Posted by Bo Sears on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:55 | #

The above posting links (first link) to a film reviewer who nicely encapsulates the reality and message of the film:

“The film starts with an introduction explaining exactly how the world lost its mind; the intelligent couples take things slow and steady, factoring in their economic situation, while trailer trash continue to crank out babes in arms at an alarming rate, eventually leading to a race of ghettoized hillbilly stoner burnouts…”

A film about nasty, depraved white people is probably not going to be interpreted by anyone else as symbolic for the whole, or other parts of, the population.

We’ve seen this before. Mike Judge’s true colors may be derived from his left-wing racialist treatment of “Beavis ‘n’Butthead,” a true representation of how our masters see our young men, and want us to see them. Mere slander, no comedy.

I’m sorry that James Bowery sees the pure racial slander in this film as a tactic in this way, “to get past the censors, the movie portrays the “idiots”, who breed-like-cockroaches-while-on-welfare, as “white trash”.”

Sometimes, just like the notorious cigar, a film that mocks white people is just a film that mocks white people.

If we accept the slightest excuse for this wholesale exercise in defamation, we have no right to the words “majority rights.”

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:54 | #

I evaluate people on how they perform within the constraints they face.  Mike Judge faces an incredibly hostile Jewish elite and they demand a terrible tax on their artists.  Is it possible to do any better than Mike Judge in those circumstances?

I’m not at all convinced it is.

Opposition of white defamation is important but it is hardly effective in most ways.  There is no traction with the issue.

If, on the other hand, people understand that evolution is working on the population right now, even if they start out thinking about it in terms of the dumbing down of the white population which—magically and against all odds—maintains itself as a white population, just dumber, 500 years into the future, then I say its the best we can expect to get through the elites that hate us.

Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:15 | #

Under no circumstance do I want it understood that I do not respect James Bowery. This is not personal, and I can understand that he hopes the film will make dysgenic policies and currents visible in order to educate people.

But “Beavis’n'Butthead” has already made the point about dysgenic pressures on young white boys. In fact, that was more or less the theme of that TV cartoon show. No public person in public discourse thought to generalize from the racial make-up of those two ditzy characters to understand dysgenic pressures throughout the society. In fact, on the West Coast they were held out as stock comic figures standing for white meth makers in the print media.

And consider how he models white people on the Hank Hill TV cartoon show. One of Hank’s best friends is married to a blonde woman (you blonde and blue-eyed folks need to pay attention) who is carrying on a passionate and fruitful sexual relationship with an American Indian. Not only does Mike Judge show the husband of the blonde to be terminally stupid (there’s that theme of dysgenic pressures again), but that the husband willingly raises the son as his own, an interesting model openly set forth for European Americans to follow.

Thus it is fair to say that ignorant, devolved whites are a consistent theme with Mike Judge. And I’ve never heard anyone at all reference Beavis, Butthead, or Hank Hill’s cuckolded friend as metaphors for, or symbols of, devolutionary pressures on the entire human race.

Posted by Max Roswell on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:43 | #

Y’all are some of the most humorless racist douchebags I’ve ever seen.  I’m going to go make out with a black chick in front of a Beavis and Butthead DVD in your honor.

Posted by Bo Sears on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:44 | #

“Opposition of white defamation is important but it is hardly effective in most ways.  There is no traction with the issue.”

On this point, I wanted to make the opposite case.

In fact, opposition to white defamation is a winner. It’s just that our victories are not celebrated in public discourse. Our winning is silent.

We contact people who use slurs and slanders against European Americans all the way up the line to Richard Cohen and David Broder, and all the way down the line to very minor characters locally.

We never claim to be offended. We tell them that they have opened a window into their mind, and we tell them what kinds of hate they have revealed. We insist (not demand) that they cease. We usually try to blind copy at least ten of their peers at their paper so they will laugh at, and mock, the smearmeister for getting such a message.

In response, we get two things. Generally we get a burst of ridicule, anger, and counter-accusations, but after that we almost always get freedom from the slur or slander by that person. We don’t usually get public responses, but the West Coast papers in our area used to be a veritable forest of anti-white slander, now it is just a trickle.

One thing that offends some on this board is that we are perfectly willing to attack from the left and to use the vocabulary of the left. Here is one example of the technique, although it is not directly on the point of slurs.

The Statue of Liberty was adorned in an extra-legal fashion with a brass plate about 20 years after the statue’s dedication to Franco-American friendship. The plate was placed inside the base of the statue and has on its surface a poem of particular poisonous material, hi-jacking the statue from its true meaning into a symbol having to do with immigration. The statue was intended to celebrate Franco-American friendship with an emphasis on the shared republican nature of the two country’s regimes. This was in the days of monarchy, you may recall, about 125 years ago.

We lifted two phrases from the poem, “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse,” inserted them into our list of slurs, and set out to attack anyone who promoted the fuzzy, rosy, dishonest sentiments of that poem as anti-immigrant. That may sound like a stretch to readers, but it worked.

We had to verbally beat down the resident Maoist (no joke) at our local paper on the issue, but we won.

We never see the Statue of Liberty used around here as a symbol of open-door immigration, and it has been years since it was used in public discourse. Oddly, no one had ever seen exactly what “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse” meant in today’s vocabulary, and just how degrading they were to immigrants of all sorts.

Long story, but don’t tell me we don’t have traction. Our victories are silent, but plentiful. And our watchword is always “It’s too little, and it’s too late,” just like our proud role models. Their tactics work for us just fine, especially when the right tone is used.

From a traction point of view, fighting defamation has been a wonderfully easy way of introducing European Americans to the concept that they are an ethnic group who need to protect their children…true, adults reject the concept for themselves, but accept it for their children. You would be surprised at the sheer number of emails we get that tell us of the use of these techniques to change the poisoned atmosphere in the public square.

Try it sometime!

Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 05:14 | #

Congratulations on your victories Bo Sears.  Perhaps the time has come to put Mr. Judge’s producers to the test with similar treatment to see if they can be moved from their current posture.  I doubt Mr. Judge himself has much leeway to maneuver without their permission.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 05:48 | #

Max Roswell - “I’m going to go make out with a black chick in front of a Beavis and Butthead DVD in your honor.”

Max, I dont doubt youre well used to having sex in front of a TV screen, though I guess it will seem strange for you to actually have someone else there too.

Posted by Daedalus on Sun, 03 Sep 2006 06:42 | #

The Statute of Liberty, “Liberty Enlightening the World,” originally had nothing to do with immigration. If I recall correctly, FDR was the first president to refer to it in this respect. Emma Lazarus died a nobody. The Statute of Liberty only began to take on this connotation after the influx of Jewish revisionists into the discipline of history around the mid-twentieth century. The Jewish community had long associated the Statute of Liberty with immigration because it was one of the first images of America they saw arriving in Ellis Island.

Americans had quite different views about their history and the Statute of Liberty before then. Browse any nineteenth century or early twentienth century American history textbook. You won’t see the phrase “we are a nation of immigrants” anywhere. Instead, Americans thought of themselves as a people like any other descended from the pilgrims and the pioneers. Americans built and settled this country and won its independence in the revolution. Immigrants, while they have made important contributions, only came later.

Far from the Statue of Liberty being associated with immigration, it was seen as a guardian of American purity against malicious European influence. The Statute of Liberty was facing into the Atlantic “protecting” America from European subversives; quite appropriate in light of subsequent American history. Needless to say, this is something the traditional enemies of the truth would much like to keep quiet about. The Immigration Act of 1907 banned numerous categories of such subversives: idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, anarchists, paupers, polygamists, those who advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government. The phrase “nation of immigrants” was popularized by President Kennedy who wrote a book by that title in 1958.  As an historical aside, the American Jewish Committee later acquired the rights to it.