#MeToo’s Next Step: “The Gray Areas”

In Jezebel, there’s an article/column (there’s little distinction between the two on that site) that is a goldmine of absurdity, albeit a natural trajectory, for the #MeToo Harpies (“The Next Step for #MeToo Is Into the Gray Areas”).

Written by the unhinged Julianne Escobedo Shepherd, Jezebel’s Editor in Chief, the piece begins with boilerplate stuff about the inherent sexism of due process, wherein “alleged abusers are, in all contexts, held by default to be innocent until proven guilty and so, logically, all victims are liars until proven otherwise.” But where this article gets really mind-blowing is in its forecasting of where the Screeching Harpie Movement needs to go next:

Yet #MeToo’s next direction is toward a deeper look at some of the most common and harder-to-define experiences. It’s looking toward a more equitable world in which women and other marginalized genders can live less fearfully, by digging deeper into the gray areas and educating all of us about the harm they perpetuate…

Shepard wants the woke feminist movement to begin “moving the lines so that all sexual maltreatment is considered socially unacceptable, whether or not it’s punishable by the legal system.”

The White Pill in this article is the salacious details of #MeToo pagan witches eating their own male allies, due to ever-unrealistic standards of male behavior and the eradication of anything resembling female agency and responsibility, as well as formal due process. The piece focuses on Jack Smith IV, a radical SJW (who has long targeted Alt Right figures) who has been fired from his SJW publication job at Mic because of it. As far as his pedigree, Smith has all the right SJW bona fides:

Jack Smith IV: #MeToo Ally & #MeToo Fodder

Jack Smith IV has made a name for himself over the last year and a half as a senior writer and correspondent covering the extremist right for Mic, a website known for its progressive takes on social justice. His 2017 arrest while covering the Standing Rock protests was a key moment that raised his profile, and he has capitalized on it, writing about incels, MRAs, and neo-Nazis; helming videos about racism and xenophobia; tweeting to his nearly 45,000 followers about the next white supremacist rally in Charlottesville and Milo Yiannopolous; and publicly speaking about, and positioning himself as an authority on, issues of misogyny.

Smith is the model of a type of journalist who has flourished in the age of #resistance: Defiantly left, he is fluent in the discourse of privilege, and has supplemented his writing and video hosting slots with his ability to exploit social media to garner as much attention for himself as the causes he supports. He is ensconced in media circles, and well-known across a certain cross-section of progressive journalism. (A recent former roommate is a staffer at Gizmodo, Jezebel’s sister site.) His reporting offers his audience less new information or a unique perspective but rather a straight white man who has allied himself with the marginalized. His visibility has landed him plum hosting gigs, including this segment on WNYC in which he discusses “virulent misogyny,” and incels and their relation to the #MeToo movement. He has been the host of For the Record, a Mic show in which he speaks authoritatively about “racism, sexism, and bigotry of all sorts.” On August 7, Smith appeared on a PBS show called The Open Mind with Alexander Heffner, in which the host described him as “one of the leading chroniclers of the modern age fascist and anti-fascist movements”

So, with all his Woke posturing and virtue-signaling, what’s the problem?

Multiple women, though, say that Smith’s public persona doesn’t square with his behavior toward them. In a series of individual conversations with Jezebel, they have painted a picture of someone whose behavior is in sharp contrast to what would be expected of a fierce public advocate for progressive politics.

Did he rape anyone? Nope?

His sin was alleged “emotional abuse, manipulation, and gaslighting.” Jezebel reports that “three of these women say independently of one another that these tactics led to coercive sex.”

Now, when one reflects on the term “coercive sex”, one typically envisions some form of physical restraint involved or the unmistakable threat of violence if the woman is unaccomodating. Not so with #MeToo’s ever-widening definition, which will soon make all the norms of courtship and dating various forms of abuse. The Jezebel piece cites this surreal governmental definition, from a Clinton-era created department, to support their jihad:

The United States Government Office on Women’s Health defines sexual coercion as “unwanted sexual activity that happens when you are pressured, tricked, threatened, or forced in a nonphysical way. Coercion can make you think you owe sex to someone. It might be from someone who has power over you, like a teacher, landlord, or a boss. No person is ever required to have sex with someone else.”

As comedian Aziz Ansari discovered earlier this year, awkward sex after a date can now qualify as ‘abuse’ and/or ‘sexual assault’. In the case of Smith, the ‘victims’ here all appear to be female SJW colleagues he had consensual sex with:

Of the five women Jezebel spoke with on the record about Smith, all but one are journalists and writers; Jezebel is granting three of them pseudonymity because they fear both professional and personal consequences. Two of the women say they were drawn to Smith’s leftist persona and clout on social media. Erica Kay—who has chosen to use her real name and was the first known public accuser of Smith, via an August 2017 Twitter thread—tells Jezebel that during a sexual relationship with Smith from 2014 to 2017, which began when they met in college and continued well after they graduated, their encounters included instances of forceful sex she now describes as “coercive.” “Jenny” describes being pressured into sex with Smith while they were high on weed; “Nina” says Smith coerced her into sex after an hours-long barrage of emotional abuse and manipulation; and Becca Schuh (who has chosen to use her real name) describes emotionally manipulative interactions with Smith that she says created a climate of anxiety and fear.

In the Tinder age, the elimination of alleged gaslighting is part of #MeToo’s brave new world:

Nina is blonde, thin, and stands a little over 5’3”. She told Jezebel that she first matched with Smith on Tinder. She said that their first two dates seemed normal, if intense. “Both times, we did have a connection,” she said, and on their second date, on May 19, they had consensual sex. For a few days after, they didn’t see each other because of conflicting schedules; after Smith was unresponsive to several text messages, Nina said she attempted to end their brief relationship, saying it was clear it was going nowhere. Smith texted later, writing, “I’m surprised you couldn’t sense my interest in you; you’re very sensitive to praise (not a criticism).” Nina responded, “ahh, i’m sorry, maybe a lot of this was in my head!! we texted a lot over the weekend and then the quick fall-off/non-replies to the two times i asked you if you were still into it got me thrown off.” She would later characterize this as Smith’s first attempt to gaslight her, by ignoring her and then making her feel that she had interpreted his lack of response incorrectly.

As is a man yelling at a woman:

“I told him his body language was intimidating me,” she says, “and not to yell at me, to which he said, ‘This isn’t yelling.’”

Not only is ‘Yes’ the new ‘No’, but asking for rough sex is a new ‘No’:

Nina was still upset, she says, and didn’t want to have sex, but didn’t say no because she felt she “had something to make up for.” She panicked, she says, and told him to get a condom from a drawer. She says she froze up and “was so disgusted I just wanted to rip my skin off,” but told him to be rougher “because I just wanted to build distance from myself [during] it.” She now describes what happened as “coercive sex.”

Heartiste would have a field day deconstructing these female SJW victimization accounts, as well as their penchant for bad boys and rough sex:

Kay, who has also spoken about Smith on two separate episodes of her relationship podcastThe Ex Files, tells Jezebel that she dated Smith in 2014, when they were both students at Montclair State University. She says they broke up that same year but continued having a sexual relationship for roughly three years afterwards. She says that their interactions consisted primarily of forceful sex, which she now identifies as “coercive,” and that he employed tactics of control and manipulation, including an unwillingness to have sex with her unless she wore a specific eye makeup. (“I would be forced to put that makeup on before anything happened between us,” she tells Jezebel.)

Not only was the consensual rough sex a form of ‘abuse’, but Smith’s mild fetish for a specific eye makeup is further ‘abuse’. In another context, Kay adds: “Not every time was coercion, and I obviously wouldn’t have stayed with him if literally every time I didn’t want to have sex with him at all.”

The rules, it appears, can be bent and modified at will… by females.

Of yet another SJW woman Smith (who appears to have real game) bedded:

Smith then “pressured” her into sex in a way that made her uncomfortable, she says, and penetrated her without a condom or asking if it was okay. They had sex twice again, later that night and in the morning, both of which were consensual.

