Der sehr große (giiigantische) Vorteil eines Sieges des Front National für den Kulturkampf in Frankreich

/2 Comments/in /by

German translation of “The Very Large (Yuuuge) Upside of a Front National Victory for the Cultural Struggle in France” by Guillaume Durocher

(The Occidental Observer December 11, 2015)

Übersetzt von Frederic Dupont

Die Dekadenz einer Nation zeigt sich in der Qualität Ihrer Führerschaft. Die Französische Republik gab uns einst, obwohl sie freimaurerisch und gottlos war, einen Clemenceau oder einen De Gaulle. Heute haben wir einen Francois Hollande, einen Mann,  der, bis hin zu seiner Wackelpudding-ähnlichen Statur Unentschlossenheit und Unvermögen vermittelt (so viel wie Jeb Bush). So endest Du, wenn Du nie eine Chance ergreifst, nie Staub aufwirbelst, nie deine Persönlichkeit durchsetzt – nichts davon auch nur ein einziges Mal. Doch Hollande ist nur die Spitze des Eisberges. Kommen Sie und begleiten Sie mich beim Gang durch die unterhöhlten Korridore der „französischen“ Regierung.

Im Allgemeinen fällt mir auf, daß der Besitz und die Kontrolle über die Medien in Frankreich weniger jüdisch dominiert ist, als in den USA. Natürlich gehört dem Waffenproduzenten Serge Dassault (geborener Bloch) die führende konservative Zeitung Le Figaro, Edouard de Rothschild rettete die angeblich „links-libertäre“ Libération und Bernard-Henri Lévy präsidiert über dem Französisch-Deutschen Kulturkanal Arte (wahrscheinlich nicht ganz zufällig – Arte ist wegen des Sendens von hochgradig degenerierten und sogar pornographischen Inhalten in den vergangenen Jahren bekannt geworden). (1) Die Juden sind natürlich prozentual weit überproportional Journalisten und auch „Intellektuelle im öffentlichen Raum“ (in Frankeich anmaßend „Philosophen“ genannt). Die Juden, welche – wenn überhaupt – nur 1 Prozent der französischen Bevölkerung ausmachen, sind wahrscheinlich nahe an einer absoluten Mehrheit unter den in der mediengeförderten Öffentlichkeit befindlichen Intellektuellen (Schauen Sie sich nur eine französische Talk-Show an), es ist jedoch schwer, belastbare Daten über diese Art Dinge zu bekommen. Read more

Pourquoi tant de haine et de peur de Donald Trump chez certains Juifs ?

/in /by

Original article: Why so much Jewish fear and loathing of Donald Trump?

Article d’origine publié le 29 octobre 2015

Traduction: Blog Blanche Europe

Chez certains Juifs, on constate une angoisse extraordinaire, à la limite du dérangement mental, à propos de la campagne de Donald Trump pour obtenir l’investiture du Parti Républicain. Cette angoisse ne se base sur rien de réel, mais trahit malheureusement leur profonde névrose et leur aliénation vis-à-vis de la nation américaine historique.

Il n’est pas inutile de se demander en quoi Trump diffère du candidat présidentiel idéalement souhaité par les Juifs en général. Ce candidat idéal est (1) systématiquement et fanatiquement pro-Israël ; (2) il est systématiquement à gauche sur les questions sociales, en particulier sur tout ce qui concerne l’immigration et le multiculturalisme ; (3) il dépend pour sa campagne électorale de grosses contributions financières qui dépendent de son empressement à satisfaire les points (1) et (2). Jeb Bush, qui était initialement le favori de Sheldon Adelson et de la Coalition Juive Républicaine, correspondait bien aux critères. Mais il semble maintenant perdre du terrain, alors qu’Adelson se rapproche de Marco Rubio—le même Marco Rubio qui tient exactement le bon discours sur Israël et le Proche Orient, et qui faisait partie de la bande des huit sénateurs derrière le projet de loi de régularisation et d’accélération de l’immigration. Read more

The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part Two

/61 Comments/in , /by
Albert Moll

Albert Moll

Part I.

