Vigor Vaginae Veneris. Latin says in three words what can take seven words in English: “The Vigor of the Vagina of Venus.” Or V3 for short. It’s V3 that powers one of the most remarkable images I’ve ever seen. It’s so remarkable, in fact, that I’ve sometimes wondered whether it’s a modern fake. And what is it? It’s a painting on a twelve-sided table that shows a naked blonde Venus from whose vulva golden rays are extending to the faces of six young knights kneeling in worship.
Painted by an anonymous medieval artist and currently held in the Louvre in Paris, its full name is Le Triomphe de Vénus vénérée par six amoureux légendaires (Achille, Tristan, Lancelot, Samson, Pâris et Troïle) — The triumph of Venus, worshipped by six legendary lovers (Achilles, Tristan, Lancelot, Samson, Paris and Troilus). However, you could sum it up in two words: Pussy Power! But that’s vulgar and the painting isn’t in the slightest vulgar or pornographic. Instead, it’s beautiful. It wasn’t created to raise a snigger or pump a penis, but to venerate the vulvina of Venus, goddess of sex and love (vulvina is my blend of vulva-and-vagina).
Maiden, Mother, Matriarch
That vulvina-veneration is obvious in the painting, but there’s a lot of more subtle symbolism there too. Venus stands inside a mandorla, an almond-shaped aura that here represents the labia (and that often appears around the Virgin Mary in Christian art). And what are the fruit-bearing trees below and to left and right of Venus? They’re almond-trees. And the young knights are in quest of the Holy Grail, the awe-inspiring chalice that brims with blood and that is, on some gynocentric interpretations, another symbol of the female pudenda.
Those gynocentric interpretations say that Christianity became paganized as it spread into Europe from its austere Semitic roots. The Virgin Mary isn’t prominent in most of the New Testament and the virgin birth isn’t mentioned at all by St Paul. Nor does the New Testament formally define and name the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But Mary is very prominent in Catholicism. So is the male Trinity. However, it’s a woman’s life, not a man’s, that falls naturally into three stages: maiden, mother, matriarch, or the pre-menstrual girl, menstrual woman, and post-menstrual crone who stand behind triple goddesses like Artemis, Hera, and Hecate. That image of naked blonde Venus, with her golden-rayed vulva, was painted in Christian Europe about an ostensibly Christian legend, but it’s pagan, not Christian, and openly expresses pussy-power.
Jewish porn as cultural terrorism
That power is submerged and sublimated in Catholicism, and altogether absent in true Protestantism, which is Pauline in its attitude to the Virgin Mary. She doesn’t matter there, which helps explain one of H.L. Mencken’s best and funniest lines: “The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore.” Yes, God is boring — lifeless, sterile, uninspiring — when the female principle is stripped away from religion. But what happens when religion is stripped away from the female principle? You can see the answer all around you in the modern West. Pussy-powered paganism in the past and pussy powers pornography in the present. That is not a good thing. The central role of Jews in pornography has often been described and decried by White nationalists. See, for example, Kenneth Vinther’s article “Oppression by Orgasm? The Porn Industry as Jewish Anti-Fascist Action and Cultural Terrorism” at Counter Currents. Pornography degrades and exploits the special beauty and sexual power of White women. What’s not to like for anti-White, money-hungry Jews?
Jews in pornography
But one White-harming aspect of Jewish pornography hasn’t been extensively discussed by White nationalists: its role in encouraging, first, mass migration by non-Whites and, second, the rape and harassment of White women by non-Whites after their arrival. For example, the young non-White men pouring across the English Channel into Britain or across the Mexican border into America are, of course, economic migrants seeking White money. But they’re also erotic migrants seeking White women. It’s absolutely certain that a large or even overwhelming majority of those men have consumed pornography featuring White women and have been conditioned by that porn to see White women as promiscuous and readily available. This does not promote the welfare of White women, to put it mildly. But do feminists ever mention the pull of porn for non-Whites in their critiques of pornography and the patriarchy?
From veneration to vulgarity
Of course not. But if pussy powers porn, it also powers the solipsism and self-worship so obvious in feminism. You’ve seen vagina-veneration from the fourteenth century above. Now here’s some vagina-vulgarity from the twenty-first century:
Vagina-vulgarity and a bushy-haired Black: the book V
That book by the biologist Florence Schechter is subtitled “an empowering celebration of the vagina and vulva.” In fact, it’s a self-worshipping celebration. By saying “V-V-V,” Schechter is really saying “Me-me-me.” And if you’re wondering about her surname, yes, the vulgar, self-worshipping creatrix of the Vagina Museum and author of V does indeed seem to be Jewish:
Self-worshipping vagina-fan Florence Schechter
But Schechter’s self-worship isn’t the simple and satisfying thing it would once have been. The cult of leftism to which she belongs is ever-restless and ever-evolving. That’s why the cover of Schechter’s book features a bushy-haired Black woman standing on her hands and doing the splits. As a White racist, I will freely admit that the Black woman presenting her pudenda makes me feel queasy rather than quim-curious. I am not interested in or attracted to Black vulvas and vaginas. But White feminists would not freely admit that the Black woman also makes the book less attractive to them.
A White woman on the cover would have been much better for a solipsistic White feminist. But the self-worship of feminism has been hijacked by the self-worship of Blacks, which is why Florence Schechter collaborated on V with the Afro-autolatric Nadia Akingbule, “an illustrator from London, working predominantly with themes relating to minority representation and activism. Alongside colourful editorial illustration, she specialises in portraiture, often referencing her experience as a person of dual heritage in her practice.”
“The female penis”
As I said: celebrating “V-V-V” really means celebrating “Me-me-me.” But Black women want to celebrate “B-B-B” too or, as John Derbyshire puts it: “Blackety Blackety Black Black Black Blackety-Blackness.” Yet another self-obsessed group wants to celebrate “T-T-T.” That’s why Florence Schechter’s Vagina Museum had to market itself as “trans-inclusive.” I’ve never visited the Vagina Museum, so I don’t know how it pandered to the egomania of so-called transwomen, with their fake (and fetid) vaginas. And I’ve never read the book V, so I don’t know how it avoids the blasphemous assertion that vulvas and vaginas are in any way central to or defining of womanhood. As mainstream leftism now proclaims: any human being with a penis and testicles can be just as much a woman as any human being with a vagina and ovaries, if the penis-possessor claims to be a woman. This being so, vulvas and vaginas are not central to womanhood. Not for mainstream leftists, anyway.
But leftists are lunatics in thrall to a pernicious ideology based on fantasy and egomania, not on reality and objective science. The ideology is pernicious by design — Jewish design. Just as Jews have been central to pornography, so they’ve been central to translunacy, as Kenneth Vinther describes at Counter Currents in his review of Scott Howard’s The Transgender-Industrial Complex (2020). The godfather of translunacy was the Jewish “sexologist” Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935), who was energetically promoting pornography, transgenderism and homosexuality well before the Second World War.
“There are a lot of Jews”
Jews like Hirscheld have been central to the promotion of all three things and all three have been harmful to the West. That isn’t to say that all Jews and only Jews promote harmful things like those. But Jews have been necessary, if not sufficient, in the noxious growth of porn, transgenderism, and homo-cultism. That’s why the hyperbolic meme “Every. Single. Time.” works so well when applied to Jews. It isn’t every single time, of course, but it’s often enough for the meme to work. Jews themselves have openly admitted their central place in the promotion of sexual perversion and subversion. Take the Jewish academic Dr Nathan Abrams. He has argued in the Jewish Chronicle that “It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film” and that Lolita has a “Jewish appeal” because pedophiles and Jews both embody “the outsider who is passionately committed to action against the social order.”
And take the Jewish pediatrician and apparent “transwoman” Dr Ilana Sherer. He has proposed “renaming … clitorises as ‘dicklets’” and claimed in the Jewish News of Northern California that puberty-blockers are “fully reversible.” He has also proudly acknowledged that “there are a lot of Jews” in the field of translunacy and has described how “we [in a transgender group] were trying to schedule our next meeting and realized that everyone in the room but one person was Jewish.” Mark Steyn’s resident Jewish mother, the highly ethnocentric Laura Rosen Cohen, didn’t mention Sherer’s Jewishness when she asked of him: “Why do they all look like that?” Indeed, Sherer looks both demented and depraved in typical transgender fashion.
The revolutionary power of zoophilia
Another trans-skeptic Jew, James Esses, didn’t mention Jewishness either when he used the following as the first example in a list of the perversion and subversion promoted by “queer theory”:
In 2020, the elite academic publisher, Cambridge University Press, published an article titled ‘LGBTQ…Z’. In case you were wondering, the ‘Z’ stands for ‘zoophilia’, another term for bestiality — human beings sexually abusing animals. The article argued that the ‘Z’ should be brought into queer theory, in order to bring about “the revolutionary power of love”. (“Our societies must not be ‘queered’,” James Esses at Matt Goodwin’s Substack, 18th November 2024)
The two leading figures in queer theory are the Jewish-lesbian academics Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. I think another Jewish-lesbian academic was behind the zoophilia-friendly article highlighted by James Esses. It was written by the lesbian queer-theorist M. Kathy Rudy (also known as Mary K. Rudy and born 1956), an “American women’s studies professor and theologian.” However, to be fair to Esses, Kathy Rudy’s Jewishness is much less obvious than Ilana Sherer’s. In fact, I can’t prove that she is Jewish. But she looks Jewish, has a surname that can be “eastern Ashkenazic,” and has a Wikipedia biography in six languages, one of which is Hebrew. She also got a positive review of her book Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy (2011) from her fellow academic Frances Bartkowski, who has based her career on “years of reading, writing, and teaching about the Shoah,” has written a novel about two Polish Jews fleeing the Shoah, and has a promotional page at the Jewish Book Council. I conclude that Kathy Rudy is Jewish, although I can’t yet prove it. Here’s the abstract for her promotion of zoophilia in the feminist journal Hypatia:
In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism. By focusing on transformative connections between humans and animals, a new form of animal advocacy emerges through the revolutionary power of love. (“LGBTQ…Z?”, Hypatia, Volume 27, Issue 3, Summer 2012, pp. 601-615)
As you can see from the video-still of Kathy Rudy above, I started this article with a beautiful blonde and have ended it with a bloated bull-dyke. That’s a brutal description, I know, but it’s also an accurate one. Kathy Rudy is an ugly woman promoting an ugly ideology. That’s part of why I conclude she’s Jewish. Sex and sexuality can be both sublime and sordid. When Whites controlled and created Western culture, the sublime suppressed the sordid. Now that Jews control and create Western culture, the sordid submerges the sublime.
