July 3, 2015
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.”
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 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.”
I recently noted how Daniel Jonah Goldhagen claims to be bewildered by Billy Graham’s “nutty” comment in his secretly recorded conversation with President Nixon in 1972 that Jews were “the ones putting out the pornographic stuff,” and that so severe was the danger that Jews pose that their “stranglehold has got to be broken or this country’s going down the drain.” Of course Goldhagen is uninterested in whether Graham’s assertion has any grounding in empirical reality — whether Jews actually are the ones mainly responsible for “putting out the pornographic stuff,” and are thereby undermining the cultural foundations and supports for high-investment parenting and sending the country “down the drain.” A quick look at the output of Hollywood, and the individuals responsible for it, is, however, enough to confirm that Graham’s assertion is absolutely correct. Not only have Jews long dominated the pornography industry, they have also been pivotal in “mainstreaming” pornographic themes and images through the movies and TV programs they produce.
Jenji Kohan — From Weeds to Orange is the New Black
To take just one of countless possible examples, consider the enormously popular program Orange is the New Black (hereafter OItNB). This show is the brainchild of screenwriter and executive producer Jenji Kohan who comes from a prominent Jewish show business family. Her father, Buz Kohan, a frequent writer for the Academy Awards, is the recipient of 11 Emmy Awards in a career that spans five decades. Her mother, Rhea Kohan, is a novelist, while her eldest brother, David, is the co-creator and producer of the gay-themed NBC sitcom Will & Grace. According to Danielle Berrin, writing for the “Hollywood Jew” section of The Jewish Journal:
Kohan could be the Jewish girl next door. But there is edginess to her — her hair perpetually tousled, and she always wears those signature eyeglasses with the art-deco glamour. … Her earliest fantasy was to be a famous actress-singer named Rainbow Star. But she couldn’t act. Or sing. Years later, after some time working in television, Kohan considered rabbinical school. But none of those whims proved as powerful as her (very Jewish) birthright, which has catapulted Kohan to many a writer’s highest aspiration, helming her own TV show.
Kohan worked for her brother David on Will & Grace during her early years, but decided his brand of humor was too tame. “David took the big, commercial, funny route; I was always a little darker personally,” she explains, “and not terrific within the system. I had to make my own way.” It was with specific reference to her brother David and the plethora of activist Hollywood Jews like him, that Vice President Joe Biden noted in 2013 how Jewish influence on American culture had been “immense.” Speaking of the prominent roles Jews had played in transforming American attitudes toward civil rights, feminism, and homosexual rights, he noted that:
What affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else. … It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace [gay marriage]. Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.
In a similar vein, the Jewish writer and intellectual Chaim Bermant observed that “the Jews that came to dominate Hollywood” between them “did more to determine American attitudes and tastes than the churches or even the schools.” This is hardly surprising given that, as cultivation theory and social learning theory postulate, exposure to media content leads to increased sympathy for the values embedded in the content, as well as an increased propensity to regard the fictional portrayals as representations of reality.
Noting how right from Hollywood’s founding Jewish ethnic networking and nepotism quickly led to an industry completely dominated by Jews, Bermant wryly observed that “Hollywood, the place, as it was said, where ‘the son-in-law also rises’ was the last redoubt of nepotism, but nepotism was perhaps one of its saving virtues, for it indicated, if only at a crude level, that it was not wholly devoid of charity.” Jewish family and ethnic networking played an inevitable role in Kohen’s ascent to eventually “helming” her own show. She recounts how:
I started writing. … I quit all of my crappy odd jobs, and I moved in with [a friend who] was living in Santa Cruz. And every day we would go to these little cafes in Santa Cruz, and I would work on spec scripts and study these videotapes I had recorded off television of Roseanne and Seinfeld and The Simpsons. … What ended up happening was, my sister-in-law’s father worked in a building with an agent and gave him my scripts in an elevator. And he read them, and I was on a show by spring. And it took off from there, and I never stopped working.
Kohan became a screenwriter for numerous dramas and comedies, including Sex and the City (created by Jewish writer, director and producer Darren Star), Gilmore Girls (created by Jewish writer, director and producer Amy Sherman), Mad About You (created by Jewish writer and actor Paul Reiser and Jewish writer and producer Danny Jacobson), and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (created by Jewish writer and actor Andy Borowitz and wife Susan Borowitz).
In 2005 she was given the opportunity to write and produce her own show, which led to the dark comic satire Weeds — a show about the “peculiar nature of American domesticity.” Originally set in the fictional suburb of Agrestic (later Majestic), the show follows the widowed, single mother Nancy Botwin (Mary-Louise Parker), who becomes a drug dealer in order to maintain her middle class lifestyle. With the help of various disreputable characters and her useless and immature brother-in-law Andy (who is representative of Hollywood’s routinely unflattering depictions of White men), she raises her two sons, Silas and Shane.
The Jewish Journal notes how Weeds “routinely deals with many of the most provocative, controversial themes on television. Any given season has its share of lawlessness, illicit relationships and an astonishing Freudian subtext (in one episode, Nancy catches her youngest son masturbating to a nude photograph of her).” Freudian themes continue to exert an enduring influence over the Jewish shapers of Western minds, like Kohan, despite that fact that these ideas have long ceased to play any role whatever in mainstream developmental psychology.
According to the Jewish Journal, Kohan’s “refusal to limit herself in her show’s creative content has made moral ambiguity a Weeds trademark. No topic is too grim, no character too depraved.” In giving her the scope to explore these depraved characters, and to mine them for humor and ask questions, Kohan claimed that Weeds allowed her to get in touch with her Jewish identity, noting that, “For me, the essence of my Judaism is to ask questions — ask why, ask more. And in a way, the show allows me to follow that path of Judaism.”
After the critically-acclaimed Weeds, which ended in 2012, Kohan adapted the (half-Jewish) author Piper Kerman‘s memoir Orange is the New Black about her experiences in a minimum-security women’s prison. This series revolves around the “clueless bisexual blonde” Piper Chapman (played by Taylor Schilling) who is sentenced to 15 months in prison for transporting drug money for her drug trafficking former girlfriend Alex Vause (Laura Prepon). This offense occurred ten years before the start of the series, and Piper has since moved on to enjoying a quiet, law-abiding life among New York’s upper middle class. Her sudden and unexpected arrest completely disrupts her relationships with her fiancé and family. In prison, Piper is reunited with Alex (who named Piper in her trial, resulting in her ex-girlfriend’s arrest and imprisonment), and they re-examine their relationship and deal with their fellow prisoners. OItNB often uses flashbacks of significant events from the various inmates’ backgrounds to explain how they came to be in prison and to fill in their backstories.
OItNB is an incredibly degenerate show that inverts traditional Western morality and glamorizes homosexuality. The main themes of the show are that committed heterosexual relationships are abnormal and that Christianity is an evil creed, which, owing to its stifling sexual morality, leads its practitioners to become hypocritical bigots with twisted, neurotic personalities. The Christian “villain” in the show was sent to prison for killing a group of abortionists after receiving an abortion herself. Every woman in the prison, with the exception of the Christian villain, is in a lesbian relationship with one of their fellow inmates — even a nun.
Hollywood’s Jewish movers and shakers love to debase Christianity and Catholicism by depicting nuns in sexual roles. Notoriously, the opening scene of the pilot of Californication, a program starring and produced by the Jewish actor David Duchovny (whose father was a publicist for the American Jewish Committee), depicts a nun performing oral sex on Duchovny’s character Hank Moody in a church. This pornographic debasement of Christian symbols by Jews is a blatant way of defiling Christian culture. Kohan certainly has no qualms about such depictions, noting that: “When people have these sacred cows, my urge is to tip them.” Of course anyone attempting to “tip” a Jewish sacred cow will quickly find himself on an ADL and SPLC hit list, will likely lose his job, and if a public figure, will be relentlessly attacked by the Jewish-controlled media.
Labelling Kohan a “force of nature” Time Magazine notes how her “characters are a breathtaking riot of color and sexual orientation onscreen. Jenji shows a passion for diversity by creating characters of all backgrounds who are three-dimensional, flawed and sometimes unpleasant, but always human.” The perennial Hollywood themes of the nobility of sexual liberation and race mixing are particularly salient in OItNB. Asked in an interview why she included so much gratuitous sex in her show, Kohan responded by declaring that:
I want more fucking, everywhere. That’s one of my things. It expresses everything. It’s comfort, it’s release, it’s brutality, it’s companionship. It’s so many things. We’re all doing it. We’re all thinking about it. We don’t see it enough. Part of it is a dance with the [mostly non-Jewish] actors because it’s very vulnerable for them to do it. But if I had my way, there would be so much more, in everything. It’s so vital and integral in life, and it should be reflected in what we’re watching, if we’re reflecting our experiences. And it’s hot. I love the sex stuff, and I want more.
Kohan likewise told The Hollywood Reporter: “I love graphic sex, the more sex the better. Very often it’s convincing the actors to get naked. … You hope everyone will just be cool about it, and then they’re not. There’s a lot of convincing and making people feel comfortable.” Hollywood’s Jewish bigwigs have long used their power to make or break careers as a golden opportunity to gain access to, and sexually exploit, non-Jewish actresses and actors (and children). Bermant acknowledges that “the Jewish businessman has never turned a blind eye (a furtive eye sometimes, but never a blind one) to such attractions. The Rabbis have always been aware of a lascivious streak in the Jewish character.”
Netflix, which airs OItNB, has been fully supportive of the sexually explicit content of OItNB, only intervening once according to Kohan. “We have some male frontal nudity this season, but I don’t think it’s going to be erect.” For comparison, Kohan noted the comparatively strict guidelines that Showtime (a wholly owned subsidiary of Sumner Redstone’s CBS) set for a scene in Weeds, in which “a dildo and lube were allowed to be shown on screen, but the character was not allowed to be seen applying the lube to the dildo.”
Elsewhere Kohan has opined that: “I think people need to accept their sexuality no matter what environment they’re in,” and observed how she is “a great subscriber to the Kinsey scale, where 10% is absolutely straight and 10% is absolutely gay and everyone sort of floats in the middle, everyone else.” Here Kohan echoes the Freudian “argument” that “a disposition to perversions is an original and universal disposition of the human sexual instinct.”
An article in Rolling Stone notes that OItNB has been at the forefront of TV shows challenging viewers’ perceptions of sexuality and gender identity, specifically thanks to the performance of “trans actress” Laverne Cox, who plays Sophia Burset, and openly gay actress Lea DeLaria, who plays Carrie “Big Boo” Black. Kohan points out that in her show “transgenderism” is “not confronted,” but is “seamlessly woven” into the tale of protagonist Piper Chapman’s time in a minimum security federal prison. “It’s not ‘The Very Special Episode about the trans character,’” she notes, “It’s normalized in this conversation.” One source, noting how OItNB has succeeded in normalizing sexual perversion and the idea of the “fluid” nature of gender identity, observed that:
This is the show, after all, that made Laverne Cox a household name as much for her sophisticated intersectional politics as for her laugh-out-loud beauty. A trans woman of color and the first trans actor to be nominated for an Emmy, Cox has consistently questioned the popular notion that visibility in itself is enough to bring about social change, instead using her position to publicize LGBTQ activism and to call attention to issues of inequality and injustice. Orange is the New Black makes its feminist points in a slyly subversive way: its radical themes combine with compelling storytelling as we are plunged, cellmate-like, into intimacy with the characters.
In response to news that one of the female staff writers on OItNB had divorced her husband and is now dating a star of the show after she said writing the show made her realize she was a lesbian, Kohan quipped: “I turned her gay. I made her gay. I felt like there wasn’t enough balance in the room, so I have a magic wand and I make people gay.”
Despite these flippant remarks, there is sound evidence that sexual orientation is, to a significant extent, environmentally determined. A 2006 Danish study found that, based on an analysis of two million men and women, social and family factors played a significant role in determining sexual orientation. In an interview, one of the study’s authors stressed that: “Prenatal factors cannot account for the variation in human sexual orientations,” and that “whatever ingredients determine a person’s sexual preferences and marital choices, our population-based study shows that environmental factors are important.” Culture likely mediates human sexuality through exerting an inhibitory or disinhibitory influence on certain sexual behaviors. Through its positive portrayal of homosexuality and “transgenderism,” OItNB clearly encourages marginal or confused individuals, such as the staff writer on the show, to identity as homosexual.
OItNB was showered with 12 Primetime Emmy Award nominations for its first season. Predictably, the show has also been universally lauded in the Jewish-controlled media. A Washington Post reviewer extolled the show’s “characters and ambitious writing and acting”, and noted how
in one of the new episodes, there is protracted debate about the location of the urethra in relation to the vagina — a matter definitively settled by Burset, a transgender inmate (played by Laverne Cox) — and a competition between two lesbian inmates, Big Boo and Nichols (Lea DeLaria and Natasha Lyonne) to see who can seduce the largest number of inmates, with a special emphasis on orgasm.
Observations like these seemingly pass for serious cultural commentary in one of America’s most prominent and influential media outlets these days.
Sexual Liberation — Great for Goyim, But Not for Jews
As this critic’s remarks indicate, anything goes on OItNB — except anything deemed racist, pro-Christian, or anti-LGBT. Kohan’s own life, however, conforms to more traditional Jewish standards. She is married to freelance journalist Christopher Noxon, with whom she has three children. Kohan claims that it is her conventional domestic life that propels her into the darker corners of storytelling. She’s attracted to seedier material because, as she puts it, “This is my rebellion, this is my fun.” In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, she recalled how her desire to include a character named Yael character in Weeds was borne of the Jewish milieu within which she raised her children. “My children attend a Jewish school,” she said at the time. “I met a lot of Israeli mothers there, and the character of Yael is a tribute to those mothers. They’re so terrific. All the Israeli mothers I’ve met are terrific, and so is Meital. Yael is a character I constructed from all the mothers in our school. I always check where people are in relation to their Judaism.”
The tendency of Jewish subverters of Western culture (like Kohan) to not personally practice what they promote for their intended audience is striking. Another noteworthy exemplar of this tendency is the Jewish entrepreneur and “King of Infidelity” Noel Biderman, the founder and CEO of the company that operates a dating website named Ashley Madison which is designed to make it easy for married people to arrange adulterous affairs. The slogan of the company (which Biderman himself came up with) is: “Life is short. Have an affair.” While promoting infidelity (and profiting handsomely from it), Biderman himself says he is a happily married father of two and does not cheat. In an interview with the “A Current Affair” program in Australia, he admitted that if he found out his own wife was accessing his cheater’s site, “I would be devastated.”
Former Chief British Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, writing in the Encyclopaedia of Modern Jewish Culture, observes that while “the sexual revolution of the 1960s found some Jewish protagonists,” within Jewish communities “the primary response was a strong defence of tradition.” Within diaspora Jewish communities, sexual liberation was regarded as a direct threat to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, where “not only ethical values were at stake.” Noting that “Images of marriage and family pervade Jewish theological language about the covenantal relationship between God and Israel,” Sacks observes that, “the stability and fertility of families is crucial to the demographics of Jewish survival.” As these comments indicate, healthy, functional societies coalesce around the propagation and protection of children. While Jews have endeavoured to sustain this coalescence within Jewish communities, they have actively sought to sabotage it within non-Jewish communities.
An egregious recent manifestation of this cultural sabotage concerns the one time child star Miley Cyrus who recently declared: “I am literally [sexually] open to every single thing that is consenting and doesn’t involve an animal and everyone is of age. Everything that’s legal, I’m down with. … I don’t relate to being boy or girl, and I don’t have to have my partner relate to boy or girl.” Cyrus’s transition from innocent child star to leading sluttish propagandist for complete sexual liberation and “gender fluidity” can be directly ascribed to the malign influence exerted by her Jewish manager Larry Rudolph. As Britain’s Daily Mirror reported:
Take a pretty young girl with a clean image, turn her into a showbiz sex goddess and watch the money roll in. That is what has happened to Miley Cyrus. And her steamy interviews plus semi-naked “twerking” routine are looking like a deliberate career switch under the guidance of a calculating manager, reports the Sunday People.
Step forward Larry Rudolph. For Miley, the former Hannah Montana child actress turned queen of sleaze, is just the latest in a string of raunchy products from his stable. Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera and Jessica Simpson are all his creations as well. The multi-millionaire businessman and former lawyer specializes in helping performers make the transition from child star to adult entertainer.
Middle America was outraged by the sight of former Disney princess Miley, 21, wearing a flesh-colored latex bikini and gyrating suggestively against singer Robin Thicke at the MTV Video Music Awards in August. How could the sweet little thing who played children’s TV favorite Hannah for eight years sink so low, asked disgusted parents’ groups. But her televised performance was seen by 50 million people. And cheering her on were Rudolph and her mum and co-manager, Tish Finley.
Rudolph, 50, a talent manager for 15 years, has been working with the singer since last spring. And he told the Hollywood Reporter magazine he thought that Miley’s performance at the VMAs was an absolute corker. He declared: “We were all cheering from the side of the stage. It could not have gone better. The fans got it. The rest eventually will.” Rudolph’s skills have made him worth an estimated £13 million but he came from humble beginnings in the Bronx area of New York.
Catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones has posited that the Jewish promotion of sexual license (and the increasingly full gamut of sexual perversions and gender-identity dysfunctions) is, effectively, a way of exercising political control over non-Jewish populations — a way of rendering them politically tractable by making them slaves to their passions. An example that Jones frequently cites of Jews deliberately using the sexualization of culture to destabilize an enemy is the actions of Israeli soldiers after they took over Palestinian TV stations in 2002, where they immediately started broadcasting an endless stream pornography over the airwaves. Jones notes that:
The Israelis have recently shown themselves well-versed in what one could call the military use of pornography. At 4:30 PM on March 30, 2002, Israeli military forces took over Palestinian TV stations when they occupied Ramallah in the West Bank, immediately shutting them down. What followed was a little more unusual. Shortly after occupying the Al-Watan TV station, the Israeli forces began broadcasting pornography over its transmitter. Eventually, according to a report from The Advertiser, an Australian newspaper, the Israelis expanded their cultural offensive against the Palestinian people by broadcasting pornography over two other Palestinian stations, the Ammwaj and Al-Sharaq channels. One 52-year-old Palestinian mother of three children, according to the report in The Advertiser, complained about “the deliberate psychological damage caused by these broadcasts.”
Whether one accepts Jones’ thesis or not, the Jewish hyper-sexualization of Western culture and assault on White heterosexual normativity is too ubiquitous and longstanding a phenomenon to not to have a firm ethno-political basis. Regarding the overwhelming political support of Jews for sexual minorities, the late Jewish author Charles Silberman pointed out that, “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief—one firmly rooted in history—that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.” The Jewish professor of English at the University of Massachusetts, Josh Lambert, likewise noted that Jewish lawyers “believe that minority discourse deserves protection” on the basis that “the Holocaust was the ultimate suppression of minorities” and, consequently, for Jews, “the right for free speech became a fight for minority rights.”
The Consequences of the Jewish Hyper-Sexualization of Western Culture
The consequences of the erosion of traditional Western shaming code which enforced constraints on sexuality (the result of the triumph of the psychoanalytic and radical critiques of Western culture since the 1960s when the controls on Hollywood’s depiction of sexuality that originated in the 1920s effectively collapsed) have been far more deleterious to those lower IQ groups that are genetically predisposed to precocious sexuality than to diaspora Jews (higher intelligence being correlated with later age of marriage, lower levels of illegitimacy, single parenting, and divorce). A 2006 study in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that: “The strong relationship between media and adolescents’ sexual expression” is due to “the media’s role as an important source of sexual socialization for teenagers.” According to psychologists Richard Jackson Harris and Fred W. Sandborn in their book A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication: “Teenagers who watch heavy diet of television with sexual content were twice as likely to engage in sexual intercourse over the following year as teens who were light viewers of sexual content, even after controlling for other possible factors” (see also “Research on Pornography and the Sexualization of Culture”).
The hyper-sexualization of Western culture has led to soaring rates of sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents. There has been an alarming rise in gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis across the United States. There has also been a surge in child-on-child sexual abuse throughout the Western world. Joe Tucci, chief executive of the Australian Childhood Foundation attributes this dramatic upsurge to the fact that nowadays children “have this diet of easily accessible porn, sexual imagery and distorted values around relationships and they put those things together and they start engaging in sexual behavior.” Social commentator Melinda Tankard Reist plaintively asks, “How much worse does it have to get? How many more five-year-olds do we want to have in treatment programs until we say that maybe it shouldn’t be a free-for-all where kids can access torture porn and rape porn and incest porn? Children are being groomed to think this stuff is normal.” It hardly needs saying that, as a result of programs like Jenji Kohan’s OItNB, the division between pornography and popular entertainment is rapidly dissolving.
The “pornification” of popular culture proceeds apace
Kevin MacDonald notes that “the most basic mistake Freud made was the systematic conflation of sex and love. This was also his most subversive mistake, and one cannot emphasize the absolutely disastrous consequences of accepting the Freudian view that sexual liberation would have salutary effects on society.” The psychoanalytic emphasis on the benefits of sexual liberation is “fundamentally a program that promotes low investment parenting styles.” By contrast, traditional Western religious and secular institutions resulted in a “highly egalitarian mating system that is associated with high-investment parenting. These institutions provided a central role for pair bonding, conjugality, and companionship as the basis for marriage. However, when these institutions were subjected to the radical critique presented by psychoanalysis, they came to be seen as engendering neurosis, and Western society itself was viewed as pathogenic.
The net result of the Jewish engineered sexual revolution has, as Kevin MacDonald has noted, been the establishment of a society controlled by a Jewish “cognitive elite” who politically, economically and socially dominate “a growing mass of individuals who are intellectually incompetent, irresponsible as parents, prone to requiring public assistance, and prone to criminal behavior, psychiatric disorders, and substance abuse.” Meanwhile, at the other end of the social spectrum, Jewish activists have recruited the most intellectually capable elements from within White populations and used them (through a Jewish-sanctioned public school curriculum and a perverted system of financial incentives) to harm communities of their own biological origin.
The Jewish hyper-sexualization of Western culture seems to only intensify with each passing year, as the line between pornography and popular entertainment blurs. To protect White communities from the insidious influence of Hollywood we clearly need, in addition to exposing the ethnic agenda behind its output, develop an alternative and widely accessible media of our own that reinforces the cultural supports for healthy White families. While significant progress can doubtless be made towards developing an alternative media infrastructure through using new communications technologies, breaking the Jewish mass media and entertainment monopoly will ultimately require the acquisition and deployment of very considerable financial resources.
 Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 113.
 Ibid. 138-39.
 Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, The Devil That Never Dies (New York NY: Little, Brown & Co., 2013), 91-92.
 Chaim Bermant, Jews (London; Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977), 91.
 Ibid. 94.
 Ibid. 107.
 Jonathan Sacks, Encyclopedia of Modern Jewish Culture, Ed. By Glenda Abramson (Abingdon, Oxon; Routledge, 2004), 245.
 MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 85.
 Richard Jackson & Fred W. Sanborn, Media Affects: Advances in Theory and Research (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2009), 313.
 MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 136.
 Ibid. 138.
 MacDonald, Culture of Critique, 151.