School strike week 251. Today, I graduate from school, which means I’ll no longer be able to school strike for the climate. This is then the last school strike for me, so I guess I have to write something on this day.
Thread🧵 pic.twitter.com/KX8hHFDyNG

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) June 9, 2023

Some more people joined, and quite suddenly this was a global movement growing every day. During 2019, millions of youth striked from school for the climate, flooding the streets in over 180 countries. When the pandemic started, we had to find new ways to protest.

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) June 9, 2023

marginalised and affected people and the planet in the name of greed, profit and economic growth. They continue to destabilise the biosphere and our life supporting systems. We’re rapidly approaching potential nonlinear ecological and climatic tipping points beyond our control.

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) June 9, 2023

We who can speak up have a duty to do so. In order to change everything, we need everyone. I’ll continue to protest on Fridays, even though it’s not technically “school striking”. We simply have no other option than to do everything we possibly can. The fight has only just begun.

— Greta Thunberg (@GretaThunberg) June 9, 2023

It’s time to tighten up your brain, bigot.

This bitch is getting hot as a MF because you don’t eat bugs.

The reason you don’t care, and don’t think this is real, is not because it doesn’t make sense or because there is no evidence – it’s because you’re mentally ill.

You need to listen to that retarded mentally ill girl that screams at people and has no breasts, and believe and think and behave exactly as she does.

Time to fly straight.

The Guardian:

As Kim Saira scrolled through TikToks showing a curtain of yellow smoke descending over New York, she felt a panic attack coming on. Though she lives an entire coast away from the crisis, Saira began to fear for her parents, who are essential workers in Queens.

“I had to completely turn off my phone, because I was getting so anxious,” said Saira, a Los Angeles-based healing coach. “My chest hurt, I felt like I couldn’t sit still, and I started pacing around. I couldn’t do any work.”

Any fears New Yorkers may have felt about the unfurling climate crisis kicked into overdrive this week, after smoke caused by Canada’s devastating wildfires broke US records for bad air quality. The urban dystopia stoked an existential stress that therapists call “eco-anxiety”.

The Climate Psychology Alliance of North America, a group of therapists, researchers, and artists, keeps a directory of practitioners who specialize in the burgeoning field. College campuses offer guidance counselors for students experiencing stress over climate change, and institutions offer certification programs in climate psychology.

The Sati Center for Buddhist Studies in Redwood City, California, runs an 18-month training program for “eco-chaplains”, who “work to support people in developing healthy, compassionate, and mutually supportive relationships with each other and the natural world”. One of its graduates, the film-maker Lindsay Branham, now works as an “eco-doula” in Los Angeles, shepherding clients through their fears of extinction events.

Devastating wildfires in California and Oregon have led west coasters to seek out climate therapists. Thomas J Doherty, a Portland-based psychologist, co-hosts a popular podcast called Climate Change and Happiness, which disperses advice for coping with stress and finding hope in a bleak future. But the field has been slower to catch on in the east coast, where the effects of the climate crisis could be subtler – until this week.

“Most of the anxiety New Yorkers feel is not related to climate; it’s related to the fast-paced lifestyle,” said Sarah Jornsay-Silverberg, executive director of the Good Grief Network, a support group for people experiencing eco-stress. “But we’ve noticed that the appetite for climate mental health services in New York is really ramping up, and we’re seeing more of a demand for it. The fires have triggered a sense of fear, rage, and despair, which is a completely healthy response to what we’re witnessing on Earth.”

The climate crisis is a main talking point in Saira’s weekly therapy sessions. “I have learned through therapy that I have a responsibility to do my part, but the blame isn’t on me – it’s on the institutions that perpetuate it,” she said.

Wendy Greenspun, a Manhattan-based clinical psychologist and Climate Psychology Alliance board member, said: “I don’t think I’ve had a single client since the smoke started who did not address it.” She added: “There appears to be a collective realization that this is the beginning of our new normal on the east coast.”

Look, it doesn’t matter if it’s real or not.

What matters is that we have to do this for the planet.

Everyone will die, even if it’s not real, because it is real in my mind.

And the mind… the mind is all that we truly know exists.

Global warming and eating bugs is spooky and esoteric, you see.

It’s all about the mind.

‘Climate change is harming my mental health’

Former climate scientist among growing number of people overwhelmed by “eco-anxiety”https://t.co/pBZMYIjN8p

— BBC Scotland News (@BBCScotlandNews) June 7, 2023

This story is actually fascinating because it contains so many words but they do not appear to contain any meaning.

It reads a lot like algorithm-generated text, but less creative.

VICE News:

When I was about 17, I decided to go vegan (I was trying a lot of things at the time, including getting my nose pierced, which I considered a serious act of rebellion). Anyway, I mentioned my new veganism to the guy I was seeing at the time, and to my surprise, he seemed really annoyed. He responded with an uninterruptible lecture on the importance of supporting British farmers. I can still remember one of his appalled, patronising texts: “_Oh god, you’re not gonna become one of those vegan feminists, are you??_”

I was confused. He hadn’t come across like someone who hated “vegan feminists” – so where had this come from?

I ended things a little while later, which prompted a barrage of texts from him with a lot of derogatory language. It confirmed what I’d begun to suspect: as much as he’d reeled me in with an outwardly “woke” persona, in reality, we were never going to see eye to eye. I had been wokefished.

“Wokefishing”, put simply, is when people masquerade as holding progressive political views to ensnare potential partners. A wokefish may at first present themselves as a protest-attending, sex-positive, anti-racist, intersectional feminist who drinks ethically sourced oat milk and has read the back catalogue of Audre Lorde, twice. But in reality, they don’t give a shit. Or, as is often the case, they are actively the opposite in their personal lives. It’s sort of like catfishing, but specifically with political beliefs.

…

Zara, 23, was wokefished too. After being in a relationship with her ex for a year, she realised that some his views seemed really off, in a way they hadn’t to begin with. “[Initially], he seemed very philosophical, artistic and well-read. He was passionate about the environment and staunchly opposed the likes of Jordan Peterson,” Zara recalls.

“However, he would want to debate every argument and play devil’s advocate the whole time. He didn’t accept that some things are fundamental to people’s identity and not up for questioning,” Zara explains, pinpointing the moments when his true colours began to show. “Once he tried arguing with my queer best friend that straight people were as oppressed as gay people. I found the incessant need to debate exhausting and often upsetting, and he never acknowledged his own privilege.”

Zara eventually ended things after realising that she “didn’t realistically have enough in common with him”.

Layla, a qualified sex and relationships educator who runs the Instagram account Lalalaletmeexplain, believes relationships between truly like-minded people are much more likely to be successful in the long run. In essence: there’s little point trying to compromise with a wokefish. “For people who understand that political beliefs affect human rights, it is unlikely a healthy relationship could be sustained with someone whose values don’t align with ours,” she explains. “A lot of recent political movements are based on moral values. These are things that you cannot ‘agree to disagree’ on, because they have a direct impact on the welfare of other human beings.”

Layla says that deception like this can be hugely damaging for those on the receiving end. “Realising that you have been deceived by a romantic partner can have devastating and long lasting effects,” she says. “The person who was deceived may be led to question their whole reality and feel uncertain about their ability to judge people correctly.”

Any relationship is essentially an ongoing process of learning more and more about your partner, until you know everything: from how milky they like their tea, to the specific taste of their saliva and their deep fear of cats. It’s normal to amplify or tone down certain facets of your personality in the earlier stages of a relationship (why tell someone on a first date about your secret, obsessive love of Simply Red?) But pretending to believe in certain values when you really don’t is straight up weirdo behaviour.

But also, if you’re a wokefish, it might genuinely be worth considering: why do I hold views that I’m too ashamed to publicly express?

The author is complaining that men won’t parrot them on principle forever, as part of an extreme matriarchal submission ritual demanded by the woke cult.

You see, woke or anti-woke statements are social tribe signals. Average people have no ability or real interest in doing anything about intersectional feminist anti-racism or any of that. Similarly, internet neo-Nazis aren’t planning any revolution.

Fact: 99.9% people do not act on ideological opinions. They just talk.

In real life, people repeat these talking points for the same reasons that black gangs wear different gang colors. In this case, men do this to get access to the most interesting parts of women, which are definitely not their opinions.

Once the female becomes less sexually interesting, there is less incentive for the man to continue the ugly ritual, so he tests if the woman will stop being domineering now that she has lost value.

If psychologists are effective then why is everywhere plagued with degenerates?

Trick question.

Psychologists produce them.

NBC News:

For the first time in its 127-year history, the American Psychological Association has issued guidelines to help psychologists specifically address the issues of men and boys — and the 36-page document features a warning.

“Traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict and negatively influence mental health and physical health,” the report warns.

36 pages in 127 years. Pretty efficient.

Translation of their warning: “The uncorrupted manifestations of masculine energy provides boundaries that keep men from degeneracy and that obviously limits them because borders are racist and boundaries are oppressive.”

The new “Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” defines “masculinity ideology” as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.” The report also links this ideology to homophobia, bullying and sexual harassment.

Anti-femininity… in males, not in women. These psychologist hand rubbers are saying achievement, adventure, taking risks, and not being a passive faggot, somehow are bad for men, while also saying that weakness should not be shunned. It totally should. Not shunning weakness is dysgenic. Everyone should always be getting stronger, in as many ways as they can think of, or working towards that goal.

Violence is not intrinsically bad. Think of violence as a gun. It’s a tool. Sometimes you have to use that tool, and when that time comes, you better know how. Your life and your people’s lives may depend on it.

The new guidelines, highlighted in this month’s issue of Monitor on Psychology, which is published by the APA, linked this ideology to a series of stark statistics: Men commit approximately 90 percent of all homicides in the U.S., they are far more likely than women to be arrested and charged with intimate partner violence in the U.S., and they are four times more likely than women to die of suicide worldwide.

Men commit the most crime for the same reason men commit the most anything. Men do. That’s what we do.

Masculine energy has to be channeled and exercised to prevent the atrophy that may eventually corrupt it. The things most people associate with men and complain about are corrupted manifestations of their original form, of the original male drive. They’re perversions that exist for the same reasons decay does.

Modernity encourages people to stillness, and inaction is antithetical to creation. The result of men asphyxiating the creative flame they carry inside is a whole lot of rottenness.

You have to search for and feel the warmth of your inner flame. It will keep you away from the fallen.

You still have it inside of you.

Use it.

Increase it.

Make it burn.

Jared Skillings, a psychologist and the APA’s chief of professional practice, told NBC News these new guidelines are intended to educate mental health professionals about the unique issues facing this patient population. The APA published a similar report about girls and women in 2007 and is expected to publish an updated version this year.

“Masculinity ideology,” Skillings said, was important to highlight because it “represents a set of characteristics that are unhealthy for men — men who are sexist or violent or don’t take care of themselves.”

See what he did there? Notice the gradient.

From “less likely to agree it’s bad” to “most likely to agree it’s bad.” It’s an old trick. People say “something bad, some other bad thing, or worse,” they don’t say “something bad, something meh, or less worse”

By putting something most people can agree it’s bad at the end (not taking care of oneself) they instantly portray the previous enumerated items as bad things too. Sexism is obviously good and violence is just a tool, but now they’re framed as things that are very bad for you.

They do this speech-programming shit all the time.

The report addresses the “power” and “privilege” that males have when compared to their female counterparts, but it notes that this privilege can be a psychological double-edged sword.

“Men who benefit from their social power are also confined by system-level policies and practices as well as individual-level psychological resources necessary to maintain male privilege,” the guidelines state. “Thus, male privilege often comes with a cost in the form of adherence to sexist ideologies designed to maintain male power that also restrict men’s ability to function adaptively.”

“Male privilege gives men power but makes them less able to adapt to being globohomos.”

The guidelines for psychologists outlined in the report include encouraging them to “recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms“; “understand the impact of power, privilege, and sexism on the development of boys and men and on their relationships with others”; and “reduce the high rates of problems boys and men face and act out in their lives such as aggression, violence, substance abuse, and suicide.”

Believing that races don’t exist or that they do but only affect skin color while being incapable of questioning that belief is one of the pillars of the “social construct” meme. Social constructs are genetic constructs. Society is a consequence of genes.

Gene expression is not merely cosmetic.

If masculinity is so bad and limits men so much, how come we’ve built this great beautiful civilization with all its wonders?

How come we’ve created the most powerful countries?

Have any of these clean-room fetishists ever helped anyone?

I’m not talking about helping people accept their slave status with a cookie-cutter “life is suffering!” speech.

I’m talking about really helping people. Helping them break free of the chains that have been programmed onto them. Breaking free of purposelessness and anomie. Strengthening them. Turning them into warriors and conquerors, not “life is suffering!” masochists.

Has any psychologist ever done that? Because that’s what Mr. Anglin is doing.

Stop giving money to psychologists.

Wouldn’t you rather have a chat with Mr. Anglin?

This Mikhaila Peterson slut charges hundreds of dollars for “consultations” where she tells people “lol I eat steak tehee” and receives Patreon bucks while Mr. Anglin — who actually does something good for the world — has to constantly remind readers he doesn’t have a magic money-shitting anus so the whole thing doesn’t fall apart.

I ask you, then, would  you like Mr. Anglin to offer consultations?

He’d charge way more than the Peterson slut, that’s for sure, because he’d be using his consultations-time one-on-one instead of writing for his entire audience and he’s incomparably more valuable than her, but it would offer people the chance to receive more calibrated advise for their individual cases. I mean, even if you don’t really need help with anything, wouldn’t you pay for having the opportunity to discuss interesting topics with someone who’s on the level?

Independently of that… you should commit to a yearly minimum donation of a hundred bucks. More, ideally.

This war is not going to fight itself.

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

An article recently published in the Jewish Daily Forward reviews a new book that debunks the commonly held myth that Lewis Carroll, author of the classic Alice in Wonderland, was a secret pedophile.

It also reveals that Lewis Carroll was a righteous Jew-hater (by spending the whole article whining about that fact).

Alice in Anti-Semitic Land:

A student of Bertrand Russell, Copi notes that readers of Carroll’s logical examples “may be put off by… the varied remarks about Jews: that they are sarcastic, either hunchbacked or misers, obsequious unless very young, squinting, dishonest, look like goats, have beards a yard long and hooked noses.”

To establish a logical premise, Carroll repeatedly offers a phrase such as “All Juwes [sic] are greedy.” In “Symbolic Logic” he proffers the following examples, among many: “No Gentiles have hooked noses”; “No Jew is ever a bad hand at a bargain”; “There are no Jews in the house”; “No Gentiles have beards a yard long”; and “No Jews are honest.”

It also reveals (surprise, surprise) that the rumor that Carroll was a pedophile was started by a Jewish psychoanalyst:

Yet some joy was expressed by an English Jewish writer, Anthony M. E. Goldschmidt, in a 1933 satirical article, “Alice in Wonderland Psycho-Analysed” which Wakeling charges with playing a role in subsequent typing of Carroll as a pedophile. Goldschmidt was a childhood friend of the playwright Terence Rattigan, with whom he co-authored the 1938 anti-Nazi farce “Follow My Leader.”

I’m not so sure if Goldschmidt’s article was meant to be “satirical” as the Forward claims though. It was certainly taken seriously by many authors who came after him, many of whom were Jews, of course. The book that is said to be the “definitive, scholarly work” on Carroll, Lewis Carroll: A Biography, was written by a Jew named Morton N. Cohen, and is most responsible for spreading the filthy pedophile rumor through its popularity.

Psychoanalysis is a ridiculous Jewish pseudo-science of mind-boggling proportions. Here is an excerpt of an article which explains Goldschmidt’s deranged reasoning behind his diagnosing Carroll as a sex pervert:

His theory was that the opening section of Wonderland was a kind of cryptic message from Lewis Carroll’s subconscious. The incidents were signs and symbols that could be decoded in the face of modern psychoanalytical understanding, to reveal the inner workings of the author’s mind.

The fall down the rabbit hole was a symbol of sexual penetration, the doors surrounding the hallway represented female genitalia. In selecting the little door in preference to the big, Alice (or rather Dodgson in the guise of Alice), was choosing to copulate with a female child instead of an adult woman. Ergo, said Goldschmidt, he was a paedophile.

Jews are collectively criminally insane and should be either locked up in institutions or shipped back to the desert from whence they came. Then maybe they can have fun fighting to the death with their equally ridiculous Semitic cousins and leave us and the memories of our great ancestors the hell alone.