2,430 words
Jewish comedian Lenny Bruce
The question is whether the Jew as such, that is, the Jew who himself admits that he is compelled by his true nature to live permanently in separation from other men, is capable of receiving the universal rights of man and of conceding them to others.
—Karl Marx, On the Jewish Question
***
“Noticing” can be a crime, as Steve Sailer elaborated in his book, Noticing: an Essential Reader (1973–2023) . To “notice” aspects of reality that challenge politically correct articles of faith can be a perilous undertaking that may end your career, blacken your reputation, alienate friends and family. Consider what happen to science titan, James Watson for “noticing” certain aspects of IQ and race.
In that light, I ponder these days about how tricky it is to talk about “Jews.” Or should I say, “things Jewish.” Perhaps I am paranoid, but am I the only person who has noticed how circumspect one must be in choosing between the adjective “Jewish” and the noun “Jew” when in polite company one speaks about the current and past comings and goings of … well, “Jews,” or people who happen to be “Jewish”?
Compare these two responses to the question: “Do you know the family who moved in across from the Clarks?”
“You mean the Jews who moved in three months ago?”
“You mean the Jewish family who moved in three months ago?”
The first response, I would wager a hefty sum, would arouse immediate suspicion of “antisemitism” from the conversation’s initiator. The second response is much safer. “Jewish” comes off simply as a modifier attached to an innocuous noun simply to help confirm the identity of the family for the questioner. More like, “Oh, yes, the black family” or the “Vietnamese family.”
From my experience, Jews are uninhibited about referring to themselves as “Jews.” Most Jews I have met very quickly after making their acquaintance let me know that they are Jewish—typically referring to themselves as “Jews.” Jews seem very inclined to muse about being Jewish around their gentile friends, perhaps as a subtle reminder of a separation that can never, nor should, be completely overcome. Jews in many different ways maintain a focus on their Jewishness. That makes it continuously, consciously complicated for Gentiles to talk candidly about Jews. Jewish conduct over the last two years in Gaza has greatly heightened that complication as evidenced by the attempts in the U.S to criminalize speech that criticizes the ethnic cleanings underway conducted by the state of Israel under the rationale of “self-defense,” keeping “Orwellian” relevant in the 21st century.
Jews like to joke about being Jews, and this bespeaks to something that may not be immediately evident about an outsized source of Jewish cultural power, i.e. Jewish humor. Professional American comedy, a subset of the entertainment industry, has been overwhelmingly dominated by Jews for the last one-hundred years. In 1978, Time magazine claimed that 80 percent of all stand-up comedians in the United States were Jewish. And this at a time when Jews made up only 3% of the U.S. To cite just a sampling of American Jewish comedy-stars, both male and female, ranging across many decades: Groucho Marx, George Burns, Joan Rivers, Gilda Radner, Roseanne Barr, Jack Benny, Don Rickles, and Jerry Lewis. More recently: Jon Stewart, Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, and Sarah Silverman.
One of my favorites was Jackie Mason, whose routines focused heavily on themes that enforced negative Jewish stereotypes.
“Money is not important. Love is important. Fortunately, I love money.”
“My grandfather always said that I shouldn’t watch my money. That I should watch my health. So while I was watching my health, someone stole my money. It was my grandfather.”
Mason’s Jewishness, apart from his comedically cultivated Jewish persona, is particularly notable for certain supremacist features. Born in 1928, Yacov Moshe Maza, Mason was an ordained rabbi. He is reputed to be an admirer of Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League whose sole purpose was to combat antisemitism—“combat” as in physical attacks on “enemies of the Jewish people.” Kahane was convicted of multiple acts of terrorism in the U.S. and in Israel. Mason is quoted as saying in the Evening Star (March 7, 1971): “Democratic principles shouldn’t apply to Israel like they do to America.”
Humor has enormous subversive power in its capacity to expose the vulnerabilities of power elites with the use of ridicule. For an outgroup gifted with linguistic and dramaturgical skills seeking to destabilize or subvert a system perceived as oppressive, they are frequently employed with great precision and effectiveness. Recall Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, rule number five: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” A comedian’s protection against counterattack for ridicule lies in his professional status as a jokester, a feigned non-serious person whose act is intended simply to entertain, to elicit laughs. “Hey, I’m joking! Whatsa matter, can’t take a joke?” Jon Stewart, born Jon Stewart Leibowitz, is perhaps the perfect illustration of this. Hip and an expert in comedic mugging for the cameras, Stewart hosted the extremely popular Daily Show on Comedy Central where he routinely mocked Republicans, conservatives, and Christians. Stewart was a master of gaslighting his critics, as he would invoke his “comedian” status, disavowing the “seriousness” of his tirades, while launching waves of devastating ridicule at them to the roaring approval of his studio audience.
All of this points to a crucial element of humor, the role of comedy in shaping culture. One can’t help but notice the profound effects Jewish comedy has had since the 1960s cultural shift of America to the left with the embrace of multiculturalism and the push for “sexual liberation” that would erode the structure of the traditional American family.
Think of the career of Lenny Bruce in the early 1960s as a milestone in what would lead to the ubiquitous vulgarity of current popular culture with its relentless efforts to normalize what was widely regarded as obscene and pornographic and to sexualize the lives of young children. According to his Wikipedia page, Bruce (who died of a heroin overdose at age 40), “forged new paths in comedy and counterculture. His trial for obscenity was a landmark of freedom of speech in the United States.” This is the patois favored by our self-proclaimed progressives: “forging new paths,” “breaking boundaries,” “expanding freedom”—language that camouflages the nihilism behind the imagined “arc of history bending toward justice.” They never ask: what is “new” about the “new paths”? And, are we better off where they take us? What is so wrong with the “boundaries” that they need to be “broken”? Is the limitless expansion of “freedom” unquestionably desirable?
Think, also, of the career of Norman Lear, an American screenwriter and producer who produced, wrote and created over 100 television shows. Lear, as well as being an incredibly prolific and creative producer of situation comedies, was tirelessly active in supporting and funding “progressive” and liberal causes. In 1980 he personally founded People for the American Way, a “progressive” advocacy group whose purpose was to combat the influence of the Christian right. Edgy, ribald comedy challenging long-established standards of decency for public entertainment was piped into the living rooms of millions of Americans. One intended outcome was the demolition of those standards such that fifty years later all barriers to excessive profanity, explicit sexual portrayal, and graphic violence in the entertainment industry are gone. Lear would deploy his comedic genius as a powerful weapon to subvert the forces of which he perceived as ruling an illiberal, reactionary, bigoted Christian America.
Lear, who died in 2023 at 101 years of age, had what was perhaps his greatest “progressive” achievement with All in the Family, a hugely popular sitcom which ran throughout almost the entire decade of the 70s (January 12, 1971, to April 8, 1979, with a total of 205 episodes). Here is how the sitcom is represented in its Wikipedia page:
[The show] broke ground by introducing challenging and complex issues into mainstream network television comedy… The series became arguably one of television’s most influential comedies, as it injected the sitcom format with more dramatic moments and realistic, topical conflicts.
The show certainly “broke ground” (“breaking” is always good) with the “challenging and complex issues that infused most of the episodes. However, it was not the infusion of these “issues,” but the ideological framing of these issues within the plots and character development that with the so called “realism” made it so different from the typical sitcom of the 1950s (I Love Lucy) and 1960s (I Dream of Genie). Both were rife with “sexist” themes abhorrent to the coming tsunami of 1970s feminism.
All in the Family was built around a generational conflict that pitted the counterculture of the 1960s against the older Waspish WWII generation with Carroll O’Connor’s masterful acting that made his character “Archie Bunker” an eponym for a broad spectrum of bigotry – anti-black, antisemitic, homophobic, male chauvinist. In this generational conflict, Archie, crudely, helplessly, obtusely resists the burgeoning “enlightenment” of his counterculture-inspired feminist daughter, Gloria, and fellow traveler son-in-law, “Meathead” Mike. Across the ’70s decade that this show ran, its unprecedented success was evidenced by the transition of the counterculture into its place as main steam. All the “isms” and “phobias” would be firmly fixed in the daily vocabulary of Americas without their complete realization as weapons to destabilize old order. The totality of its ideological components—feminism, egalitarianism, anti-racism, and sexual liberation—would guide those who eventually took command of America’s social and political institutions. Archie symbolized the morally corroded old order, swept away by agents of enlightened thinking who make the world a better place. Lear’s genius was, with his comedic tools, to make what was a “revolution” seem so natural, so inevitable, so much fun to watch. How many of the millions out there in TV Land grasped the nature of manipulation that was underway with agitprop skilfully masked as “entertainment”?
To see where the “new paths” of 60s Lenny Bruce and Norman Lear’s New American Way of the 70s and 80s were headed, fast forward to the 21st century and another popular Comedy Central Jewish comedian, Sarah Silverman. From her Wikipedia page:
Her comedy roles address social taboos and controversial topics, including racism, sexism, homophobia, politics, and religion, sometimes having her comic character endorse them in a satirical or deadpan fashion.
No one needs to guess who the bad guys are going to be with any of these “controversial topics”; the usual yahoo-suspects carried over from the heady 1960s: patriarchs, antisemites, homophobes, white racists, and traditional Christians. What distinguishes Silverman’s 21st century style of comedy bent on smashing boundaries and taboos is its unremitting coarseness and vulgarity at a level few people a generation or two earlier would imagine. “On September 13, 2008, Silverman won a Creative Arts Emmy Award for writing the song ‘I’m Fucking Matt Damon.’” This is what now garners acclaim by the cultural gate keepers who decide what counts as “creative” and who gets the laurels.
But to reflect a moment longer on taboos. Old ones are gone, but new ones are firmly in place and are rigidly enforced, specifically those that protect the central dogma of the left reaching back to the French revolution: equality, with the corollary that “inequality” is an unnatural state created by an oppressor class. Anyone who dares to question the eligibility of any group awarded the officially approved status of “victim” of oppression will be punished as a carrier of what might be regarded as “moral leprosy.” It presents in different forms—racism, sexism, homophobia, and the more recently discovered “transphobia”—and to prevent its contagion, carriers are banished from the workplace and polite society.
Jews joke about Jews, as I noted above. That said, the real jokes are on the Gentiles. One does not have to be sociologist or political scientist to understand that, using its immense imaginative powers, the entertainment industry has for decades used that power to advance ideological goals inimical to the interests of non-Jews, especially white people and Christians. Thus, the mere mention of the “entertainment industry” leads us back to the complications relating to the constraints of gentiles when they want to talk about Jews, particularly when that talk relates to those sectors in American society where Jewish power is concentrated.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a hugely funded organization dedicated to monitoring the pulse of “antisemitism” – like “racism,” always on the rise – in the U.S. It is an ever-vigilant thought-police-agent that exclusively and aggressively protects Jewish interests. The ADL is particularly sensitive to the widely held and, what would appear to be a fact-based view, that the Jews control the key components of the entertainment industry, including Hollywood. See An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood:
The assertion that Jews “control” Hollywood, the media, banking and finance, among other things, is an anti-Semitic canard which dates back more than 70 years to an anti-Jewish campaign waged in the 1920s by the Dearborn Independent, a long-defunct publication backed by the late industrialist Henry Ford Sr.
Got that? In a single sentence: “anti-Semitic canard,” “anti-Jewish campaign” going back “more than 70 years,” “Henry Ford Sr.” (famous anti-Semite)—all the angles of bullet-proof victimhood are covered. Transgressors beware!
“Hollywood is run by Jews” is a no-no for non-Jews to say. But what do Jews say about Hollywood?
Joel Stein in the Los Angles Times:
I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe “the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,” down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood… The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish.
As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between The 700 Club and Davey and Goliath on TV all day.
Jews and gentiles, each group with a different set of rules for talking about Jews; rules for both groups set by the Jews. All of this proves the adage: “If you want to know who rules over you, just look for who you are not allowed to criticize.”
58 comments
Dead from the neck up MEAT HEAD!
I’ve gone back and listened to Lenny Bruce’s “comedy “ . Not a laugh in the books.
I was going to mention that, but you beat me to it, how precious! Don’t forget “meathead” and his wife are dead. The LAPD is being vague about certain aspects of their murder.
Poetic justice. This looks like a home invasion by one of their diversity pets. Or a sex party by 2 old perverts that went wrong (again with a representative of their beloved diversity).
Even as a not resident American, The news showed up in my browser feeds.
I didn’t know this Meathead ( don’t even know why this surname ) , but he seemed like a particular subversive piece of …
And with the Bondy Beach incident in mind, really, having flooded white countries with hateful non-whites and destroyed healthy institutions like segregation or apartheid, it seems that the Tribe is no longer safe, as they were until recently ( due to their economic and privileged situation).
As if this wasn’t entirely predictable. They’re not that smart after all… as this article shows, their so-called intelligence manifests itself mainly in subversion and destruction.
Their son did it. Slit their throats. Now he’s literally dead from the neck up.
Thanks. It was not the diversity after all. But – according to this article, Meathead promoted the counter- culture and so the drug culture that destroyed his son and got him killed.
Yes he did, and he was a no talent Jew who got his start with the help of his unfunny father. Pure nepotism.
Dragoslav, in case you haven’t found out yet, Rob Reiner was in a sitcom called All in the Family. He played a leftist college student who lived with his wife’s family in NYC. The father-in-law was portrayed as a simple-minded, bigot. He would insult his son-in-law on a regular basis by calling him “Meathead”. It was Jewish created, ant-white, propaganda like a lot of sitcoms. I actually prefer the word shitcom to describe the vast majority of them.
Thanks. Typical j… Inversion. As usual.
Your last sentence was a good insight. Like the devil, the Jews’ biggest advantage is that the gentile cannot recognize his nature–the racial nepotism of the jew is almost incomprehensible for a White, and to a lesser degree, non-White Gentile.
The jews are not a hive mind; they are a self-flagellated, neurotic people with a Talmudic superiority complex. They are all on the same page and that page is to be pro-jew in the moment, affected by blood libels.
A normal people, when dominant, and I think Reiner’s generation was more like this than today’s, would just enjoy the money-power inducing servitude of the more friendly, sexier people beneath them. There wouldn’t lust to denigrate and destroy them. There’s no higher intelligence, apart from their supra-national organizations, directing these people.
Very good points.
An interesting example to compare and contrast would be George Carlin, who wasn’t Jewish, but grew up in a Manhattan neighbourhood near Columbia University (a notable center of Leftist/subversive intellectual activity, starting with Franz Boas).
Carlin, who was rabidly anti-White [1], was also a long-time drug-user (round-the-clock pot, cocaine addiction, wife was addicted to alcohol and cocaine herself). The background here is that he hated his dad for leaving the family, grew up in a difficult neighborhood and had a huge problem with authority/rules – and then, as “a comedian looking for an audience.”, found his niche by turning “hip” i.e. aligning with the new Zeitgeist of post-cultural revolution America.
Interestingly, his wife worked for the movie industry and they lived in LA, so this is one of those NYC+LA biographies that typically signify a massive tilt to the Left.
Carlin is nowadays mostly known in alternative circles for his pseudo-Libertarian, anti-establishment rhetoric.
[1] Random comments about Carlin that I found illuminating:
“he wanted to live 1000 years to see the decay of the white race, he was a bitter old self hating white man who was a tool of the establishment”
“He was the Gen X Lefty prototype [though born in 1937]. Cynical with no solutions and the only thing they hate more than themselves is their parents.”
“Consciously cultivating the public image of a no-nonsense, down-to-earth American everyman, Carlin was able to present the tenets of radical Cultural Marxism in a manner designed to appeal to an audience consisting primarily of White American man, duping them into laughing at jokes made at their own expense, and agreeing with ideas and statements inimical to their own interests.”
” “He was the Gen X Lefty prototype [though born in 1937]. Cynical with no solutions and the only thing they hate more than themselves is their parents.”
Seems like the basic psychology of all these immature antifas and leftist useful idiots.
