I hope people get a chance to read Charles Dodgson’s latest TOO article. The critical take-home point is the power of the media in shaping attitudes. The Birth of a Nation of 1915 was a powerful call to White racial awareness and defense. Right now, there is a huge amount of anger among Whites in America, but it will probably be channeled within politically acceptable boundaries —boundaries in which White racial consciousness and the need for racial defense will remain beyond the pale of acceptable political discourse. Hence the energetic attempts at containment by organizations like the ADL and the $PLC aimed at completely cleansing the mainstream media of anything remotely likely to legitimize White racial consciousness and defense (even Glenn Beck). As Dodgson notes, “White Americans will continue to lose the culture war — and their freedom and identity — until they retake the commanding heights of mass entertainment and guard that position with the same determination with which their forebears defended the nation’s physical borders.”
Charles Dodgson’s "Get Smart! and Birth of a Nation: Lessons for White Cultural Emancipation"
You can follow all the replies to this entry through the comments feed
Facing the Future as a Minority
This is a good article, but I would like to restate the depth of the problem.
As best I can tell, what happened in Europe was that it’s success promoted rapid societal changes. These changes led to the old systems being undermined. The first old system was Christendom. Societal changes led to the reformation and counter-reformation, the wars of religion — and of course the birth of Imperial Europe. Imperial Europe was successful, which promoted more change. The societal changes led to the Enlightenment and Romantic Period (counter-Enlightenment) — but this where things got funny.
Three different models were promoted — illiberal capitalism (which was implicitly Ethnic), Nationalism (which was explicitly ethnic and either socialistic or capitalistic), and communism [which was anti-ethnic ("Liberal") and necessarily socialistic].
The Jews were involved because they were a successful group, who much more than not aligned against the old system (as it was rooted in Christianity) and for change in a liberal direction. That is, they did not just push for change like so many others, they pushed for liberal change (a la Marxism, Socialism, ect).
The Nationalists reacted against this and the Jews became the symbol of rootlessness.
Well we know what happened. The illiberal capitalist US and England aligned with communist socialism and beat out the forces of nationalism. In the aftermath, the surviving Jews in the West became all the more radical liberal and socialist. And ‘morality’ advanced in a rather liberal direction. Then illiberal capitalism squared off against communist socialism.
The US historically was an illiberal capitalist nation. It was run with a hazy background sense of Christian European-ness, with Anglos filling the archetypal role of Americans. The illiberal sense was a mix of post enlightenment and illiberal nationalist thought. When the war broke out in Europe, the US, in fighting against the nationalists — defined itself in democratic terms. Nationalism was portrayed as antidemocratic.
After the War, the US then squared of against communist socialism. The communists of course, used the implicit whiteness (the illiberality) of the US against itself. Its massive propaganda effort was aimed at undermined the US’s moral authority on the grounds of claiming that it was hypocritical. The US countered by downplaying the illiberal part of the democracy (ie democracy in the sense of ethnic self-determination), making various concessions, and highlighting the Liberal aspects. There are a number of reasons for this and, no doubt, Jews played a large hand in this.
Ever since the US has been following this logic and has been moving more and more to the liberal democratic model…with the inevitable end of quasi-socialism. Instead of seeing things from a “illiberal” democratic perspective, history and politics are read in Liberal terms.
Politically we mostly have liberal conservatives on one side and Liberal leftists and liberal progressives on the other side of the acceptable spectrum — there is no right, because right presupposed group interest — right is illiberal. As for Liberal conservatives, they are either neocons and explicitly Liberal — in the sense of ‘liberal democracy’ as opposed to your typical radical liberal on the Nytimes — or they are social conservatives. Social conservatives are implicitly illiberal but work and think in the liberal frame. Those are you Becks and Palins with their implicit whiteness as framed in a sense of a ‘cultural, and society open to everyone.’
And this has become the case throughout the West. Given this balance, and the relentless pushing by some, the slide to the left and away from a Western West is inevitable. Given the system, the only issue for debate is whether it will be sooner (Liberal, and Leftists, and allied ethno-groups) or later (Liberal conservatives, Libertarians, and a fringe).
By “communist socialism,” I mean ethnoless socialism. Maoist China would be a good example of ethnosocialism. And Post-Mao China would be a good example of the move towards illiberal conservative capitalism.
From the article:
Whites desperately need films and television-quality shows that portray the devastation wrought by Third World immigration, minority dysfunction and Jewish ethnic enmity, and which do so entertainingly through stories that take White perspectives. … We need films that portray the potential benefits of a White republic, which can be truthfully told in historical dramas of pre-1965 America.
I have several DVDs which feature an anthology of television programs from about 1955 – 1965, and it’s amazing how deeply infiltrated by Jews those shows were, even back then. Jack Benny, Sid Caesar, Jerry Lewis, Carl Reiner, Mel Brooks, Milton Berle, Howard Morris … it seems like almost all the big name comedy stars were Jews. These were Jews whose specialty was stereotyping white people as objects of ridicule. A vastly disproportionate number of the comedy writers were Jews, too.
Note well that most of these Jews weren’t particularly jewy when on camera; they weren’t ethnic looking or sounding. So when they acted like complete imbeciles or poked fun at themselves, they were “portraying” whites. The very un-jewy-looking Jack Benny’s notorious stinginess, for example, wasn’t a running joke about Jews, but just depicted as a quirk of an old white man. The average viewer would probably not even know Benny was a Jew. I know that KM doesn’t think much of Freud, but Freud was the first psychologist, to my knowledge, who made the connection between humor and aggression. In a weird way, it figures that it would be members of the hate tribe who would excel at sublimating their hatred of the white “Other” into comedy.
The question that begs to be asked is why white people, alone of all races, seemingly enjoy seeing themselves consistently mocked, ridiculed, and portrayed as idiots? I would suggest that their individualism makes them incapable of identifying with other whites on a racial basis. That certainly would be consistent with what we see, and what has happened to American society. In their own minds, as a race, they barely exist.
And that, you see, is the problem. There simply is no “White perspective” in America. If there were or ever had been, the Second World War would probably have had a different outcome. Get Smart! — a show which not only attacked all Germans as Nazis, but the entire concept of which was to make white people look stupid (by mocking the great white hero James Bond, who was big at the time) — would never have been the success it was without this masochistic aspect of the white psyche. This masochism not only still exists but has been exacerbated by modern political correctness. Even if such shows as Dodgson calls for could be produced, they’d probably find no audience. Laughing at Jews, negroes, or other non-whites is strengste verboten; it’s forbidden and simply not funny to most whites at all. Nor is celebrating their own past. There’s just no “their” there. “Their” past is no longer theirs, as they have disowned it. After all, those were the bad old days, remember?
Lesacre, you come across as having no hope. I feel the slide, which results in full collapse, can only benefit whites (as an overall group) in the end. Perhaps I’m reading you incorrectly, but you do seem a bit down, one could say.
Justin,
I see this as a self-reinforcing systemic condition. My point is to slow the disease. To do this, illiberal thoughts need to be legitimized.
As for hope, keep in mind that the West as a whole is declining and that other rising powers are not particularly liberal. This will shake things up. The competition with the soviet union, in addition to other influences, led to US to define itself in ‘Liberal’ — in the sense of open — terms. There is no reason that the competition with a future power can not do the reverse. Of course — this itself is not necessarily good. Given the state of change, we would likely end up as a Brazil.
This is where the slowing comes into play. And this is why we need to begin to separate ethnic interests from conservative and nationalist interest. Unapologetic white interest needs to be legitimized. Counting on “implicit” whiteness is of no use. It should be pretty obvious that conservatism and nationalism, and all the not-immediately-assessable and biologically-predisposed whiteness involved can be used against our ethnic interest.
The question is, how? Some on the right focus on ‘race’ as biology — basically this works by exciting those biological-predispositions people have. My suggestion would be that this is a questionable strategy — White people have largely been conditioned not only for ‘raceless thinking’ but against ‘race thinking.’ Many whites — the younger the more so — are now implicitly (in the sense of schemata, mental models, ect) non-white. While, from time to time, they will manifest proracial behavior –this is largely automatic in the sense that riding a bike becomes after it is ridden long enough, or sneezing is. For them to make the connection from ‘ya, huh .. I do feel prowhite to … I going to vote white,’ is a stretch … they are just as likely, under the auspice of the ruling ideology, to decide that they need therapy to cure themselves of their homoracial feelings.
Another is to focus on white culture and white things. I would suggest that the reason “Whites desperately need films and television” is to prevent further decay of their unapologetically ‘white’ schema and scripts and to rejuvenate lost ones. They need more ‘Gone with the Winds’ to get a sense of what was and is lost, before the dots can be rudely connected. You don’t just stick a heaven in church and expect them to play. The problem of course, and why this approach is problematic, is that prowestern whites don’t control the media, so virtually anything can be shaped to reinforce multiculturalism.
It’s like sailing between Scylla and Charybdis. Shall you meet one beast head on on or risk the seduction of the other?
But I happily navigate my ship with the north star in my sights and with full consideration of the situation. There is not much on the horizon, but the winds of geopolitics can be rather fickle — and, as it is, I enjoy adversity.
Are you familiar with Edith Hamilton? –
“This is stern stuff for humanity to live by, as stern in its totally different way as the Sermon on the Mount, but the easy way has never in the long run commanded the allegiance of mankind. Like the early Christians, the Norsemen measured their life by heroic standards. The Christian, however, looked forward to a heaven of eternal joy. The Norseman did not. But it would appear that for unknown centuries, until the Christian missionaries came, heroism was enough…Along with their truly awe-inspiring heroism, these men of the North had delightful common sense. The combination seems impossible, but the poems are here to prove it. By race we are connected with the Norse; our culture goes back to the Greeks.”
The KKK was a general term used for various White American political organizations. To say there was a “First” or a “Second” KKK isn’t really true—things are never that tidy in American politics. What you are looking at are various White political organizations many going back to the American Revolution, and having as their philosophical ideal Jeffersonian democracy & States Rights. White supremacy was understood by these men, and their organizations were the community & the church. Only the best men belonged, or more correctly were asked to belong. You had better be able to trace your family back to the American Revolution, and even better the French & Indian War. These men were the elite of their community—no matter how humble or mighty that community. They could be trusted.
In the North even Tammany Hall kept many of the founding principals up until they had become fully Judaized & Catholicized.