Finally, after seemingly endless decades of waiting, America can celebrate the death of Cormac McCarthy, the worst novelist ever.

McCarthy was known for such repulsive hack tripe as “Blood Meridian” and “The Road.” Along with edgy and predictable shock shlock, he also wrote kiddie romance novels.

Born to an Irish Catholic family, McCarthy, like many of his ilk, joined the Jews to help them destroy everything. Reading a Cormac McCarthy novel is humiliating and brings deep shame on a person. As you read the foul and unnatural arrangement of words, you feel as though McCarthy might as well have just broken into your house at night and pissed in your face while you’re sleeping.

Everything he wrote was utter garbage. It was sold to stupid peasants because it was simplistically written and filled with titillating scenes of violence and depravity.

For example, in “The Road,” you have a post-apocalypse scene where a father and son are traveling. At one point, they are hiding in a ditch from roving rapist cannibals, and the father holds a gun in his son’s mouth, telling him to pull the trigger if anyone sees him.

The underlying message of his work is that everything is completely meaningless – except kiddie style romantic love (i.e., sexual infatuation).

Why would such work exist? We are supposed to believe this man was some kind of genius because he was depraved? Are we to believe that the great writers of history couldn’t have written such disgusting scenes, if they had lacked all morals?

I will tell you this: virtually anyone with a sick mind and fifth grade writing skills could have written this gross, saccharine, self-indulgent, and above all repetitive prose. When you look at the “edgy” syntax, you are reaching below the fifth grade level. Any moron with a thesaurus can write broken sentences without correct punctuation. Mixing transgressive imagery with an assault on the written language, and underwriting it with themes of nihilism and blasphemy, should have been viewed as an abomination, an affront to God and man. Yet this worm was given awards, and he was given a top place in the literary hierarchy by the odious Jew Harold Bloom and his cult.

McCarthy was handsome as a young man, which no doubt played a role in his success, which was largely among women. However, if you were to see his soul – as Satan is now seeing it in Hell – it would look ratlike, like the startling visage of Bloom. The people who work in this Jewish system, perpetuating the Jews’ agenda, take on the radical Jewish spirit, and it swallows their humanity.

If you are an educated man looking at his body of work, you realize that he never learned basic sentence structure. He leaned on “stylistics” in the same way we are supposed to believe abstract artists are real artists that only choose to create works that look like they were produced by children because they are so smart. It was truly an “emperor has no clothes” situation, where a dim-witted pervert is writing like a child and everyone was looking around at each other, seeing if anyone else noticed that this “celebrated” work was absurdly, uniquely primitive.

The one thing that McCarthy spawned that was potentially worthwhile was the Coen Brothers’ film adaptation of “No Country for Old Men.” This was also likely McCarthy’s best novel, though it was still garbage, featuring crime novel tropes that were largely pulled whole cloth from Elmore Leonard and then made more gross. The Coen Brothers film was so cinematically stylistic, however, that the source material was virtually irrelevant. There are thousands of crime novels – two dozen from Leonard alone – that could have served as the jumping off point for the same film.

In some ways, McCarthy was the logical end point of American literature, following William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway. These are complete hacks, one after the other. Of course, after McCarthy, there was no lower you could fall, so popular literature has largely simply ended.

In the wake of his death at home in Mexico at the age of 89, the Jewish American media is celebrating McCarthy as one of the greatest American novelists. Some of these people are calling him the single greatest of all. This should not surprise anyone.

Cormac McCarthy, maybe the greatest American novelist of my time, has passed away at 89. He was full of years and created a fine body of work, but I still mourn his passing.

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) June 13, 2023

The reality is that most of the greatest novelists were Russian. Moby Dick is the only American novel that compares with the Russian greats. There are no good modern novelists, except for Michel Houellebecq. The problem is, there is no meaning to life anymore, so there is nothing really to write about.

What I will say of the dead bastard and fiend McCarthy is this: he certainly embodied the spirit of the age.

This article is the work of a reader named Coaltraine.

I have been recently reading Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, published in 1947 as one of the Frankfurt School’s first public forays into what Jews had been involved in conspiratorially for decades and what later got labelled Critical Theory. Basically, the Jews of Germany were throughout this period internally trying to undermine Hitler’s National Socialist revolution through academia and culture before it could even get off the ground formally, and after the war, their goal switched to “Never Again!” almost overnight. We have been living now for 70+ years under that vow of theirs.

And so I basically just had some observations that I thought I’d share with the forum because I had the time and I wanted to get this down as a reference for posterity. Nothing here is like revolutionary or anything in my opinion, and at least on this forum mine would probably be a common judgment if anything of the book, its agenda, its thesis, its whole basic premise to begin with, and how all this has combined in the century after the book’s publication to define how these topics are commonly framed and presented (ironically uncritically) to the general public today whether in an academic setting or within just the more general realms of politics and culture. But I figured that even here on the forum, many of you guys might not be very familiar at all with the book’s specifics- although I’m sure everyone has observed the Frankfurt School’s influence in the West in one way or another. And while even normies now are referencing “Cultural Marxism”, I think basically that we ourselves in order to guide normie-cons particularly should generally have some sort of formal responses or rebuttals to these major ongoing Jewish intellectual conspiracies, which is what the Frankfurt School and its Critical Theory is basically, on hand always so that we can reference it if/when needed whether we’re red-pilling normies or we’re debating Ben Shapiro or Rachel Maddow and their partisans respectively. So what follows is my basic rebuttal and what I wrote down late last night immediately after finishing it. For those of you who need a quick refresher in the form of a video, this below does a decent job at presenting the background:

In Dialectic of Enlightenment, the authors basically see this pattern throughout Euro history singularly of reversion to what they consider evil, outdated, and backward movements and modes of being. They focus on Fascism in particular because when they wrote the book this is what freightened them and all Jews most globally, because then as now its ethos was an alternative to the miseries of modernity. So keep in mind that what Horkheimer and Adorno Semitically see below as “self-destruction” stereotypically is in reality rather “course-correction” in for example the rise of the Third Reich as well as other prominent historical instances of challenge to Semitic hegemony. For example, just from the book’s description on Amazon we find:
a paranoid behavioral structure, expressed in aggressive anti-Semitism, that marks the limits of enlightenment. The authors perceive a common element in these phenomena, the tendency toward self-destruction of the guiding criteria inherent in Enlightenment thought from the beginning.

To start to unpack all that, we see that the authors here just assume that “enlightenment” was ever even desirable or practically practicable in the first place, which it wasn’t. In the very beginning, the Enlightenment was forced top-downward upon the people, who were at best ignorant, gullible, and naive of the new bargain being struck (proverbially with Satan, or his earthly representatives the Jews) in the modern “social contract”, which favored individuality over corporate identity, which the Jews would use in the future not only to install themselves as this new democratic regime’s high-priests and celebrities but also to undermine our culture, religion, and ethnic identity. For if the people would’ve comprehended the totality and ubiquity of transformation then being proposed, they would’ve rejected it wholesale and emphatically most likely, which is why it was forced upon the people regardless of preference. The Enlightenment despite what Wikipedia says was not popular really, and the people back then in the main wanted nothing more than to maintain their religion and corporate identity. It was dominated really by a new merchant class of rootless cosmopolitan in alliance with the former regime’s minor nobility who desired to cheat its way to the top of the hierarchy under the pretext of Democracy.

So the authors here are developing this dialectic, which is real and historical in my opinion, between their ideal in Radical Enlightenment on one side verses the people’s natural reversion and reaction back to hierarchy, monarchy, theocracy, and collectivity that the French Revolution and its consequences eventually robbed people of to the point of today where everyone’s just rootless cosmopolitan cogs in the Machine. People like Joseph de Maistre and even Edmund Burke pointed this all out at the time though remember. It’s just that then as today those Counter-Enlightenment voices were censored and thus filtered out of the culture accordingly. De Maistre himself would be forced into exile in Russia away from his homeland and people solely because he saw through the duplicity and deception of the Enlightenment deal that was too good to be true.

So yeah the dialectic between Radical Enlightenment and its opposite in some form of proto-Fascism definitely was real, it happened then in the 19th Century as it plays itself out now as well, and it happened on some level even prior to the French Revolution. It’s just that prior to that point, the forces of Reaction and Tradition were usually always more than enough to bend the needle enough to defeat the perpetual encroachment of the Modernists. So our authors got that correct in my opinion.

Another thing our highly Semitic authors got correct, here, is their judgment of the Third Reich as historically normative. See:

Using historical analyses to elucidate the present, they show, against the background of a prehistory of subjectivity, why the National Socialist terror was not an aberration of modern history but was rooted deeply in the fundamental characteristics of Western civilization.

That’s sort of the money-quote right there in the Amazon description, because it forms the foundation for where my opinion diverges now from that of our Frankfurt School authors.

As we know, the Third Reich was deeply rooted in Western civilization obviously, and this was why it was so popular and briefly successful. This same “terror” against Jews was a permanent fixture and general pattern throughout history– and not only Western history either. The Jews actively engineer enemies against them in reaction to their behavior everywhere they go historically and currently. From Imperial Roman-era Tyre to Medieval Spanish Toledo to WWII-era Tripoli in Africa to modern-day Turkey, the Jews would be pogromed, dispossessed, and expelled throughout history. Yet this is coincidentally the one side of the story that normally Jews won’t inform their less educated audience, because it demolishes the idea of the uniqueness of The Holocaust, and then marginalizes the fact that Fascism itself (or similar forms) was/is the norm throughout history. Democracy, however, is this unproven product- especially in the context of the modern world over great geographical and national distances and multiplicities of peoples.

So the Third Reich was nothing special in this context- as I’ve talked about prior. And while these Christ-killing authors would crucify all of Europe and its history currently in order to explain this persistent “pathological” behavior, the dialectical equation resolves itself much, much more simply and satisfactorily indeed by looking simply at what the Jews did themselves to deserve such reaction- again and again and again throughout history. Yet collectively Jews can never be at fault either in modernity- so says Jews, who remember from above are Democracy’s new priest-class and “experts”. This is because the Jews’ faultless nature was more or less the first premise accepted under the new Enlightenment conditions imposed as said prior from above upon an unsuspecting population. Immediately upon the aftermath of the French Revolution, even Napoleon figured out quite quickly at his Paris Sanhedrin that collectively, legally, Jews were untouchable basically. They could no longer be dealt with in accordance with traditional corporate expulsion or collective punishment for their criminal and antisocial behavior. They were neither a polity nor religion now in the eyes of the Enlightenment, but mere individuals legally incapable of conspiracy essentially. Jews would then use England to undermine Napoleon financially and eventually militarily.

Treating the Jews individually rather than collectively was the first Enlightenment plank and belief objectively, because post-Enlightenment the Jews would use this new status-quo to blind us to the reality of Jewish subversion, co-option, and eventual domination. Rather, the Enlightenment’s new “social contract” guaranteed Jews’ newfound freedom as individuals on the basis of their individuality legally rather than as a corporate body as Jews were judged prior in pre-modernity and as Hitler judged them by default more or less under the Third Reich. So in conclusion, we must realize that there was an important dialectic in Enlightenment as Adorno and Horkheimer declare. The people are constantly trying to get out of this ideological trap whether they realize it or not, but the Jews still today are always socially-engineering the masses back into the paradigm where the people because of the paradigm’s perimeters cannot detect let alone admit and declare this Jewish conspiracy- nor can the people even really stand up for themselves collectively either as we’ve seen. So we agree with the authors on the dialectic itself, but we part ways with their analysis when they prejudge the reaction (i.e. the Fascism) as pathological and unnatural, because we understand that these repeated reactions are completely natural and in accordance with the will of the people collectively.

Thoughts? Observations? Criticisms? Suggestions for future book reviews or biographies? Normally I don’t have enough time to be doing this as it’s hard enough to find enough time just to read these books myself let alone outline their basic contents formally in front of an audience, but I had that today and so I may again in the future. As I said above briefly, we need to have standardized arguments already ready to rebut these sorts of familiar Jewish declarations, and I hope to eventually put down more of them to posterity.

Sandra Newman

Sandra Newman, author of The Men (a book The Guardian is selling on their bookshop), has been looking at different works of fiction about men being banned from society or ceasing to exist.

The article describes the plot of some of these “female utopias,” and offers a glimpse into the sick yet childish minds of these women. Then, it mentions a few of the more recent books, which appear to be significantly more deranged.