I found Carlin to be arrogant, shallow and barely funny.
It’s so weird to look back at your own past re Jews . Was good friends with two Jews and while I kinda knew they were Jews, because my mother would talk about Jews, that didn’t connect to me. But i remember being told Lenny Bruce was this genius I even borrowed an album of his from the library; the sick humor of Lenny Bruce; and he was picnicking in a graveyard. Not one laugh not one, and i listened to bill cosbey and woody Allen so I liked comedy.
Carlin was always gross to me. I hated his grubby pony tail his pajama top his gravelly voice.
im sorry but spinal tap was a big influence on me I even listened to the soundtrack like it was a real album!
the princess never connected with me.
Ok so this whole path breaking breaking g boundaries forging new ground breaking taboo the first x to x stuff is such incrediblely effective rhetoric. There’s never pushback on it. Also it’s like how does one know there’s a “barrier” to break through?!?! Well, we’ll tell you, that’s how!
another fave of mine is “ we’ve come a long way but we have a long way to go….” The never ending revolution!
crazy time to be alive, exciting, scary, sad. The saddest part for me is the state of white men’s minds. While they confess the plights of outbgroups, especially Jews and blacks, they then flip this weird switch in their minds when. Talking about Europeans: we don’t exist nd it doesn’t matter if your daughter married an Aztec because everyone’s an individual humanoid!
what was topic?
If Sam Kinison were alive today and still used the same material that he used in the eighties, he would be cancelled.
Screaming and being a junkie didn’t make him funny or wise then or now. Neither was bill hicks. Stand-up comics are every bit as phony and PR-curated as dwayne johnson. If you really want a sample of pure cringe, I caught a sample of this ‘comedian’ sarah squirm’s show in brooklyn. Wow…
Great article, and timely, given Rob Reiner’s death yesterday.
Here are two efforts of mine in a similar vein:
https://counter-currents.com/2022/05/on-racial-humor/
https://counter-currents.com/2020/11/the-greatest-jewish-joke-ever-told/
Woody Allen’s depiction of jews as neurotic but mostly harmless is another trope to cultivate a false image, albeit they are incredibly whiny and annoying.
Never found Seinfield or Friends funny. Watch that garbage without a laugh track. It’s horrifying.
Sasha Cohen or Borat is instructive. A jew who pretended to be characters that make white people look bad, thats the joke. And if any whites lost reputations along the way, even better. One of his earliest shape shifts was ‘white guy who acts black.’
If people like me ran things, a symbol would appear over a characters head on screen to indicate it’s a jew.
“If people like me ran things, a symbol would appear over a characters head on screen to indicate it’s a jew.”
Carl Schmitt said that in scholarly papers any Jew cited should have the letter J placed next to the footnote; and, if I am not mistaken, that was what that star on the lapel was for.
I’ve been saying this for a while: if any group can claim victim status in a multi racial we’re all individual bordered administrative zone, then everyone all the time should wear different colored stars or crosses for gentiles or some symbol that indicates one’s race at all times.
Great article. It is as if the jews were bioengineered by some dark god to plague, and bedevil humanity. 🙃
According to Kevin MacDonald in The Culture Of Critique Sigmund Freud was on a ship in New York Harbor getting ready to disembark when he turned to a colleague next to him and said: they have no idea but we are bringing them the plague
Show Business is an extension of the Jewish religion—John Lennon
Don Rickles was once asked how many of the comedians of his generation were Jewish, he thought about it for a moment and said—about half…
Its kind of ghoulish to celebrate Meatheads murder. That being said…Knowing who he was and all the anti-white propaganda he belched out, im not gonna shed any tears for him either. Its just another Monday.
The press is freaking out over Trump’s reaction to “Meathead’s” murder.
I’ve always wondered. If Jews are so good in the media in western countries, why isn’t Israel a media powerhouse? It punches shockingly low even on the small scale international and arthouse film circuit.
They feed on our brains.
Jewish media without gentile money, talent and infrastructure is like a climbing vine without the tree to support it.
Kind of like black run cities without the same level of gentile support, especially the infrastructure.
Archie was the star of the show. Meathead sponged off the in-laws, lived under their roof, and had the nerve to lecture Archie about how racist and sexist he was.
In the book linked by the author, Harry Cohn, chairman of Columbia Pictures, recalls his reaction to a young man canvassing for a Jewish relief charity. “A charity FOR Jewish relief?!? How about charity FROM Jewish relief? Jews cause all the problems in the world.”
I was born into a form of Jewishness but didn’t let it define me. One of the greatest gifts of my being born again as a saved Christian has been God’s help in overcoming that Jewishness that I once identified with and replacing it with a new identity in Christ. Call the Jews what they are, the most miserably rebellious people that world has ever known, enemies of the Gospel. Attempted murderers of God.
It does seem rather remarkable how many times God “waxes wroth” in the Old Testament because of Jewish misbehavior. It seems (I’m only halfway through) that the entire OT is God hot-under-the-collar about his people.
This is the patois favored by our self-proclaimed progressives: “forging new paths,” “breaking boundaries,” “expanding freedom”—language that camouflages the nihilism behind the imagined “arc of history bending toward justice.” They never ask: what is “new” about the “new paths”? And, are we better off where they take us? What is so wrong with the “boundaries” that they need to be “broken”? Is the limitless expansion of “freedom” unquestionably desirable?
This reminds me of passages from Diana West’s “The Death of the Grown-up.” By implication she asks, did literature really improve with the tolerance we afforded works such as “Fanny Hill”?
(The chapters “Sophisticated Babies” and “Boundaries” are especially thought-provoking. I highly recommend this book.)
Milo Yiannopoulos made a good point recently, that boundaries helped our culture by making creative people work within them, thereby increasing the quality of creative work. He also described how bad-quality work has recently overwhelmed the good in American culture. I think that philosophers have argued this for a long time, and it might also be related to the American Founders’ principle that freedom would only be healthy within moral boundaries; and that freedom is very different than licence.
A good example of the benefits of boundaries is how the “Golden Age of Hollywood” really was a flourishing period for movies with the Hays Code in force, when limits were placed on language, sexual content, etc.
And Milo is a degenerate homosexual… Imagine that.
He acknowledged the degeneracy recently, and described how he regrets it and is trying to make amends and change himself. We’ll see, but he seems to be trying at least.
In the novel I am finishing up, I have a dinner table conversation that involves the issue of creating within limitations. I also come down on the side of limitations forcing greater creativity.
The Jackie Mason jokes are funny. It’s undeniable that Jews have produced many good comedians, and Jews have expertly used humor as a form of offense and defense.
That said, this article seems to be focused too much on the past. The world is changing and people are less likely to walk on eggshells around Jews.
You make a good point: The past is misremembered and often scrubbed.
The face at the top of this article, Lenny Bruce, is proof of that. Lenny was the leader of a 1950s beatnik trend called “sick comedy” and was surprisingly heavy on ethnic humor. It is a known fact that Jews invented the Polish joke, but they didn’t stop there.
Lenny Bruce used to start his nightclub routine with the question: “Are there any niggers here tonight?” And then go on to bash Italians, Germans, and even his fellow Jews.
It isn’t only that the past is dead. Anyone trying Lenny’s opening in this century would be shot, not cancelled.
“That said, this article seems to be focused too much on the past.”
“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
William Faulker
Apparently one day President Nixon was trying to tune into a baseball game (America’s pastime of innocence) on television but got something else instead, an unhealthy dose of degeneracy, courtesy of Jews. And what did he see? Two “strong, magnificent men” kissing! Right there on TV! Glorifying homosexuality, the Jews were.
The next day an outraged Nixon discusses this filth with his aides. Comic it is that neither he nor any of his aides knows the name of the show, though it was a big hit by then. Nixon at first says he thinks it’s a movie, another says no, it’s a panel show. Finally one hits closer to the mark saying it’s on every week.
The aide tells him the main character is a slob, looks like Jackie Gleason, and he’s a hard-hat with a hippie son-in-law. And that the “general trend” is to downgrade the hard-hat and praise the hippie — the “square” is bad, the hippie is good.
That’s real family entertainment, isn’t it? said a chagrinned Nixon.
As a millennial I truly stand in awe of the destructive force of this type of media that we once took far too lightly, and of the skill these people have to weave such lethal and entangling threads that seem so harmless at first. Never in a thousand years would you have caught me disapproving of “gay representation” in media when I was young, but when you zoom out and see the bigger picture, the grand scheme, the intent behind it all, the playful jab at the so-called established order reveals itself as the first prick with the tip of a slow-motion, multi-generational dagger strike, which no matter how slow, never relents, and never pulls back.
Excellent comment.
Hitler waned us in Mein Kampf that whenever someone takes the scalpel to the abscess of cultural subversion you will find lurking there the little Jew. He likened it to a mighty dose of poison.
Take for instance the very Jewish Judy Blume, the seemingly anodyne authoress who in essence penned sex novels for young adults (Forever, etc): or Judith Butler who foisted performative gender on an unsuspecting nation; Mike Nichols who gave us the anti-White The Graduate; or Stanley Kramer who gave us Judgment at Nuremberg and Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.
Someone could write an extensive piece about all the culturally subversive spawn that emanated from the mass Exodus of Jews from Eastern Europe to America from 1880 to 1920, Norman Mailer for instance and his The White Negro, Leonard Bernstein and his so-called Radical Chic, the list goes on and on.
Jacqueline Susann and Judith Krantz had an inestimable effect on the morals of women from the late sixties to seventies. Oh, and how could I forget Erica Jong?
Don’t forget Hellen Gurley Brown.
That sounds an awful lot like All In the Family. Following the cookie crumbs, that was probably “Judging Books by Covers” in 1971. I saw part of the rerun when I was a kid, but don’t recall two men sucking face. Could be I missed the highlight of the show, right?
One does not have to be sociologist or political scientist to understand that, using its immense imaginative powers, the entertainment industry has for decades used that power to advance ideological goals inimical to the interests of non-Jews, especially white people and Christians.
Part way into this essay I dearly wanted to cheerfully chime in with mentions of my favorite Jewish titles (which never fail to elicit a chuckle) such as “Jews in Space” or “Springtime for Hitler,” or add to your list one of my favorite Jewish comedians, Oscar Levant.
But the deadly seriousness of this brainwashing and its impact on American culture cannot be ignored for the sake of levity. Norman Lear’s transformative power was greater than most of the output from the intelligentsia, and possibly even more damaging.
Don’t forget Maude with the shrewish and mannish woman, the henpecked husband, the most (in)famous show normalized abortion.
George Carlin, I believe, was the comedian feature on the first Saturday Night, Live, another comedic, Jewish-heavy production, fifty years ago.
What? No Stooges? No Rodney Dangerfield? Oh, and Archie Bunker was right, about everything.
The Jewish Stooges hopped on the anti-Hitler train before Chaplin with their propaganda piece “You Nazty Spy.”
I have always had an aversion to stand-up comedy and sitcoms. After reading this article, I understand a bit more why I do.
I did like Get Smart, McHales Navy and Hogan’s Heroes when I was a youngster, though.
The U.S. went from The Andy Griffith Show in the sixties to All in the Family in the seventies, in less than 10 years this drastic change took place.
This transition was a conscious one, it even has an official name: The Rural Purge. Out went Mayberry R.F.D., The Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction, Green Acres, and Hee Haw, and in came urban centered shows like Mary Tyler Moore and Maude and All In The Family. They knew what they were doing.
Yes, that is quite the transformation to be sure, the Beatles have them beat though, they went from I Want To Hold Your Hand to Why Don’t We Do It In the Road? in a mere four years (1964 to 1968).
And now there’s too many of our folk look like TLC the person.
The use of “humor” to ridicule mainstream Gentile culture is a celebrated strategy within Jewish culture — going back centuries — with vulgarity and toilet humor the most effective as it is the most profane and debasing. Sadly, this has become normalized. Naturally, this is a one-way street — it is utterly taboo to ridicule Jews, notwithstanding customs that are, to say the least, peculiar.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.