Jewish Leftist Activism in Children’s Fiction

“From the very beginning—that is, from the publication of the first book specifically for children — the intent was to mold and shape the mind to accepted standards of behavior.”
Saul Braun, The New York Times, June 7, 1970.

This article is the product of research originally conducted for a recent article titled “Jews, Obscenity, and the Legal System.” Given the significant amount of material discovered and the uniqueness of the subject matter, I decided there was enough material for an article devoted to children’s literature. During research for the obscenity essay, I consulted the American Library Association’s list of “Top 100 Banned/Challenged Books: 2000–2009” with a view to assessing the nature and extent of the Jewish presence. The first fact to become apparent was a marked Jewish over-representation in the production of books deemed controversial or perverse by parents, schools, and other institutions. Jews are notoriously shy of the census, but are probably somewhere between the 2.2% of the U.S. population suggested by the Pew Research Center and a maximum of around 5%. Even accepting a grain of truth in the apologetic argument that Jews are disproportionately attracted to literary professions (to say nothing about motive), one might very generously expect a Jewish representation of around 10 books on the ALA’s list.

However, my biographical checks on all authors on the list, some of which were indeterminate, revealed that 22 books on the ALA’s list were penned by 17 Jewish writers.[1] Jews are thus significantly over-represented in producing contemporary literature deemed oppositional by the surrounding culture, and are even more radically over-represented when older, White-authored, entries such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (now often opposed as ‘racist’) are taken out of consideration. Since the majority of entries on the list were children’s books, and taking into account my previous discoveries concerning Jewish manipulation of demand for ‘diverse books’ in the school system, it occurred to me that children’s literature is an important, but sometimes neglected, front in the cultural conflict we see played out daily. This article is therefore intended as a brief introduction to some of the most pertinent personalities and themes in the area of Jewish Leftist activism in children’s fiction.

A great deal of Jewish radical activism in the cultural sphere comes under the umbrella of the general relationship between Jews and the Left. This relationship can historically be understood as involving Jewish innovation of, or support for, social, cultural, and political causes likely to weaken the cultural structures of the host society and make it more amenable to Jewish interests. In the chapter titled “Jews and the Left” in The Culture of Critique (p. 50 )Kevin MacDonald cites Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, who remarked in their Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left (1982): “Whatever their situation…in almost every country about which we have information, a segment of the Jewish community played a very vital role in movements designed to undermine the existing order.” MacDonald argues that superficial divergences between Jewish religion and radical agendas are negated by the fact many ethnically Jewish radicals have persisted in adhering to a strong Jewish identity, and have often explicitly pursued Jewish interests. MacDonald writes (p. 51): “The hypothesis that Jewish radicalism is compatible with Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy implies that radical Jews continue to identify as Jews.”

I argue that the material presented in this essay should be seen firmly within the same theoretical framework proposed by MacDonald. For example, several of the Jewish writers under consideration here are homosexuals, radical socialists, and feminists. A common apologetic from “Jews on the Right,” is that such figures are anathema to Judaism, or that as adherents of the Reform movement etc., they are unrepresentative of “true Jews.” The contention here is that the situation is quite the opposite, and I stress that many of these writers are demonstrably committed to Jewish tradition and the Jewish group.

Excellent case studies in this regard can be found in Jewish lesbian feminist writers — figures who are, on the surface at least, incompatible with a group evolutionary strategy. After all, how could women who have personally forfeited reproduction be said to engage in a Darwinian struggle? However, history tells us that it has been quite possible for Jewish celibates and homosexuals to contribute in some form to group advancement. A useful example is my own recent review of the work of R.A. Maryks, “Jewish activism in the Jesuit Order,” a scenario in which Jewish males traded reproductive possibilities for political, social, and cultural influence intended to benefit the converso community of Early Modern Spain. Similarly, Jewish scholar Sylvia Fishman points out in Follow My Footprints: Changing Images of Women in American Fiction (1992) that “a significant amount of Jewish lesbian writing is deeply committed to Jewish peoplehood and Jewish survival.”[2] A particularly interesting example of a radical Jewish feminist is Betty Friedan (born Bettye Naomi Goldstein), the activist behind “Second Wave Feminism” who “confessed to having always had ‘very strong feelings’ about her Jewish identity,” and saw feminism partly as a means of getting closer to Judaism and her identity as a Jew.[3]

That radical Jewish activists should turn their attention to children’s culture and education is also unsurprising. Jewish intellectuals have, in recent decades, pushed the idea that nativist and/or anti-Jewish attitudes are on a par with a highly infectious disease — with inoculation, in the form of aggressive “educational” treatment, at an early age seen as the surest remedy for the perceived ills of an “intolerant society.” Although the idea that anti-Jewish attitudes are a form of disease with roots in childhood goes back to Freud, it remains current in mainstream Jewish academic and political circles. Take, for example, the closing remarks from Abraham Foxman’s Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype, where parents and teachers are urged to “try to help the next generation grow up freer from the infection of intolerance”[4] — the goal being, as Mr. Foxman once articulated, to “make America as user-friendly to Jews as possible.” Theodore Isaac Rubin’s Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind, describes anti-Jewish feeling as a “contagious, malignant disease,” and concludes by stating, “extremely active application of insight and education is necessary to check the disease. Checkmate and eradication is [sic] extremely difficult and probably only possible if applied to the very young before roots of the disease take hold.”[5] To Rubin and the ADL, the solution to the problem of solidarity and tradition in the surrounding population is one requiring “prophylaxis” and “approaches to children.” Indeed, the ADL-sponsored tome Anti-Semitism in America (1979), concludes that “It is apparent that the schools are the most appropriate and potentially effective agent to carry out the instructional strategy just outlined.”[6]

Children’s literature, therefore, whether for entertainment or education, would be an obvious conduit through which Jews could advance ideas or encourage behaviors likely to benefit Jewish interests. One could also reasonably predict, based on historical precedents in the form of Jewish intellectual movements (particularly multiculturalism, sexology, Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, and the theories of the Frankfurt School), that such ideas would revolve around notions of ethnic and sexual pluralism, and the critique and deconstruction of traditional family structure in Whites. Indeed, one might even expect contributing authors to have overlapping affiliations to psychoanalysis and radical socialism. Such predictions are largely borne out in the findings presented below.

One of the more interesting figures in this sphere of cultural activity is Lesléa Newman, a lesbian and Jewish feminist who has the dubious distinction of penning one of the most controversial children’s books of recent decades while also producing a series of books for Jewish children promoting traditional Jewish culture and values. In 1989, after being rejected by almost every mainstream publisher, and together with co-ethnic backer Tzivia Gover, Newman self-published Heather Has Two Mommies, described as “the first lesbian-themed children’s book ever published.” Newman recalls, “People were scared to publish ‘Heather’ even though there was a need for it. No one would touch it. But we were fierce Jewish women.” Newman’s work was recorded as the 11th most challenged book of the 1990s by the American Library Association. However, in common with reactions to Jewish activism in other cultural, social, and political spheres, the response to Newman’s work was boisterous but lacking in focus; the perception being that this was exclusively part of a homosexual agenda and there being little or no understanding of the Jewish element involved. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that “the head of a school district in Queens declared “war” on the book and sent a letter to parents warning that their children were going to be taught about sodomy. …The district president sent out over 30,000 letters  to district parents decrying the book as ‘dangerous homosexual propaganda.’” At one point Newman was described as “America’s most dangerous writer.”

What many of the book’s opponents missed, however, was that its author was a keen promoter of traditionalism and community — Jewish traditionalism and community. Unlike Heather Has Two Mommies and later books such as The Boy Who Cried Fabulous (2004), A Fire Engine for Ruthie (2004), Momma, Mama, and Me (2009), Daddy, Papa, and Me (2009), Donovan’s Big Day (2011), and Sparkle Boy (2017), which brought homosexuality, gender dysphoria, and AIDS to a mass child readership, Newman published a number of niche children’s books for her own community, offering conventional and traditional treatments of Jewish festivals devoid of any of these themes. Matzo Ball Moon (1998), Runaway Dreidel (2002), The Eight Nights of Chanukah (2008), A Sweet Passover (2012), My Name is Aviva (2015), and Hanukkah Delight (2016) all feature traditional Jewish families without a hint of sexual or cultural pluralism. They have been highly praised as traditional, family-friendly works by the Jewish Book Council.

That Newman has consciously or unconsciously produced a body of work so thematically segregated is unsurprising within the framework of Jewish deception and self-deception. The crucial factor here is that Jewish identity is integral to Newman’s sense of self and belonging, and is something that she feels very protective of. Indeed, in our attempt to assess the true psychological driving force behind the production and dissemination of the former body of work, it is worth recalling Newman’s description of herself and Gover not as feminists or lesbians, but as “fierce Jewish women” (emphasis added). One would be fully justified in asking why, given the apparently non-ethnic and non-religious context of the origins of Heather, Newman would lay most emphasis on her ethnicity. My own interpretation is that, as a homosexual, Newman is a kind of outlier within the Jewish ethnic group who, consciously or otherwise, has sought to advance the interests of her co-ethnics by ‘weaponizing’ her sexuality and directing her activism exclusively against ‘society’ rather than within her community. Of course, one finds precisely the same incongruences among heterosexual feminists who, in their fevered railings against the patriarchy remain curiously yet unanimously silent on the patriarchal aspects of Judaism and Jewish culture.

With two entries on the ALAs list, Robie Harris is another excellent example of Jewish activism in children’s fiction, having been born into an orthodox Jewish family. Harris’s most challenged text is It’s Perfectly Normal (1994), a book described by Kirkus Review as demonstrating Harris’s desire to “present more ethnic and sexual diversity than New York City’s Rainbow Curriculum ever bargained for.” Harris accomplishes this by introducing pre-teen children to multiple sex acts, transgenderism, homosexuality, and AIDS. In 1996, It’s Perfectly Normal was challenged in Washington because the “book is an act of encouragement for children to begin desiring sexual gratification … and is a clear example of child pornography.” In 1999 Harris published It’s So Amazing, which was equally challenged by parents and schools on the grounds that it was introducing ten year olds to “sexual intercourse, masturbation, abortion, and homosexuality.” In 2012 Harris provoked further controversy with the publication of Who’s in My Family, which “tells the story of changing family structures, from biracial to gay households.” Of considerably greater interest is who is in Harris’s own family, an extended network of uniformly Jewish households. Indeed, Harris’s cousin, Elizabeth Levy, is also a children’s author. Levy is best known for her Something Queer series, published between 1973 and 1997, which told the story of  the adventures of two young girls with a barely-concealed (for those who missed the title’s double entendre) lesbian subtext. In 1981 Levy abandoned subtlety altogether with the publication of Come Out Smiling, a sordid tale aimed at teens and exploring lesbian relationships at a girl’s summer camp. The villain of the piece is a White, “homophobic” father against whom the girls must “bravely” struggle.

All of this is not to say that the pushing of sexual and ethnic diversity or undermining traditional representations of masculinity in children’s fiction has been the sole preserve of Jewish women. Harvey Fierstein’s The Sissy Duckling (2002) is aimed at children ages 5–8 and “tells the story of Elmer, a duckling who is mocked for being a “sissy” but who ultimately proves his bravery.” Another incredibly controversial children’s work of recent decades is Two Weeks with the Queen, published by Morris Gleitzman in 1990. In this work, aimed at children ages 8–12, Gleitzman discusses themes including “AIDS, homosexuality, and gay-bashing.” A particularly interesting case study is Maurice Sendak, the homosexual Jewish children’s writer and illustrator behind Where the Wild Things Are (1963). Sendak made the ALAs list for In the Night Kitchen (1970), which depicts a young boy’s dream journey through a surreal baker’s kitchen where he assists in the creation of a cake to be ready by the morning. Particularly controversial was the fact the boy is illustrated by Sendak as fully naked throughout, and is depicted in a range of scenarios resembling, in the words of journalist Saul Braun, a “masturbatory fantasy.” The son of Polish Jews, Sendak has confessed in interviews to Jewish subtexts in his works, including In the Night Kitchen, and to ways in which his Jewish roots have impacted his life, views, and work. For example, Sendak claims that from a young age he viewed “the human race as fairly aggressive and confrontational,” and remarked that the bakers in In the Night Kitchen — “with their Hitler-esque moustaches — were a reference to the Holocaust.” Similarly, it has been remarked that Sendak’s illustrations of children are “somewhat stout and gnomish. … His children are dark, with stumpy figures — not your standard, Anglo-Saxon Janet and John types.” Sendak himself has stated they are Jewish figures, being “a curious admixture of Brooklyn remembered and shtetl life in Poland fantasized.”

A heterosexual male Jewish children’s author who has thus far avoided challenges to his work is Michael Rosen, born in England to Jewish parents with roots in Poland, Russia, and Romania. Both parents were members of the Young Communist League and had opposed the Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists during the “Battle of Cable Street.” His mother was a secretary at the Daily Worker, the official newspaper of the Community Party of Great Britain. Rosen himself is strongly affiliated with the radical Left, writing columns for the Socialist Worker newspaper and speaking at conferences of the Socialist Workers Party. Having carved out a reasonably successful career as a children’s poet and author, even a cursory glance at his body of work suggests that his politics has intermingled with his ‘art.’ One of the best, and perhaps subtlest, examples is This Is Our House (1996), aimed at pre-schoolers. In essence, this is an anti-nativist tale designed to dissuade children from having “prejudices” or any sense of ownership or property, but it masquerades as a simple tale about sharing. The book’s description states: “George says the cardboard house is his and no one else can play in it. It isn’t for girls, small people, twins, people with glasses, or people who like tunnels. But Lindy, Marly, Freddie, Charlene, Marlene, Luther, Sophie and Rasheda have other ideas! One by one each child is refused access until tables are turned and George finds how it feels to be on the receiving end.” In the course of the book George (depicted as White) plays happily with a box that he has constructed as his “house.” But the other children, half of whom are non-White, insist that his “home” is not just his but “belongs to everybody.”

More recently, for children ages 10–12, Rosen has authored a non-fiction book titled Who are Refugees and Migrants? What Makes People Leave their Homes? And Other Big Questions (2016). The book is said to compare “the effects on society of diversity and interculturalism with historical attempts to create a racially ‘pure’ culture. It takes an international perspective …. There is also a role-play activity asking readers to imagine themselves in the situation of having to decide whether to leave their homes and seek refuge in a new country.”

