America in the 1950's - What a time! Look!

[Winston]

In Matt McKinley's latest podcast, he talks about the best time to live and says that his relatives seem to indicate that the 1950s was the best. See below.

[Winston]

Wow check out this song from the 1950s called "Rock Around the Clock". Look at the clips in it of the 1950s. Didn't Americans back then look more innocent and happy and wholesome? lol. Compared to today that is.

[Pixel--Dude]

Wow check out this song from the 1950s called "Rock Around the Clock". Look at the clips in it of the 1950s. Didn't Americans back then look more innocent and happy and wholesome? lol. Compared to today that is.

I think I had a past life in 1950s America. I like the old classics from back then. The old cabaret scene and of course they all had style back then. 1950s America trumps the America of today.

[Outcast9428]

@Winston You seem very inspired by the culture of the 1950s. I agree that the 1950s was the best time to be alive in American history. A lot of things about the 1950s culture I do not doubt you are in agreement with. We all know feminism has stripped women of their femininity, turned them into thug lovers, we know that the community values of the 50s promoted a much healthier society socially. It is nice watching these old videos and seeing women acting friendly towards men, acting reasonable, the 1950s culture seemed to promote being a good person whether you were male or female.

What so many men here seem to struggle with though, is realizing that a big part of what made the 1950s culture so good for both men and women was that most men did not try to be playboys back then. They were not trying to sleep around or have multiple partners. They were trying to find one girl that they loved and marry her. The assumption was that marriage was for life so you had to make it work with the person you chose. Young marriages between people in their late teens and early 20s were normal as well.

Marriage is the greatest gift you can ever give yourself. The biggest reason why the 50s culture was so pleasant and happy was because everybody focused on getting married and having life long love bonds rather then playing the field or dating around. Why do so many people on this forum seem determined to be hostile towards marriage whilst simultaneously enjoying very marriage oriented cultures in foreign countries like the Philippines that are similar to 1950s America?

[Pixel--Dude]

@Winston You seem very inspired by the culture of the 1950s. I agree that the 1950s was the best time to be alive in American history. A lot of things about the 1950s culture I do not doubt you are in agreement with. We all know feminism has stripped women of their femininity, turned them into thug lovers, we know that the community values of the 50s promoted a much healthier society socially. It is nice watching these old videos and seeing women acting friendly towards men, acting reasonable, the 1950s culture seemed to promote being a good person whether you were male or female.

What so many men here seem to struggle with though, is realizing that a big part of what made the 1950s culture so good for both men and women was that most men did not try to be playboys back then. They were not trying to sleep around or have multiple partners. They were trying to find one girl that they loved and marry her. The assumption was that marriage was for life so you had to make it work with the person you chose. Young marriages between people in their late teens and early 20s were normal as well.

Marriage is the greatest gift you can ever give yourself. The biggest reason why the 50s culture was so pleasant and happy was because everybody focused on getting married and having life long love bonds rather then playing the field or dating around. Why do so many people on this forum seem determined to be hostile towards marriage whilst simultaneously enjoying very marriage oriented cultures in foreign countries like the Philippines that are similar to 1950s America?

I think one of the reasons the 1950s were so good in America was because feminism didn't exist back then. Most women were happy to take on the role of a house wife and their job was to tend to the home and look after the kids while the man went out and earned money.

I've read that back then people could sleep with their doors unlocked, neighbours were more neighbourly and men and women enjoyed more harmonious relationships. Overall it sounds like a happier time. I think a single parent could provide for their kids and take care of the home on one wage back then as well, whereas that is pretty much impossible in today's society.

The music back then was better than the shit we get today. Back then songs were about love or lamenting lost love, some had a melancholy feel to them where as other songs were more upbeat and had a swing vibe. Compare that to the music of today where all they sing about is p***y and drugs or shooting people. Music of today encourages solipsism and love for money, seeing women as just pussys and killing anyone who gets in your way. I hate most modern music. I think it has a bad vibe, it doesn't compare to the swinging sounds of the 50's lol.

I disagree about your statement about marriage. Most people had traditional values back in the 50s and so they paired off and married with a woman they fell in love with and most of the time I would wager that this was good. However, since the emergence of feminism and women joining the work place, inflation on prices, bad values instilled from a young age (this drive to get ahead and succeed at the expense of others. Everyone is competetion etc) relationships between men and women have been damaged.

One of the main reasons I dislike traditional marriage is because of how the church and other companies commodify love. Disney and other rom coms brainwash women into believing that they deserve this perfect Prince charming and set an unrealistic precedent for men to live up to. Also, men are brainwashed into having this idea that their partner should be a virgin, but a slut in the bedroom.

As I pointed out in a previous thread. I think couples could live healthy lives together regardless of marriage, if they were compatible enough. A joining of the hands ceremony is way more fun than a robotic church wedding. Marriage is an inconvenience anyway when most marriages today end in divorce and someone has to pay out at least 14K in divorce fees. It's all by design and a racket. People are better off not getting married at all. If they love each other, that should be enough.

