Did you ever notice how the masterminds of entertainment media take the politics they do not want to gain traction and package those politics with imagery the majority are likely to find repulsive?
* Spoiler alert *
Take for example the presentation of those who oppose imported labor or are white and see that connection as a positive; in the film Romper Stomper it's all presented in connection with hardcore street violence, directed against a group of "I'm-just-trying-to-make-a-living" migrants:
* Spoiler alert *
Take for example the presentation of those who oppose imported labor or are white and see that connection as a positive; in the film Romper Stomper it's all presented in connection with hardcore street violence, directed against a group of "I'm-just-trying-to-make-a-living" migrants:
You never see a film where those roles are reversed, or those who support imported labor and despise white identity - Antifa - are engaged in hardcore violence against ordinary, well-intentioned, good-hearted flag-waving citizens, do you? Think about why that might be; in the meantime, let us move on to our second exhibit, American History X.
* Spoiler alert *
American History X is another film with the same dynamics indicated above. But it is even more interesting for us because of the amount of time it spends depicting right-wing arguments in a reasonably-fair light. In fact, there are moments when the main characters in that film, espousing right-wing arguments, actually triumph and appear charismatic and almost Christ-like in fashion. For this reason, some people identify with the characters and enjoy the film.
But, as I have come to believe, the favorable presentation is likely part of a larger strategy employed over and over again, both on and off-screen - and it is as easy as A, B, C.
A. First, they present your argument with relatively-sympathetic clarity. That is what we see in the sample scenes below from American History X, which I have excerpted or paraphrased:
B. Then, they distort the argument to make it rotten in some way. Typically, they throw in something that allows an emotional, slippery slope and/or ad hominem type of argument that supposedly demonstrates why the original argument was flawed:
C. Lastly, heroes or victims emerge, creating sympathy for the opposition to your original view, doing so in a way that doubly undermines your original argument.
Putting it all together, here is an actual clip from the film that has A, B, C - all in under six minutes:
Now for the point: when people see a film and identify with the lead character's initial politics (as shown in A), a few things can occur. For example, perhaps they end up identifying with and take cues from him. While I have yet to find any indisputable examples of this from American History X, I found a clear example from Romper Stomper, the other film I briefly examined:
 |
| Yeah, I'm going to get that tattoo that Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper had, that'll show the system! |
It is intriguing to see someone wanting the tattoo of Russell Crowe's character in Romper Stomper (above left) because that character, although a powerful man of action, messes up repeatedly and dies unceremoniously after being stabbed by one of his own mates. By contrast, the main characters in American History are more likable than the Crowe character and, through their arguments and circumstances, much more sympathetic and closer to a Robin Hood archetype. The consequences are important to think about; for one, if somebody is inspired by characters that the general audience is supposed to reject, and the general public does in fact reject that character, then adopting the appearance and mannerisms of that character is almost certain to remind the general public of everything which caused a rejection of that character in the first place.
In this way, the lure of the film's characters functions like a magnet, pulling those who sympathize with the main characters or their arguments towards an appearance or mannerisms that polarize and isolate the general public.
Similarly, when the general public is conditioned to see the arguments in the script (see A) in connection with everything the film suggested those arguments are a part of and why those arguments should be rejected (see B), the film also becomes a magnet for delegitimization. This happens because the viewer has already been sold the slippery slope relationship between the initial argument in the film (A, again) and the things that argument only later came to be associated with, which the viewer would not want to be a part of (see B). In conclusion, the viewer walks away from American History X understanding the following cause and effect:
Another thing American History X does is leave a nice, clean-and-smooth shave of ideology behind (we will call this C). At first, one might disagree, given that political correctness is what Hollywood obviously considers "appropriate", and that American History X includes politically-incorrect things like a Black carjacker, a Black guy who, although railroaded by racial bias, admits he was caught shoplifting, and a Black boy who picks on one of the main characters and murders him at the end, despite seemingly regretting it. But the film had no need to present that 'all Blacks are good' - that was not the ideology that one was supposed to walk away from the film with.
You need to understand that, at the time, white racialist conversation was about uppity Blacks as a whole, turf wars, supremacy, poverty and gradual dispossession in sunny California, all of which could be dispelled if you could honestly say "well, not all [insert ethnic group] are like that." That was the only battle that Hollywood needed to fight. The key was 9/11 had not happened yet, so there was no "but enough bad apples are bad enough to cause a problem" counterargument to address, nor was there a need to address broader social problems, like insourcing H1-B visa labor that steals white-collar tech jobs (the film only shows an ordinary Latino working at a grocery trying to get by), or argue that there were "enough" bad apples who were inclined to use one's openness to multiculturalism as a way to infiltrate.
So, the film takes the easy high ground it needs to in this regard, and presents enough Black characters to shatter stereotypes, like the wise and caring Black teacher, the friendly, funny Black guy in jail with a persona like Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock and so on. The film also has its fair share of "yeah-buts": yeah Black guy 1 was a thief but he was railroaded by racial bias and yeah Black guy 2 murdered the one main character but there was regret.
But there is more. In American History X, the one who delivers two messages about A ('I think we should stand up and say something about white disenfranchisement') leading to B ('skull stomping on the pavement'), and about C ('not all blacks are bad, ya know') is - take a wild guess - a Jew. As a 'Nostradamus' and wisdom bringer, the Jew character suggests that a lot of discrimination and prejudice brought bad things to blacks. It is an early stab at implementing white guilt. But the sequence is important for another reason, as the Jew character chimes in that "Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years". Of course, there is no explanation as to what has historically put the Jews at odds with the 109+ communities they were kicked out of; nothing is said about the hostility that predictably arises from a majority culture community shunning gold handling, believing that gold corrupts, and seeing the minority community take hold of that gold, which corrupts; nothing is said about the tensions created when a majority community understands that the minority community killed their Messiah - a figure who, throughout the year, is honored in various traditions and customs that the minority community rejects because, as a key part of identity, that minority community consider that figure an impostor. But through its omissions, the film sets the pace for what comes next, when the young racialists seem to imply, through smirks, that they believe maybe Hitler had a reason to not want the Jews in Germany.
But there is more. In American History X, the one who delivers two messages about A ('I think we should stand up and say something about white disenfranchisement') leading to B ('skull stomping on the pavement'), and about C ('not all blacks are bad, ya know') is - take a wild guess - a Jew. As a 'Nostradamus' and wisdom bringer, the Jew character suggests that a lot of discrimination and prejudice brought bad things to blacks. It is an early stab at implementing white guilt. But the sequence is important for another reason, as the Jew character chimes in that "Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years". Of course, there is no explanation as to what has historically put the Jews at odds with the 109+ communities they were kicked out of; nothing is said about the hostility that predictably arises from a majority culture community shunning gold handling, believing that gold corrupts, and seeing the minority community take hold of that gold, which corrupts; nothing is said about the tensions created when a majority community understands that the minority community killed their Messiah - a figure who, throughout the year, is honored in various traditions and customs that the minority community rejects because, as a key part of identity, that minority community consider that figure an impostor. But through its omissions, the film sets the pace for what comes next, when the young racialists seem to imply, through smirks, that they believe maybe Hitler had a reason to not want the Jews in Germany.
The characters do not reference the family-destroying, sacredness-defiling culture that preceded Hitler or the community-destroying and soul-crushing materialism on the one hand and class-war antithesis on the other; they do not speak of the profit-first philosophy of international finance and the disintegration of national identity which allowed for a disunited, German Europe that was easy to exploit. There is no reference that, defending against revolutionary subversion, a tight-knit, identity state community functions best; that said revolutionary subversion was largely picked up by descendants of Jews who rejected their religion - and all traditional religions - to become the sort of militant atheists who had order-upsetting ideas and rallied around the downtrodden in the hopes of building a new, universalist utopia state (which led to a bloody red/white civil war and the Soviet Union, with its ties to things like forced labor camps, mass persecution, mass murder and the Holodomor). What we do get is an impression that the white racialist characters thought all Blacks were bad, just like Hitler thought all Jews were bad. This has two purposes; first, the film suggests that white racialists are edgelords who do not really have arguments. Secondly, there really is no argument to be had because, as the film concludes, individuals are individuals and 'hate is baggage'.
As such, the film avoids any discussion of the specter of potential dual loyalty/subversion - especially in the context of the modern world, ever since Zionism became a thing and, even more so, after Israel was established. Likewise, nothing is said about what happens when one group - like the Jews - have a hive mentality and a narrative of historical oppression that reinforces identity, while playing on the empathy of those around them.
Amidst its tour-de-ideology, one of the most impressive suggestions in the film is that, if you do not fall into the "trap" of right-wing views (in A), you avoid the slippery-slope outcome as well as other bad things (in B) and basically find success, happiness and prosperity as the Black teacher guy suggests (C, of course). The audience, in turn, walks away with such an understanding that becomes their understanding of reality itself.
On the other hand, this is what happened in real life:
It is also interesting to note who is behind the film American History X and its presentation of fantasy reality:
A Jew who looks like a caricature that walked right off the pages of Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer. The irony. Let's not get off the topic, though, because there is more to be said about the role of the two films we've looked at here. To understand, we need to look at the classic political spectrum - yes, that's right:
With the classic political spectrum, note how the ideas they do not want to gain traction are depicted as "extremes" - something that, by name and by their position far away on the distant end of the spectrum comes across as beyond what is rational or "appropriately" in balance.
Today, with the influence of public education, media coverage, certain television series and endless films like Romper Stomper and American History X, the public has been conditioned for a new understanding of politics that, conceptually, looks like this updated political spectrum:
And these are the suggestions that the updated political spectrum comes packed with, through representations in Hollywood-whatever, media and news:
Now do you understand the importance of films like Romper Stomper and American History X as weapons? Now do you understand why the masterminds of entertainment media project an image of the right that can only go hand-in-hand with the most insane, genocidal, lying, clown-like, angry, wrong, violent, dangerous, pigeonholing, outdated and hypocritical of behaviors? Now do you see why acting in the manner above, reinforcing what has already been presented, only really undermines your own side?
The good news is as follows: the success that the entertainment media moguls have had utilizing these propaganda tactics has encouraged them to maximize the effect of their work with strong levels of exaggeration and misrepresentation - neither of which works well when the free exchange of ideas prevails online.
True, the indoctrination featuring exaggeration and misrepresentation has led the public to believe in the veracity of slippery-slope-ism and various ad hominem-based conclusions, triggering knee-jerk reactions to anything that appears remotely close to the initial arguments in films like American History X (because of the perception of what those initial arguments will lead to). And, that has led to the emotionally-driven, inquisition-like atmosphere we see today, featuring a crusade to preternaturally stamp out everything that could possibly lead to the embrace of white identity, while demonizing white identity, forcing "open-borders-ism" and ignoring the problems associated with it. But this world they have created, built around and forced to embrace such dogma, is cracking apart because of what they got wrong and lied about; meanwhile, as the symptoms of failure continue to grow, it is becoming abundantly clear what the response will be: denial, and distracting people from what is happening. For the entertainment media moguls, that is the natural response; they have built a castle of cards into the sky based on exaggeration and misrepresentation, so all they can do to prevent a total collapse is to dig in and entrench themselves in their ideology. Making ideological concessions or admitting falsehood or misjudgment would invalidate the things they have told the public and legitimize in the public eye much of what they have thrived on delegitimizing. At stake is also their credibility, and the credibility of their opponents: us.
Even if they remain silent, this works out very favorably, because we become the smart, sane truth bringers who point out the lies, the insanity of silence and the danger of ignorance and avoidance. We become the ones who were right all along. We become the ones shouting - assuming you get the analogy - "see, the emperor is wearing no clothes":
It is hard not to laugh at the hilarity of the result. The entertainment media moguls and leftist ideologues subsequently become this:
And we, the critics who they had hoped to silence and marginalize through lies and propaganda, come to be seen like this:
In response, our public support will rise (which is something that is also represented in the new "red" graphic above). Some key points worth emphasizing and reemphasizing:
Size
Capturing a supportive demographic is crucial. This is important for so many reasons, morale being one of them. But it also legitimizes, which is why it was so crucial for right-wing whatever to be portrayed in a polarized and undesirable fashion.
Honesty
Despite the importance of polarizing the opposition and making it undesirable, everything must be done with honesty. This is where the mainstream media moguls erred, and their mistakes open up the possibility for us to attract based on credibility and honesty, and build an exclusive relationship around this reputation. We have so much room to punch back by showing the exaggerated and fabricated presentations and the long-term consequences of policy, which is something the mainstream media moguls can only counter by brushing avoiding or attempting to brush under the carpet. We must bear in mind that, like them, we lose the edge of having told the truth if we cease to tell the truth.
Contradictions, exposing failings and retaining honesty
It is a powerful weapon to bringing to light that we live in a world largely shaped by mainstream media, and mired in the contradictions that the mainstream creates. Ergo, it may be useful to talk about the latest developments which show how bizarre things have become. But be careful not to lose the weapon they surrendered in their bid for emotional power - the reputation for truth - or tactical focus.
What the media won't talk about, in general
Pointing out the things that the media won't talk about, and will either avoid covering completely by topic, or avoid mentioning in certain articles, is also an effective way to expose the reality of who is telling the truth and who is trying to conceal it. When people respond with "wtf, I never heard this? Why wasn't I shown this news event or angle?" it is probably a good sign; it can lead to people questioning whether the mainstream, controlled press is reliable and trustworthy or not.
Their lies, your guide
As a rule of thumb, whatever the mainstream media/entertainment industry presents as right-wing is nearly the opposite of how one should behave to put themselves in good standing with the public and spread their ideas. One can already sense that this is the reality of the situation based on the updated political spectrum. But treading this path can also help to demonstrate that the mainstream media/entertainment industry's presentations of rightists are a farce, and chip away at their credibility all the same. This is why the Catholic Covington High School incident, which gave us the "I am guilty of doing nothing but simply smiling while white" meme, and the Jussie Smollett incident, which gave us the fake hate crime meme, are so critical. As for the latter, note how similar the Smollett incident is to the scene in the video clip from American History X:
Is it any wonder that, while attempting to set up an incident to gain maximum sympathy, Smollett chose an approach that entertainment media moguls also selected to gain maximum support for their own world view? Highly doubtful.
On the other hand, by showing the Smollett narrative to be nonsense, there was much to be gained - just as his supporters had much to lose - and it all goes back to the chart. So take a screenshot of it, make it your phone background, set it as your wallpaper - do whatever you need to do to remember how we can win. Because, in everything we say, do, write, wear and in every way we carry ourselves, this has to be the end result:
This is the most important lesson to be learned from looking at endless right-wing political failures in the past. Utilize this lesson today.
