Eric Striker – The Devil Has A Name: Who’s Behind Miley Cyrus’ Antics

https://i0.wp.com/ell.h-cdn.co/assets/15/50/980x490/gallery-1449879673-elle-miley-index.jpg

via TradYouth:

From circa 2006 to 2011, millions of families throughout our globalized world gathered in front of the Jude-tube to watch the teenage tribute to materialism, feminism, and ugly careerism known as Hannah Montana. The family the show follows is a crude stereotype of the “country bumpkin” Billy Ray worked hard to cultivate and transform into a profitable niche, but in spite of all the passive propaganda (including Miley Cyrus herself claiming it was patterned after Sex in the City, minus the sex ), the show was mostly free of pornography, gore, and suggestiveness–a rare find for parents in the 21st century.

[. . .]

The Annie Liebovitz controversy was an important signal to the Jewish establishment regarding the lack of responsible supervision over Miley Cyrus, and her potential as a vehicle for aggression in their war against mankind. When Hannah Montana came to an end, and Cyrus’ music career began to wane, she signed with the Jew manager Larry Rudolph, and her behavior has gotten more bizarre and viscerally offensive ever since.

Rudolph has specialized in “rejuvenating” the careers of child stars. The sleazy Ashkenazi pimp, in fact, has been credited with the short-lived pop fad of Cyrus’ fellow ex-Disney channel star Britney Spears, who at barely 16 years of age premiered in the 1999 Baby One More Time , where the Jew Nigel Dick collaborated closely with Rudolph to feature the teenage girl gyrating invitingly in pig tails and an erotically tailored catholic school uniform begging men to “hit her” (the song itself was written and produced by almost certain Jew Martin Sandberg aka “Max Martin”, and was played on loop on MTV and the radio until it grew on America’s young shiksas).

The media masters, it appears, get people like Spears and Cyrus into your living room by introducing them as sweet and innocent kids, then once children start looking at them as role models, suddenly “grow them up”. We all know how Spears ended up, and she was eventually retired after a very public and humiliating psychological break down–it is this, not just profits, that Jews seek for the masses.

[. . .]

Many people have commented on the contemporary push for normalizing child molestation, whether it’s the infamous “op ed” from Jew-infested Salon’s in-house pedophile done under the guise of “tolerance”, or the New York Times Jew Margo Kaplan’s “Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime” under the thin veneer of science, Jew Louis CK talking about screwing kids shielded by comedy, or mentally ill Yid laughing stock Shia Labeouf in clothes meant to make him look naked putting his face in the crotch of a prepubescent girl done under the cover of “performance art”. Anglo-Saxon semantics-culture is the easiest rubik’s cube the Talmudically trained debaters have ever beaten.

But Miley’s latest music video feels the climate is comfortable enough to not come up with an alibi. The video features Cyrus in a diaper and bonnet opening her legs up to the camera, rolling her tongue all over a pacifier to the lyrics:

I don’t really want an older you
I heard I change my mind with you often
Baby talk is creeping me out
Fuck me so you stop baby talking

[. . .]

Imagine if pedophilia becomes normalized against the people’s will, like “gay marriage” was. No parent will ever be able to share a bed or hug their own children ever again. You won’t be able to have your grandchildren on your lap, or tickle your nieces or nephews without suspicion, or at the very least, people having the depressing thought in the back of their minds. If you think the world is ugly today, it will only get worse unless we get together politically.

It’s impossible to know for sure, but Miley Cyrus’ career evolution was probably planned from the start of Hannah Montana. Imagine being the parent of a 5 year old girl who idolized the tender small town character of 2007 and then being in the awkward spot of forbidding her today from going to gratuitous tributes and promotions of animal behavior, pedophilia, drug use, immaturity, race-mixing, and who knows what else at a contemporary Cyrus performance.

Some people call him devil, others call him “liberal”, even more refer to him as “dangerous people”. But I won’t mince words: his name is Jew. And if we don’t exorcise him out of our country, the gangrenous sore will continue to grow.

Read more at TradYouth. . . .

Andrew Joyce – The Assault on Gender and the Family and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School (Part Two)

https://i0.wp.com/www.tagesspiegel.de/images/hirschfeld_ullstein/11753444/2-format530.JPG

via the Occidental Observer:

[. . .]

Even more radical than Moll was Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935). Like Moll, Hirschfeld came from a family of Jewish merchants and, also like Moll, he advanced theories of social and sexual behavior amounting to “the existence of fundamental irreducible sameness in human beings.”[9] Elena Macini writes that Hirschfeld’s Jewishness was “a socially and politically determinant aspect of his life.”[10] A common feature of his work was the hatred he had for Christianity. Indeed, his critique of that religion resembled in many respects that concocted by Freud. To Hirschfeld, Christianity was “essentially sadomasochistic, delighting in the pain of ascetic self-denial.”[11] Western Civilization had thus been “in the grip of anti-hedonist exaggerations for two thousand years,” thereby committing “psychic self-mutilation.”[12] It was therefore Western society, rather than homosexuals and other outsiders, that was sick and degenerate, and Hirschfeld’s prescribed cure was sexual hedonism and the acceptance of a wide array of “identities” and “sexualities.” Although coming from a close-knit, observant, Jewish community, and possessed of an abiding hatred for Christianity, Hirschfeld superficially advocated a “pan-humanistic” outlook and was fond of declaring himself “a world citizen.”[13] (I might agree with Hirschfeld to a certain extent since he appears to me a perfect example of what Henry Ford called an “international Jew.”)

[. . .]

In terms of theory, Hirschfeld had “subverted the notion that romantic love should be orientated toward reproduction,” arguing instead for the acceptance of homosexual lifestyles and hedonistic, non-reproductive, sexual relations in general.[16] A key element of Hirschfeld’s theory was the deployment of “love as a primary weapon in his ethical and philosophical campaign for the liberation of same-sex relationships.”[17] However, love as a concept was itself altered by Hirschfeld, who imbued it with transcendental and cosmic qualities in an effort to distance it as much as possible from biological, reproductive drives. Mancini writes that “the idea that love had the potential to not only lift the individual but to enrich the broader mission of humanity was articulated in Hirschfeld’s condemnation of theories of racial hygiene and his appeal to Panhumanism to extinguish the hatred among nations and races.”[18]

Such romantic theorizing, of course, had little to do with the actual content of sexological studies of the sexually inverted, where love featured significantly less than pederasty, promiscuity and disease. But it was the idea and “feeling” that mattered most in creating a homosexual movement and public support behind it. As strategy it corresponded perfectly with efforts to achieve “Jewish emancipation.” In this respect Richard Wagner put it most astutely and succinctly when he wrote that “when we strove for emancipation of the Jews we were really more the champions of an abstract principle than of a concrete case: … Our zeal for equal civil rights for Jews was much more the consequence of a general idea than of any real sympathy; for, with all our speaking and writing for Jewish emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them.” One could easily substitute “homosexuals” for “Jews” and achieve significant insight into the basic psychological processes at work, with Hirschfeld’s “general idea” being a florid abstraction of love around which the fashionable and easily duped may gravitate. It can’t be emphasized enough that Jews have been very adept at framing their arguments in emotional or moral terms that appear to have a unique pull on the consciences of Europeans, and such strategies are very difficult to unseat. One need only acknowledge that Hirschfeld’s work in this regard retains great potency in the present, with the recent “marriage equality” debate neatly side-stepping biological and social imperatives in favor of Hirschfeld-like maudlin non sequiturs about “love.”

[. . .]

Read more at the Occidental Observer. . . .

Andrew Joyce – The Assault on Gender and the Family and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School (Part One)

https://i0.wp.com/media1.faz.net/ppmedia/aktuell/rhein-main/1887474770/1.1734111/article_multimedia_overview/lieber-sexualforscher-als.jpg

via the Occidental Observer:

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

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

[. . .]

But who precisely is introducing these terms and ideas, and thus engineering dramatic change in Western society? In our attempt to answer this question, we might first return to Volkmar Sigusch. Sigusch, a German, is a self-described “sexologist,” physician and sociologist. As founder and co-editor of Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung (Journal for Sexual Research), and Director of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Science) at the Goethe University in Frankfurt from 1973 to 2006, Sigusch has been described by Der Spiegel as “one of the main thinkers behind the sexual revolution of the 1960s.” The reasons why the young would-be physician evolved into a cultural radical are quite easy to surmise. After fleeing East Germany, Sigusch studied medicine, psychology and philosophy at Frankfurt. I posit the argument that it was the latter discipline that truly shaped Sigusch and did most to determine his future work. I argue this because he studied philosophy under none other than Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, both of whom had by that date returned from the United States and re-established the notorious Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. Sigusch, a pioneer in the ongoing sexual revolution, is a Frankfurt School protégé.

The following analysis is concerned with the ongoing role of the Jewish-dominated “Culture of Critique” in advancing theories and trends designed to atomize our society. In particular it focusses on Jewish intellectual and political support for the sexually abnormal and explains it as an extension and product of the Frankfurt School’s view that “the unique role of Judaism in world history was to vindicate the concept of difference against the homogenizing forces thought to represent the essence of Western civilization. (My emphasis) ”[1] Kevin MacDonald has noted that the Frankfurt School categorized healthy Western norms, nationalisms, and close family relationships as an indication of psychiatric disorder. By contrast, in the last few decades of the nineteenth century Jewish intellectuals began championing Western society’s outcasts and non-conformers. Using these outcasts, Jewish intellectuals could fight a proxy war against Western homogeneity, and wage a clandestine campaign for the acceptance of pluralism.

Read more at the Occidental Observer. . . .

Soros Admits Involvement In Migrant Crisis: ‘National Borders Are The Obstacle’

GettyImages-127918170

The only surprise is that he admits it.

Mr Soros has now issued an email statement to Bloomberg Business, claiming his foundations help “uphold European values”, while Mr Oban’s actions in strengthening the Hungarian border and stopping a huge migrant influx “undermine those values.”

“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” Mr Soros added. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

Read more at Breitbart

 

  • August 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
%d bloggers like this: