Archive for Cultural Marxism

Is Hollywood Anti-White?

Posted in Anti-White Racism with tags , , , , on February 14, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

As we showed in Killing Whitey, people who identify as liberals harbour a significant anti-White bias – to the point, in fact, that when asked under what conditions they would kill one person to save many more, the race of the people involved affected their choice. Yes, liberals were significantly more likely to agree to kill a White person than a Black person.

So here’s the deal. Can it be said that there is a liberal bias in certain institutions, etc. which in turn would translate as an anti-White bias? What about Hollywood, for example? Its cultural fare has an enormous reach – literally influencing the beliefs, values and behaviour of millions upon millions of people all over the world on an on-going basis.

Well, establishing that there is indeed a liberal bias in Hollywood is actually quite straight-forward. They’ve said so themselves. Not too long ago an American conservative called Ben Shapiro went and simply interviewed various Hollywood personnel, and as they apparently assumed he too was liberal, they casually agreed that Hollywood has a strong liberal bias. Which according to the research we looked at in Killing Whitey means that Hollywood possesses an anti-White bias.

Listen below as Hollywood insider Leonard Goldberg points out that Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal.



Killing Whitey

Posted in Anti-White Racism with tags , , , , , , , on January 16, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West



Nice, huh?

If this sort of stuff exists on the far left – and it certainly does – then what’s the likelihood that a milder version is suffused throughout the Left in general? And what would that mean for White people? (Given that the Left dominates academia, politics and the media in most Western countries.)

So, what do you think? Do leftists generally harbour an anti-White bias? Well interestingly enough that’s precisely what the following piece of research discovered in a study jokingly referred to as the ‘Kill Whitey’ study. Let’s have a look shall we?


Given the Choice, Liberals Would Rather “Kill Whitey”

Recent work by David Pizarro at Cornell is shedding light the role that race and ethics play in politics, by asking people to sacrifice the lives of either Tyrone Payton or Chip Ellsworth III.

OK, they didn’t really have to sacrifice anyone, but each participant in the study was faced with a variation of the classical ethical dilemma called the “trolley problem.” The trolley problem asks the question: Would you push someone on to the tracks (and kill them) to stop a trolley holding 100 people from crashing (and killing them all)?

The paper describes the twist that Pizarro and colleagues put on the trolley question when they asked it to California undergraduates:

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra.

While the study didn’t specifically mention each person’s race, the researchers reasoned that “Tyrone” would be stereotyped as black, while “Chip” would be stereotyped as white. On the saving end, they assumed that the Philharmonic would be thought of as white, while the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed black.

When faced with this choice, each individual in the study group showed different reactions based on their political leanings–the liberals were more likely to sacrifice “Chip” to save the Orchestra, while conservatives were more likely to sacrifice “Tyrone” to save the Philharmonic. When describing the findings in a recent talk Pizarro explained his interpretation of the findings:

If you’re wondering whether this is just because conservatives are racist—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist. But it appears in these studies that the effect is driven [primarily] by liberals saying that they’re more likely to agree with pushing the white man and [more likely to] disagree with pushing the black man.


So now we have a deeper insight into why things are the way they are. The all-pervading double standard which privileges non-Whites at the expense of Whites starts to make a lot more sense in light of this…


“I call an animal, a species, or an individual corrupt when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers, what is disadvantageous for it.” – F.W. Nietzsche

Feminists: Not Pro-Women… Just Anti-People

Posted in Feminism with tags , , on January 15, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

OK, a quick clarification is in order here: original feminism came from classical liberalism; modern feminism comes from Marxism. When we talk about feminism here, it should be understood that we’re talking about modern, post-Marxist feminism.


Now, one of the primary (and strangest) ideas of feminism is that men and women are not really different, that the psychological and behavioural differences between us are entirely down to culture and socialisation. Some might say that’s quite a plausible hypothesis, and I’d possibly be inclined to agree… if it weren’t for the veritable mountains of evidence against it!

So why don’t we actually take a look at how science effectively steamrollered this bizarre aspect of modern feminism?

This our a summary of just some of the main evidence gathered by scientists which demolishes the claims of the feminists; this information is taken from a book called The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, Harvard cognitive scientist and professor of psychology (his explanation of the findings goes into greater detail than mine).


• The differences between the sexes are universal – they’re found in all known cultures. This includes artificial cultures deliberately set up to avoid the existence of sex differences (e.g. Israeli Kibbutz)

• The psychological differences between the sexes are easily predicted from our physical and biological differences e.g. when the male of a species is physically larger than the female, it suggests an evolutionary history of greater physical competition between males than between females. From this fact you would expect men to possess more of an innate psychological tendency towards physical competition – as we do in fact see in all human cultures.

