Featured Post

The 2017 "Let Them Be For Signs" Series

I've decided to make this year's ongoing astronomical discussion an official series.  So, for your convenience, links to articles...

Thursday, March 23, 2017

"Humblebragging"

Honestly, when I read about this new term, I immediately figured they were about to talk about Pope Francis.
According to Harvard University, urbanites are increasingly succumbing to the phenomenon of ‘humblebragging’- boasting about their hectic lives as a way to prove that they are 'in demand'.
Phrases such as ‘I have no life’ and ‘I desperately need a holiday’ are now used to imply social standing, while ordering food shopping online is the perfect way to prove to neighbors that you are simply too busy and important to go to the supermarket.
First World problems. 

This term sounds on the same level with virtue-signalling--a very useful term when observing certain kinds of behavior that, for the longest time, we simply didn't know how to define.  

It's good to have useful words in this complicated day and age, when people have become so intricately ridiculous.  It's not like the ancient days, when they lacked words for even the most basic colors.  

I'm also reminded of a passage from Antifragile, by Nassim Taleb, in which he states that half of our lives have no name: "We know more than we think we do, a lot more than we can articulate."

Let us co-opt the term "humblebragging," and put it toward more useful purposes.  Imagine how useful this word would have been at the beginning of Pope Francis' pontificate, when everyone was screaming how "humble" he was.

To be sure, the word was probably in use at the time of his election.  But not everyone knew about it.  Otherwise, we would have started off with a better understanding of this pope.

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Suppressing Non-Approved Speech In New York

In the state of New York, an assemblyman decided it'd be a great idea to suppress non-government-approved free speech:

In a bill aimed at securing a "right to be forgotten," introduced by Assemblyman David I. Weprin and (as Senate Bill 4561 by state Sen. Tony Avella), liberal New York politicians would require people to remove ‘inaccurate,’ ‘irrelevant,’ ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive’ statements about others...
  • Within 30 days of a ”request from an individual,”
  • “all search engines and online speakers] shall remove … content about such individual, and links or indexes to any of the same, that is ‘inaccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’ or ‘excessive,’ ”
  • “and without replacing such removed … content with any disclaimer [or] takedown notice.”
  • “ ‘[I]naccurate’, ‘irrelevant’, ‘inadequate’, or ‘excessive’ shall mean content,”
  • “which after a significant lapse in time from its first publication,”
  • “is no longer material to current public debate or discourse,”
  • “especially when considered in light of the financial, reputational and/or demonstrable other harm that the information … is causing to the requester’s professional, financial, reputational or other interest,”
  • “with the exception of content related to convicted felonies, legal matters relating to violence, or a matter that is of significant current public interest, and as to which the requester’s role with regard to the matter is central and substantial.”
Failure to comply would make the search engines or speakers liable for, at least, statutory damages of $250/day plus attorney fees.

So, obviously this is insane.  But it is also typical.  The Left is constantly trying to figure out ways of silencing their rivals, as the long-term goal is to ultimately destroy all opposition.

If this ludicrous bill were passed, the psychotic oligarchs and activists of New York could freely destroy whatever history books and encyclopedias they wanted to if it cramped their style.



Written and public material talking about anyone could become a penalty, depending upon the whim of the government.

Here's hoping this trend dies horribly and quickly.

Friday, March 17, 2017

FrancisChurch Hipocricy: "Utilize Exorcists More!"

So, Pope Francis has decided to acknowledge that the Devil exists this week:

Vatican City (AFP) - Pope Francis on Friday advised priests who hear troubled confessions from parishioners to not hesitate to call on the services of an exorcist. 
A good confessor has to be very discerning, particularly when he has to deal with "real spiritual disorders," the 80-year-old pontiff told priests at a Vatican training seminar on the art of hearing believers recount their sins.
Disorders could have their roots in all manner of circumstances, including supernatural ones, he suggested.
In such circumstances the confessor "must not hesitate to refer to exorcists... chosen with great care and prudence."

This advice is in stark contrast to the spirit of his actions for the past few years.  By all accounts, Pope Francis has shown that he hardly believes in the Devil at all.  

But more insane than that, Pope Francis' pick for Tulsa bishop speaks against his own advice.  Don't forget, friends, Bishop Konderla, Pope Francis' pick for Eastern Oklahoma's latest bishop decided it was for the best to dissolve an entire order of exorcist priests who were formed to do battle with an increasingly large amount of literal Satanism in Oklahoma.  

This exorcist society led by Fr. Ripperger was suppressed, and later they had to remove themselves to Denver.  As for us folks left in Oklahoma, we are to fend for ourselves against principalities and powers we have no authority to deal with.  

"Call an exorcist," indeed.  What an insult to us Oklahomans.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Trump Shall Cease Funding to: PBS, NPR, Smithsonian

Donald trump has proposed to cut all funding to PBS, NPR, and the Smithsonian.

Trump’s budget would zero out the $445 million budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a relatively small source of funding for programming and broadcast operations on public TV stations and NPR radio stations nationwide, per the Washington Post.
The budget would also eliminate the budgets for both national endowments, which stood at $148 million each in 2016, as well as $230 million for the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which supports libraries and museums. Additional cuts would affect two tourist mainstays in Washington, D.C., the Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art.
This is absolutely great.  This action holds America's feet to the fire in a certain kind of a way.  Patronage and support for artisans is an act of kings and royalty.  Supporting artists is a characteristic of monarchs who have a character.

Our nation struggled mightily in its genesis to ensure that it had no character whatsoever, other than the selfish pirsuit of happiness.  America has spurned the idea of kings since its inception, and shortly after its founding, America's forefathers worked tirelessly to divorce itself from any semblance of traditional Western European nations.