Albert Moll (1862–1939), who would go on to be “a great influence on Freud,”[1] came from a Polish Jewish merchant family and “belonged to the Jewish religious community.”[2] Typical of his ethno-religious group, Moll frequently utilized his position within the field of medical psychology to form an oppositional bloc against prevailing opinions in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century non-Jewish society. Indeed, large numbers of Jews tactically ambushed several medical disciplines during this period for precisely this reason. Historian Elena Macini writes that “Jews flooded medicine at this time not only for social standing, but also in an era that witnessed the efflorescence of race science, for the opportunity of self-representation. … The presence of Jews in the medical sector in general, and in race science in particular, allowed them to assert Jewish equality and very often moral superiority.”[3] With Berlin as the center of German medicine, and Jews comprising one third of doctors in the city,[4] the domination and re-orientation of entire disciplines was not only feasible but disturbingly easy.

A key aspect of advocating for Jewish equality and moral superiority was the Jewish advocacy of social, racial and religious pluralism. This position often came into conflict with non-Jewish efforts to promote Nationalism, particularly ethnically-based Nationalism, and corresponding efforts to confront social and cultural decay. A universal theme in Albert Moll’s works were arguments against German attempts to reckon with late Imperial and Weimar-era social and biological degeneration via eugenic programs. For example, in his Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften (1911) Moll expressed the hope that mooted plans for sterilization programs would “not be implemented and that our race-improvers do not get too much influence on our legislation.” When German science in the late 1920s became concerned with degeneration and decline, gravitating even further towards eugenics, Moll preceded Boas in rejecting the findings of behavior genetics, arguing that “the fact we find so many valuable people, despite the hereditary burden, is caused by regeneration in countless cases. …  We can hardly ever say something about the condition of offspring with any certainty at all.” Moll was therefore the quintessential Jewish physician: political and ethnic interests were never far from his dubious practice of medicine. Read more

Cultural Bolsheviks in the Media Manipulate the English Language: Comment on “How America’s dying white supremacist movement is seizing on Donald Trump’s appeal”

/16 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s note: Dr. Tom Sunic sent this letter in reply to “How America’s dying white supremacist movement is seizing on Donald Trump’s appeal” by Peter Holley and Sarah Larimer which appeared in The Washington Post on Dec. 21. One might comment on the wishful thinking apparent in the title (by all accounts we are growing) and its use of the SPLC’s favorite label, “White supremacist,” as a sure-fire to get the juices flowing in its target audience. But the point of the article is once again to link its real target, Donald Trump, with White advocates, thereby associating Trump with ideas that are abhorrent to the ruling class, the Washington Post readership, and Social Justice Warriors everywhere. The comments attributed to me were taken from the TOO annual fundraising note.

Dear Mr. Holley dear Ms. Larimer,

Let me congratulate you on your relatively well written piece on “white supremacists and Donald Trump’s appeal.” At least the quotes by some of my colleagues and friends (Richard Spencer, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, etc.) seem to be embedded in a dispassionate and larger framework of your description of would-be or real Donald Trump supporters.  It would be commendable, indeed, if yourself, or other Washington Post correspondents, could provide an additional piece on lexical manipulation and semantic derivatives of such grandstanding words and expression as “white supremacists,” “racists,” or “white nationalists.” What is the true meaning of these words today?  In fact, these expressions, so common by now in the US, are hardly ever used in the mainstream media in the EU.  Not for freedom of speech sake — far from it — but simply due to their cumbersome, polysyllabic character which does not allow them to be substituted into the standard version of the French or German translations. The expressions “white supremacists,” or “white nationalists,” sound pretty odd in France or Germany — notwithstanding the draconian, repressive, freedom-curbing laws in these two countries respectively.  This may be a good enough reason why Trump is likable to many people, including many self-censored academics and journalists in the USA and EU who, at long last, found a big man voicing aloud their suppressed political feelings.

Aside from being or not being enamored with Trump, it would be commendable to avoid using generic and highly loaded words such as “racists,” and “white supremacists.”  They have become meaningless by now, precisely because of their all too frequent usage.  They all bear striking similarities to the shut-up words  “fascists,”  “anti-Semites”,  “enemies of the people,”  which made up a standard vernacular in the former communist  Eastern Europe. As a young boy in ex-communist Yugoslavia, each time after attending Sunday school I was reprimanded by my teachers of my “deviant,” “clero-fascist,” “Ustashi ” behavior.  Subsequently, those denominations lost their original meaning — only to become a badge of honor for many nationalists in Croatia and Europe today.

Of course, I’d be happy to provide you with a comparative study of communist vs. liberal verbal treasure trove, and how a number of law-abiding White intellectuals and politicians in the USA and EU are being relegated to the realm of demonology. Demons, of course, being no humans, cannot have human rights.

Sincerely,

Tomislav (Tom) Sunic, PhD
www.tomsunic.com
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/author/tomsunic/
http://american3rdposition.com/?cat=1019

Zagreb, Croatia

The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part One

/59 Comments/in , , /by

“Sexual morality — as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it — seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.”                                                                                        Sigmund Freud, 1908.

“There will be other forms in addition to our classic marriage…We will experience a broader spectrum of socially accepted forms of sexual life.”                                                                                                           Volkmar Sigusch, 2015.

sigusch

Volkmar Sigusch

Volkmar Sigusch (1940- ) may not be a familiar name to TOO readers, but for those concerned about the modern assault on traditional attitudes to gender and sexuality it should be. You might have encountered the term ‘cisgender,’ a Sigusch creation that is rapidly gaining traction in common speech. For those unfamiliar with it, it has come to replace “normal” and even the more deviant-friendly term ‘heterosexual.’ Specifically, the term refers to those “who feel there is a match between their assigned sex and the gender they feel themselves to be. You are cisgender if your birth certificate says you’re male and you identify yourself as a man.” The goal behind inventing such a bizarre and convoluted label for that which is natural and healthy is, of course, to further dilute the identity of the present and coming generations, and convince us all that there is no “normal,” only different positions within an ever more colorful spectrum.

By undermining the meaning of what it is to be male and female, one undermines the healthy concept of the family. And when the healthy concept of the family possessed by a given group is undermined, that group is pushed ever closer to genocide via (using the United Nations lexicon) “deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and “imposing measures intended to prevent births.” The bumper crop of terms like ‘cisgender’, cooked up with alarming frequency by the “sexologists,” helps reduce marriage between a man and a woman and the raising of children within that union, to a mere “option” on a veritable menu of possible sexualities, gender identities, and family structures. In this brave new world there is no “normal” or “ideal” since all “models” are allegedly valid and equal. Read more

Old Christmas

/in /by
fireplace
A man might then behold
At Christmas in each hall,
Good fires to curb the cold,
And meat for great and small.
The neighbors were friendly bidden,
And all had welcome true,
The poor from the gates were not children,
When this old cap was new.
Old Song

 

There is nothing in England that exercises a more delightful spell over my imagination than the lingerings of the holiday customs and rural games of former times. They recall the pictures my fancy used to draw in the May morning of life, when as yet I only knew the world through books, and believed it to be all that poets had painted it; and they bring with them the flavor of those honest days of yore, in which, perhaps with equal fallacy, I am apt to think the world was more homebred, social, and joyous than at present. I regret to say that they are daily growing more and more faint, being gradually worn away by time, but still more obliterated by modern fashion. They resemble those picturesque morsels of Gothic architecture, which we see crumbling in various parts of the country, partly dilapidated by the waste of ages, and partly lost in the additions and alterations of latter days. Poetry, however, clings with cherishing fondness about the rural game and holiday revel, from which it has derived so many of its themes–as the ivy winds its rich foliage about the Gothic arch and moldering tower, gratefully repaying their support, by clasping together their tottering remains, and, as it were, embalming them in verdure. Read more

Merry Christmas Movies . . . NOT! Part 2 — Anti-Christmas Movies

/20 Comments/in , /by

In Part One of this column about the War on Christmas, I wrote that “the Jewish dominance of Hollywood is so obvious and undeniable that Los Angeles Times’ columnist Joel Stein recently made it official. What else can you say when all eight major film studios are run by Jews.” I’ve written on this theme extensively in The Occidental Quarterly (here, here, and TOQ Spring 2008). Or you could read Jewtopia: The Chosen Book for the Chosen People, based on the surprise hit play by Bryan Fogel and Sam Wolfson. Or you could listen to  David Mamet: “For those who have not been paying attention, this group [Ashkenazi Jews] constitutes, and has constituted since its earliest days, the bulk of America’s movie directors and studio heads.”

In The Culture-Wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World, Theodore Baehr and Pat Boone argued that “whoever controls the media controls the culture.” And a lynchpin of that media is Hollywood and its associated TV studios and networks.

Why does it matter that Jews control Hollywood? In essence, it matters because it represents the loss of power of one group—majority white Christians—to a group with a long history of hostility toward the people and culture of the West. Jewish control of Hollywood has been a crucial means for dispossessing majority whites from their place in the country they built. As some have argued, the twentieth century was “a Jewish century,” and much of this was because Jews controlled the image factory known as Hollywood. Read more