers aren’t particularly concerned about accidentally giving you too much of it, and drug dealers are not known to be particularly ethical. There is the old adage of “drug dealers don’t want to kill off their own customers,” but you are still dealing with the fact that most of the street level dealers are not going to be especially intelligent.

It is being produced in some amount in the usual places of Latin America. Latin America has the drug dealing networks set up for cocaine, which is produced exclusively in South America due to the fact that its source product needs to be grown naturally in a field. As we all saw in the show Breaking Bad, Mexican and other Central American drug gangs quickly became involved in the production of crystal meth when that became popular with American homosexuals and out of work coal miners.

The general consensus is that much of the fentanyl is also being shipped through the US Mail from China. I don’t know if this is actually true, given the hesitancy that the Chinese have with addictive drugs (opioids in particular), and it seems like it could be more war propaganda. But it might be true.

When Donald Trump accused China of this, the Chinese denied it. Of course, they would deny it, but it is difficult for me to believe that with the amount of money China is making from legitimate business, they would want to risk getting involved with dealing in addictive drugs.

However, it doesn’t really matter where it is coming from, given that it is so easy to produce and so small that it can easily be hidden in any package, and it is virtually impossible for a dog to sniff it. It is also so cheap that even if 98% of packages were seized in the mail, the people distributing it would still have a huge profit margin.

This is to say: there is no way to stop the flow of this drug. It is something we are going to have to live with the existence of, in the same way we live with the existence of other dangerous things such as cleaning products and trans fats. Drug addiction is not primarily a matter of supply, it is a social disease. The Seattle homeless shelter telling people how to do fentanyl “more safely” is a sign of just how much of a pandemic the social disease of opioid addiction actually is.

As you may know, Ohio is one of the hardest hit places for the opioid epidemic. Growing up in Ohio in the 1990s and earth 2000s, it felt like whoever runs these drugs and runs the drug culture (it certainly isn’t organic) was doing a dry run for what has now overtaken the entire country. So, I have some knowledge of heroin addiction.

There is only one tried and true solution to this addiction: you lock a person in a room, with a toilet for about a week. About a week is all it takes to cleanse the body of the physical addiction to these drugs. They will have a very bad week, but after that week, they will no longer suffer from a crippling urge to inject, smoke or insert fentanyl into their asshole.

Tapering off using lighter forms of opioid drugs, such as oxycodone or codeine, is possible. It just take a level of willpower that most people unfortunately do not have. That is why the obvious and immediate solution to the drug problem is to build jail cells for these people, and lock them in them for a week. If you want to make it more nicey-nice, then ensure that they have a TV, video games and/or books. If you wanted to go overboard with the niceness, you could also give them non-opioid narcotics, such as Xanax or Valium to help them sleep. Add to that “comfort foods,” junk food type snacks, and you’ve gotten about as nicey-nice as you can get.

Whatever the niceties, they have to be locked in a cage, preferably alone, for a week. This should be the punishment for anyone caught with these drugs, if it is determined they are not selling. (Yes, I am actually against the long-term incarceration of drug addicts, it is one of the only things I do genuinely agree with modern left on.)

It’s gonna be a helluva week, whatever their comforts, but there has never been a clearer case of the ends justifying the means.

A Bigger Problem

A week in a cage to break the physical dependence means nothing if you don’t deal with the underlying issues causing the problem.

We obviously don’t have reliable information on drug usage, as people are often dishonest about it. However, we can be pretty certain of overdose deaths. In 2018, according to Kaiser family foundation, two-third of the opioid deaths were men. Given the gender differential in math skills, a woman is much more likely to end up overdosing than a man. Furthermore, the main reason a woman is going to end up using addictive drugs is that a man she is involved with is using them. All things being equal, women tend to only do “party drugs,” such as cocaine and ecstasy (these drugs are dangerous, but do not create crippling addiction).

Opioid addiction is primarily a male problem. More specifically, it is a white male problem.

Drug addiction does not exist in a vacuum. Yes, it is possible to get addicted to prescription pain killers, and end up injecting fentanyl. But this is almost only going to happen to someone who has serious other problems in their life.

If we’re talking about men, those problems, typically, are going to be with two issues:

1. Women
2. Work

Men who have a stable marriage and good work do not typically become drug addicts. Again, we don’t have good numbers, but I would be shocked if it was any more than one in thousand opioid addicts that developed the addiction while in a situation with a stable family and work situation. It is statistically negligible.

Therefore, we are looking at the same problem we are always looking at: we are looking at the fallout from the collapse of the American family, which is itself a result of the abandonment of the working and middle classes of this country by the ruling elite.

And though I almost hate to say it at the end of an essay of this sort, it also relates to the Jewish problem. In the 1950s, a group of Jewish academics called “The Frankfurt School” (sometimes called “The Institute of Social Research”) published a document called “The Authoritarian Personality.” I don’t say that this was “Jewish” in the way someone might say “Hollywood is Jewish” or “the media is Jewish.” The Frankfurt School was Jewish in the way that the Anti-Defamation League is Jewish, or the way a synagogue is Jewish.

The Authoritarian Personality was published by the the American Jewish Committee.

The text claimed that the rise of Adolf Hitler was a result of the existence of the nuclear family. The underlying assumption, which appears to be factually true, is that a society where people feel a strong identification with their father as an authority figure, is likely to view a national leader as a kind of extension of their father’s authority. A belief in God is also a part of that equation.

Basically, the natural understanding of a man is this:

• He is the boss of his wife and children
• In the same fashion, the national leader is his boss and the boss of everyone else in his nation
• In the same fashion, God is the boss of the leader

Furthermore, the Jews assumed, presumably also factually, that a society that has a father-like authoritarian leader will be much less tolerant of Jews and their behavior than a society that does not have a father-like authoritarian leader.

Therefore, these Jews argued, in order for Jews to thrive within Western society, the nuclear family would need to be abolished.

Everything that you have witnessed, beginning with the social revolutions of the 1960s, has been geared towards disincentivizing and ultimately destroying the nuclear family. If you just take a look at the last 70 years of development of Western society, which we can now look back on from 30,000 feet, you can see that all social developments were geared towards this end.

Look at it:

• Female empowerment
• Sexual liberation
• Racial mixing
• Mass immigration
• Normalization of homosexuality
• Transsexualism
• Virus hysteria

These have been the focus of our society, and all of these have the ultimate end of disincentivizing normal human family formation.

Imagine for example the legal concept of “no fault divorce.” Why would you allow something like this in your society? Is there any conceivable reason, save for a desire to harm the natural family?

We are men, but men remain mammals. We have a natural arch of life:

• Childhood (birth-11), where we are protected by a father
• Adolescence (12-16), where we become obsessed with girls and sex
• Early adulthood (17-21), which involves getting a girl pregnant, which should be accompanied by a legally-binding, uninfringable contract called “marriage”
• Adulthood and middle age (22-65), where a man builds a career, which is driven by a desire to provide security for the offspring
• Old age (65-death) and retirement, wherein we slow down our career, and are cared for by the offspring we created

This is a life pattern that existed from the time of the caveman up until the end of World War II.

Without the ability to go through this natural process of development, we are going to have chaos.

The underlying vehicle of this destruction has been ideology. It is a topic for another article (and has been the topic of many articles), but via ideology, we have been led to believe that we can build a utopia by following certain rules. Different ideologies were sold to different groups, and this ultimately allowed the rulers of society, who were either Jews or influenced by Jews via the academic establishment, to move society to a place that no one would otherwise have agreed to.

The ideologies are always presented as scientific, but they are nonetheless shrouded in metaphysics. What they did was replace God. That is the bottom line to all of this: God was replaced, and every negative outcome is a result of that. So of course the government is instructing you on how to stick drugs up your asshole.

Finally: someone has packaged Kevin Macdonald’s crucial work the Culture of Critique into a more normie-digestible form.

While everyone in the world should actually sit down and read the book cover to cover (in fact they should read the entire trilogy), that’s obviously not a very realistic hope.

It’s a bit dry for some people, and everyone’s time is limited.

Thankfully, the YouTube channel “The Leftovers” has turned the book into a 7-part series of well-produced, fast-paced videos.

Please, please send the links to these videos around to everyone you know.

This is the book that the Jews fear the most.

It exposes their evolutionary survival strategy of pushing universalism on the goyim outgroup while preserving the fiercest ethnocentrism for their Jewish ingroup.

They tell us that race doesn’t exist while they consider themselves the superior “chosen” race of God.

They tell us the slightest hint of ethnocentrism in us is a pathology – a literal mental illness – while they plan every move on whether of not it is “good for the Jews.”

They open our borders to hordes of Third Worlders while they built a wall around the explicitly Jewish state of Israel.

I also recommend people download these and re-upload them on their channels and elsewhere before JewTube takes them down for “hate speech.”

Here’s a full version:

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

The most important thing is that these filthy goyim stop being happy.

After all of the suffering that they caused during the Crusades, it is time for them to suffer for a change.

Breitbart:

Parenting magazine Baby & Family has told readers to beware of families who are “inconspicuous” and “cheerful”, as these warning signs indicate they are right wing and thus “dangerous”.

Depicted with illustrations featuring solely blonde women and children, the report says ordinary parents must take action against right-wing families and make clear that their ideology has no place in the world.

Asserting that the term “right wing” “stirs up anxiety” and brings to mind “burning refugee homes”, skinheads, and the National Socialist Underground (NSU) group who carried out a string of violent attacks on foreign people, Baby & Family notes that people “rarely connect it with women, family and children”.

This, the high-circulation German magazine declares, “is precisely the great risk” as such people are just as dangerous if not more so as gangs of Nazi skinheads. The identifying features of right-wing families, it contends, are that they are “inconspicuous, blond, cute and engaged”.

“First of all, [right-wing families] are nice and dedicated” Michaela Köttig, sociologist and researcher of right-wing extremism at the Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, alleges.

Researcher of right-wing politics, Eva Prausner, says a huge danger of right-wing families is that they seem normal.

Because of this, she says many parents will already have established good relations with them to the point that they “are no longer marginalised and at worst, get support”.

While there are different types of right-wing families, Baby & Family asserts that daycare centres should always seek help when dealing with them.

“The right has many forms. The definition of what is extreme and what is not is difficult”, it says, but asserts that all manifestations must be dealt with because right wingers could spread their views when meeting with other parents in the playground.

Heike Radvan of the controversial Amadeu Antonio Foundation warns that “children of right-wing parents are not necessarily different from other children”, but says they are often “very obedient” and might not talk much.

Despite asserting that such children are not outspoken, the “experts” wheeled out by the magazine warn that a sinister aspect of right-wing parenting is that they instill self-confidence in their progeny.

They do this, Prausner posits, in hope that “their offspring will later confidently carry their ideology into the world”.

Köttig explains that right-wing families are not unlike ordinary families in that they teach their own values. The important difference with extreme right-wing groups, however, is that these values are “strongly geared at Germanic customs and traditions”.

Prausner says “right-wing kids” are aware that they should keep their family lives private, but she adds that a telltale sign of right-wing extremism is that there are usually no American logos on their parents’ clothing.

This is not to say there aren’t visual signs which can indicate a child is from a right-wing family, however, the researcher points out. Prausner warns that, while most people wouldn’t recognise them as such, “accurate braids and long skirts” serve as a warning sign that a child has right-wing parents.

The report advises some ways in which daycare centres can prepare for the event that right-wing parents register their children with them. It advises introducing a policy and mission statement to set out values for which the nursery stands.

Mothers and fathers should get involved in the parents’ council to take action against right-wing parents, Baby & Family notes. They should “not be afraid to confront [right-wing parents] directly”, it states.

…

Thomas Feist, MP for the ruling Christian Democratic Union party (CDU), has requested that the government stop funding the Antonio Amadeus Foundation, pointing out that the supposed “charity” hosts and rewards threats of violence, and denunciations of people on its website.

The body was founded, and is run by, ex-Stasi agent Anetta Kahane who has declared it vital for the European Union to change its immigration policy in order to turn the continent non-white.

She said: “This is very important; you have to change the educational system and the self-understanding of the states. They are not only white anymore or only Swedish or only Portuguese or only German. They are multicultural places in the world.”

She is also a Jew.

This is all comical, of course, but it is straight Frankfurt School kikery.

Typical gas chamber operators

Theodore Adorno published The Authoritarian Personality in 1950. In this book, he argues that Hitler was the result of people having families. That any time White people have strong families, which a strong father figure they view as a leader, they will be drawn to an authoritarian leader who they view as playing a fatherly role to the nation and that this leader will inevitably gas them.

This is the mind of the Jew. It is the entire basis of Jewish thought and philosophy. That any functional goyim society represents a threat of genocide. But of course they must live in goyim society to serve as a “light” to them.

Look at the Old Testament. They have repeated these same behavior patterns over and over and over again.

• Work their way into society
• Take over “advisor” intellectual roles
• Trick kings
• Cause weird forms of chaos by destroying social norms
• Commit mass murder

It is clear.

We cannot tolerate these Jews.

This is absolutely fantastic news.

Chuck Woolery, former game show host and Fox News contributor, just went on to talk about the Hollywood actor-filled Joss Whedon ad against Trump – and attacked cultural Marxism and DEFENDED ADOLF HITLER.

Here are the statements:

When the cultural Marxists get together in their sheep pen … it’s like they all follow each other because they’re afraid to do anything else. I guarantee you, I don’t know all of these people, I’m not sure I know any of them, however, I know the culture, I lived there 45 years, I know what it’s like. You do it for one reason, one is you want to work, the other is it’s not important to know anything as long as someone has a teleprompter in front of you to give you the lines to say.

…

There’s got to be kind of a backlash against this. It’s really what probably Trump’s candidacy is all about and we all know that. But it’s this massive backlash agains t this PC, which, you know, no one knows where this stuff came from, it just kind of – PC just kind of appeared. Well, it didn’t. It was the Frankfurt School is where it appeared. And the Frankfurt School, it’s a real interesting little piece. Frankfurt School was in Germany obviously, brought on PC, Marx [sic] picked it up, thought it was great for his government. By the second World War, Hitler was such an anti-communist that the Franklin School had to move – prolly the Frankfurt School – so they moved here, to the Columbia Universery Campus. You will find the Frankfurt School on Columbia’s property. That’s where political correctness came from.

I like the history of all of this stuff, so that I understand what’s happening today. I want to know who my enemy is. Our enemy is cultural Marxism. And that’s with Hollywood, with everything.

This is just glorious.

Wow.

Things have changed so, so much. This is one step away from saying straight up “Hitler was right about these Jews.” Look at the way he doesn’t even bother to insert the caveat of “oh well of course Hitler was such an evil guy, but…” He just basically says “Hitler didn’t want them destroying his country so they fled to ours.”

“Frankfurt School” means “Jews.” Every member of the Frankfurt School was Jewish, and their agenda was a completely Jewish tribal agenda, something which has been examined at length by Dr. Kevin MacDonald (there’s also a pretty detailed Wikipedia page).

And this isn’t something like “liberalism,” where “conservatives” can say “well, yes, there are a lot of Jews involved in liberalism, but it isn’t all Jews…” It’s not even like the neoconservative movement, which is almost entirely Jewish, but where you have to say “oh well, Cheney and Rumsfeld were goyim…”

No. Every member of this organization was a Jew. It epitomized Jewry.

This is where the basic concepts of Western civilization as a disease came from. Woolery is 100% correct in his assertions here. It was a program to destroy Western civilization and it worked.

Under the umbrella of “Critical Theory,” these Jews gave us such great ideas as:

• Feminism
• Sexual liberation
• Gender theory
• Gay Rights
• Racial equality
• Black liberation

The entire 1960s social revolution program came directly from these Jews.

Most likely, Woolery got this information from William S. Lind’s 1999 documentary “Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School (alternately titled “The History of Political Correctness”), which was picked-up by Tea Partiers in the late 00s.

Certainly, many who watched that documentary and recognized its truthfulness are not necessarily anti-Semitic. Woolery may or may not be up on the JQ. The point is that when you understand that all of these ideas came directly from Jews, who identified strongly as Jewish and viewed their work as a part of the Jewish Tikkun Olam agenda – and even realize this was why Hitler had such a problem with these people – you are literally one step away from grasping the entire picture of what is going on on planet earth in the year 2016.

The maker of the above documentary himself has said that the Frankfurt School was “Jewish, to a man.”

Byron Jost made a better version of the same documentary which calls out the Jews by name and features Kevin MacDonald entitled “Minority Rule: The Rise of Political Correctness.”

We are literally inches away from breaking through here, people.

I mean – inches.

This clip on Fox News was pro-Hitler and anti-Semitic, just using different language.

We are Winning

All we need to do is stay the course.

Be extremely weary of any of these people who are attempting to steer the Alt-Right away from the Jewish question at this crucial juncture. The Jews are 100% aware of what is going on, they know how close they are, and that is why we see this concerted attempt to redirect the movement. I don’t talk about the details of this too much, because I don’t think the details matter, but anyone who is paying attention is aware that the movement is under a sustained assault, an attempted hijacking taking place.

It all seems to center around the Jewish homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos.

And it involves the feds. Anyone who doesn’t think there are feds in this movement is being dangerously naive. Just look at the history of pro-White movements in America. Most of them ultimately ended up being led by feds. In the past, the purpose was to lead people into violent acts, or agreeing to do violent acts, but at this point, because we’re on the internet, the goal is to breakup or redirect the movement.

So, you know. Pay attention to what’s going on around you. Situational awareness is key here. Of course, it doesn’t matter who’s a fed and who’s an opportunist or a conman – anyone who is trying to tell you not to focus on the Jewish problem is an enemy of this movement, attempting to destroy us. It doesn’t matter what their reasoning for doing so is.

My message to you is that we do not need to change anything to win. We are already so, so close to opening up public discussion about the Jewish problem. To back down now, and start cucking out about how Jews aren’t really a problem, and maybe some of them are actually White somehow, and really we like Israel and want to be friends with the Jews because they’re also nationalists like us, amounts to clutching defeat from the jaws of victory.

We are winning.

Stay the course.

Hail Victory.

Albert Moll (1862–1939), who would go on to be “a great influence on Freud,”[1] came from a Polish Jewish merchant family and “belonged to the Jewish religious community.”[2] Typical of his ethno-religious group, Moll frequently utilized his position within the field of medical psychology to form an oppositional bloc against prevailing opinions in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century non-Jewish society. Indeed, large numbers of Jews tactically ambushed several medical disciplines during this period for precisely this reason. Historian Elena Macini writes that “Jews flooded medicine at this time not only for social standing, but also in an era that witnessed the efflorescence of race science, for the opportunity of self-representation. … The presence of Jews in the medical sector in general, and in race science in particular, allowed them to assert Jewish equality and very often moral superiority.”[3] With Berlin as the center of German medicine, and Jews comprising one third of doctors in the city,[4] the domination and re-orientation of entire disciplines was not only feasible but disturbingly easy.

A key aspect of advocating for Jewish equality and moral superiority was the Jewish advocacy of social, racial and religious pluralism. This position often came into conflict with non-Jewish efforts to promote Nationalism, particularly ethnically-based Nationalism, and corresponding efforts to confront social and cultural decay. A universal theme in Albert Moll’s works were arguments against German attempts to reckon with late Imperial and Weimar-era social and biological degeneration via eugenic programs. For example, in his Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften (1911) Moll expressed the hope that mooted plans for sterilization programs would “not be implemented and that our race-improvers do not get too much influence on our legislation.” When German science in the late 1920s became concerned with degeneration and decline, gravitating even further towards eugenics, Moll preceded Boas in rejecting the findings of behavior genetics, arguing that “the fact we find so many valuable people, despite the hereditary burden, is caused by regeneration in countless cases. …  We can hardly ever say something about the condition of offspring with any certainty at all.” Moll was therefore the quintessential Jewish physician: political and ethnic interests were never far from his dubious practice of medicine.

Also typical of Jewish intellectuals, Moll exhibited highly aggressive and assertive personality traits and had a flair for self-promotion. Although he began his career with a focus on hypnotism, Moll wasn’t long in utilizing these traits to gain professional closeness to sexology’s experts, particularly von Krafft-Ebing. He then masterfully orchestrated his own eclipse of von Krafft-Ebing to such an extent that Moll himself came to be considered, and largely remains considered, the pioneer of the field. However, Moll’s activity in sexology went far beyond stealing the limelight. From the beginning of his drift into sexology he adopted the same oppositional role that he occupied in relation to other German attempts to reckon with social decay. In particular, Moll worked tirelessly to persuade leading non-Jewish scholars like von Krafft-Ebing to reject the idea that sexual abnormality was the result of biological and psychological disorder. In his Freud: Biologist of the Mind, Frank J. Sulloway writes that “Krafft-Ebing’s decision around the turn of the century to separate the doctrine of degeneration from the theory of homosexuality was in response to the thinking of his younger and more critical colleague Moll.”[5] However, there is significant reason to doubt the validity of Krafft-Ebing’s personal change of perspective given that the most pertinent, later, editions of Psychopathia Sexualis that showcased this change were in fact edited by none other than Moll himself. Volkmar Sigusch even writes that Moll “completely overhauled the work.”

Moll’s work centered on the argument that there were alternative, valid, “identities,” and as such he argued that homosexuality was a “valid sexual identity.”[6] Whereas earlier non-Jewish psychiatrists observed “unsavory and often contemptible personal characteristics” among sexual inverts (including their tendency to be liars, their moodiness, love of gossip, and vanity and envy), Moll argued instead that “homosexual men were not corrupt, but merely womanish,”[7] comprising a kind of “third sex” — a theory that would later be advanced much further by co-ethnic Magnus Hirschfeld. In Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880–1914, E.R. Dickson remarks that Moll’s theories were popularized and given substantial sympathetic coverage in Germany by the predominantly Jewish Social Democratic press during the trial of Oscar Wilde in England in 1895 (re the contemporary scene, see Brenton Sanderson’s “Jewish media influence as decisive in creating a positive public culture of homosexuality“). Dickson writes that “public policy towards homosexuality was also one more issue Social Democrats could use to point to the hypocrisy of bourgeois sexual mores, and to elaborate on their own naturalist alternative. Social Democrat Eduard Bernstein, for example, did precisely that in his reporting for German audiences on the Wilde case in London (where he was living as a journalist).”[8]

Even more radical than Moll was Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935). Like Moll, Hirschfeld came from a family of Jewish merchants and, also like Moll, he advanced theories of social and sexual behavior amounting to “the existence of fundamental irreducible sameness in human beings.”[9] Elena Macini writes that Hirschfeld’s Jewishness was “a socially and politically determinant aspect of his life.”[10] A common feature of his work was the hatred he had for Christianity. Indeed, his critique of that religion resembled in many respects that concocted by Freud. To Hirschfeld, Christianity was “essentially sadomasochistic, delighting in the pain of ascetic self-denial.”[11] Western Civilization had thus been “in the grip of anti-hedonist exaggerations for two thousand years,” thereby committing “psychic self-mutilation.”[12] It was therefore Western society, rather than homosexuals and other outsiders, that was sick and degenerate, and Hirschfeld’s prescribed cure was sexual hedonism and the acceptance of a wide array of “identities” and “sexualities.” Although coming from a close-knit, observant, Jewish community, and possessed of an abiding hatred for Christianity, Hirschfeld superficially advocated a “pan-humanistic” outlook and was fond of declaring himself “a world citizen.”[13] (I might agree with Hirschfeld to a certain extent since he appears to me a perfect example of what Henry Ford called an “international Jew.”)

Although there were few ideological differences between Moll and Hirschfeld, their egos clashed and there was a subtle disparity in approach. Whereas Moll was content to publicize his ideas from books and newspapers, the homosexual Hirschfeld was intent on a more direct form of activism in the fight to break down Western social and sexual mores. Like the Moll-popularizer Eduard Bernstein, Hirschfeld was a “socialist and an active member of the Social Democratic Party.”[14] Hirschfeld, described by Mancini as “cosmopolitan to the core,” essentially created the first homosexual “communities,” beginning in Berlin where the Hebrew “transvestite” (a term he coined) was known as “Aunt Magnesia” by the city’s sexual inverts. Hirschfeld organized homosexuals, encouraging them to openly flaunt their predilections and get involved in the growing campaign for “emancipation” that was developing under the auspices of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee which he had formed in 1897. Hirschfeld pioneered modern Social Justice Warrior tactics by urging celebrities and high-profile politicians to add their names in support of the campaign for “sexual equality.”

Hirschfeld and his protégés produced a vast number of books, manuscripts, papers, and pamphlets concerning sexuality, transvestitism, “transgenderism” (another Hirschfeld term) and fetishes. Through his work with the Scientific Humanitarian Committee, Hirschfeld published the 23-volume Yearbook for the Sexual Intermediates, the first periodical devoted to “homosexual studies.” Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science (Institut füer Sexualwissenschaft) was the world’s first gender identity clinic and his staff performed the first known transsexual surgeries. Through the Institute for Sexual Science which he founded in 1919, Hirschfeld also documented thousands of cases of sexual inversion and further bolstered his theory of the “Third Sex.”

Despite the labels attached to his committees and journals, Hirschfeld’s work rested largely on political argument rather than legitimate scientific investigation. Scholar Edward Dickson argues that Hirschfeld’s field was “characterized by unresolved and often speculative arguments.”[15] Whereas many of the early non-Jewish sexologists had a background in zoology and the sexual behavior of animals, particularly primates, Hirschfeld rejected such strictly biological or evolutionary interpretations of human sexual behavior. Following from this, the methodology he employed was extremely close to that employed by Freud — this is the “science” of patient interviews and circular reasoning rather than statistics and empirical observation.

Despite the bankruptcy of his science, the dramatic success of the Committee at mobilizing large sectors of German and European society on behalf of homosexuals was due to Hirschfeld’s personality. Like Moll, he was an aggressive and relentless agitator. Respecting few social codes, he was the darling of the Social Democrats and the reviled enemy of Weimar conservatives (Hitler referred to Hirschfeld as “the most dangerous Jew in Germany”). By the end of the 1920s Hirschfeld’s activism meant that Weimar Germany saw homosexuality less as a medical disorder and sign of degeneration than as a major cause célèbre. Hirschfeld’s perverse bonanza came to an end in 1933 when on May 6^th Nationalist German student organizations and columns of the Hitler Youth attacked the Institute for Sexual Science. The Institute library was liquidated and its contents used in a book burning on May 10. The youths also printed and disseminated posters bearing Hirschfeld’s face complete with the caption: “Protector and Promoter of pathological sexual aberrations, also in his physical appearance probably the most disgusting of all Jewish monsters.” Hirschfeld himself had been on an international speaking tour since 1931. He lived in exile in France until he died of a heart attack in 1935.

In terms of theory, Hirschfeld had “subverted the notion that romantic love should be orientated toward reproduction,” arguing instead for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and hedonistic, non-reproductive, sexual relations in general.[16] A key element of Hirschfeld’s theory was the deployment of “love as a primary weapon in his ethical and philosophical campaign for the liberation of same-sex relationships.”[17] However, love as a concept was itself altered by Hirschfeld, who imbued it with transcendental and cosmic qualities in an effort to distance it as much as possible from biological, reproductive drives. Mancini writes that “the idea that love had the potential to not only lift the individual but to enrich the broader mission of humanity was articulated in Hirschfeld’s condemnation of theories of racial hygiene and his appeal to Panhumanism to extinguish the hatred among nations and races.”[18]

Such romantic theorizing, of course, had little to do with the actual content of sexological studies of the sexually inverted, where love featured significantly less than pederasty, promiscuity and disease. But it was the idea and “feeling” that mattered most in creating a homosexual movement and public support behind it. As strategy it corresponded perfectly with efforts to achieve “Jewish emancipation.” In this respect Richard Wagner put it most astutely and succinctly when he wrote that “when we strove for emancipation of the Jews we were really more the champions of an abstract principle than of a concrete case: … Our zeal for equal civil rights for Jews was much more the consequence of a general idea than of any real sympathy; for, with all our speaking and writing for Jewish emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.” One could easily substitute “homosexuals” for “Jews” and achieve significant insight into the basic psychological processes at work, with Hirschfeld’s “general idea” being a florid abstraction of love around which the fashionable and easily duped may gravitate. It can’t be emphasized enough that Jews have been very adept at framing their arguments in emotional or moral terms that appear to have a unique pull on the consciences of Europeans, and such strategies are very difficult to unseat. One need only acknowledge that Hirschfeld’s work in this regard retains great potency in the present, with the recent “marriage equality” debate neatly side-stepping biological and social imperatives in favor of Hirschfeld-like maudlin non sequiturs about “love.”