Our very education system is not designed to bolster and strengthen the spirit of men or fortify the mind.  Instead, American education is a utilitarian expansion of the mind for the purposes of assisting in socio-economic life and to indoctrinate the pupil even further with Enlightenment values.

Besides, I have no idea what in the hell we've been doing all this time funding very famous partisan talking heads of one political party against another.  PBS and NPR are liberal mouthpieces that squawk constantly against the Right, and frankly, I'm tired of my tax dollars funding Piss Christ.

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

The "Pure" American

As my traffic has been increasing, I suppose the time has come to tell a bit more about myself on this blog.

For starters, Laramie Hirsch is not my name.  Some people online know this, and others are able to easily figure this out.  But no, Hirsch is not my name.  And, in hindsight, I sort of regret taking Laramie Hirsch as my pen name all those years ago, because everyone thinks I'm Jewish. It's funny, but also unfortunate, because I end up beginning with a level of distrust and a lack of credibility in the circles I travel--because the people I talk to don't trust Jews.

The closest approximation to my name I'm willing to give is Michael Cornwallis Barcus.  Several people whom I've corresponded with in the past have occasionally seen me end a letter or message with "Mike," and then expressed surprise that Laramie is not my name.  

I'm a Traditionalist Catholic, as most readers know.  


My tribe served as the first settlers to Maryland.
Yet for those folks on the Alt-Right who require more qualifiers, I'm also white.  Very white.  I'm mostly English, though I'd say I'm 15% or less German, with less than 10% Scottish blood.  I have multiple ancestors who fought in the American Revolution, and I'm easily eligible for the Sons of the American Revolution.  In fact, I have ancestors who have fought in every American war.  I am even the descendant of Missouri slave plantation owners.    

However, I also have a touch of Loyalist ancestry.  That is to say, some in my lineage actually was rooting for the English during the American Revolution.  This line is the one I am most proud of.  They trace back to English recusant nobles--the Cornwallis family.  

Cousin Tom took these guys out.
My 2nd cousin (11 times removed) was Captain Thomas Cornwallis, who advised Maryland's governor and served as captain and chief military officer in 1634.  He was responsible for firing a broadside into the Cockatrice and defeating her crew, and engaging in several naval battles over Kent Island against the Puritans who sought to overtake Maryland from the Catholics.  He grew tobacco, invested in fur, built the first mill in the colony, and he became a creditor to poorer colonists.

My most favorite ancestor, however, is someone I am directly descended from: Great Grandpappy Sir Thomas Cornwallis.

My 12th great grandfather is more properly known as Sir Thomas Cornwallis, High Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk.  He was also a member of Parliament in the 1500s.  He was dismissed from office by Queen Elizabeth and forced to retire, due to his status of being an English recusant.  It's amazing that he wasn't executed.

Grandpa, you should have fired the painter.
I'm sure that I'm related to the very same Cornwallis who attempted to preserve the colonies for England, though I have yet to find my linkage with him.  I imagine that particular general Cornwallis to be a 2nd or 3rd cousin, at best.  
  
Not all of my ancestry goes back to posh royal courts and decorated naval captains.  Some of my ancestors were quite rugged frontiersmen. 

My 4th great grandfather was George A. Barcus, an English frontiersman.  A Methodist minister who built one of the first Methodist churches in Indiana, he once wrote:  
In all probability our children, or children’s children will yet be scattered beyond the Rocky Mountains, I suppose it is no great difference where we are scattered are where we lay down and die if we are so happy as to die with our Jesus in our arms to recline our fainting heads upon his loving breast and their breath our lives out sweetly...
Should I live till the first of May 1846, I shall have lived out my three score and ten years, and although I have been blest in ten thousand instances, yet may I not say the most of my life has been sorrow and trouble and oft times vexation of spirit. But we sometimes sing there’s a better Day a coming I often contemplate the time is near at hand when I with my friends that have gone on before shall have to pass over Jordan, frequently I am led to wonder, who will congratulate my arrival should I be so happy as to reach the peaceful climes in the happy world of spirits. Shall I meet my parents there, shall I happily there meet the companion of my youth with whom I enjoyed pleasures and suffered pain? Shall I meet my little girls that are gone to Heaven , my Brother, Sisters, and friends, who have long slept in dust and we who are following hard after them?
How I wish that all of my ancestors shared this kind of introspection and recorded it down for their descendants.  From the very sound of this letter, I sort of miss him in a way, wishing to meet him in a country that never really existed--a phenomenon the Welsh refer to as hiraeth.

Great Grandpa George was the son of William Barcus, who actually died in a wagon train en route to Ohio from Maryland in 1804.  So, once more, we have a branch of my family that traces back to Maryland, and as it so happens, William Barcus was one of the many men in my family who fought during the American Revolution.  

If we trace my Barcus line back further, it goes into the time when the Barcus family was a regal family of knights and landowners.  Three gentlemen of the Barcus Family were promoted to superior command by Cromwell, Lord Fairfax, and Prince Rupert.  Their descendants would later, like my Cornwallis line, cross the Atlantic to Maryland, where they would work together with Lord Balitmore.  This particular line of my family can be read about as early as 1658.  Go back even further, and it is said that our family is descended from an order of knights, the Knights of the Val De Sairi near Cherbourg, Normandy, who crossed the English Channel with William the Conqueror.

There's oodles more to tell you about my family's history, but I think for today's purposes, this should suffice.

"Let's Party!"
-William the Conqueror, 11th Century

So, why tell you this at all?  