Essentially then, it is a quite typical example of multicultural propaganda. Jewish involvement in producing pro-multicultural non-fiction texts for children is of course nothing new. The earliest example I have been able to find (at least in the English-speaking world) is Dorothy W. Baruch’s Glass House of Prejudice (1946). The text was described by Kirkus Review in the year of its publication as the “first approach of its kind to problems of minorities, of racial discrimination, of intolerance, based on case histories, many of them closely aligned with adolescent problems. Dr. Baruch’s approach touches both intellect and emotions; she cuts to the heart of the matter …. She has shown how the problems [surrounding immigration] are rooted in conditions we [the native population] must face, insecurities, false attitudes, ignorance.” Such ideas were of course fully in keeping with the theories advanced by the Frankfurt School.

Before concluding, some mention must be made of the most prolific author on the ALAs list of most challenged books, 2000–2009: Judy Blume (born Judith Sussman). Blume’s three entries exceed any other writer, while during the 1990–1999 period she had five entries. For the period 1990–2004 Blume came second only to fellow Jew Alvin Schwartz, whose violent and explicit horror stories were deemed inappropriate for the age group he claimed to write them for. Blume has come into conflict with parents, schools, and other institutions because her works contain graphic sexual content and offensive language, as well as themes that have been deemed unsuitable for any child age group. Those elements are present in every one of Blume’s challenged books, but to cite just two examples, Deenie (1973) Forever (1975), Blume introduced into teenage fiction such themes as compulsive masturbation, teenage pregnancy, attempted suicide, homosexuality, and talk of sexually transmitted diseases. But how does Blume see herself? A feminist role model? A cultural egalitarian? In her own words: “Culturally and spiritually I’m a Jewish girl from New Jersey.”


There are of course many more writers who could be profiled, and many more works which could be explored, but the intention of this essay has been to offer a modest introduction to some of the more pertinent themes in this area of Jewish cultural activity. The contention here is not that Jews are solely behind the decline in social, cultural, and sexual norms that historically have been very beneficial for White societies. After all, once we exclude non-White authors from the ALAs list we still find around 60% of socially oppositional works being produced by White writers. There’s obviously a market for such material, and, as usual, no shortage of Whites willing to take advantage of it. However, the contention here is that there is significant evidence that individuals identifying as Jews, and seeing themselves fully as members of the Jewish ethnic group, have been at the cutting edge of cultural erosion, often innovating or acting as pioneers in the deconstruction of social norms. Essentially, what we see is that writers like Baruch, Harris, Levy, and Newman broke ground into which fellow Jewish activists — and outlier Whites — could follow. It is difficult to say with certainty how different things would have turned out without such aggressive action from these self-described “fierce Jewish women” (and men), but one could reasonably surmise that the policing of morals and norms within our group would have been significantly more robust without the undermining cultural influence of fads like psychoanalysis or the selective “backing of free speech” by Jewish groups when it suited their interests to do so.

Finally, the bigger picture here is the indoctrination of our children. On this note I refer to the epigraph that opened this essay. Ultimately we are dealing with materials designed to mold and shape the minds of our children to the new “accepted standards of behavior.” We are now not far from a time when healthy tales of White children engaging in adventure will be deemed reactionary because of their potential to instill pride, or dangerous because they aren’t tolerant enough of the proliferating motley of sexual and racial minorities that now intrude into all aspects of culture. Our challenge in the coming years will be to get into this culture war in a more significant way. That will require developing a new literature, and stamping out the poisonous one that lies before us.

[1] Avi (aka Edward Irving Wortis), H.G. “Buzz” Bissinger, Judy Blume, Esther Drill, Lois Duncan (Steinmetz), E.R. Frank, Bette Green, Robie Harris, Carolyn Mackler, Johanna Reiss, Louise Rennison, J.D. Salinger, Louis Sachar, Alvin Schwartz, Maurice Sendak, Charles Silverstein, R.L. Stine.

[2] S.B. Fishman, Follow My Footprints: Changing Images of Women in American Fiction (Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 1992), p.50.

[3] F. Klagsbrun, “Marching in Front,” Hadassah Magazine (Nov. 1993), p.24.

[4] A. Foxman, Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype (New York: Palgrave, 2010), p.230.

[5] T.I. Rubin, Anti-Semitism: A Disease of the Mind (Fort Lee: Barricade Books, 2009), p.156.

[6] H. Quinley & C. Glock, Anti-Semitism in America (New York: The Free Press, 1979), p.202.

71 replies
  1. Sophie Johnson
    Sophie Johnson says:

    First-class article, Dr Joyce. Thank you. I endorse this fully: ‘That will require developing a new literature, and stamping out the poisonous one that lies before us.’ But how about also taking punitive measures against writers and publishers of the putrid, poisonous effluent of sick minds that purports to be suitable literature for children? Any punitive measures will do, so long as they are effective at frightening off the plethora of aggressive jews who have determined to disorient our children by their viscious attempts to displace Christian morality.

  2. Jed Clampett
    Jed Clampett says:

    1. As a former bookseller, I doubt that 60% of this literature comes from whites. If it does, I would expect the white-authored works to be later creations, written after earlier authors had normalized the tabooed topics and messages.
    2. Obviously it’s safer to attack this material without bringing in the Jewish angle, but the facts support its causative role so it needs to be discussed. The cowering, quivering evangelical conservative must be forced either to recognize or deny the obvious facts. The opponent of this literature wins either way.

  3. T. J.
    T. J. says:

    Netflix race mix ad posted youtube 1-3-2018. . .5600 comments so far. . .

    1 day ago
    Let me just sum up with comment section : ((((()()()()())))))))))((((((((()))))))))))(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))()()()(0

    Wellrock Commentary
    Wellrock Commentary
    1 day ago
    What do you expect in the comment section of a video with extremely high levels of kikery?

    Josh Herman
    Josh Herman
    1 day ago
    TLDR; the jews

    1 day ago
    My only fear is that people think this is some “epic meme”, hopefully at least half will look up information and redpill themselves into the savagery that is jewish tricks.

    1 day ago
    Yeah, this is the worst YouTube comment section ever

    Hyperion Prime
    Hyperion Prime
    1 day ago
    ButtonWalls. Maybe one day you’ll open your eyes.

    Little Leon
    Little Leon
    1 day ago

    This is the best YouTube comment section ever

    Lonely Chimney
    Lonely Chimney
    1 day ago
    well, it was bound to happen at some point
    soon, it will be every comment section


    Jim Smith
    Jim Smith
    1 day ago
    And it’s beautiful

    Hitler Did Nothing Wrong
    Hitler Did Nothing Wrong
    1 day ago
    oyyy veeeeeyy!

    Cecil Demille
    Cecil Demille
    1 day ago

    Asr Cenn
    Asr Cenn
    1 day ago
    Can you like something multiple times or is niggertube deleting my likes? I think they disabled notifications for this comment section as well lol.

    Are they scared of getting called out shutting it down completely? Or are they compiling no-no speech? What is the strategy here?
    Read more

    Salty Man
    Salty Man
    23 hours ago
    Lisp programming?

    14 hours ago
    Arandomperson *Best.

  4. David
    David says:

    I have been getting these advertisements for “master classes” of a sort. It is usually actors, directors, comedians. May you get them too. The new one yesterday was promoting a class by Judy Blume, described above, on writing children’s books. My question is, always, why are non-Jews leaving voids for these opportunities to be filled?

    Perhaps–as a partial answer to my own question–because we solve those needs differently, or at least did. Plus, the content of our organic mode of cultural transmission does not lend itself to these mercantile forms of so-called cultural activity. We do not go online to teach others, for a fee, how to write. We–at least before the cultural cataclysm promoted by Jews–built local, private schools where the flesh-and-blood teacher, usually part of the local church, was the main figure before the children, not a commercial sold and taxed object (book, video, etc.) of a remote cultural retailer.

    I am surprised that Jews have not found a way to apply a Kosher tax on non-food items as well, or wait, perhaps they have.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      They already have in 1913. It’s called the Income Tax. That is to pay the FED for fraudulently counterfeiting money and then lend it with interest to the US Government, while it could print it itself for free.

  5. David
    David says:

    So correcting a typo above (‘commercially’, not “commercial”), allows me to better summarize my thoughts even in my own mind. Jews have undermined Gentile cultural systems (parents, neighborhoods, institutions run by churches paying almost nothing to employees who essentially provided cultural “sweat equity”) with systems that are rabidly “capitalistic” (which has the advantage that Jews can manage the controlled opposition of Marxism in all of its forms–which, of course, will be as perpetually inadequate as the raw capitalistic modes–by design–thus ensuring the limitless pendulum swings politics–a destabilized, manipulable politics for sale). What were interpersonal bonds of familial, ethnic, and Christian affection were replaced with the mercantile, transactional exchanges based on more base passions, desires, and so-called “needs.” Freud helped redefine a whole class of things that must be considered as “needs.” Tell that to those teaching nuns and brothers that received stipends large enough pretty much to cover only their personal needs like toothbrushes, or parents and citizens who built communities and who’s charity would not find a convenient box on a tax return as a deduction.

    We let Jews commoditize everything about ourselves, and thus have lost everything that distinguished being European and Christian: our humanness.

    Ridicule Christmas as silly, but its theme is that there is an organizing Logos of the Universe, that that Logos is indistinguishably personal and Love, that that Logos penetrated what we call the “material” manifestations of reality and that we are caught up in this in a way that is significant and demanding. This view is anathema to the transactional man sold to us by Jewish Capito-Marxism.

  6. J.Ross
    J.Ross says:

    I’ll try to dig it up but a few years ago V-Dare described a children’s book about miscegnation that offered a lefty equivalent to Aryan talk: (inexact quote) “Remember, long ago, we were all one color.” (end) It does not go on to prompt the reader to “remember” when we were all furry.

  7. Valerie Protopapas
    Valerie Protopapas says:

    Very few books are minus some “point” that the author wishes to impress upon the reader no matter what that reader’s age. Whether you have Homer or Tolkien or A. K. Rowling, the writer is making a point and attempting to bring the reader to the desired conclusion. That is why those who write children’s books are particularly important to both the parents and the culture. A book can influence any mind but younger minds are more sensitive than are the more mature. The problem today is that books more REFLECT the culture than influence it. Few are the books that have changed cultures compared to those who see the way a culture is going and get on the bandwagon. The “gay agenda” was well underway before “Heather Has Two Mommies” came along. If we wish to CHANGE the direction in which the West (including the United States) is going (left and down), we are not going to do that simply by writing better books or making sure that our children at least are protected from the worst of them. Right now, it is probable that the MAJORITY of people still cling to our Christian moral ethics but we are nearing a “tipping point” at which traditional Americans will in fact be outnumbered by people with a very DIFFERENT moral ethic and agenda. It may already be too late. Once that tipping point is reached, no amount of “good books” will stave off disaster.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Few are the books that have changed cultures compared to those who see the way a culture is going and get on the bandwagon. The “gay agenda” was well underway before “Heather Has Two Mommies” came along.

      Well stated.

      Judy Blume and Heather were display items attached to the bandwagon, not the horses pulling the wagon into town. To understand otherwise is to misread the historical progression or be ignorant of it. Or to use another familiar equine image, it is to put the cart before the horse.

  8. Floda
    Floda says:

    Good grief! Nothing is sacred, not even our children are safe from their poison. The Weimar Germans were wise to the Jew, especially Julius Streicher and his publication, ‘Der Sturmer’, in which they were often depicted as child molesting monsters in cartoons freely available on the web today. Streicher was lynched at Nuremberg for telling the truth about them. The great WW2 Historian, the Englishman David Irving, calls them, ‘The traditional enemies of truth’. They have connived to have him jailed in Austria and after appearing as an expert witness in Ernst Zundel’s fake news show trials in Canada, which Zundel won, they connived to have Mr Irving banned from visiting Australia, Canada and New Zealand to prevent him from telling the English speaking World the truth, and to damage him financially. I think they are all to some extent paranoid insane but at the same time they are beating us, just look at how the World has changed since WW2, the Jews are winning.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      Actually, Zundel didn’t win at trial. The Jew-dicial system at the trial level was openly hostile to him in both trials. It was the Supreme Court that overturned the verdicts in both trials stating that the prosecution’s application of the law infringed on Zundel’s right to free speech.
      As an aside,Robert Faurisson has questioned Irving’s commitment to revisionism.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        Didn’t the Toronto prosecution pull some 1893 law out of their yarmulke, that had, back then, made it illegal to publish false news about the Sovereign ?

        Three cheers for the Supreme Court of Canada, who knew quite well, that, in the end, {{{ they }}} would have their way. As they did. With the always concomitant heavily compounded interest.

          • Floda
            Floda says:

            (((They))) allowed Canada to kidnap Zundel and put him in a freezing unlit dungeon next to an insane Black man, who kept screaming, ‘Kill Whitey’, then had
            German police fly him to the Fatherland where he was tried for daring to tell the truth and imprisoned for several years. Few have done more to damage the holocau$t myth than Zundel.

  9. Franklin Ryckaert
    Franklin Ryckaert says:

    “…That Newman has consciously or unconsciously produced a body of work so thematically segregated is unsurprising within the framework of Jewish deception and self-deception…”

    I don’t think there is any form of “self-deception” involved in the Jewish dual strategy of morally weakening their host society while at the same time strengthening their own. That is the age-old survival-cum-supremacy strategy of these destructive parasites. As typical parasites, unable to live on their own, they fear expulsion most. Therefore their host must be kept weak. That is their life-insurance. Their pathological paranoia forces them to constant activism. The impulse may be instinctive, not rationally thought out, but I don’t think they feel the need to deceive themselves by imagining they are doing “good work for society”. Our society is not their society, we are potentially their mortal enemies and what is wrong with defeating your enemies ? So no need for self-deception, goy-deception is enough.

    • HK Wills
      HK Wills says:

      Only the host eventually notices its weakness, identifies the cause and eventually takes therapeutic action.

      • Sophie Johnson
        Sophie Johnson says:

        ‘Only the host eventually notices its weakness, identifies the cause and eventually takes therapeutic action.’

        By golly one would hope so! But there is, in our own time, a very long stretch between the visible onset of Jewish control (in our case from the mid-1970s) and our ‘therapeutic action’. Is there an interim stage, perhaps — one during which our natural leaders are bought and on-side with the Jews, to the point of being against us? To put this another way: The host nation does not necessarily respond to the Jew as a unit; the Jew buys only the ‘best’ (most useful) part of it.

        Look at Britain now: the Jewish grip on parliament is perfect: every PM since Tony Blair has been a breast-beating philosemite, and so also the parliamentary opposition. That gave an easy ride to all the LGBT stuff, and to accelerated non-White immigration

        The White Christian host’s voice fell silent, for even some Christian churches, notably the Anglican, were (and still are) showcasing their homosexual priests, male and female, most of whom are philosemite and pro-Third World immigration.

        But the Jewish hand is now fully revealed. In Britain, university students are beginning (very secretly) to react to it: right-wing White alliances are being formed in that context. Revisionists (re the holohoax) are more numerous, better equipped, and more proud. So the host nation is waking up, and the Jews are rattled, as witness the vicious attacks of the vile body called the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) and its non-Jewish allies. It is very instructive to read Alison Chabloz’s site for a view of this:

        Now, this is what I want to ask: It seems to me to bode well when open malice like the ugly CAA’s is visible to the entire host nation. Once begun, the reaction to Jewish power soon becomes its overthrow. Or am I being far too optimistic, even delusional?

  10. JRM
    JRM says:

    Excellent article. And a timely reminder that White folks need to home-school their little ones. I believe keeping our children out of the clutches of the Public School propaganda mill is the single most important action we can take for the future of the race.

  11. Jerry Bain
    Jerry Bain says:

    They are of their father the devil (John 8:44). Edom is jewry and the Babylonian Talmud says it all, psychpathic and perversion.

  12. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    Sexual Bolshevism during the Weimer Republic was blatant and resulted in the backlash, so this time they are taking a soft and insidious approach. What was then sold as divine decadence is touted today as enlightened social justice. Same players and same goals, hopefully the outcome will also be the same.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      As a certifiably genuine old fart, I must admit that my sole childhood encounter with Dr. Seuss’s oeuvre was The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins. Not only was I fond of it then, but it has served me well as a metaphor and image trove in the many decades since (e.g., “what hat was so-and-so wearing, I wonder, when he addressed the electorate today?”).

      In double-checking the book’s proper title, I discovered that our august newspaper of record has stupefyingly called it “this classic treatise on bullying.” Although with a modicum of effort I could probably think of a dozen ways of characterizing Cubbins, none of them would involve the word “bullying.” But then, as I am far behind in my reading of de Man, Derrida, and Foucault, what would I know?

  13. Andrea Ostrov Letania
    Andrea Ostrov Letania says:

    Is all this homo stuff really a part of leftism?

    Classic Leftism never would have allowed such thing.

    This is the product of libertarian decadence of capitalism.
    Capitalism produces all this wealth, and rich people love privilege of all kind. So, they support homo privilege, especially since homos are such status-strivers who want to rub shoulders with the fancy folks.

    As Rome grew corrupt, it had these kinds of people too. It’s not about the ‘left’. It’s about decadence and degeneracy from too much money and success.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      Yes this is also the Left. This is Cultural Marxism, as distinguished from classic or Social Marxism (concerned with class struggle). Undermining the culture (especially sexual morality) is the concern of Cultural Marxism.

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      I heard a few days ago, Rob, from Monika’s brother, Alfred. I cannot find Alfred’s original independent notice, but it is reproduced here: .

      I do not cry easily, but I did on this news. Monika, a warm, charming, highly intelligent woman, went to Germany knowing the danger into which she was putting herself. She went to support Syliva Stolz, all the same. I see this driven-ness also in other Germans living outside Germany. It is as if they want to sacrifice themselves to make up for the abasement of the Germans who remain in Germany and are happy to collude in the nation’s subservience to the jews and their nations-destroying agenda. (Another shot of Coudenhove-Kalergi, anyone?)

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        This is such an utterly ignorant comment I feel I have to comment on it. Are you German, Sophie? Do you have evidence that Germans outside Germany want to sacrifice themselves, while Germans living inside Germany want to abase themselves to the Jews. No, of course you don’t. You have no idea how many local supporters of Sylvia Stolz were in that courtroom.

        • Sophie Johnson
          Sophie Johnson says:

          You have missed the obvious in a very lumpen way, Caroline. The Germans who have a history of holocaust-revisionism yet risk returning to Germany are the people whom I see as driven to make up for the behaviours of the collaborator Germans who live in Germany.

          Evidence that Germans living outside Germany want to sacrifice themselves? Huh. I have in mind the few Germans I know, and know of, who have a known revisionist history yet risk returning to Germany. I made no remark about ex-patriot Germans collectively. Only you did that.

          And no, I do not know ‘how many local supporters of Sylvia Stolz were in that courtroom’. Neither, I think, do you. But I wager that not one of those present as supporter has a history of ‘holocaust denial’ that would make him/her open to arrest. But tell me, do you know how many were present as hostile observers noting down the identities of the supporters? You probably do not, as I do not either. But I am quite sure they were there in goodly number.

          Evidence that ‘Germans living inside Germany want to abase themselves to the Jews’? Well, well! Is that evidence avoidable? Hardly, when those Germans tolerate a law that brutalises their compatriots with fines and imprisonment for nothing other than that they hold views on the ‘holocaust’ that displease the Jews. Were those Germans not lick-spittle collaborators of the Jews, or simply just effetely accepting of their dominance of them, they would pull down the walls of prisons that hold, inter alia, octogenarians Ursula Haverbeck and Horst Mahler, and are now gaping to swallow a nonagenarian too. Or, less dramatically, they would demand the removal of the holocaust-denial laws from the statute books, and decline to give their votes to shabbos shiksa Angela Merkel and her ilk.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Everything you said above is understood, I’m sure, by everyone here so no one needs a soapbox speech from you. Stick to the facts. You originally wrote:

            “I see this driven-ness also in other Germans living outside Germany. It is as if they want to sacrifice themselves to make up for the abasement of the Germans who remain in Germany and are happy to collude in the nation’s subservience to the jews and their nations-destroying agenda.”

            What I was getting at is why make a distinction between Germans living inside and outside of Germany? The ratio of those who fight and those who don’t is most likely the same in both cases. Do you have any evidence that YOU are a person who would “pull down the walls of prisons” or “demand the removal of laws from the statute books” placed there to please the Jews? I will go out on a limb and say you definitely don’t have any. You are giving yourself airs by making yourself out to be superior to the indoctrinated German folk in the de-nazified Federal Republic. Please don’t do that. There are so many Germans who have gone to prison there (more than you know) in protest – more than anywhere else in Europe, I would say. We just never hear about them, and the German people certain don’t!

          • Sophie Johnson
            Sophie Johnson says:

            You are absolutely right, Karen T: ‘Angela Merkel is not a shiksa. She is a Jewess and a communist.’ And thanks for the links. I have been loathe to bring up this point about Merkel. People’s inevitable reaction has been to poo-poo it with ‘her father was a Lutheran pastor’. I’m glad to learn that the mother side of her is becoming better known. It is the much more telling side. But tell me, please: Do you have any idea why Helmut Kohl was such a stauch promoter of Merkel? That seems to be so very out of whack with the rest of his decidedly decent statemanship. Or had she not shown her colours while he was around?

          • Sophie Johnson
            Sophie Johnson says:

            ‘Everything you said above is understood, I’m sure, by everyone here so no one needs a soapbox speech from you.’ You missed the point again, Carolyn. I was not soapboxing; I was rubbing your nose into the drivel you talked.

            ‘Do you have any evidence that YOU are a person who would “pull down the walls of prisons” …’ Evidence? Of course I do. The world is full of prison walls brought down by my fair hand. (Sorry: I cannot take you seriously.)

          • Karen T
            Karen T says:

            Sophie Johnson, I have no idea as to why Helmut Kohl supported Merkel. I am ignorant about most politics, likely stemming from indifference, deciding long ago that it was a rigged game played from a private club having very little to do with us common folk.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Carolyn, what was the outcome for Sylvia, of the hearing in question? Judgement ? Adjournment ?

          Yes, her supporters themselves have to be brave, within that German, poisoned environment.

          And another relevant question: is this still the tail-end of her defense of Zundel, or something ” new ” ?

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            This must have been an appeal process for Sylvia’s guilty verdict from what she said in her speech at the “Anti Censorship Coalition” (AZK) conference in Switzerland in 2012! She was sentenced to, I think, 2 years in prison but she still hasn’t gone. It is not from the old Zundel defense – she already served that time. As far as the outcome, Alfred Schaefer should tell us that — but perhaps there is none yet. There will be nothing in the news about it.

        • Floda
          Floda says:

          Carolyn, I was born in Germany at the end of the war and lived there until age 8 a which time our family migrated to sunny Australia. I can say quite honestly when that horrible swine of a Woman, Merkel, invited millions of those creatures into Germany and said, ‘Wir shaffen das’ (We’ll Cope) it was the greatest of insults to me. I was bloody mad dog furious.

          I have kept up my German pretty well and credit myself with being in some part responsible for the draconian punishment on social media the evil Jewess Merkel has introduced because on every YouTube, many Facebook and Twitter accounts I have posted hostile and violent exhortations that German patriots should begin doing what Hungarians did back in 1956, that is start SHOOTING their hostile elites, because they won’t stop this until they are stopped, permanently.

          It has often quietly occured to me that I might be paid a nocturnal visit or have our ASIO come and say ‘G’day’. I wouldn’t be hard to trace by a bunch of spooks. Frankly, I don’t care, if I was in Germany I’d like to think I would be part of the physical resistance. I remember well how ingeniously the heads of German banks were offed by the Baader Meinhof gang, I will not elaborate here but I can see it coming to that.

  14. ariadnatheo
    ariadnatheo says:

    The primacy of serving perceived tribal interests in the “Galut” habitat always haunted by imagined persecution monsters with “hitler-esque moustaches” engenders schizophrenia.
    Ashkenazi Jews are 40% more likely than non-Jews to develop severe psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
    (NOTE: The prevalence of schizophrenia in the US is given as anywhere between 1: and 4:1,000, which means that of every 1,000 American non-Jews you come into contact with, at least one or as many as four are likely to be schizophrenics. The Nature findings show that of every 100 American Jews you meet, as many as 16 are, if not all schizophrenics, at least carriers of the defective gene to pass on to their progeny.)
    Dual citizenship, dual morality, dual self-representation. Freud spent many years transmogrifying Greek mythology to ascribe to the whole world various Jewish neuroses and perverted Judaic mentation but neglected to fashion an apt one for his own tribe: the Janus syndrome.

    In Europe, the Jewish carriers of cultural marxism have made even deeper inroads than in the US in the indoctrination of very young children:

    As for ways to combat this onslaught I favor turning the tables and hitting them with their own weapons, like for example reviewing “This Is Our House” and excoriating it for its blatant anti-semitism. “George,” I would claim, is an obvious caricature of an Orthodox Jewish settler who rejects Palestinians, whether Christians o Muslims out of rabid prejudice, and how unfair this stereotype is, redolent of anti-semitism, etc, etc

    Finally, that Dr. Joyce never disappoints is an understatement to avoid embarrassing him with gushing admiration. His superb essays, always solidly supported by documentation, are a delight to read. In fact I would shudder at the thought of removing an occasional dangling participial* as a wanton barbarity, similar to the removal of the birthmark in Hawthorn’s eponymous story.
    *”Having carved out a reasonably successful career as a children’s poet and author, even a cursory glance at his body of work suggests…”

  15. StormerX0
    StormerX0 says:

    Jews have a higher rate of homosexuality as well as other mental disorders. Thats what excessive inbreeding does. Also, maximum tolerance for anything/everything is deep in the group psychology. Even if disagreed with on a personal level, to deny anyones “rights” equals Hitler + Holocaust. Although i am not a Christian John 8:44 sums them up quite well.

    • Grauhund
      Grauhund says:

      A basic assumption today is that people are “born” gay.. I myself believed it but have recently begun to question this assumption based on my observations and personal experience. Some of the homosexual men I know were molested as children by men an at least one was charged with possession of child porn himself before declaring himself gay. I don’t believe all homosexuals report having been molestrd but it’s my belief sexuality of young people has some degree of plasticity. I base this in part on my first experience with viewing pornography when I was.7 years old. A guy who 30 years later as an adult was charged with possessing child porn asked if I wanted to see his older brother’s dirty magazine. I agreed and he showed me where it was buried under a rock in the alley behind his house. It was standard 70s Oui magazine depicting naked women and I was immediately aroused though only 7. The magazine itself was damp from being left under a rock outside and thus had a distinct smell associated with wet newsprint or magazines. Forever after when I encountered that smell I became aroused. Perhaps homosexuals are similarly aroused by the gender of their childhood milestones. I think we delude ourselves or allow others to do so when we pretend that there is a hard line between homosexuality and pedophilia. Perversion is likely on a sliding scale. Pun not intended.Also I’m old enough to have watched the normalization of homosexuals on television and have seen the envelope expanded now to begin doing so with pedophilia. The show Shameless does just that though I stopped watching 3 or 4 episodes in when I realized the direction those Jews were leading us foolish goys.Ive come to the conclusion that this is war.

  16. Jay
    Jay says:

    I would like to see The Occidental Observer present an article dealing with the extraordinary growth of the Ashkenazi population and the implications thereof. I have used the argument below to try to awaken normies. Possibly because the argument is quantitative and triggers the listener’s cheater-detector mental module, it seems to stick with normies better than anecdotal accounts of Ashkenazi anti-social behavior.

    The Ashkenazi population was established in the Rhine Valley between 500 and 700 A.D. probably by only a few families; coalescence analysis of mitochondrial DNA suggests that there were only four female founders of the population and that they had Middle Eastern ancestry. So generously assume that the founding population consisted of 250 individuals in 500 A.D. By 1300, the Ashkenazi population had grown to 25,000. By 1900, it was 8.5 million.

    To put that rate of population growth in perspective, compare it to the growth of the Scottish population. Scots increased from 1 million in 1300 to 4 million in 1900. Because of limitations of agricultural production, hundreds of thousands of Scots emigrated during those six centuries, but ignoring emigration there was a four fold increase in the number of Scots. During the same time span there was a 340 fold increase in the number of Ashkenazi in Europe, again ignoring emigration. 340/4 = 85 times faster growth of the Askenazi population.

    How does a population sustain such an exceptional growth rate? By obtaining a disproportionate share of a nation’s economic resources. How was that done? By insinuating themselves into the corridors of power, by maintaining a chokehold on finances (facilitated by usury and coin-clipping), by exercising power over the peasantry as estate managers and tavern owners, by nepotistic and monopolistic business practices.

    Finally I ask my normie interlocutor what psychological traits would be favored by natural selection in a population that had achieved such an ecological-economic niche.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Franklin Ryckaert says:

      I think the same monumental growth happened in Spain with the Sephardic community and if we have to believe the Old Testament, the descendants of Joseph and his family (together only 70 persons) grew to about 3 million within 4 centuries in Egypt. This indicates that Jews flourish exceptionally in other man’s territory, as can be expected from parasites.

      • ariadnatheo
        ariadnatheo says:

        Somebody needs to point out, and I am happy to do it, that the incredible growth of both Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations is far more remarkable if one remembers that they have been often exterminated, every time in batches of 6 million.

  17. Elizabeth
    Elizabeth says:

    The idea of creating wholesome children’s literature is a good one, however, publishing itself is dominated, like the media, by the very interests that we would wish to counter. That is why our point of view has been pushed aside and how we have been targeted and silenced.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Precisely, Elizabeth. At least 80 percent of the children’s “literature” problem is publisher-created, not author-created. And the specific publishers responsible are the scholastic publishers—that is, publishers of school books—who work hand-in-hand with (((teachers’ associations))) in virtually every state that has a statewide schoolbook adoption program to create curricula that are ever more hostile to whites and Christians.

      Ever since the eighties, when the educational and scholastic category of “reading” was instituted alongside and in distinction to “English” (and in high school, to “foreign languages”), the sorts of books Dr. Joyce refers to have been produced to serve specifically as adjuncts to classroom materials. Thus today, what ought to be derisively called children’s books are selected for children, not by their parents, but by (((creatures))) who are rewarded and financed from the public fisc. Furthermore, to go again from the general to the specific, most of the “celebrities” in children’s publishing have simply been freelance Jewish authors whom Jewish editors have commissioned to produce work-for-hire products that are the publishing equivalent of what would be called piecework in the garment industry. Some few, including the renowned Judy Blume, have managed to privatize their celebrity cachet.

      Apropos Jewish editors, it is noteworthy that this is the area of publishing where one finds the highest concentration of Jews in strictly editorial-development positions—that is, as opposed to corporate management, sales, and HR positions, where of course they are an infestational constant factor.

      Finally, it is saddening to observe that this is the second article in a row by Dr. Joyce where he has uncharacteristically failed to see where the crux of the problem lies. I note, too, courtesy of his obiter dictum of unclear relevance to the topic at hand, that Dr. Joyce has decided to double down on his serious misassessment of Robert Aleksander Maryks and his work rather than even consider the evidence presented that he might have been misled in his haste to pillory Ignatius Loyola.

  18. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    To me the most important aspect of the subject matter of this article is the LACK OF RESPONSE AND REVULSION OF THIS FILTH by our “Christian Leaders”, both Catholick and Prostest-ant. Family Research Council, Billy Boy Graham Family, Ill Papa The Shepard (complete with his sheep herders cane with a crook for grabbing members of The Flock). Any “Conservative” and “Family” orgs weighing in? MIA. All of them.

    There are dozens more, aimed at your little Suzie, to break her down to an insecure, diverted, dizzy, self-shamed infertile signal terminal waiting for the new signals of hip, cool, “with it”, and modern.

    Look into it-as you hold your nose-and you will find the age old (((Parasite/Virus))) introducing a new pathogen or mutated virus. Without consequences and punishment, there is no correction or cessation. We cannot co-exist under any scheme or arrangement. Thousands of years have conclusively demonstrated that.

    Either they vacate our milieu or we, the Western Indo-European need to secede and form our own self governing entity and embark on a genetic, social, cultural and economic rebuilding. Not impossible. Czech and Slovakia split, the Yugoslavian Peninsula split into different republics,

    I believe, as Doug Casey has stated, that every community has the self-determining right, not privilege of secession and establishment of its own autocephalous government.

  19. Protestant
    Protestant says:

    Well done to Dr. Joyce for exposing the astonishing hypocrisy of these Jewish writers who “fiercely” defend their own children and culture while degrading the rest of humanity. This extends to all aspects of the entertainment industry run by the Tribe, as many have pointed out, for example:
    “Music Industry Sexualizes Children”

    One encouraging news item a couple of years ago described how a children’s pop star’s publicity team had rented a farmer’s field in Northern Ireland for an open air video shoot, but as he was driving by in his tractor, he was so disgusted by her pornographic dancing that he drove into the field, and told them to take their money back and get off his land!

  20. Sam J.
    Sam J. says:

    Dr. Joyce always has excellent articles. Ditto with Dr. MacDonald. I think all of us are stricken with the endless broad range of of ails that are constantly forced upon us by the Jews. I wonder if it’s not time to take a different tack. While reading another of Dr. Joyce articles on Unz review,

    and reading the endless, what I assume is Hasbara, orders that we can only fight the Jews by being Godly, learning Hebrew, having our souls saved, on and on and on about what “we” should be doing to improve ourselves so as to fight off the Jews, it appeared to me that the real answer is we must get rid of the Jews. That all of our efforts are to naught unless we just focus on one thing and that is to get rid of the Jews. Now I fully realize that you’re going, but how, and blaspheming me for stating the obvious but have we done this? Have we set as our goal an iron clad, one specific purpose goal and stated constantly and without end getting rid of the Jews. We should state that we will do so peacefully if we can but that one way or another they must go.

    I was influenced by several small likewise slogans that I believe are very powerful.

    “If white people had a country of our own, this wouldn’t be happening”
    Harold Covington

    “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”
    David Lane

    Numerous Bob Whitaker’s Tweets

    And this video “The Myth of the Good Jew”

    One advantage of this is it doesn’t necessarily offend any political persuasion. The Left has plenty of reasons to hate the Jews, the Right, the working class, Women, Blacks, Hispanics. If you don’t hate the Jews you’re not paying attention. I certainly don’t claim to have all the answers but if we focus on one idea, which has the great effect of rendering the Jews completely harmless, then it may be that we will be much more able to accomplish this goal.

    I’ll throw out a few ideas.

    We should tell everyone that the Jews must be thrown out before they destroy us and give a few reasons why.

    Several reasons. They own all the media and the banks and are feeding us lies. Specifically.
    A. Russia, Russia, Russia, the corruption of the press.
    B. They received over, we know for a fact, at least $16 Trillion during the banking bail out. Enough to buy a small home and a car for every family of four in the USA.
    C. 9-11 the biggest screw up they ever did and directly responsible for many, many deaths and a destruction of our countries image and morality. I’m not going to talk about conspiracies which is banned here. I will only mention that on 9-11 building #7, not hit by a plane, fell the same speed as a rock dropped in air. Pointedly if a rock falls only supported by air and gravity being the same on the building, and it is, then for the building to fall the same as the rock it was only supported by air also. They fell the same speed so their conditions were equivalent. There no other feasible way to look at the situation. Now if I can readily see this and millions of others can see this then why can’t the Jews see this? Why aren’t the Jews making a huge outcry about the surety of explosives or something used to take out all support from this building?? The obvious answer to this is they did it. If they would do this in front of everyone to see…well what would they not do?

    A single mindedness of purpose is very powerful. One can add all sorts of reasons why they should be thrown out but merely stating that they have done too much damage to our society and they must go is good enough. It also puts the onus on them of why we should let them stay.

    The Jews have many times in the past murdered vast numbers of people and I think it likely if they thought they could get away with it they would murder us all and be done with it. Thankfully they do not have the power to do this without exposing themselves to complete eradication.

    I hope people will think about this and particularly when you see the Hasbara filling up the comments play off the ridiculous comments they make and show that,”They must go, no matter what, they must go. If we are to survive they must go”.

    • patsy
      patsy says:

      SamJ Totally share your sentiments except on the 9-11 building 7 stuff. If you were to read the blueprints (plans) of the building you would come to a different conclusion as to why they collapsed as they did. This was a new way of constructing sky scrapers or lets say cheaper. Building 7 included. Anyway so as not to ramble on to much these buildings were constructed by the Port Authority for the Port Authority ( council in my country) and as such were not subject to building approval inspections. The floors were held in place by mere right angles welded to the columns and were easily sheared off. Explosions are molten aluminum contacting water. So its the Port Authority for its skimping who should be sued. Yes the Mossad knew of the attack and the Saudis sponsored it. Same design for building 7 and remember 7 had tons of debris and fires on its roof before hand.

      • ariadnatheo
        ariadnatheo says:

        Congratulations for originality, patsy. Shoddy construction being responsible for Building #7 falling neatly into its footprint is a new one for me (and I venture to guess for most people). Since you seem to base your conclusion on having read the blueprints I have to believe that Silverman surely must have had access to them. It explains why, realizing the imminent danger the curtains that had caught on fire posed to the shoddy structure, he ordered: “Pull it!” And how about those bad Saudis who sponsored the whole thing? You say the Mossad knew of the attack, but surely not before it happened, right? They would have informed us. All considered, a most enjoyable comment, yours.

      • Sam J.
        Sam J. says:

        “…building 7…”

        You either did not read or understand what I said. The building fell for roughly 108 feet as if it were supported by “AIR”. Not a misprint or misstatement. An absolute fact, no doubt, 100%, verified, look for yourself, etc, etc..How might I ask did the build stay up before 9-11 if it was supported by “AIR”?????? Did you see fires big enough to boil away all the steel columns for around 11 floors, about 110′,so that they had the density of “AIR”? I didn’t think so.

        The single most stupid thing the Jews have ever done in their whole history is 9-11 and we should be attacking them constantly on it. They have tried to derail me on this but the facts are what they are. They even opened a website about building 7 to spout nonsense and I hammered everything they said into the ground until they stopped me posting. It’s impossible to explain with only fires. Impossible. There’s video of the fires roughly one hour before the building fell. I would say 3 or 4 floors were on fire and not in any way raging or even covering the whole floor.

  21. Sarah
    Sarah says:

    Another book by a Jewess is Wonder by R.J. Palacio, aka Jill Aramor
    This book was given (free) to all 6th graders 2017 (Middle School) and had 20 reading assignments to finish the book and take an AR test on.
    The cover is weird with a one-eyed boy with two ears of different sizes. The one eye is blue. Auggie has two brown eyes and cauliflower ears (practically no ears).
    There’s a sticker on the front of the book which states: Soon to be a major motion picture. If so, this book has everything needed for the further destruction of our culture. Think about it, there is subtle homosexuality, transgender, race mixing, lying, spying, secrets, multiculturalism, social justice warriors, bullying, political correctness, victimhood, suicide, guilt, gas lighting, God, and even mentions the ‘flat earth’ theory.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      I believe that MAGAZINES have more influence with young Whites than books. Magazines are all about what is hip, cool, happnin, and raw material to text about. Like….you know…like…

  22. Ricky
    Ricky says:

    There are more than 100 million Jews in the world, and are nearly 10 percent of the US population.

    Remember, “Through deception, we wage war.”

    • Sophie Johnson
      Sophie Johnson says:

      ‘There are more than 100 million Jews in the world, and are nearly 10 percent of the US population.’

      Ricky, I’ve long suspected that the number of Jews in every country is intentionally suppressed. (Census does not require disclosure about religion in any White land, as far as I know.) Please post information about your source.

  23. Edmund Connelly
    Edmund Connelly says:

    Another excellent essay by Dr. Joyce, one that fits nicely with the overall TOO project of deconstructing Jewish subversion of the White race.

    For what it’s worth, I might also add that exactly eight years ago, I offered a treatment of one of the children’s writers mentioned in the essay. Readers may find it complements Dr. Joyce’s current essay. See:

    And Kevin MacDonald’s comments on it:

    My essay begins:

    “Living so long in exile and so often in danger, we have cultivated a defensive and apologetic account, a censored story, of Jewish religion and culture.”
    Michael Walzer quoted in MacDonald Separation and Its Discontents, p. 217

    The $100 million-dollar film “Where the Wild Things Are” was released last October. Older readers might remember the 1963 children’s book on which the film is based. The original book was penned by Jewish American writer Maurice Sendak, who grew up in Brooklyn. Today I will consider whether or not the writer’s Jewish background played a role in the book’s creation.

    Many accounts of the book (and film) ignore the Jewish angle. For example, right around the time of the release of the film, The New York Times carried Bruce Handy’s review of the book. No mention at all was made of Jewishness.

  24. T. J.
    T. J. says:

    The other thread is aging so I’ll stick this here. This too may involve fiction.


    Revenue $46.4M. . .Total expense $48.1M. . .net loss $1.7M.

    Breaking down expenses- grants paid- zero! Benefits paid zero!
    Salaries $19M [approx] Fundraising fees $1.3M Other expenses $27.5M
    Total expenses $48.1M.

    So what is “other expenses?” Scroll down to part IX- looks like a list of general expenses. Where is a list of money paid to help the refugees? The only headings that seem to fit show $0.00 and $0.00! It looks like they took ALL the money and ran!

    btw that general expense list shows $13M for office expenses. . .padding?

    I see a form 990 from Catholic Charities with $10M distributed out of $30 revenue. So their expense of $20M would still be twice the amount handed out.
    A paltry amount [$30M]- this for the parent/umbrella org- seems not possible.

  25. Jake Trotman
    Jake Trotman says:

    This is a fantastic piece. My heart hurts seeing what these ‘ (((people))) ‘ have don’t to our society. The lack of empathy by them at forcing these views on children, disgusts me. The fact that these books are aimed at us goys leaves little doubt at their intentions- it will take generations to undo the mental and spiritual harm (((they’ve))) created.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      We don’t have “generations” to spare to undo anything, Jake. We have a couple of decades or the demographic erosion will dump us into he raging torrential river that runs to the sea.

  26. John
    John says:

    Is that why Archie (from the Archie comics) was killed taking a bullet to protect some new homo character I had never heard of as a kid?

  27. Vehmgericht
    Vehmgericht says:

    Der Giftpilz should be out of copyright: perhaps it could be reissued as bedtime reading for Aryans?

  28. Forest Gump
    Forest Gump says:

    “Julius Streicher was found guilty of crimes against humanity and hanged in 1946.” -(((Wikipedia)))

    “found guilty of crimes against humanity”???

    Lesléa Newman,
    Tzivia Gover,
    Robie Harris,
    Elizabeth Levy,
    Harvey Fierstein,
    Morris Gleitzman,
    Michael Rosen,
    Dorothy W. Baruch,
    Judy Blume,
    Alvin Schwartz


    OY VEY, Maybe, if the Goyim get really pissed off, they might be forced to leave, with all their stolen wealth…or maybe they just have to (((resign)))…


Comments are closed.