Sunday, 30 April 2017


When I was growing up in the late '70s and '80s, one popular weekly sitcom on television was Diff'rent Strokes. It told the story of two orphaned Negro children from Harlem, who, upon the death of their mother, go to live with their mother's former boss, who is White, a widower and resides in upmarket Park Avenue, Manhattan. The black children, Willis and Arnold, just so happen to be boys and the widower, Phillip Drummond, just happens to have a young golden-haired daughter, Kimberley, around the same age as the elder brother. I do not think I need to spell out what the show's producers are up to here and the miscegenation angle is pushed in the episode 'Arnold's New Girlfriend', cynically cloaked in the guise of innocent affection between children. Certainly, this sitcom has now been played out many times in real life, with white bourgeois families adopting Negroes as a fashion statement for virtue signalling. It is such a family that gave Rachel Dolezal to the world.


The show plays on the old Protestant Christian notion that developed into a moral crusade in the nineteenth century of the 'White Man's Burden', where Whites were expected to do their Christian duty of taking care of the 'lesser races'. This will be looked at more in depth in another article; but suffice to say here that the Negro was still largely looked at as Other and intellectually inferior and the relationship between the races was that of parent and child. While simultaneously playing on this relationship, the series undermines it, Willis and Arnold being seen as not just equals, but as superior in their streetwise wit and experience of poverty, both of which are covetted by the bourgeoisie as signifiers of moral goodness. In this, Gary Coleman, who played Arnold and happened to be in the right place at the right time, played a key role.

Coleman's birth defects and treatment for this kidney disorder had left him with an inability to grow beyond 4'8" and the peculiarity of retaining babyish features well into adulthood. This meant that he seemingly did not age beyond the eight years his character started at during the eight years the programme aired and could be treated as such, while simultaneously giving him lines that an older wiser character would ordinarily say. It therefore often subverted the roles of white parental authority and black infant in need of structure and direction, especially as the parental figure was played by Conrad Bain and scripted in such a way that portrayed him as both authoritative when signalling moral instruction to the white audience and effete when the scriptwriters needed to undermine whiteness and masculinity. Let us examine the very first episode to demonstrate:

One notices the white bourgeois clumsiness of the ghetto handshake being ridiculed, foregrounded by the canned laughter (3:51). This leads into the anti-White quip by Willis: "No wonder they can't play basketball", again reinforced by canned laughter and the flippant reaction of the white character. This, bear in mind, is supposed to be a series that, while a comedy, tackles the issue of 'racism', and shows yet again that anti-racism is a codeword for anti-White. One gets the message throughout the series, as pun after pun is directed against Whites, while Whites themselves are meant to take it and defend Negroes against instances of alleged 'racism'. This failure with the handshake contrasts with Drummond's success with the handshake at the end as he becomes the authority figure in order to utter the moral lesson both to Willis and audience: "See, we can all learn something from each other." (23:55). Notice too the emphasis on "all" to highlight a signal word for inclusivity. Then there are the lyrics. Here are the first verse and chorus:

Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.

But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.


Is the word here 'jeans' or 'genes'? As the pronunciation is identical, the ambiguity, I believe, is deliberate and is another sly hint at miscegenation. Then there is the curious line, 'It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.' 'Diff'rent Strokes' is clearly referring to the racial overtones of the show, but how? What is meant by different? Does it mean different in the sense of diverse or different in the sense of not the ones that are moving the world now? And what is meant by the verb move? The pronunciation of 'move the world' is also somewhat muffled and, until I recently looked at the lyrics, had always thought it was 'rule the world.' Again, these ambiguities are not all simply by chance.


On cannot avoid mentioning the Jewish Question in all of this. The creator was Bernie Kukoff, a Zionist who later wrote Ah, Jerusalem for the Israeli stage. The writing team comprised three Jews: Budd Grossman, Howard Leeds and Martin Cohan, and a Gentile, Ben Starr, who was married to a Jewess named Gloria Kaplan. The series, then, is absolutely Jewish. Indeed, in the first series and a half, the show also featured a cleaning lady called Mrs Garrett, who was played by Jewish actress Charlotte Rae, who acted as the true authority figure that often undermined Conrad Bain's Aryan masculinity in the process of signalling behind the Marxist camouflage of class conflict. One notes she is the very first character we see in the very first episode we have just examined and her first gag is to tell Mr Drummond that she is "going to karate class and just got an 'A' in kicking where it hurts." Mr Drummond's first line, in contrast, is to apologise to Mrs Garrett, the personification of Semitic authority with a Gentile name, but a New York Jewish accent. It is notable that she gets the ghetto handshake right first time, having descended from the ghetto herself.

The Jewish outlook on White Gentile society is also interesting, as revealed by the script. One notes how everything is viewed in terms of monetary value, while projecting this world-view onto the show's white characters. In the episode we have examined, Drummond's talk of art and culture is exposed as a superficial sheen, a new-money appreciation of culture as shallow as his pocket or wallet, the antiques he collects in his high-rise appartment being disassociated from notions of racial-cultural heritage, race and culture being inextricably linked:

Drummond: You know something, Arnold, that chair you're sitting in is two hundred years old.
Willis: Well, with all your money, couldn't you afford to buy a new one?
Drummond: No, it's an antique, you see. The older it gets, the more it's worth.
Arnold: Willis, we wuz sitting on a fortune in Harlem and we never knew it! 

There is no mention of the craftsmanship, artisanry, beauty of the object in question, nor of the object's value to posterity and its cultural significance for his people. His purported colourblindness when it comes to race is replaced by the artificial importance he attaches to the colour of money. Race is seen as meaningless, money as meaningful. The Jewish words are written into the mouth of a bourgeois Gentile character - and yet there is truth in this, for the new-money bourgeois Gentile is virtually indistinguishable from the Jew. This is what Evola meant when he talked about spiritual Jewishness. Yet there is also a difference between the two, for the Jew will generally display loyalty to his tribe, whereas the new-money bourgeois Gentile will betray his own without compunction. Make no mistake, this is the real enemy.

The actress Dana Plato, who played Kimberley, was betrayed in this way. Her mother was a teenage single mother who originally gave her up for adoption, before taking her back, then thrusting her into the entertainment industry, aged eleven. She was cast as Kimberley aged thirteen. Her new handlers would soon get her hooked on alcohol, cocaine, cannabis and Valium. In later life, she would pose nude for Playboy, commit armed robbery, be jailed for forging Valium prescriptions, and experiment with lesbianism, before committing suicide by drugs overdose aged 34. Her co-star Todd Bridges, who played Willis and was a few months younger than Dana, also became addicted to crack cocaine. So much for the show's didacticism of looking after black children. Todd has also alleged he was also sexually abused as a child by his entertainment industry publicist while filming Diff'rent Strokes.

Indeed, it is an irony that one of the series' episodes, a two-parter entitled 'The Bicycle Man', explores the subject of child abuse. In this episode, the owner of a bicycle shop plies children with games, alcohol and drugs (just like those who run the Jollywood machine had done to Dana and Todd) before sexually abusing them. What is odd about the episode is the fact that whenever the paedophile, Mr Horton, makes suggestive innuendos, the canned laughter is used to signal audience approval through humour. This is compounded at the end of the first instalment, which leaves the audience with Mr Horton taking photographs of Arnold and his half-naked friend as the credits begin to roll to the sound of applause (23:01):



What is also interesting is the references to pizza. Mr Horton plies the two boys with pizza as he grooms them (15:31 onwards). Suddenly, they are having a pizza party on the way to something more sinister. When Mr Drummond stops by to pay for Arnold's bicycle and Mr Horton acts rushed and nervous, as he has been interrupted from his 'games' with the two boys, Drummond asks him why he is so distracted. Horton replies, "I got a pizza in the oven." (30:59) Where have we heard such euphemisms about pizza and ovens? That's right, in the infamous Podesta Brothers' e-mails about 'pizza parties'. Is this cultural reference a coincidence? Increasingly, I become less of a believer in coincidences, especially where the people who run the media, corporations, government and entertainment industry are concerned.

1 comment:

  1. There's definitely something to the whole pizza thing. I know that in anonymous internet posting that it was also used as slang by such degenerates before enough pressure was put on to clean it up by threats of the law and some of the more obvious lowlifes being rounded up for imprisonment under law. The low hanging fruit at the outskirts of such groups or their toxic influence. Importantly though these phrases came up used in those sordid contexts years before it hit the mainstream and it seems that the authorities looking into these networks also knew that such apparent nonsense substitution phrases (common practice with all kinds of prisoners or criminals and dealers of contraband for centuries) are used as their own coded handshakes and nods to let them know they are safe for this slave trade. Examples held by the authorities included marked currency which could likely be handed over at establishments or between people without needing to risk speaking openly to confirm their allegiances, jewellery with similar iconography and obviously code phrases and other symbolism would be involved too. Symbols which kept appearing mysteriously on the scenes.

    If it wasn't buried deeper than the Earth's core I'd love to know if any of the evidence with the significant Boys Town scandal involved such phrases and symbolism. There was a documentary on it all that was blocked and eventually ordered destroyed entirely at the last minute to prevent broadcast. While it can't give all the details and evidence in depth due to the nature of documentaries compared to a full legal case, it certainly hinted at similar structures and societies being rife and still being around, especially as what was described as the biggest prostitution ring in the USA (and one made of children no less is quite an accomplishment for winning that category) had zero customers prosecuted or even investigated. Also had similar patterns of tribal involvement. The rather heroic lone investigator facing constant roadblocks into this is a repeated sad story around the West and these scandals. All remarkable coincidences, I suppose. The despair and fear in the investigators towards the end as rather obvious hits were ordered and evidence destroyed is the moment that should really hammer it home.

    TV shows like this are obviously about conditioning people, the racial and social elements to that conditioning are very clear. Why not also add to it other elements while they are at it to further damage and confuse tradition society? Crank the poison up and attack on multiple fronts. With billions at a minimum spent researching psychology and to control and manipulate the art world (we know now that the CIA had a hand in it too) things like this are simply them getting a return on their expenditure.

    And something to consider for some still in doubt about the scale and routineness of the children being taken by such criminal organisations around the world - how many children go missing each year in Europe? Even in highly urban areas? Where do they go to when they are never found dead or alive? Is it likely that no one would notice or mention piles of dead children or a child's bones in their back garden or in a street forever to explain the lack of official discovery? The chances of them simply being lost or dropping dead where they weren't noticed somehow is vanishingly small where the excuse of a magical wilderness being to blame is slim to none (as it is in much of densely populated Europe). Slavery and child prostitution is alive and well in the modern era, sadly. Many organisations talk about how much human trafficking (modern slave trade and sex slave trade) is going on and how much of it involves children. Supply and demand.