Devon Stack (Black Pilled is his YouTube channel) does a lot of good long-form reviews of movies from the 60s-90s where he goes through and sort of points out the anti-white brainwashing western media has been churning out pretty much since the dawn of television.
I don’t think he’s completely right about everything (his joker review comes to mind) but it’s very interesting analysis of how pop culture was essentially designed as a tool to subvert any kind of traditional morality.
Yeah I might be biased because I liked the movie, and there’s certainly some obvious stuff like making the three guys who harass the woman and beat up Arthur on the subway white bro-types, and making almost all of the sympathetic characters black, but I think some of the stuff in his review is a bit of a reach. He also spends a lot of time beating the whole “Joker is just a ripoff of Taxi Driver/King of Comedy” dead horse which I find to be a pretty off-base take.
pop culture was essentially designed as a tool to subvert any kind of traditional morality.
I don't exactly agree, but I think it was inevitable in a way. If pop culture is made without respect to the dominant culture, it becomes a second culture. Two cultures can't really coexist within the same space; one must give ground to the other because cultural conflicts are inevitable without shared values.
So, I could accept that pop culture was made with good intentions, but that some naivete doomed it to the path it took. Of course, all things being organic, we would not have given nearly as much ground to the pop culture. I just don't think it's necessary for it to have been so ill-intentioned at the start.
I see. I don't think it's necessary. I've already recognized that it did not progress organically. I'll assert that maybe we'd all be happy if it were created with respect to the dominant culture, but then it'd be a plain old cultural product.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that there was ill intent involved in its creation, but it's simply too difficult to try to pick apart a product of multiple persons for the purpose of discerning motive. If every person involved had ill intent, that'd be one thing, but the presence of a single good intent demands an investigation of the weights of influence, which is exhausting. I find it far more efficient to use a different angle of approach.
Actually, I'll add on to my assertion: if pop culture were allowed to progress organically (without crutches or life support), then - even with a sinister initial state - it would eventually be forced to conform to the dominant culture, effectively defusing the majority of subversive elements. But also that this was impossible to occur because we have no system for preventing such subversive efforts, combined with the existence of even a single person willing to subvert it.
tl;dr: The initial state doesn't matter, because it suffered an inevitable subversion.
Yes, I agree. It's made worse by older media not even handling credits properly; failing to credit certain types of workers or influencers. At least now it's not too hard to find and follow a money trail in modern media credits.
What I mean is the sort of situation we can see easily online now, where there's a definitive central creative lead, he means well, but he's surrounded by cretins trying to subvert him. It's sad, but a lot of creators can't seem to handle that kind of pressure; they cave in and compromise their own work.
It's not always the twitter-esque social pressure, sometimes it can be pressure from above. Even though the producer should be concerned only with profit, sometimes they meddle and the weird casting or bizarre event in a movie suddenly becomes "who really chose this? the director or some guy pulling his strings?". In the case that the creative talent is stripped of their control over the product, I don't expect to find easy evidence of it.
Tbf, it's more like 'conservatives did conserve things back when they had spines'. The breed of conservatives who were willing to fill mass graves with progs kept most of Europe monarchic (in a genuine sense where the monarch actually wielded executive power) until WW1. Even in France, republicanism didn't stick until their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and they still almost became a monarchy in the early days of the Third Republic.
WW1, though...that was when, IMO, the rot irreversibly set in: it was where an entire generation of white Europeans steeped in a sense of romantic nationalism and tradition got decimated, the non-toothless continental monarchies were irreparably broken (including Russia, so called the 'Gendarme of Europe' for its role in containing & squishing liberal revolutions throughout the 19th century), the surviving European empires no longer had the wealth & power to indefinitely maintain control of their colonies, and staunchly modernistic ideologies like not just Communism and fascism but also liberal democracy itself filled the gap they left behind.
The Kalergi plan is like 100 years old. The protocols of zion are even older. The camp of the saints is a book describing everything going on today, was published in 1973. I would argue that Christianity is a primarily white religion, and ever since we had the enlightenment some 300 years ago (and perhaps earlier) we've had whites being attacked. It always starts small, and unrelated, like giving fags the right to marry, and soon after they're coming after your kids and your way of life.
it has actually been percolating in the culture for well over 100 years.
Could you give an example from 100 years ago? Video not necessary, but I find the claim hard to accept at face value. My best guess would be some european stuff having to do with wartime propaganda.
You mentioned in another comment that you were considering doing some video stuff. You should post some here when you get it going. Just the knowledge of older media grants you a niche among the people you'd be competing with.
George Carlin is Leftist, not a cuck. There's a difference that you might not be familiar with because modern Leftists are cucks.
Beyond that, anti-whiteness is pretty much relegated only to the radical Left. Whiteness itself is a Progressive doctrine going back much further, and Negrophillia with it.
Basically, ever since Marx pushed his conceptualization of Capitalism, the oppressor-oppressed dynamic has been run with to target whatever the Left thinks is a useful target to attack for the sake of power. Anything can fit, even Communism itself can be targeted by other Leftwing factions.
Marx's attack on Capitalism is effectively an attack on his stereotypes of Judaism and Jews. Fundamentally, the stereotypes profit because it stokes resentment in a population that demands protectionism, towards a people who prospered without it, but can be manipulated into thinking that paternalism will placate the resentment, and it never does.
Moving the goal posts from Jews to other groups is a simple task if you're already a resentful shit. Moving the goal posts from Jews to Whites is effectively to be expected if you have a culture of people that embraced the culture of the Protestant Work Ethic.
That's why what the Black National Socialists are calling "whiteness" involves shit like individualism, self-sufficiency, long time preference, and scheduling. These things aren't inherently a "White" concept. It's just that any group that is successful embraces these things, and groups of White people have succeeded by adopting them, and will continue to succeed so long as they still hold to them.
White, especially the concept of "Multi Racial Whiteness" is effectively nothing more than a slur at this point for anyone that isn't a miserable, resentful, little shit.
Because a cuck fetishizes his own humiliation as a twisted sense of moral grandstanding.
Carlin isn't doing that, he actually just thinks he's better than you and that you and everyone like you are humiliating yourselves. (And by 'you' I mean 'literally everyone that isn't him')
There's a big difference between Leftist Smugness and Leftist Cuckoldry.
Only because I oppose racialism generally. I see it as an excuse to intentionally foment racial divisions.
Sure, you could try that and do what blacks did from the late 1800's to the early 1900's and go to poor and ignorant whites and teach them how to uplift themselves, but why would you just focus on whites when people in general really need that. And look what the fuck happened to those organizations, they've all been taken over by Socialists. Yours wouldn't be any different. An intentional avenue of approach for Leftists.
There shouldn't be advocacy organizations for everyone. You guarantee the balkanization of society purely along racial lines (which I understand you are perfectly fine with), but I'm not because I know full well that even in the best case scenario, you don't win, you just carve up the country and let Leftists rule over you because they have the right skin color, exactly in the same way that black people have sacrificed themselves to racialism.
The Jewish organizations haven't been taken over by socialists so why do you think this is inevitable?
Many Jewish organizations are taken over by Leftists because Leftists always seek any consolidated position of power to drive balkanization efforts. Managing ethnic protection rackets is how Progressive cities ran for nearly a century in America, and it always pushed more and more protectionism and paternalism.
Not only can you not avoid Leftist infiltration, you basically grantee it, especially with race.
We've been targeted for proletarian, dispossession, and disenfranchisement unlike everyone else.
That depends when and where, and that also depends on why you think the Left's "help" is beneficial. I wouldn't be so sure that 60 years of Black Identitarianism has done anything but kill the black family and community. The Left used to do the opposite until it became faux pas. That will change yet again. That's why Richard Spencer is entirely correct to start pushing towards the Left and Joe Biden. He's ahead of the curve and staking out ground for "White Affinity Groups" going forwards.
The Left have no principles, only the desire for power. They'll take whatever stance they need to take to get that power, regardless of who thinks they'll benefit, and how much the Left is actually going to hurt those "Useful Idiots".
In March 2004 a white Scottish teenager, Kriss Donald, was bundled into a car while walking in the Pollokshields area of Glasgow. He was later beaten, stabbed 13 times, and set on fire. W gang of British Pakistani men were found guilty.
The BBC were criticized for almost not covering it - because it didn’t fit the narrative.
One of the clearest examples of anti-whiteness stems from the early 1800s in Paraguay where José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia didn't allow Spaniards and other Europeans to marry each other, thus causing the population to become a shade of beige which it apparently is up to this day.
Devon Stack (Black Pilled is his YouTube channel) does a lot of good long-form reviews of movies from the 60s-90s where he goes through and sort of points out the anti-white brainwashing western media has been churning out pretty much since the dawn of television.
I don’t think he’s completely right about everything (his joker review comes to mind) but it’s very interesting analysis of how pop culture was essentially designed as a tool to subvert any kind of traditional morality.
Yeah I might be biased because I liked the movie, and there’s certainly some obvious stuff like making the three guys who harass the woman and beat up Arthur on the subway white bro-types, and making almost all of the sympathetic characters black, but I think some of the stuff in his review is a bit of a reach. He also spends a lot of time beating the whole “Joker is just a ripoff of Taxi Driver/King of Comedy” dead horse which I find to be a pretty off-base take.
I don't exactly agree, but I think it was inevitable in a way. If pop culture is made without respect to the dominant culture, it becomes a second culture. Two cultures can't really coexist within the same space; one must give ground to the other because cultural conflicts are inevitable without shared values.
So, I could accept that pop culture was made with good intentions, but that some naivete doomed it to the path it took. Of course, all things being organic, we would not have given nearly as much ground to the pop culture. I just don't think it's necessary for it to have been so ill-intentioned at the start.
No. Why do you ask?
I see. I don't think it's necessary. I've already recognized that it did not progress organically. I'll assert that maybe we'd all be happy if it were created with respect to the dominant culture, but then it'd be a plain old cultural product.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that there was ill intent involved in its creation, but it's simply too difficult to try to pick apart a product of multiple persons for the purpose of discerning motive. If every person involved had ill intent, that'd be one thing, but the presence of a single good intent demands an investigation of the weights of influence, which is exhausting. I find it far more efficient to use a different angle of approach.
Actually, I'll add on to my assertion: if pop culture were allowed to progress organically (without crutches or life support), then - even with a sinister initial state - it would eventually be forced to conform to the dominant culture, effectively defusing the majority of subversive elements. But also that this was impossible to occur because we have no system for preventing such subversive efforts, combined with the existence of even a single person willing to subvert it.
tl;dr: The initial state doesn't matter, because it suffered an inevitable subversion.
Yes, I agree. It's made worse by older media not even handling credits properly; failing to credit certain types of workers or influencers. At least now it's not too hard to find and follow a money trail in modern media credits.
What I mean is the sort of situation we can see easily online now, where there's a definitive central creative lead, he means well, but he's surrounded by cretins trying to subvert him. It's sad, but a lot of creators can't seem to handle that kind of pressure; they cave in and compromise their own work.
It's not always the twitter-esque social pressure, sometimes it can be pressure from above. Even though the producer should be concerned only with profit, sometimes they meddle and the weird casting or bizarre event in a movie suddenly becomes "who really chose this? the director or some guy pulling his strings?". In the case that the creative talent is stripped of their control over the product, I don't expect to find easy evidence of it.
Probably in the 1700s French Revolution where the Jacobins said they were "progressive" and everyone else was a reactionary.
Conservatives don't conserve anything. Where the fuck are the monarchies.
Tbf, it's more like 'conservatives did conserve things back when they had spines'. The breed of conservatives who were willing to fill mass graves with progs kept most of Europe monarchic (in a genuine sense where the monarch actually wielded executive power) until WW1. Even in France, republicanism didn't stick until their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71, and they still almost became a monarchy in the early days of the Third Republic.
WW1, though...that was when, IMO, the rot irreversibly set in: it was where an entire generation of white Europeans steeped in a sense of romantic nationalism and tradition got decimated, the non-toothless continental monarchies were irreparably broken (including Russia, so called the 'Gendarme of Europe' for its role in containing & squishing liberal revolutions throughout the 19th century), the surviving European empires no longer had the wealth & power to indefinitely maintain control of their colonies, and staunchly modernistic ideologies like not just Communism and fascism but also liberal democracy itself filled the gap they left behind.
The Kalergi plan is like 100 years old. The protocols of zion are even older. The camp of the saints is a book describing everything going on today, was published in 1973. I would argue that Christianity is a primarily white religion, and ever since we had the enlightenment some 300 years ago (and perhaps earlier) we've had whites being attacked. It always starts small, and unrelated, like giving fags the right to marry, and soon after they're coming after your kids and your way of life.
Could you give an example from 100 years ago? Video not necessary, but I find the claim hard to accept at face value. My best guess would be some european stuff having to do with wartime propaganda.
Thanks, it's interesting to see an old example.
You mentioned in another comment that you were considering doing some video stuff. You should post some here when you get it going. Just the knowledge of older media grants you a niche among the people you'd be competing with.
George Carlin is Leftist, not a cuck. There's a difference that you might not be familiar with because modern Leftists are cucks.
Beyond that, anti-whiteness is pretty much relegated only to the radical Left. Whiteness itself is a Progressive doctrine going back much further, and Negrophillia with it.
Basically, ever since Marx pushed his conceptualization of Capitalism, the oppressor-oppressed dynamic has been run with to target whatever the Left thinks is a useful target to attack for the sake of power. Anything can fit, even Communism itself can be targeted by other Leftwing factions.
Marx's attack on Capitalism is effectively an attack on his stereotypes of Judaism and Jews. Fundamentally, the stereotypes profit because it stokes resentment in a population that demands protectionism, towards a people who prospered without it, but can be manipulated into thinking that paternalism will placate the resentment, and it never does.
Moving the goal posts from Jews to other groups is a simple task if you're already a resentful shit. Moving the goal posts from Jews to Whites is effectively to be expected if you have a culture of people that embraced the culture of the Protestant Work Ethic.
That's why what the Black National Socialists are calling "whiteness" involves shit like individualism, self-sufficiency, long time preference, and scheduling. These things aren't inherently a "White" concept. It's just that any group that is successful embraces these things, and groups of White people have succeeded by adopting them, and will continue to succeed so long as they still hold to them.
White, especially the concept of "Multi Racial Whiteness" is effectively nothing more than a slur at this point for anyone that isn't a miserable, resentful, little shit.
None of these statements cuck statements. They're just standard Leftist talking points.
Nowadays, yeah. I mean, I wouldn't call Stalin a cuck.
Because a cuck fetishizes his own humiliation as a twisted sense of moral grandstanding.
Carlin isn't doing that, he actually just thinks he's better than you and that you and everyone like you are humiliating yourselves. (And by 'you' I mean 'literally everyone that isn't him')
There's a big difference between Leftist Smugness and Leftist Cuckoldry.
I think everyone should try to become wealthy and prosperous.
You'll forgive me if I read a bit of maliciousness into your statement considering how many times you replied to me yesterday.
Only because I oppose racialism generally. I see it as an excuse to intentionally foment racial divisions.
Sure, you could try that and do what blacks did from the late 1800's to the early 1900's and go to poor and ignorant whites and teach them how to uplift themselves, but why would you just focus on whites when people in general really need that. And look what the fuck happened to those organizations, they've all been taken over by Socialists. Yours wouldn't be any different. An intentional avenue of approach for Leftists.
There shouldn't be advocacy organizations for everyone. You guarantee the balkanization of society purely along racial lines (which I understand you are perfectly fine with), but I'm not because I know full well that even in the best case scenario, you don't win, you just carve up the country and let Leftists rule over you because they have the right skin color, exactly in the same way that black people have sacrificed themselves to racialism.
Many Jewish organizations are taken over by Leftists because Leftists always seek any consolidated position of power to drive balkanization efforts. Managing ethnic protection rackets is how Progressive cities ran for nearly a century in America, and it always pushed more and more protectionism and paternalism.
Not only can you not avoid Leftist infiltration, you basically grantee it, especially with race.
That depends when and where, and that also depends on why you think the Left's "help" is beneficial. I wouldn't be so sure that 60 years of Black Identitarianism has done anything but kill the black family and community. The Left used to do the opposite until it became faux pas. That will change yet again. That's why Richard Spencer is entirely correct to start pushing towards the Left and Joe Biden. He's ahead of the curve and staking out ground for "White Affinity Groups" going forwards.
The Left have no principles, only the desire for power. They'll take whatever stance they need to take to get that power, regardless of who thinks they'll benefit, and how much the Left is actually going to hurt those "Useful Idiots".
The anti-hick trope comes in mind, as it was already noticed in the 90's how that's the only group allowed to make fun of.
In March 2004 a white Scottish teenager, Kriss Donald, was bundled into a car while walking in the Pollokshields area of Glasgow. He was later beaten, stabbed 13 times, and set on fire. W gang of British Pakistani men were found guilty.
The BBC were criticized for almost not covering it - because it didn’t fit the narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald
One of the clearest examples of anti-whiteness stems from the early 1800s in Paraguay where José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia didn't allow Spaniards and other Europeans to marry each other, thus causing the population to become a shade of beige which it apparently is up to this day.