You remind me of when I discovered, probably only as a late teen ( I was never all that culturally up to date) that there is a deep, wholly understandable link between gay male identity and “camp” as a mode in the arts and pop culture.

This left me torn, since I believed and still believe that I have no particular prejudices against gay men as such, but have hated “camp” since childhood, and well before I knew what “gay” meant.

So when somebody offers a defence of gay men in aggregate, which I see no need for, using “Camp”, which I hate, as part of their argument, they have done a very counterproductive thing.

It basically amounts to, when I saw reruns of the Batman series from the 60s, my reaction was WTF was that? I know camp was pretty much the defining style of the 60s, but still.

Of course, in the right critical theorist hands, even movies and shows that were played straight can be redefined as camp, so one can’t win.

1. Problem: petty street crime

2. Reaction: “this has to end”

3. Solution: a cloud-connected camera every 100 yards

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
— FDR

Precisely.

“The Warburg brothers started wars, profited from supporting both sides of those wars, and then arranged the looting of countries afterwards. Of course they were only loyal to each other because of ethnic ties. I would expound at length, but I am a guest here. Maybe a long article deserves posting at “Vulture of Critique.””

You blame Warburg, who floated across the Atlantean ocean and established his central bank in America, but no one remembers Aschberg or Schiff.

Tremendous love and respect.

It’s an undeniable fact: without the Jews, a tremendous piece of core Americana simply wouldn’t exist:

For some twenty-five or thirty years — between the mid-1950s and the early 1980s — a single explosive development in our literature made the experience of being Jewish-in-America a metaphor that attracted major talents, changed the language, and galvanized imaginative writing throughout a Western world badly in need of a charge. Its two pathbreaking stars — one at the start, the other at the end — were Saul Bellow and Philip Roth, a pair of writers who strong-armed the culture into accommodating the experience. Not another writer after Roth could lay claim to the metaphor with the demanding savvy that he and Bellow had brought to the enterprise.

In its glory days, Jewish-American writing was an indicator of a cultural shift that a couple of million Americans had thought they’d never live to see: a shift that ushered in a final phase of assimilation for Jews at levels of American life previously unavailable to them (very much like the shift that has occurred over the past few decades for blacks, women, and gays). This shift was welcomed half a century ago with a violent rush of words that announced the arrival of a narrating voice whose signature traits were a compulsive brilliance, an exuberant nastiness, and a take-no-prisoners humour edged in self-laceration. These traits never deserted the work of those years; rather, they were integral to the entire undertaking.

An angry fever inhabited these writers of the 1950s and 1960s, one that burned with a strength that routinely threatened either to purge or to consume the body upon which it fed. Conventional English could not address the condition. It required a syntax and a sentence structure that could fan the fever, spread the infection, stimulate a nervous system clearly in distress. The American language was ready to accommodate. Virginia Woolf had once complained that she couldn’t find the words to make an English sentence that would describe what illness felt like to her, because as an Englishwoman she was constrained from taking liberties with the language. This is exactly what outsider literature does in this country: fashions the language anew, precisely so that it can express what it feels like to be ill. That, essentially, is what Jewish-American writing at its best has done. In my view, it would never be about anything else. In the hands of a Saul Bellow or a Philip Roth, such expressiveness could — did — set off a literary charge of epic power.

So we are deeply indebted to them for their service to Western civilization. Think of what it would be like to live in a world without such literary brilliance:

While everybody else has been marrying nice Jewish girls, and having children… what he has been doing is — chasing cunt. And shikse cunt, to boot! Chasing it, sniffing it, lapping it, shtupping it, but above all, thinking about it…. It seems to make no difference how much the poor bastard actually gets, for he is dreaming about tomorrow’s pussy even while pumping away at today’s!

What I’m saying, Doctor, is that I don’t seem to stick my dick up these girls, as much as I stick it up their backgrounds — as though through fucking I will discover America. Conquer America — maybe that’s more like it…. I want what’s coming to me. My G.I. bill — real American ass! The cunt in country-’tis-of-thee! I pledge allegiance to the twat of the United States of America — and to the republic for which it stands: Davenport, Iowa! Dayton, Ohio! Schenectady, New York, and neighboring Troy!

Imagine a world without Jews.

https://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articlee078.html?articleid=450

If so my apologies to CVLR.

I wondered that myself but I’m so completely fed up with Jew propaganda, I’ve had it with them, that I tend to counter most of what they say when they start spouting that stuff. It’s just lie after lie after lie.

9-11 was the dividing line for me. They did this. That combined with the severe corruption brought about by the Jews prostituting children to blackmail all our politicians…I’ve just fucking had it with them. They are also major responsible for the outsourcing of industry out of the US to China due to take overs (financialization) during the 80′s and on. The wholesale importation of people in no way compatible with our country or values leaves us with a massive long term serious constant strife that will only get worse. The damage done to out country is ghastly. It’s close to terminal. Maybe not yet but very close and that’s the optimistic version. They turn everything that they touch to shit due to greed and a serious case of POZZ of the brain.

I’m not saying all Jews are psychopaths but if a bunch of Jews move to your territory there is no distinguishable difference between what they do and a tribe of psychopaths moving into your territory. No one can stand psychopaths for long and eventually the Jews get kicked out. There’s just no reasoning with Jews or psychopaths. The only 100% proven, every time, way to deal with them is to get them the fuck away from you and out of your life, territory, culture, etc.

There’s no way you can live with a people whose religion is that everyone should be their slave and they should own everything on the planet.

So the original America was meant to be a racially harmonious community of “white” people, including Jews. The problem is that the notion of “white” is too simplistic: it abstracts away important complexities.

What does their ethnicity have to do with anything, “bigot”? Ethnic discrimination and ethnic chauvinism are relevant to geopolitics when they are weaponized in geopolitical conflicts.

Not all Jews seek to weaponize their Jewish connections. (Ron Unz, Israel Shahak, Benjamin Freedman, Alan Sabrosky, etc.) But the Jews who successfully weaponize the Jewish connections are so destructive that no one can afford to ignore the specifically Jewish nature of their tactics.

But if you want to read a good criticism of the Jews, read Ron Unz or any other Jew who has criticized Jewish culture from the inside.

As Shahak himself wrote: ” It became apparent to me, as drawing on knowledge acquired in my youth, I began to study the Talmudic laws governing the relations between Jews and non-Jews, that neither Zionism, including its seemingly secular part, nor Israeli politics since the inception of the State of Israel, nor particularly the policies of the Jewish supporters of Israel in the diaspora, could be understood unless the deeper influence of those laws, and the worldview which they both create and express is taken into account.”

Thus the Jewishness of a wrongdoer is relevant when it exposes that deeper influence.