Hirschfeld’s use of the weaponized concept of love was itself a legacy of Hirschfeld’s “scientific mentor” and co-ethnic Iwan Bloch (1872–1922). Like Moll and Hirschfeld, Bloch had no background in zoology, evolutionary studies or animal behavior. Trained as a dermatologist, Bloch was also attracted to the cause of “sexual minorities” and became an ardent campaigner on their behalf. He joined with Moll and Hirschfeld in attacking the non-Jewish consensus that sexual inversion was pathological and coined the term sexualwissenschaft or sexology to give academic and medical respectability to what was essentially a Jewish intellectual reaction against non-Jewish efforts to categorize harmful social and sexual pathologies. He was also a keen promoter of perversion and pornography. He was the “discoverer” of the Marquis de Sade’s manuscript of The 120 Days of Sodom, which had been believed to be lost, and published it under the pseudonym Eugène Dühren in 1904. In 1899 he had published Marquis de Sade: His Life and Works under the same pseudonym. In 1906 he wrote The Sexual Life of Our Time in its Relations to Modern Civilization, for which he gained the praise of Sigmund Freud for attacking “bourgeois” (non-Jewish) sexual mores, attacking the perception of sexual inverts as pathological, and calling for Europeans to adopt a more pluralistic and hedonistic sexual life.

By the time Moll, Hirschfeld and Bloch had essentially co-opted and redirected the study of human sexual behavior, Jews were flooding the new “discipline” in increasing numbers. Albert Eulenberg (1840–1917), with a background in neurology and electrotherapy, began styling himself a sexologist. With Bloch and Max Marcuse (1877–1963) he co-edited the Zeitschrift fur Sexualwissenschaft  (Journal for Sexology) and with Hirschfeld he co-founded the Berlin Society for Sexual Science and Eugenics.[19] The eugenics aspect of the society’s name was of course a clever piece of deception, intended to ingratiate it with non-Jewish eugenic societies for the purposes of eventual subversion with Jewish oppositional ideas. Nor was the tactic new. Eulenberg, Hirschfeld and Moll all claimed to be eugenicists but, like the Jewish-dominated German League for Improvement of the People and the Study of Heredity, astute Nationalists perceived the attempt at co-option from within, and all were attacked by National Socialist publisher Julius F. Lehmann as “part of a targeted subversion on the part of Berlin Jews.”[20]

But time for the sexologists was beginning to run out. Following the destruction of Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science in 1933, the list of homosexual activists held by Hirschfeld’s organization fell into the hands of the police where it assisted the prosecution of thousands of sexual inverts under the Penal Codes, and the subsequent internment of these individuals in concentration camps. The journals and organizations of the Jewish sexologists were gradually shut down until, in 1938, the Jewish grip on several disciplines were categorically broken when the Nuremberg laws stripped thousands of Jewish physicians of their licenses. Albert Moll, once the haughty promoter of degeneracy, was among those who lost their medical licence and was thereby banned from the medical profession. He was forced to adopt the middle name Israel. In one of the strange coincidences that history sometimes bequeaths to us, he would die lonely and impoverished on the same day as his fellow warrior against the Europeans, Sigmund Freud. Baptized for social expediency in the 1890s, access to the local church cemetery was refused; the pastor in charge refused to speak at Moll’s grave.

Jewish sexology, it seemed, was on the brink of extinction. But it would live on in exile, along with other poisonous doctrines, with the Frankfurt School. After the war it would return, with Horkheimer and Adorno, to Frankfurt, where the Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science would be re-established and then led by their protégé Volkmar Sigusch. Since taking on the leadership of the Institite, Sigusch has acted as a theorist and expert on social policy issues, and he has played a key role in liberalizing Germany’s laws penalizing homosexuality. Until 2006, Sigusch led Frankfurt University’s Institute for Sexual Science and its associated sexual medicine clinic. In 2005, he published Neo-sexuality: On the Cultural Change of Love and Perversion. In early March 2011, he released his new book Searching for Sexual Freedom. Despite his non-Jewish ethnicity, these works reveal that he is the spiritual and ideological son of Moll, Bloch, Hirschfeld and Eulenberg.

Surveying the contemporary social and cultural landscape in Western society, we see a much more radical departure from the measures advocated by Ellis, one of sexology’s founding fathers. And more than a century following from the first efforts of Moll to bring about a sexual revolution, we find ourselves once more wrestling with the hydra of Jewish sexology. As hinted at above, the modern Russian state has probably come closest to implementing measures in line with Ellis’ recommendations. Homosexual relations were decriminalized in 1993, but the state has consistently refused permission for “Pride” parades (the “flouting” warned against by Ellis) to take place. Most importantly, since 2006 Russia has also introduced legislation restricting the distribution of materials promoting sexually inverted lifestyles and behaviors to children as an extension to existing child protection laws. Homosexual couples cannot adopt children and cannot marry. While Russia has been harshly criticized and even fined by the European Court of Human Rights for these measures, the country is still remarkably lenient by Ellis’ standards. Single homosexuals are permitted to adopt children, sexual inversion was declassified as a mental illness in 1999, and those suffering from metamorphosis sexualis paranoica have been indulged with surgery and permitted to change their legal gender since 1997. One suspects that Russia will continue to be portrayed as a “civil rights” boogeyman by the sexologists and their agents until they fall into line with the pluralist zeitgeist.

To conclude, it may be worth remarking on the discussion of the desirability of there being homosexuals in the Nationalist movement. I don’t speak for The Occidental Observer, but I do speak for myself when I advise against the involvement of sexual inverts in the movement. Since arguments in favor of such involvement have been advanced, I feel that it is only fair that the opposite argument should also be given consideration. In this movement we are concerned with racial, biological and demographic fitness, and key to this is the preservation of traditional norms regarding marriage and relationships between the sexes. There can be no distraction from this focus, and no concession on any ground. I view any argument to the contrary as a mere echo of the claims of Moll et al. that they were “eugenicists.” There can be no subversion here. In this age of promiscuity, hedonism, abortion, and impending demographic oblivion, our future depends on it.

[1] F.J. Solloway, Freud, Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend (Harvard, 1979), 314-5.

[2] V. Roelcke, Twentieth Century Ethics of Human Subjects Research: Historical Perspectives From Steiner Verlag (Stuttgart, 2004), 26.

[3] E. Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom: A History of the First International Sexual Freedom Movement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 29.

[4] A. Killen, Berlin Electropolis: Shock, Nerves and German Modernity (University of California Press, 2006), 63.

[5] Solloway, Freud, Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend (Harvard, 1979), 300.

[6] E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 155.

[7] Ibid, 156.

[8] Ibid, 157.

[9] Mancini, Magnus Hirschfeld and the Quest for Sexual Freedom, 30.

[10] Ibid, 4.

[11] Ibid, 160.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid, 4.

[14] Ibid.

[15] E.R. Dickson, Sex, Freedom and Power in Imperial Germany, 1880-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2014), 249.

[16] Ibid, 7.

[17] Ibid, 5.

[18] Ibid, 6.

[19] A. Killen, Berlin Electropolis: Shock, Nerves and German Modernity (University of California Press, 2006), 63.

[20] J. Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century (Hermitage, 2006), 133.

A recent incident in Wallingford, Connecticut, not far from where I grew up, caused VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow to comment: “Cultural Marxist totalitarianism is coming to an America near you.” A complaint was lodged with the local police that “hate” merchandise— Nazi and Confederate memorabilia—was being publicly exhibited and sold at a popular flea market. [PICTURED ABOVE] Following a police investigation, an Anti-Defamation League official named Joshua Sayles expressed the view that “It’s unfortunate that under the law people have the right to sell these things; but it doesn’t mean they should sell these things. It’s not a crime but I would call it hate…”[Wallingford police look into complaint about Nazi, Confederate items sold at flea market, by Mary Ellen Godin, Record-Journal, July 10, 2015].

Chillingly, the assistant regional director of the Connecticut ADL thus unmistakably indicated he was deeply disturbed that a “right” to deal in what he considered “hate” was still allowed. Presumably, in a more sensitive world, no one would be allowed to exhibit or sell either Nazi or Confederate memorabilia. Needless to say, no moral distinction was made between Nazi Germany and the Confederate States of America. They both stood, or so the ADL official implied, for pure “hate.”

Peter properly suggests if such hate-inspectors get their way, we will be living in a condition of almost Stalinist oppression. We might not be shipped off to gulags (yet), but the control of speech and thought that these professional sensitizers would impose would be reminiscent of the worst examples of Leftist tyranny. I say “Leftist” intentionally—because rightist or non-leftist regimes have never tried to control their subjects’ minds as systematically as the Left.

Even Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime largely lost interest in mind reconstruction. It closed up universities as an unnecessary expense by the early 1940s, left the economy in private hands except for those businesses it expropriated, and tolerated a surprisingly wide range of intellectual dissenters.(For example, Karl Jaspers, Hans-Georg Gadamer and other dissenters and critics of the Nazi regime were left untouched in their academic positions. See Die deutsche Universitatsphilosophie In der Weimarer Republik und im Dritten Reich, by Christian Tilitzki. ) Of course, this had nothing to do with being nice. It was simply that the Nazis, aggressive thugs as they were, had no interest in the worldwide indoctrination program dreamed of by the universalist, conversionary and egalitarian zealots of the true Left.

In contrast to the Nazis, the Left has regularly used every means at its disposal to reconstruct the human personality in accordance with its world vision. Perhaps even more significantly, for the last seventy years the Left has imagined itself as a brave force of resistance against a supposedly implacable but entirely fictitious and shape-shifting enemy— the great evil of “fascism.” As I document in my forthcoming book, Fascism: Career of a Concept, the Left’s eternal enemy of “fascism” is variously depicted as racism, Christian fanaticism, European nationalism, or even opposition to Israeli foreign policy.

Curiously, the post-war Italian fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano was fervently pro-Israel as well as pro-NATO. But Jewish “antifascists” can’t be bothered by such details.

The popular concept of fascism also identifies all forms of the European-wide fascist movement with Hitler, who was actually influenced far more by Stalinist totalitarianism than Mussolini’s ramshackle, not particularly repressive government. “Fascist” is arbitrarily equated with both Nazi genocide and anything the cultural Left disapproves of at the moment.

This propagandistic sleight of hand is so blatant that, unless one grasps the current political landscape, it is almost impossible to understand how it works every single time. We are looking here at interlocking political, corporate, and cultural elites when we search for who maintains the system. And there is a unifying doctrine, which for want of a better and more up-to-date name we shall have to call “Cultural Marxism.”

Cultural Marxism‘s central teachings go back genealogically to the Institute for Social Research in interwar Germany. Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and their radical Leftist colleagues attempted to fuse Marxist economics and Freudian psychology into a critique of bourgeois society. The synthesized result had less to do with serious Marxism than with attacking “repressive” and “patriarchal” family life and offering utopian alternatives.

A major aspect of this emerging self-described “Critical Theory,” particularly after the rise of Nazism and the transfer of the Frankfurt School to the US, was describing and combatting “fascism.” This mission became integral to Critical Theory, together with a continuing crusade against anti-Semitism, which, by a certain internal logic, always accompanied the supposed fascist threat. Since the Frankfurt school theorists were mostly Jewish leftists, these facile associations suited them and their followers rather well.

However, in their interpretation, the ominous fascist threat lurked where you least expected it. Middle-class, churchgoing goyim, even those who professed to like Jews and supported women’s rights and labor unions, could not be trusted. Those who did not resolutely break from the existing order slipped easily into such evils as “latent anti-Semitism” and “pseudo-democracy.”

These psychic and social dangers were described by Horkheimer, Adorno, and others in their massive anthology The Authoritarian Personality, commissioned by the American Jewish Committee after the Second World War and published in 1950, as part of a much larger “Studies in Prejudice” project. [American Jewish Committee News, March 15, 1950.] While in the US, Adorno also created the F-Scale (F for “Fascist”) in social psychology testing, supposed to determine someone’s degree of propensity to subscribe to the hated ideology.

It’s important to remember Critical Theory isn’t a weapon of revolution. It’s a weapon of repression. And it was quickly and thoroughly Americanized. It’s ridiculous to treat it as an exotic import: it took root in American society and culture almost immediately after it was introduced.

Critical Theorists not only found a congenial home in the US, but some were even sent back to “reeducate” the Germans, who had been supposedly corrupted by their “authoritarian” families and “pseudo-democratic” experiences.

Although the Critical Theorists were mostly soft on the Communists, Cold War liberals like Seymour Martin Lipset and other contributors to Commentary stressed the usability of the Frankfurt School’s form of analysis for investigating all enemies of “liberal democracy,” including the Soviets.

The Soviet enemy, in this analysis, were defenders of patriarchal repression and “authoritarian personalities” that stood in the way of democratic progress.

Lipset was also concerned about “working class authoritarianism,” a focus very much present in the work of Adorno and Horkheimer [Political Man, by Seymour Martin Lipset, by Andrew Hacker, Commentary, June 1, 2015]. Communists, fascists and all the benighted simpletons toiling in factories potentially opposed American pluralism. Since we were engaged in a struggle to preserve our democratic, pluralist identity, we also had to be sure that young Americans were instilled with the proper attitudes about tolerance and equality.

One can find in the call for war against “un-American” prejudice beginning in the 1950s the tendency toward Leftist totalitarianism. One major change since then: the number and variety of supposed victims of “prejudice” continue to grow, together with the repressive measures that must be taken to intimidate possible dissenters.

There has also been a collapse in effective opposition to the Leftist Social Justice Warriors. Recent events in the South indicate even many descendants of Confederate soldiers are unwilling to defend their ancestral heritage against hysterical detractors.

The cultural Left, and no other political force, can put gigantic, screaming crowds into the streets in any American city on the spur of the moment. The official Right, by contrast, stays home watching Fox News.

In the absence of real opposition, the cultural-social Left is free to bully and lie as much as it wants. Media-empowered anti-anti-Semites, like ADL officials, freely equate the Confederacy with the perpetrators of the Holocaust, treating both as violent haters and sources of hate for later generations.

Our bogus Conservative Establishment happily rallies to Leftist social positions. No one on the Left sounds as unhinged as “conservative” journalists like Max Boot [Furling the Confederate flag is just the start, Commentary, June 22, 2015]. Or for that matter, Jeff Jacoby [The Confederate flag is anti-American, Boston Globe, July 9, 2015]. Republican congressmen and governors have been at least as zealous as their supposedly more Leftist opposition in calling for the obliteration of Confederate symbols and names.

One also discovers from the Beltway Right press that homosexual rights, including homosexual marriage, is a basic Western value and that European leaders like Victor Orban and Vladimir Putin don’t really belong to the West because they don’t welcome gay activists into the political and educational process [The Authentic Right vs. The Neocons, by Ilana Mercer, WND, December 21, 2007].

Even the relatively isolated, belated complaints of Donald Trump about the crime caused by Third World immigration have elicited frenzied attacks on bigotry from such GOP stalwarts as Linda Chavez and Jeb Bush [Trumped Up, Townhall, July 10, 2015]. Chavez, we might note, has taken valuable time out from bashing the Confederate Battle Flag to deal with the anti-immigration bigots on the right [Linda Chavez: No defending the indefensible, Daily Local News, June 28, 2015].

The Cultural Marxist threat isn’t an epidemic coming from outside: It is raging among our make-believe conservatives, who now often sound as radical as the Frankfurt School.

The critical difference, or so I’ve been told, is that our politicians are usually not self-described socialists, whereas the Critical Theorists were. But even that distinction may no longer be important. Our government and that of other Western countries has grown enormously and now interferes in our social and commercial life far more than it did eighty years ago. Moreover, the major thrust of Cultural Marxism has never been toward the nationalization of productive forces and other classical socialist schemes. It has always been cultural—toward the smashing of bourgeois values, Christian families, gender roles, and what was viewed as a repressive political culture. Government control of the economy was merely an instrument for moving toward the social-cultural goal that the Frankfurt School set for us.

And the social goals of Cultural Marxism are portrayed as the only alternative to a dark night of “fascism” that the ADL, the SPLC, and other like organizations are ostensibly protecting us from.

Yet the specter is never banished. The “Far Right” threat always remains. And as an ever greater number of people find themselves marginalized as “haters,” the actual tyranny taking shape in America could indeed be something even worse than the fevered “fascist” nightmares of the Left’s imagination.

A prominent feature of the Frankfurt School was the ideology that ethnocentrism among Whites (but not Jews) was a psychopathology. This weapon was taken up by the organized Jewish community which claimed that pro-White and anti-Jewish attitudes were literally public health problems and popularized  phrases like “virulent anti-Semitism,” analogizing anti-Jewish attitudes to the spread of a virus.

This campaign has been incredibly successful among Whites. Whites who have internalized this pathogen naturally suppress such attitudes, and they do so despite their universality, and despite the reality that ethnic self-interest is eminently rational from an evolutionary perspective. And even despite the fact that many of those promoting this pathogen are proudly ethnocentric themselves. But the campaign has been very effective: No one wants to publicly express attitudes that mark one as a psychiatric case.

Given the rationality and the evolutionary imperative of ethnic interests, there is the opposite suggestion — that at least some of the Whites who express such attitudes are suffering from a psychopathology. After all, the great majority of humanity is, to varying degrees, ethnocentric. and proud of it. What’s wrong with Whites?

This suggests that we should look for signs of psychopathology among Whites who are virulently (to borrow the ADL’s term) anti-White. This is not to suggest that all or even most Whites who express anti-White attitudes are suffering from psychopathology. In fact, the anti-White revolution is massively incentivized, so that a great many normal Whites, from university presidents and corporate executives, to media figures, politicians, and diversity entrepreneurs, personally benefit from White dispossession, both financially as well as in terms of having access to elite positions.

Such people are short-sighted: In the long run, their descendants will suffer incalculably from their sins. But they are definitely living the good life for now. 

And of course, many Whites are simply tuned out of their racial dispossession, especially if they don’t live near the areas inundated by non-Whites. They are enjoying their hobbies, raising their kids, and trying to live a good life. They are well aware that publicly expressing pro-White attitudes will lead to job loss and social ostracism. And they are pacified because nothing they see in the mainstream media is likely to make them feel that they ought to care about their impending dispossession.

Nevertheless, as the previous link shows, Whites are not happy about becoming a minority — despite the best efforts of the media to lull White America to sleep about their dispossession. And if things get dicey when their communities change, there’s still time and space to move away.

One obvious place to look for psychopathology is pathological empathy/altruism, common enough among Whites (and more common among Whites than any other group—the Northwest Europe culture of guilt and empathy). Pathological empathy facilitated by the media (which is forever promoting altruism by Whites toward suffering non-Whites) is doubtless important for many of the extreme anti-White statements and behaviors that are so common these days. Such people are at the extreme of a normal psychological trait— what is termed Nurturance/Love in personality psychology (here, p. 281ff). Too much of a good thing.