[gsjackson]

What so many men here seem to struggle with though, is realizing that a big part of what made the 1950s culture so good for both men and women was that most men did not try to be playboys back then.

Well, not really, and I was there. Or at least there was a fairly substantial subset of men looking to "play the field," as the expression went, though early marriage was the default position. Back in those early days of Playboy Magazine, the playboy lifestyle was held aloft as a social ideal. An actor named Bob Cummings played a big womanizer on TV during the '50s, the show having two different titles -- 'Love That Bob' and 'The Bob Cummings Show.' A spin-off from that was 'The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis,' about a college-age playboy. 'Bachelor Father' was about a rich guy raising his niece, while dating one babe after another. These were popular shows.

This approach to dating was actually enabled by the churches, because sex was shoved under the rug in public life (e.g., Ricky and Lucy Ricardo, though married, were seen to sleep in separate twin beds in the uber-popular TV show 'I Love Lucy'). Because it was not assumed that dating necessarily meant having sex, the churches, as well as the pop culture, supported the idea of playing the field, so that you could have exposure to a wide variety of people and make a better choice of life partner.

Of course, today, in the age of marital/family breakdown, (((pop culture))) sends the polar opposite message. Any white man older than about 15 who dates more than one woman is an absolute arch-villain. I was recently watching an episode of Law and Order SVU -- which is clearly written by women now and absolutely unwatchable -- in which they beat the living crap out of some aging womanizer played by Aiden Quinn. And of course, the family ideal held aloft now is two lesbians -- at least one having disposed of a white husband -- presiding over a multi-racial brood.

[Outcast9428]

What so many men here seem to struggle with though, is realizing that a big part of what made the 1950s culture so good for both men and women was that most men did not try to be playboys back then.

Well, not really, and I was there. Or at least there was a fairly substantial subset of men looking to "play the field," as the expression went, though early marriage was the default position. Back in those early days of Playboy Magazine, the playboy lifestyle was held aloft as a social ideal. An actor named Bob Cummings played a big womanizer on TV during the '50s, the show having two different titles -- 'Love That Bob' and 'The Bob Cummings Show.' A spin-off from that was 'The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis,' about a college-age playboy. 'Bachelor Father' was about a rich guy raising his niece, while dating one babe after another. These were popular shows.

This approach to dating was actually enabled by the churches, because sex was shoved under the rug in public life (e.g., Ricky and Lucy Ricardo, though married, were seen to sleep in separate twin beds in the uber-popular TV show 'I Love Lucy'). Because it was not assumed that dating necessarily meant having sex, the churches, as well as the pop culture, supported the idea of playing the field, so that you could have exposure to a wide variety of people and make a better choice of life partner.

Of course, today, in the age of marital/family breakdown, (((pop culture))) sends the polar opposite message. Any white man older than about 15 who dates more than one woman is an absolute arch-villain. I was recently watching an episode of Law and Order SVU -- which is clearly written by women now and absolutely unwatchable -- in which they beat the living crap out of some aging womanizer played by Aiden Quinn. And of course, the family ideal held aloft now is two lesbians -- at least one having disposed of a white husband -- presiding over a multi-racial brood.

I’m sorry but I’m skeptical of the claim that you were there in that time period. Unless you were born in the 1940s or 1930s you can’t really claim to have been there because you weren’t old enough to experience the dating culture if you were any younger then high school age. And that’s me being generous and extending “the 50s culture” up to 1965. Any latter then that and you were in the hippie/free love era so it doesn’t count anymore.

I don’t even feel like high school really counts. It makes a little more sense to me if you say that high schoolers still acted a little playboyish but it would be a lot more surprising to hear that 25 year old men were still encouraged to be bachelors and play the field. If you were born before during WW2 I’ll shut up but otherwise I feel like it’s debatable to say “you were there” during that time.

[gsjackson]

I was born in 1950. I watched the aforementioned TV shows in the late '50s. I remember the era very well, and fondly. You're correct to extend '50s culture to 1965. What exactly are you disputing? That "playing the field" was considered a good thing by churches and the pop culture, given that sex early and often was not presumed? Even in high school in the mid-to-late '60s, sex wasn't assumed to be happening on a widespread basis. My minister's daughter was considered the class slut since she was said to "put out," as the expression went (this was in Northern Virgina, which wasn't exactly lagging behind the culture at large in social change).

Playboy Magazine has long since been a played-out rag, but it would be hard to overestimate the impact it had in the '50s and '60s. Most of my friends had a copy under their beds. Sorry, but the playboy ideal was alive and well in those much simpler times, whereas now it has been slaughtered by Marxist culture. Go watch the new Elvis movie if you think that the newly emergent post-WWII youth culture didn't go hand-in-hand with a rapidly emerging awareness of sex. Especially after the pill came along, around 1960. Sex had the added thrill of forbidden fruit, and in addition most people grew up healthy then, the food supply not yet being mostly toxic sludge, and raging hormones were all the more powerful. Granted that latter factor provided an incentive for marriage, but there were lots and lots of men, even in the '50s, who were seeing themselves as ladies' men and eventually thinking notch count.

[Lucas88]

Why do so many people on this forum seem determined to be hostile towards marriage whilst simultaneously enjoying very marriage oriented cultures in foreign countries like the Philippines that are similar to 1950s America?

I'm not hostile to marriage as a social institution but I just don't think that it's for me. I guess I'm just too fond of women in the plural to limit myself to one woman and I've also suffered enough in relationships to the point where I no longer wish to put myself in a situation of vulnerability or suffer any more emotional torment. I also don't wish to relinquish any of my personal freedom.

I remember when I was a teenage boy in school. The hormones were raging and I wanted to have sex with many different girls as well as the hot women I saw on TV. I think that that kind of promiscuous instinct is the natural state for most males. Later when I was in college and university I longed for a monogamous relationship but now I believe that that desire of mine was a socialized desire or one born out of a fear of missing out on what other people around me were experiencing. In college and university I was an incel who had never even had a real girlfriend. I eventually did get a girlfriend when I was 23 and living in Spain. I had my first long-term relationship and even got engaged. But as soon as that relationship ended and I realized that relationships aren't as good as they're made out to be, my desire for a monogamous relationship began to wane and my previous promiscuous male instincts resurfaced. I began to long for a variety of women and started seeing prostitutes. Many men are like this and it's always been the case. Some of us never grow out of our adolescent promiscuous nature. Even in traditional cultures men like this sleep around on the sly.

I admit that I find most women boring and relationships tedious. I get tired of all of the emotional bullshit. I'd rather just be a lone wolf and limit my relationships with women to short-term encounters and friends-with-benefits arrangements. I'm done with all of that lovey-dovey stuff. Maybe my perspective on this will change in the future but as of now I have no interest in romance.

I also find that I'm more productive when I am single. I am able to pursue my creative projects more efficiently when I am not distracted by a girlfriend or obligated to invest a considerable amount of time into a relationship.

I am interested primarily in Latin American culture which is still fairly traditional in comparison to the Anglosphere but the reason why I like Latin America so much is because it is so easy to get sex there from hot, sexy, curvaceous, brown girls with feminine charm. I like Latin America not because it has conservative views on marriage (it is actually a bit more sexually liberal than you might think) but rather because it is less influenced by feminism and the women there still act like women and are therefore attractive to masculine men.

I was born in 1950. I watched the aforementioned TV shows in the late '50s. I remember the era very well, and fondly. You're correct to extend '50s culture to 1965. What exactly are you disputing? That "playing the field" was considered a good thing by churches and the pop culture, given that sex early and often was not presumed? Even in high school in the mid-to-late '60s, sex wasn't assumed to be happening on a widespread basis. My minister's daughter was considered the class slut since she was said to "put out," as the expression went (this was in Northern Virgina, which wasn't exactly lagging behind the culture at large in social change).

Playboy Magazine has long since been a played-out rag, but it would be hard to overestimate the impact it had in the '50s and '60s. Most of my friends had a copy under their beds. Sorry, but the playboy ideal was alive and well in those much simpler times, whereas now it has been slaughtered by Marxist culture. Go watch the new Elvis movie if you think that the newly emergent post-WWII youth culture didn't go hand-in-hand with a rapidly emerging awareness of sex. Especially after the pill came along, around 1960. Sex had the added thrill of forbidden fruit, and in addition most people grew up healthy then, the food supply not yet being mostly toxic sludge, and raging hormones were all the more powerful. Granted that latter factor provided an incentive for marriage, but there were lots and lots of men, even in the '50s, who were seeing themselves as ladies' men and eventually thinking notch count.

Thank you very much for your valuable first-person testimony of the 1950s and 1960s, @gsjackson. I find it fascinating to hear about what life was like in those decades from somebody who actually lived through them and experienced them first hand. I believe that you really were there, by the way! From what yourself and others have said about that time period, I get the impression that on the ground things weren't quite as how many people today imagine in their own idealized vision of what the 1950s were supposed to be like. Men have always been men and have always been interested in attractive females and had fantasies about sleeping with multiple hot babes and living the playboy lifestyle. I'm sure that the 1950s were no different!

Anyway, thanks again for your valuable contribution to this topic.

How do you think the 80s compared to the 50s socially and sexually? The 80s is a decade which I tend to idealize and with which I identify despite not having been born early enough to experience it myself.

[Outcast9428]

I was born in 1950. I watched the aforementioned TV shows in the late '50s. I remember the era very well, and fondly. You're correct to extend '50s culture to 1965. What exactly are you disputing? That "playing the field" was considered a good thing by churches and the pop culture, given that sex early and often was not presumed? Even in high school in the mid-to-late '60s, sex wasn't assumed to be happening on a widespread basis. My minister's daughter was considered the class slut since she was said to "put out," as the expression went (this was in Northern Virgina, which wasn't exactly lagging behind the culture at large in social change).

Playboy Magazine has long since been a played-out rag, but it would be hard to overestimate the impact it had in the '50s and '60s. Most of my friends had a copy under their beds. Sorry, but the playboy ideal was alive and well in those much simpler times, whereas now it has been slaughtered by Marxist culture. Go watch the new Elvis movie if you think that the newly emergent post-WWII youth culture didn't go hand-in-hand with a rapidly emerging awareness of sex. Especially after the pill came along, around 1960. Sex had the added thrill of forbidden fruit, and in addition most people grew up healthy then, the food supply not yet being mostly toxic sludge, and raging hormones were all the more powerful. Granted that latter factor provided an incentive for marriage, but there were lots and lots of men, even in the '50s, who were seeing themselves as ladies' men and eventually thinking notch count.

I’m saying I can believe that people would be tolerant of high schoolers playing the field if they weren’t having sex or weren’t presumed to be. I don’t imagine people being as tolerant of that behavior continuing past graduation though. It’s not the case today but dating in college years was supposed to be serious back then. Hell even in high school a lot of people took it seriously. People in their late teens and early 20s were getting married at that point. The average age of marriage for girls was 20 and 23 for guys because they thought all the good guys were gonna be taken by the time men were late 20s and then they would be stuck with the playboy types.

Having strong hormones doesn’t mean you have to be a degenerate running around trying to get as high of a notch count as you can. One can much more adequately satisfy a high libido whilst remaining married and monogamous them you would sleeping around with different partners all the time. One thing my father told me while comparing marriage to single life was “being single is like having to go out and hunt for your dinner every time. Being married is simply going to the pantry every time.” Nor does increased acceptance of promiscuity translate to “growing awareness of sex.” People have been aware of sex for hundreds of thousands of years and never stopped being aware of sex lol. The difference is that people during the sexual revolution decided to stop linking it with love and marriage.

[MrPeabody]

To be honest, after watching some of these videos, I get the impression that yeah the 1950's were better in terms of the economy, family values, cost of living, stable jobs, and moral values. However, there is no freethought or nonconformity at all. Or even true individualism. Everyone back then looked like a pure conformist, like mainland China is today. No rebels or hippies existed. So you could not be a freethinker. My friend Mitchell told me that his mom told him that back in the 1950's if you were a nonconformist or freethinker, they would put you in a mental institution, because that is not allowed. So it was a culture of total conformity, even though many things were nice. But I guess that in a good environment with good people, less people will be inclined to be rebels or nonconformists, because people will feel happier and more harmonious with others. So it's possible that had I grown up back then, I may not have been incited to become a misfit or nonconformist. Who knows.

Keep in mind that the parents of the 1950s were the World War II generation. They had been through a world war and a depression. They were survival oriented which made them narrow minded and conservative.

[WilliamSmith]

American goys in the 1950s were essentially low-end gangland murdering thugs who delusionally believed themselves to be virtuous, and then went on a mass killing spree against people far more virtuous than they ever were without even ever really knowing why (WW2 vs Germans and Japanese).


True, it wasn't the American goy livestock's own idea, because they were just a bunch of stupid bleating jew-deo christian sheep doing whatever their jew masters set them up to do, rather than actually conceiving of any of these international war and mass-murdering plans on their own.

But then after they destroyed the good guys in the wars and enabled the jew communists to mass-murder 10s of millions of other innocent goys in Russia and China, then the American goys came back home after the war and were basically like heroin junkies who took a giant dope injection to keep their goofy hokey shit-for-brains 1950s grins on their faces while they wallowed in the delusion they had the greatest nation that ever was...

Meanwhile, jew forces exulting in the mass bloodbath they'd orchestrated gathered around their anglo-american goy war-slaves and and started showing their true colors in the 1960s onward, when the kikes who set them up for the wars then went on as planned with a tidal wave of degeneration and ripped their pathetic sorry goy asses inside out every which way you can think of from one generation to the next.




Now the jews that !@#$-for-brains 1950s Americans served as the war-slaves of have turned the "nation" the American goys delusionally thought they had into the grisly abomination it is today, where they themselves are now cast as the arch-villains of "our democracy" of globohomo and neo-Weimarism.

f**k america in the 1950s, and f**k American from then onward too.

Simple truth: If you serve the jews, then you deserve to die, just like your jew masters deserve to f***ing die and be massacred and utterly f***ing eradicated off the face of this planet that's suffered their and your presence for far, far too long.

This thread is f***ing pathetic, what a bunch of weak jewdeo christians and MGTOW faggots fantasizing about keeping women in the kitchen aren't going to solve !@#$, what a pathetic circle jerk of betas fantasizing about making women do whatever you want despite being a bunch of wussies, !@#$ing pathetic.

I'd certainly be thrilled to be proven wrong here if 'muricans surprised me and hit back against the ZOG, but I don't think Americans are going to do much. My fear is the jews via supposed "conservative" channels like the Fox Jews network or the seemingly refreshing ballsy Trump will scapegoat China for all the crimes and subversions actually done by jews, and get this colossal heap of shit judaized titanic into more war against them.
But in the long run I think real sovereign nations like Russia and China will beat the ZOG's sorry perverted jew-worshipping asses, not because they're especially great themselves, but just because the jews have unleashed such mass degradation and perversion literally mutating the bodies and minds of 'Americans' and 'Westerners' in all occupied countries that "Americans" look more like Garbage Pail Kids than human beings at this point.

Frankly, I don't give a @!#$ at this point:
I was here ready to fight for actual "freedom" for decades, but it's too late because Americans didn't do !@#$ against the jews except serve them and do their bidding (unless you count heroes like Minister Farrakhan as 'Americans', but I think he deserves better than top be defamed as an "American" since he's leading his own nation, LOL).

I'm 40 now and I'll be off sailing the high seas with dusky babes in the Caribbean.

[WilliamSmith]

Here's the perfect inspiration you pathetic MGTOW faggots whining about how women won't do whatever you say while you pathetically worship the jew war-slave 1950s anglocuck culture need: Some good red pill history on Marilyn Monroe, icon of the 1950s who spent her lifetime sucking jewish cocks and giving it up to jews on the shiksa casting couch to jews (even married a jew author pushing communism if I remember right) before a jewish "psychologist" who also just happened to be a Communist party member with "strong ties to Israel" hooked Marilyn on drugs and drove her into insanity and suicide, exactly the fate you can expect to get if pathetic goys bow down and serve humanity's supreme mortal enemy, the jews:

Sexually perverted jewess Natasha Lytess who reportedly got angocuck shiksa slave Marilyn into jewess lezo carpet-muching, shown here on the set of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.


https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/01/ma ... -the-jews/

MARILYN MONROE is one of many Gentile actors who fell under the dominance of a string of Jewish psychoanalysts, including, most famously, Ralph Greenson (born: Romeo Greenschpoon) who was her therapist when she allegedly committed suicide. “Like many of his colleagues at the time,” notes a review of Donald Spoto’s biography of Marilyn, “Greenson relied heavily on drug therapy for his patients, routinely prescribing barbiturates and tranquilizers or having patients’ other doctors do so. He referred Marilyn to [Jewish] internist Hyman Engelberg, who prescribed many of the medications Greenson ordered for her … Her friends noticed that the more Marilyn saw Greenson, the more miserable she became … Greenson encouraged Marilyn’s deep dependency on him (he was seeing her twice daily)” (Good Housekeeping, 1993, pp. 212, 214).


Ralph Greenson
The incestuous nature of Hollywood life may be observed in Greenson’s case: his sister Elizabeth was married to Milton ‘Mickey’ Rudin, a Jewish entertainment attorney who was one of the town’s major powerbrokers. Rudin was Monroe’s lawyer.

Marilyn’s publicist, Arthur Jacobs, was also Jewish. So were her agents at MCA, Jay Kanter and Mort Viner. Many of the directors of her films were Jews (for example, Billy Wilder of Some Like It Hot and George Cukor of Let’s Make Love). Natasha Lytess, her personal manager and the subject of speculation about Monroe’s rumored lesbianism, was Jewish, from Austria. Their relationship, says Barbara Leaming, was “mutually exploitive” (Leaming, 31). Milton Greene, a Jewish fashion photographer “with whom she’d reportedly had a fling during the late forties,” was another early personal manager.

Monroe had resolved to sleep with anyone who could help her attain fame and fortune in Jewish-dominated Hollywood. Close friend Ted Jordan notes that she had “sex with anybody she thought might be able to advance her career” (Jordan, 121). “It is clear,” says Anthony Summers in his biography, “that Marilyn made judicious use of her favors. A key beneficiary was the [Jewish] man who got Marilyn that vital first contract at Fox — Ben Lyon. According to writer Sheila Graham, Lyon had been sleeping with Marilyn and promising to further her career … Lyon called the casting director for Sol Wurtzel, a [Jewish] B-movie producer of the time [and Monroe was awarded a small part in the 1947 film Dangerous Years]” (Summers, 35).

In olden times,” Upton Sinclair once remarked, “Jewish traders sold Christian girls into concubinage and into prostitution, and even today they display the same activity in the same field in southern California where I live.” Or as F. Scott Fitzgerald summed up the Hollywood scene of his era — “a Jewish holiday, a Gentile tragedy” (Gabler, 2).

Garment millionaire Henry Rosenfeld was another Jewish sex partner on Marilyn’s road to fame. “She would join Rosenfeld at his home in Atlantic City for trips in his speedboat and for quiet evenings of talk and laughter” (Summers, 45). Jewish mobster Bugsy Siegel, himself a Hollywood powerbroker, also slept with her (Jordan, 84, 87). Ted Jordan (born Edward Friedman) even wrote a book about his early sexual experiences with Monroe — they began on his fourth date with her when she was 17. Then known by her real name, Norma Jean, Monroe was soon sleeping with Friedman’s uncle, Ted Lewis (original name also Friedman), who, “with his clarinet and distinctive style of old favorites, was among the hottest acts in show business” (Jordan, 73). It was Lewis who introduced the then-unknown model to narcotics.

“I learned,” says Jordan, “that at one point in their little backstage meeting, Ted had slipped Norma Jean a piece of paper with his telephone number on it. Soon they were meeting in hotel rooms whenever Ted was in town … Soon he was pulling strings for Norma Jean, trying to hook her up with an agent who would do her the most good … As Norma Jean had vowed to me, whoever she had to f**k, she was prepared to do it. And, for good measure, she did the same with [prominent Jewish gossip columnist] Walter Winchell” (Jordan, 75).

Early in Monroe’s career as a struggling actress, the Jewish head of Columbia, Harry Cohn, invited her to an overnight cruise on his yacht. Monroe was required to strip naked for Cohn in his office. As she bent over, at his direction, he approached her, penis in hand. When she declined his advances, said Monroe, “I had never seen a man so angry” (Jordan, 91; Wolfe, 211-212). Cohn then “banned her from the [Columbia] lot after she refused to accompany him on a yacht to Catalina Island” (Leaming, . “You know,” Monroe once said, “that when a producer calls an actress into his office to discuss a script that isn’t all he has in mind … I’ve slept with producers. I’d be a liar if I said I didn’t” (Summers, 34-35). In 1955, 20th Century Fox awarded Monroe the richest per-film contract of any actress. “It means,” remarked Monroe, “I’ll never have to suck another cock again!” (McDougal, 217).

The network of Jewish men that controls Hollywood has always been characterized by an intense sexual fixation on the shiksa — shiksa being a derogatory slur for a Gentile woman, literally signifying “unclean animal” according to its Yiddish etymology. Hence the ubiquitous “casting couch,” a Hollywood institution that provided Jewish powerbrokers access to otherwise unavailable non-Jewish women, whom they despised as non-Jews yet idealized as avatars of alien sexual desirability. The shiksa thus became the ultimate sexual trophy. The Jews who ruled Hollywood, noted Hollywood rabbi Edgar Magnin, “were men who made all that money and realized they were still a bunch of Goddamned Jews. Sleeping with a pretty gentile girl made them feel, if only for a few minutes, ‘I’m half gentile.’ No wonder they made idols out of shiksa goddesses.” [Image: Marilyn in 1951.]

A key agent in accelerating Monroe’s early career was Johnny Hyde (like many Hollywood Jews, born in Russia, and a veteran of vaudeville.) She was also his mistress; he was 53, she was 23. Hyde “not so coincidentally … was Ted Lewis’ personal manager” (Jordan, 85). “In making Marilyn known,” says Fred Guiles, “[Hyde] flexed a lot of muscle. The simple fact is that Johnny Hyde was the chief architect of her fame and her eventual legend” (Guiles, 147).

“By 1953,” Jordan reports, “… [Monroe] could be virulently anti-Semitic (a prejudice that grew as she got older). To my discomfort she would sometimes refer to Joe Schenck, the mogul [and another sexual stepping stone], as ‘that Jew shit’ and to other Hollywood personalities as ‘Jew’ this or that. Occasionally I would have to remind her that I was half Jewish” (Jordan, 188). Monroe’s anti-Semitism did not prevent her from later converting to Judaism, at the behest of her Jewish husband, playwright Arthur Miller, who (despite his vocal anti-racialism) would not wed an uncoverted Gentile.

The Hollywood world and its pressures of being a sex goddess of course destroyed her. Monroe’s physician Hyman Engelberg and her therapist Ralph Greenson were the first to her death scene, reported to be the result of a drug overdose, but they did not call police for four hours. One investigative author, Donald Spoto, in a 1993 work, even burdens Greenson with the responsibility for killing her, directing that a female employee “administer [to Monroe] … a fatal barbiturate-laced enema.” (In this scenario, Greenson’s motivation was that Monroe was trying to free herself from his influence and control, and had fired him [Wolfe, 99]).

A friend of Monroe’s recalls that she was beginning to feel that Greenson was “trying to substitute himself for everything she’d built up those past years. She decided he was anti-everything she wanted. She was radically turning on Greenson and Mrs. Murray, the woman he’d put with her, she felt, to spy on her” (Strasberg, 250-251).

The famous movie star’s alleged suicide has always been controversial, and there are various conspiracy notions about who would want her dead. Greenson’s secret life is much clouded. As well as being a therapist, he was an activist Communist Party member and part of its international Comintern. Greenson, as his sister Elizabeth has reported, was also a Zionist with “strong ties to Israel” (Kelley, 305).

Whatever Greenson’s role as a listener of movie star’s confessions, his communist ties have profound implications because Monroe had romantic affairs with President John F. Kennedy and knew a great deal about behind-the-scenes politicking, perhaps including plans against communist Cuba and Fidel Castro. Everything Monroe knew she undoubtedly told her psychotherapist. As Donald Wolfe writes:

Once Marilyn Monroe became Greenson’s patient, he became one of the most important Comintern operatives in America; he had access to the mind of a woman who often shared the bed with the president of the United States and was an intimate of the attorney general [Kennedy’s brother, Robert] … As Greenson has correctly stated, Marilyn Monroe had a tendency to ‘get involved with very destructive people, who will engage in some sort of sado-masochistic relationship with her.’ Ironically, among these people was her psychiatrist [Greenson], her physician [Engelberg], and her housekeeper, Eunice Murray [who was appointed by Greenson to live with Ms. Monroe and report back to him], who joined in a conspiracy to survey Marilyn Monroe within a sphere of influence designed to gather intelligence from her relationship with the president of the United States and the attorney general (Wolfe, 386).

Marilyn Monroe’s road to psychoanalysis was directed by the influential Jewish acting teacher, Lee Strasberg, who is usually credited with spawning “method acting,” made famous by the likes of Marlon Brando and James Dean. Brando’s first Jewish analyst, early in his career, was Bela Mittelman, “the coldest man I’ve ever known.” … “Acting afforded me the luxury of being able to spend thousands of dollars on psychoanalysts, most of whom did nothing but convince me that most New York and Beverly Hills psychoanalysts are a little crazy themselves, as well as highly motivated to separate patients from their money while making their emotional problems worse” (Brando, 124, 243). Brando was not much endeared to Lee Strasberg either, calling him “an ambitious, selfish man who exploited the people who attended the Actors Studio, and he tried to project himself as an acting oracle and guru. Some people worshiped him, but I never knew why” (Brando, 85).

Strasberg’s daughter, Susan, notes that her father “sent numerous actors to psychiatrists, and many doctors sent their patients to class because they felt his work helped theirs in analysis” (Strasberg, 31). Susan Strasberg herself used to argue with Marilyn Monroe about whether she or the famous sex goddess “needed therapy more” (Strasberg, 138). As Barbara Leaming observes:

It was said that the master teacher Lee Strasberg could open inner doors that one scarcely knew existed. Some admirers called him the Rabbi. Some compared him to a psychiatrist or a highly judgmental Jewish father … Strasberg focused on psychology. He ran his workshop as though they were group therapy sessions… Strasberg often advised actors to enter psychoanalysis in order to put them in touch with emotionally-charged material they could use in their work” (Leaming, 156-157).

Under Lee Strasberg’s influence Marilyn became an earnest devotee not just of method acting, but of Freudian analysis as well. Monroe’s one-time husband, Jewish playwright Arthur Miller, also had his own Jewish psychoanalyst: Rudolph Loewenstein. Monroe even had sessions with Sigmund’s Freud daughter, Anna, also a therapist, in London. “The significance of [Monroe’s reliance on psychoanalysts] for psychoanalysis,” notes Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, “was that Monroe left a substantial part of her estate to further the work of Anna Freud, whom she had seen briefly for analytic help in 1956 (Anna Freud wrote about her that she was paranoid with schizophrenic traits), and this bequest was undoubtedly achieved through her analysts, who were intimately connected to Anna Freud” (Masson, 129).

As Masson, a former offical at the Sigmund Freud Archives, further notes about the ethical undercurrent of such funding:

It is not, in fact, uncommon for analysts to solicit, usually through roundabout methods, former patients for money to support analytic projects. Chairs of psychoanalysis in medical schools at various universities have been partially endowed through former patients. There was also the case of the Centenary Fund, named for the centenary, in 1956, of Freud’s birth. [Marilyn Monroe’s therapist Ralph] Greenson had organized this fund for psychoanalytic research in Los Angeles … I felt then, and still do now, that it is an exploitation of the emotional relationship with a patient to solicit money, in whatever form, directly or indirectly. It seems to me that the patient, or ex-patient, is in no position, emotionally speaking, to refuse … I find it wrong and morally distasteful” (Masson, 130).

A Monroe friend once stated that “I felt [Ralph Greenson] had a big ego, like a lot of doctors he wanted to be God, and of all the analysts in L.A. she found him. Inger Stevens was his patient too. She killed herself later” (Strasberg, 250).

As Greenson once claimed, “I can count [on] Marilyn to do anything I want her to do” (Wolfe, 422).

Works Cited

Brando, Marlon. Brando: Songs My Mother Taught Me. Random House, Toronto, 1994.

Gabler, Neal. An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Crown Publishers. New York, 1988.

Good Housekeeping. “Marilyn Monroe.” May 1993, pp. 162-163, 212-216.

Guiles, Fred Lawrence. Legend: The Life and Death of Marilyn Monroe. Stein and Day, New York, 1989.

Jordan, Ted. Norma Jean: My Secret Life with Marilyn Monroe. William Morris & Co., New York, 1989.

Kelley, Kitty. His Way: The Unauthorized Biography of Frank Sinatra. Bantam Books. New York, 1986.

Leaming, Barbara. Marilyn Monroe. Crown Publishers, New York, 1998.

Masson, Jeffrey Moussaieff. Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1990.

McDougal, Dennis. The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman, MCA, and the Hidden History of Hollywood. Crown Publishers, New York, 1998.

Strasberg, Susan. Marilyn and Me: Sisters, Rivals, Friends. Warner Books, New York, 1992.

Summers, Anthony. Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe. MacMillan, New York, 1985.

Wolfe, Donald H. The Last Days of Marilyn Monroe. William Morrow, New York, 1998.

[gsjackson]

I’m saying I can believe that people would be tolerant of high schoolers playing the field if they weren’t having sex or weren’t presumed to be. I don’t imagine people being as tolerant of that behavior continuing past graduation though. It’s not the case today but dating in college years was supposed to be serious back then. Hell even in high school a lot of people took it seriously. People in their late teens and early 20s were getting married at that point. The average age of marriage for girls was 20 and 23 for guys because they thought all the good guys were gonna be taken by the time men were late 20s and then they would be stuck with the playboy types.

Having strong hormones doesn’t mean you have to be a degenerate running around trying to get as high of a notch count as you can. One can much more adequately satisfy a high libido whilst remaining married and monogamous them you would sleeping around with different partners all the time. One thing my father told me while comparing marriage to single life was “being single is like having to go out and hunt for your dinner every time. Being married is simply going to the pantry every time.” Nor does increased acceptance of promiscuity translate to “growing awareness of sex.” People have been aware of sex for hundreds of thousands of years and never stopped being aware of sex lol. The difference is that people during the sexual revolution decided to stop linking it with love and marriage.

Well, I'm writing about what happened in the '50s, not what should be. The brief against rock and roll in the '50s was that it had let the sex genie out of the bottle and there would be hell to pay, and indeed tributes to hell have been paid a zillion-fold since then, once music was taken over completely by (((our rulers))). The "sexual revolution" had its roots in the '50s. Pop culture has produced no bigger "sex symbols" than '50s icons Elvis, Brando and Marilyn Monroe, who graced the pages of the first edition of Playboy. Multitudes of sexually liberated men (women to follow in the late '60s and '70s) co-existed with remnants of Victorian propriety and veneration of marriage and family. Along with the playboys, TV served up happy nuclear families, preeminently the Nelsons, Cleavers, Andersons, Stones and Ricardos. In my view, both have a lot more in common with each other than with the degenerate inversion of human nature the culture gives us now (see William Smith's ethnocentric framing of the matter above).

[gsjackson]

Thank you very much for your valuable first-person testimony of the 1950s and 1960s, @gsjackson. I find it fascinating to hear about what life was like in those decades from somebody who actually lived through them and experienced them first hand. I believe that you really were there, by the way! From what yourself and others have said about that time period, I get the impression that on the ground things weren't quite as how many people today imagine in their own idealized vision of what the 1950s were supposed to be like. Men have always been men and have always been interested in attractive females and had fantasies about sleeping with multiple hot babes and living the playboy lifestyle. I'm sure that the 1950s were no different!

Anyway, thanks again for your valuable contribution to this topic.

How do you think the 80s compared to the 50s socially and sexually? The 80s is a decade which I tend to idealize and with which I identify despite not having been born early enough to experience it myself.

As far as sex availability goes, the early '80s were a continuation of the '70s, which were what the '60s are thought to be -- sex, drugs, rock and roll, general unbridled hedonism. In the middle of the decade -- well look who's here, inveterate liar Anthony Fauci, beginning his career as ardent foe of human interaction and human health. Fauci and long-time propaganda partner the corporate media began promulgating the myth of heterosexual AIDS. The whole AIDS thing was as fraudulent as the recent/current scamdemic, and it began to make women wary of men, a process that has of course finally led to the complete inversion of human nature the culture now imposes upon us.

Politically, the '80s were a culmination of the reaction against the late'60s and '70s and nostalgia for the '50s, Ronald Reagan's election being the preeminent symbol. I believe every election since 1968 was largely a product of this reaction and desire to return to simpler times, even Jimmy Carter's election in 1976. Though a Democrat, Carter ran as a political independent and an extremely devout evangelical Christian, tapping into -- as Reagan later did -- a rapidly growing evangelical Christian movement reacting against '70s hedonism and Roe v Wade.

Culturally, the media, which were not quite as antagonistic toward Reagan as they would later be toward Trump, but close, tried to paint the decade as unbridled materialism -- venal yuppies roaming the land, Madonna's 'Material Girl' the new national anthem. Maybe there was a little of that, and certainly Wall Street was let off its leash during the '80s, but in general, I look back on the 'decade fondly as well. Compared to the decade and a half that preceded it and all the decades that followed, it seemed like normal human life.

By the way, you Brits, I lived in England from 1955 to 1958 -- on Lakenheath AFB and in a village near London called Chalfont St Peter -- and the memory that stands out for me was the barren bleakness of British TV then. The BBC was required to serve up edifying fare, and the show I remember in particular was a serialization of a book titled The Silver Sword, about the Nazi occupation of Poland. Very grim. I'm guessing that the telly (as Brits called it then) didn't have nearly the same impact on British culture during the '50s as it did in the U.S.

The only Americans in Chalfont St Peter, we were treated like royalty in those early post-WWII years. I can only imagine that my contemporaries -- the American Air Force brats who formed the band America (big in the '70s, still touring) while their fathers were also stationed at South Ruislip in the late '60s-- had a very different experience during the Vietnam years. We all wanted to get back to the U.S., they for whatever reasons of their own, and I for the good TV and good food (British food was an abomination at the time, much better now).