Because it seems that among those in certain Alt-Right circles, there is a growing question as to what makes a "pure" American.  As I stated yesterday, the question is: "America is a nation of colonists who..."  Fill in the blank.

If we're calling into question the genetic and cultural pedigree of various personalities and commentators, I suppose this is my occasion for selfish virtue signaling against the critics.  Although, it also doesn't hurt to know a little more about the writer that you're reading.  

So, just know that when you read my discussions about Puritans, the American character, colonial history--and everything that can and will branch off from those topics--just know that I'm personally invested in the matter, and I assure you I know more than most.  This is in stark contrast to those who are of a greater mixed pedigree who will prattle on and on about "pure Americans," all the while being dirtier than I and incapable of seeing beyond the signing of the Declaration of Independence, as well as all of the Enlightenment propaganda that comes with it.



Puritans - Englishmen Imported The Idea From The Netherlands

This week, I was involved in a discussion about what the bare-bones makeup of America was when Englishmen first landed on our shores.  The overriding phrase that hanged over the discussion was: 

America is a nation of colonists who...

Most of my comrades wanted to attribute American identity strictly to the phenotype of the people who sailed here.

But I'm kinda sorta informed on this matter, and I just had to interject a few facts.

If we are going to talk about what comprises the "pure American" from England (excepting the blacks, the Indians, the Germans who went to Pennsylvania, various Spaniards in the south, the French trapper outposts throughout the Ohio River Valley, as well as the various Catholic Englishmen who came here to hide from persecution), then we should know exactly who the majority of these Englishmen were.

They were Judaized Puritans.  And, in fact, the seeds these Puritans have planted guaranteed that America has been one, big, Jewish colony from the beginning.

The Englishmen who came here in the 1600s were from a people who were originally Catholic, but upon the start of King Henry VIII's new church, England let in a lot of Jewish immigrants who brought many new forms of Protestantism with them from the Continent--Puritanism chief among them.  To learn more about this, simply check Infogalactic to learn about the Resettlement of the Jews in England during the 1600s.  (You must take into consideration the fact that many Jews were displaced after Spain kicked them out in the late 1400s after the victory of the Reconquista against the invading Muslims.)

As a result of this, Englishmen were converted into Puritans by Jewish immigrants to England.

For the Puritans, Anglicanism was too Catholic for them, as they wanted to orient and purify themselves to be as much "the new Jews" as possible. They were Judaized. Jewish scholars even use the term Puritan Hebraism for the circumstance.

This brand of English Whigs would drink in the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and orient themselves against crown and tiara. Even the first American Freemasons were Dutch Jews.  And, oh yeah, let's not forget, kids, that the Dutch slave traders were...Jewish!  And how can any educated man not catch the parallel evidence that the "city on the hill" is a Puritan version of Jewish Zionism?

America's ideas are more than just Enlightenment ideas.  They are Judaic ideas.

Again, the colonists and founders of the USA originated with Puritans who came to this continent throughout the 1600s.

If you ask me about what I mean when I refer to the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, I am alluding to a book written by E. Michael Jones. He details 2000 years of subversive destruction and revolution fomented by Jews. Here is an excerpt from Chapter 11:

In Holland, the Judaizers were often Puritans from England, where they were pilloried for their imitation of the Jews. Addressing his first Parliament, James I described Puritans as revolutionaries, a historically prescient description. They were "a sect rather than a religion, ever discontented with the present government and impatient to suffer any superiority, which maketh their sect unable to be suffered in any well-governed commonwealth,', The Puritan was "naturally covetous of his purse and liberal of his tongue" and naturally inclined, like the Jews he imitated, to "usury, sacrilege, disobedience, rebellion, etc."
Unsurprisingly, beginning in 1604, many Puritans migrated to Holland, where Amsterdam had a reputation as "the Dutch Jerusalem." From the perspective of a Judaizer imbued with imagery of the Old Testament, as Daniel Neal, their first historian said, "It is better to go and dwell in Goshen, find it where we can, than tarry in the midst of such Egyptian bondages as is among US." "In Holland," Tuchman says, "the Puritan settlers who walked in the footsteps of the ancient Hebrews became acquainted with modern Jews, and the Jews became acquainted with this odd new variety of Christians who advocated religious freedom for all, including Jews."
Given the Puritans' affinity with the Jews, it was not surprising that many ofthem became Jews after they arrived in Amsterdam.
The point?  Englishmen were NOT originally Puritans.  They were Catholics whose culture was hijacked by their own selfish king--King Henry VIII--whose greedy, self-centered actions led to the weakening of the English culture to such an extent, that other parasitic forces were allowed to stream into Britain and weaken the bonds between Englishmen for centuries ever since.

It is those broken and misguided men who formed the foundation of our broken, divided, stunted nation.


Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Interracial Porn Used By Jews to Subvert The Christian West

Goldstein
"The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism.  Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged...''
-Al Goldstein, Screw Magazine.
Jews have been working to subvert the Christian West ever since their rejection of Christ and failure to rebuild the Temple under Julian the Apostate.

This fact makes it rather unnerving when one considers that this group of individuals controls most of the levers of power in the American oligarchical structure.  But not only are Jews in control at the helm of our politics, but they are also firmly in control of our news media and entertainment industry.

A lot of people know this already.

However, their various activities are not, necessarily, spontaneous and reckless.  Much of their control over our society's direction is intentional and directed.  That being said, we can state without a doubt that Jews weaponize pornography against Christian men.

This fact has been known to us for at least a century, if not longer.
"It is a fact that Jews are waging war against the Catholic Church, that they are steeped in free-thinking and constitute the vanguard of atheism, the Bolshevik movement, and revolutionary activity. It is a fact that Jews have a corruptive influence on morals, and that their publishing houses are spreading pornography.  It is true that Jews are perpetrating fraud, practicing usury, and dealing in prostitution."
-Augustine Cardinal Hlond, primate of Poland, February 29, 1936
Yet, if this fact is not bad enough, do not think for a moment that it is beyond them to actively seek to attack the very ethnicity of men with their pornography.

Modern scholarship is now beginning to admit that America has been one, big, Jewish colony from the very beginning.  And yet, it seems as if the subversion of our society by Jews continues to go on and on.

The American goy, in spite of his Puritan Hebraism, simply is not submissive enough to the Jew. It's not enough that they control everything. They have to further degrade us with division and demoralization. The world is there to serve them, after all.

And so, the supreme tribe--the ultimate race chosen by God in the Old Testament--has decided to demoralize white men.

I could not have covered this issue any better than Jean-Batave Poqueliche, a french writer who does regular Thursday columns for Return of Kings.  His expose on this matter is one of the best I've recently read.  The subject is pornography, so bear that in mind as you read this.  Poqueliche does not give this subject matter the moral treatment I would ordinarily use, which is to say there's some cussing and lewd descriptions in the article.  So, word to the wary.  Also, there are no pictures in this post, other than the one of the fat Jew at the top.

I have permission from Roosh to re-post Poqueliche's article.  It is titled:

 
* * * * *

With so much winning for the anti-globalists and patriots lately, it is easy to observe delicious amounts of salt on social media. Add to that the riots in Charlotte, Baltimore, Ferguson or Milwaukee and you have the ideal recipe for impotent anti-white rage.

The left and their zombies observed that following their defeats, calling “racist” anyone who disagrees with them stopped working. So they decided that it was time to change targets. The evil white won’t bow in mind so they will attack his flesh.

They sent more hate than usual on social media focusing on graphic images of black-on-white gang rapes (not depicted in the present article) that was extracted from pornographic films with lines along the “Your girls all dream about the black cock. They will fuck us instead and we will breed you out of history.”

It is a rhetoric that is used quite extensively by other radical anti-white groups such as Muslim fundamentalists, constantly repeating that white girls will be their weapon in the war against us and their seed will triumph, Allah willing.

Who creates this type of imagery?

As I detailed in a previous article, “every man has the sacred right to prefer one woman over another based on what attracts him.” But the fact that the media fuels the anti-white sentiment is where I draw the line.

Any man hates the idea that his right to breed will be stolen by another. There is a very primal dimension in this hate. But the over-representation of black men on white girls in the media is fairly recent, especially in porn. Jews have a disproportionate role in the production of pornography in general.

Here’s a list of Jews who own the main pornographic networks :

-VIVID, the largest porn site in the world, ran by Steve Hirsch and Bill Asher
-AVN Media – Paul Fishbein, Irv Slifkin, Barry Rosenblatt
-PMG Inc/ Private – Charles Prast
-Spiegler Girls, owned by Mark Spiegler (also owner of the paedophile website NAMBLA.ORG)

But it is interesting to observe that almost ALL the distributors and creators of interracial porn are Jewish:

- Dogfart, owned by Cable Rosenberg – site that proposes scenes of “cuckold sessions”, “watching my daughter go black” and “interracial blowbang”
- Skweezme, the “Netflix of porn” owned by Mike Kulich (Kulich offers “racist” celebs the chance to star in his interracial porn)
- Blacked, owned by Greg Lansky, from France

How does it work? The Lansky case

He made a fortune through his three websites :

-Blacked: Focuses on black-on-white cuckolding, cheating and calling white men lame and inferior. An emphasis is also made on humiliating “Aryan stereotype” girls, by choosing them especially young, with small frames and breasts while dressing them in school uniforms so they look as underage as possible.

-Tushy: Focuses on anal sex. Normalises marginal non-reproductive sex, depicts it as arty and trendy. The audience is incited to reproduce it, leading to a decrease of fertility and ultimately, control of the target population.

-Vixen: Focuses on visually adult men having sex with girls that are legal but look underage, by picking them especially skinny, petite or with small breasts. They dress them like little girls and pick the ones that are the smallest or children-like and make them fuck men twice their size. This is a legal way to indirectly suggest that it’s OK for grown men to fuck little girls.

Lansky is unsurprisingly in cahoots with leftist Fake News outlet The Daily Beast, who celebrates his work through “writer” Aurora Snow (a pornstar who apparently built her career on interracial porn as her sub-par looks made her do the scenes that the other girls could decline). It tells you the care The Daily Hambeast takes into choosing who writes their articles.

Lansky explains how he will infiltrate every electronic device to reach even the youngest viewers
"Adult companies need to learn to have a digestible social media presence—one that is safe for work, safe for the audience that wants to enjoy the brand. If they want to cross that border for graphic 18+ content they can click a link."
What do the Jews have to say about these accusations?

More than a long hypothesis, let’s hear it straight from the horse’s mouth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vIEDZGy8kA



Creating this imagery, the shills pretend there is “racism” from girls that don’t want to fuck black men. The most vocal about this supposed racism in porn are always Jews.

In an interview to Vice-owned Broadly, Deen declares:
"Female performers frequently agree to do a scene and then back away when they discover that he plans to have them on camera with a person of colour.
“It’s irritating and disgusting and annoying. And It creates a huge problem with casting,” he says. “I end up in these situations with agents where I’m trying to plan a scene and I have to say, ‘Okay, one girl will be having sex with all the men and one girl will only have sex with the white men,’ because there are women who have never had sex with a black man on camera and want to be paid $500 extra for it, as if it’s a chore. It’s racist and it’s belittling and it’s keeping me from making a good product and it’s hurting good performers like Mickey Mod."
In an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, James Deen said about Jews in porn:
Haaretz: Do you happen to have any Jewish role models or figures in the industry?
Deen: I don’t go into a place and think, “I’m Jewish. Who else is Jewish? I need to work with them.”Respect goes universally across all races, creeds, colours, religions, everything. The Jews know we’re better than everyone else. That’s all that matters.
Haaretz: That’s going to be the blow-up quote in the article.
Deen: (Laughs) It’s true. We’re the Chosen People. (Laughs) It’s a fact.
Nathan Abrams, Jewish professor at the university of Aberdeen in Scotland narrows down the rule of the Jews in pornography (emphasis mine) :
"Jews are the driving force behind the modern pornographic industry and their motivation is, in part, to destroy gentile morals.
[…]
"Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged. … Extending the subversive thesis, Jewish involvement in the X-rated industry can be seen as a proverbial two fingers (Middle finger for American readers) to the entire WASP establishment in America.
[…]
"Jewish involvement in porn, by this argument, is the result of an atavistic hatred of Christian authority: they are trying to weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion.”

The “industry” has already taken a side

Complains have been filed about videos that appear on popular porn sites that depict “the black master race”, attacking “whiteboyz”, “little crackers” and throwing around racial slurs directed at whites. The content revolves around fucking white “daughters, mothers” and insisting on the fact that it will cleanse our race through interracial breeding.

These videos are anonymously uploaded, vetted by host websites and remain online despite their illegal nature.

One might argue that a large majority of girls doing porn are damaged and that is why they do it. Coming from single mother or abusive households, they often got molested as children, collect mental issues and substance abuse or are in it for the money or just want to slut it up and feed their need for self-destruction. So interracial pornography is just one more tool in their (rancid) box. But is that what the people want?

IR porn is not profitable, it is political

This pretend racism can’t escape the reality of things, even with their masters telling them to comply. Many white girls in the business ask for extra money to perform with black men, mixed Latinas or otherwise are registered as whites in many of the productions they star in or can flat out refuse to have sex with black people on camera. When they state their preferences or choose what seems the best for their (short and sore) career, they are automatically branded as racist.

One of the unfortunate things for porn producers trying to push the (((weak white cuckold agenda))) is that apart from low T balding white Men (it would be interesting to search the browser history of male democrats that voted Hillary), (((interracial porn))) is not popular among a majority of young men and women, white or not.

The large part of these interracial movies have no interest in the act of black man fucking a white woman per se. The psyop only consists at getting back at Whitey for being so evil in the past, His daughter, sister… his future must pay.

Typical double standards, Schlomo!

Funny how if tomorrow someone creates a “Whitened” website, with all the elements of Blacked with video such as “White Master Impregnates Girl With His Big White Cock In Front Of Her Sissy Black Boyfriend,” SJWs would have epileptic fits and the surviving ones would try to torch the studios.

Mainstream media controlled by the elite work together as we know and even try to peddle their pornography on Youtube “because it is art.” Take the example of a cuckold pornographic video that was accessible by children (initiated by a Norwegian who studied photography with Jewish Richard Avedon) called “Interracial Naked Art Photography,” that remained uncensored by Youtube even if vaginas and a penis were exposed (I added the black squares, it was full frontal nudity). Why?

Following the Youtube law of Double Standard, if it was a White couple depicted, it would be instantly banned. Because it is interracial, it is “artsy and progressive” breaking the vile taboos of the White-hetero patriarchy. The video was only removed by Youtube after the thousands of dislikes and messages of outrage all over the Internet. Meanwhile, states such as Israel lead heavy campaigns to denounce miscegenation between Jews and the Goyim.

This propaganda hurts regular black men too

Whereas white porn actors can work with average penises, it is simply not an option for blacks. Recruiters will go through hundreds of thousands of applicants, narrowing down their selection like cattle before parading a handful of “performers” like circus animals. All of that to create profit and force the debunked bigger black dick myth.

“Studies” that show a longer average length among blacks are always self-reported. So do “maps of penis sizes”, created on websites where anyone can upload anything and no one gives sources. Here are two scientific, reliable measurement studies:

-Penile measurements on rural Tanzanian males
-Condomania’s List of States by Penis Size based on sales: Highest average size : North Dakota (1.08% black population) / Lowest average size: Mississippi (37.6% black population)

If I were a black man, this scenario used to sell garbage would not make me happy either. If those films suggested that the only way I can fuck a blonde skank is by being a rapist, a poolboy, a convict or sneaking in the house of my white prey while her parents are gone and that the act is defiling in nature, I’d be pissed.

Imagine your girlfriend leaving you because your dick is not as big as what she saw in porn or only owing your success to the porn fable of “muh dick” and not to your game or how smooth or attractive you are.

But it comes back to bite them in the ass

What has history told us about a brand or an industry pushing a political agenda, ignoring the basic laws of money making or promoting a product that customers do not buy?

It fails and has a limited lifespan, as we saw with various regular brands such as Starbucks or Kellogs that endorsed anti-white policies, just for the feelz. Customers flee and the firm’s worth plummets.

These pernicious ideas remind us of some usual liberal mercenaries in the media such as National Geographic with its globalist piece “The Changing Faces Of America“. Its authors Lisa Funderburgh and Martin Schoeller showing, through digitally modified mugshots, that America will eventually blend into brown-skinned people with curly hair and light eyes. And that there is nothing you can do or say about it, raycis’!

Public television channels get in there too. With the taxpayer’s money. Look at CBC’s Beige power gang, evil goy. And quake with fear witnessing their might.

La pornographie comme arme psychologique

Some communities already took steps to tackle the problem. Russia recently banned access to a wide array of pornographic sites due to its harmful effect on the youth and told the Russian to “go meet someone in real life instead.” And to the great rage of masturbating liberals, Trump has promised to crack down on that type of porn.

Compulsive masturbation fucks with your brain. It is a verified fact. It incites our young men to engage in endless wanking sessions, satisfying their urges and preventing them to pursue real girls. It digitally neuters our youth who does not need more enemies with the terrorist third wave feminism and the anti-masculinity media.

Porn is the ideal tool as it is, in a way, non-violent and tempting. It is understandable: If you needed to release your sexual urges, what seems the easiest?

Spending hours learning game, working out, approaching tens, hundreds of girls and getting rejected in many instances before finally managing to bed a 6? Or access to endless supplies of 9s in all the scenarios imaginable at the click of a button, get unlimited orgasms and get on with your day?

These elements just confirm us that porn is a waste of time and an additional medium to promote degeneracy and globalist poison. Game and masculinity are the counter-measures that will short circuit the elite’s plans. Stop watching porn. Approach girls. Live a happier life.

* * * * *

Special thanks to Roosh for permission to post this as a guest article on The Hirsch Files.

"Everything that goes on among the Jews today is a ridiculous sport, a trading in shame, filled with outrages beyond number."
-St. Chrysostom

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Puritans - Englishmen Were Displaced By Immigrants And Judaized By Them

Much is being made of Colonial America's white Englishmen Founders in the circles that I travel. There is this constant Stormfront-brand desire to direct the American demographic backwards towards a moment in history when North America was in its golden heyday, back when we were populated and dominated solely by English Protestants. Sometimes you will hear an Alt-Right commentator state that other ethnicities are simply not capable of grasping "the Rights of Englishmen."

So, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss just how wonderful our English forefathers were, primarily by focusing on those "wonderful" Puritans.

So, to start, the Puritans were judaized heretics.

"Look at the Judaized Christian!"
Rabbi Raphael Haim Isaac Carigal on the left.  Cotton Mather, Puritan minister, on the right.

More interestingly, however, is the fact that Puritans were a foreign immigrant force that divided Englishmen forever, transforming the land of King Arthur into a dysfunctional island of strife, conspiracy, and destitution. The Puritans were not a native, spontaneous phenomenon to England. Puritanism was brought to England. By Jews.
When the ecclesial bond uniting England and Rome was severed, the bond uniting Englishmen was fatally weakened too, because once England stopped being Catholic it became an ideological nation favoring aliens who supported the new regime over the natives who opposed it, but also over those who simply didn't understand what was happening. The recusant and the clueless were swept away by the same tide. The Protestant was the alien par excellence. His secret allegiance was to the shadowy conspiracy emanating from Geneva, not to his native country. Not surprisingly, many of these aliens were Jews, either crypto-Jews like Marco Perez using the facade of Calvinism in Antwerp to cover his identity as a revolutionary, or descendants of Jews expelled from Spain.
E. Michael Jones describes in his book Jewish Revolutionary Spirit how the native Englishmen who were originally Catholic were displaced by a new wave of Jewish globalism that was taking place. At first, the Jews were kicked out of Spain en masse, later settling down in the Netherlands. But there in the Low Countries, licking their wounds, the rise of Protestantism gave European Jews an opportunity they couldn't turn down. They would become a global network--a world power--which would ride a tide of Protestant heresy into every country they immigrated to.

And so, coming into England, they not only spread the seeds of the Protestant Hydra, but they also brought with them the same revolutionary spirit that opposed Christ, which has infected the world with its revolutions to this day. In fact, the entire world would (and has) become judaized. And in such a world, there would be no room for the traditional Catholic Englishman.
"By mid-16th Century," Tuchman concludes, "it was possible to talk about a revolution, an international political movement bent on overthrowing the medieval view of the world and replacing it with something new.'' In England, that "something new" was the rationalization of greed, appetite, and libido dominandi later known as capitalism. Whenever that age referred to its new system of economic exploitation, it used the vocabulary of a by gone era. And so it referred to the dawn of a new age of mammon and usury, and to the rise to power of revolutionaries well off from the theft of Church property and bent on imitating the Jews in theology and economics. None of these advances in finance could have been accomplished without the willing collaboration of the Jews. Like the Jews, the thieving English families supported "the forces of heresy in religion and liberalism in politics.'' That meant usury, a system Lord Bacon would defend explicitly in an essay on economics. England became Jewish not because it read the Bible, but because the leading families promoted widespread distribution of heretical translations, which everyone had the right to interpret, as a front for usury and their consolidation of political power. Freedom meant the right of the powerful to determine what was true. Everyone was free to interpret the Bible as he saw fit. When that interpretation did not correspond to the interests of the powerful, force majeure would become the ultimate explicator
The Jews helped knock out Catholicism--the Church that was instituted by Christ, which had sustained Europe since the collapse of Rome. In place of Christendom, Jews not only imported heresy, but they brought usury as well. It was a societal move that the elite adored, as it would be easier to attain wealth and power after leaving behind the strictures of Christianity, which forbids usury. Just as the Protestant Revolts on the Continent would lead nobles and kings to confiscate and loot Church property for their personal wealth, so too would this happen in merry olde England.

But the Jewish immigrant theological heresies were absorbed as well. Puritanism is judaized Christianity. Ignoring the spirit of the law and focusing on the letter of it allowed wholesale abuse of England's traditional social rules and laws. Nothing would ever be the same again. Without any of the traditional church structures or authority to guide them, each man--intelligent or not, capable or not, educated or not--had the ability, now, to become his own pope, and live his life based on his own desires. Spiritual leadership was thrown out the window, and an opening for the accumulation of power over the unprotected lower classes was made available for the wealthy and powerful oligarchs and political class.
"This judaizing tendency reached its full flower when Thomas Cromwell's great grandson became dictator in England. As Tuchman says, "With the Puritans came an invasion of Hebraism transmitted though the Old Testament."ll Tuchman adverts to the notion that Scripture is a front for appetite, saying the Puritans "followed the letter of the Old Testament for the very reason that they saw their own faces reflected in it.""But she takes the idea no further. Puritanism meant the end of Christian morality and the importation of "Jewish habits." According to Cunningham, as cited by Tuchman, "The general tendency of Puritanism was to discard Christian morality and to substitute Jewish habits in its stead." The natural consequence was "retrogression to a lower type of social morality which showed itself at home and abroad."' The first manifestation of that moral retrogression was the widespread poverty characteristic of English life for centuries thereafter."
American Puritans doing away with Christmas and living in a dreary, black and white, humorless, Old Testament style was a result of doing away with Christendom's Catholicism and racing towards the Jews for a new, heretical, Judaic, utopian life.

 It is easy to argue that modern Protestant Zionism has its roots in the Puritan movement of the seventeenth century. Modern Protestant Zionists have no problem with tossing out various rules and precedents, so long as it favors the children of Israel. Furthermore, "discarding Christian morality" and "substituting Jewish habits" is a frequent phenomenon in America, a nation that has often been considered by scholars to be a grand Jewish colony.

With the ostracization of England's native Catholic laity, the slaughter of English Catholic priests, the confiscation of Catholic property, the enabling of usury, and the rise of heresy, England would never be the same again, becoming a dysfunctional and ever-deteriorating version of its former legendary status.

In the fullness of time, being so Jewish in their psychology, the Puritans would eventually leave England. Dissatisfied that Anglicanism was too Catholic and not Judaic enough, they left the spiritually ravaged island of Albion to come to America, where they would spend the next two gloomy centuries subverting their far-too-Catholic English kings, burning Spanish missions, slaughtering Indian Catholic converts, and conquering the Canadian French Catholics.

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Pope Benedict XVI, A Modernist Who Meant To Leave You...?


Hey guys, guess what?
Quite a few Traditionalist Catholics are quick, these days, to consider the idea that Pope Benedict XVI was somehow kicked out of the papacy, perhaps by blackmail.  A lot of us Traditionalists considered him to be a good pope, and to this day a lot of us remember him fondly.

Shortly after he announced his retirement, I read Charles Coulombe's book: The Legacy of Pope Benedict XVI.  Pope Benedict was a big favorite of Coulombe's, as he seemed to be an intellectual leader who was unafraid to tackle the world's problems head-on:
[T]he truth is that the soon-to-be-retired Pontiff (and, no doubt, his successor) inhabits an entirely different mental universe than those who seek to form current public opinion. Partly, of course, this is because Benedict and those who share his beliefs see reality as something immutable: regardless of how polite one may or may not wish to be, good is good, evil is evil, and we are all bound to seek out the unchanging Will of God and attempt to follow it.  For their opponents, morality and indeed existence itself is a great cosmic marshmallow--moldable to one's feelings or convenience at this moment, for however long one needs them to be in this particular state. 
Indeed, the West's morality certainly seems squishy when measured up against any kind of rock-solid Christian standard.  I wonder if men from today would even last a week in the pinnacle of Christendom's golden era.  And Pope Benedict XVI seemed a hard-edged hope of restoration for a lot of us "triumphalist Traditionalists."

However, the pope was not quite successful.  There were many reforms and house cleanings that simply never took place.  For example, I can remember how disappointed I was to learn that the sexual deviancy problems within the Church would never be resolved under him.  Also, there were many Freemasonic figures within the Church who were never outed or laicized.  And finally, he never really seemed to hammer home the idea that Vatican II was rife with problems.

Coulombe shares these disappointments (emphasis is mine):
Of the four areas we have looked at--the internal reconciliation of the Church, her cleansing of the aberrations that have grown up within her, reunion with those Christian bodies closest to her, and warning the planet's powerful of the consequences of their actions--none have come to fruition.  But they are seeds that have been planted--and, internally, at least, the Church is in far better shape than she was at the start of the Pontificate.  That is most certainly Benedict's doing.
But it is important to remember that for Benedict, the institutional health of the Church is only a means whereby her spiritual Communion may be extended and made manifest to all.  That Communion in itself is, for him, the way in which fallen man may be incorporated into Christ, the Savior alike of individuals and societies.  That this has not been for him mere airy theory but the basis of effective and practical action may be his greatest legacy.
So, Pope Benedict failed in most of his attempts, but at least he laid down the seeds for Catholics in the future.  Internal seeds that would later come to fruition and bring the Church into a better state of being.  Right?

But then, Pope Francis was elected as our new leader, and we are now quite the liberal NGO.  We'd have thought that Pope Benedict would be aghast at the undoing of his work.  We'd have thought that Pope Benedict would be outraged that the next in line would be raking up the seeds Benedict planted and ripping out every pro-Benedict Church official within his arm's reach.

And yet, Pope Benedict stated the following about Pope Francis in his book, Last Testament:
"When I first heard his name, I was unsure. But when I saw how he spoke with God and with people, I truly was content. And happy."
Surely, Pope Benedict was forced to say this!  Surely, the book was not written by him!  Surely, he had a gun held to his head as he was writing this out!

Possibly.  Or, perhaps Pope Benedict was pro-modernism all along.

Last time I spoke on this subject, I entertained the notion that Pope Benedict was pushed out of the Chair of Peter and supplanted.  Pope Benedict was the victim.  He "fled for fear of the wolves."  He ran off, under pressure, being the innocent Traditionalist intellectual that he was.

What if Pope Benedict was happy to free himself of the office?  What if leaving the papacy (while holding onto the garments and the title) was a relief?  What if he was just a temporary replacement for an even bigger, shinier, better change that was still yet to come for the Church?  What if Pope Benedict is truly happy with what Pope Francis is doing?

What if Pope Benedict was a traitor all along?  What if he was a wolf in sheep's clothing?  What if "getting out of Dodge" was a part of the plan all along, and Pope Francis' job was to rush in and make changes to the Catholic Church within a 4-year timespan?  Is it that outrageous?  Even Church Militant TV blames Pope Benedict for failing Traditionalist Catholics.



So, this week, let's entertain an opposite notion from last month's post: Bergoglio Is Not The Pope...?  In this month of March, let us consider the possibility that Pope Francis is the pontiff, after all (not an antipope)--and that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is lovin' it.  I have permission from Hilary White to post the following excerpt from her awesome blog: What's Up With FrancisChurch?  The article is titled, Hermeneutic of Whatity?


* * * * *

[L]et’s look for a moment at the underlying assumption here: that Ratzinger is a spokesman for the “conservative” wing of the Church, and consider that we still have a big problem of idolizing him. It’s time this stopped.

Taken it on its face, however, and putting this together with what the former pope has said and written in the past, we can safely say that the more fun “conspiratorial” theory – that someone is writing his lines for him – gets rather remote on the list of possibilities. Occam, and all that. It is entirely possible that the man we used to call Pope Benedict does think this.

So what?

No, really… so what?

We have to ask seriously whether there’s a chance we simply fell for the media’s interpretation of him, that he was “Ratzinger the Vatican II liberal, peritus of Frings” all along. I don’t know. Throughout that time, we were being told what a “conservative” he was, along with the secular media who hated him, by people with the kind of theology degrees held by the author of this Crux piece. Not what theology degrees were, let’s say.

I didn’t read his scholarly theology. I read a few of his popular works after 2005. Before that, I read some of his CDF documents on new reproductive technologies. I read book-length interviews with him. He sounded pretty good to me, I guess, when I was first working things out. But I’ve also talked to people with serious, classical theological training – the kind that’s hard to get these days – and they have always been warning that “Ratzinger the Rottweiler” of the media and the Ratzinger of academia are not the same.

Or maybe the distinction between “conservative” and “liberal” is being shown to have been essentially meaningless all along. He had better manners, was more cultured, more soft-spoken, more likeable than most of the other neo-modernists. He certainly would never spend his pontificate being the bulldozing wrecking ball his successor has been. We liked him more.

What is clear is that the things we think we know about Benedict’s thoughts are entirely and exclusively being filtered through other people. If Georg Ganswein wants to tell us what he thinks the former-pope is thinking about things, fine, but let’s not imagine it means we know anything more than what Georg Ganswein thinks

But I do know two things with moral certainty: his resignation, though perfectly valid, was the opening of the gates to the orcs who are now in control of the citadel. Whatever comes of this long-term – and I maintain that it is part of a great “clarification” if not a “great purification” willed by God – I reserve judgement yet on whether it was cowardice, stupidity or laziness or lack of concern or flat-out collusion. But whatever does come to light, I also know that the next person who starts drooling on about what a “courageous” act it was, is going to get the back of my hand upside the head.

The theory that Benedict is still pope is simply not borne out by the evidence, either in Canon Law, by the theology or by any other metric the Church runs on. In answer to the many people who have asked me, yes. Ive heard it. (And heard it and heard it and heard it…) I have done some research that didn’t involve looking things up on the internet or just deciding for myself after a single glance at the ’83 Code of Canon Law. I’ve consulted with theology and Canon law people who are not neo-modernists, not ill-trained and not remotely fond of either Benedict or Francis, and the answers I’ve had have been pretty firm and unanimous.

And no, there’s no “conspiracy of silence.” The reason no one serious is addressing it is because it isn’t a serious question. I think at some point, as things get worse, and more and more ordinary people come to think this, someone responsible is going to have to address it publicly, just so we don’t have to keep hearing about it. (And hearing about it… and hearing about it…)

So, for the question about why Benedict resigned, more evidence will, I’m sure, come to light in the coming years, but right now I’m not really all that interested. I think we have more immediate things to think about. Indulging in fantasy, wish-fulfillment, lazy and half-baked “research,” or facile (“easy”) conclusions, is not helpful. I think it’s rapidly becoming irrelevant why he resigned. He resigned. It was valid. He’s not the pope.

The resignation was a terrible, terrible idea. It was damaging. It was selfish and incredibly hubristic, but it was valid. He might be deluded by his nominalism into thinking he cam make up new things with the power of his brain, and the Church of our time so confused that we haven’t figured it out yet, but let’s give him at least one benefit of the doubt: the man is smart enough to know what the words “I resign the papacy” mean. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the pope. It sucks. It seems on the face of it to be something close to catastrophic. But it’s true.

But this leads me to the other thing I know: that the time for idolizing Ratzinger is well past. It’s not nice to think about, but our love was apparently misplaced. And I’m going to be giving a sharp smack on the nose with a rolled-up copy of Amoris Laeitia to all those who are still mooning about the internet, droopily sighing over how much they “miss” him.

* * * * *

Will we ever find out?  Only time will tell, it seems.

Cheers!