But here I want to discuss another form of the psychopathology of White racial self-hate, on display in a Huffpo op-ed by one Pastor Renita Marie, M.Div. (“White Privilege on the Streets of Ferguson“). Rev. Marie is overflowing with White guilt:

Being white is not all it is cracked up to be — at least not for those who are really aware. There’s no escaping the ugly history of those who look like me, those who have historically terrorized and dehumanized some part of nearly every culture including our own. In the past I carried much shame and embarrassment about being white.

When Michael Brown was murdered I found myself sobbing while unconsciously rubbing my skin until it started to hurt. Was I trying to rub away my whiteness?

Rev. Marie has not only suffered tremendous guilt and shame because of her Whiteness, she destroyed the Whiteness of her children by having two Black children. It must have seemed the only moral thing to do given the evil of Whiteness So this puts her in the upper reaches of liberal goodness — just the sort to be posted by Huffpo. She is what Theodor Adorno termed a “genuine liberal.”

The reference to Adorno and the Frankfurt School is relevant here because a major part of their program was to find the origins of White ethnocentrism in disturbed parent-child relations (reviewed in Chapter 5 of Culture of Critique). In my review I concluded that the Frankfurt School had used psychoanalysis, which is infinitely pliable, to create an upside-down world where ethnocentric Whites had parents who didn’t love them. In fact, based on their own data, I concluded the opposite.

Because of their fundamentally political program of indicting gentile culture and especially gentiles who represent the most successful and culturally approved members of their society, the authors of The Authoritarian Personality were forced to adopt a psychodynamic perspective in which all of the relationships were inverted. Surface insecurity becomes [via psychoanalysis] a sign of deep-felt security and a realistic perspective on life. Surface security and self-confidence [via psychoanalysis] become signs of deep insecurities and unresolved hostilities symptomatic of a fear of “looking inside.” (p. 185)

My theory, in a nutshell (and ignoring genetic influences on ethnocentrism—probably irrelevant here anyway because her family of origin was quite ethnocentric) predicts that when parents have good relationships with their children, they identify with their parents and seek to emulate their values. This is one way that evolution shapes children’s attitudes (here, p. 43). Good parents are good transmitters of their culture. If the parents value their people and their culture and have loving, affectionate relationships with the children, the children will tend to adopt their attitudes, and if not, they won’t.

However, when there is hostility between parent and child, children reject the values of their parents. So if the parents are are pro-White, the children will reject them and end up hating their people and culture.

The Frankfurt School predicts the opposite: They claim that genuinely liberal Whites who reject any inkling of ethnocentrism are the product of loving and affectionate homes. They claimed this, even though their actual results showed that the families of children who rejected their parents values had a lot of surface hostility and estrangement. Indeed, they were rebelling against their conservative parents, just like Rev. Marie. But with the magic of psychoanalysis, this was interpreted as masking a loving relationship.

So how does Rev. Marie see her parents?

As a young white girl, I was raised in a very prejudiced environment. My grandmother tried very hard to teach me that being white was better than anyone else — especially black. Lessons came through getting the hell beat out of me for having my black friends discovered. Another time I was whipped until I bled for declaring that Jesus was black. After all, he hid in Egypt.

Pretty clearly, the ethnocentrism of the parents did not rub off on the daughter. The psychological research quite clearly shows that beatings and hostility are not recommended as ways of getting children to emulate parental values. Rev. Marie hates her parents and that means hating everything they stand for, including their ethnocentric attitudes. If her hated parents were horrified at her Black friends and her mixed-race children, so much the better. All the better to get back at them— to the point that her entire social world now consists of Blacks: “In nearly all of my familial and social settings I am the only white person.” The genuine liberal as hater — first and foremost, of her parents.

Rev. Marie has dropped out of the White race and has become a crusader against it. Of course, that means a good career and lots of praise from elites in the contemporary environment. But it’s pretty clear that her motivation is far deeper than merely taking advantage of all the opportunities available these days from hating Whites. A genuine race traitor. Noel Igantiev would be proud.

One moral is that if you want to impart healthy attitudes about race and culture to your children, you should embed them in a loving and trusting environment. Such an environment is not a panacea, given that children are quickly indoctrinated when they go to school and when they watch television and listen to music. But it is certainly a step in the right direction.

There are likely quite a large number of Whites that can be considered to be in this category. A major part of the strategy of the left has been to recruit people who are unhappy with the system for various reasons. The original strategy of the left was to recruit the White working class, but, apart from lip service aimed at getting working class Whites to join the rainbow coalition of the Democratic Party, the left has jettisoned the White working class in favor of importing millions of non-Whites and making alliances with other White groups, including psychiatrically disaffected Whites like Rev. Marie.

Sexual non-conformists come to mind. Parental and societal hostility toward homosexual children is entirely understandable from an evolutionary perspective. Parents, after all, want grandchildren, and traditional social attitudes reflected this concern. But it’s not surprising that a great many homosexuals completely reject the traditional culture of the West and have become foot soldiers in the dispossession of Whites.

The fact that homosexuals have become pillars of the cultural left is deplorable —and quite unnecessary. Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children. It seems to me that one way for homosexuals to promote their ethnic interests is to acknowledge heterosexual marriage as a specially protected cultural norm — its special status guaranteed because of its critical importance in creating and nurturing children.

This would be the rational thing to do.  However, I suspect that quite a few are blinded to their legitimate ethnic interests because of hostility they experienced in their families and elsewhere. Just like Rev. Marie, their hatred overwhelms their normal attachments to their people.

If anything you would think that the Jews would be thanking us for defeating the Germans and liberating the millions of the so-called ‘survivors’ from the so-called ‘Nazi death camps.’ That’s not how they operate though.  They believe that there is a hatred for them that lies somewhere in all gentiles and that we can begin Holocausting them out of nowhere at any time.

This constant state of paranoia that the Jews live in is exacerbated by the fact that they ruthlessly exploit any society they are allowed to live in. Just simply allowing people to know the truth about their behavior is enough to guarantee their deportation to Israel at the very least, so they are forced to lie and suppress the truth constantly. This reality causes them to harbor a burning hatred and fanatical aggression toward all non-Jews.

The only way for the Jews to quell this fear of the gentiles turning on them is by completely neutralizing and weakening us so as to make an organized resistance, as what happened in 1930s Germany, impossible.

The promotion of sexual perversion, pornography and obscenity is one of the biggest weapons in the Jews’ arsenal for achieving this aim. The deliberate moral corruption of society can thus be seen as a preventative measure against a potential future Holocaust. The more people are masturbating and thinking about sex, the less they are thinking about what the Jews are doing—much less organizing to fight against them.

Sexual immorality weakens a nation in many ways, not the least of which is by breaking down the nuclear family. The use of pornography, in particular, is very harmful to men. It strips them of their masculinity and makes them docile, weak and apathetic.

An overt example of how the Jews have purposely used pornography as a weapon to destabilize an enemy is when Israeli soldiers took over Palestinian TV stations in 2002 and immediately started broadcasting porn over the airwaves. Professor E. Michael Jones wrote about this:

“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.‘”

Jews view White people in the West as every bit of an enemy to them as the Palestinian Arabs in the Middle East. Injecting pornography into Western culture had to be done through a much less overt process than what had been done in Palestine though, as their war against the West has been a subversive one, rather than a military one.

The Holocaust and the Sexual Revolution

Pornography—and perversity in general—was accepted into the White world after a long process, through the pseudo-scientific theories of the gentile-hating Jew Sigmund Freud. Freud began developing what is called “psychoanalysis” in Vienna in the late 19th century.

The theory of psychoanalysis is basically that when a person is sexually repressed, frustration builds in their subconscious mind and it eventually causes them mental health problems (including Antisemitism, which the Jews regard as a mental disease).

The traditional practice of suppressing vices such as pornography and homosexuality was demonized by Freudians as being “repressive,” and thus unhealthy to society. Restrictions that had been put into place in the civilized White Western world as a safeguard against the sexual addiction, disease, increase in sex crimes, destruction of the nuclear family and general lowering of morality that the allowing of pornography into a society inevitably leads to, were instead deemed to be the root of all problems in the world.

Freud’s theories were picked up and promoted heavily by many Jews who recognized how beneficial they were to their ethnic interest. Not only did psychoanalysis explain Antisemitism in such a way that let Jewish behavior off of the hook, it was also a great tool for destroying and confusing the minds of their gentile enemies.

Coupling Freud’s psychoanalysis with the theories of another hateful Jew, Karl Marx, a group of Jewish intellectuals started a think tank in Frankfurt, Germany, in 1921, called the Institute of Social Research, with the explicit intent of bringing down the existing social order of the West.

After Hitler came to power in 1933, the Institute for Social Research knew their gig was up in Germany, so they packed their bags and emigrated to New York City and set up what came to be known as the “Frankfurt School.” There they immediately resumed their subversive activities, now targeting their new host, America, who had just welcomed them with open arms.

Influential books by Frankfurt School Jews such as The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno, Eros and Civilization by Herbert Marcuse, and The Mass Psychology of Fascism, The Sexual Revolution and The Function of the Orgasm, by Wilhelm Reich, all made the same insane argument that Western civilization was fundamentally sick and inherently evil and Antisemitic, and could only be cured through the eradication of all sexual restraints, even (or even especially) in children.

The influence of the Frankfurt School Jews cannot be underestimated. Wilhelm Reich (who had been a direct pupil of Freud), for one, is no small figure – he is considered the “father of the sexual revolution.” Reich, who was a strong and outspoken proponent of the sexualization of children, was an extremist who claimed that all problems stem from people not having enough orgasms, and that if everyone would just have as many orgasms as they can, as often as possible, all of society’s ills would be cured.

As crazy as that sounds, he was taken very seriously by the 60s radicals on college campuses throughout Europe and America, thanks to the broad, tightly-knit, ethnic network of Jews in Academia and media who promoted his and the Frankfurt School’s works, giving them the air of respectability.

The 60s generation was ripe for accepting the ideas of Reich and his ilk, having been born during or right after the most brutal war of all time and living in the midst of another seemingly senseless war, Vietnam. And they were being told by these Jews that the Holocaust—and war in general—was the result of the sexual repression of their parents’ generation. If only we had “free love,” we wouldn’t have any war, the argument went, and so “make love, not war,” became the slogan and attitude of the day.

The sadistic brutality of the Holocaust story and the dishonesty it would take to tell such a monstrous lie were so alien to the soul of the White man that he bought it hook, line and sinker, and ended up perversely ashamed of his own kind and naively sympathetic toward his enemy, the Jew.

The post-WWII West was left puzzled as to how such a thing as the Holocaust could possibly happen. This period is often referred to as “struggling to come to terms with the Holocaust.” What Freud and his successors in the Frankfurt School had already been saying for years was now validated: The Germans had been sexually repressed, so a Holocaust was inevitable, and so the best way to prevent another Holocaust is to become “liberated” from any and all sexual morals.

This laid the groundwork for the sexual revolution that took place in the 1960s—the horrors of which we are still living with today:

Over 50% of all marriages now end in divorce. Children are having sex at earlier and earlier ages and have access to the most depraved, soul-crushing pornography imaginable with the click of a button on their smartphones or laptops. Homosexuality is basically normalized, with pedophilia and bestiality on the way. Sexually transmitted diseases and illicit pregnancies are on the rise. Tens of millions of babies have been murdered by abortions and the birth rate of the White race has dropped well below replacement level—with White women of child-bearing age making up only 1-2% of the world’s population—guaranteeing its rapid extinction unless there is a radical reversal of current trends.

In other words, Western society has been absolutely decimated by this Jewish instigated “sexual revolution.”

The Jews, on the other hand, have come to be the undisputed masters of the world since the end of WWII, while Antisemitism has been in a steady decline.

Origins of the Holocaust Myth

Most people will understandably have a programmed, knee-jerk response to questioning the Holocaust narrative, due to the massive amounts of propaganda they have been exposed to and the magnitude of the lie.

How can such a big lie exist? It has to be true, right?

But, upon taking a step back, if one is willing to do so, the reason for the existence of the Holocaust story makes perfect sense: war propaganda. The so-called “Holocaust” is propaganda in an ongoing war between the Jews and those with the courage to stand up to them—a war that began with the National Socialists coming to power in Germany in the 1930s and continues to this very day. The Jews do not have the means or the numbers to defeat Europeans with the force of arms so they have to rely mainly on infiltration, subversion, and economic and psychological warfare, with the Holocaust hoax being the best example of the latter.

The Holocaust story is not just simply psychological warfare against White Europeans though, it is also absolutely essential to the survival of Jewish supremacy, as any study of the Nazis rise to power will inevitably show the justification they had in opposing the Jews who had been wrecking their nation. All information about that era of German’s history has to be juxtaposed with stories of sadistic mass murder in order to diffuse the reality of the situation, which is that the Germans were completely justified in persecuting and expelling the Jews (which is all that was actually happening), just as we would be today.

Hitler and the National Socialists freed Germany from the death grip of the Jews and gave it back to the German people who subsequently turned it into the world’s foremost super power in a very short time. This posed a grave threat to the highly organized Jewish power base worldwide by exposing their machinations for the world to see.

Naturally, International Jewry, and Jews in general, hated Hitler and the Germans for this and wanted them destroyed. The only way to convince the American people, 50% of whom were of German ancestry themselves, to go to war with their European brothers was by using their control over the American media to spread atrocity propaganda of the worst kind.

The Jewish propaganda campaign against Germany started virtually immediately after Hitler came to power in 1933. Samuel Untermyer, speaking on behalf of Jewry worldwide, declared war on Germany with an economic boycott—an act of war the same as a gunshot or a bomb.

Shortly after that, Untermyer gave an hysterical radio broadcast denouncing the Germans as “ingrates” and “cruel and savage beasts,” and calling for Christians to unite with the Jews to destroy Germany in a “sacred war.” Untermyer claimed that the Germans were “annihilating” the Jews by:

locking them in vile concentration camps, starving and torturing them, murdering and beating them without cause and resorting to every other conceivable form of torture, inhuman beyond conception, until suicide has become their only means of escape, and all solely because they are or their remote ancestors were Jews, and all with the avowed object of exterminating them.

Even the official historical narrative of today only says that the so-called “extermination” of Jews, and the widespread utilization of concentration camps in Germany did not begin until 1939, yet this was only 1933 and Untermyer was already making clear and direct references to what we now know as the “Holocaust.”

How is that possible? That fact alone (along with no real evidence to the contrary) is proof that the Holocaust story is just the result of Jewish propaganda, rather than an actual happening. Furthermore, the Jews had been pushing the “six million” figure going back many decades, as early as 1897.

The wartime propaganda used to demonize Hitler and Germany that eventually evolved into what is now known as the “Holocaust,” was (and still is) the perfect excuse for the Jews and their allies to justify carrying out the most destructive war of all time.

The Jews saw how they could greatly benefit from the Holocaust hoax after the war in many ways, including painting themselves as the world’s eternal victims, raking in billions of dollars in ‘reparation’ payments, demonizing any and all opposition to them as ‘Nazis who want to kill six million Jews,’ and, as this article is attempting to show, weakening gentile society by corrupting our morals through the spread of obscenity.

From the ‘Suicide Girls’ to ‘Schindler’s List’

A standout feature in most stories about the “Holocaust” is the extreme perversity included in them. This, as anyone even vaguely familiar with the Holocaust industry knows, is done to traumatize people into sympathizing with the “poor, inoffensive Jews,” for what they supposedly had to endure during WWII.

The Jews also use the “Holocaust” as leverage to get people to accept perverse garbage that would otherwise be deemed unfit for public consumption. Under the pretense of trying to prevent atrocities such as the alleged “Holocaust” from ever happening again, the Jews force us to accept viewing and reading the most shocking and grotesque imagery that their demented minds can conjure up. People normally would not allow their children to look at piles of dead corpses, for example, yet this is occurring a grand scale in schools every single year—it’s even required by law in many areas.

A New York Times news story titled “93 Jewish Girls Who Choose Suicide Before Nazi Shame” that surfaced in 1943 is one of the aforementioned propaganda lies that were instrumental in whipping the Americans into an intense anti-German fervor. Jewish author Josh Lambert, in his eye-opening 2013 book Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews and American Culture had this to say about the myth of the “93 Suicide Girls,” and the Jewish spreading of anti-German sentiment in general:

Images of Nazis as sexual criminals, as rapists and defilers of Jewish women, whether based on fact or on fantasy, proliferated in the United States along with the earliest reports of the Holocaust. In one crucial and resonant case, on January 8, 1943, the New York Times, . . . printed in full the translated text of a Yiddish letter received in New York that purported to tell the story of “ninety-three Jewish girls and young Jewish women” in a Bais Yakov religious school who “chose mass suicide to escape being forced into prostitution by German soldiers” in Krakow in August 1942. Despite doubts about the letter’s veracity, the story of this incident spread widely and continues to be retold to this day as fact.

Lambert went on to talk about the mass promotion and far-reaching influence that the myth of the “93 Suicide Girls” had on American popular culture following its release:

. . . the story compelled attention and inspired creativity in the United States. Within months, the ninety-three martyred girls had become the subject of at least two published poems–one written in English, the other translated from Hebrew into English–and one English-language short story. In the postwar years, the story also seems to have partly inspired novels which depict concentration camp brothels filled with Jewish women: Yehiel Dinur’s House of Dolls, translated to English and published in the United States in 1955, and Edward Lewis Wallant’s The Pawnbroker (1961).

House of Dolls, first translated into English in 1955, is an extremely disturbing book that was written by a mentally insane Jew who called himself “Ka-Tzetnik 135633” (“Ka-Tzetnik” means “concentration camper” and “135633” was his prisoner number). House of Dolls was the second Holocaust book by “Ka-Tzetnik” in, as one Jewish journalist put it, a “string of often lurid novel-memoirs, works that shock the reader with grotesque scenes of torture, perverse sexuality, and cannibalism” It was also, of course, a complete hoax.

The scenario in Tzetnik’s book takes place in an alleged Nazi brothel called the “Joy Division,” where Jewesses were forced into prostitution. “Ka-Tzetnik 135633” is generally considered a hoaxster and his work is generally accepted as being nothing but fantasy, and is commonly referred to as “Holocaust pornography.”

The claim of Nazis having sex with Jewish prostitutes goes against the Nuremberg racial purity laws and flies in the face of the official narrative of the Nazis being hardcore racists, making it too far-fetched even for the Jews to get behind. The idea for Tzeknik’s disgusting book no doubt came from the “93 Suicide Girls” article, which is also, as previously stated, a known hoax.

The Pawnbroker was another Holocaust novel that was inspired by the “93 Suicide Girls” article. It was adapted into a movie in 1964 by the Jew Sidney Lumet and became the very first movie allowed to break the Production Code for nudity—showing the nude breasts of a Negress prostitute—on the predictable argument that it was necessary for telling the “full story.” The trivia section on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) page for the movie says this:

After the filmmakers appealed to the MPAA’s appeals board to oppose censoring the film, it became the first US film to show a nude woman from the waist up and be granted a Production Code Seal. It was the first of a series of confrontations between filmmakers and the MPAA in the 1960s that would lead to the abandonment of the Code within five years in favor of a ratings system.

The film’s success was based largely on the controversy surrounding the nudity. So while the producers used the importance of telling the Holohoax story to convince the censors by claiming it was “necessary to the movie” and “moral,” it could be surmised that in this case, as far as to the public at large, they were using nudity to sell the Holocaust, rather than the other way around.

So while the Holocaust was cleverly and successfully used to get nudity past the censors, the nudity was in turn used to sell the Holocaust fantasy to the gentile masses. A movie about something as dark as the Holocaust was still a tough sell for the largely Christian, not yet as demoralized American public, but nudity was not. Most men cannot resist such a thing. 90% of all men have probably seen the godawful movie Swordfish for the same reason, to give a contemporary example.

Things got even more bizarre on the Holohoax front after House of Dolls and The Pawnbroker. Those two stories led directly to the advent of ‘Naziploitation’ films, which are campy, over-the-top, sex and gore, horror fantasy films about evil, cartoonish German Nazis conducting all kinds of weird experiments on Jewish concentration camp prisoners.

From the “93 Suicide Girls,” to the ‘Naziploitation’ films, these bizarre and perverted tales are still sometimes presented to the public as reality, though not really defended as real to anyone who does any real research. Much like the shrunken Jew heads or Jew soap or Jew lampshades, the stories have long since been discredited, and are admitted to be false even by mainstream Jewish historians—but if you don’t know that, the Jews aren’t exactly going to go out of their way to tell you.

Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS—the king of all ‘Naziploitation’ films—opens with a written statement claiming that the movie is based on a true story and needs to be seen in order that it “will never occur again.” Within 5 seconds of watching the film you see two people having graphic sex with a clear display of actual penetration. Ilsa is a truly sick movie, almost beyond belief.

Claiming that Ilsa has anything to do with real life events or that it contains uncomfortable truths that need to be seen in order to prevent them from happening again, is an insult to even the dumbest viewer’s intelligence. It is clearly nothing more than trashy, pornographic smut.

I watched this horrible movie on YouTube, by the way, the same place that a child could.

This is the synopsis for Ilsa:

Ilsa is Kommandant of a Nazi prison camp, who conducts sadistic scientific experiments designed to demonstrate that women are more capable of enduring pain than men are, and therefore should be allowed to fight in the army. Ilsa is also portrayed as a buxom woman with a voracious sexual appetite for men. Every night, she chooses another one of her male prisoners and rapes him; however, due to her insatiable hunger, she gets disappointed when her current victim eventually ejaculates, and promptly has him castrated and put to death. Only an American prisoner, who can withhold ejaculating, manages to use her weakness to his favor.

Just imagine the “chutzpah” of claiming that a b-grade Jewish torture porn movie such as that is based on “documented fact.”

Ilsa is only one of many filthy “Naziploixtation” genre films. Here are the covers of a few more of them:

Getting back to literature for a moment, let’s explore what is maybe the most famous Holocaust story of all time, the so-called Diary of Anne Frank, first published in 1952.

The ‘Diary,’ which is an obvious fraud—written well beyond the capabilities of a 12 or 13-year-old girl—is laced with pornographic and sexually subversive passages.

In the book, Anne opines that parents should “[tell] their sons and daughters everything [about sex] at the age of twelve” and that “it’s not wrong for a man to bring a little experience to a marriage. After all, it has nothing to do with the marriage itself, does it?”

Anne ponders how she would describe her genitalia to a boy she likes:

. . . In the upper part, between the outer labia, there’s a fold of skin that, on second thought, looks like a kind of a blister. That’s the clitoris. Then come the inner labia, which are also pressed together in a kind of crease. When they open up, you can see a fleshy little mound, no bigger than the top of my thumb. The upper part has a couple of small holes in it, which is where the urine comes out. The lower part looks as if it were just skin, and yet that’s where the vagina is. You can barely find it, because the folds of skin hide the opening. The hole’s so small I can hardly imagine how a man could get in there, much less how a baby could come out. It’s hard enough trying to get your index finger inside. That’s all there is, and yet it plays such an important role!

Anne was also a bisexual degenerate with homosexual fantasies, apparently:

Unconsciously, I had these feelings even before I came here. Once when I was spending the night at Jacque’s, I could no longer restrain my curiosity about her body, which she’d always hidden from me and which I’d never seen. I asked her whether, as proof of our friendship, we could touch each other’s breasts. Jacque refused. I also had a terrible desire to kiss her, which I did. Every time I see a female nude, such as the Venus in my art history book, I go into ecstasy. Sometimes I find them so exquisite I have to struggle to hold back my tears. If only I had a girlfriend!

What adult wouldn’t blush reading trash like this—supposedly written by a pre-teen girl—much less want to expose their young sons and daughters to it? Yet every year children read the Anne Frank story in elementary schools all across America and the world.

It is much harder for one to object to questionable material when it is contained in stories about the Holocaust though. That’s the Jewish trick. Anyone who objects is made out to be an evil person who must love the extermination of innocent Jews, Fascism and Hitler.

A good microcosm of how this Jewish propaganda tactic works is found in the comment section of an article on the Jewish news outlet Huffington Post about a mother who objected to exposing 7th grade students to the inappropriate material found in Anne Frank’s ‘Diary’:

Now that we have touched on how the Jews have used their Holocaust hoax as a sinister tool to successfully promote perversity in movies, literature and Academia, let’s look at what they have accomplished with it in regard to network television.

Just as the first theatrical movie to break the Production Code for nudity was a Holohoax film, so was the first to manage to get it onto prime time television. It was the miniseries War and Remembrance. It says this on the trivia page of the series’ IMDb:

In the “death camp” segment there is a shot of several nude “bodies” showing women’s breasts. This was the first time that nudity was shown on network TV in prime time.

An article from 1988 found on the Los Angeles Times website explains how ABC had to make a deal with the Jewish director to allow him to show nudity, in order for him to agree to filming the project:

ABC was able to hook him by promising him a budget far above the ordinary for a TV miniseries and agreeing to give him free reign to depict the graphic horror of the Holocaust–including extreme violence and nudity.

“I told them to forget the rest of it–I didn’t know how I was going to do the Battle of Midway, I didn’t know how I was going to do submarine warfare and all of that stuff–but on the Holocaust,” Curtis recalled, “I cannot be censored. How can you worry about seeing frontal nudity when you’re talking about massacring 11 million people?”

The same excuse of wanting to show the full ‘reality’ of the so-called Holocaust was used to air the chief Holohoax film of all time, Schindler’s List, uncensored, on TV in 1997.

Schindler’s List took this clever subversion technique a step further though; along with the dozens of naked victims shown being abused and exterminated by the Nazis in the film, it also features non-gas chamber related nudity that has nothing to do with the so-called Holocaust, such as Schindler having sex with a woman and multiple women lying on beds with their breasts exposed.

The film was also shown during “prime time,” at 7 o’clock on a Sunday to 65 million viewers, many of them children, and has been aired unedited ever since.

The only public figure to come out against this travesty was a conservative Republican Senator, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who said the airing had taken network television “to an all-time low, with full frontal nudity, violence and profanity being shown in our homes.” and that “the fact that it aired on public television on a Sunday evening during a family time should outrage parents and decent-minded individuals everywhere.”

Coburn was viciously attacked on all fronts for these comments, even by fellow conservatives, demonstrating just how enslaved we have become to the Jews and their lies. Just 40 years earlier, prior to The Pawnbroker, there had still been censors in place preventing nudity in theatrical films—much less prime time television—but by 1997 there was just one man (who, by the way, later apologized due to pressure) who would object to it publicly.

Coburn’s position was, undoubtedly, the rational position that spoke to the best interests of the public, yet he was portrayed in the media as an immoral person with some kind of sinister agenda.

There was an all out Kosher Jihad unleashed on Coburn, simply for his stating of the obvious:

GOP activist William Bennett said: “These are very unfortunate and foolish comments. Coburn’s view obscures, even obliterates, the distinction between gratuitous violence and nudity — that is violence and nudity to titillate — and violence and human realism essential to the telling of an important story or historical truth.”

Sen Alfonse D’Amato, a New York Republican, said “To equate the nudity of the Holocaust victims in the concentration camp with any sexual connotations is outrageous and offensive.”

NBC West Coast president Don Olhmeyer said “I just wonder if Congressman Coburn is aware that there was a Holocaust, that millions of people died and it’s not something anybody should ever forget. We think that Congressman Coburn’s statement should send a chill through every intelligent and fair-minded person in America.”

Two-time Republican Presidential nominee Jack Kemp said that “Failure to recognize the value of such programming is disappointing and disturbing.”

What’s next, mandatory Holohoax pornography for Kindergarteners? And you’re an evil Nazi if you object to it?

When is Enough going to be Enough?

This topic of this article is just one aspect of the how the Holocaust story has been weaponized against us. It is also simultaneously used as the excuse for massive third world immigration into White countries, and the denial of any racial consciousness among Whites.

In fact, as hard of a pill as it is to swallow, the Jews are using their made up story of genocide as the primary tool to pull off a very real, much worse genocide, with the entire White race as their victims!

So even if the ridiculous Holocaust story was based on actual fact, if it means that we must be turned into a bunch of degenerates and eventually bred out of existence, then obviously the only sensible course of action would be for us to stop caring about it.

Why not forget about the alleged suffering that the Jews went through at the hands of our kind in the past, and start caring about the suffering being inflicted on us, right here in the present, at the hands of the Jew? Our current situation under the jackboot of these demons is more extreme and alarming than any Holocaust fairy tale that they could ever come up with. That much is certain.