At a time when Hollywood, who gambled on the culture war and lost, is in free-fall under the assault from a world where movies are abundant and therefore we do not need to save up our pennies to see the latest vapid blockbuster, it is interesting to revisit a film that subtly tackled the fundamental inversion of our thinking.
Most writing for the past fifty years or so has focused on the “workshop school” of writing, which is a method in which it is presumed that setting motivates the character, and inner character — what literature is famous for: the change in behavior based on moral and intellectual learning in response to the shifting events of the story — is ignored, because it is presumed that all people are equal. Workshop style writing is perfect for an egalitarian age in which we assume that all people respond to the same material incentives and threats.
The method gets its name from the habit of presenting it in workshops, or classes where students work through a piece from beginning to end, and uses the fundamental question, “How would you feel in this situation?” By writing from the outside-in, these stories are able to focus on novelty of setting, dramatic human behavior, lusts and other material demands, and a simple narrative that anyone from any culture can understand because the humans in it are generic and have no souls.
Bullet To The Head takes the opposite approach: instead of settings being what motivates them, people are what they are, and they do not fundamentally change. This theme guides the story of a hit man and a cop, each of whom have had a partner killed by the same shadowy deep state in New Orleans government, who embark on a mission of retaliation.
Each person is defined by who they are and their choices are explained through that. At one point, Stallone’s character James Bonomo’s daughter explains that he grew up on the streets, and has known nothing but violence. His new partner, Detective Taylor Kwon, explains his actions many times by saying, “I’m a cop.” The bad guy, Robert Nkomo Morel, states that he does not trust anyone who is motivated by anything other than money. This noir view of the world does not allow us to “like” characters, only appreciate them.
In our conventional thinking, the opposite would be true. We would assume that everyone was the same, that we could instruct them in what to value and how to behave, and that they would react to the situation around them on the basis of this programming. However, throughout this movie, the programming is shown to fail. All the officials are corrupt. People do only what is convenient. The one bad guy motivated by more than money turns out to be a deranged killer who enjoys his work and sees himself as a kind of hero for the underworld.
This leads us to wonder, subtly, how true our modern programming is. Can we shape people with laws, economic incentives, propaganda, media, education, training and social influences, or are people just made how they are, with a limited range of understanding and function, and they will gravitate toward that no matter what we do? Bullet to the Head suggests the latter through a simple parable and well-known story, with lots of action and the obligatory headshots, but gives us enough to think about to be worth watching.
As mentioned here before, the Dot-Com 3.0 boom — the years after the iPhone when social media took over — is heading straight for collapse, even as efforts are being made to fight that inevitable end.
The recurring problem that Dot-Com 3.0 faces is tied up with SJWs: our new media overlords have cultivated an audience who fanatically uses their product, but this is not a particularly relevant or effective audience, being made up mostly of obese blue-haired baristas, financially insolvent food service workers, committed Leftist basement-dwellers and angry minorities.
Everyone else is gradually fleeing these services as they become increasingly toxic. In the meantime, in order to curry favor with their audience of SJWs, these giant internet corporations have become manipulative and are starting to resemble Soviet-style indoctrination in their relentless advance of narrative, leading to a growing movement to nationalize them as utilities to neutralize their bias:
The new spotlight on these companies doesn’t come out of nowhere. They sit, substantively, at the heart of the biggest and most pressing issues facing the United States, and often stand on the less popular side of those: automation and inequality, trust in public life, privacy and security. They make the case that growth and transformation are public goods — but the public may not agree.
The tech industry has also benefited for years from its enemies, who it cast — often accurately — as Luddites who genuinely didn’t understand the series of tubes they were ranting about, or protectionist industries that didn’t want the best for consumers. That, too, is over. Opportunists and ideologues have assembled the beginnings of a real coalition against these companies, with a policy core consisting of refugees from Google boss Eric Schmidt’s least favorite think tank unit. Nationalists, accurately, see a consolidation of power over speech and ideas by social liberals and globalists; the left, accurately, sees consolidated corporate power.
Silicon Valley has been dodging that one for some time, and their solution has been to cultivate a fanatical audience of SJWs instead of a broader audience of normal people. That in turn has helped enforce a split: on the internet, you are either a fanatical Leftist or someone who is skeptical of the internet. That skepticism has fueled questioning about the value of social media and internet use as an activity, especially since it represents to this generation what daytime television did to the 1980s: people with no purpose, not much hope, and very little else to do.
But in 2012, when the proportion of Americans who own smartphones surpassed 50 percent, she noticed abrupt changes in teen behavior and emotional states.
…Among other things, teens are: not hanging out as much with friends, in no rush to drive, dating less, having less sex, and getting less sleep. Most alarming, despite their continual connectivity, they are lonely. And rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011.
…“Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones. It’s not just the technology, I should stress, it’s really the social media, which is the most common risk they are facing.”
One factor in this is that social media is driven by Fear Of Missing Out (FOMO) which causes people to obsessively tune in many times throughout the day and night, with many users taking their phone to bed in order to consume more media. This leads to an inability to ever detach from the narrative, which means they are not at rest even when sleeping, and a lack of sleep, which increases delusionality, hallucinations and psychotic behavior:
The primary outcome measures were for insomnia, paranoia, and hallucinatory experiences
…Compared with usual practice, the sleep intervention at 10 weeks reduced insomnia (adjusted difference 4·78, 95% CI 4·29 to 5·26, Cohen’s d=1·11; p<0·0001), paranoia (−2·22, −2·98 to −1·45, Cohen's d=0·19; p<0·0001), and hallucinations (−1·58, −1·98 to −1·18, Cohen's d=0·24; p<0·0001).
...It provides strong evidence that insomnia is a causal factor in the occurrence of psychotic experiences and other mental health problems.
Paranoia might be understood as “inverse solipsism,” meaning that it assumes a focus on the individual by wide-ranging external forces. Both posit the individual as the center of all activity, or origin of all meaning, and as such, the individual assumes that any activity out there is directed at them, in a mild form of one of the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Social media can induce this by compelling the individual to constantly interact with a symbolic representation of the world, and this token quickly obfuscates actual reality, which is both wider and less clear-cut and therefore, more ambiguous and threatening. As one writer found, this creates a pathology like addiction:
The landscape of my days has come to resemble my computer screen. The constant stream of pings and swooshes is a nonstop cry for my attention, and on top of that, everything can be clicked on, read, responded to, and Googled instantaneously. I sense a constant agitation when I’m doing something, as if there is something else out there, beckoning—demanding—my attention. And nothing needs to be deferred. It’s all one gratifying tap of the finger away.
…I am a writer by profession, and about a year ago I found myself unable to produce. I attributed my paralysis to writer’s block, freighted with psychological meaning, when in fact what I suffered from was a frightening inability to remain focused long enough to construct a single sentence.
…My therapy, of my own devising, consists of serial mono-tasking with a big dose of mindful intent, or intentional mindfulness—which is really just good, old-fashioned paying attention.
Living a virtual life means that the real life is ignored, which is why so many people seem to live in neckbeard nests where the computer is the only functional object, a gleaming device of firm lines surrounded by the more detailed organic forms of crumpled clothing, discarded wrappers, cigarette butts, detritus and dirt.
Social media requires people buy into that online life, and while many normal people use it periodically, its compulsive users — mostly SJWs — have become its focus. For those it becomes compulsive, with them fearing to go more than a few moments without checking for updates. Facebook, Google, et al. have figured that if they cannot have everyone use their service, they want to cultivate the largest fanatical audience that they can, which is why politics, lifestyle and social media use converge.
In a broader sense, Dot-Com 3.0 mindlock reflects the conditions of modernity, which are defined by control. The individual demands to control nature, especially the nature within, by asserting his individuality through equality; this creates a herd which must be taught to boo the enemy and cheer the good guys; that in turn makes the individualists enforce those boos and cheers on each other, causing a spiral where the society gradually eliminates any notice of reality and focuses exclusively on symbols.
The cart goes before the horse, the tail wags the dog, the world is turned upside-down. While we chase the One True Ring of power and control, we sleepwalk into a Brave New World style society based on what people want, instead of their suppression. Democracy, equality, pluralism and tolerance encourage us to be as weird as we want to be, and we slowly drift farther from reality, becoming more miserable as we do so, until the end seems like a good thing.
Social media just tapped into our mania for control through symbolism. If you replace the complex knowledge of the world as whole with a single interface of symbols that claim to control it all, people — or at least some types of people — become addicted. This addiction creates a hive mind for the purpose of excluding anything but what it wants to believe, and reality is pushed far away.
At this point, the populist wave has brought a backlash against unreality, and the unrelenting defense of unreality from the social media crowd is what is pushing Dot-Com 3.0 into collapse. The audience they need, the normal middle class, is fleeing, and the legbeards and blue-hairs are taking over at the same time regulators close in and investors shy away. The carnage will be delicious.
Presaging compupocalypse films like War Games and Hackers, and possibly prescient about the problem of Silicon Valley, Colossus: The Forbin Project revealed to us the problem of too much logic, following in the lines of Frankenstein, the only book mentioned in the film. The questions it raises remain relevant to us today.
Dr. Charles Forbin, a brilliant scientist, creates a massive computer which can teach itself through heuristics, making it nearly self-aware. Designed to be so logical and omniscient that it would prevent attacks on the United States, this machine is given control of the American nuclear stockpile and access to television, radio, and telephone signals.
It quickly detects that the Soviets have made a similar machine and interfaces with that machine, forming one giant digital brain that quickly asserts control, aided by video cameras and its ability to process public information and make conclusions from it, determined to save humanity from nuclear war. But the humans will not like its methods.
Presaging other omniscient computer overlords from books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and later television programs like Person of Interest, Colossus: The Forbin Project plays into our fears of being illogical in a world where some of that illogicality is not only necessary, but pleasurable. If we did everything right according to a genius calculator, we might have fewer problems… but also might lose our souls.
The film starts slowly, which usually indicates an unfinished ending because it never gets to the meat of the story, and for book-readers, that might well be the case. We want to learn more about this machine and what it knows. That does not translate well to the screen, however, and so the screenwriters did their best to make an interesting film where half of the dialogue is between a digital voice and increasingly irate scientists.
Where this film triumphs is in the character of the computer: literal, logical, and relentless. Revealed to us through teletypes and computer screens for the most part, the machine develops the rudiments of a personality, which drives the story along like a mystery. Aided by some truly magnificent sets, excellent acting and many subtleties in the human characters, the movie picks up the pace and becomes engrossing.
As we stagger into the twenty-first century with a similar battle where logicality seems too unrealistic, and yet human illogicality is too animalistic, this movie raises questions that will return repeatedly in the future. It may be possible, it hints, to be too logical, and the end result of that will be a type of existence we will find appalling.
While the headlines are full of attempts by Google, climate change scientists and the media trying to force us to do what is “right” even though it is clearly wrong in the bigger picture, the staggeringly brilliant and unrelenting machine from Colossus: The Forbin Project may well be a metaphor for our time and the challenge to us to exceed it.
“I am happiest where I do not belong, where I am an outsider looking in.” William Powell, who wrote The Anarchist Cookbook in 1969 at age 19, reflects on his life in this lengthy documentary which seems almost like a therapy session trying to make him take responsibility for his words.
While many of us have doubts that publishing information about how to construct weapons of warfare is in any way a bad thing, The Anarchist Cookbook is more than a list of recipes. It is also a screed against the government, society and humanity in general. It is only fitting that its author was a complete outsider.
Director Charlie Siskel (nephew of Gene Siskel of movie review fame) takes us through the prerequisites for alienation: a Western European father who married a Southern European woman, life in England until a sudden move brought him back to the states, an unsteady relationship with his family and finally, a world coming apart in the late 1960s. He refers to it as an apocalyptic time.
The uncontroversial facts come out through interviews, family pictures and films, and montages of the era. A troubled but wealthy child who had been expelled from his private school for marijuana and vodka consumption, Powell moved to New York in his teens, got a job at a bookstore known for selling controversial works, then went into the massive New York Public Library at night to research what would become The Anarchist Cookbook. He cobbled together military manuals and previous works on subversion and sabotage into a giant list of everything one might need to overthrow the government, as he encourages people to do in the book.
Siskel probes Powell repeatedly on variations of the question with which the movie begins, which is essentially whether he feels culpability. Powell offers an interesting response. Although he claims the agency was with others, he expresses remorse for writing the book and what it has caused, but not regret. Indeed, we get the impression that he would do it again if he could.
What comes out in his words is that Powell is not so different from the people, like the Columbine shooters, who used his book: he wanted revenge on the world, and once he had sent the book into the world, he wanted a normal life with no responsibility to the rest of society except what he got paid for with his educational NGO.
The portrait that comes across in the documentary is of a man who has no connection to his world. Having married an Asian wife, he moved away from the United States and claimed to be uncomfortable there, living instead in rural France when not in Africa or Asia with his organization. (Powell died in 2016, about a month after the film finished shooting, although his voice in it is comprised of interviews done during a single week in 2015.)
Although not a sociopath, he seems detached, but likeable for his ready wit and insight. After all, this is the man who invented the term cuck when he wrote: “There is no place for emotionally or politically cuckolded people in the society I speak of. Survival of the fittest.”
If you think that makes him potentially a right-winger, he addressed that as well: “There is no justice left in the system. The only real justice is that which the individual creates for himself, and the individual is helpless without a gun. This may sound like the dogma expounded by radical right-wing groups, like the Minute Men. It is.” Elsewhere he opines: “Allow your love of freedom to overcome the false values placed on human life. For the only method to communicate with the enemy is to speak on his own level, using his own terms. Freedom is based on respect, and respect is earned by the spilling of blood.”
In interviews subsequent to the publication of the book, but not in the movie, he identified a fear of the draft and the war in Vietnam as a motivating force at the time he wrote the book. His Leftist credentials are solid however: like too many conservatives, he speaks in French Revolution language about the importance of freedom and the individual choosing what is true for himself.
American Anarchist, tightly edited and with an unobtrusive but powerful soundtrack, looks deep into William Powell and pulls away an image of a man who was more like the society he detested than he wanted to admit. Detached, morally neutral — it seems as if he wrote the book to be a hit because it was what the times called for — and seemingly completely unaware of himself, he resembles the loose cannon of the book itself.
While this movie references the events of forty-five years ago, it also brings up timely reminders. Sociopaths stalk the streets, the youth are (still, tediously) restless, and it seems like the world is heading to the end. Indirectly, American Anarchist offers us a moral parable of the accountability we face for our actions, even if only sentimentally and much removed from the events they help trigger.
In his dimly lit attic workroom, the inventor tightened the final screw, and flipped the power switch. The robot lit up and awoke, taking in his surroundings with an unchanging gaze that shone aggression through bright red eyes.
“Who are you?” His maker stood in front of the robot with stern anticipation, his eagerness to see the fruits of his life’s labour still held in check by lingering sceptical doubts.
The robot quickly turned its head and took in the form of the man before him. “I AM SODOMOTRON.” The voice was loud, monotone, and clouded in a raspy distortion that seemed to give the crudely computer generated sound an organic feeling. “WHO ARE YOU?”
This was new. None of the previous failed prototypes had posed its own question so soon after awakening. Could this be a sign that he’d succeeded? The maker tried restraining his joy at his promising creation’s animation, knowing that the true test of the robot had yet to come. But the attempt was futile, and his face beamed out a wild jubilant desire for the manifestation of his greatest dream.
“I–I am your maker,” he said. The moment of truth lay ahead.
Sodomotron glared motionlessly, his prominent inflected brow seeming to exude pure disgust at the weakness of the squishy, quivering, flesh bag in his way. The light from those eyes was unpleasant, and filled the man’s vision to the edges with red, as if becoming drenched in blood, but he forced himself to stare directly back into them, straining to show no sign of self-doubt or fear.
The sound of a short hydraulic twitch originating in the robot’s lower structure caused his heart to jump and rail against its cage of ribs, but his overriding drive to live to see the metal beast unleashed upon the world, to know that it would make the world a better place was the anchor with which he forced himself calm. Finally, the voice once again bellowed, this time at a subtly lowered tone, “ABOVE WEAKNESS THRESHOLD.”
Dual relief washed over the man. He would be spared, he would remain unviolated. But more important than that, he had looked into the eyes of the beast and therein gained an inexplicable confidence in the soundness of his creation. He’d done it. His dream had become real.
For years, the inventor had observed that in human society, the natural predators became the prey and so a mouse-like ineptitude had prevailed in all that humanity did. Evil and stupidity always won, usually on the backs of vast popularity by people who were as casual with the truth as they were with their paychecks, and anything good or honest was smashed down to the roars of pleasure by the jubilant crowd. The only solution was a mass purge of the weak, and in this instrument of terror, the inventor felt he may have created the true salvation of his race.
He addressed the mechanical embodiment of domination. “Sodomotron!” The maker’s eye’s glowed back red light as little embers, scorching away any remaining doubt. “What is your purpose?”
Waiting no longer, the robot arose to its full towering height, rapidly thudded across the room and crashed through the door. Not pausing to look back, it rumbled one last time in a bowel-loosening timbre:
If the postwar Right experienced a “Eureka!” moment, it was that political power cannot be changed directly. It must be supported by a cultural wave, as was massively successful for the Left in postwar years, and it has to spread through something other than politics, such as art, literature, architecture, philosophy, academia and music.
The musicians behind folk rock duo Lilou & John have homed in on the latter and given it a podium: a Right-Wing music site named Belzebubbles which aims to support the rising realist Right-wing cultural wave by bringing together bands from many different genres who are united by their non-Leftist perspective. We were fortunate to get in a few words with Lilou and John about this new project.
You seem to know quite a bit about music and its history. How did you know you wanted to be a musician, and what path did you take to get there?
Lilou: Well, I used to write songs when I was a child but my father was a cheap bastard and wouldn’t let me take singing classes. I have always sung, though, in the shower and while cooking, but I thought my voice was too low-pitched for anyone to enjoy. But John said it reminded him of Zarah Leander and old singing traditions, which boosted my confidence. John says he’s happy I didn’t go to those singing classes or they would have ruined my rough voice and made me sound like Beyoncé.
John: I have performed a number of times with an acoustic guitar since I was 14 and came second in the school’s annual talent show with a song about alcoholism (!). In those days I dreamed of having my own metal band and I used to rip apart old music cassettes and use the tape as a wig to look like Paul Stanley and Blackie Lawless and cover my blond hair. Mom bought me a guitar and forced me to practice, but the classes was boring so I almost gave up the whole thing, lucky us I didn’t. I have written lyrics for most of my life, though, and Lilou thought we could use it. I have always been a nerd and I love analyzing music to the point where it’s all philosophy so a music blog is a good thing for me.
What inspired you to start Belzebubbles, and what type of audience do you hope to attract there?
John: Right wing bands are seldom welcome in mainstream media and only a few right wing news and opinion sites support them. It’s a shame, because Right wing bands are important. It was Woodstock that made the Left wing big, you need a new culture to accompany the politicians if they are to succeed in the long run. Justin Bieber is never going to come out as an Conservative or Nationalist, we can all stop dreaming right now, and support our own bands instead. The problem is that many mainstream Conservatives seem to think country and military marches are enough, but there are metal bands, punk bands, pop bands, electronica bands, all coming from the political right wing, from Classical Liberals to Alt-Right, and we wanted to give them somewhere to promote their music. Hopefully, radio stations, podcasts, news sites, everyone will one day think of Belzebubbles as a “library” where they can find great music for their own production.
Lilou: The name “Belzebubbles” came to me from nowhere, basically. In those days, 2005 or something, I put together the words Belzebub and “bubblan” which is Swedish for “bubble,” and I liked the way light and dark co-existed in the new word “Belzebubblan.” I thought that one day I would use it for something big, and when we started our blog in January 2017 that later was transformed into the right wing music blog Belzebubbles, we used the English translation and it seems people like it.
Why do you think such a thing is needed now, and what is responsible for the change in political/social climate that makes this music come up from the underground?
The political movements have gained momentum, but the culture is still Red like Lenin’s underwear. People like yourself, Swedish newspaper editor Vávra Suk and social philosopher Joakim “Oskorei” Andersen have understood what is needed, and hopefully more people will follow. It is also important to reach out to the youth, and they listen to music. They don’t read a three thousand word article on Infowars, they want something quick they can relate to in their everyday life.
What do bands get in exchange for working with you? What sort of content do you anticipate having on the site in the future?
They get a positive review — we only cover good bands — and, if they want, an interview. We link to the articles on Twitter and Gab and encourage people to buy their music. We welcome all genres and in the future we hope to attract more and more bands from all over the world who are sick and tired of left wing ga-ga. Furthermore, they can use quotes from our review for their own promotion and they get a chance to give their fans a deeper insight into who they are as a band. Our own network is growing by the day and we mention Belzebubbles to basically everybody which means the bands get more attention. As far as we know, Belzebubbles is also the first music blog of its kind ever, and the bands we cover are the first ones out. One of our goals is to collaborate with other blogs, festivals and music supervisors etc in the future.
Can you explain your concept of “R3C” music and how it is different than what has existed before?
”R3C” is short for Right Wing Music / Conservative Counter Culture. We used to call it “RiWi/CCC” when we started but that acronym was too long and clumsy. R3C is basically music that is outside of the box of political correctness. National Socialists have promoted their bands for years while International Socialists run the rest of the show. There are a few exceptions, like Scottish covert-Nationalist band Runrig, metal bands like Amon Amarth and some country artists, but on the whole there is little room in MSM for anti-Establishment bands today. What we believe is the new thing about R3C is that the productions are often slightly rough, maintaining the originality of what makes the artist unique. The voices express emotions and sincerity instead of superfluous drama. Back to the origins of music if you may. We want everybody to start using the term R3C for this kind of music, let The New York Times know the times they are a-changing.
Do you draw lines on the Right, for example, would Libertarian and National Socialist bands both be accepted?
As long as the bands match our criteria: they are not welcome anywhere else and they do their own thing instead of copy-catting Rihanna, we will take them under consideration. We will also write about bands that already have a following, but are too far-right for MSM and make good music that touches your heart or brain. If we come across a fabulous song written by a Classical Liberal or National Socialist, we’re gonna write about it. If you deny facts such as the Holocaust or The Islamization of Europe, however, we might think you’re a bit too weird and refuse your submission for that reason. We welcome all kinds of people, however, we will not cover music with racist lyrics, national socialists making a song about general immigration issues would be fine, but no lyrics about inferior races etc.
Do you fear reprisal or professional consequences for your public activity, or have they already happened?
We have already been discriminated against by Swedish national radio because of our political views. We seem to be keeping our jobs, though, which is a rare thing in Sweden when you criticize the system. We have lost one producer and several drummers along the way because they were scared of us not being politically correct enough. Our current producer wishes to remain anonymous due to fear of reprisals from politically correct organizations and media. We understand him, Sweden is not famous for allowing non-left-wing opinions and people have been killed for less.
“Payback Day” is an intense song that seems to tell an autobiographical story, and it is the center piece on Dissidentica, the new album from your right-wing folk duo Lilou & John. Can you tell us more about that?
“Payback Day” is a song to all the millions of Conservatives, Identitarians, Alt-Righters, Classical Liberals and Nationalists who are being called “Nazis” by fake news media just for not bending over. The lyrics are very personal and describes the anger that builds up inside you when you are treated as a second class citizen by the Establishment. The title “Payback Day” refers to the day when society breaks down under pressure from ISIS and Immigration, and people have had enough of mass suicide politics. The left wing rely on oppression of free speech and it seems they have thrown too many people to the wolves, the outcasts soon will have a superiority in numbers. We want the song to be a right wing equivalent of “The Internationale.” A new Marseillaise for an English speaking audience, aux armes citoyens. Rise or die. The ruling classes are cowards who will run away as soon as the tide turns. They hope it will soon be over… Boy, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Denmark’s hard immigration policy is a raindrop compared to what will come. You don’t invite ISIS and believe there will be “peace in our time.” And there will be a day when people will seek revenge for the bombings and rapes and I’m glad I’m not a left winger anymore for they will have a rough 75 years ahead. And, yeah, we used a backbeat acoustic guitar to make it catchy.
How has Lilou & John been received, and have you been encountering other R3C bands in the wild?
Our debut album 100 Faces was well received among rockers and hip hoppers and is still being played by radio stations in several countries. Our second album Dissidentica has been supported and reviewed by right wing sites and news papers in Sweden and the US. We have connected with a number of bands, many of which can be found on Belzebubbles, and a couple of bands we have yet to write about. Things are not going fast enough, though, as we are a married couple with full time jobs and kids and we need some spare time once in a while.
Can you describe your personal political outlook, how it was shaped and what you overcame to get there?
John: I like to describe myself as a “Jacobin Conservative” politically, part Identitarian Conservative, part Alt-Right Nationalist and part Classical Liberal. I started out as Communist for the same reason as everyone else: I wanted to be popular and being a Communist is the easiest way of building a career in Sweden, sadly. Lilou made me see the light just by asking me to explain what I meant when I talked about “white privilege” and “male superiority.” I have lost a number of friends and colleagues in the process but I won myself.
Lilou: I’ve never been interested in politics, I’m more into people and logic (meaning the machinery behind the politics). John, however, says I’m the biggest fascist he’s ever met, ha ha. I just don’t accept that any power beyond me decides what I should think or feel.
If people are interested in what you are doing, how do they participate in Belzebubbles and follow your work in Lilou & John?
They support the musicians or submit their music on http://www.belzebubbles.com/ and they check us out on http://www.liloujohn.com/. We can also be found on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Gab. Please contact us or spread the word. Furthermore, everybody should skip the “oh this world is going to hell” and instead start thinking “we will transform this rotten borough into something new and better, and we’re on the winning side.” People should start promoting good bands, authors, artists coming from the right wing. Tell your friends about R3C and if you’re into this new kind of cultural movement, be proud of it.
A new magazine for the exit-oriented Right, or those who want to escape society into small Balkanized groups removed from the herd, picks up where the mainstream conservatives are still afraid to tread. To recognize exit is to realize that the West has fallen and most cannot be saved, but that small groups might be able to break away and live separately, presumably if they have nuclear weapons and are not simply walloped by whatever large tax-and-spend entity can physically reach them.
Helmed by veteran Libertarian-leaning conservatives Robert Mariani and J. Arthur Bloom, Jacobite has already attracted top-tier writers like Nick Land to write screeds proclaiming that our time is doomed and escape is the only solution. The magazine will be both online and in print, and you can explore more at the Jacobite website and on social media.
Netflix released an update to the classic Anne of Green Gables franchise. As with all modern retellings, this one is heavy on crypto-ideology and light on literary merit. Lauren Hanson at The Federalist gives this slab of mentally sluggard propaganda the dismissal it deserves:
What is it about endearing childhood classics that makes today’s writers, directors, and producers so eager to butcher them in the name of realism and modernity? Producer Moira Walley-Beckett (who also produced the acclaimed series “Breaking Bad”) has said that she wanted to “push the boundaries” by creating a more dark and “realistic” adaptation. She certainly succeeded at changing the tone and atmosphere. But in so doing, she completely lost Anne.
What is it, indeed, that attracts evil to good, as if it were pathologically driven to attempt to smash it? Let us look at the agenda within this new version of a classic:
In contrast, Walley-Beckett’s Anne walks around with a giant chip on her shoulder, ready to crumble at the slightest provocation. There’s nary a trace in this Anne of the indomitable spirit readers have come to admire so much.
Long-time fans will also find it incomprehensible that Walley-Beckett would transform sweet, simple Avonlea and its kind (if occasionally uptight) citizens into such cold bullies and spineless cowards.
The story of Anne of Green Gables has changed from an encouraging tale about a plucky orphan who makes a place for herself in an unfamiliar world and wins over normal people because they see in her something of the good parts of themselves, and has become a typical victimhood tale in which art serves as political protest against the inequality of life.
In other words, Leftists took a classic story and turned it into Leftist propaganda. The new Anne is a retelling of the lies behind the French Revolution or the election of Barack Obama: people are unequal only because other people keep them down, and the only learning that all of history can give us is that we have to fight (while wearing pink pussy hats) against this inequality.
This is exactly the problem with adaptations: they are someone else’s vision of a completed work by more competent authors telling timeless stories. The same problem exists with symphony conductors for whom their interpretation of a classic piece of music is more important than the composer’s. Can a conductor really improve upon Beethoven’s vision?
The same could be asked about this horrible adaptation of Anne of Green Gables. L.M. Montgomery’s vision of Anne, Avonlea and Avonlea’s inhabitants is complete, in and of itself. It doesn’t require our so-called enlightened modern interpretation to better understand it. We’ve lost the author’s actual intent when we project ourselves onto Anne. Anne doesn’t need our improvement; she’s perfect and complete just as Montgomery wrote her, and she stands the test of time.
Anyone with a soul hates Anne With An E but all the proles adore it. Proles just can’t keep their dirty mitts off of the good and must destroy it, create it in their own hideous image. In the meantime, the rest of us tire, seeing the classics of our culture vandalized for the pretense of proles. May the war begin soon.
Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism
by James Theodore Stillwell III
88 pages, Bookemon, $30
Nihilism attracts much confusion because it is an entirely different way of viewing the world. It is the direct opposite of the universalism of this time, which states that there are universal truths which can be discovered and spread to other human beings. Instead, nihilism advocates a hard realism in which aspects of reality are discovered, but not preserved or communicated.
James Theodore Stillwell III enters the fray with Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism, a short book which affirms a Nietzsche-Redbeard view of nihilism as the need for the individual to not be ruled by the herd, and find meaning where it is relevant to the individual. This “might is right” expression of nihilism conveys many benefits, but also might need further development.
The book affirms the basic idea of nihilism through a study of morality which it rightly views as conditional. That is, if someone wants to survive, they must eat; however, there is no universal commandment that all must want to survive. With that in mind, Stillwell dispenses with the idea of objective and subjective morality, and focuses instead on the morality of survival and self-expression.
Morality doesn’t state ‘If you want to achieve X you ought to do Y.’ Rather, it says ‘Thou shalt not commit murder!’ regardless of whether you are concerned about facing the death penalty or not! It is this kind of imperative the moral skeptic rejects because outside of the context of punishment and reward there can be no motivating force to propel one to act in a certain manner. After all, if I want to perform X and am immune to penalty why ought I not do X? Because it’s ‘wrong’? What does that mean? Hence the nihilist contends that only hypothetical imperatives are tenable. Every prescription not based upon a value premise (a goal) raises questions such as a ‘According to whom?’ and ‘Why not?’ because every imperative logically implies a subjective aim. Therefore the Categorical Imperative is nothing but moral mysticism dreamed up by moralizing sophists! (32)
His vision is to restate morality not as a normative commandment, or that which tells people what they should do, but as an gesture of will: people are different, and some who wish to break from the herd find a morality in asserting their will upon reality and need no reason to do so. This instinctual morality fits within a naturalistic analysis, where humans are Darwinian creatures struggling for survival.
Onto that, Stillwell grafts a bit of Nietzsche — “Nietzsche defines a healthy society as not existing for its own sake, but for the sake of a higher type, that is the ‘value creators'” — and argues essentially that these cannot sensibly obey herd morality and must do what they must, in full barbarian bloodlust, because like the natural selection in nature this produces higher proficiency and therefore, better results for humanity.
This combines with his individualist theme, and ultimately masters it, somewhat to the surprise of the writer. Stillwell correctly intuits that higher men cannot live by the rules of the herd, but then posits that they should live for their own instincts, when really his writing verges on the idea of instead having them act toward the value creation process, i.e. a transcendental outlook that values supremacy, proficiency, excellence and creativity above the usual rote labor-by-the-pound of the herd.
The slavish herd animal lives a pessimistic and fearful existence. He is timid and uncertain of himself. This type of man lacks courage, he attempts to make virtues out of his weakness and cowardice and ‘to make the best of a bad situation.’ He elevates those virtues which serve to alleviate his suffering. He honors virtues such as pity, empathy, compassion, patience, humility, and equality, for to him these are the most useful qualities. Slave morality is essentially that of utility. Such ones tend to demonize and resent the powerful, the virile, the egoistic, and self-assertive. Such lowly specimens are often pessimistic concerning the human condition, and some even find themselves gazing into the abyss of anti natalism. (73)
In this, Stillwell also reveals a flaw in Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, philosophy resolved into a type of artistic idealism whereby the individual struggled for beauty in a fusion of the Romantic and ancient ideals. The nihilistic perspective on this, however, is twofold: first, it is esoteric and most people cannot visualize it, so teaching them individualism works against it, as individualism re-invents the values of the herd. Second, it is a goal higher than the individual which requires subsuming the individual to its direction. A nihilist must be nihilistic about all things, including the self.
Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism does an expert job of introducing all these ideas efficiently and compactly within a small package, and opens more questions than it offers answers. Mainly it demystifies and debunks most modern illusions and introduces readers to a world where reality is only known by some humans in varying degrees, and there is no “us” or universal right way of doing things.
Stillwell writes in an open style, merging contemporary idiom with philosophical language, that allows the book to introduce a dense concept and then breathe as it explores its depth at a more leisurely pace. Citing extensively from philosophers including Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, Power-Nihilism: A Case For Moral & Political Nihilism provides a doorway from kiddie nihilism of the anarchistic revolutionary type into the full moral ambiguity of the real deal.
No Campus For White Men: The Transformation Of Higher Education Into Hateful Indoctrination
192 pages, WND Books, $12 (2017)
As the new millennium dawned, it became clear that a sea change in attitudes among the people of the West was underway. While in the long term this seems to be a shift from bureaucratic and artificial societies to more organic and hierarchical ones, the rising battlefield presented political correctness as a target of opportunity because in recent years, it has been the primary weapon of the Leftist takeover of Western Civilization.
This phenomenon has become most visible on the campus, where a new cadre of seemingly all-powerful student groups are demanding — and winning — increasing concessions from school administrators, usually because no one wants to appear to be allied with horrible racists, sexists and classists in our increasingly Leftist cultural milieu. Scott Greer tackles this topic with a book written for everyday conservatives but which applies the wisdom of the underground right through a careful recounting of the events leading to this new norm.
Greer begins by diving into the most recent events at universities which show the insanity of political correctness, then explores related fields in race-based politics and false rape accusations, then delves deeper into the theory and political goals of the PC movement. In doing so, he points out that PC does not aim toward positive goals, but negative ones, namely shattering the power of white people, conservatives, realists and other non-Leftists in the university setting.
In other words, it is a classic power grab through public shaming of dissidents — but in this case, your skin is your uniform, and you can be a dissident through simply failing to agree with what the PC overlords say; actively opposing them is not necessary. By implication and revelation of a conspiracy of details, Greer unveils the fundamentally Soviet nature of Political Correctness.
What’s happening at campuses is not an isolated affair — it is a result of what is happening in America as a whole. The sense of shared values and culture among Americans is vanishing rapidly, at the same time many feel isolated from their communities and families. Mass immigration has dramatically altered our country’s demographics, while multiculturalism has created a confusing landscape of competing visions for what it means to be an American. Many citizens see our national society as one of millions of alienated atoms living in a continental strip mall, not interconnected denizens living happily together in one proud country.
Thus, they turn to alternative forms of identity. A real American identity — one not entirely composed of platitudes about “equality and opportunity — is becoming a thing of the past. The ones who cling to it, as evidenced by Hillary Clinton’s and the press’s treatment of Donald Trump’s supporters, are considered racist buffoons who need to die off. The momentum of the present is veering toward tribalism, not unity. And the only thing keeping all the tribes of the Left unified right now is their shared animosity toward whites. (159)
We can see Greer’s thesis here: the success of the Left in advancing class warfare and multiculturalism has destroyed any unifying sense of culture, and so groups are going their own way, which has fragmented the Left, requiring that it cook up a new enemy in order to unite its ranks, and it has chosen “privilege theory”: because white people have “privilege” in historically-white societies, they are the only ones who can be racist, and therefore — by implication, of course — the only way to end racism is to eliminate whites.
This is a more complex analysis of the “anti-racism = anti-white” meme that has been floating around, but Greer is correct go into the nuance because it reveals how Leftism is a kind of inertia which by destroying existing social order, creates conditions under which it has no choice but to explode like a supernova and become fully totalitarian. The success of the Left is its actual enemy, but it needs a scapegoat, just like the Communists needed kulaks and the Nazis needed Jews.
By taking this balanced approach, Greer avoids tackling the historical questions which at this point are so muddied by centuries of political fighting that there is no way to even approach them in an unbiased manner, and instead looks at political correctness the way a sociologist would. Increasing Balkanization of the West means the need for a scapegoat, and PC found it in white men.
In order to reach this point, the book narrates some of the recent history of political correctness, including various incidents which — when removed from the context of the Leftist media — stand out as appalling. Even though to those of us who recognize a consistency in Leftist behavior from the French Revolution to the Soviet Union, the blatant inversion of concepts such as “fairness” and “equality” into persecution of those who do not need these things shows us the human animal at its worst: a snarling beast, enraged that any may succeed, thus demanding that all be brought down to a lower level through the social power of the word “equality.”
The most important thing to remember is that the favored form of diversity isn’t necessarily “the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization,” as Merriam-Webster would put it. Diversity in today’s America simply means having fewer whites around. Segregation, such as universities having racially exclusive dorms and events, is great as long as that racial exclusion doesn’t mean “white only.” An all-black dorm is a sign of diversity, but an all-white fraternity is a sign of Jim Crow. That double standard is easier to understand once you think of higher education’s commitment to ethnic diversity as not one upholding the strict definition of the term. (16)
No Campus For White Men: The Transformation Of Higher Education Into Hateful Indoctrination maintains a thoroughly professional view of the situation, avoiding partisanship as much as possible, in order to dig far enough into the headlines to see the motivation behind political correctness and how it is being applied, which ordinary people will not hear from the media or from a single source.
Greer uses an investigative journalism approach. He begins with a single incident, then digs into similar incidents, then looks at the parties involved and their statements, and contrasts these to public statements made by schools and organizations. In doing so, the reader can witness the application of the theory sliding away from the theory as time goes on. The cognitive dissonance effect is erased through this method.
While No Campus For White Men uses a provocative title, it is in fact a mild book, with flashes of humor and cultured alertness to the actual goals of institutions versus what they have become scattered throughout. It makes for a quick read and a good refresher on the politically correct disasters of recent years. For any reader from innocent novice through cynical veteran, this book provides a cornerstone of a practical attack on PC culture.