Newman writes for The Guardian:

All the men are gone. Usually this is conceived as the result of a plague. Less often, the cause is violence. Occasionally, the men don’t die and the sexes are just segregated in different geographical regions. Or men miraculously vanish without explanation.

Left to themselves, the women create a better society, without inequality or war. All goods are shared. All children are safe. The economy is sustainable and Earth is cherished. Without male biology standing in the way, utopia builds itself.

I’m describing a subgenre of science fiction, mostly written in the 1970s-90s. It was once so popular it was almost synonymous with feminist SF. In 1995, when the Otherwise Award, a literary prize for “works of science fiction or fantasy that expand or explore one’s understanding of gender”, gave five retrospective awards, four of the works were set in such worlds: Suzy McKee Charnas’s Motherlines and Walk to the End of the World, and Joanna Russ’s The Female Man and When It Changed. The fifth was Ursula K Le Guin’s The Left Hand of Darkness, about a world whose inhabitants are all of the same sex.

Recently there has been a revival of the genre in radically different form, with titles including Lauren Beukes’s 2020 novel Afterland, Christina Sweeney-Baird’s 2021 thriller The End of Men, and my own new release, The Men. I think the way that these contemporary novels diverge from their earlier counterparts tells us something useful about gender politics in the 21st century. Part of the story, too, is a growing opposition to the basic premise, a conflict in which my novel has been recently embroiled.

The women-only utopia has a modest prehistory, going back to the myth of the Amazons and early feminist works such as Christine de Pizan’s 1405 The Book of the City of Ladies. But in its strict form as a single-sex utopia, it begins with Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland of 1915. Here, in an uncharted and unspecified wilderness, three male explorers stumble on a plateau the local “savages” fear as a realm from which no man returns. With their aeroplane, they are able to land there, and are instantly taken prisoner by the all-female inhabitants. The book then becomes a tour of the features of the women’s ideal society.

Women excel in all occupations. Older women gain prestige instead of losing it; the women are physically formidable and easily subdue their male captives. Charmingly, the narrator says of the national costume: “I see that I have not remarked that these women had pockets in surprising number and variety.” Their babies never cry.

Much less charmingly, we’re assured the Herland women are Aryans, and their society is focused on the perfection of their race. In fact, many of the hallmarks of fascism are here: the paganism, the obsession with cleanliness, the emphasis on gymnastics, the eugenics. The Herlanders also have no erotic or even romantic feelings for each other; they have bred those dirty things out.

The golden age of the genre, roughly coinciding with the era of second wave feminism, could scarcely be more different. Here the keynote is freedom, and lesbian polyamory is the order of the day. Solo travel features prominently: the authors are captivated by the idea of women hiking alone into the wilderness without the threat of rape. No regret is expressed about the loss of men, which is always in the distant past. Indeed, the topic is often treated with a bracing gallows humour.

Go hike alone, harpies, and see what you find.

Men are so good at shielding women from reality that women can’t imagine something being a threat to them, similar to how toddlers are oblivious to the daily challenges of their parents.

Joanna Russ’s novel The Female Man (written in 1970 but first published in 1975) is considered the masterpiece of the genre. Here, four versions of the author inhabit four parallel worlds. One is ours, where the protagonist is Joanna. The second is a more conservative New York, where the anxiously conventional Jeannine works to catch a husband she doesn’t truly want.

The third world is Whileaway, Russ’s utopia, where all men died of a plague 800 years earlier. Here, Janet fights duels, roams the wilderness, and is cheerfully promiscuous while adoring her wife, Vittoria, who, she boasts repeatedly, is much admired by Whileawayans for her big ass. Whileaway is a joyous, irreverent creation. Russ makes no apologies for stocking it with her own predilections (we’re left in no doubt of her opinion of big asses). Its people grumble all the time and are often jerks; it is above all things free – though it does have capital punishment for people who don’t do their share of the work. Even if it’s not your idea of paradise, you never doubt Russ would be happy there, which is more than you can say for most utopias and their creators.

…

The 21st-century revival is a very different animal. First, instead of being a dimly remembered political event, the mass death comes now. It has no good aspects. Men die horribly in front of us. Women are plunged into collective grief. Technological society falls apart for lack of skilled workers, and the world goes into decline. Women, meanwhile, are just as violent as men, and no more cooperative or empathic. The only result of generations of indoctrination into female roles is that girls are crap at engineering.

…

In Lauren Beukes’s 2020 novel Afterland, a threatened male is again the focus, after 99% of all male humans are killed by a flu that triggers prostate cancer. Survivors are incarcerated by the government and prevented from reproducing until a cure is found. The few free men are pursued by baby-hungry women and hunted by profiteers who want to harvest their sperm. The main character has broken her son out of a research facility and is fleeing with him through a post-apocalyptic world.

…

Even a recent book by a trans author, Gretchen Felker-Martin’s Manhunt (2022), has drawn criticism online. In this novel, a plague transforms men into mindless, cannibalistic monsters who roam the woods, raping and killing. Trans women must stave off transformation by constantly taking hormones they can only get by killing men and eating their testicles. Meanwhile, they’re being hunted by TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists), who see them as man-monsters waiting to happen. The book is written to graphically convey the terror of transphobia. Still it’s been attacked by some on Twitter for its bioessentialist premise. Although producers of the TV version of Y: The Last Man hired trans writers to make the story more inclusive, it too was considered problematic.

Women are literally worse than Islamic terrorists.

They’re planning to kill us all.

Seriously, why do they keep making these?

I generally refuse to buy them, but was really excited about Robert Cinaldini’s “Pre-Suasion” (plus I was ordering some other stuff at the time, and it had just came out) and bought it when it was only available in hardback.

This is the most absurd scam, this “first we release it hardback” nonsense.

I’m just now getting around to reading it, and it’s like wow, how are they still running this scam?

It’s like releasing a movie in the theaters without sound and charging 40% more for tickets for the first week.

A hardback book has significantly less functionality than a paperback book. If they want to charge you 40% more the first two months, then just charge 40% more for the paperback. No one wants these hardback books unless they are pretentious pricks looking to make a display bookcase.

Well, I guess a display bookcase isn’t necessarily pretentious, can be a very nice feature in a sitting room. But it’s a specialty item.

Anyway.

