Category: Popular Culture
John Shotter’s “Social Accountability and the Social Construction of ‘You”
Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 at 09:15 AM in Activism, Awakenings, Education, European culture, European Nationalism, Free Speech, Political Philosophy, Popular Culture, Psychology, Science & Technology, Social Conservatism, Social liberalism, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
by Neil Vodavzny
Structural linguistics & semiotics are typically technical topics with an innate tendency to get complexified. The origins, from Greek drama and its Hegelian dialectic of ‘thesis, antithesis, synthesis’ are easier to comprehend.
While it’s easy enough to follow that people think in terms of binary opposites (human and animal, male and female etc), and that those structures permeate language, it’s subsequent extension in terms of semiotics or study of signs (notably by Umberto Eco) is another matter. The essential theory (Saussure) is that signs in language are arbitrary, and that they refer to external objects which give them meaning - language has a completely relative or arbitrary meaning in itself. Eco qualified this to the extent that, in his scheme, cultural convention denotes some signs as significant in themselves, ie, their content has cultural significance unrelated to the external world. He calls this iconic.
This is obviously useful enough for writing best-sellers (Name of the Rose), but there is also a sense in which iconic words are related to ‘non-culture’ - I’m taking a cue from developments in structural anthropology by Levi-Strauss. These words are again opposites, and they are words frequently associated with myth - sun and moon, life and death, male and female, predator and prey, marriage and solitude. These words are iconic in nature (there is the myth that swans will pair for life or ‘marry’) and cross-cultural. But, since they apply to nature as a whole, you can also say they are non-cultural. So, there are non-cultural signs (and portents) that occur in myth.
by Neil Vodavzny
Myths are stories and, therefore, difficult to disentangle from the impetus to story-telling. To that extent, they are products of Man’s subconscious which itself is a more primordial product of nature. The question is what do myths mean, and second, how detached is material Man from his subconscious reality?
Clifton’s point is that a comic-book fan or artist aims to produce the definitive version of Batman or Loki. The reason is that they’re archetypal figures; Superman the sungod to the dark dionysic Batman. Marvel’s schtick is for characters to represent forces of Nature, such as the Norse thunder god.
by Neil Vodavzny
Just a bit of background - perhaps as a result of experience as a comicbook fantasy writer, I’ve become convinced that mythical action is needed for reality to be ‘felt’ or meaningful. I’m actually quite serious about this. The world of action is the world of ethics. It’s the idea acting makes things more real, through cadence & song, ritual.
Action and myth
I myself am a believer in structuralism, and it’s worth noting Levi-Strauss is dealing with myth in terms of action – predatory raptors, crows that scavenge, the prey, the harvest. You believe in myths because they seem sensible, not because of any formal proof. That’s the point - if the universe is an ethical construct predicated on action, this is why we have myths. Myths have reality because of their meaning; contrast latter-day existentialism – we live in a world which believes in ‘realism’, not sense & feeling, archetypes of heaven and earth.
This is a circular argument. Myth & action belong together because neither are capable of formal circular proof - instead they are ethical constructs. Basically, you have to believe in the presence of a moral grounding to reality, and myths are accessories to that belief.
1. Crude commentary on the London Olympics opening ceremony, but it hits the bull’s eye. The games ought to be called Oy-lympics. You know who it is gloating over and showcasing what they’ve done to England.
2. Not even a month has passed and the prothink network is again being given the boot; Delaney explains it, ZCF comments and JP chimes in. Previously godaddy was made to have them leave. Under Bob Parsons, godaddy respected freedom of speech, but it was bought by venture capitalist firms KKR & Co. L.P. (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) and Silver Lake Partners, undoubtedly motivated in part to do something about the free speech problem. The prothink network switched to 1&1 hosting, a branch of a publicly-traded corporation, which by its nature is controlled by financial corporations, and the second booting happened following this bad choice.
If they’re into game, prothink folks should switch to companies that host one of several prominent websites that are clear or suspected phony opposition, spreading out their websites over these companies instead of bringing them all under the same company. This is a win-win situation, gaming better than the oylimpics on Talmud-Vision. If they get booted while the fake opposition remains, the suspicions are confirmed. If they’re allowed to remain to protect the fake opposition, they get to keep swelling the ranks of the awakened while the owners or overseers of the web-hosting companies grumble in private.
Posted by R-news on Saturday, July 28, 2012 at 11:04 PM in Blogs & Blogging, European culture, Marxism & Culture War, Media, Oh Tempora, Oh Mores, Popular Culture, That Question Again, World Affairs
On 22 July, 2011, Israel commemorated the 65th anniversary of the King David Hotel’s bombing in Palestine, by exploding bombs in Oslo, killing 8, and shooting dead 69 on Utøya Island. Israelis picked Norway for the celebrations because she had increasingly become sympathetic toward Muslims and in favor of a Palestinian State. Professor Ola Tunander concurred that only a State-level entity equivalent has the capability of pulling off such an operation, and this wouldn’t be the Norwegian administration slaughtering relatives on Utøya Island. Tunander knows Israel did it, but to avoid the heat, hinted at it, saying that some have suggested it was Israel’s handiwork. Given Tunander’s academic credentials, the mainstream media decided to keep Tunander’s analysis and the Israeli condemnation of it out of the Anglosphere.
At first it wasn’t clear whether the mysterious individual blamed for the attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, was a scapegoat or patsy. But the cues were there though overlooked by many. One clue was Anders Breivik’s amazing beard, capable of changing within seconds.
Posted by R-news on Sunday, July 22, 2012 at 01:35 PM in European Nationalism, Far Right, Global Elitism, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Media, New Right, Political analysis, Popular Culture, Psychology, Social liberalism, That Question Again, White Nationalism, World Affairs
The publicity machine for Angelina Jolie’s directorial debut, In the Land of Blood and Honey, has cranked into gear. The line is that this love story across the ethnic and religious divide of the Bosnian war is stirring passions among those who lived through its three pitiless years.
A commenter on the (at present, very short) thread writes:
There is a sense in which the appreciation of the Serb role in the conflict as “no-good guys” but also as victims marks the break-down of the Establishment narrative. Jolie is still telling it, of course, and she will win all the usual plaudits and probably an Oscar or two. Coincidentally, another false narrative had an airing on BBC2 this evening. But the “evil Serb” may not prove as enduring as the “evil Nazi”, and one small light on that may be thrown by the Telegraph comment thread. So far, it’s hearteningly balanced. I shall watch it with interest.
by Potential Frolic
There is this silly german song that conveys in its lyrics something which I think is interesting to think about. In listening to it I’m reminded of attempts by both sides to trap our people, or our Folk, into various boxes they have set up for the purpose.
There’s the left which condemns us to be the passive principle in our own lands, beholden to whatever groups allowed to “act” as such should choose to do with or to us, and holding onto “us” as a kind of historical memory from which one takes unwilling leave as one goes into the future. There could hardly be a more consistently conveyed message of 90s media, as I recall it, than the idea that we belonged to some sort of inescapable passing away, that our dwindling was inevitably foreseen but impossible to disagree with. We were relics, waiting to be retired to our final resting spot. Having pure ancestry was forecast as being something “quaint” in future times.
And in reaction to that, in rejection of that, there is the furious attempt at rediscovery in forms sometimes militarist - the insistence upon our heroism, our glory, our grandeur - sometimes cultural: Shakespeare, Milton, and whatnot. Sometimes the literary pantheon is brought in as being a source of glory, other times it is left out, as it is in the most hardcore redoubts of germanocentric militarist religion because people clearly perceive that the soul-hardening which occurs in this pursuit of weaponization is antithetical to the demands of flowering literary culture. One is reminded here of the difficulties felt by Frederick the Great and Heinrich von Kleist in reconciling their “higher faculties” with the subordination and borishness endemic to their culture.
There is a pious belief in military glory which will argue that this circle can be squared, that after enough soul-hardening “glory”, one also achieves heights of poetic splendor unknowable to others. Yet my reading of poetry and literature dissuades me of this personally. I think Prussian literature is at its best when its tortured philosophers are wracking their brains to understand how best to fulfill their “duty”, as with Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and for anything touching inwardness of another quality one is left with an empty roster.
Anyway, the words are as follows:
After another refrain, there is a haunting part which reminds me always of the enforced obsolescence which Anglo-Saxons accept as their role in American society, and apparently also in Britain; the slow waiting game, waiting on our own death, which is the only action which is supposedly morally allowable to us:
The band is called, pertinently enough, “We are heroes”!
The man coming towards the camera is Günter Wallraff, German investigative reporter and creator of the new film ‘Black on White’, set to open tonight in Germany. His black face is about as unconvincing as Ms. Stone’s. The Negro in the movie’s trailer is impressed, though, agreeing emphatically that Wallraff looks better.
Why is Wallraff doing this? As he would have us believe, it’s to expose the unacceptable racism that still exists in Germany. But he gets closer to the real reason in an interview he gave at a recent book fair in Frankfurt. Wallraff describes one of the scenes in the movie where he tries to rent an apartment in Cologne. The old lady who is renting the place is very friendly to him, but will not rent it. When someone else from the film crew comes by later to try renting it, she tells them about how shockingly black the last person was and how she won’t allow it, due to their lifestyle, the spices they use, etc. This expression of freedom of association, illegal in Germany, is considered by Wallraff to be an example of terrible racism (so terrible that it survived the cut from his 600+ hours of footage). But this isn’t the worst of it:
The goal of the film is to shame people, to serve as a lesson to anyone who would dare resist, or merely question, state-sponsored race-replacement. The German racial immune system is in bad shape after decades of Holocaust and war guilt propaganda. Herr Wallraff was outraged to find a healthy, if somewhat aged, T cell. I’m sure he’ll be pleased if his film has a radiative effect. To what extent it does will of course depend on who sees the film. Most of those who see it tonight in the Hackesche Höfe Kino (Berlin) will likely have already made up their minds that race-replacement is a good thing, not to be resisted. The targetted dosage will be delivered later, when the film is broadcast (the German equivalent, ausstrahlen, fittingly is based on ‘to radiate’) on ARD, one of Germany’s public stations, which anyone who owns a TV or radio is legally required to finance. The film has been sponsored by one of these public stations (WDR). I don’t know when exactly it will be broadcast, but I won’t be seeing it in the theater. Being asked to pay twice for genocidal propaganda is too much, even in the BRD.
According to Hannah Pool at The Guardian, this is an example of offensive black face intended to equate black skin with ‘exotic otherness’.
By The Narrator
Note: as this is the middle of summer and with so much heavy political subject matter on the table I thought I’d offer something a little lighter yet still relevant. It’s a review of a twenty-year-old film. Actually, as I lay out the entire plot below, it’s more than just a spoiler free review.
It’s, admittedly, a bit of an oddball film, but after viewing it again recently for the first time in years -as well as reading some reviews of it, (plus the fact that I’ve not seen it mentioned on other pro-Western sites) - I went ahead with a write up of it as it struck me as just how pro-nativist the film actually is.
THE BURBS (1989)
‘The Burbs’, a somewhat obscure 1980’s oddball comedy staring Tom Hanks and Carrie Fisher met with mixed reviews and mediocre box office success upon its release twenty years ago, yet its theme is hardly abstract or uncommon. The story is set in the Midwestern, middle-class (all White), cul-de-sac of Mayfield Place. Its residents consist of the “rational” straight-man Ray Peterson (Hanks) and his wife Carol (Fischer), pudgy gossiper Art Weingartner, gung-ho war veteran/gardner Mark Rumsfield and his scantly clad wife Bonnie, cantankerous “old guy” Walter Seznick and (of the featured neighbors) nosy teen, Ricky Butler.
It’s the kind of traditional neighborhood where everyone is local and they all know one anothers quirks (such as Ray walking the dog as an excuse to smoke cigars as his wife won’t let him smoke in the house. But all the neighbors know better anyway). It is thoroughly modern, yet quaint and safe in its familiarness. Into this scene of middle American homogeneity come the new neighbors, the Klopeks.
Little is known of them, accept for their name, yet most seem to have heard, and gladly exchange in, disturbing rumors about them. These rumors are exacerbated by the strange noises coming from the Klopek home at night, and the fact that they are only seen coming and going after dark. The exception to the gossiping is Ray, who consciously works not to notice anything out of the ordinary, as he “vacations” around the house for a week in the world he chooses to perceive.
This is a bit of a lightweight post that takes me into a world I rarely enter. But you’d have to live in a faraway galaxy not to have heard this week about Susan Boyle. Todate, sentimentally-minded YouTubers everywhere have fought back the tears at least 40 million times as overnight this stout and frumpy 47 year old spinster, an unemployed church volunteer, has become Scotland’s least likely superstar.
Since the age of twelve Miss Boyle has hoped to do justice to the gift of a wonderful voice. The high-point of her efforts was a track she recorded for a charity CD in 1999. Her chance finally arrived in January at an audition for Simon Cowell’s Britain‘s Got Talent, and this was the show that aired on ITV last Saturday. Now she has a huge fan base, a fansite, a Sony contract in the offing, and this commendation from Les Miserables producer Cameron Mackintosh, commenting on her rendition of I dreamed a dream:
Singing in front of Her Majesty the Queen, it should be said, is the reward for the winner of BGT every year. The chances this year of that not being Miss Boyle are negligible to non-existent, and probably less than that.
Well, a lot of clever folks have wiseacred in the world’s press about why this curious little episode has wrought such an enormous emotional impact, particularly in America. Of course, it’s never enough to say the obvious: that it’s simply a heart-warming and uplifting story, which it plainly is. No, we’ve been treated to everything from a new anti-capitalist sensibility in these recessionary times to protest against the cult of celebrity to the love of the underdog to the fulfilment of the American Dream. A particularly viperous Jewish feminist in the Guardian even took the opportunity to berate “us” (in whom it is not at all clear that she included herself) for judging women by appearances.
So I thought I’d also reject the heart-warming and uplifting scenario, and join this motley throng with a few observations of my own.
The Economist ‘World in 2007’ anthology has kvetched a little about internet media (that’s us, folks) and the damage sustained by the stodgy, old TV stations, and especially the advertisers that profit from them, from these new Huns at the gates of Rome. Here’s what it had to say:
Of course, the recent plaints about the adman’s slightly too intrusive hold on the latest James Bond film are all examples of the last point made. The reason we resent adverts is that they are ultimately nothing beyond commercial propaganda, an attempt to make us believe, via psychological tricks rather than rational arguments, that we need some fadish gimmick or other. The principle is the same as election posters or grandiose military rallies.
‘Grey, faceless Global Community’! As in, what we might have once the distinct races and nations of the West are subsumed into a toffee-coloured global mass!
And just wait until you hear what Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society* (read:National Society for the eradication of Christianity) and author of such uplifting and edifying works as these, has to say:
Translation: “This is precisely the sort of extreme propaganda that Muslims have been using to encourage their young to make war on Christians. This, however, is an example of Christians - Whites - doing the same, which can’t be allowed. Don’t you remember that you’re supposed to be a helot, not to fight back?”
Now, why would a campaigning homosexualist, in other words somebody who campaigns for the benefit of those whose interests do not extend past this generation, be so hostile to a reaffirmation, however vulgar, of the fighting Christian faith, which is apt to make life uncomfortable for the near future but is nigh on essential if we are to survive in the long run? That’s easy enough to answer. Now, why does the Times choose to quote him without mentioning any of these highly salient details? That’s the more interesting question.
We don’t have to agree with the sentiments, fundamentalist, totalitarian and genocidal ones, endorsed by Left Behind to welcome the arrival of this video-game. It will act purely as what The Revolutionary Conservative once called ‘a totalitarian onslaught of mind-numbing extremity against Political Correctness’. It’ll be a way of confronting Cultural Marxism with its dialectical opposite, and seeing it flinch in sheer terror at the spectacle. After all, they, not we, first decreed that the public celebration of Christmas was but a lesser variant of the same crime that the Holocaust represented, the crime of racism. Those behind this game simply agree, although they are also unwilling to give up Christmas.
*Here‘s a rather interesting website. Scroll down and count the number of National Secular Society members you can find.
I haven’t seen the video yet. I’ll update this post as I get new info. (I’ve yet to confirm rumors that Richards was responding to being called a cracker, or that he told the negros “that’s what happens when you interrupt a white man”)
Update: Richards is a Jew:
The only thing I can add is my schadenfreude at seeing the Great Irishman cut off at the knees by two Nice White Fellows.
Mel Gibson’s latest
Sacrificing American boys on the altar of the great modern god, Global Democracy:
Fidel and his Hollywood enablers
Does liberal self-hatred get any more hilarious than this:
Speaking of Hollywood…
...they don’t seem to mind if you’re Cuban or American. Just provided you’re a mass murderer:
Mel, oh, Mel. Shame on you, you awful anti-semite who probably fantasize about committing genocide. How dare you try to conceal it by refusing to kowtow to warmongers the way everyone else does, darlink’? Don’t you know that a shrivelled skull is the fashion accessory to have?
PS: It might be thought that the expected roles in the above are reversed. Mel Gibson, the archetypical tough guy, is filming anti-war polemics, whilst the ‘sensitive’ Hollywood types are siddling up to all sorts of military-industrial complexes. There’s nothing odd about this however: eunuchs, and their modern equivalents homo/metrosexuals, have always been used as executioners and the most ruthless soldiers, as their inability to start a family leaves them more likely to not much care if millions of young men are sent of to die. At the same time, their short-termism also comes in useful for many despots, who too prefer not to think about the conseqeunces their actions will have after their death. Hollywood fashionistas are just the modern equivalents of Ottoman janissaries, both racially different from those they command and without any of the paternal compassion which comes from knowing that one day your own children might be sent to fight under just such circumstances.
The movie Crash, written and directed by Canadian Paul Haggis (non-Jewish, I believe) is nominated for a bunch of Academy Awards tonight. Mainstream media critics have been praising the film for the past year claiming it bravely takes on the issue of racism in American society. As you know that usually means anti-white propaganda. With that in mind I had no intention of seeing it, however, a guest brought the DVD last night so I felt obligated to watch it. Crash is far from a WN movie but I was pleasantly surprised by it.
There is, of course, plenty of political correctness with lip service being played to some anti-racist themes along with a scene in which a supposedly racist white cop (Matt Dillon) feels up a (light skinned) black woman. But the film is unusual in that it is not all black and white…so to speak. Surprisingly the Dillon character ends up being a hero but his liberal white partner ends up killing an unarmed black criminal. White liberal elites are shown to have no feelings of solidarity for other whites as they and a black cop (Don Cheadle) frame a possibly innocent white man for political reasons.
That’s what this feminist says:
O Survivor, Bootylicious and Independent Woman, you were sweet relief in an otherwise macho, misogynous music video scene. So imagine my surprise last week when I heard the lyrics to their new single, Cater 2 U:
“My life would be purposeless without you. Do anything for my man. I got your slippers, your dinner, your dessert and so much more . . . anything you want just let me cater to you. I want to give you my breath, my strength, that’s the least I can do . . .” The DC girls continue: “I’ll keep it tight, I’ll keep my figure right, I’ll keep my hair fixed, when you come home late, tap me on my shoulder, I’ll roll over, baby I’m here to serve you.”
I’ve never been a fan of Stallone, and the following doesn’t exactly further endear the man to me:-
Yeah, sure … happens all the time.
It is more probable that the “white supremacists” themselves will have a tiny bit of Native American ancestry, but never mind. Never mind as well that this is just another Hollywood smear-job on white separatists, who are constantly mislabelled as supremacists and who, perfectly obviously, do not engage in taking part-Navajo children hostage or any other illegal activities.
A possible countervailing influence to their cultural dominance that some Leftists are beginning to notice (Bates, 2001) is the amazingly popular Homer Simpson. There is rather a good wrap on The Simpsons here. Excerpt:
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa