Jews and Hollywood

Jill Soloway and the “Transgender” Agenda, Part 2

Part 1.

Promoting the idea of “gender fluidity”

The ideological glue that holds Jill Soloway’s Transparent together is the deconstruction of the whole concept of gender. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? As one character in the show puts it, “We’re just a bunch of bodies, that’s it. No penis, no vagina, what does it matter?” According to Soloway, “The show questions the binary; trans people question the binary. Trans-ness demands that people live in the gray. The word ‘trans’ is about traveling the space between the binary. Judaism/feminism/trans politics — they can all really be woven together. Living at that ground zero place of otherness is inspiring to me.” Soloway is passionate about normalizing the concept of “gender fluidity”: Paste Magazine notes that: “In Transparent sexual identity loses its ‘statehood’ and becomes fluid, treated like an ongoing process with its own ebbs and flows.”

As Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, noted, the reality, as distinct from Soloway’s ideologically-driven fantasies, , is that far from being a normal healthy behavior, “transgenderism” is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment. Noting that changing sex is “biologically impossible,” McHugh observes that “people who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.” Read more

Jill Soloway and the “Transgender” Agenda, Part 1

soloway

Jill Soloway and son Isaac

 

In a recent article I explored the Jewish role in the hyper-sexualization of Western culture. I made the point that this phenomenon — the most obvious result of the Jewish takeover and virtual monopolization of the Western media and entertainment industries — represents the deliberate ethno-political application of psychoanalytic theory to a Western culture regarded as inherently authoritarian, fascistic and anti-Semitic due to its “repressive” sexual morality. This hyper-sexualization agenda, which has had disastrous social consequences for White people, operates in tandem with the Jewish-led “civil rights” movements which demand deference for non-Whites and sexual non-conformists — these serving as proxies for Jews as the prototypical outsiders in Western societies. With the legality of “gay marriage” seemingly secured (largely as a result of Jewish efforts) the focus of the “identity politics” agenda has now shifted to deconstructing traditional Western views about what it means to be a man or a woman.

As with the other “civil rights” movements dominated by Jews, the motivations underlying the  “transgender” rights movement are ultimately grounded in the subversive doctrines of the Frankfurt School — and in particular The Authoritarian Personality which found that those who ranked highly on the ethnocentrism scale (i.e., those more likely to harbor “anti-Semitic” views) tended to live in worlds with rigid gender boundaries, where attractiveness was grounded in traditional conceptions of masculinity and femininity, and where sexual mores were clearly delineated. Kevin MacDonald notes that “Jews, as a highly cohesive group, have an interest in advocating a completely atomistic, individualistic society in which ingroup-outgroup distinctions are not salient to gentiles.”[i] It is therefore in Jewish interests to subvert all non-Jewish social categories — whether these be based on race, religion or gender boundaries and roles. Hence their recent championing of the concept of “fluidity” which is the very antithesis of anything separate, homogeneous, or with clear boundaries. All cohesive (and evolutionarily adaptive) social categories that have characterized Western civilization have been subverted by Jewish activists. White masculinity has been a particular target. In his book Theorizing Masculinities the Jewish intellectual Michael Kaufman notes that:

If the hypotheses so patiently investigated by the Frankfurt School were right, this was a masculinity particularly involved in the maintenance of patriarchal ideology — marked by hatred for homosexuals and insistence on the subordination of women. But it was not the only show in town. The Authoritarian Personality analysed this character type in contrast to a “democratic character” that could resist the appeals of fascism. Inadvertently, therefore, the research documented different types of masculinity, distinguished along lines other than the normal-versus-pathological categories of clinical psychoanalysis.[ii]

tap

Read more

The Indoctrination Game, Part 2: Jewish media influence as decisive in creating a positive public culture of homosexuality

Part 1

The recent Jewish sanctification of Alan Turing as noble gay victim and Nazi nemesis is the photographic negative of pre-and post-World War II Jewish efforts to smear Hitler and his National Socialist comrades as “sexual perverts.” For decades the supposedly sordid sex lives of Hitler and the Nazi leadership filled tomes. Allegations of homosexuality were often repeated in Social Democratic and Communist newspapers (often Jewish-owned and -controlled) in the years leading up to Hitler becoming German chancellor in 1933.

Jewish attempts to brand Hitler and other National Socialist leaders as sexual perverts have since been largely abandoned with the ascendant cultural Marxist assault on White heterosexual normativity since the 1970s. Two Harvard-educated (non-Jewish) homosexuals, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, authored what can only be described as an incredibly successful blueprint for marketing the radical homosexual agenda in the United States. In their 1990 book entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, they advocated the demonization of those opposed to homosexuality, painting them as evil as possible until the general public comes to view such people as moral pariahs and avoids them. The authors suggested that Christians and others opposed to homosexuality should be labelled Klansmen, Nazis, racists or unbalanced freaks. Obviously, this approach draws on the long history of the media demonizing and pathologizing Whites who identify as Whites and see pursuing White interests as legitimate, a tradition that has its intellectual roots in the unholy nexus of the Frankfurt School and psychoanalysis.

Although TOO has emphasized that homosexuality should not be condemned by White advocates and that White homosexuals should also realize they have interests as Whites (see, e.g., here), the movement to promote a public culture of homosexuality is injurious for a variety of reasons, and certainly does not further the biological/ethnic interests of White homosexuals. It is deplorable that sexual non-conformists have become a central component of the “culture of the aggrieved” that permeates all Western societies and is a pillar of the political left.

Typical of the left, it has used its power to go beyond vilification to direct infringement on the freedoms of speech and religion of those who disapprove of homosexuality. With “gay marriage” legalized in Canada, Catholic Schools are having a difficult time teaching Catholic precepts on marriage and sexuality and an Ontario statute compels Catholic schools to host “Gay-Straight Alliance” clubs. In the U.S., many individuals and groups are being punished for what amount to thought crimes, such as the couple from Oregon (the same state that allows 15-year old children to have a state-funded sex change operation without parental consent) who were ordered to pay $135,000 for “emotional suffering” to two lesbians when they refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding.  Read more

The Indoctrination Game, Part 1: Constructing Alan Turing as Jewish Proxy

The Imitation Game is a 2014 historical thriller film based on the biography Alan Turing: The Enigma by the mathematician and gay rights activist Andrew Hodges. It stars Benedict Cumberbatch as the British cryptanalyst Alan Turing, who, working with a team of experts at the country estate Bletchley Park, devises a machine that, after much trial and error (and official interference) cracks the Germans’ notoriously difficult Enigma communications code. This breakthrough turns the tide of World War II and hastens Germany’s defeat. Turing is later prosecuted by a British court for his homosexuality and commits suicide as a result of the hormone treatment he is forced to endure.

The film was a huge commercial success (grossing $219 million against a $14 million production budget), received many award nominations, and won an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. However, while The Imitation Game was critically acclaimed, it was also slated for its many historical inaccuracies. Largely neglected in all the commentary about the Weinstein Company’s historical drama is the Jewish ethno-political agenda that runs through the film.

One Jewish source notes that, despite Benedict Cumberbatch being “so gentile it’s almost shocking,” the film has “significant Jewish angles” while being about “a non-Jewish mathematical genius from Cambridge University, Alan Turing, and his efforts to crack Nazi codes in the bucolic British countryside.” It admits that, given the Jewish domination of Hollywood, “perhaps it’s not shocking that the film’s producers are Jews (the clues are there in ‘film’ and ‘producers’)”—these producers being Ido Ostrowsky, Nora Grossman, and Teddy Schwarzman (the son of billionaire Jewish financier Stephen Schwarzman) who “were drawn to Turing’s story as a tale of a brilliant outsider forced to work with others to win the war against German evil.” Ah, the venerable heroic Jew as outsider theme. Read more

Jenji Kohan and the Jewish Hyper-Sexualization of Western Culture

As detailed in The Culture of Critique, Freud and his followers regarded anti-Semitism was a universal pathology which had its roots in sexual repression. The theoretical basis for this can be found in Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality where he linked aggression to the frustration of human drives — especially the sex drive. Kevin MacDonald notes that: “Although Freud himself later developed the idea of a death instinct to explain aggression, a consistent theme of the Freudian critique of Western culture, as exemplified for example by Norman O. Brown, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich, has been that the liberation of sexual repressions would lead to lowered aggression and usher in an era of universal love.”[1]

According to this view, anti-Semitism, regarded as a form of aggression, results from the denial of sexuality, and the role of the Jewish mission of psychoanalysis was to end anti-Semitism by freeing humanity of its sexual repressions. Individuals preoccupied with sex were considered unlikely to concern themselves with the activities of Jews, much less to organize politically against them. People who spend most of their time in search of sexual stimulation are unlikely to organize pogroms or threaten the rich and powerful Jewish establishment. In his jewishquarterly.org /issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38 [now a hijacked site] widely cited 2004 essay from the Jewish Quarterly Nathan Abrams observed that:

Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich’s central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Goodman wrote of the “beautiful cultural consequences” that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would “ennoble all our art” and “humanize sexuality.”

The hyper-sexualization of Western culture (the most conspicuous result of the Jewish takeover and virtual monopolization of the Western media and entertainment industries) can, therefore, be viewed as the practical ethno-political application of psychoanalytic theory to a traditional Western culture regarded as inherently authoritarian, fascistic and anti-Semitic due to its “repressive” sexual morality. MacDonald points out that “psychoanalysis has been a veritable treasure trove of ideas for those intent on developing radical critiques of Western culture” with these ideas influencing thought in a wide range of areas, “including sociology, child rearing, criminology, anthropology, literary criticism, art, literature, and the popular media.”[2] Read more

A Review of Jewcentricity by Adam Garfinkle — Part 2 of 4: Hollywood

Part 1.

In his book Garfinkle laments the fact that “negative Jewcentricity” has often resulted from “exaggerated” claims that “Jews run Hollywood” and have subverted the traditional morality and social practices of the United States (and the broader West). He notes that:

The best way to get at the subject is perhaps to briefly review some irrefutable facts about the entertainment-business culture in the United States. The first of those facts is, as already suggested, that this culture has been and remains disproportionately, overwhelmingly, even astonishingly Jewish. This does not mean that Jews “run” Hollywood. No one runs Hollywood, and besides, “the Jews” are not a monolithic group that gathers secretly somewhere just off Santa Monica Boulevard to plot the moral downfall of America. “The Jews run Hollywood,” whether spoken by a Jew or a gentile, either in pride or anger, is a Jewcentric statement. It is a bald exaggeration.

But Jewish prominence in Hollywood is a fact that impresses even when it is not exaggerated. The heads of nearly every major Hollywood production studio from the beginning were Jewish, as were many of the directors and not a small number of the cinematographers and actors. Jews have been only slightly less prominent in the New York theater business for nearly a century, and in many aspects of popular music, as well.[1]  

So, according to Garfinkle, it is wrong to say that “Jews run Hollywood” despite the fact that Hollywood is “disproportionately, overwhelmingly, even astonishingly Jewish.” This is an argument that hinges on a semantic distinction of no persuasive power whatever.

When one finds arguments that are so ridiculous that even a child could see through them and finds them in a book published by an elite academic press,  it can only mean one thing: Garfinkle has plugged into a dominant religion-like mindset in which the causes of anti-Jewish attitudes are entirely beyond rational discussion.

Jews totally run Hollywood. If Jews did not control Hollywood, and, as leftists assert, it was run by corporations solely fixated on profits, we would see occasional unsympathetic portrayals of Jews and Judaism alongside the relentlessly unsympathetic portrayals of Whites (especially White men) and Christianity; we wouldn’t see blacklisting of overt Christians. The absence of such portrayals is definitive proof that Jews exercise editorial and creative control over Hollywood productions, and the consequences of this control have been incredibly damaging to the interests of the White people (and other groups). Read more

“Birth of a Nation” at 100 Years Old

dwgriffith

Liberals and multiculturalists hate it when confronted with works of obvious genius which don’t fall into the pattern of their worldview. Along with angst-fuelled hand-wringing over certain works by Shakespeare and Wagner, a more modern manifestation of the problem is the cinematic landmark, The Birth of a Nation (available in part here), which will quietly celebrate its centenary this week. Compelling, innovative, trend-setting, and epic in scale, D.W. Griffith’s astonishing and unflinching vision of the Civil War and Reconstruction-era South remains powerful viewing even on its hundredth birthday.

I was an impressionable eighteen-year-old college student when I first viewed it. Despite the admonitions and careful commentaries of my film and media professor, I remember seeing past the fact that it was silent and interspersed with grainy captions and being impressed by its ‘modern’ style and appearance, and the smoothness of the editorial process. But it was some years later before I came to truly appreciate the scale and meaning of what Griffith had committed to film. On this occasion I watched it in North Carolina, at the home of my wife’s very elderly grandfather. This remarkable old man was every inch a Southerner, and a true gentleman at that. There one humid May evening, with the AC broken down and the windows wide open, the old man pulled out some Civil War relics that he had collected over the years. Presenting a series of antique rifles, medals, and pictures of Lee and Jackson, his eyes regained a youthful spark as he spoke of his own family memories and connections (real or imagined) to a host of Confederate heroes. Later in the evening, after we set down the relics of war in favor of cigars and Scotch, he pulled out a dusty VHS from an old bookcase. It was Birth of a Nation. It’s a long movie, clocking in at over three hours, and the old man drifted off to sleep within the first half hour. But I kept watching. And it was that night, with the firebugs glowing and buzzing by the open windows, and with the fragrant Southern air drifting slowly inside, that I felt what Griffith had aimed to portray — pride of land, pride of culture, and pride of blood. Read more