Just a little bit of Sunday Insight from your trusty Stormer.

I just started Pre-Suasion (I only read books before I go to sleep, and only get through one about every two weeks, tbh), but it’s definitely already a recommendaton.

But for sure read “Influence” first.

UPDATE:

Let’s debunk another false claim being made by a feminist, shall we?

Daily Mail:

An Ohio bookstore is drawing attention to the disparity between published male and female authors in honor of Women’s History Month.

For the first two weeks of March, Loganberry Books in Cleveland has flipped every male-authored book around in its LitArt section, so the spines are facing the wall and hidden from view.

The experiment, called ‘Illustrating the Gender Gap in Fiction‘, paints a startling picture of of the gender gap in the publishing world.

The store’s owner, Harriett Logan, told The Huffington Post that this is just as much a push to sell more female-authored books as an art piece.

She countered arguments that the move was sexist, saying that flipping the books is meant to be a thought-provoking exercise, adding that in fact the publishing industry — like most industries — has been sexist for years.

With the male-authored books turned around, only 37 per cent of volumes in the section, authored by women, were facing forward.

There are so many more men, she said, because male authors have long found it easier to get published not because of ‘talent, choice, or even popularity, but mostly through industry favoritism, social opportunity, and habit’.

She also noted that for the two decades she has been in the business, she has promoted female authors every March, but wanted to do something more this year to highlight the disparity in the industry.

‘I was truly shocked by the effects of this exercise, and it does make me curious about other genres in the store,’ she said. ‘I have been ― or thought I have been ― a conscientious book buyer and a supporter of women’s works. It’s hard to tell that from the shelves.‘

‘It’s been sexist for years.‘

Well I don’t know what to say considering there is certainly no lack of female authors when it comes to literature that’s always been highly acclaimed and celebrated.

Jane Austen, Virginia Wolf, Mary Shelley, The Brontë Sisters, Shirley Jackson, Sylvia Plath, Harper Lee, Louisa May Alcott, Agatha Christie… do I seriously need to go on?

And if it’s so sexist then why are the most modern successful trilogies all written by females? The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Twilight and (sadly, I have to include…) Fifty Shades of Grey.

There’s also no shortage of crappy feminist garbage books getting published, I can assure you of that.

As you can see feminists find it very hard to get published

Would the feminists also like to know a fun fact about Agatha Christie?

Wikipedia:

Guinness World Records lists Christie as the best-selling novelist of all time. Her novels have sold roughly 2 billion copies, and her estate claims that her works come third in the rankings of the world’s most-widely published books, behind only Shakespeare’s works and the Bible.

And Then There Were None is Christie’s best-selling novel, with 100 million sales to date, making it the world’s best-selling mystery ever, and one of the best-selling books of all time.

So instead of being normal and just celebrating the achievements made by female authors, they have decided to claim there’s some war against them when there isn’t.

Instead of recognizing that a female is literally the best selling novelist of all time, they want to wrongly influence other women to hate men and make them believe that they’re being badly done by.

Then they wonder why we can’t take any of their other claims seriously.

They wouldn’t know what sexism and oppression is if it hit them in the face.

When you’re a strong leftists and words scare you

Anybody with an average IQ knows that Huckleberry Finn and To Kill A Mockingbird are two books that are both far from promoting racism towards black people.

Both books are set during a time period when the racial slur used repeatedly was widely used and accepted, it’s not rocket science to understand why the super scary six letter slur is in there.

Daily Mail:

A Virginia school district has banned two classic American novels after parents complained they were racist.

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn have been temporarily removed from shelves because they use the N-word more than 250 times.

Boy, I’d just love to see what other books are sitting on the shelves for the students to read.

People have been so fearful of Huckleberry Finn using the N word, that they’ve attempted to ‘fix’ it so many times.

My favorite version of classic (which was deliberately made to point out how stupid the censorship is) is the one that replaces Nigger with ‘Robot.’

When you don’t want your kids reading about Negroes deserving rights and stuff 

Both the film and the book have received overwhelming critical praise, due to the strong anti-racism message in the story.

Yet, according to WTVR.com, Accomack County Public Schools has removed both books from the shelves of its schools while they investigate complains into the books which, which have been available for 56 years, in the case of Lee’s novel and 132 years with Huck Finn.

One mother complained: ‘There’s so much racial slurs and defensive wording in there that you can’t get past that. Right now, we are a nation divided as it is.‘

I’d be willing to bet that only jigaboo parents are complaining

This just enforces how stupid leftists are. If they were intelligent they would actually be pushing both of these books.

And what’s the point of going to school if they can’t even teach you about history and context? Isn’t English class the place where you read texts and learn to dissect them?

One parent Teresa Wilkins said: ‘It’s in a book and they’ll feel they are able to say that to anybody, and so I don’t feel that that should be done.‘

Modern kids end up with poor communication skills and aren’t capable of reading between the lines because they’ve never been given a chance to acquire or exercise these skills.

Normies in training 

Everything that’s suitable for them to learn about is completely dumbed down and made to be as basic as possible.

Nobody can learn about anything that might possibly trigger someone else and the thought of Tyrone having to raise his hand to ask why the N word is used in the book is just too complex for this shitlib teachers to even consider.

It’s sad to think that once upon time young children were casually reading Aesop’s Fables and able to take life lessons away from the various stories,  yet older students from the current year aren’t even capable of reading a book like Huckleberry Finn and understanding it’s very clear concepts.

One evening in an empty classroom at our school last June, the English department got together to go through the courses offered by the new A-level and GSCE curriculum specifications. There was an uncomfortable moment as we realised that very few of the set texts we’d be teaching our students in the new school year were written by women, and fewer still by writers from ethnic minority backgrounds.

We knew that we’d have to work very hard to make texts like The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (set way, way back in the Victorian past and including just one female character, a fainting maid) relevant to our students. As it stands, ethnic minorities are represented by just 5% of texts on some GCSE and A-level modules, according to our calculations.

To put that into perspective for our school, I have the privilege to teach a co-ed cohort where over 40 languages are spoken and 30 ethnicities are represented. We know from teaching them every day that texts like Jekyll and Hyde are the hardest for them to relate to.

We know they lose interest if they don’t recognise themselves or any part of their lives in the stories. We know the stories that fully engage them are those where the plots and characters hold relevance for them. After some soul-searching, we agreed to try and do something to make a difference besides teaching. We decided to launch the Curriculum Campaign, our appeal to increase the representation of women and ethnic minorities on the GCSE and A-level curriculums. We feel very strongly that in a country where women outnumber men by 51% to 49%, it can’t be right that, based on our own research, they are only represented by 31% of texts at GCSE and A-level.

Source

This is a good illustration of how our culture is being eroded by the presence of the aliens and the dogmas of Equality. Of course it leaves out any consideration of relative literary achievement. Although women compete more successfully with men in fields that require verbal aptitude than in almost any other (because they have an inbuilt genetic advantage when it comes to language processing), even there the disparity between male and female achievement is large. 31% is a significant over-representation of female authors given the relative weight of their achievement. How many great female poets have there been in the history of the English language? None.

The neocons are defending “Gone With The Wind” from the film burners, such as Lou Lumenick at The New York Post, but they want everyone to know what a terrible film it is.

Natch, the Allahpundit quotes renowned film critic John Podhoretz on how bad GWTW is, but then allows that it’s OK to watch, “racist” message regardless, for the same reason it’s OK to visit the Jefferson Memorial, even though Jefferson owned slaves. That’s mighty white of him.

Calling GWTW or any book or person related to the 19th-century “racist” is silly and stupid. People didn’t view racial feelings as evil back then, and the relationship between the races was an accepted fact of life. Calling it “racist” imbues it with a hostility it simply didn’t have.

I’m reminded of Walker Percy’s description in his novel The Thanatos Syndrome of how differently white Yankees and Southerners interact with blacks:

One of life’s little mysteries: an old-style Southern white and an old-style Southern black are more at ease talking to each other, even though one may be unjust to the other, than Ted Kennedy talking to Jesse Jackson — who are overly cordial, nervous as cats in their cordiality, and glad to be rid of each other.

In the first case—the old-style white and the old-style black—each knows exactly where he stands with the other. Each can handle the other, the first because he is in control, the second because he uses his wits. They both know this and can even enjoy each other.

In the second case—Ted Kennedy and Jesse Jackson—each is walking on eggshells. What to say next in this rarified atmosphere of perfect liberal agreement? What if one should violate the fragile liberal canon, let drop a racist remark, an anti-Irish Catholic slur? What if Jesse Jackson should mention Hymie? The world might end. They are glad to get it over with. What a relief! Whew!

But back to GWTW. David O’Selznick, the Jewish Republican who made the film, couldn’t put the entire book on celluloid, so he couldn’t include the scene in which Scarlett O’Hara, a Southern Catholic, defends family retainer Uncle Peter from the terrible racial imprecations of the wives of Yankee officers who occupied the South after the war.

This is from Chapter 38:

Accepting Uncle Tom’s Cabin as revelation second only to the Bible, the Yankee women all wanted to know about the bloodhounds which every Southerner kept to track down runaway slaves. And they never believed her when she told them she had only seen one bloodhound in all her life and it was a small mild dog and not a huge ferocious mastiff. They wanted to know about the dreadful branding irons which planters used to mark the faces of their slaves and the cat-o’-nine-tails with which they beat them to death, and they evidenced what Scarlett felt was a very nasty and ill-bred interest in slave concubinage. Especially did she resent this in view of the enormous increase in mulatto babies in Atlanta since the Yankee soldiers had settled in the town.

Any other Atlanta woman would have expired in rage at having to listen to such bigoted ignorance but Scarlett managed to control herself. Assisting her in this was the fact that they aroused her contempt more than her anger. After all, they were Yankees and no one expected anything better from Yankees. So their unthinking insults to her state, her people and their morals, glanced off and never struck deep enough to cause her more than a well concealed sneer until an incident occurred which made her sick with rage and showed her, if she needed any showing, how wide was the gap between North and South and how utterly impossible it was to bridge it.

While driving home with Uncle Peter one afternoon, she passed the house into which were crowded the families of three officers who were building their own homes with Scarlett’s lumber. The three wives were standing in the walk as she drove by and they waved to her to stop. Coming out to the carriage block they greeted her in accents that always made her feel that one could forgive Yankees almost anything except their voices.

“You are just the person I want to see, Mrs. Kennedy,” said a tall thin woman from Maine. “I want to get some information about this benighted town.”

Scarlett swallowed the insult to Atlanta with the contempt it deserved and smiled her best.

“And what can I tell you?”

“My nurse, my Bridget, has gone back North. She said she wouldn’t stay another day down here among the ‘naygurs’ as she calls them. And the children are just driving me distracted! Do tell me how to go about getting another nurse. I do not know where to apply.”

“That shouldn’t be difficult,” said Scarlett and laughed. “If you can find a darky just in from the country who hasn’t been spoiled by the Freedmen’s Bureau, you’ll have the best kind of servant possible. Just stand at your gate here and ask every darky woman who passes and I’m sure–

The three women broke into indignant outcries.

“Do you think I’d trust my babies to a black n*gger?” cried the Maine woman. “I want a good Irish girl.”

“I’m afraid you’ll find no Irish servants in Atlanta,” answered Scarlett, coolness in her voice. “Personally, I’ve never seen a white servant and I shouldn’t care to have one in my house. And,” she could not keep a slight note of sarcasm from her words, “I assure you that darkies aren’t Cannibals and are quite trustworthy.”

“Goodness, no! I wouldn’t have one in my house. The idea!”

“I wouldn’t trust them any farther than I could see them and as for letting them handle my babies . . .”

Scarlett thought of the kind, gnarled hands of Mammy worn rough in Ellen’s service and hers and Wade’s. What did these strangers know of black hands, how dear and comforting they could be, how unerringly they knew how to soothe, to pat, to fondle? She laughed shortly.

“It’s strange you should feel that way when it was you all who freed them.”

“Lor’! Not I, dearie,” laughed the Maine woman. “I never saw a n*gger till I came South last month and I don’t care if I never see another. They give me the creeps. I wouldn’t trust one of them. . . .”

For some moments Scarlett bad been conscious that Uncle Peter was breathing hard and sitting up very straight as he stared steadily at the horse’s ears. Her attention was called to him more forcibly when the Maine woman broke off suddenly with a laugh and pointed him out to her companions.

“Look at that old n*gger swell up like a toad,” she giggled. “I’ll bet he’s an old pet of yours, isn’t he? You Southerners don’t know how to treat n*ggers. You spoil them to death.”

Peter sucked in his breath and his wrinkled brow showed deep furrows but he kept his eyes straight ahead. He had never had the term “n*gger” applied to him by a white person in all his life. By other negroes, yes. But never by a white person. And to be called untrustworthy and an “old pet,” he, Peter, who had been the dignified mainstay of the Hamilton family for years!

Scarlett felt, rather than saw, the black chin begin to shake with hurt, pride, and a killing rage swept over her. She had listened with calm contempt while these women had underrated the Confederate Army, blackguarded Jeff Davis and accused Southerners of murder and torture of their slaves. If it were to her advantage she would have endured insults about her own virtue and honesty. But the knowledge that they had hurt the faithful old darky with their stupid remarks fired her like a match in gunpowder. For a moment she looked at the big horse pistol in Peter’s belt and her hands itched for the feel of it. They deserved killing, these insolent, ignorant, arrogant conquerors. But she bit down on her teeth until her jaw muscles stood out, reminding herself that the time had not yet come when she could tell the Yankees just what she thought of them. Some day, yes. My God, yes! But not yet.

“Uncle Peter is one of our family,” she said, her voice shaking. Good afternoon. Drive on, Peter.”

Peter laid the whip on the horse so suddenly that the startled animal jumped forward and as the buggy jounced off, Scarlett heard the Maine woman say with puzzled accents: “Her family? You don’t suppose she meant a relative? He’s exceedingly black.”

God damn them! They ought to be wiped off the face of the earth. If ever I get money enough, I’ll spit in all their faces! I’ll–”

She glanced at Peter and saw that a tear was trickling down his nose. Instantly a passion of tenderness, of grief for his humiliation swamped her, made her eyes sting. It was as though someone had been senselessly brutal to a child. Those women bad hurt Uncle Peter–Peter who had been through the Mexican War with old Colonel Hamilton, Peter who had held his master in his arms when he died, who had raised Melly and Charles and looked after the feckless, foolish Pittypat, “pertecked” her when she refugeed, and “‘quired” a horse to bring her back from Macon through a war-torn country after the surrender. And they said they wouldn’t trust n*ggers!

“Peter,” she said, her voice breaking as she put her hand on his thin arm. “I’m ashamed of you for crying. What do you care? They aren’t anything but damned Yankees!”

“Dey talked in front of me lak Ah wuz a mule an’ couldn’ unnerstan’ dem–lak Ah wuz a Affikun an’ din’ know whut dey wuz talkin’ ’bout,” said Peter, giving a tremendous sniff. “An’ dey call me a n*gger an’ Ah’ ain’ never been call a n*gger by no w’ite folks, an’ dey call me a ole pet an’ say dat n*ggers ain’ ter be trus’ed! Me not ter be trus’ed! Why, w’en de ole Cunnel wuz dyin’ he say ter me, ‘You, Peter! You look affer mah chillun. Tek keer of yo’ young Miss Pittypat,’ he say, “cause she ain’ got no mo’ sense dan a hoppergrass.’ An’ Ah done tek keer of her good all dese y’ars–”

“Nobody but the Angel Gabriel could have done better,” said Scarlett soothingly. “We just couldn’t have lived without you.”

“Yas’m, thankee kinely, Ma’m. Ah knows it an’ you knows it, but dem Yankee folks doan know it an’ dey doan want ter know it, Huccome dey come mixin’ in our bizness, Miss Scarlett? Dey doan unnerstan’ us Confedruts.”

Scarlett said nothing for she was still burning with the wrath she had not exploded in the Yankee women’s faces. The two drove home in silence. Peter’s sniffles stopped and his underlip began to protrude gradually until it stuck out alarmingly. His indignation was mounting, now that the initial hurt was subsiding.

Scarlett thought: What damnably queer people Yankees are! Those women seemed to think that because Uncle Peter was black, he had no ears to hear with and no feelings, as tender as their own, to be hurt. They did not know that negroes had to be handled gently, as though they were children, directed, praised, petted, scolded. They didn’t understand negroes or the relations between the negroes and their former masters. Yet they bad fought a war to free them. And having freed them, they didn’t want to have anything to do with them, except to use them to terrorize Southerners. They didn’t like them, didn’t trust them, didn’t understand them, and yet their constant cry was that Southerners didn’t know how to get along with them.

Not trust a darky! Scarlett trusted them far more than most white people, certainly more than she trusted any Yankee. [The Deplorable Word is asterisked here for the sake of computer that filter hate—Margaret Mitchell’s point is that it’s used here by Northerners.]

No doubt, GWTW, novel and film, contain the widespread beliefs that whites held about blacks, but to call them “racist” is condemning 19th-century Americans for not having the sensibilities of people living in our own post-Brown v. Board tyranny. The term is meaningless.

Imagine 20th-century American generals condemning the Greek method of warfare portrayed in the Iliad as not up to snuff with their enlightened ideas.

Stupid. Cosmically, stupid.

Disgrace, the novel by J. M. Coetzee (London: Secker and Warburg, 1999).

This novel is about as spectacular as Camp of the Saints, by Jeanne Raspal of 45 years ago.

It describes the fix we have got ourselves into with our misguided altruism, as well, as mad moralism directly descended from the Old Testament and Talmud and thru the Protestant churches and on to our current liberalism without God, but full of Ahabism per Melville’s Moby Dick.  Nature to be subdued, evolution to be vanquished by Liberal Fiat:  We are all Equal.  Nature does not care for liberal magic. It just goes on and on, like Moby Dick pushing aside Liberals and occasionally killing them as well. Nothing personal.

I suspect that it was not lost on energetic minds in the time of Darwin, that whales being mammals, must have returned to the sea at some very long time distant from our own time, thus providing such obvious judgment on biblical creation of six thousand years ago.  Evolution as Leviathan of the Deep and Remote Past… disinterested in us of course, with neither malice nor favoritism, and just swimming along through the millennia seeding more and more species, more and more genuine diversity, more and more complexity, with Equality of anything a complete joke on Man, especially White folks who obsess about their moral fitness, and waving magic wands over non-Whites (Change! …ping!) thus failing to observe Nature correctly… a realm of total Inequality in all the ranks of animals, and plants, and every bug or dung-beetle rolling its dinner homeward.

I wrote the following review about 3 years ago… and I keep thinking about the novel… Coetzee got a Nobel Prize.  He is an Africaner, from South Africa and has been well situated to view what has been happening in South Africa, as well as the world, his vantage peering out over Blackness at home and thus seeing it and its kin on the other shore.

P.S.  Subsequent to the writing of this review, I discovered that the ‘Education of the eye’ is a reference to Ruskin and his esthetic theory: “to see clearly is poetry, prophecy and religion all in one” which Lurie ironically observes is lost on him with his remark that he has never had much of an eye for anything except pretty girls.  So much for Jewish esthetics.

________________

The novel, Disgrace, by J.M. Coetzee, Secker and Warburg, 1999.

Read a few years ago, Disgrace has been popping up in my head for a while. It is hailed as a great contemporary novel set in post-Apartheid South Africa.  Rather than go through the whole plot, the reader should consult the Internet, for a lot of material on J.M. Coetzee, including criticism.  The lit-crit bunch has missed a whole lot.  They — and the reviewers — have missed something central to the novel:  the main character is Jewish.

David Lurie is a lecherous lit professor who is obsessed with sex, and exploits the romantic poets to rationalize, if that be the right word, his philandering.  Coetzee cleverly invites the reader’s sympathy for David Lurie by having him besieged by the League of the Righteous & Politically Correct at his university.  Yes, they are Femi-commies and repulsive, but Professor David Lurie, standing up for Principle, that being privacy and against cant/hypocrisy, is not only contemptuous of the academic PC crowd of multi-cultis,  but of his friends as well;  this goes way past reason.  After all, he has more or less violated a 19-year-old student which he readily admits.  Not rape, but barely consenting sex, a cold affair, without the girl-woman’s  passion or enthusiasm.  She has been pushed into it, without mutuality.

It is possible that some alert and certifiably non-zombie-sleep walker of a critic has seen that David Lurie is Jewish.   I have not read all the commentary, but have read some of it.  However, assuming that most, if not all , of the reviewers and critics are aware of Jews, especially in the literary world, and are attuned to  allusion,  as in Lurie’s daughter’s name, Lucy  (the reference is to Wm. Wordsworth’s Lucy poems — Professor David Lurie is a Wordsworth specialist.  Wordworth’s  Lucy is variously innocent of sex,  a goddess of Good, a lost love,  dead,  a romantic vision). I am struck by the blinders that these critics have imposed on their psyches.  See No Evil, Speak No…etc.  David Lurie, the Jew, becomes invisible.

Lurianic Kabbala is one tendency in Cabbala.  Isaac Luria (1534-1572) was the leader.  He claimed to be able to read his students’ souls and commune with the dead.  There is much comedy in this stuff if you are a rational kind of person, but we are concerned here with Jews. One of the other themes in Lurianic Kabbala, is this:  God is not fully formed; he is in a state of Becoming, not Being.  This theme has also been around in Judaism generally.  Thus rabbis instruct God.  Other  historic Cabbalistic tendencies associated with Sabbatianism  go deeply into transgression and very strange sex, indeed a sexual obsession that shows up in prayer,  “theology,” behavior, modern Jewish novels, Freud and psychoanalysis.

So, far be it from me to presume to suggest that J.M. Coetzee, is not conscious of what he is doing, writing about a Jew and his daughter, the mother being Dutch, some of his characters with Jewish names, Cabbalistic cues, various remarks by other characters that cannot be evaded by the clear-of-eye.

Professor Lurie is “disgraced” but only feels ostracism.  He feels that he is in the Right.  He has a right to honor Eros.  He goes to live with his daughter in the countryside around the Cape.  His daughter, Lucy, is a kind of hippie, back-to-the-land, once-member of a commune-now-disbanded, lesbian, and small farmer who also boards dogs and thereby scrapes out a living.  She is surrounded by Blacks and occasional Afrikaner farmers who live and travel with guns and dogs.  (Thousands of White farmers have been murdered by Blacks since 1994 in S. Africa.)

David Lurie, the ex-professor, is not disgraced so much as he is confounded by his life of  sexual experience and, per David Lurie, not much else.  That is what he broods over, although his love for Lucy (the Innocent), his daughter, is great. The girl-woman that he has wronged, her surname is Isaacs, another Jewish name, and the first name of the Cabbala writer above.  Her parents have apparently converted to Christianity, or the family had converted at an earlier time.  I suspect this is lost on the critics as well.  Mr. Isaacs, the girl-woman’s father, treats David Lurie very well, considering Lurie’s  transgression . This is part of David Lurie’s attempt at honesty when he goes to visit and sort of apologizes.

Lucy and her father are home-invaded by Blacks, who set-fire to David Lurie, rape Lucy, ransack the house, and shoot all of her dogs — purebreds, interestingly.  Luckily for David Lurie, he is doused with mentholated spirits which burn slowly, not gasoline, and he manages to get water from the toilet… to put out the flames. (One could connect the Fire of Eros and, with a stretch, the toilet as a related animal function.)  He comes out of it more or less okay,  but for a piece of his ear gone,  another literary device which comments on his, if not tin-ear, then less than competent ear  for the opera he is  attempting/obsessed with, an opera based on the poet Lord Byron’s Erotic futility.  Lucy is okay but pregnant with apparently the doubled bad luck to have been impregnated by the sperm from one of the three donors who is not only Black but mentally deranged .

David Lurie’s present life runs parallel to Lord Byron’s in Italy, down to the last detail of Byron’s Teresa getting squat and middle-aged while David Lurie beds an equally squat and middle-aged friend of Lucy.  This woman becomes someone  David Lurie  odd-couples with at the end.

Lucy meanwhile totally surrenders to her fate, she refuses to leave the farm, to get an abortion, to go home to Holland where her mother is (Mother Europe) which Lurie of course begs her to do.  She will marry the next-door African neighbor for protection from the surrounding Blacks.  She will have the baby of the Black mentally defective-rapist, she will keep part of her farm, while conceding most of it to her Black neighbor who already has two wives, like South African Whites who have ceded their country.

Her rapists are known to her Black neighbor, are even part of his kin.  She sees that her neighbor has set up the rape to force her to come to terms.  The Blacks now run the show.  Why does she submit to this Disgrace?  She replies to her father’s demands for Justice, that she will not go to the police, what happened to her is a “private matter,  [that] in this place, at this time, it is … my business.”   “What place?”, her father demands.  Lucy: “This place being South Africa.” (p. 112).  David Lurie asks her if she is expiating for the crimes of the past and she says that those words are just “abstractions”.

Lucy’s father pleads with her:  she is “defeated” (p. 151),  she sees the Blacks as debt-collectors, and why should she not pay?(p. 158);  she wonders why she experienced such personal hatred from the rapists, Lurie says it is just “history”,  a history of “wrong.”   (Does this “wrong” belong too to J.M. Coetzee?)  Lucy fights with her father, will not listen to him, claims a personal subjectivity that gives her the right to defend the rapists for their payback.

Finally she says, that the rapists, the rape, the mulatto in her womb, are “facts of life”.  “I am prepared to do anything, make any sacrifice, for the sake of peace” (p. 208).

Well, there we have it, the woman in her White Guilt, her love of any child, even the defective in her womb, defective on top of a black African IQ average of 68.  This is a Total Surrender to mere Life.    This is the surrender of the White race, our genetic White Goodness leading to race suicide.  It is our Racial Disgrace.

There are several bits in the novel that whisper “Jew”.  For example, friendship and care are extended to Lurie following his near lynching … by a friend of Lucy’s.   He does not trust it … “Though they are his countrymen, he could not feel more alien among them, more of an imposter” (p. 191).  He reacts to an innocent gesture of  the Black neighbor which in Europe is a gesture for money/Jew (p. 130), a bit like Phillip Roth’s characters sojourning amongst the goyim. The girl-woman’s boyfriend tells Lurie to “stay with your own kind” (p. 194)… all missed by the critics.

So if Lucy, a probable Christian or Christian subvert surrenders to the Blacks and is thereby disgraced, what about Professor Lurie and his “lurid” artistic interests?  He returns to help Bev Shaw, Lucy’s friend, in her dog rescue/euthanasia mission.  He takes a truckload of dead dogs once a week to the local incinerator and officiates with a death ritual.  There are Cabbalistic references here:  “Perhaps he (a dog about to be euthanized) has already been through it.  Born with foreknowledge….” (p. 83).   He also communes with the dead dogs, a Cabbalistic theme. He appears to be less than unrepentant, but chastened in some way.  He develops compassion for dying dogs, but  not for people.  Of course, he is thinking about his own death in the near distance.  He remarked (p. 69) William Blake’s “Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires.”

Blake’s ’unacted desires’ was a transgressive erotic urge of revolt for Cabbalists of the Sabbatian type, and  was passed on directly to (the Romantics?) the Freudians, Frankfurt School  sex-pol agitators, and our own sexual revolution of the 1960s, intellectually provoked by all of the above.

Lurie reflects that while he is a Wordsworth scholar (Wordsworth the premier nature poet),  “he has never had much of an eye for anything, except pretty girls; and where has that got him?  Is it too late to educate the eye?” (p. 218).

“Educate the eye”?  The soul or the genome is what needs education.  But the genome is not going to be educated, it is fixed, like Death, which is what he is now thinking about.  Despair of sorts, his beloved daughter gone to seed,  gone with the God of Rape… of “…chaos and mixture, violator of seclusions” (p. 105).  He looks to Lord Byron’s Teresa.  “Teresa may be the last one who can save him.” (p.209)  Hers is a resignation.  She is past honor, she sings and scorns the snickering of her servants and “sings her immortal longings. She will not be dead.”  And, she, like Professor Lurie, has nothing but her Eros.

Professor David Lurie has experienced the link between Eros and Death but does not understand it.  He has enjoyed his transgressions; he mocks the gentiles around him who have tried to help him.  J.M. Coetzee is surely conscious of the Jewish character that he has created.

Lucy, the Innocent, with idiot Black child.  White Civilization is going under to the Blacks.  The Liberals, like perhaps Coetzee, seeing it in some degree but lacking courage to see completely what is right in front of them, like the critics who cannot see that Professor David Lurie is a Jew.

Jewish Invisibility:  Liberals and almost all putative conservatives get up in the morning, dress, put on their blinders, dig into their feed-bags of the New York Times, slip into harness, obey the psychic crack of the whip, and the Israel Cult resumes its thrall.

David Lurie tells Lucy that the Blacks  “want you for their slave.”  Lucy returns:  “not slavery.  Subjugation.  Subjugation.” (p. 159).  Lucy knows she is submitting.  She is clear enough.  Lucy feels that she is doing penance for White “wrongs” to the Blacks.

Lucy intends White Racial Eclipse, surrendering to mere animality, while David likewise, mates with his Teresa, and studies his fate, to usher dogs ritualistically to their deaths, in between his copulations.   He cares about Lucy, but otherwise, Eros is All.

Here you have a Dr. David Pook, one of the contributors to the Common Core education program, admitting that the he contributed to the program for the purpose of trying to bring down the White race to the level of the non-White occupiers.

He cites the quack theory of “White Privilege” as the main reason he decided to work on this Marxist program of indoctrination – he says he wanted non-Whites to have the “same opportunities” as the “privileged” Whites.

When considering the meaning of this, it is not hard to deduce that he is not talking about raising the non-Whites to the level of Whites – that is scienitifically impossible – but instead bringing Whites down to the level of the non-Whites.

This dumbing down of the White population through this terroristic federal program of retard-level brainwashing is taking place on all levels of the curriculum.  The most obvious place to see this is in the way they have restructured the math program.

Here is how they are now teaching kids to do subtraction:

Seriously, that is actually what they are teaching.  It is so weird that no one could ever understand it, thus Whites and Asians are as confused as the blacks and Mexicans.

Here is a man explaining the way they have destroyed the literature program, to ensure that our children are devoid of the ancestral framework of our divine soul.

The great Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein is replaced with stories of alligators in the sewer, people getting kidnapped for their kidneys and aliens at Rockwell.  In 12th grade.  Seriously, this isn’t a joke.

They then use the story of Frankenstein to call for multiculturalism.

At the same age 100 years ago, our children could read Ancient Greek and Latin, fluently.

We are through the looking glass here, people.

Stand up or lay down and die.  There is no third option.