• The same psychological sex differences are often found in other mammals – especially the primates e.g. in many mammalian species, the males are more adept at navigating territory based on the geometric layout of the territory itself – as opposed to relying on specific landmarks, which in turn is more common amongst females.

• The modern study of genetics demonstrates greater human variation in mitochondrial DNA – passed down from mother to daughter – than in Y chromosomes – passed down from father to son. And as Pinker states, “These are precisely the conditions that cause sexual selection, in which males compete for opportunities to mate and females choose the best-quality males.”

• Biologically induced differences in hormone levels – most notably testosterone and oestrogen – between the sexes are known to have a significant effect on the development of the human brain. This effect is present in the womb, in the months following birth and during puberty. The respective hormones also have temporary effects throughout life.

• There are significant differences in the anatomical structure of the brain. ‘Socialisation’ or the acquisition of culture is not known to cause such alterations in the gross physical structure of the brain. These sex differences in the anatomy of the brain have been implicated in behavioural differences between the sexes.

• Testosterone differences between men, or the same man at different times, are known to cause many of the same psychological and behavioural differences that differentiate men from women.

In addition, although no healthy woman has higher testosterone levels than any healthy man, women with high testosterone levels for their sex display traits and characteristics we might describe as masculine.

Also, when women undergoing a ‘sex-change’ are given testosterone injections, they actually get better at tests of mental rotation and worse at tests of verbal fluency.

• Women’s cognitive abilities are different at different times of their menstrual cycle: when they are at the point when their oestrogen is highest, they get even better at things like verbal fluency; on the other hand, at the point when their oestrogen is lowest, they close the gap somewhat on men at things like mental rotation.

• There is a medical disorder called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which results in the over-production of a male hormone (androstenedione) in girls. Even though their hormone levels are normally put right soon after they’re born, they still develop into ‘tomboys’ displaying traits and characteristics deemed more typically masculine. This is because of the long-lasting effects hormones have on the developing brain of a foetus prior to birth.

• There have actually been studies of children raised as the opposite sex for ‘medical reasons’:

One study looked at 25 boys who were raised as girls after having been born without a penis. Despite being raised as girls, they all developed typically masculine personality traits and patterns of behaviour, and in addition to this, more than half of them spontaneously declared themselves to be boys.

The most famous case of this nature was a boy called David Reimer who lost his penis in infancy due to a botched circumcision. As a result he was raised as a girl, and although the experiment was initially reported as successful, he never actually identified as female, consistently behaved in a boyish manner, opted for a sex-change back to being a boy aged 15, and tragically committed suicide aged 38. In short, the entire experiment couldn’t have been more of a failure.

Then we can look at a medical condition known as Turner’s syndrome. This syndrome is caused because the child only inherits a single X chromosome from either parent – and as a consequence is neither male nor female. However, as the default plan for a developing foetus is female, people with Turner syndrome look and behave like girls. Now, these individuals will have inherited their X chromosome from either their mother of their father (obviously), but a father’s X chromosome is designed for a girl; whereas a mother’s X chromosome is intended for either a boy or girl – although in actuality it’s designed for a boy, since it will only act unopposed in a boy. The interesting thing in all of this is that girls with Turner’s Syndrome think and act differently depending on whether they get their X chromosome from their mother or their father – as you might have guessed, those with the X chromosome from their mother (designed for a boy) are more boyish than are those who get their X chromosome from their father.


Now watch this fantastic little YouTube vid:


And here’s a great article by Roy F. Baumeister, professor of psychology at Florida state university, which does a good job of refuting the central line of argument advanced by feminism:

Is There Anything Good About Men?


You could also do worse than to watch this neat little YouTube video series on feminism. Obviously ENR(NW)’s posting of this young lady’s video series should be taken as us agreeing with the majority of her views on feminism – not her views in general (which we may or may not agree with) :







Decadence and Renaissance

Posted in Against the Modern World with tags , , , , , on January 14, 2012 by English National Resistance - North West

Western leftism by its very nature believes in inevitable progress; that’s why you always get told, for example, that the mixing of the world’s racial and ethnic groups is “inevitable” (much like the world-wide takeover of communism used to be inevitable!)

We here at ENR – North West know better than this. We’re fully aware of history’s cyclical nature – peaks and troughs, rising and falling, growth and decay, zeniths and nadirs, Golden Ages and Dark Ages…


Decadence and renaissance.


Here we present for you two videos contrasting the decadence of modern Western life with what life in the West could be if a cultural, socio-political and spiritual renaissance were to occur. The following two videos, like the Racism is Natural series, are the work of one MrHerrIQ: