Three brief comments.

(1) Coy, comic, and sarcastic handles for politicians probably antedate the Babylonian Empire—for example, “Honest Abe” was coined to mock Lincoln’s corrupt connection with the railroad moguls, not to laud him for his hard-to-find integrity—and most of them have been quickly and mercifully forgotten, lying as they have somewhere between the obscene and the just plain stupid. Dr. Giraldi’s caricaturing of Biden as Captain Queeg is, however, a contender for placement in History’s Ten Best Snarks List. Hats off!

(2) Still one of the very best analyses of the background to the Oklahoma City bombing, the government’s role in every aspect of its planning and execution, and the completely rigged “investigation” that was mounted in the murderous event’s aftermath is to be found in The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories (1996), by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. The book is still especially recommendable to all with a serious interest in how the Deep State manages investigations of its own crimes and how it deals with those of its members who naively think that finding evidence and determining responsibility are aspects of their employment.

(3)

… Critical Race Theory has been fairly criticized as it pretends to be an antidote to systemic racism but is itself racist in nature as it opposes a race-neutral system that equally benefits everyone.

It is not plain to me whether, in writing the foregoing, Dr. Giraldi is (A) simply restating a certain widely held contention as to why it is undesirable to include CRT in the government’s program of primary- and secondary-school indoctrination or (B) expressing his agreement with the view that race neutrality is a highly desirable ideal in that it benefits all who are exposed to it and indeed benefits all students—and all their elders—to the same extent.

I sincerely hope that (A) is what he meant. No society that lacks the underpinning of formidable orthodoxies has ever long endured as anything but a tyrannical state. The farther the United States has allowed itself to be dragged by (((its enemies within))) from the twin orthodoxies of Christianity and whiteness/Europeanness, the closer it has gotten to the far more efficient Mark-2 version of the Bolshevik state that Merrick Garland’s lineal antecedents imposed upon Russia and threatened the rest of the world with in 1917.

… I think Chase as a Jew sees them as a proxy of sorts for Jews …

Do you have any basis for asserting that David Chase is Jewish? Numerous sources give his original family name as DeCesare, which his paternal grandparents, in an effort to assimilate into the American mainstream, changed to Chase. A quick check of Wikipedia, which is of course a Jewish hasbara operation from top to bottom, makes no reference to Jews in Chase’s ancestry—and there’s no doubt that if there had been a Jew anywhere in his maternal line, the Wikipedians would be all over it!

Chase’s walking-on-eggshells approach to Jewish characters in The Sopranos is evidence only of the familiar desire to maximize his own career opportunities (and profits) in a sphere—i.e., so-called popular entertainment—in which sycophancy toward the Jews who run the racket is a sine qua non.

Five paragraphs of off-the-rack macho ranting from an anonymous Internet tough guy living in Grandma’s basement apartment. Then comes the payoff—which turns out to be nothing but standard-issue kosher Christophobia.

You’re not an opponent of the (((Establishment))). You’re a hasbara-peddling saboteur sent here as a distraction.

My impression is that the high-level “Catholics” are virtually all freemasons. Since freemasonry (even more than Protestantism) was created by Jewish Zionists as part of their war on Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, any “Catholic” who’s a freemason, or cooperates with freemasonry, is de facto Jewish not Catholic…. Freemasonry is a scam aimed at bamboozling non-Jews into supporting the establishment of Jerusalem-based global tyranny under a Jewish “messiah” (military dictator/Antichrist).

There’s so much BS in this statement I don’t have a shovel big enough to remove it.

https://www.granddesignexposed.com/pdf/ROEpdf.pdf
https://archive.org/details/rulersofevilf.tuppersaussy

RULERS OF EVIL is a fascinating book that claims the American Revolution was aided and abetted by the Jesuits in order to split the colonies from England, which had left the Roman Church in the time of Elizabeth I, and to create a Catholic-friendly English speaking enclave. The strategy appears to have worked wonderfully, as America is home to the world’s most prosperous and influential Catholic community, who together with the Jews are the elites of our society!

True.

Contemporary International Freemasonry- with the exception of its exclusively Jewish lodges- is the former Christian legacy craft/trade organization which was infiltrated by so called “Christian” occultists then hijacked by international Jewry to form its shabbos goy ancillary.

The Blue Lodges, wherein the Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason degrees are conferred, are simply the threshold to the higher speculative degrees- which are almost totally Luciferian/Satanic and saturated with the Kabbalah and Talmudism.

Zionism is Talmudism which has been weaponized- so far-against the Christians and Muslims of Palestine and “Greater Israel,” but the greater plan is for subservience of the entire world to its tenets via the imposition of the Noachide Laws and the Tikkun Olam reign of the Antichrist from the newly rebuilt temple in Jersusalem. Freemasonry- via its useful idiots- plays an enormous role in this.

As a matter of fact the entire Dispensationalist deviation from historical Christianity, along with its Scofield “Reference Bible” appear to be almost entirely a Freemasonic project, given that nearly all of its founders were Freemasons, e.g., Scofield, Darby, etc.

Indeed. Over the centuries since the founding in London in 1717 of the first Grand Lodge, there has been much testimony—little of it supported by hard internal documentation unfortunately—that those who attain to the two or three highest of the thirty-three degrees become privy to the darkest of all the Masons’ secrets: that they worship Satan. This facet of the Craft, covert degeneracy, points directly to its connection with Rabbinic Judaism.

Here, as elsewhere, your opinions are based largely, if not entirely, on hearsay—and on hearsay coming from sources whose primary characteristic is ignorance.

What you write simply repeats the Jews’ propaganda about Mit brennender Sorge, perhaps the only encyclical in the entire history of the papacy about which the Jews had a good word to say before their sayanim infiltrated the hierarchy and corrupted and Judaized the Church at the Second Vatican Council.

In truth the primary concern underlying the composition of Mit brennender Sorge was the abrogation by the German government of its concordat with the Vatican. Hitler’s Germany was neither the first nor the last government to interfere with the God-given right of Catholics to practice their faith, nor even in its own day was it the worst offender. Ever hear of a Jewish state known as the Soviet union?

The Jews’ favorite paragraph in the encyclical has always been this one.

8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community—however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things—whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

Note, please, that neither this paragraph nor any other in the encyclical makes direct reference by name to Hitler or to any of his subordinates or even indeed to Germany, except with regard to the abrogation of the concordat. Furthermore, those to whom the encyclical is primarily addressed are the Catholics of Germany, who are being told by their Holy Father that he is doing everything he can to ensure their ability to live and preach the Faith in all circumstances, whether public or private. As this sort of paternal solicitude is inseparable from the pope’s divinely imposed duties, one is left to wonder why none of the postconciliar popes has adopted a similar tone in addressing the Christ-hating rulers of the Israeli storefront state.

Another reason—one might indeed call it the real reason—that the Jews have made a big deal of Mit brennender Sorge is so that they can use it as a club to destroy the memory and the reputation of Pope Pius XII, the immediate successor of Pius XI. Although the Jewish claim that Pius XII conspired with the Italian Fascists and the Germans to exterminate the sacred, sacred Jews has no factual basis whatsoever, they and their soi-disant Christian sycophants keep up the attack as a feint to disguise the true basis of their hatred for Pius XII: his unyielding, steadfast condemnation of communism, which he always recognized as a distinctly Jewish form of tyranny and evil.

It must be admitted that Pius XI had essentially an idée fixe that right-wing movements, especially in France but also in Italy and Germany, were the greatest danger in his day both to the Faith and to Europe. In this notion, he was plainly mistaken—as his principal adviser, Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, tried time and again to make him see. Indeed, it is almost certainly thanks to Pacelli that the wording and tone of Mit brennender Sorge is as temperate as it in fact is. Of course, the care taken in its composition has not made it secure from Jewish manipulation and distortion.

Not so incidentally, Eugenio Pacelli became Pope Pius XII upon his predecessor’s death.

I have never read Morals and Dogma, but given your recommendation and the fact that I find that I can get a Kindle copy for 99 cents,* I shall endeavor to amend that failing if circumstances permit. As for the rest, I thank you sincerely for your comments, with which I am in complete agreement.
__________
*I mention Kindle because presbyopia, I regret to say, has left me almost completely unable to comfortably read words on a page set in anything smaller than a display font. Thus I have an apartment crowded with books, most of which are no longer accessible to me. I don’t mean to suggest, of course, that my situation is without precedent in human history or entitles me to shake down the [wink] more privileged for a payout.

You’re completely mistaken about my attitude to Pope Pius XII.

As I have no idea what your attitude toward Pius XII is, I couldn’t possibly be mistaken about it. Perhaps if you had spent more time reading what I wrote and a bit less time straining what few grey cells you have in your adolescent struggle to concoct an ever-so-obvious schoolyard taunt based on my screen name … but then, you’re Jewish.

The fact that you have had an article published at Veterans Today says rather a lot about the corruption not just of that rag but of most of the so-called alternative media outlets. That is to say, most of them are controlled opposition. Their purpose is to act like the device on the lid of a pressure cooker: let just enough steam and pressure out of the pot so that those trapped inside don’t realize that they and their contrarian opinions are being turned into mush. Far too few alternative sites are any more honest than the Establishment sites whose propaganda they falsely claim to be countering.

I take some small satisfaction in having irritated you enough to get you to show yourself for what you are. If only every day contained even so trivial an accomplishment!

… my very thoughtful and comprehensive comment …

“The plan of the newspaper is good: if you can’t get a compliment any other way, pay yourself one.” — Mark Twain

This is actually part of the sacred Catholic day of All Saints Day on November 1. (This is known as Day of the Dead in Hispanic countries.)

The Day of the Dead is November 2, All Souls’ Day. Your ignorance of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is comparable with your hatred of the latter.

This probably dwarfs Nazi crimes.

It’s a pity that the gentleman didn’t write, “This probably dwarfs FDR’s and Churchill’s crimes.” That sentence might have provided commenters a basis for fruitful discussion.

It’s not that the Hitler regime was guiltless—any society whose leaders routinely dress in military costume is ipso facto a danger to its citizens—but that its so-called horrors were and are exaggerations relentlessly sold as facts by (((the leaders and propagandists))) of a coalition of victors all of whom were and are guilty of immeasurably worse crimes.

For example, even putting the killer vaccines to one side for the moment, the worst offenses of the Hitlerjugend program pale to insignificance in comparison with the nonstop indoctrination of American infants and children in an “educational” program that hallows promiscuity, sexual and other moral degeneracies, hatred of all things white, and rabid Christophobia. Perhaps worst of all is the indoctrination virtually from birth, an indoctrination already in train in Western and Soviet societies a century ago, in the lie that so-called anti-Semitism, a phenomenon about as widespread and dangerous as hatred of taffeta, is the worst of all crimes—far, far worse than murder, especially a murder committed by an inherently virtuous Person of Nonwhiteness. Since people who have been branded anti-Semites tend to be Noticers, it is important that they be “neutralized” lest the thoughtcrime of Pattern Recognition gain a foothold in (((reformed societies))).

On October 28, I wrote a somewhat critical assessment of Tom Sunic’s article when it appeared at TOO. Although my comment was published and drew some replies, both supportive and antagonistic, it was today deleted. As two complementary tendencies—(1) antagonism to dissent, even when politely and reasonably expressed and especially when it comes from a Christian perspective, and (2) tolerance of hasbara commentary from individuals who desire to limit and deflect criticism, even awareness, of Jewish subversive and totalitarian tendencies—seem to be on the rise at TOO, I ask Mr. Unz’s indulgence for reposting here the comment deleted from TOO.*

It is hardly surprising that this article by a notable pro-white polemicist who misreads virtually all that is most profound and striking about this justly celebrated thinker as weakness or shortsightedness should prompt sympathetic comments from (1) a faux-reluctant volunteer for intellectual and moral leadership [viz., Hugo Fuerst] who, adopting one of his three or four commenting identities [Hugo Fuerst, Oscar Wilson, Ned Casper, Desert Flower] for the occasion, postures yet again as the preux chevalier of learned probity and (2) a disciple of Wimpy [commenter HamburgerToday] who evidently regards all the most significant core-category elements that white racial nationalism manifested in every epoch when it was at its strongest as mere baggage to be discreetly dropped from the train of history as it slows before crossing a set of points on its journey to … where precisely? Given that the Comte de Maistre is usually and rightly considered one of the progenitors of true European conservatism, as important a category of political thought as any of the past five hundred years—at least, that is, prior to the term’s being stolen to falsely characterize, first, classical liberalism and, much more recently, unrestrained subservience to all things Israeli and indeed Jewish—the gentleman’s disdain for this and other “constituent parts of whiteness” is easy to understand, however unserviceable it might be for any purpose save chitchat.

As for the third comment, the lady [commenter Barbara] can hardly be blamed for seemingly not knowing that de Maistre reckoned the Jews to be quite as dangerous and deplorable as she herself does since Tom Sunic is silent on the matter. Was this aspect of the count’s outlook perhaps left unremarked upon in the article owing to the institutional verities of the site wherein Doctor Sunic originally published it? Or does the absence of mention offer further confirmation that a core characteristic of virtually every self-styled New Right organization in Europe is that its members are undecided as to which they detest the more: Europe’s Christian (especially Catholic) past or its Jewish present?

*Note that the comments to which mine refers are still in place at TOO.

Senile drivers (white Gentile ones anyway), however dangerous, are virtually a byword for safety and responsibility in comparison with black drivers of any age or any quantum of intelligence.

In New York City in the post–George Floyd era, Commie Bill de Blasio has made enforcement of traffic regulations effectively a hate crime—since, that is, blacks are the offenders roughly 90 percent of the time. Thus, no one, whether driver or pedestrian, can any longer enter an intersection on a green light with even minimal confidence that a driver approaching a red signal will stop at it—if, at any rate, the driver in question is black. This holds true whatever the time of day or the state of the weather.

You write just as one might expect a horse to write—and, not coincidentally, also much like a troll at TOO who variously calls himself Ned Casper, Oscar Wilson, Hugo Fuerst, and probably several other aliases that haven’t yet been linked with certainty to him.

Pierre de Craon is my nom d’Internet. It makes me immediately recognizable to friends, colleagues, and foes of long standing—that is, people who know what led me to choose the name—and enables me to preserve my privacy from assault by nosy ignoramuses and pretentious busybodies.

You write: “Best regards to fellow loser John Wear.”

My response: I am not sure why you call me a loser. I have numerous questions about the official COVID narrative. Some of these questions are:

If the masks work—Why the six feet?

If the six feet works—Why the masks?

If both of the above work—Why the lockdowns?

If all three of the above work—Why the vaccines?

If the vaccines are safe—Why protect them with a no liability clause?

If the vaccines are safe—Why not test them on animals before using them on humans?

If the vaccines are safe—Why did Tiffany Dover, a healthy 30-year-old nurse, faint 17 minutes after receiving a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? Is Tiffany Dover dead? Why are so many other people having adverse reactions and dying from the vaccines?

If it normally takes 10 to 15 years to develop vaccines—How were the COVD-19 vaccines safely developed in less than a year?

If the vaccines are safe—Why not fully disclose all of the ingredients in the vaccines?

If successful vaccines have never been developed for other coronaviruses—Why should we expect successful vaccines for this coronavirus?

If SARS-CoV-2 exists—Why has it never been isolated?

If SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated—How can effective vaccines be developed?

If SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated–How can SARS-CoV-2 variants be determined to exist?

If the RT-PCR test works—Why so many false positives?

If Kary Mullis, the inventor of the RT-PCR test who conveniently died in August 2019, said his test shouldn’t be used to diagnose infectious diseases—Why use it to detect SARS-CoV-2?

If the RT-PCR test works—Why did samples from papaya fruit and a goat sent to a testing lab by Tanzanian President John Magufuli, using fictitious human names and ages, test positive for SARS-CoV-2?

If there is an epidemic—Why so many empty hospitals?

If large numbers of people are dying from SARS-CoV-2—Why so many fake causes of death on the death certificates? Are flu deaths being recharacterized as COVID-19 deaths?

If SARS-CoV-2 exists—Why give doctors financial incentives to diagnose SARS-CoV-2?

If the official COVID-19 narrative is defensible—Why censor people who dispute this narrative? Why not debate them instead?

If the official COVID-19 narrative is defensible—Why are national leaders who contest this narrative, such as Haitian President Jovenel Moise, Tanzanian President John Magufuli, and Burundi President Pierre Nkurunziza, dying at relatively young ages and being replaced by leaders who support the official COVID-19 narrative?

If the vaccines work—Why did President Joe Biden say that the unvaccinated pose a threat to the vaccinated?

It’s most unfortunate that the linked article gives no particulars of Dr. Chetty’s treatment protocol. Are you yourself familiar with any of its details, or do you know of a site that gives specifics?

You fished and caught nothing, O horsey queen. How revealing that you first point with an air of superiority and pride to your worthless ancestry and then, for no reason other than to score a cheap point on someone who, had you any real wits, you might have seen wouldn’t spit on the best part of you, you reach inside for the virtue-signaling censoriousness of your inner Pharisee. Yes, dear, I noticed.

Like so many other glib, faggoty little Jewish frauds, you depend for everything (i.e., what little) you know on Google and Wikipedia—prime sources of (((Establishment-approved))) “information.” Since, at the end of the day, you are as shallow, as vicious, as corrupt, and as content-free as the (((modernity))) you exemplify and defend with every sneer at your command, any and every reference you make to admirability or its absence comes with the stench of the lying Jew attached to it. As you are here solely to distract, to pollute discourse, and to poison wells, only your fellow Pharisees will ultimately give a hoot what you say about anything. Have a lousy day, Ned.

It’s most unfortunate that the linked article gives no particulars of Dr. Chetty’s treatment protocol.

That’s a very good point.

Right near the end of the video, Dr. Chetty mentions that he’s currently building a web site to publish information about his treatment protocol and further research data, but until that’s available, he suggests searching on the web for his name.

A web search on his name produced the following result…

https://drchetty.net/

I believe that might actually be the web site that Dr. Chetty said he was in the process of building. If so, then it looks like it’s up and running.

… Which shows that the Nazi leadership were insane, because then they knew that the USA was out to get them, and would surely win, and yet declared war on the USA when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

There are several good reasons to regard the German declaration of war in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor as very sensible indeed. I list what I think are two of the best below.

(1) The FDR administration’s Rainbow Five plan, which outlined the conquest and destruction of Germany by a five-million-man invasion force, envisioned 1943 as the earliest possible date for the plan’s execution. Although court historians dismiss the plan as a hoax meant to frighten the Germans, their rationale is based less on evidence than on rationalization. Furthermore, although the usual claim is that the German government first learned of the plan when the Chicago Tribune—whose owner, Robert McCormick, detested FDR—broke the story on December 4, 1941, there is no reason to think that Germany’s formidable intelligence network had not already learned of the plan. This is especially so in light of (a) Germany’s former alliance with the Soviet Union and (b) the widespread and now widely known infiltration of FDR’s inner circle by Soviet agents and fellow travelers.

(2) The German-Japanese alliance was extremely important to the long-term goals of both governments. Yet by early 1941 it had reached a point of greater instability than it would ever again know till the end of the war. The Russians inflicted a catastrophic defeat on the Japanese at Nomonhan in their Manchurian border war of 1939, but within a month or so of that defeat, the Russians and Germans signed the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop pact—but it was no secret to Japan, Germany’s deeply insulted ally, which suffered a grave loss of face from the pact. Thus, it became a central aim of German diplomatic policy to keep relations with Japan from deteriorating further. So in early December 1941, why not aid an indispensable ally when you know that the country your ally has gone to war with is planning to attack you in two years with an overwhelming force that is still in a state that is a long way from readiness?

Putting (1) and (2) together, it shouldn’t be hard to see that the German government might consider war with the United States as the least undesirable of the several undesirable alternatives with which it was presented. Indeed, the United States exhibited far less rationality after 9/11 when it went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq—unless, that is, one considers the maintenance of perpetual subservience to a certain Tribe sufficient explanation for every foolish, criminal, and monstrous act.

As it is unlikely that anyone in the government will ever release official records supporting any position that doesn’t flatter FDR, I won’t waste time or keystrokes in an argument based solely on speculation. Thus, you shouldn’t be surprised to hear that I prefer my own assessment of the pre-war situation here and abroad to yours.

That said, I shall add only that I do not share your opinion that there were effective practical limits on what American presidents from Lincoln to the present could get away with and did. (I omit virtue as a limit because of its extreme scarcity among public figures.) The sole limiting factor, at least till 2020, was the quadrennial election and the desire of the incumbent, almost always with his party’s support, to win it.* Now, however, that any election that is not entirely dependent on paper ballots and the close scrutiny of every aspect of polling by white Christian men of integrity must be considered ipso facto fraudulent, the time for anyone of sense to continue indulging the myriad fantasies of “democracy” that are peddled nonstop to a willingly gullible public is well and truly over.

I wish that I had kept a record of the remarks of the cynical but frank official who said somewhere last November that it was necessary to steal the 2020 election so that no future election would have to be stolen. Until his sort, which has been around for millennia, is shot on sight, truly limited government will not stand a chance of again finding a home anywhere on this planet.
___________________
*Anyone who doubts FDR’s willingness to do literally anything to get his way ought to take a gander at Scapegoats: A Defense of Kimmel and Short at Pearl Harbor (1995), by the late Edward L. Beach, USN. To such a man, public opinion was merely something to be manipulated.

You have changed the subject to something you’d rather talk about and are acting as if I have been talking about it, too! Can’t you see that?

Don’t you see that there is no inherent contradiction between what you call Fleming’s thesis vis-à-vis a leak of the Rainbow 5 plan by FDR’s White House to the Chicago Tribune and what I wrote in comment no. 446? Besides, his thesis is a surmise through and through, as he freely admits. The fact that it makes sense—in a very, very limited framework—makes it no less a surmise, however.

There is also the fact that Fleming assumes Rainbow 5 to have been a hoax. It wasn’t. Do you think that the Morgenthau Plan simply materialized out of thin air? Do you really deny the presence of Soviet agents in the government? Can’t you understand that they must have been cooperating with German intelligence while the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was in effect and that when the pact broke down, they too were pushing Roosevelt hard to declare war on Germany?

Furthermore, I repeat what I plainly implied in 448: it is naive to contend that FDR would have found it “basically impossible” to declare war against Germany absent a prior declaration of war by Germany itself. For one thing, every highly placed Jew in the United States and the UK—especially those atop the banking world, most of whom were Rothschilds or affiliated with them—had been pushing for the USA to enter the war against Germany since September 1939, indeed earlier. For FDR, a man whose lust for power and money were insatiable, the choice between the desires of powerful Jews and the needs of ordinary American citizens—some of whom had had the gall to vote for someone else!—was not a tough choice to make.

Just as the present-day revolution within American society, the radical corruption of the already questionable electoral process, and the worldwide covid hoax are pieces in a larger plan, so too were the dozen or so threads that brought the United States into a murderous and unnecessary world war—unnecessary for all save the Jewish bankers and power brokers and those they had bought or blackmailed, including a president who effectively ruled for life and might still be president were he alive today.

I ought to have noted in my previous reply that your silence about the complex internal politics within the Axis alliance leads me to think that it’s an area with which you are largely unfamiliar, particularly with regard to the stresses acting upon it, especially but not solely those involving Japan and Germany. This is important stuff.

Also, concerning both Germany and Japan, for reasons of space I neglected to mention that Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor—which scrupulously targeted none but military and naval objectives—and Germany’s subsequent declaration of war on the United States were in fact replies to aggression, not initiating acts of aggression themselves. By December 1941, FDR had plainly involved the United States in the war in open collusion with the Allies in the European, Asian mainland, Atlantic, and Pacific theaters. In other words, according to international law, the USA had been guilty of dozens of casūs belli before what was, strictly speaking, Japan’s reprisal attack on Pearl Harbor.

What really bothers you, Ned, is that you know that I’m a lot smarter than you.

Now that readers know what your control back in Tel Aviv wants them to think, why not speak for yourself? Could it be that your own views are even more asinine, vulgar, and bloodthirsty than his?

Pope Francis might discover just how many traditional and faithful Catholics are happy to walk, if he continues to push his heretically borderline nonsense. Obedience to the Pope has long been central to Catholicism, but that was with an implicit understanding that the Holy Father upheld sacred tradition, instead of cobbling together doctrine from his fever dreams and personal whims.

Francis claims he wants to bring the Church in line with the world. But a Church playing yes-man to Caesar soon loses any serious reason for being, which the more conspiratorially minded suspect Francis, in fact, knows.

… E. M. Jones conveniently ignore[s] the Society of Saint Pius X and its 900+ priests worldwide who stand de facto against the post-Vatican II Jewish Catholic Church.

You have precisely articulated Jones’s gravest failing, a failing that undercuts the ultimate value of his analysis of the JQ. His work as a diagnostician is truly remarkable, but his open embrace of Conciliarism and undisguised hostility to Traditionalism are the sources of most of the jaw-dropping bêtises that litter his books, articles, and speeches. These are not incidental matters. His acute powers of diagnosis are rendered nugatory so long as the cure he proposes—namely, the corrupted faith of conciliarism—is even more poisonous in the spiritual realm than the covid vaxxes are in the corporeal.

To cite perhaps the most obvious and important example, no preconciliar Catholic, in common with today’s Traditional Catholics, would ever have dismissed the central importance of race and ethnicity as Jones insists on doing. Indeed, it is only since the subversion of the Faith wrought by the Second Vatican Council that “official Catholic” attitudes toward the Jews, which formerly ranged from grudging but suspicious tolerance out to full recognition of their unmitigable hatred of the Cross, have gotten rebuilt on the concept of the Jews’ being Christians’ [ahem] elder brothers in supernatural faith. If Jones has ever dismissed the “elder brothers” obscenity with the contempt it merits, it will come as news to me.

Think what you like. Good-bye.

Thank you for the reminder about Civiltà cattolica. Jones’s reassertion of it is, of course, important as far as it goes. His refusal to explicitly repudiate the council’s “doctrinal updatings,” however, indicates that he is still hedging his bets.

As to your interpretation of the present-day conciliar church, I do not agree with a word of it. What you dismissively term “Lefebvre’s movement” is Roman Catholicism stricto sensu. The pope is still pope, yes—and none except sedevacantists deny it—but the primary function of Francis and all his conciliar predecessors (save John Paul I, who didn’t reign long enough to do harm or good) has been to lead the “renegade movement” in defiance of Faith and Tradition.

To assert, as you do, the demands of Authority as paramount when those who wield the highest authority in the Church’s temporal structure are requiring you to reimagine or distort or sabotage the Faith handed down once and for all time by the Apostles is to compromise both necessarily unchangeable Faith and rightly understood Authority.

… the case does show a hardening of white attitudes.

Yes, but how much have they hardened? Put otherwise, have they hardened enough yet, or are they likely to harden enough sooner rather than later?

To date, the process seems to have gotten no farther than soft-serve-ice-cream hard, what with roughly 40 percent of white voters nationwide still being rock-solid in favor of falsifying their past, renouncing their religious and genetic heritage, and putting their wife and children at lifelong risk of impoverishment, assault, and murder. Even that beleaguered Loudoun father who was abused by the (((authorities))) showed himself to be utterly brainwashed about every victimization hoax in existence: transgenderism, gay marriage, black suffering—you name it, he kissed its butt. If, on the other hand, the poor guy thought that acknowledging the wonderfulness of all these fresh-picked Orwellian truths might persuade the (((Inner Party))) functionaries to treat the tranny as the criminal and his daughter as the victim—as they would have been seen in the bad old days of the twentieth-century white supremacists—then we have merely witnessed another instance where hope triumphed over experience.

What will be the state of 2021’s soft-serve ice cream in 2022? Will it require a spoon and some upper-arm strength to ingest, or will it be a gooey mess on the table or floor or in its eater’s lap? Or with specific reference to Virginia, will Youngkin restore even a single statue to Monument Avenue in Richmond, and will any of the whites who voted for him even care if he doesn’t?

An admission against interest: little or nothing in the remarks that follow is relevant to this article. Still, I’m hoping that Ed might find them to have some marginal appeal.

I am a longtime admirer and supporter of Ed Connelly’s work, and 90 percent of what I know of it I know via the Occidental Observer. Of the many writers whose articles have appeared at TOO in the roughly thirteen years I have been a habitué, he is one of only three (the others being Brenton Sanderson and Michael Colhaze*) with none of whose articles’ fundamental premises I have ever found myself in material disagreement. Since the present article didn’t originally appear at TOO, that streak is by no means in danger.

Coyness aside, however, I have no considered opinion about the present article—nor should I have one, since I never saw either the film under discussion or the play, The Rocky Horror Show, on which it seems to be largely based. What I do have, however, and have in abundance are long-held, deep-set prejudices and preconceptions about both artifacts.

Let me explain. I was almost thirty when the play opened in New York in 1973. A great many people I knew at Lincoln Center, where I had then been working about five years, dashed off to see the play in the roughly month and a half it survived on Broadway. Most of them knew of the play’s enthusiastic reception in London and Los Angeles, and they were not alone in being surprised at how badly it failed in New York. Given that all those who took the most delight in it were either fags or fag hags, however, its attraction for me (i.e., being neither) was nonexistent. Indeed, I recall a clever crack made at the time by a work buddy of mine, a limey who had recently permanently relocated to the States. “Who ever would have thought,” he drily noted, “that Broadway crowds would exhibit more taste than those in the West End!”

When the movie appeared about two years later, all the queens and their hangers-on lined the sidewalks for the midnight showings, but lo and behold! now they were joined by seemingly endless throngs of black-clad undergrads from Columbia, Radcliffe, and NYU and even their more down-market contemporaries from the many bridge-and-tunnel colleges and unis within an hour’s commute of Manhattan. The attraction the film had for these untouchables warned me off it as effectively as if some Dantesque character had confronted me, shouting “Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate.”

Returning to the present, I must say, nearing conclusion, that what my prejudices tell me is that, had I ever seen either play or movie, my mind and heart would be with the critiques of Fr. John and Al Liguori** rather than with the deeply admired author. All the more reason for me to rejoice that my opinion, if I indeed had one, would be worthless.

Finally, I would be extraordinarily pleased if, one day, Ed Connelly got an itch to draft an analysis of M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village. Besides its being, along with Dean Spanley,*** one of the very few truly notable specimens of film art of this rapidly aging and decaying century, The Village is, first and foremost, a profound critique of (((Satanic))) modernity and a defiant rejection of all its works and all its pomps. That none (save yours truly) seems to have spotted it as such perhaps explains why the film hasn’t suffered the fate of Song of the South.
_____________________

*Is that extraordinary writer and thinker still alive, I wonder?
**Is it the gentleman’s real name or a hat tip to the great saint? It’s fine either way.
***I haven’t forgotten The Dish, though it would, I fear, be stretching the term to call it a great film. Still, it’s the funniest, most heartwarming movie I’ve seen in the past quarter-century.

Thank you. As a Catholic you may appreciate my Catholic site on Judaism, at least a few of the 105 topical pages 🙂 https://judaism.is

My nom de guerre stems from my respect of that Saint and Doctor of the Church.

No, that’s just your paranoid fantasy. You can remain attached to it, or you can be safer from Covid and keep your job.

Should you have to make this decision? No, but you do.

Why is the paranoid fantasy more important to you than your health and your job?

That question is what interests me. Rarely with politics are people actually forced to weigh up their stupid beliefs against real-world costs, but that’s what you have to do now. I suspect that you’ll just sheepishly get vaccinated and lie to everyone, which is ok, most other people like you have probably done the same. Better to lie to other people than yourself!

It is like all the people who think Jews are trying to genocide them, yet can’t even be bothered to go door to door for a political party. Their real-world choices belie their moronic fantasies.

Silly children.

… the veiled references in Fragonard’s L’Escarpolette …

“Veiled”? Don’t be coy. It’s a smutty picture redeemed solely by the brilliance of its painter. Even though the trollop’s elderly and foolish husband must have had to pay a pretty penny for her, he is the only one of the three who merits something other than contempt.

Over on The Occidental Observer, SmithsFan84 makes a very valid comparison between Frank ‘n Furter and Mozart’s Don Giovanni. Don Giovanni is intelligent, aristocratic and charming. He’s also a rapist and a murderer and must finally pay for his crimes. Mozart gives us vastly more time showing him being witty and seducing women rather than him being dragged down to hell by the ghost of the man he killed. But it is his final conclusion that shows us the man he truly was.

This is the sort of paragraph for which the adjective specious was invented. Every statement in it has a soupçon of naughtiness calculated to appeal to the contrarian and iconoclast in all of us (well, in many of us). Yet very little of substance in the claims made about Giovanni survives close examination.

1) There are no grounds for calling Giovanni a murderer. A seducer and womanizer, yes, but not a murderer. No court in then-contemporary Spain, far less a US court of today, would have convicted him of anything worse than involuntary manslaughter, probably with sentence suspended. Had Giovanni’s short fuse not prompted him to duel an old man whose defeat was a foregone conclusion, he would never even have had to face trial. (It’s not as if Giovanni killed a black thug who had already fired six shots at him. That would be a murder-plus-hate charge, with a conviction guaranteed.)

2) Calling him “intelligent, aristocratic and charming” in the manner suggesting a soon-to-follow “but” is trite at best. Whether in the opera or in history, Giovanni was an aristocrat, and he was esteemed by all, as Ottavio confirms, for his intelligence and cultivation. Yet it is plain that not every woman was blind to his designs.

3) Mozart decidedly does not spend a vast amount of time showing Giovanni at his witty, seductive best. On the contrary, the opera shows him having three utterly clumsy erotic encounters—the badly bungled bedroom invasion chez Anna, where, when the audience enters, Giovanni’s sole concern is getting away; the laughably abandoned seduction attempt of his unrecognized ex-wife, Elvira; and the thwarted seduction of the peasant bride Zerlina—and just one apparent success, with Elvira’s maid. (As those who know the opera know well, the disguised Leporello has more success with Elvira than Giovanni does.) Giovanni’s reputation as a lover, aggressive or otherwise, is something we are told we must believe by a man—viz., Leporello— whose continued employment requires constant flattery: “In Italia seicento e quaranta, in Almagna duecento e trentuna, cento in Francia, in Turchia novantuna, ma in Ispagna son già mille e tre!”

4) In the final scene of the opera per se (i.e., excluding the epilogue), Giovanni is indeed dragged down to hell by demons who call him a great sinner. Still, despite the inadvisability of treating a supernatural visitor with the impoliteness Giovanni exhibits toward the Statue, straight through to the end of that scene he certainly lives up to his description of himself, the one given as he escapes a virtual army of pursuers at the end of act 1: “ma non manca in me coraggio!” He exhibits similar sangfroid in the graveyard scene, when Leporello is understandably trembling in terror.

Taken all in all, the opera presents Giovanni as a bit of a bungler in the romantic arena but also as a man whose courage in the face of his enemies inspires profound admiration, even awe.

SmithsFan 84 was dead wrong.

Good morning. We’ve been enjoying an Indian Summer, so I’ve been out cycling, etc. and haven’t been in front of the computer. I see there are many more comments to catch up on. I’m hesitant to single out individual commenters for praise because I know I will be leaving out others, but comments from Pierre de Craon are always of a high caliber. See TOO for many of them.

Here I’d like to point out that Jake Dee’s comment #83 is the type that I really appreciate and learn from. In fact, he’s anticipated some of the comments I was forming in my own head. Please take time to go back and read his.

Now let me go through the many new comments before I can respond. Thank you for taking the time to write, everyone!

What follows concludes my part in this discussion, such as it is.

The question before the house is not one of seduction but one of familiarity with the text and the score. I have sixty years’ worth of the latter. You can go on as long as you like about specifics or overall meaning, but there is little to nothing in the opera to support the positions you have taken. As I said at the start, SmithsFan84 was and is dead wrong in his characterization of what the opera presents. If you agree with his silly, too-clever-by-half characterization, you are dead wrong, too.

Two small points in conclusion.

(1) The name of the servant of Don Giovanni is Leporello.

(2) In act 1, scene 2, when Giovanni is struggling to get free of Anna, her father, the Commendatore, appears. Here follows the brief dialogue preceding their duel (I have omitted Leporello’s comic asides and the several repetitions, in whole or in part, of the characters’ lines before Giovanni finally tells the Commendatore that he is at the latter’s disposal if he wishes to die):

IL COMMENDATORE
Lasciala, indegno! Battiti meco!

DON GIOVANNI
Va, non mi degno di pugnar teco.

IL COMMENDATORE
Così pretendi da me fuggir?

DON GIOVANNI
Misero, attendi, se vuoi morir!

[They duel. The Commendatore is wounded and sinks to the ground, dying.]

IL COMMENDATORE
Ah, soccorso! son tradito! L’assassino m’ha ferito, e dal seno palpitante sento l’anima partir.

[He dies.]

Note that after being mortally wounded in the duel, a duel he demanded, the Commendatore dishonestly cries out that he has been betrayed and is the victim of an assassin. Thus, he dies with a lie on his lips. Put otherwise, both antagonists have, for no licit cause, permitted pride to dictate their actions, and the consequences have been mortal. No one emerges from this scene smelling like a rose. It is precisely this dimension of moral indecision and confusion that has been a contributing factor to the fascination with this remarkable opera for several centuries.

… What started as a mono recording [in 1958], ended up in stereo [in 1965] …

The entire Ring cycle was recorded in stereo from day one. Indeed, Decca had been recording everything in stereo since 1957, and the company’s earliest stereo recordings had been made about three years prior—that is, not long after the earliest RCA and Columbia stereo tapings. The only holdout was the EMI consortium, which moved entirely to stereo only in 1958 (it might even have been 1959 for British EMI).

I should add that the preceding comments refer solely to these companies’ classical catalogs. Pop music producers dragged their feet a lot longer, in no small part because the people they were selling to didn’t especially care about stereo for quite some time.

To return to the Solti Ring: All four operas were released in two LP formats, mono and stereo, as was customary for almost twenty years.* At least here in the States, Das Rheingold, the first of the four to be recorded and released, was for a time easier to find in the mono LP format, especially outside the big cities. This did not continue to be the case with Siegfried, Götterdämmerung, and Walküre, however (that being the order of their recording and release).

Although I do not share your high opinion of Solti’s conducting—many of his singers are, however, of the highest quality—I emphatically agree about Culshaw’s Ring Resounding. I had the good fortune to meet him once, quite briefly. He was as modest and self-effacing a man as I have ever encountered.
_________________

* They were all also released as splendid-sounding 7.5 ips open-reel tapes and, later, audio-compromised cassette tapes, but that’s a topic for another day on another thread.

You knew Gordon Parry? Color me green!

I get the sense that sauerkraut lives at the edge at least of demonization.

It does, but it shouldn’t.

Charles Osborne, a popularizing music critic of a generation ago, edited a volume called Richard Wagner: Stories and Essays (Open Court Publishing: La Salle, IL, 1973). Its primary distinction is a fresh translation (by Osborne himself) of “Das Judentum in Musik” that is a marked improvement on Ashton Ellis’s. Neither the hardcover nor the paperback reprint (1991) is especially hard to find though both editions are long out of print. The paperback’s ISBN is 9780812691467, and the hardcover’s is 9780912050430; the search engine at BookFinder.com reveals many copies available for less than fifteen dollars.

It’s not Jewish shit. It is modernist shit.

That’s a distinction in terminology but not a real difference. The two are virtually interchangeable when it comes to the fine arts and architecture, or culture as a whole.

Jewry thrives and dominates in the age of money and commodification, since it lays the foundations for it. As a collective is not capable of providing a qualitative substitute for beauty and sublimity; thus it seeks to divert art in the direction of a commodity by degrading it and drowning it in a sea of mediocrity and ugliness. It invents a new pseudo-aesthetic ideal to better serve the over arching purpose of money making. So the hack and fraudster take the place of the artist and composer, in deference to the gallery owner and dealer, and the music or art (((critic))).

The language being sung is French. The music is the celebrated Barcarole that opens what is usually called either the “Venice act” or the “Giulietta act” of Les contes d’Hoffmann. This act was composed as act 3 of the opera—which in toto consists of a prologue, three acts, and an epilogue—but for most of the past 150 years it has been performed as act 2. It is only within the last twenty years or so that producers and opera houses have shown an inclination to follow the composer’s preferences.

The tale of the score’s and the composer’s misfortunes and misadventures is a long one and not suitable for retelling in the present context.

Here follows the full text of what Garança (as Nicklausse) and Netrebko (as Giulietta) sing.

Belle nuit, ô nuit d’amour,
Souris à nos ivresses!
Nuit plus douce que le jour!
Ô belle nuit d’amour!

Le temps fuit et sans retour
Emporte nos tendresses;
Loin de cet heureux séjour
Le temps fuit sans retour!

Zéphyrs embrasés,
Versez-nous vos caresses!
Zéphyrs embrasés,
Donnez-nous vos baisers!

Belle nuit, ô nuit d’amour,
Souris à nos ivresses!
Nuit plus douce que le jour!
Ô belle nuit d’amour!

That “kind of aroma” is present in all articles of Affirmative Right of which James Lawrence is a habitual writer. I strongly suspect that outfit of being crypto-Jewish and anti-White Nationalist. In all its articles it tries to undermine WN while at the same time exculpating Jews. For example it tried to prove that Jews played no major role in the Communist take over of Russia at all. Criticism of Andrew Anglin went so far as accusing him of being a negro (!). This article of James Lawrence tries the same, albeit on a highly sophisticated level. Whites are being attacked as a race and therefore they should defend themselves as a race, but that is what Jews fear most, hence their efforts to discourage that.

This is just an initial answer to the article.

You’ve made a pretty darn good start. Congratulations.

One very questionable assumption of the author is that Jism is a religion at all.

Well spotted. Here and elsewhere, the author is lying in his teeth. He is, without a doubt, fully aware that Jews have been insisting that they are a race, not a religion, for centuries. After all, how could anyone refer nonrisibly to a collective as a religion when more than half of its members dismiss with scorn the very idea of an eternal and uncreated Supreme Being?

Apropos the religion grift, one long-standing ploy of the Jews that has always struck me as egregious in its brazenness is the way that when an article focusing on or even mentioning Jews appears in a newspaper, magazine, or learned journal, you can fearlessly bet any given amount of money that if the article has referred to the Jews as a religion, two or three people will write polite-looking letters to the editor explaining that Jews are a racial grouping, not a religion—and of course, the pattern also holds true in a mutatis mutandis situation. The point, I need hardly add, is to embed in each brainwashed reader’s mind the utter centrality of Jews and their chitchat to human existence.

It is literally almost sixty years ago that I spotted this pattern, which seemed to be on display in every single Sunday edition of the New York Times Book Review. I was in college then, and total naïf that I was, I thought that reading the Times was a good way to discover what was happening in the adult world and why it was happening that way.* Well, kommt Zeit, kommt Rat.
_____________________
*I still regularly make stupid mistakes of judgment, of course, but at least they are different mistakes—and they no longer ever include crediting Jews with having good intentions when they act destructively and abominably.

NYC was sacked twice during 2020.

Organized BLM gangs looted prestige retail stores.

There were no riots to speak of in New York

That’s true, especially if you ignore Brooklyn, Midtown Manhattan, and Soho.

https://abc7ny.com/looting-nyc-was-there-in-soho/6224583/

https://nypost.com/2020/06/03/what-the-streets-of-manhattan-look-like-after-days-of-riots/

A general strike would highlight that nobody needs all the useless eaters. Most white people are dregs who do nothing at all, and “truckers” will be easily replaced. Isn’t that exactly what’s happening slowly, the replacement of White Retard America?

Will we miss the chicken factory, the concentrated feedlot, the slaughterhouse? Will we miss the JERBS JERBS JERBS @ $17/ hr W2 53 hours a week? Will we miss the public skools, malingering county officials and employees, the dirty hospitals and their covid jabs? What is it you think the Historic Fantasy Nation of Moricana actually produces?

Most of those who post on UNZ are manufactured androids with no original history anywhere. Spewing the same manufactured unreality gone around for centuries.

Bari Weiss became notorious nearly twenty years ago, for a campaign of sustained harassment against academics who refused to toe the line on Zionism.

As I noted in a comment on Steve Sailer’s blog a while back, Weiss’s antics created the template for university activism, with claims that contrarian ideas constituted “harrassment,” making Jewish students “feel unsafe.” This tactic was used to unseat the anti-Zionist professor, David Miller, from Bristol University in the UK.

The struggle to preserve the White Race is pointless. You should look to the nature as example. If you put a concentrated gas in a chamber, this gas will diffuse throughout the chamber. Similarly, the white genes will also diffuse throughout human gene pool. Concentrated characters like blue eyes, and blond hair will disappear from the concentrated populations and will occur sporadically whenever recessive genes happen to pair. Similarly, genes for intellect, bravery, adventures etc, etc will also disappear from the White Race, only to surface sporadically whenever the recessive genes happen to pair.
It’s called entropy and randomization.

On the other hand, Germans were living in caves when the Egyptians built the pyramid and you don’t see Egyptians going around trying to preserve their genetic purity. Stop being so arrogant and chill. Consider the human gene pool. It’s wiser than any race.

Ohne mich …

Were you thinking of “Ohne mich jeder Tag dir so bang”? If you were, a tip of the hat for a very apt, very clever reference!

Until you see Thomas Dalton being appointed head of a university for White kids, keep homeschooling.

Although this article is an instance where Doctor Dalton’s analysis is on the mark—i.e., with regard to this Austin university grift—a young white man or woman seeking a proper educational formation would do well to steer clear of any academic institution where his authority or intellectual influence was weighty.

Why? Because Dalton is proudly Christophobic, and so an institution where he held sway would be Christophobic, too. No character is so susceptible to being corrupted by Jewish distortions, sophistries, and outright lies as a character that has already been corrupted by Christophobia, a discipline whose terms, means, and ends have been defined for all time by its inventors—the Jews.

Therefore, under the column heading Higher Education, I’d stick with homeschooling till the real thing comes along.

The author makes two silly assumptions: that universities are supposed to be places of intellectual diversity and debate, and that focusing on diversity, especially in its extremes, is a desirable thing.

Well spotted! Congratulations for noting these very revealing oversights.

Your link isn’t working for me.
That aside, my reference was to a time where there weren’t endless hours on a basketball court, baseball diamond, football field, etc unless it was for pick-up games with friends, and even then, it wasn’t endless. Little League baseball was 1 sometimes 2 games a week with the odd practice once the season started. Football – a couple of practices of about 90 minutes tops, and a game a week. No busing or rides to practice, other than your bicycle, and no win-at-all-costs coaches. Those were usually relieved of their duties.
Along with physical fitness, the sports were used as a tool to sharpen hand – eye co-ordination and to understand that cooperation with your team mates, the people you were building life long relationships with, was important. It also taught that your best effort was needed regardless of what you were doing. Other than the odd few, were there because we enjoyed playing, and the camaraderie.

You are of course absolutely correct. Thank you for replying in such plain terms to that foolish woman.

I have seen at least a dozen portraits of Beethoven, for all of which he sat, that date prior to 1815, and in none of them is there any suggestion of a negroid cast to his skin. There are also portraits of his younger brother Johann and his unfortunate nephew, Karl—the son of Beethoven’s other younger brother, also named Karl—and they too lack any suggestion of blackness. Given that the proximate causes of Beethoven’s death were advanced cirrhosis, chronic severe edema, and what is now called Paget’s disease, it’s hardly surprising that his skin would change color in the last decade of his life.

All the standard biographies mention that Beethoven’s father, Johann van Beethoven, was sometimes said to look a bit Spanish—I’ve seen just one portrait of him, wherein he looks not at all Spanish—but given (1) that he was half-Flemish on his father’s side and (2) that Spain had occupied and ruled the Low Countries for some 160 years, it is far from inconceivable that he had a Spaniard in his past. Spaniards were pretty damn white, however, until the Jewish-sponsored immivasion of the past forty years.

