Mr. Cleaver would choose a healthy life. He’d lean in the direction of patriarchal headship, or masculine honor. He’d lean in the direction of responsibility and courage. He’d lean in the direction of fatherhood—in other words, he’s the foundation of a country.
You should emulate Ward Cleaver—not Anderson Cooper or Bruce Jenner.
Are you ready to accept a throne? Are you ready to battle the forces of evil? The time has come for you to rise…the accept your place on the Stead of Wisdom. The world is waiting for you now…and you’re close to the Land of Promise.
Remember: Your happiness is a threat to the Mainstream Media. They receive an erection when you falter and they masturbate when you fail. They want you to have tattoos and abortions. They want your soul to be riddled with resentment. All they have is subterfuge—everything a duplicitous dealing. Everything a mixing of the message: one good, one bad, one good, one bad, etc.
Be like Ward Cleaver. He was the correct model…the Man of Honor.
There’s an old saying: “The devil loves a pair of idle hands.” Well the same applies to your thoughts. In other words, “The devil loves a mind at rest.”
The mind – if it wanders aimlessly – will veer into negativity. The trend is exacerbated by a corrosive media. Everywhere you look – from television to film – it’s one piece of poison after the next.
So what to do? The solution is twofold:
Make a “To-Do” List
A “To-Do” list will keep you focused. You’ll be centered on a goal, whatever that may be. Include a large goal with a small one…it doesn’t matter, really. You can place the items next to each another, under one another, etc. The main idea is that you’re smashing. You’re climbing the mountain of achievement.
By spending time on a “To-Do” list, you’re robbing the media of your attention. That’ll drive ’em crazy. Remember: They’d love to be feeding on your flesh, devouring your soul like a zombie. You don’t believe me? Take a look at Kathy Griffin….
Limit Your Television Viewership
95% of television is propaganda – and the goal is the destruction of the family. Television died after Leave it to Beaver, essentially. And now the powers-that-be have a 24/7 war against America. They’re a demonic force, operating from the 405 to the Capital Beltway.
They want to see Ward Cleaver masturbating in the corner of a Motel 6, while his wife gets spit roasted by the offensive line of the Miami Dolphins. They want Wally Cleaver to have an arm-sleeve tattoo, a heroin addiction, and a fatal case hepatitis C. And they want the Beaver to throw a Molotov cocktail at a police officer during the Antifa rally.
You have to fight to be happy. And the best way to fight is twofold: Make a “To-Do” list and limit your TV viewership. You’ll find that your days are brighter and your nights are warmer.
No, I’m serious. Just take a look the following story in the latest issue.
Gay sex in Playboy magazine? That’s like a Tofu steak. A vegetarian lion. A sugar-free mango. It’s an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
But we’re in the new America. And cultural subterfuge is a 24/7 game. The liberal mindset is attack, attack, attack. And Playboy magazine, born in the 1950s, is their mortal enemy. It’s a world of beautiful women and heterosexual male desire; in other words, the two things that liberals hate the most. So they cannot sleep – they won’t rest – until the magazine is serving their twisted Weltanschauung.
Disney suffered a similar death. That noble creation, born in the mind of a high genius (Walt Disney) now made to lick the stiletto heels of Der Feminism. The Mickey Mouse movies are gone, replaced with a “guurl-power” agenda. How can you stomach it? Is there a movie worth watching? A music worth listening to? Everything has been run through the Pink Floyd meat grinder.
“If you don’t read about the gay sex, you can’t have any pudding! Yes, you with the Playboy magazine in your hand, stand still Laddie!”
Remember this: Liberal do not create…they destroy: Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Disney….and now Playboy. They will not rest until the world resembles their image. And what is that image? Brace myself, my dear reader…and place your hand over mouth (in case you just ate lunch):
“The gargantuan wrestler [600 pounds] was one of the foremost drawing cards during the industry’s “Golden Age” of the 1950s and 1960s while sporting his trademark white T-shirt, blue overalls, and horseshoe necklace. He is recognized as being among the chief pioneers for the sport’s super-heavyweight attractions.”
Not one haystack, mind you. That would be too small, too meager. A 600-pound-man is plural. More than one. He’s a myriad, a cornucopia, and a plethora.
Perhaps as a boy…perhaps then he was a singular Haystack. But those days are over. He overcame anorexia, defeated the demons of bulimia. Now he’s a king, high atop the Mountains of Girth.
Other wrestlers had interesting names: King Kong Bundy, The Iron Sheik, etc. And those were nice…they took us to different world. But at the end of the day, they were runners-up at the Nomenclature Awards. For the greatest wrestling moniker belonged to one man, and one man alone.
2.) It exalts a noble cause(s): i.e. the family, military sacrifice, etc.
3.) It blends nature and humanity together in a creative way
By contrast, here we have a bad piece of art:
The painting is bad for the opposite reasons:
1.) Nobody can understand the meaning
2.) It lacks a noble cause
3.) It fails to blend nature and humanity together in a creative way
Mark Twain once said, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” In short, the two things have nothing in common. They’re diametrically opposite.
The same is true for great and bad art – the fundamental difference is profound. And learning to spot the difference is crucial. If you can spot a great work of art, your spirit will be sanctified. You’ll have a road map to the noble life. You’ll find a kinship with the heights of human emotion.
But if you put your faith in bad art, you’ll become lost. You’ll be lacking in a Weltanschauung. You’ll be alienated by the trickster. Your soul an empty cup…waiting to receive the poison.
Yesterday, I watched Terminator 2 on the television screen of my gym. I reflected on how many times the movie has been replayed. Now I’m not a movie buff, but I must have seen it at least fifty times.
So the question hit me: Why do we only see Terminator 2? The first movie was excellent, and it was the original no less! So what gives? After pondering the question, the answer became obvious.
Terminator 2 is Continually Replayed Because it Promotes a Feminist Agenda
To the casual observer, this might sound crazy. They’ll point out that Terminator 2 has great special effects and high-action scenes. And both of these are true. Yet they’re overlooking an important point – movies are only promoted if they undermine the traditional Western family. Remember, we are in the middle of cultural “hot” war, and EVERYTHING has an ulterior motive. And I mean EVERYTHING.
To illustrate this point, let’s look at two photos. First, let’s looks at Linda Hamilton in Terminator 1:
Now Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2:
In the first movie, she is a woman you would marry; in the second, she’s a woman that would punch you in the face. In the first movie, she’s a woman you would protect; in the second, she’s a woman that would tell you to “fuck off”; in the first movie, she’s the mother of your children; in the second, her motherly kindness is gone.
The beautiful Linda Hamilton has been destroyed. She’s been replaced by an androgynous she-male that beats up men, fires artillery, and smokes a cigarette. In short, June Cleaver has been replaced with Rhonda Rousey.
Yet make no mistake about it – the success of Terminator 2 is entirelydependent on the original. The first movie had a red-pill theme that the public gravitated to: an Alpha male, protecting a feminine woman from danger. This is the universal, the true, and the timeless.
Feminism can only piggy-back on a previous work of greatness; it can never make its own. It can only cannibalize the popular: never create the timeless. We’ve seen the same formula with other franchises that surrender to feminism at gunpoint: Transformers, Ghostbusters, etc. The feminist goal is to slowly destroy everything, to leave a our culture in a smoldering pile of ashes. To slowly disassemble a work of greatness and replace it with an androgynous fantasy world.
My point is furthered in Terminator 3. The feminist elements were feeling cocky at the success of Terminator 2. So they grabbed the reigns and tried to make the Terminator a woman. What happened? The movie flopped at the box office.
Terminator 3 is rarely played on television for the following reason – the machinations are clearly exposed, and they look ridiculous. The feminist plot for destruction of America has to be carefully couched. Whenever it’s exposed, it shrinks like Wicked Witch of the East being hit by a pail of water.
Movies are an art form; and art is the passionate offerings of a people. It represents their highest humanity, the expression of their emotional greatness. Currently, the people of American are under assault in this regard. Every great piece of art we have is being targeted by (((them))).
We are in a hot war and the stakes have never been higher.
Richard Wagner is one the greatest classical composers of all time. In terms of music, he was a giant; his compositions have captivated audiences for two hundred years. Of all the great musicians to come out of Europe, perhaps nobody stands taller than Wagner. To listen to Tristan and Isolde is to hear to the greatest height of human emotion.
But Wagner is controversial. First, Hitler was a fan of his. And secondly, Wagner hated Judaism. So I decided to give his most famous essay a read: “Judaism in Music.” How valid were his claims? What point was he trying to make?
These are the major points of the article:
Jews are Ugly People; Therefore, their Art is Ugly
Wagner believes that Jews are unable to make great music because they’re an ugly people.
The Jew — we wish to have nothing in common with a man who looks like that…a man whose appearance we must hold unfitted for artistic treatment — not merely in this or that personality, but according to his kind in general — neither can we hold him capable of any sort of artistic utterance of his [inner] essence.
Are Jewish musicians ugly? Well, two Jewish musicians came to mind immediately:
I’m 50/50 on this one. Some Jews do have unpleasant physical characteristics (like big noses, for example). But I’m not sure it’s universal enough to give 100%. Bob Dylan looks like a coyote, but Adam Levine could be a model. So I’m not sold on this point by Wagner.
Jewish Language is Garbled; Therefore, their Music is Garbled
Wagner argues that the Jewish language is aesthetically distasteful; therefore, it can never produce a high form of music.
In particular does the purely physical aspect of the Jewish mode of speech repel us… The first thing that strikes our ear as quite outlandish and unpleasant, in the Jew’s production of the voice-sounds, is a creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle (4)
He goes on to say that the Jewish foundation of music is in the synagogue, and that this music is unappealing on a visceral level:
Who has not been seized with a feeling of the greatest revulsion, of horror mingled with the absurd, at hearing that sense-and-sound-confounding gurgle, yodel and cackle, which no intentional caricature can make more repugnant than as offered here in full, in naive seriousness? (p. 7).
I agree with Wagner’s statement here. I grew up around Jewish people, and Yiddish is an aesthetically distasteful language. Many times, it sounds like somebody is clearing phlegm from their throat: “eck,” “dreck,” and bleck,” etc.
Most Americans have never heard Jews speaking in their native tongue. So they are unaware of how unpleasant Yiddish, in particular, actually sounds. For a listen, click the following link and be the judge: Sounds of Yiddish
Jewish Musicians Must Rearrange the Work of Non-Jews in Order to Receive Fame
Wagner believed that the Jewish composer/musician was not capable of creating original works of high greatness. So instead, they rearrange the work of great Christian composers. He points to Mendelssohn as an example:
Mendelssohn…was obliged quite openly to snatch at every formal detail that had served as characteristic token of the individuality of this or that forerunner whom he chose out for his model…he gave the preference to our old master BACH, as special pattern for his inexpressive modern tongue to copy (p. 8)
I am no expert on classical music. However, I tend to believe in what Wagner was saying here. Jews were always the minority in a European majority. So it only makes sense that they would copy the popular culture in order to gain success.
For a modern example, I thought of Bob Dylan again (Jewish, born Robert Zimmerman). Now I like Dylan’s music, but let’s be real – Dylan is widely known to have stolen his style from Woody Guthrie. So Wagner’s point is true in this regard. The Jewish artist will often reappropriate the style of the native Christians.
“Judaism in Music” is a solid read. Overall, I found most of his points to be true; in particular, that the Jewish languages are not euphonious. And secondly, that Jews tend to copy the works of Christian artists. Wagner deals with these topics in a way that’s heated, direct, and honest. In short, I have a feeling that his words will remain relevant for many years to come.