Read that paragraph again.

Of yet another SJW chick he bedded:

“I was into him for a very long time and took me a really long time to contextualize the things I had learned about him. I was at a point where his approval and desire for me was the only [thing] that mattered and I don’t know if that’s necessarily relevant, but I personally think that relates to the manipulative aspects of everything.”

Read that paragraph again.

Has #MeToo entered an Ouroboros cycle, with its mouth now devouring its tail? It would seem the movement is heading in a direction that seeks to eliminate all vestiges of female agency. Women become, practically speaking, inert objects who don’t choose or do, but are chosen and only have things done to them.

Furthermore, in the modern era of sex-as-purely-physical-transaction, #MeToo seems to be painting women as emotional roller coasters, easily ‘coerced’ and ‘psychologically abused’ by manipulative men, with low-threshold bouts of crying and neuroticism ensuing.

None of which are very feminist ways of framing things.

Posted in Cultural Marxism, Culture Wars, Political Correctness | Comments Off on #MeToo’s Next Step: “The Gray Areas”

Accept – Up To The Limit (1985)

Udo’s pipes on the chorus are… wow.

As one YouTube commentator writes: “It’s saturday, it’s 6:25 AM, I have to go to work and put this song [on] and I FEEL F*CKING ALIVE AND FULL OF ENERGY. LONG LIVE ACCEPT.”

All I can say: out of my way!
Before I get to the top
All I can feel is wild running blood
Please stop, you better watch it!
It’s getting up to the limit!
Up to the limit
It’s getting up to the limit!
Up to the limit… 

Posted in Music | Comments Off on Accept – Up To The Limit (1985)

Notes on the Prospect of Immortality

At Counter-Currents, Jef Costello has a nice essay ruminating on the existentialist choices surrounding suicide. I wrote a long comment to the piece, which I’ve reproduced here:

I’m in full agreement about the importance of living with a sense of purpose and meaning that is beyond one’s self. It is the only way to avoid the black hole of nihilism.

As I see it, approaches to the existential condition (the absurdity of mortal sentient existence) can be split between Heroic Pessimism (Nietzsche, Camus, Hemingway, Cormac McCarthy) and Non-Heroic Pessimism (Schopenhauer; anti-natalists like David Benatar & Thomas Ligotti). Both sides have strong arguments.

Too long to go into here, but I find the philosophical position of anti-natalism to be a formidable one. One can’t just dismiss its arguments out of hand. IMO, a major philosophical piece needs to be written which examines & critiques anti-natalist arguments (in the widest, most general sense of philosophical assumputions & logical consistency), and then also counters with a more pointed, WN perspective (vis-à-vis evolutionary sociology), the WN angle really being a phenotype of basic human in-group preferences.

Durkheim talked about the “collective effervescence” that gives our lives meaning. The mission of the Dissident Right is one such form of this, and is likely a primary one for many CC readers (as Jef notes.)


One irony of improved medical science is that we are all living longer and not dying of heart attacks and such, which inadvertently means more of us will live long enough to say hello to Alzheimer’s or other forms of dementia. Now, in all likelihood, Alzheimer’s will be conquered within 50 years time, but short of that, or if it (like the ravages of cancer) cannot be eradicated, then I expect more liberal views of euthanasia to emerge in these end-of-life contexts.

Similarly, if/when gene tech eventually gets to the point where we can choose immortality (or, similarly, elect to have our children born immortal, with non-aging cells and the like), then the specter of suicide will be thrust upon us all. Why? Because the prospect of living forever goes against our entire evolutionary biological structure. Our entire way-of-being, of enframing things, works against the background knowledge that we will someday die, that our time is limited. The arc of life, its ultimate telos, is towards death. In fact, it is the brute fact of imminent death which provides life with its value (life being the concatenation of things + experiences + ideas + time, processed through a subjective value-ordering schema.)

It is the finitude of life, not its infinitude, that provides us with meaning in our day-to-day lives. In ordinary language, this day-to-day sort of ‘meaning’ is predicated on establishing the relative value of things. Both consciously and largely unconsciously, we prioritize things, often within a context of time constraint. I prefer A over C, but B over A. So, we make and operate under implicit lists. I look at the rows of Great Novels on my bookshelf. I see a lesser Chandler novel and the The Brothers Karamazov. From the perspective of “These are the books I need to read before I die”, I prioritize the reading of The Brothers Karamazov as more important than the lesser Chandler novel. If I were immortal, the need for this prioritization would largely be moot.

The elements of Culture that are worth a damn often consist of man attempting to make a mark, create a great work of art, write a great book, compose a great song; to influence people and ‘live on’ after his death (a form of cultural ‘immortality’ one could say.) This is related to our hard-wired biological urge to have kids, to reproduce a version of ourselves and carry our genes into the future.

But for any one individual to be able to live forever… this strikes me as a horror show. In ‘The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality’ (1973), Bernard Williams points out the extreme boredom that would necessarily ensue if one could live forever. Whether it’s living 200 years, or 2000 years, eventually human consciousness (as it exists) would find such a prolonged existence insufferable. (In William Gibson’s Neuromancer, some of the rich elites, the only ones in society with tech-based immortality, eventually off themselves for such reasons.)

Only in some hypothesized transhumanism might consciousness be modified/adapted/tinkered with to be happy and content with the prospect of immortality, but that is doubtful if, like me, you side with the New Mysterian view of consciousness (Colin McGinn, Thomas Nagel, David Chalmers) over the prevailing materialist/functionalist, “brain is meat & consciousness is an epiphenomenon” types like Daniel Dennett. I used to be an uber-optimistic proponent of transhumanism, but I’m not today. Of course, I vacillate every few years between the New Mysterian vs. Materialist views, which really dictates how I perceive these abstract questions.

Today, I feel that, in the end, there is really no way to ‘make rational’ the sheer irrational absurdity that is sentient existence. Now, this doesn’t diminish my energy and commitment towards the WN cause; in fact it may even strengthen it, if only to make it a better world for tomorrow’s white children, whose future is currently under siege. That being said, when pressed on it, I have to concur with Macbeth:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
                   Signifying nothing.

Posted in Existentialism, Philosophy of Mind | Comments Off on Notes on the Prospect of Immortality

The Marvelous Subversion of Mrs. Maisel

The 1950s has long been the Left’s favorite punching bag.

To those of the loud, urban, NYC-pseudo-intellectual milieu, the small towns of Mayberry, and wherever Ozzie and Harriet and ‘the Beave’ lived, are jokes, absurdist romanticizations of an era that never was, a place that never existed. That such relative utopias might have actually existed is never entertained, perhaps a projection of frustration from liberal messianists who’ve never been able to create a utopia themselves, though not for lack of Trying Real Hard.

In our current cultural climate, subtlety is out of style. Woke histrionics and shock value have the highest currency (The Handmaid’s Tale). History is written by the winners, and Hollywood has won. The awards season is less about merit and all about virtue signaling, ratings plummets be damned, and last night’s Emmy’s is a fresh reminder of this. One of last night’s big winners was a show called The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, which took:

  • Comedy Series: “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”
  • Actress, Comedy Series: Rachel Brosnahan, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”
  • Supporting Actress, Comedy Series: Alex Borstein, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”
  • Writing, Comedy Series: Amy Sherman-Palladino, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”
  • Directing Comedy Series: Amy Sherman-Palladino, “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”

The show’s premise, from Wikipedia:

It’s the late 1950s and Miriam “Midge” Maisel has everything she has ever wanted — the perfect husband, two kids and an elegant apartment on New York’s Upper West Side. Her seemingly idyllic life takes a surprising turn when she discovers a hidden talent she didn’t previously know she had — stand-up comedy. This revelation changes her life forever as she begins a journey that takes her from her comfortable life on the Upper West Side through the cafes and nightclubs of Greenwich Village as she makes her way through the city’s comedy industry on a path that could ultimately lead her to a spot on the “Tonight Show” couch. The series was created by Amy Sherman-Palladino (“Gilmore Girls”).

The casting is not very diverse.

Of Sherman-Palladino herself:

Sherman-Palladino was born in Los Angeles. Her parents are comedian Don Sherman… and dancer Maybin Hewes. Sherman was her father’s stage name. Her father, from the Bronx, was Jewish, and her mother was a Southern Baptist from Gulfport, Mississippi. She has stated that she was raised “as Jewish. Sort of.”

At one point in the show’s first season, the protagonist exposes her breasts onstage, and an indecent exposure charge ensues. It’s not only a paean to Lenny Bruce, but features Lenny Bruce as a character. The Hollywood assault against the 1950s is textbook Jewish subversion of Gentile social norms. If there’s one novel twist in this show, it’s that apparently even one’s Jewish parents are the target of rage.

Wikipedia also notes:

The second season is set to feature Midge and Susie going out on the road together with Midge playing clubs along the Borscht Belt in the Catskill Mountains.


I can’t wait.

There should be lots of diversity in that environment.

Posted in Hollywood, Jewish, TV | Comments Off on The Marvelous Subversion of Mrs. Maisel

The Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism

What would the Holocaust™ Industry be without The Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism?

The Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, which is one of the few journals exclusively dedicated to the analysis of antisemitism, focuses on the multiple and changing manifestations of antisemitism in the contemporary world. While our interest is in the post-Holocaust era, submissions may include relevant empirical studies dealing with the 19th or early 20th century. Specifically, our focus is on 21st century forms of antisemitism, including but not limited to, antisemitism in the Islamic world, in Europe, on the left and the right of the political spectra, secular antisemitism, antisemitism in the church, and anti-Zionism.

We invite scholars from all disciplines across the social sciences and humanities to submit: 1) original research articles reporting qualitative or quantitative research; 2) literature reviews; 3) conceptual or theoretical articles; 4) commentaries; 5) book reviews.

Overseen by an international team of editors, this rigorously peer-reviewed journal aims to provide a forum in which scholars from diverse political and intellectual backgrounds can analyze, debate, and formulate effective responses to the ever-evolving and insidious threat of antisemitism.

As one would expect, there ain’t a lot of precious diversity on the editorial staff.

Lesley Klaff (Sheffield-Hallam University, UK; University of Haifa, Israel)

Rusi Jaspal (De Montfort University, UK)

Daniel Allington (King’s College London, UK)
Steven Baum (Independent Scholar, US)
Eve Garrard (University of Manchester, UK)
Neil Kressel (William Paterson University, US)
David Seymour (City, University of London, UK)

Matthias Jakob Becker (University of Potsdam, Germany; AJC Ramer Institute, Germany)

Edward Alexander (University of Washington, US)
Jonathan Arkush (Past President, Board of Deputies of British Jews, UK)
Danny Ben-Moshe (Deakin University, Australia)
Ben Cohen (Senior Correspondent, Algemeiner Journal, US)
Donna Robinson Divine (Smith College, US; University of Haifa, Israel; President, Association for Israel Studies)
Yoav Gelber (Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Israel)
Alfredo Hidalgo Lavié (The National Distance Education University, Spain)
Anthony Julius (University College London, UK; Mishcon de Reya LLP, UK)
Efraim Karsh (Kings College, UK; Bar-Ilan University, Israel)
James Kirchick (Tablet Magazine Columnist, US)
Richard Landes (Bar-Ilan University, Israel)
Denis MacShane (Former MP, Labour, UK)
John Mann (MP, Labour, UK)
Fiamma Nirenstein (Interparliamentary Coalition on Combating Antisemitism, Italy)
Stephen Norwood (The University of Oklahoma, US)
Andrei Oișteanu (University of Bucharest, Romania)
Rafal Pankowski (Collegium Civitas, Poland)
David Patterson (University of Texas at Dallas, US)
Daniel Pipes (President, Middle East Forum, US)
Eunice Pollack (University of North Texas, US)
Asaf Romirowsky (Executive Director, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East; University of Haifa, Israel)
Gerald Steinberg (Bar-Ilan University, Israel)
Shmuel Trigano (University of Paris X-Nanterre, France)
Jonathan Turner (Chief Executive, UK Lawyers for Israel, UK)
Leslie Wagner (Former Chancellor, University of Derby, UK; Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Israel)

Posted in Academia, Jewish | Comments Off on The Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism

Macron vs Salvini

“Salvini’s nationalism and Macron’s globalism are the two competing visions of Europe’s future,” writes Christopher Caldwell in The Spectator (“Macron vs Salvini: the ideological battle for Europe’s future”).

The most interesting paragraph in the piece pertains to an incipient, anti-immigration, Alt-Left materializing — something that is long overdue in Europe and mysteriously absent in the U.S.

Even the European left is showing signs of questioning its commitment to open borders. In Germany, the Marxist Sahra Wagenknecht of the Left party has started Aufstehen, a popular front meant to woo back working-class voters turned off by the globalist dogmas, including free-and-easy immigration. Denmark’s Social Democrats have rallied behind a stern plan to impose on migrants the Danish language and Danish values. Their counterparts in Sweden, who admitted a quarter of a million migrants over two years after 2015, have recanted, tightening asylum policies in the run-up to this weekend’s nationwide elections. The nationalistic and bluntly anti-immigration Sweden Democrats are set to make big gains nonetheless.

RE the Eye of Soros:

Salvini is good with language. He has managed to reframe humanitarianism as criminality. He colourfully describes the non-governmental organisations that transport migrants at sea as being bound up in the same ‘business’ as the mafiosi who guide them on land. A would-be African immigrant no longer needs to hire a boat that can get him to Europe — all he needs is a boat that can get him to the charitable rescue ship, funded by some billionaire, that you can see from the North African coast. ‘They won’t see Italy unless they see it on a postcard,’ he promises.

Salvini has relished confronting the billionaire George Soros, accusing him of using his charities ‘to fill Italy and Europe with migrants’. Attacking the Hungarian-born Soros is a rhetorical gambit that Orbán has long relished…

With respect to next spring’s elections:

Border-defending governments have come to power in Italy, Austria and the Czech Republic, and Trump’s quondam adviser Steve Bannon is now working to foster co-operation between nationalist movements, including Salvini’s, in the run-up to next May’s European elections.

Things are moving fast.

Posted in Europe, Immigration | Comments Off on Macron vs Salvini

Rabbi Brody’s Peppermint Schtick

Richard Brody

Richard Brody (the famed New Yorker movie critic whose worldview and appearance are very much that of a rabbi) is not a fan of films which feature Gentile white people. He intimates their time is done, their epoch over. It is time for all-POC casts, with Gentile whites relegated to minor roles and characters… you know, to reflect the New America.  By extension, one begins to wonder to what degree Brody’s ‘critique of culture’ reflects a deeper hatred of Gentile whiteness itself.

Previously, we saw how Brody took issue with the Unbearable Whiteness of John Krasinski’s horror film A Quiet Place (“The noise of A Quiet Place is the whitest since the release of Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri…), where, in his review, if you took out the word ‘white’, his review would be all of 3 words. A representative paragraph from that review:

The one sole avowed identity of the Abbott parents is as their children’s defenders; their more obvious public identity is as a white rural family. The only other people in the film, who are more vulnerable to the marauding creatures, are white as well. In their enforced silence, these characters are a metaphorical silent—white—majority, one that doesn’t dare to speak freely for fear of being heard by the super-sensitive ears of the dark others. It’s significant that when characters—two white men—commit suicide-by-noisemaking, they do so by howling as if with rage, rather than by screeching or singing or shouting words of love to their families. (Those death bellows are the wordless equivalent of “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”)

Now, from his review of Peppermint, the new Jennifer Garner vigilante-revenge flick, Brody expresses his displeasure that some saturation point of POC-representation hasn’t been met, thereby concluding the film is… drumroll… racist:

“Peppermint” is a racist film that reflects the current strain of anti-immigrant politics and its paranoid focus on MS-13. It features a diverse cast of actors in roles that go beyond stereotypical criminals (including Annie Ilonzeh and Eddie Shin, as F.B.I. agents, and John Ortiz and Method Man, as police officers), but its virtuous nonwhite characters are all isolated, as if diluted in number and dissolved in the institutions and manners of white Americans. In the terms of “Peppermint,” one Latinx person is a constructive exception; two are huddled, passive and dependent, in an encampment of the homeless; a group of them working together is a menace. It’s emblematic of the movie’s approach that its one exemplary mark of Latinx identity, a shop that manufactures piñatas, is a front for drug dealers.

The movie’s jaundiced depiction of multi-ethnic American society is anchored in its view of the North family as middle-class white people caught between a criminal underclass and an indifferent or contemptuous élite. This tendentious vision meshes with the film’s view of American institutions over all.

They hate you. They want you displaced and perhaps even dead.

As a matter of fact: would you just go and die already? It’d make it a lot easier for everyone involved.

Posted in Anti-White, Culture Wars, Film, Jewish | Comments Off on Rabbi Brody’s Peppermint Schtick

My Experiences with The Other: Berkshires Edition

I had this post semi-written up a few years ago, but never finished. A recent Counter-Currents piece on the writer’s weekend in The Berkshires prompted me to finish it (and post as a comment.) I figured I’d reproduce it here as well:

While the Berkshires have a certain SWPL heritage — and don’t get me wrong: the area is beautiful; Tanglewood & Shakespeare & Co are top-notch & wonderful — the tonier areas (e.g., Lenox, Stockbridge; Great Barrington) have been largely overrun by snotty NYC Jews who use ‘summer’ as a verb. This trend has been happening for decades. (See Saul Bellow’s “Herzog” (1964) where the main character, who lives in Chicago, summers in the Berkshires). Economically depressed towns like North Adams are, for the most part, blown out opiate wastelands ala the Rust Belt. Nationally, when people refer to “the Berkshires”, they mean (in order of importance) Lenox, Stockbridge, and Great Barrington.

A few years ago, I spent some time in this northern part of Massachusetts. After attending a Tanglewood concert, my girlfriend and I stopped at a certain Lenox inn for a late night drink. Nearby in the dining room was an older Jewish couple from Philadelphia named the Goldbergs, who despite being from Philly must have originally been from NYC, given their stereotypical accents.

Mr. Goldberg strikes up a conversation with a mixed-race gay couple next to them (a well-dressed, lispy black man and his white attorney boyfriend) on which dessert was better: the “To Die For Chocolate Cake” vs. the “Hazelnut Torte”. I consider slitting my wrists at that moment, but what I hear next leaves me gobsmacked.

As the Goldbergs were leaving the Inn, Mr. Goldberg strikes up a conversation with the owner of the Inn: “EG”, who is himself Jewish. I could only pick up parts of their conversation, but contempt for the goyim was the central point of reference for their entire conversation. At one point, EG says “80% of the visitors to Tanglewood are Jewish… and there’s a reason for that…”

I miss some of the next sentence but do catch part of a followup sentence, with EG saying: “One thing the goyim don’t understand…” I miss the rest of this sentence, but surmise he is talking about affinity for classical music. What is apparent in their mutual commiseration is the inference that goyim philistines don’t adequately appreciate classical music.

Then Mr. Goldberg responds with: “I always say… they’re savages.”

That’s the Berkshires of today.

Posted in Jewish | Comments Off on My Experiences with The Other: Berkshires Edition

Judy Garland – Everybody Sing (1938)

Posted in Film, Music | Comments Off on Judy Garland – Everybody Sing (1938)

Randy Weaver: 2018 Interview

Fascinating interview earlier this year with Randy Weaver (of the Ruby Ridge incident). It’s not pro-shot, and it’s a shame there has been no professional interview done with Weaver. It helps to brush up on the incident ahead of time, to familiarize yourself with the names referenced.

Posted in History, National | Comments Off on Randy Weaver: 2018 Interview