0 comment Wednesday, October 15, 2014 | admin
All of us are aware, I think, of how popular culture is being used to propagandize and shape all of us. It's used especially to separate the young from their elders and, generation by generation, to further divide the population and at the same time to further the leftist/multiculturalist agenda, destroying the heritage and traditions that characterize our past.
This piece does a good job of detailing how it is being done in the UK, and although the specifics deal with the UK, it is substantially true here as well.
...At the beginning of the twentieth century the modernist movement set about destroying the form and grammar of traditional art, and thus the content, and made it both unintelligible and uninteresting. In the 60�s, cultural Marxists of the New Left became the avant-garde in the art word [world?] as they became the elites in almost all the avenues of culture. They hated our culture and traditions, and they have been destroying them and our young people ever since.
Aristocrat rulers had a sense of noblesse oblige towards the working-classes, and a sense of responsibility to posterity. But the new elites were driven by their hatred and personal gain to corrupt them.''
This last paragraph makes a good point. Much as our 'democratic' new America hates the idea of aristocracy, our aristocracy in the past, ideally, at least felt a sense of connection to, and a responsibility for, the common people, and above all, toward the perpetuation of our heritage. Our new 'elites', who are in no sense aristocratic, even though they may be wealthy, have no such allegiance or concern, being disconnected from us.
The Discrimination Act of 1975 cautions people against using degrading language in respect to certain selected groups. But our elites continually degrade working-class people and our young, whom they mock as "chavs". Our people rarely see themselves affirmed as human beings of value in adverts or on TV. Only the dark-skinned without English features are accorded a sympathetic treatment. The worst of it is the frequency with which our women are shown to the world as whores.''
The blogger references 'celebrities' such as Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Both these women have similar public images, based on their dissolute lifestyles, though Hilton came from wealth and Spears from a poor background. I've long thought that their public images are meant to 'inspire', if the word can be used in such a paradoxical way, young women towards similar lack of self-respect. The intention is to degrade our people and culture. What better way than through young women, who should be the mothers of the next generation? Former eras treasured these young women and encouraged them to maintain their wholesomeness and chastity, while today the opposite is encouraged and rewarded. It's an assault on our future.
'It is simply not intended that we should identify with ourselves. Why, then, would the elites have any conscience about bringing immigrants here to undercut our wages and take our jobs, and push us out of our communities? They consider us worthless.''
And, more importantly, they want us to consider our fellow White people worthless, and even ourselves.
In too many instances, this is what is happening.
The television programme makers are on the lookout for something to laugh at but we are now the targets and this is done to us before the rest of the world. It is conveyed by images as well as words which are read as body language and semi-conscious messages.''
I'm convinced that these media-generated images, which end up encouraging the same behavior in real-life people, are contributing to the general contempt already felt towards us by nonwhites, and people in general in other countries.
I know that many foreign people see the grotesque media images of White Americans and loathe us for it, if they don't already dislike us anyway.
In our household, we get BBC America, which presents truly hideous programming presenting British people in an unflattering light. It is being done to turn us all against each other, I think, and as life imitates art more often than the other way around, more people in real life live down to the stereotypes.
One of the shows one sees constantly advertised is 'Skins', which seems to be all about teen sex, and there is another show, whose name escapes me, whose 'comedy' seems centered on fat people's sex lives. Degrading for all involved.
Whites are presented as fat and over-weight, while ethnics are bright and clean. One Channel 4 programme, How clean is Your House, has two women visit couples homes to instruct them on how to keep the house free of grime. ''
I've confessed to watching 'How Clean is Your House' because it appeals to morbid curiosity as to how bad people's living conditions can be; sometimes people who look quite normal and well-groomed live in incredible squalor. Yet on reflection I've started thinking that this show, too, like Jerry Springer, seems calculated to show White people in the worst possible light. Most of the people whose filthy homes are featured are White people of 'indigenous' British ancestry. I've only seen one program with a nonwhite subject, a very overweight Chinese man.
By the way, there is now an American version of this, with the two 'cleaning gurus' visiting untidy and unhygienic Americans (some of whom live in rather 'upscale' areas) and showing us that we, too, are just as bad as the worst.
I think there is method to this madness; I think the idea is to show us that we needn't look down on the unhygienic ways of the Third-Worlders in our midst, who often live in very squalid conditions, typical of their home countries. I think it's also meant to further foster contempt for our neighbors, people who look like us. Liberals and the multiculturally-smitten love to find bad examples of White criminality, slovenliness, and just plain 'sorriness' to flaunt in our faces, and to show just how bad we are.
As the blogger says,
'It is done not just to degrade our own people, but to redress the balance with the behaviour of ethnic communities.''
On the subject of popular music:
Pop stars are arbiters of taste and behaviour and must take personal responsibility for the harm they have done to young people by creating degenerate images to make themselves millions. Young people identify with them, and are beguiled by their rebellious and exciting images while in reality they live in mansions, employ gardeners, maids, cooks and butlers, and send their children to the best schools.
The man who destroyed old America, and undermined the western world, Elvis Presley, has a religious devotion 30 years after his death, and his home Gracelands attracts worshippers on the scale of Lourdes or Mecca. These pop idols have replaced religious and national icons for millions of people. They are hypocrites who pose to corrupt and make money.''
I have to agree, reluctantly, with him on the second paragraph. I grew up in the rock 'n roll era, and rock music was, for me as for most people born since then, the 'soundtrack of my life', as the cliche has it. But looking back at what has transpired since Elvis and rock music came on the scene, I can see how the older generations may well have been right when they objected to rock 'n roll as a degrading influence and as a factor in the move towards 'integrating' our country and elevating nonwhites above Whites. There is no denying that the two movements were connected, and the influence of leftists and Gramscians at the higher levels of show business is undeniable also. One could argue, as some do, that it's a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy to blame rock 'n roll for the social deterioration and the move towards multiculturalism, but there's no doubt that the two went hand in hand.
I mentioned before that a 1990s documentary on rock music, the name of which eludes me, openly and cheerfully admitted that yes, rock 'n roll was mean to 'loosen up' young White folks, who were seen as too inhibited and too repressed, unlike our more 'sensual' black population. The show biz figures who were interviewed laughed and said yes, they wanted young Whites to 'connect with their sexuality' and be free.
Back in the 1950s, of course, the denials were indignant: how dare those old fogies say rock 'n roll is 'smutty'? They are just old prudes who have dirty minds, looking for 'sin' everywhere, according to rock 'n roll's defenders. Now? It's all brazenly admitted.
So yes, rock music was a big, big step towards multiculturalizing everyone, making us more open to black music and black ways, and making young Whites see themselves and their people as deficient, lacking in qualities like 'cool' or to use an old 60s black shibboleth, ''soul.'' Whites, it began to be said, can't dance. Whites have no natural rhythm. Whites need to learn to loosen up and how better than by emulating blacks?
The antidote to all this? The blogger briefly mentions changes in our educational system and a revival of some practices like fairs and folk-music traditions, but using modern words and messages. I agree with what he says, as far as it goes.
It's a beginning. I do agree that the answer should be to try to retain what still exists of our culture, both 'folk' culture and high culture, and to restore what has been dismantled or neglected. And we don't have to have government grants or the 'elites' to help us do that, or do it for us; it has to be an effort by real people, a grassroots effort. We can all do our part within our own families and communities. We need to pay more attention to what remains, and to emphasize the beautiful and the worthwhile, and to stress that it is ours, not 'borrowed' or 'stolen' from some more 'vibrant' group of people.
There is an argument to be made that rock music has much more of a White, Southron origin than an African origin, although that may be a losing battle since people are firmly convinced that Elvis 'stole' rock music from blacks, and that its origins are African. I say: prove it, but in any case, rock music is firmly associated with multiculturalism and black culture, even though blacks want little part of it. They recognize that it isn't theirs, and prefer other types of music.
Much of our popular culture is credited to blacks when there is little evidence for the claims. Most White people are content to passively let everyone else claim credit for what is rightfully ours, and in order to regain some pride and some sense of proprietorship of what is ours, we need to become familiar with our own heritage and folk culture, as well as our high culture.
Television and the mass media in general being the source and the origin of many of the lies and distortions, we cannot look to them for any help or hope. It has to come from the people. That's us.
This piece does a good job of detailing how it is being done in the UK, and although the specifics deal with the UK, it is substantially true here as well.
...At the beginning of the twentieth century the modernist movement set about destroying the form and grammar of traditional art, and thus the content, and made it both unintelligible and uninteresting. In the 60�s, cultural Marxists of the New Left became the avant-garde in the art word [world?] as they became the elites in almost all the avenues of culture. They hated our culture and traditions, and they have been destroying them and our young people ever since.
Aristocrat rulers had a sense of noblesse oblige towards the working-classes, and a sense of responsibility to posterity. But the new elites were driven by their hatred and personal gain to corrupt them.''
This last paragraph makes a good point. Much as our 'democratic' new America hates the idea of aristocracy, our aristocracy in the past, ideally, at least felt a sense of connection to, and a responsibility for, the common people, and above all, toward the perpetuation of our heritage. Our new 'elites', who are in no sense aristocratic, even though they may be wealthy, have no such allegiance or concern, being disconnected from us.
The Discrimination Act of 1975 cautions people against using degrading language in respect to certain selected groups. But our elites continually degrade working-class people and our young, whom they mock as "chavs". Our people rarely see themselves affirmed as human beings of value in adverts or on TV. Only the dark-skinned without English features are accorded a sympathetic treatment. The worst of it is the frequency with which our women are shown to the world as whores.''
The blogger references 'celebrities' such as Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Both these women have similar public images, based on their dissolute lifestyles, though Hilton came from wealth and Spears from a poor background. I've long thought that their public images are meant to 'inspire', if the word can be used in such a paradoxical way, young women towards similar lack of self-respect. The intention is to degrade our people and culture. What better way than through young women, who should be the mothers of the next generation? Former eras treasured these young women and encouraged them to maintain their wholesomeness and chastity, while today the opposite is encouraged and rewarded. It's an assault on our future.
'It is simply not intended that we should identify with ourselves. Why, then, would the elites have any conscience about bringing immigrants here to undercut our wages and take our jobs, and push us out of our communities? They consider us worthless.''
And, more importantly, they want us to consider our fellow White people worthless, and even ourselves.
In too many instances, this is what is happening.
The television programme makers are on the lookout for something to laugh at but we are now the targets and this is done to us before the rest of the world. It is conveyed by images as well as words which are read as body language and semi-conscious messages.''
I'm convinced that these media-generated images, which end up encouraging the same behavior in real-life people, are contributing to the general contempt already felt towards us by nonwhites, and people in general in other countries.
I know that many foreign people see the grotesque media images of White Americans and loathe us for it, if they don't already dislike us anyway.
In our household, we get BBC America, which presents truly hideous programming presenting British people in an unflattering light. It is being done to turn us all against each other, I think, and as life imitates art more often than the other way around, more people in real life live down to the stereotypes.
One of the shows one sees constantly advertised is 'Skins', which seems to be all about teen sex, and there is another show, whose name escapes me, whose 'comedy' seems centered on fat people's sex lives. Degrading for all involved.
Whites are presented as fat and over-weight, while ethnics are bright and clean. One Channel 4 programme, How clean is Your House, has two women visit couples homes to instruct them on how to keep the house free of grime. ''
I've confessed to watching 'How Clean is Your House' because it appeals to morbid curiosity as to how bad people's living conditions can be; sometimes people who look quite normal and well-groomed live in incredible squalor. Yet on reflection I've started thinking that this show, too, like Jerry Springer, seems calculated to show White people in the worst possible light. Most of the people whose filthy homes are featured are White people of 'indigenous' British ancestry. I've only seen one program with a nonwhite subject, a very overweight Chinese man.
By the way, there is now an American version of this, with the two 'cleaning gurus' visiting untidy and unhygienic Americans (some of whom live in rather 'upscale' areas) and showing us that we, too, are just as bad as the worst.
I think there is method to this madness; I think the idea is to show us that we needn't look down on the unhygienic ways of the Third-Worlders in our midst, who often live in very squalid conditions, typical of their home countries. I think it's also meant to further foster contempt for our neighbors, people who look like us. Liberals and the multiculturally-smitten love to find bad examples of White criminality, slovenliness, and just plain 'sorriness' to flaunt in our faces, and to show just how bad we are.
As the blogger says,
'It is done not just to degrade our own people, but to redress the balance with the behaviour of ethnic communities.''
On the subject of popular music:
Pop stars are arbiters of taste and behaviour and must take personal responsibility for the harm they have done to young people by creating degenerate images to make themselves millions. Young people identify with them, and are beguiled by their rebellious and exciting images while in reality they live in mansions, employ gardeners, maids, cooks and butlers, and send their children to the best schools.
The man who destroyed old America, and undermined the western world, Elvis Presley, has a religious devotion 30 years after his death, and his home Gracelands attracts worshippers on the scale of Lourdes or Mecca. These pop idols have replaced religious and national icons for millions of people. They are hypocrites who pose to corrupt and make money.''
I have to agree, reluctantly, with him on the second paragraph. I grew up in the rock 'n roll era, and rock music was, for me as for most people born since then, the 'soundtrack of my life', as the cliche has it. But looking back at what has transpired since Elvis and rock music came on the scene, I can see how the older generations may well have been right when they objected to rock 'n roll as a degrading influence and as a factor in the move towards 'integrating' our country and elevating nonwhites above Whites. There is no denying that the two movements were connected, and the influence of leftists and Gramscians at the higher levels of show business is undeniable also. One could argue, as some do, that it's a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy to blame rock 'n roll for the social deterioration and the move towards multiculturalism, but there's no doubt that the two went hand in hand.
I mentioned before that a 1990s documentary on rock music, the name of which eludes me, openly and cheerfully admitted that yes, rock 'n roll was mean to 'loosen up' young White folks, who were seen as too inhibited and too repressed, unlike our more 'sensual' black population. The show biz figures who were interviewed laughed and said yes, they wanted young Whites to 'connect with their sexuality' and be free.
Back in the 1950s, of course, the denials were indignant: how dare those old fogies say rock 'n roll is 'smutty'? They are just old prudes who have dirty minds, looking for 'sin' everywhere, according to rock 'n roll's defenders. Now? It's all brazenly admitted.
So yes, rock music was a big, big step towards multiculturalizing everyone, making us more open to black music and black ways, and making young Whites see themselves and their people as deficient, lacking in qualities like 'cool' or to use an old 60s black shibboleth, ''soul.'' Whites, it began to be said, can't dance. Whites have no natural rhythm. Whites need to learn to loosen up and how better than by emulating blacks?
The antidote to all this? The blogger briefly mentions changes in our educational system and a revival of some practices like fairs and folk-music traditions, but using modern words and messages. I agree with what he says, as far as it goes.
It's a beginning. I do agree that the answer should be to try to retain what still exists of our culture, both 'folk' culture and high culture, and to restore what has been dismantled or neglected. And we don't have to have government grants or the 'elites' to help us do that, or do it for us; it has to be an effort by real people, a grassroots effort. We can all do our part within our own families and communities. We need to pay more attention to what remains, and to emphasize the beautiful and the worthwhile, and to stress that it is ours, not 'borrowed' or 'stolen' from some more 'vibrant' group of people.
There is an argument to be made that rock music has much more of a White, Southron origin than an African origin, although that may be a losing battle since people are firmly convinced that Elvis 'stole' rock music from blacks, and that its origins are African. I say: prove it, but in any case, rock music is firmly associated with multiculturalism and black culture, even though blacks want little part of it. They recognize that it isn't theirs, and prefer other types of music.
Much of our popular culture is credited to blacks when there is little evidence for the claims. Most White people are content to passively let everyone else claim credit for what is rightfully ours, and in order to regain some pride and some sense of proprietorship of what is ours, we need to become familiar with our own heritage and folk culture, as well as our high culture.
Television and the mass media in general being the source and the origin of many of the lies and distortions, we cannot look to them for any help or hope. It has to come from the people. That's us.
Labels: Anti White Racism, Gramscianism, Media Bias, Multiculturalism, Popular Culture, Propaganda, Western Culture