As it happens, thanks to C-SPAN, I saw the press conference (2005 perhaps? I can’t recall for sure) where the researchers who had painstakingly re-autopsied Beethoven’s remains announced their findings, which included lead levels that were off the charts. I cannot recall offhand the exact number mentioned, but I do clearly recall that Beethoven’s lead level was fully ten times higher than my own had been several years earlier. I mention this because I had heeded my cardiologist’s advice at that time to undergo a lengthy course of intravenous chelation to counter the life-threatening impact of heavy-metal toxicity on my heart. It’s a wonder, then, that with so much lead in his body, Beethoven lasted even to fifty-six!

He ]Adorno] was pleased that “everything has finally happened that has been wished for for years, the land is littered, millions of Hansjürgens and Utes are dead, the necks of the people are probably broken, so that they are eliminated from history as a subject”.

Adorno makes his genocidal hatred for indigenous Germans quite clear in that [originally private] passage. But were the German people the only targets of his untrammeled rage and hatred? Let’s take a closer look at the implications of this quote from Sanderson’s essay:

T.W. Adorno and Wagner biographer Robert Gutman began a modern Jewish intellectual tradition when they proposed that Wagner’s “antipathy to Jews” was not limited to articles like Judaism in Music, but included hidden “anti-Semitic” and “racist” messages embedded in his operas.

So Adorno believed very strongly that other people‘s writings contained both exoteric and esoteric meanings. This may or may not tell us anything about the works that he is attempting to deconstruct, but it certainly tells us something about Adorno’s own mindset. Very reminiscent of the constant rants by anti-Whites about supposed “dog whistles” — or the Straussian influence on the early neocons [Irving Kristol* was profoundly influenced by Strauss’s claims about the supposed esoteric meanings of various philosophical works]. But don’t worry, when the neocons shriek incoherently about “spreading democracy,” they mean that literally…

But Adorno is best-known, not for his virulent anti-Wagnerism, but for his infamous screed The Authoritarian [Goy] Personality [AGP], part of the American Jewish Committee-sponsored hate propaganda series Studies in “Prejudice”. This “AGP” concept was taken from the rantings of the infamous insane pedophile jew [and inventor of the Orgasmatron™] Robert Reich, but expanded and popularized. Like Reich, Adorno claimed that when White goyim have intact, normal families, religious faith, and a relatively normal social structure, this makes them more resistant to “tikkuning**” by their semitic “superiors”… and that this lack of susceptibility to semitic propaganda was Very Bad for the Tribe. Adorno variously referred to this instinctive resistance to semitic supremacism as the putative “AGP” and so-called “fascism” [a term whose denotation was notoriously vague and slippery even back then]. “AGP” is a long-discredited semitic canard that is nonetheless still heavily promoted by ignorant, hate-filled semitic supremacists in the current year, while Adorno’s use of the “fascist” trope is perhaps best exemplified currently by the name chosen by the prominent semitic supremacist street gang “antifa” [= anti-“fascist.”]

For a more concrete example of what Adorno really meant when he whined that the White goyim in America were all so-called “fascists,” it’s helpful (again) to look at his private letters, rather than his pilpul designed from the start for publication to the goyim. In a letter to his parents in 1940, Adorno ranted:

“Fascism” in Germany, which is inseparable from “anti-Semitism,” is no psychological anomaly of the German national character. It is a universal tendency …The conditions for it – and I mean all of them, not only the economic but also the mass psychological ones – are at least as present [in America] as in Germany…and the barbaric semi-civilization of this country will spawn forms no less terrible than those in Germany.”

Well OK then:
>All White goyim in Germany AND America are “fascists”
>All “fascists” must be eliminated
It only takes a very basic understanding of the transitive property of toxic semitism to understand what Adorno is really talking about here…

*Kristol’s supposed “ideological journey” from Trotskyism to “non-Communist leftism” to neo”conservatism” can be traced via his intellectual idols of those respective periods — Bronstein [of course], then Trilling, then Strauss. But only a cynic would suggest that the connection between Kristol and the other 3 ran deeper than mere ideology. Did I mention that Kristol’s review of Strauss’s Persecution and the Art of Writing focuses on Maimonides as the exemplar of Strauss’s major themes?

Of course, the strong form of the “Strauss-neocon connection” hypothesis mostly serves as a distraction; a more subtle form of the “No Blood for Oil!” canard; an attempt to portray neoconservatism as merely an abstract ideology, rather than what it actually represents — simple semitic supremacism. But in its more restricted sense — the Strauss-Kristol-esotericism connection — it has some validity. Incidentally, it’s often been noted that “democracy” plays the same role in neo”conservatism” that “permanent revolution” does in Trotkyism — an ill-defined, ostensibly-universalist goal whose actual purpose is to serve as a “moral justification” for tikkuning the goyim.

**The exoteric meaning of “tikkun olam” is, of course, something like “heal [or ‘repair’] the world,” But if we examine this ostensible “healing” process a little more closely, what do we find?

The goal of such “repair”, which can only be effected by humans, is to separate what is holy from the created world, thus depriving the physical world of its very existence—and causing all things return to a world before disaster within the Godhead and before human sin, thus ending history.

So when semitic people blabber about “healing” or “repairing” the world… they actually mean destroying the world. That’s nice. Remember, it’s not me saying this — it comes straight from Isaac Luria, endorsed and promoted by My Jewish Learning (though some argue it has even earlier roots in the Zohar, a 13th century forgery authored by Moses de León). And it’s a principle that has broad appeal within the Tribe, not just among hardcore kabbalists. Sure, the Haskalah led to a temporary deemphasis of some of the wackier kabbalist doctrines among more rational semitic people, but there was a resurgence of semitic s̶a̶t̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ “mysticism” in the 20th century. In the current year, many “secular leftist” semitic organizations are prone to screech and gibber about “tikkuning the goyim”…

Pollock, you say? Sure, Pollock was a goy — but let’s take a closer look at the course of his career.

Forgot to mention a few other prominent semitic influences on Pollock.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock#Influence_and_technique
One definitive influence on Pollock was the work of the “Ukrainian” American artist Janet Sobel (1894–1968) (born Jennie Lechovsky).[

On the promotion/ marketing end, I mentioned “art critic” Clement Greenberg in passing, but didn’t specifically point out that he was one of Pollock’s primary propagandists. And of course, Sidney Janis was almost as effective as the CIA in promoting Pollock and other Abstract Expressionists.

Not to mention his wife Lee:

Krasner’s extensive knowledge and training in modern art and techniques helped her bring Pollock up to date with what contemporary art should be. Krasner is often considered to have taught her husband in the dominant tenets of modernistic painting.

Less important in terms of “artistic” influence or marketing/ financial support, but just as illustrative of the highly-semitic milieu which surrounded Pollock, are the details of his fatal crash:

On August 11, 1956, at 10:15 p.m., Pollock died in a single-car crash in his Oldsmobile convertible while driving under the influence of alcohol. At the time Krasner was visiting friends in Europe and she abruptly returned on hearing the news from a friend.[39] One of the passengers, Edith Metzger, was also killed in the accident, which occurred less than a mile from Pollock’s home. The other passenger, Ruth Kligman, an artist and Pollock’s mistress, survived.

Yep — Kligman and Metzger were both early life positive as well. Pollock was himself a goy, but not only were his major patrons and promoters MOTs, but his wife and his mistress were semitic as well. Apart from dribbling paint, the guy’s entire life appeared to focus on alcohol and nailing yentas.

Did I mention that — heavily encouraged by his wife — Pollock was a frequent customer of various s̶e̶m̶i̶t̶i̶c̶ ̶v̶o̶o̶d̶o̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶i̶e̶s̶t̶s̶ “psychoanalysts?” Clearly a classic case of false consciousness/ internalized tribalism.

Adorno is best-known, not for his virulent anti-Wagnerism, but for his infamous screed The Authoritarian [Goy] Personality [AGP]

Adorno clearly used “fascism” and “Authoritarian Goy Personality” as dog whistles for semitic supremacism and virulent, unreasoning anti-White hatred. The use of the term “fascism” declined significantly after WW2, but an NGram shows that the AGP canard was a common anti-White trope from the late 1940s until well into the 1970s.

The gradual shift from less obvious expressions of anti-White hatred like AGP, to the more open ones commonly spewed forth now, tracks the rise of semitic supremacism after WW2, and the associated solidification of the structures of systemic tribalism. In the current year, Adorno’s “AGP” trope is less common. Instead we see more direct semitic assaults on the autochthonous peoples of Europe using terms such as “toxic whiteness”, drawn from entire “academic” fields explicitly devoted to the production of anti-White hate propaganda, such as critical race theory and [anti] Whiteness studies — though sometimes Applebaums, feeling that neither alone is sufficiently venomous, combine the two into “Critical Whiteness Studies.”

All of your comments in the present grouping are valuable, and I thank you for them, but this one is, I think, the most valuable of all, in no small part because it draws attention to Wolfe’s wonderful little book, which I first read shortly after its publication. Some people have criticized Wolfe, especially since his death, for failing, here and elsewhere, to “name the Jew.” It seems undeniable, however, that had he been more specific and less veiled in his references to poisonous Jewish influence, the book might now be as hard to find as a hi-res print of Song of the South. Even so, the veil covering “Cultureburg” certainly flirts with full-frontal nudity!

The curious thing is that one comes away from The Painted Word with the sense that, despite all the logrolling and aesthetic dishonesty of the (((contemporary-art establishment))), Wolfe actually likes a bit of this stuff—as do I, as it happens. In contrast, very little in the way of appreciation or even grudging respect is to be found in Wolfe’s equally valuable, equally concise, analysis of modern architecture, From Bauhaus to Our House. Apart from Frank Lloyd Wright, who attracts Wolfe’s admiration more for his cantankerous personality than for his often gravely impractical designs, only the work and the person of Mies van der Rohe—who was by many accounts an almost irresistibly likable man—survive Wolfe’s critical gaze largely unscathed.

Even so, I’m grateful that your words prompted me to think of it. The tune to which the words are sung ends the act most effectively.

I must admit the verdict took me by surprise. I read somewhere the DOJ might be investigating the possibility of federal charges against young Mr. Rittenhouse. He might not be quite out of the woods.

Is [performing a colonoscopy under anesthesia] usual in the US?

Yes, it is usual. Although danger is inherent in any use of anesthesia, it is outweighed by the far from insignificant risk of death that is present in every colonoscopy. Since it is critically important for the patient’s safety that he or she lie absolutely still while the colonoscope is inside, the use of anesthesia is widely deemed essential. As advanced age is a complicating factor in any invasive medical procedure, using anesthesia for a colonoscopy on Biden or someone of similar age (someone like me, alas) is all the more advisable.

I’m delighted to be associated with Winnetou, Kurt; thank you sincerely. Thank you too for your other kind words.

A very dear friend, now deceased (1927–2008), was a Dutchman by birth. Evidently like you, my friend Frits had read all of Karl May’s novels in his youth and retained great affection for them. Because the character with whom Frits identified most closely was Old Shatterhand, you and he would have gotten along splendidly!

Frits had also seen some of the Pierre Brice and Lex Barker films—none of which I’ve seen, alas—but his first loyalty was ever to the printed page.
____________________

The Daily Stormer link is heartening. I have not, thus far at least, held out much hope for resistance from Austria to this latest overwhelming wave of Jewish pestilence embodied in the Third World invasion. I am very happy to have been mistaken.

As you say, Mr. Stix, Biden was not elected. He was installed via a largely bloodless coup that might prove to be as thoroughgoing and enduring as the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 was. Thus, while all the tired terminology of so-called democratic governance—impartially monitored elections, will of the people, due process, freedom of expression, impeachment, judicial review—remains in place, the reality is plainly Orwellian.

Worship of democracy is a malady of recent origin. No Western political thinker of repute—Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Tocqueville—had any use for it. In openly authoritarian structures, the distinction between those who rule and those who must obey is out in the open. The very awareness of this state of affairs often acts to restrain tyrannical conduct. Yet for most democracy apologists, including the gentleman Mr. Stix replied to, this crucial distinction is obscured by the big lie of democracy: that the people themselves rule.

Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves.
— Joseph Sobran

No, it’s not true at all. I shall need a bit of space in order to explain why I answer thus.

As with “we all believe in freedom, don’t we?” or a similar easygoing generality, however well-intentioned the question may be in the asking, there lurks the uncomfortable awareness that one hears it most often from the lips of interrogators and cross-examiners, people to whom the question’s object is far more frequently entrapment than truth or insight.

The notion that a college or university should choose its faculty from those candidates who are the most eager to get paid for navel-gazing has contributed in a major way to the rise of the travestied institutions of higher education that have displaced the genuine originals. A person need not linger at a college especially long before he sees that a healthy majority of its faculty would far sooner waste their students’ time (and their own) than offer active, intense formal instruction and verify its success with regular testing. Human nature is what it is, and because it is what it is, there will always be openings for earnest, hardworking academic deans who don’t give a damn how many faculty members call them slave drivers or ball-breakers. At least, that was true till the day before yesterday.

As regards students, an institution that encourages them “to pursue their research interests freely” is in fact tacitly promising the students that no obstructions will be raised to their remaining children, fools, or both. Is it no more than coincidental that the rulers of this country and of a great many others are so active in encouraging the propagation of immaturity and gullibility?

True education—which is education in the context of real life and with more than the occasional nod to life’s corporeal brevity—is impossible without an orthodoxy of teaching and learning. The primary doctrine of this orthodoxy, of course, must be that the institution’s masters and teachers know immeasurably more than even the most learned student applicant. The doctrine that necessarily follows from the primary is that a student must acknowledge, in his private and classroom conduct, his status as a subordinate—indeed, as a supplicant. One who fails to do so simply doesn’t belong in college, and until the day before yesterday, he was shown the door with a minimum of ceremony, generally after being offered several chances to mend his ways.

If someone were to tell me that there are even fifty colleges in the United States that have not yet formally abjured these orthodox doctrines and effectively all other manifestations of hierarchical structure and replaced them with the lies masquerading as “mutual enrichment,” “equality,” and “diversity,” I should be astonished.

The bottom line is that most colleges and universities have become utterly degenerate networks of subversion and indoctrination and have left every nation of the formerly Christian West at the mercy of its internal enemies—(((one enemy))) in particular. I do not think that it is a coincidence that that enemy is always the first to cheer when someone stands up to praise diversity, self-fulfillment, and “best lights”—lights whose “bestness” is discernible by the government’s seal of approval: usually, a tiny circle with a tiny letter U inside it.

It’ll be interesting to compare the media’s treatment of this to how they handled the killing in Charlottesville.

Swine. Watch.

The SUV driver was a “rapper” who had just been released on bail 2 days earlier for multiple charges including battery. He was fleeing in the SUV while being pursued by police for a “knife crime.” So of course in his tiny, impulsive, ape-like brain it’s OK to mow a bunch of people down with a vehicle rather than be captured by the cops.

This is a vapid article, rife with pointless generalities and unfounded assumptions. The very worst of those assumptions—worst in that it underlies the article’s raison d’être—concerns the posited correspondence between statute law and what today passes for an impartial litigation process in American courts. Because that process issues from the corrupted remnants of the state and federal versions of the justice system and from the morally bankrupt and, frequently, legally illiterate judges and prosecutors who staff the system, it is ridiculous for Robert Griffin to write as if any such correspondence still has a basis in fact.

Several months ago, Dr. Griffin wrote a very poor article about the conduct of the defense in the Chauvin trial. Its several egregious errors included his assumption that Chauvin was to blame for a death he didn’t bring about—namely, that of Saint George Floyd. Surely the present article is even worse. It might indeed be among the five or ten poorest articles ever published at TOO and, as such, is fated to be remembered there for some time. Here at the Unz Review, where the number of articles published ipso facto renders the competition at the low end ever so much more extreme, it will soon fade into a fitting oblivion.