Hollywood Pushes Liberal Agenda
- Thread starter Bart
- Start date
Tom Iron
Mentor
Gentlemen, Just saw "The Tree of life" with Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and a woman named Jessica Chastain. Extremely bad. The two guys mentioned above just took the money and ran. The woman, who may have been attractive once, is so skinny, the skin on her face is stretching tight.
VERY, VERY, BAD movie.
Tom Iron...
VERY, VERY, BAD movie.
Tom Iron...
Thrashen
Hall of Famer
My stringent efforts to avoid all forms of contemporary “comedy for the masses” (films, TV shows, comedians, late night talk show hosts, commercials, etc.) are usually always for good reason. The “punch lines” are inherently artless, stale, and predictable merely because the author (or the network CEO, direct supervisor, or the producer of the author) of each “joke” formulated and transmitted through the corporate media is a member of the same unavoidable ethnicity. No matter what the “packaging,” rest assured that the “author” of all modern “comedy” is a dedicated member of ancient tribe whose unquenchable lust for power, money, media, legislation, bureaucracy, smut, perversion, and physical and/or psychological enslavement of whites is seemingly boundless.
This thread evoked a memory I had of the vile film entitled: “Me, Myself and Irene,” which debuted in theaters in the year 2000…
Eleven years ago, I was around 14 years old (ninth grade?). I remember my friends (at the time) had rented this particular movie for one of our routine “sleepovers” in which we would typically play football, listen to heavy metal, play video games, talk about hot women from our high school, etc.
The premise of this “film” is especially loathsome. The main character, “Charlie” (played by un-funnyman, Jim Carrey), is a gullible, wimpy, emasculated, inane Rhode Island Police Officer…
After years of occupational servitude and personal loneliness, Charlie meets his wife, “Layla” (played by Traylor Howard)…
Immediately following their wedding ceremony, Charlie makes and innocent remark to a black midget limousine driver, which promptly whips the little twerp into a Jesse Jackson-style “you’re a white racist” tirade (Charlie responds accordingly by cowering and getting pummeled)…
Here is the transcript of the altercation…
Layla then repeatedly cheats on Charlie with the midget Negro. Punch-line delivered, gag over, right? Wrong. Despite Layla’s obvious infidelity, during the course of which the black midget is repeatedly implied to have a much larger penis than Charlie (har har, Jews are too funny), Layla gives birth to triplet boys. The new punch-line, predictably, is that the triplets are obviously half-*******…
Several years pass and in one of the most disgusting scenes I’ve ever witnessed, the triplet-Negroes (who Charlie still erroneously believes to be his own sons), now toddlers, are swimming nude in a small pool. A co-worker friend named “Finneren” is attempting to convince Charlie that his sons are the illegitimate Satan-spawn of his wife, Layla, and the black midget. Charlie continues to vehemently deny this fact. Here is their exchange taken directly from the movie’s script…
Despite this irrefutable fact, Charlie raises the mongrels as his “own”…
After years of being cheated on, laughed at, mocked, humiliated, and abused, he develops and “crazy” new personality which allows his to meet Renee Zellweger (“weger” is an appropriate homophone for that c-nt), fall in love, and all is “right again.”
My friends (also 14-years old or so) were laughing hysterically at this demented, sadistic, appallingly anti-white, Jew-penned Fecal Filmography. At the time, I didn’t “speak up” and merely felt ashamed to have even witnessed such a wretched “film.” Today, having since found my spine for these sorts of “things,” I would destroy the DVD, lecture every person in the room, and sent letters/emails to all the pertinent “Hollywood” parties responsible for creating the “film.”
This thread evoked a memory I had of the vile film entitled: “Me, Myself and Irene,” which debuted in theaters in the year 2000…
Eleven years ago, I was around 14 years old (ninth grade?). I remember my friends (at the time) had rented this particular movie for one of our routine “sleepovers” in which we would typically play football, listen to heavy metal, play video games, talk about hot women from our high school, etc.
The premise of this “film” is especially loathsome. The main character, “Charlie” (played by un-funnyman, Jim Carrey), is a gullible, wimpy, emasculated, inane Rhode Island Police Officer…
After years of occupational servitude and personal loneliness, Charlie meets his wife, “Layla” (played by Traylor Howard)…
Immediately following their wedding ceremony, Charlie makes and innocent remark to a black midget limousine driver, which promptly whips the little twerp into a Jesse Jackson-style “you’re a white racist” tirade (Charlie responds accordingly by cowering and getting pummeled)…
Here is the transcript of the altercation…
Layla then repeatedly cheats on Charlie with the midget Negro. Punch-line delivered, gag over, right? Wrong. Despite Layla’s obvious infidelity, during the course of which the black midget is repeatedly implied to have a much larger penis than Charlie (har har, Jews are too funny), Layla gives birth to triplet boys. The new punch-line, predictably, is that the triplets are obviously half-*******…
Several years pass and in one of the most disgusting scenes I’ve ever witnessed, the triplet-Negroes (who Charlie still erroneously believes to be his own sons), now toddlers, are swimming nude in a small pool. A co-worker friend named “Finneren” is attempting to convince Charlie that his sons are the illegitimate Satan-spawn of his wife, Layla, and the black midget. Charlie continues to vehemently deny this fact. Here is their exchange taken directly from the movie’s script…
Despite this irrefutable fact, Charlie raises the mongrels as his “own”…
After years of being cheated on, laughed at, mocked, humiliated, and abused, he develops and “crazy” new personality which allows his to meet Renee Zellweger (“weger” is an appropriate homophone for that c-nt), fall in love, and all is “right again.”
My friends (also 14-years old or so) were laughing hysterically at this demented, sadistic, appallingly anti-white, Jew-penned Fecal Filmography. At the time, I didn’t “speak up” and merely felt ashamed to have even witnessed such a wretched “film.” Today, having since found my spine for these sorts of “things,” I would destroy the DVD, lecture every person in the room, and sent letters/emails to all the pertinent “Hollywood” parties responsible for creating the “film.”
Last edited:
Yes that film is about as bad as it gets. I remember seeing it on video years ago and I remember also the revulsion I felt at the insane idea of a man so pathetic that he could be cuckolded in such a manner. It is also insulting to blacks BTW as despite growing up in the middle of the whitest of cultures his "kids" all turn out to be typical black ghetto thugs, lazy, stupid, and useless.
I had hoped when the chararcter Carey was playing decided to get revenge he would slaughter his negro spawn and the whore who concieved them but alas there was to be no happy ending (for me).
Jim Carey cut his teeth as the resident white pussy on In Living Color so his whole life has been spent as a white token step-n-fetchit. He's been well rewarded for it too.
I have thought some of the things he has done were funny, the fire chief chararcter and the first Pet Detective movie were okay, but he has shown his true "color" many times in other movies.
I had hoped when the chararcter Carey was playing decided to get revenge he would slaughter his negro spawn and the whore who concieved them but alas there was to be no happy ending (for me).
Jim Carey cut his teeth as the resident white pussy on In Living Color so his whole life has been spent as a white token step-n-fetchit. He's been well rewarded for it too.
I have thought some of the things he has done were funny, the fire chief chararcter and the first Pet Detective movie were okay, but he has shown his true "color" many times in other movies.
Highlander
Mentor
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
Unfortunately I paid real $ at the theaters to see that god-awful, vomit-inducing, POS movie.
I wish there was a site (or a thread here in this forum) with a "CM Movie Meter" or "CM Movie Rating" that rated a movie from 1-10, 10 being the worst, as a measure of the amount of Cultural Marxism in it. There's some I could add and rate and it would help prevent me (although I've been very good at it since I saw this movie over ten years ago) and others from viewing, and more importantly, subsidizing, garbage like this one.
I wish there was a site (or a thread here in this forum) with a "CM Movie Meter" or "CM Movie Rating" that rated a movie from 1-10, 10 being the worst, as a measure of the amount of Cultural Marxism in it. There's some I could add and rate and it would help prevent me (although I've been very good at it since I saw this movie over ten years ago) and others from viewing, and more importantly, subsidizing, garbage like this one.
space hillbilly
Mentor
Despite being a full blooded hillbilly I have a few family members in hollywood. So I think I can give a very accurate opinion of their character. I can honestly say theres no lower class of white people on earth.
As for Jim Carry, he's a talentless celebrity who openly copied the comedic style of the earlier Jim Varney. Varney was a comedian that hollywood never wanted....
That's a darn good idea. I think I'll do that!
Thrashen
Hall of Famer
Highlander,
Another “film” you should certainly attempt to avoid is Disney’s latest Marxist-drivel, “Secretariat” (2010).
The premise, astonishingly, has very little to do with the actual horse…with the majority of plot centered around the attention-whore female lead, “Penny Chenery” (played by washed-up, face-lifted actress, Diane Lane)…
Penny, despite being raised on a million-dollar horse training operation in Virginia, has now been relegated to the life of a “lowly” housewife, her “talents” and “charisma” being “squandered” as a mother and slave to her husband and four children in Denver, Colorado.
After the obligatory “morning scene,” depicting a heroic, selfless “mommy” thanklessly helping her kids off the school and her husband off to work, her look of exhaustion and utter boredom with her domesticated life as an enslaved, traditional woman is all too palpable. The cunning “writers” of this Fem-Dirge also made certain to repeat the fact that her “real name” is no longer “Penny Chenery”…but rather, “Penny Tweedy.” You see, marrying a rapist (sorry, a “man”) robs women of seemingly everything, even their own names…
The intended response from the audience: “That strong, beautiful, sexy, intelligent, witty, loving, powerful, capable woman is being suppressed in that mind-numbing household! She deserves so much better than the life her husband has created for her…isn’t there something more important in store for a such a magnificent woman?”
Suddenly, almost miraculously, the audience’s prayers were answered…as Penny receives word that her mother (living on the Virginia-based farm) has suddenly passed away. The heroine, Penny, then begins repeatedly flying to Virginia. She candidly transforms into “RadFem Mode” amongst her siblings in an effort to “save daddy’s farm” from bankruptcy. Her father, meanwhile, is elderly and handicapped. After somehow discovering instances of fiscal dishonesty, she immediately “fires” the head horse trainer, a large white male. The white trainer, who is obviously an evil thief, speeds away during the “tiff” as “Penny the Conqueror” scowls at him (“I am woman, hear me roar!”).
The intended response from the audience: “Boy, even when she’s angry, she upholds her unparalleled zenith of strength and beauty! Good riddance to that horrible white man…but Penny, despite her immense superfluity of talents, doesn’t know how to train race horses. Who amongst her father’s remaining employees can she trust?”
Never fear, as the “Yin” to the malevolent white horse trainer’s “Yang” can be found in the form of gracious Negro named “Eddie”…
Naturally, Eddie is not only an tremendously dedicated employee (a hard worker), but he’s also sexually non-threatening, innocent, kind, gentle, soft-spoken, polite, and has an incredible, almost supernatural ability to “communicate” with the horses.
The intended audience response: ”Gosh, he’s just so great…all African American males could be so wonderful if only they weren’t oppressed by white men. Thank God that delightful, caring woman took this humble black man under her sagely feminine wing.”
Penny then hires a white head horse trainer, “Lucien” (played by intentionally-zany, John Malkovich). He provides some of his typically unfunny, (non-)comedic rants. Penny, the “barrier breaker” that she is, bursts into a “male only” country club in order to secure the financial investment of a rich white man in order to fund her “saving daddy’s farm” efforts.
Sometime later, Penny (with no actual knowledge of horse racing) selects the breeding rights (that eventually produce “Secretariat”) based on a “coin flip” between her and a knowledgeable and extremely successful white owner of a rival horse farm. How convenient. Of course, Secretariat initially fails to progress, causing Penny to “wonder” if she made the “right decision” in leaving her life and family behind for weeks at a time, constantly flying back and forth across the country simply to micromanage the training regiment of a race horse (despite the fact that she admittedly knows nothing about the sport or its training techniques). Quite naturally, she promptly abandons this momentary “I love my family” act of weakness when, under the tutelage of Penny, the Negro, and Lucien, Secretariat becomes a phenomenon.
It’s extremely important to note that Penny’s husband (John Tweedy), the real “victim” in this godforsaken “marriage,” exists only as a prop, a yes-man, a paycheck, a “faceless oppressor” with no real lines or personality other than to serve as the voice of “conservative disapproval” of his wife’s constant jet-setting whilst neglecting her family and to half-heartedly oppose the “exciting advancement” of Penny’s new life as a “big shot woman” succeeding in the “man’s world” of horse racing. However, Penny’s husband doesn’t much in the way of “disapproval.” He’s mostly shown with a with a look of “disappointment” or a bewildered smile in the background while the children watch several of Secretariat’s races on TV…
The intended audience response: “Penny’s husband is realizing that he was wrong and she was right. She can succeed in a man’s world. She doesn’t need him.
Oh, and see the daughter on the left on the photo? In the film, she openly expresses hardcore communist and “hippie” dogmas…
Husband Tweedy, the odious dictator that he is, refers to her views as “commie crap.” Boy, is dad lame or what?
When Secretariat wins the first two legs of the Triple Crown, Penny, always acting in her loud-mouthed, self-absorbed, conceited, surly, female chauvinist pig fashion, begins “taunting” the owners of a rival horse during a press conference for an upcoming race. Her comments are so witty and funny and loose, whereas the rival horse’s owners are hapless, slow-witted, angry, and, you guessed it, white males…
I one scene, a media interviewer refers to her as “Penny Tweedy”…she promptly corrects him by stating her maiden name, “Penny Chenery.”
I found this absurdly-billed “family film” to rigidly adhere to the white-abhorring, white male-detesting, female supremacist, self-centered, family-last, money-first (with a twist of “tokenism”) principles set forth by the loathsome maestros of this increasingly-woeful “Anglosphere.”
Attachments
Last edited:
Wow, what a great review, Thrashen. Amazingly well done, way to point out all the Poltical correct cliches in all modern movies -
1) evil white male as antagonist
2) strong, beautiful, intelligent, morally superior female (usually white in order to appeal to white female liberals)
3) the loyal, intelligent, extremely capable but underused, noble, morally superior black companion
4) more white male antagonists- 2 dimensional, conservative, racist, sexist etc.
5) at least one physical/verbal beatdown of a male by a female is usually included.
I really like the way that you point out the "movie cliches" as well as the "pc cliches", like the womans crisis concerning wether she is doing the right thing, occasional setbacks etc, but in the end prevailing against the evil white conservative enemy.
The only verdict that is fitting for all these (identical) pc movies is : YAWN!
1) evil white male as antagonist
2) strong, beautiful, intelligent, morally superior female (usually white in order to appeal to white female liberals)
3) the loyal, intelligent, extremely capable but underused, noble, morally superior black companion
4) more white male antagonists- 2 dimensional, conservative, racist, sexist etc.
5) at least one physical/verbal beatdown of a male by a female is usually included.
I really like the way that you point out the "movie cliches" as well as the "pc cliches", like the womans crisis concerning wether she is doing the right thing, occasional setbacks etc, but in the end prevailing against the evil white conservative enemy.
The only verdict that is fitting for all these (identical) pc movies is : YAWN!
Highlander
Mentor
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
Excellent take on Secretariat, Thrashen. Thanks for sharing. I almost went and saw that movie simply because it took place in an era that was much more culturally palatable than today. I consider that era to be "The End" of this county's traditional era, if that makes any sense...meaning, right before Cultural Marxism became the cultural norm and Traditionalism became a thing of the past. Now I will know to avoid it like the plague. This is a great thread.
2010's Secretariat is the Marxist Liberals answer to 2003's SEABISCUIT. I've not seen either film, but after seeing Thrashen's remarkable review on Secretariat, I'll certainly avoid it.
Seabiscuit's is still regarded as the better race horse movie by many as it earned more than twice the amount Secretariat grossed... $148 million to $60 million.
Seabiscuit's is still regarded as the better race horse movie by many as it earned more than twice the amount Secretariat grossed... $148 million to $60 million.
If you want to talk about Hollyweird pushing a liberal agenda then look no further then Dancing with the Stars. This is a program that skews heavily to the older and female audience as older people are more likely to want to watch ballroom dancing. But if you want to see this type of ballroom dancing then you can be sure that the darkest foulest negro will be paired with the hottest sexiest blonde. Just a couple of generations ago you couldn't have even shown that type of thing on TV now it's the norm.
So all those old people that grew up in the era when misengenation was considered the lowest nastiest sickest thing a person can do get to enjoy having it rubbed right into their face. Don't like it?--too bad old white fart, you lost the war now suffer through the aftermath.
Of course they have to rachet it up a notch, race mixing isn't enough, now they have one of the most repulsive quasi celebrities--Chastity "Chazz" Bono in her new ugly male incarnation dancing with the sexy girls. Funny how Cher's kid--a pro gay celebrity that was often a subject of female impersonators has a daughter that is now impersonating a man!! Perversion all around.
I expect full on gay dancing--men with men--- in about 5 years. The bottom gets even nearer.
So all those old people that grew up in the era when misengenation was considered the lowest nastiest sickest thing a person can do get to enjoy having it rubbed right into their face. Don't like it?--too bad old white fart, you lost the war now suffer through the aftermath.
Of course they have to rachet it up a notch, race mixing isn't enough, now they have one of the most repulsive quasi celebrities--Chastity "Chazz" Bono in her new ugly male incarnation dancing with the sexy girls. Funny how Cher's kid--a pro gay celebrity that was often a subject of female impersonators has a daughter that is now impersonating a man!! Perversion all around.
I expect full on gay dancing--men with men--- in about 5 years. The bottom gets even nearer.
DixieDestroyer
Hall of Famer
This little ditty goes out to the sodomite "transformer" Chaz Bono....
[video=youtube;b6dyShc9SJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6dyShc9SJY[/video]
[video=youtube;b6dyShc9SJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6dyShc9SJY[/video]
knightedsoldier5000
Mentor
I find the interracial dancing much more offensive than the Chaz Bozo addition, which I also find repulsive.
Highlander
Mentor
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
It's good to see there are at least some in the entertainment industry, even if considered somewhat on the "fringe", that have a very strong negative opinion of Glee and at the general state of debauchery that passes for entertainment today in Amerika 2.0, Slash's, in particular:
Glee Wins People’s Choice Awards, Slash, Dave Grohl not Among Fans
W.F. Price on January 12, 2012
I’ve only recently heard of the teen drama Glee, which is evidently a big hit with the teenybopper crowd. The other day, I came across it while flicking through channels and forced myself to watch some of the show. First, I have to say that I now do believe the conservative Christians are correct in saying that the media is pushing a gay agenda. Of course, I don’t really care (one can always change the channel), but it was so blatant on Glee that I couldn’t help but laugh. The show revolved around a “glee club” (an insipid American high school institution for you Brits), cheerleaders, football players, gay football players, football players in drag, football players with cheerleaders, with gay cheerleaders, etc. There was even Broadway-style singing and dancing. Glee is about the gayest show I’ve ever seen on TV. Even the name is gay.
The gay issue aside, there was one thing about the show that, although unsurprising, was still obnoxious: it features the same old negative stereotypes about normal males. The teen sluts (both gay and straight) are the heros, while the villains are generally straight or straight-acting males (why is it always considered a problem when homosexual men act like… men?). It’s the kind of show our readers are not likely to watch (for obvious reasons), but those of us with kids might want to at least keep an eye on it, as it pushes teen promiscuity (both homo and hetero) and presents ordinary males as dangerous, violent bigots.
One nice thing to come out the Glee controversy is the revelation that Foo Fighters frontman and former Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl evidently has a pair. Angry about being pressured to perform on Glee, Grohl expressed distaste for the show and its creator in rather strong terms.
Grohl’s remarks to The Hollywood Reporter:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/0...hoice-awards-slash-dave-grohl-not-among-fans/
Glee Wins People’s Choice Awards, Slash, Dave Grohl not Among Fans
W.F. Price on January 12, 2012
I’ve only recently heard of the teen drama Glee, which is evidently a big hit with the teenybopper crowd. The other day, I came across it while flicking through channels and forced myself to watch some of the show. First, I have to say that I now do believe the conservative Christians are correct in saying that the media is pushing a gay agenda. Of course, I don’t really care (one can always change the channel), but it was so blatant on Glee that I couldn’t help but laugh. The show revolved around a “glee club” (an insipid American high school institution for you Brits), cheerleaders, football players, gay football players, football players in drag, football players with cheerleaders, with gay cheerleaders, etc. There was even Broadway-style singing and dancing. Glee is about the gayest show I’ve ever seen on TV. Even the name is gay.
The gay issue aside, there was one thing about the show that, although unsurprising, was still obnoxious: it features the same old negative stereotypes about normal males. The teen sluts (both gay and straight) are the heros, while the villains are generally straight or straight-acting males (why is it always considered a problem when homosexual men act like… men?). It’s the kind of show our readers are not likely to watch (for obvious reasons), but those of us with kids might want to at least keep an eye on it, as it pushes teen promiscuity (both homo and hetero) and presents ordinary males as dangerous, violent bigots.
One nice thing to come out the Glee controversy is the revelation that Foo Fighters frontman and former Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl evidently has a pair. Angry about being pressured to perform on Glee, Grohl expressed distaste for the show and its creator in rather strong terms.
Grohl’s remarks to The Hollywood Reporter:
It’s every band’s right, you shouldn’t have to do f—ing Glee…
And then the guy who created Glee is so offended that we’re not, like, begging to be on his f—ing show… f— that guy for thinking anybody and everybody should want to do Glee…
I watched 10 minutes. It’s not my thing…
The Glee guy, what a f—ing jerk. Slash was the first one. He wanted to do Guns ‘n’ Roses and Slash is like, ‘I hate f—ing musicals. It’s worse than Grease.’ Then [Murphy's] like, ‘Well, of course he’d say that, he’s a washed up ol’ rock star, that’s what they f—ing do.’ And then Kings of Leon say, ‘No, we don’t want to be on your show.’ And then he’s like, ‘Snotty little ********…’ And it’s just like, Dude, maybe not everyone loves Glee. Me included…
Slash, for his part, is reported to have said the following about Glee:And then the guy who created Glee is so offended that we’re not, like, begging to be on his f—ing show… f— that guy for thinking anybody and everybody should want to do Glee…
I watched 10 minutes. It’s not my thing…
The Glee guy, what a f—ing jerk. Slash was the first one. He wanted to do Guns ‘n’ Roses and Slash is like, ‘I hate f—ing musicals. It’s worse than Grease.’ Then [Murphy's] like, ‘Well, of course he’d say that, he’s a washed up ol’ rock star, that’s what they f—ing do.’ And then Kings of Leon say, ‘No, we don’t want to be on your show.’ And then he’s like, ‘Snotty little ********…’ And it’s just like, Dude, maybe not everyone loves Glee. Me included…
In the current climate of what’s going on in entertainment these days, I try to be more optimistic than negative because it’s really easy to get negative about it, but I draw the line at Glee. Glee is worse than Grease and Grease is bad enough…. When Grease came out I was like, “Oh, c’mon, give me a break.” Actually, I look at Grease now and think: Between High School Musical and Glee, Grease was a brilliant work of art.
At least some folks in the entertainment business still have standards…
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/0...hoice-awards-slash-dave-grohl-not-among-fans/
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,872
Yeah Highlander, that is a piece of good news, But how was Grohl pressured to perform on Glee? I missed something.
I keep trying to take members of CF's advice and not watch as much T.V., but while scanning through some channels I came across "GayGlee" and I had no idea what is was until after about 5 seconds it became apparent that it was for F@gs and L3$b!@n$.
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I do care! Yeah, I can choose not to watch or change the channel, but there's something bigger going on here that bares no understanding!
Years ago you never saw much of anything about homosexuality on cable or local T.V., then you started to see sick shows appear on "GayShowTime", HellsBoxOffice, etc., now you can basically see about anything on your local T.V. channel.
Yes, I have cable, but just basic cable, because there are channels that carry classic movies, (50's,60's,70's era) of which I am a fan, but I also have children and no amount of constant guidance will keep them from occasionally running across shows like "GayGlee". These kinds of shows used to reserved for late nights on cable, but now it's considered normal. It's not normal too me! It's quite disgusting!
It seems like just yesterday when everyone seemed embarrassed or ashamed when Ellen "Degenerate" came out and kissed another woman on T.V. Now, just a few years later this has become acceptable.
Many of Hollyweird's big stars have even played gay roles in movies and I've heard the "pressured" thing before. How are they pressured, no, there's something else at work here!!
I guess I will have to cancel cable and throw my T.V. in the trash.
Good Post, Highlander.
Last edited:
The corporate media's totalitarian Cultural Marxist agenda is a mixture of in your face promotion of miscegenation, male homosexuality, feminist superheroes, virulent man-hating, and lesbianism, the latter especially in porn. I can remember in the 1970s when Playboy and Penthouse had their first photo spreads showing two women together; it was very daring for the time. Now it's a shock when women aren't shown together doing all kinds of things to each other.
Just as the "civil rights" movement has been about eternal vengeance against the White race through endless psychological and demographic warfare against Whites and inflaming minorities with anger and bitterness, so-called "feminism" and militant homosexuality are about replacing heterosexuality and the traditional family with homosexuality as the norm. The rise of the homosexual agenda to a place of dominance over the past generation is perhaps the most amazing "feat" of all by the destroyers of Western, Christian culture, but then again "feminism" paved the way by wrecking the harmony between men and women. Once the bonds between men and women have been systematically sabotaged -- the greatest of all crimes -- any perversion and degradation becomes possible to inflict on a society.
Just as the "civil rights" movement has been about eternal vengeance against the White race through endless psychological and demographic warfare against Whites and inflaming minorities with anger and bitterness, so-called "feminism" and militant homosexuality are about replacing heterosexuality and the traditional family with homosexuality as the norm. The rise of the homosexual agenda to a place of dominance over the past generation is perhaps the most amazing "feat" of all by the destroyers of Western, Christian culture, but then again "feminism" paved the way by wrecking the harmony between men and women. Once the bonds between men and women have been systematically sabotaged -- the greatest of all crimes -- any perversion and degradation becomes possible to inflict on a society.
Highlander
Mentor
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
Carolina Speed and Don...very thoughtful and accurate takes on this. I'm just glad I'm not feeling alone in this and it appears that others, obviously here at CF, as well as others as those mentioned in the article, want nothing to do with this as well. That is at least somewhat encouraging.
Yeah, Carolina, for me, outside of some sporting events, and just a very few handful of movies, as well as Judge Napolitano on FBN, the programming is an insult to my intelligence as well as to my cultural and natural heritage. Ironically, the movie "Network" was on TCM a couple evenings ago and it's the first time I watched it all the way through. That was made in 1976 and covered many of the issues talked about here and that was when TV programs were far more family-friendly and meaningful than today. Again, a movie in the past that provides a gauge in history as to how much our culture and society has devolved as well as how things are really run and who runs them.
Going through the channels last night, in particular, was horrible. If it wasn't shows glorifying pregnant 16-year-old sluts or the new "Karate Kid" featuring a cornrow black twerp (where the plot is that his family moves to China and then the "racist" Chinese boys bully him, so he learns Karate and kicks their ass. Of course, a cute Chinese girl must fall in love with him too because what girl couldn't be attracted to a cornrow black twerp?)
Instead of that plot, why not have the plot be about a wimpy Asian high school Freshman student going to school in Philly, Oakland, or some other big city that gets harassed by the thuggish blacks in the school (many real cases like this the past few years) and so he takes up Karate and kicks their ass? Of course, reality like that cannot be shown as it goes against the grain of our intended indoctrination.
Also, Klitschko was on Conan last night and it was just a bunch of buffoonery. Nothing mentioned about his skills or past fights or future fights or anything like that. Just a bunch of nonsense, although Klitschko did showcase some charm, humor, and intelligence. That was the only positive thing about it, otherwise it was pure banality.
If the Pats or Packs are eliminated early from the playoffs, I'll be saving $80 a month as well by turning in my cable box.
Yeah, Carolina, for me, outside of some sporting events, and just a very few handful of movies, as well as Judge Napolitano on FBN, the programming is an insult to my intelligence as well as to my cultural and natural heritage. Ironically, the movie "Network" was on TCM a couple evenings ago and it's the first time I watched it all the way through. That was made in 1976 and covered many of the issues talked about here and that was when TV programs were far more family-friendly and meaningful than today. Again, a movie in the past that provides a gauge in history as to how much our culture and society has devolved as well as how things are really run and who runs them.
Going through the channels last night, in particular, was horrible. If it wasn't shows glorifying pregnant 16-year-old sluts or the new "Karate Kid" featuring a cornrow black twerp (where the plot is that his family moves to China and then the "racist" Chinese boys bully him, so he learns Karate and kicks their ass. Of course, a cute Chinese girl must fall in love with him too because what girl couldn't be attracted to a cornrow black twerp?)
Instead of that plot, why not have the plot be about a wimpy Asian high school Freshman student going to school in Philly, Oakland, or some other big city that gets harassed by the thuggish blacks in the school (many real cases like this the past few years) and so he takes up Karate and kicks their ass? Of course, reality like that cannot be shown as it goes against the grain of our intended indoctrination.
Also, Klitschko was on Conan last night and it was just a bunch of buffoonery. Nothing mentioned about his skills or past fights or future fights or anything like that. Just a bunch of nonsense, although Klitschko did showcase some charm, humor, and intelligence. That was the only positive thing about it, otherwise it was pure banality.
If the Pats or Packs are eliminated early from the playoffs, I'll be saving $80 a month as well by turning in my cable box.
Thrashen
Hall of Famer
My wife and I watch my favorite show, Jeopardy, every night and she tallies my score on a piece of paper. The limp-wristed Alex Trebek is annoying and pompous at times, but the show’s trivia is fantastic. Due to my regrettable “photographic memory,†I’ve been attempting to become a Jeopardy contestant, particularly a few years back while I was in college. Easier said than done, unfortunately.
The only other shows I/we really watch are home improvement stuff (This Old House, etc), animal documentaries, football and MMA, and several shows on the “History Channel†(American Restoration, Ancient Aliens, etc).
whiteathlete33
Hall of Famer
I watch maybe five hours of tv a week. My favorite shows are Married with Children, Dog The Bounty Hunter, and Peoples Court. For anyone whose never seen Dog, I highly recommend it. It does tend to get violent sometimes but Dog is the man.
Carolina Speed
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,872
Once again Don was able to articulate was I was getting at with impeccable insight.
It's always a pleasure reading comments from the many intelligent posters on CF.
I'm not always able to put into words what I believe the way others do on CF; Don, FootballDad, Thrashen, Jaxvid, Tom Iron, etc., and so many others, but I hope I can get my meaning out there where ya'll can understand.
Again, always a pleasure to be a part of CF!
Thanks!
Last edited:
I was impressed by this article.
Our Weapon: The Truth
by Hadding Scott
Some of our people seem to regard honesty as an impediment. More than that, they think it is clever, having ascertained the crooked practices of some of our racial adversaries, to do as they do. This is a wrong attitude.
The tactics that have been used by our enemies will not always work for us. This is, in the first place, because what our enemies have been doing is not what we are trying to do. Tactics that will work for corrupting and weakening a people are often not applicable for the opposite purpose. In the second place, we and our supporters are not like our enemies. We are a different kind of people with a different character. While Jews and Blacks and other non-White groups will put group-solidarity ahead of truth, the best of our people will only support a spokesman if he tells the truth. Finally, we can only have a significant impact with our small voice if what we say carries weight. We have to cultivate credibility; otherwise there will be no reason to trust what we say over and against the all-pervasive propaganda of the anti-White mass-media.
Counter-Propaganda
There are two different phases of the truth that we have to tell. The most fundamental truth for us will consist in debunking the system’s propaganda, to the extent that we can do this convincingly based on credible sources.
Modern propaganda as defined by Jacques Ellul is the systematic immersion ofthe public in a particular way of looking at the world. Modern propaganda can only be conducted by a state or quasi-state controlling mass-media and educational systems.
Immersion is necessary because strong and uniform belief can only be maintained (in a large, population) in the absence of contradiction. This is a great vulnerability for the system. It means that effective counter-propaganda is much less expensive than the propaganda that it disrupts. There is great power in that one small child who says that the emperor has no clothes.
The most obvious form of counter-propaganda is media criticism. Historical revisionism is another form of counter-propaganda. Actions such as public marches can also be effective, at a more basic level, insofar as they shatter the illusion of unanimity and set an example of nonconformity.
Ellul mentions that winning people over is not always the immediate goal of (counter) propaganda; often the goal is simply to soften the pre-existing convictions. As blatantly false and unpleasant in application as the doctrine of racial equality has been, if we can simply punch holes in the wall of fear about questioning it, we will have made an effective counter-propaganda, because perception and cognition will gradually accomplish the rest. The fact that somebody expresses a forbidden thought, and forces the system and the public to tolerate it, is already a victory that puts the system into a defensive posture.
The major effect of counter-propaganda will not be a swarm of recruits wishing to sign a dotted line and pay dues to a racial organization. Do not be discouraged when this fails to occur. Rather, take note of a more subtle and widespread effect, the increased willingness of the public that has been exposed to your position to regard it as worthy of discussion, or at least tolerable. The technique is to repeat the message in a civil manner until it no longer alarms anybody. This can be accomplished on a university campus, on a talk-radio station (if the approach be gentle and cautious), and elsewhere. In this way you can broaden the range of acceptable discourse so that others too will begin to say some of what they really think. Hence the desperate effort of our enemies to shut down AmRen conferences and vilify Pat Buchanan for appearing on James Edwards’ radio show. They know that small leaks can become a deluge.
Counter-propaganda is the form of truth-telling whereby we will encounter the greatest acceptance, because the majority of White people have not been in favor of what has been happening to our societies, and because counter-propaganda is not an attempt to generate belief, but to dispel a demonstrably false belief that causes discomfort.
Getting more people to be comfortable with saying what they really think on racial matters is only the barest beginning. What most of our people really think is usually either too moderate or too unreasoned to solve our problems. In fact, you could say that what most of our people have in regard to racial matters are not really thoughts at all, but mere attitudes. What we need is a revolution in the thinking of our people, a revolution in which oft-repeated cant is smashed with well-grounded truth.
Reliance on the truth as our weapon dictates the kinds of people that we can reach. While no project can fare well long-term if it defies the truth, it remains the case that not everybody is equally committed to the truth. Not everybody is even equally equipped to recognize what truth is. We have to reach the people who are capable of being convinced through reason and presentation of facts.
We cannot win over the masses. Most people are more impressed with how often and from how many sources they hear a claim than with whether or not it makes sense—and that’s a problem because we do not own the mass media. Nor can we win the support of those calculating people who make their major decisions based on narrow self-interest rather than with an eye toward what is right, because we do not have vast quantities of money with which to tempt them.
Indeed, such people are not reliable even when they seem to have been won over, because the next gust of wind from big media will blow them in the other direction and make them forget whatever they said today. Consequently it is a terrible waste, when our cause has very limited resources, to aim specifically for mass appeal.
There is a very great advantage in not trying to win over the broad masses directly. It means that one may state the entire truth instead of tailoring one’s statements in accord with what our enemies have conditioned the general public to accept. By choosing not to dance around various taboos, one retains the ability to make sense, which is crucial for appealing to thinkers, and for bringing them to the necessary radical conclusions.
We have to speak to the deeper souls, the people driven by idealism. These are people with a conscience and a disdain for falsehood, people who have an inner voice that objects to following the crowd when the crowd is demonstrably wrong.
Counter-propaganda should be directed especially toward the people most capable of skepticism, toward thinking people and toward those whose experience tells them that they have been ill-served by the establishment and its propaganda, or people (like farmers and truckers, Robert Mathews’ favorite demographic when he was still strictly legal) who spend much of their lives away from social pressures, or whose daily lives provide experiences that contradict equality propaganda as a matter of course (like veterinarians and police).
Truth has to be paramount. The most significant figure in the American racialist cause since World War II —William Luther Pierce — was largely, perhaps primarily, motivated by indignation at the lies all around him.
Bearers of a New Worldview
Acceptance will be more difficult when we go beyond refuting attacks on White pride and identity, to the explanation of why these attacks occur and who does them, and even more when we affirm a new way of looking at the world based on the recognition of biological group-interests. Acquiring our worldview presupposes not only conscience but a fair amount of ability to reason. It is easy enough to demonstrate unfair treatment of White people by the mass media and the government and various institutions, and to debunk the anti-White messages that these institutions promulgate. But to adopt a new worldview, abandoning the traditional conservative assumptions that have allowed our situation to degenerate, requires some real independence of thought. While counter-propaganda will appeal to a significant portion of the general White audience, a smaller number will be open to the new worldview that we present.
Our cause is thus destined to have an inner and an outer circle, generally agreeing from the gut on earthly goals, because we are of the same blood, but using different metaphysical scaffoldings to make sense of this shared racial instinct. This not at all to say that the doctrine of the inner circle should be a secret: it should be candidly admitted, just as scientists state findings.
That inner circle has to be utterly convinced that what it represents is correct, with no reliance on anything dubious, and no attempts at deception, so far as the message itself is concerned. This clarity will facilitate unanimity within that core group, and also engenders idealistic persistence. A firm conviction of truth sets the soul on fire. People who believe in what they are doing and in what they are saying will be much more indefatigable than some cheap con-men lacking the conviction that what they say is right.
How a minority view can prevail
Directing efforts at persuasion toward the conscientious minority means that, instead of trying to build a mass-movement straight away, we are recruiting an elite cadre that will be able to wield influence over the multitude when it gains the requisite strength.
It has always been organized elites that have really been responsible for the choices made by multitudes, wherever those choices have in any way deviated from the immediate path of least resistance. It’s a democratic delusion that crowds exhibit any kind of decisiveness without having been accordingly trained or directed.
This is actually a source of hope for us, because it means that we only have to win a relatively small number of converts to our cause in order to be situated to prevail.
What we are building initially must be like the philosophical schools of ancient Greece, winning converts from the thinking minority, rather than a modern mass political movement that tries to win general popular support. Thus at this point at least, the role of the American Third Position is to spread the message of White advocacy as much as possible with the media available to it. This will have a huge effect on thinking people even in the absence of electoral victories.
Today’s ideological think tanks, which wield enormous influence, are like a cheap imitation of the ancient philosophical schools. Think-tanks are to philosophical schools what Ayn Rand is to Plato — but nonetheless they have been enormously influential. This is how laissé-faire economics made its comeback in the late 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century, because somebody set up a think-tank, the Institute for Economic Affairs, to elaborate that idea, and to present it constantly until somebody started to take it seriously.
Men like Fisher and Smedley were at the very margins of respectability in the 1950s, and the media never bothered with them. They were ignored because practically all politicians and commentators from left and right believed in the Keynsian idea that the state should intervene to manage the economy. Everyone was convinced that left to itself the free-market led to disaster – as had happened in the 1930s…. To their opponents Fisher and Smedley were right-wing dinosaurs. But they both were convinced they were a part of the future….
So one day Fisher plucked up courage and went to see Hayek at the LSE in London where Hayek was a professor. Fisher asked Hayek for advice – should he go into politics to try and stop the oncoming disaster? Hayek told Fisher bluntly that this would be useless because politicians are trapped by the prevailing public opinion. Instead, Hayek said, Fisher should try and do something much more ambitious – he should try and change the very way politicians think – and the way to do that was to alter the climate of opinion that surrounded the political class. Fisher wrote down what Hayek said to him.
“He explained his view that the decisive influence in the battle of ideas and policy was wielded by intellectuals whom he characterised as the ‘second-hand dealer in ideas’.” [Adam Curtis, The Curse of Tina]
The purpose of the “scholarly institute” that Fisher and Smedley formed was not to influence the general public directly, which they had no possibility of doing, but to convince members of the opinion-forming elite that their ideology made sense. Over the course of several decades the prevailing assumptions in economic policy have been completely reversed as a result of these efforts.
Radical social change begins with the efforts of a few fanatics who have an idea that attracts like-minded others. Revolutions in general have been accomplished by conspiracies numerically equivalent to mere single-digit percentages of the population. Even the normal electoral process in the United States, which is supposed to represent the public will, is in fact heavily influenced by militant minorities with their own channels of communication for maintaining their worldviews and coordinating their actions, like the Christian Zionist faction in the Republican Party that made George W. Bush the unassailable frontrunner more than a year before the presidential election of 2000. This faction also gave Rick Perry an instant, undeserved frontrunner status in 2011 (which he fumbled). Likewise, the influence of the far left in the Democratic Party during the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century was far out of proportion to their numbers among registered Democrats.
It is always a militant minority that makes history. The majority simply waits to see what happens.
We have the truth on our side, and with this we should be able to win idealists and thinkers as converts and build an effective cadre. The only other factor needed is money — not huge amounts of money such as the system has at its disposal, but enough that the organization can continue to function and grow. There are certainly people with healthy racial instincts who have money. With a solid message respectably presented and a stable and responsible leadership — which unfortunately has been all too rare in the racialist cause — some of that money is likely to be forthcoming.
Since we are relying on reason, we do not need to be able to saturate the general public with our messages. We only need a bit of publicity to attract the right people to our cadre, because alert and intelligent people will take note and seek us out if our message is right and we don’t spoil it with dishonesty or some other egregious display of faulty character.
Our Careful Rhetoric
The fact that we do not control mass-media means that we cannot lie the way our enemies lie and make it stick, if we were so inclined. We cannot use questionable sources either. We have to be careful about what we say, because anything of importance that we say, if it gets much attention at all, will have to survive intense criticism.
The beginning and foundation of our rhetoric must consist of facts that are either self-evident, or at least public knowledge that anybody can access. Such facts are to be found in news-reports, and on government and academic web sites. Sources should always be named so that the argument will not depend on the personal credibility of any White racialist but on the credibility of a mainstream or otherwise authoritative source. This is the only way that any intelligent person not already having faith in what we say can be brought around to our view.
The weekly racialist sermons of Dr. William Pierce exemplify this kind of cautious rhetoric. (Some relevant examples: The Destructive Media, 13 April 1996, contrasting coverage of shootings at Fort Bragg and Fort Pendleton; The Lesson of Amy Biehl, 8 August 1998; The Fayetteville Murders, 29 August 1998; Hate Crime, 10 October 1998; A Trial in Jasper, 6 March 1999; Jewish Democracy, 4 September 1999; Hardheaded Altruism, 2 October 1999, contrasting crimes of Augusto Pinochet and Ehud Barak.) A common formula that he used was to contrast some atrocious crime against normal White people that for some reason did not become a subject of widespread reporting, with the disproportionate coverage of some offense committed against a favored minority that, upon comparison, was really not as deserving of attention. In both instances, mainstream media are the sources, because their reporting is what is under scrutiny. Thus a convincing demonstration of anti-White media-bias is constructed.
As a result, the audience also learns about the agenda of those who control the media. In this phase of the argument the facts may be a little less well known, but still publicly verifiable. Thus within a single 20-minute speech, Dr. Pierce progressed from counter-propaganda of the most basic kind to radical criticism of the central institution upon which this democracy depends, without ever asking his listeners to take a leap of faith. This is the kind of message that can be taken seriously by serious people.
The fact that we do not have mass-media in our hands means that instead of appealing to the irrational multitude, our initial appeal must be to the deep souls who are capable of preferring what is correct over what is ubiquitous. It means that instead of an irrational propaganda, we have to respect our audience and give them the undiluted truth that they desire, and educate them through channels of communication separate from the mass-media that are hostile to us. As this organization of dedicated, capable, and likeminded White people develops, the possibilities for affecting mass-opinion and events in general will increase.
Conclusion: Reasons for Optimism
Our Weapon: The Truth
by Hadding Scott
Some of our people seem to regard honesty as an impediment. More than that, they think it is clever, having ascertained the crooked practices of some of our racial adversaries, to do as they do. This is a wrong attitude.
The tactics that have been used by our enemies will not always work for us. This is, in the first place, because what our enemies have been doing is not what we are trying to do. Tactics that will work for corrupting and weakening a people are often not applicable for the opposite purpose. In the second place, we and our supporters are not like our enemies. We are a different kind of people with a different character. While Jews and Blacks and other non-White groups will put group-solidarity ahead of truth, the best of our people will only support a spokesman if he tells the truth. Finally, we can only have a significant impact with our small voice if what we say carries weight. We have to cultivate credibility; otherwise there will be no reason to trust what we say over and against the all-pervasive propaganda of the anti-White mass-media.
Counter-Propaganda
There are two different phases of the truth that we have to tell. The most fundamental truth for us will consist in debunking the system’s propaganda, to the extent that we can do this convincingly based on credible sources.
Modern propaganda as defined by Jacques Ellul is the systematic immersion ofthe public in a particular way of looking at the world. Modern propaganda can only be conducted by a state or quasi-state controlling mass-media and educational systems.
Immersion is necessary because strong and uniform belief can only be maintained (in a large, population) in the absence of contradiction. This is a great vulnerability for the system. It means that effective counter-propaganda is much less expensive than the propaganda that it disrupts. There is great power in that one small child who says that the emperor has no clothes.
The most obvious form of counter-propaganda is media criticism. Historical revisionism is another form of counter-propaganda. Actions such as public marches can also be effective, at a more basic level, insofar as they shatter the illusion of unanimity and set an example of nonconformity.
Ellul mentions that winning people over is not always the immediate goal of (counter) propaganda; often the goal is simply to soften the pre-existing convictions. As blatantly false and unpleasant in application as the doctrine of racial equality has been, if we can simply punch holes in the wall of fear about questioning it, we will have made an effective counter-propaganda, because perception and cognition will gradually accomplish the rest. The fact that somebody expresses a forbidden thought, and forces the system and the public to tolerate it, is already a victory that puts the system into a defensive posture.
The major effect of counter-propaganda will not be a swarm of recruits wishing to sign a dotted line and pay dues to a racial organization. Do not be discouraged when this fails to occur. Rather, take note of a more subtle and widespread effect, the increased willingness of the public that has been exposed to your position to regard it as worthy of discussion, or at least tolerable. The technique is to repeat the message in a civil manner until it no longer alarms anybody. This can be accomplished on a university campus, on a talk-radio station (if the approach be gentle and cautious), and elsewhere. In this way you can broaden the range of acceptable discourse so that others too will begin to say some of what they really think. Hence the desperate effort of our enemies to shut down AmRen conferences and vilify Pat Buchanan for appearing on James Edwards’ radio show. They know that small leaks can become a deluge.
Counter-propaganda is the form of truth-telling whereby we will encounter the greatest acceptance, because the majority of White people have not been in favor of what has been happening to our societies, and because counter-propaganda is not an attempt to generate belief, but to dispel a demonstrably false belief that causes discomfort.
Getting more people to be comfortable with saying what they really think on racial matters is only the barest beginning. What most of our people really think is usually either too moderate or too unreasoned to solve our problems. In fact, you could say that what most of our people have in regard to racial matters are not really thoughts at all, but mere attitudes. What we need is a revolution in the thinking of our people, a revolution in which oft-repeated cant is smashed with well-grounded truth.
Reliance on the truth as our weapon dictates the kinds of people that we can reach. While no project can fare well long-term if it defies the truth, it remains the case that not everybody is equally committed to the truth. Not everybody is even equally equipped to recognize what truth is. We have to reach the people who are capable of being convinced through reason and presentation of facts.
We cannot win over the masses. Most people are more impressed with how often and from how many sources they hear a claim than with whether or not it makes sense—and that’s a problem because we do not own the mass media. Nor can we win the support of those calculating people who make their major decisions based on narrow self-interest rather than with an eye toward what is right, because we do not have vast quantities of money with which to tempt them.
Indeed, such people are not reliable even when they seem to have been won over, because the next gust of wind from big media will blow them in the other direction and make them forget whatever they said today. Consequently it is a terrible waste, when our cause has very limited resources, to aim specifically for mass appeal.
There is a very great advantage in not trying to win over the broad masses directly. It means that one may state the entire truth instead of tailoring one’s statements in accord with what our enemies have conditioned the general public to accept. By choosing not to dance around various taboos, one retains the ability to make sense, which is crucial for appealing to thinkers, and for bringing them to the necessary radical conclusions.
We have to speak to the deeper souls, the people driven by idealism. These are people with a conscience and a disdain for falsehood, people who have an inner voice that objects to following the crowd when the crowd is demonstrably wrong.
Counter-propaganda should be directed especially toward the people most capable of skepticism, toward thinking people and toward those whose experience tells them that they have been ill-served by the establishment and its propaganda, or people (like farmers and truckers, Robert Mathews’ favorite demographic when he was still strictly legal) who spend much of their lives away from social pressures, or whose daily lives provide experiences that contradict equality propaganda as a matter of course (like veterinarians and police).
Truth has to be paramount. The most significant figure in the American racialist cause since World War II —William Luther Pierce — was largely, perhaps primarily, motivated by indignation at the lies all around him.
Bearers of a New Worldview
Acceptance will be more difficult when we go beyond refuting attacks on White pride and identity, to the explanation of why these attacks occur and who does them, and even more when we affirm a new way of looking at the world based on the recognition of biological group-interests. Acquiring our worldview presupposes not only conscience but a fair amount of ability to reason. It is easy enough to demonstrate unfair treatment of White people by the mass media and the government and various institutions, and to debunk the anti-White messages that these institutions promulgate. But to adopt a new worldview, abandoning the traditional conservative assumptions that have allowed our situation to degenerate, requires some real independence of thought. While counter-propaganda will appeal to a significant portion of the general White audience, a smaller number will be open to the new worldview that we present.
Our cause is thus destined to have an inner and an outer circle, generally agreeing from the gut on earthly goals, because we are of the same blood, but using different metaphysical scaffoldings to make sense of this shared racial instinct. This not at all to say that the doctrine of the inner circle should be a secret: it should be candidly admitted, just as scientists state findings.
That inner circle has to be utterly convinced that what it represents is correct, with no reliance on anything dubious, and no attempts at deception, so far as the message itself is concerned. This clarity will facilitate unanimity within that core group, and also engenders idealistic persistence. A firm conviction of truth sets the soul on fire. People who believe in what they are doing and in what they are saying will be much more indefatigable than some cheap con-men lacking the conviction that what they say is right.
How a minority view can prevail
Directing efforts at persuasion toward the conscientious minority means that, instead of trying to build a mass-movement straight away, we are recruiting an elite cadre that will be able to wield influence over the multitude when it gains the requisite strength.
It has always been organized elites that have really been responsible for the choices made by multitudes, wherever those choices have in any way deviated from the immediate path of least resistance. It’s a democratic delusion that crowds exhibit any kind of decisiveness without having been accordingly trained or directed.
This is actually a source of hope for us, because it means that we only have to win a relatively small number of converts to our cause in order to be situated to prevail.
What we are building initially must be like the philosophical schools of ancient Greece, winning converts from the thinking minority, rather than a modern mass political movement that tries to win general popular support. Thus at this point at least, the role of the American Third Position is to spread the message of White advocacy as much as possible with the media available to it. This will have a huge effect on thinking people even in the absence of electoral victories.
Today’s ideological think tanks, which wield enormous influence, are like a cheap imitation of the ancient philosophical schools. Think-tanks are to philosophical schools what Ayn Rand is to Plato — but nonetheless they have been enormously influential. This is how laissé-faire economics made its comeback in the late 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century, because somebody set up a think-tank, the Institute for Economic Affairs, to elaborate that idea, and to present it constantly until somebody started to take it seriously.
Men like Fisher and Smedley were at the very margins of respectability in the 1950s, and the media never bothered with them. They were ignored because practically all politicians and commentators from left and right believed in the Keynsian idea that the state should intervene to manage the economy. Everyone was convinced that left to itself the free-market led to disaster – as had happened in the 1930s…. To their opponents Fisher and Smedley were right-wing dinosaurs. But they both were convinced they were a part of the future….
So one day Fisher plucked up courage and went to see Hayek at the LSE in London where Hayek was a professor. Fisher asked Hayek for advice – should he go into politics to try and stop the oncoming disaster? Hayek told Fisher bluntly that this would be useless because politicians are trapped by the prevailing public opinion. Instead, Hayek said, Fisher should try and do something much more ambitious – he should try and change the very way politicians think – and the way to do that was to alter the climate of opinion that surrounded the political class. Fisher wrote down what Hayek said to him.
“He explained his view that the decisive influence in the battle of ideas and policy was wielded by intellectuals whom he characterised as the ‘second-hand dealer in ideas’.” [Adam Curtis, The Curse of Tina]
Radical social change begins with the efforts of a few fanatics who have an idea that attracts like-minded others. Revolutions in general have been accomplished by conspiracies numerically equivalent to mere single-digit percentages of the population. Even the normal electoral process in the United States, which is supposed to represent the public will, is in fact heavily influenced by militant minorities with their own channels of communication for maintaining their worldviews and coordinating their actions, like the Christian Zionist faction in the Republican Party that made George W. Bush the unassailable frontrunner more than a year before the presidential election of 2000. This faction also gave Rick Perry an instant, undeserved frontrunner status in 2011 (which he fumbled). Likewise, the influence of the far left in the Democratic Party during the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century was far out of proportion to their numbers among registered Democrats.
It is always a militant minority that makes history. The majority simply waits to see what happens.
We have the truth on our side, and with this we should be able to win idealists and thinkers as converts and build an effective cadre. The only other factor needed is money — not huge amounts of money such as the system has at its disposal, but enough that the organization can continue to function and grow. There are certainly people with healthy racial instincts who have money. With a solid message respectably presented and a stable and responsible leadership — which unfortunately has been all too rare in the racialist cause — some of that money is likely to be forthcoming.
Since we are relying on reason, we do not need to be able to saturate the general public with our messages. We only need a bit of publicity to attract the right people to our cadre, because alert and intelligent people will take note and seek us out if our message is right and we don’t spoil it with dishonesty or some other egregious display of faulty character.
Our Careful Rhetoric
The fact that we do not control mass-media means that we cannot lie the way our enemies lie and make it stick, if we were so inclined. We cannot use questionable sources either. We have to be careful about what we say, because anything of importance that we say, if it gets much attention at all, will have to survive intense criticism.
The beginning and foundation of our rhetoric must consist of facts that are either self-evident, or at least public knowledge that anybody can access. Such facts are to be found in news-reports, and on government and academic web sites. Sources should always be named so that the argument will not depend on the personal credibility of any White racialist but on the credibility of a mainstream or otherwise authoritative source. This is the only way that any intelligent person not already having faith in what we say can be brought around to our view.
The weekly racialist sermons of Dr. William Pierce exemplify this kind of cautious rhetoric. (Some relevant examples: The Destructive Media, 13 April 1996, contrasting coverage of shootings at Fort Bragg and Fort Pendleton; The Lesson of Amy Biehl, 8 August 1998; The Fayetteville Murders, 29 August 1998; Hate Crime, 10 October 1998; A Trial in Jasper, 6 March 1999; Jewish Democracy, 4 September 1999; Hardheaded Altruism, 2 October 1999, contrasting crimes of Augusto Pinochet and Ehud Barak.) A common formula that he used was to contrast some atrocious crime against normal White people that for some reason did not become a subject of widespread reporting, with the disproportionate coverage of some offense committed against a favored minority that, upon comparison, was really not as deserving of attention. In both instances, mainstream media are the sources, because their reporting is what is under scrutiny. Thus a convincing demonstration of anti-White media-bias is constructed.
As a result, the audience also learns about the agenda of those who control the media. In this phase of the argument the facts may be a little less well known, but still publicly verifiable. Thus within a single 20-minute speech, Dr. Pierce progressed from counter-propaganda of the most basic kind to radical criticism of the central institution upon which this democracy depends, without ever asking his listeners to take a leap of faith. This is the kind of message that can be taken seriously by serious people.
The fact that we do not have mass-media in our hands means that instead of appealing to the irrational multitude, our initial appeal must be to the deep souls who are capable of preferring what is correct over what is ubiquitous. It means that instead of an irrational propaganda, we have to respect our audience and give them the undiluted truth that they desire, and educate them through channels of communication separate from the mass-media that are hostile to us. As this organization of dedicated, capable, and likeminded White people develops, the possibilities for affecting mass-opinion and events in general will increase.
Conclusion: Reasons for Optimism
- The fact that multitudes are guided by dedicated minorities means that idealistic White people can be such a minority.
- We can generate this dedicated minority at much less expense than what it will cost the system to try to prevent it from arising.
- The force of the idealism of intelligent White people is on our side if we don’t throw it away by failing to respect the truth.
Highlander
Mentor
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
Great academic essay and probably the only effective overall strategy left. Thanks to Don and members here, the points above are already being implemented with CF.
Highlander
Mentor
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 1,778
"Snow White" is now called "Mirror Mirror" in a new movie adaptation of the Disney classic now in theaters. Hmmm, I wonder why they renamed it? :dodgy:
Here's a review of it.
"Mirror Mirror reflects a new Snow White"
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/mirror-mirror-reflects-a-new-snow-white-1.3618082
This post could just as well go into the "Ubiquitous Man Hating" section, based upon these excerpts from the article:
"Snow blossoms into a brave young woman determined to save her country from the queen. She's not going to cook and clean and wait for Mr. Right to come galloping long. She's mounting her own Occupy Kingdom movement and speaking truth to power."
(Notice how the reviewer just uses "Snow" instead of "Snow White" at the start of this sentence.)
...
"Still, it must be said that the heroine of Disney's (original) "Snow White" was something of a ditz. She couldn't get out of her own way; she reinforced the stereotype that a woman needs a man, lest she eat a poisoned apple and fa"ll into a coma."
"Mirror Mirror" makes its heroine a more liberated, empowered young woman. But will it be the fairest Snow White of them all? We're still betting on Uncle Walt.
First "Alice in Wonderland" and now the "new" "Snow White", errr, I mean "Mirror Mirror" to add to the Cult Marx revisionism of the classics coming out of Hollyweird.
Here's a review of it.
"Mirror Mirror reflects a new Snow White"
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/mirror-mirror-reflects-a-new-snow-white-1.3618082
This post could just as well go into the "Ubiquitous Man Hating" section, based upon these excerpts from the article:
"Snow blossoms into a brave young woman determined to save her country from the queen. She's not going to cook and clean and wait for Mr. Right to come galloping long. She's mounting her own Occupy Kingdom movement and speaking truth to power."
(Notice how the reviewer just uses "Snow" instead of "Snow White" at the start of this sentence.)
...
"Still, it must be said that the heroine of Disney's (original) "Snow White" was something of a ditz. She couldn't get out of her own way; she reinforced the stereotype that a woman needs a man, lest she eat a poisoned apple and fa"ll into a coma."
"Mirror Mirror" makes its heroine a more liberated, empowered young woman. But will it be the fairest Snow White of them all? We're still betting on Uncle Walt.
First "Alice in Wonderland" and now the "new" "Snow White", errr, I mean "Mirror Mirror" to add to the Cult Marx revisionism of the classics coming out of Hollyweird.
screamingeagle
Mentor
Women still need men. That hasn't changed.