3,003 words
In a place once called “America,” there is no culture — there’s only marketing. Every several months, post-Americans obediently shuffle to the specified location to consume the latest mass product. Pressured by a media campaign as autocratically directed as any celebration of Juche, consumers of all classes will spend their dwindling savings on the officially and unofficially licensed products of the latest corporate constructed entertainment.
As any sense of a real culture or shared tradition breaks down, there’s no longer a community, but only a mass anti-culture sustained by centrally directed publicity campaigns.
The hypocrisy and exploitation of the system becomes ever more apparent, the threat of naked force is ever more obvious, and what is worse, the people are required to rejoice at their own destruction through panem et circenses. They might even do it voluntarily.
Welcome to the Hunger Games. Welcome to what was once our country, anno Domini 2012.
Having been stripped of their history, culture, identity, faith, or even linguistic unity, perhaps the only thing the denizens of what was once a real country called America have in common are the mass media campaigns that push the latest franchise. While there is still the centrally produced prolefeed of the Rihanna variety, dissenters in music can find the niche market that caters to their own idiosyncrasy. Politics is increasingly irrelevant, the responsibilities of citizenship a sick joke, and even news reporting has become so fragmented that journalism serves to confirm bias or defend taboos rather than expose new facts. Even war has no effect on the vast majority of the country.
What the consumers inhabiting North America have in common, and perhaps the only thing they have in common, are the major franchise campaigns that sweep through the youth market. Creations like Harry Potter, Batman, or even the Twilight series require hundreds of millions of dollars in production and marketing investment, and so overwhelm even the supposed democratization of the culture that the online era was supposed to create.
The characters, stories, and dialogue of popular films, especially multi-film and multi-book franchises that spawn an entire fictional world, serve as the common cultural touchstones of young people, the source by which they define values such as beauty, masculinity, courage, or coolness. Also, while centrally produced and disseminated by a culturally destructive elite, a truly popular story can’t help but reflect deeply embedded archetypes or widely shared sentiments, even those that are suppressed or forbidden by the people themselves.
Therefore, what does it tell us that what could be the most popular movie of all time is about the government forcing children to murder each other for entertainment?
The Hunger Games tells the story of Katniss Everdeen, a sixteen-year-old girl living in post-apocalyptic North America destroyed by unspecified natural disasters. She is a resident of District 12, a depressed coal-mining region of a nation known as Panem. The 12 regions of Panem each produce a single staple commodity for the benefit of the Capitol, a spectacularly wealthy and decadent city ruled by the dictatorial President Snow. The Capitol uses advanced technology and an army of “Peacekeepers” to keep down the districts. Many years ago, the districts rose against the Capitol in rebellion. The Capitol retaliated (supposedly) by completely annihilating the now unpopulated District 13.
In remembrance and eternal punishment for their rebellion, the Capitol decreed that every year, one boy and one girl between 12 to 18 from each district would be sent to compete in the “Hunger Games,” a nationally televised fight to the death that only one could survive. The Games are part media spectacle and part reminder to everyone in the districts that the Capitol not only rules them but can even take away their children for their own entertainment. After a random drawing at the yearly “reaping,” the heroine’s 12-year-old little sister Primrose is drawn. To save her life, Katniss sacrificially volunteers as tribute, and is sent to compete in the Games.
Author Suzanne Collins is a children’s writer, and the sparse, plot-driven prose is targeted at young adults, especially young women. The de rigueur love triangle is introduced, with Katniss torn between her best friend (and inevitable love interest) Gale, and her fellow tribute from District 12, the well-built but gentle baker’s boy Peetra, who has secretly been pining for her for years.
However, Katniss is no Bella Swann, and considers all personal relationships, romantic or otherwise, in terms of her own interests. While she lionizes her deceased father, Katniss cannot rely on her own mother, who jeopardized the survival of her family with her emotional collapse. For years, she has provided for her family by (illegally) taking to the woods with bow and arrow to slaughter game. Self-reliant, unsentimental, and coolly capable of taking life, it’s easy to see why Katniss has been celebrated as the latest manifestation of media friendly grrrl power.
While the usual Buffy style pop feminism is part of the popularity of Games, the depth of its cultural impact suggests there is far more at work. There have been predictable explanations that fit into the official narrative that governs the society that Hunger Games is about environmentalism (it must have been global warming that destroyed society) or class prejudice (there’s a ruling elite, therefore oppression). Conservatives have also chirped about what you would expect them to say (the government is oppressive, therefore, libertarian fable about low taxes). There’s also the interpretation that the entire thing is just one large metaphor for high school.
It’s perhaps a general rule of White Nationalism that the farther some cultural phenomenon or figure is from our position, the more inclined we are to read something we want into it. That said, the portrait of Panem that seems so relatable to tens of millions of young Americans suggests a deep seated disgust at the heart of the American psyche, particularly that of whites.
There is a conflict of the “99% versus the 1%” at the center of Panem, but it is a story that defies the approved media narrative of our own time. The Capitol that is the center of evil in Panem is driven by purposeless exploitation. Rather than grim faced blonde Herrenvolk oppressing the colored masses of the Districts, Collins presents an exaggerated portrait of our own progressive elites. They are effeminate and hysterical physical weaklings with pointless lives. The complicated edifice of power reaches its zenith not in a black-garbed order of Übermenschen fanatically dedicated to an occult quest, but in a contemptible menagerie of spoiled sexual deviants that give themselves cat whiskers and brightly colored wigs to look “attractive.”
Rather than fear, they inspire contempt. Katniss, upon encountering their way of life, if it can be so called, says, “What must it be like, I wonder, to live in a world where food appears at the press of a button? How would I spend the hours I now commit to combing the woods for sustenance if it were so easy to come by? What do they do all day, these people in the Capitol, besides decorating their bodies and waiting around for a new shipment of tributes to roll in and die for their entertainment . . . the whole rotten lot of them is despicable” (p. 65).
Rather than Nazis or even old school Communists, the oppressive Capitol society seems composed of liberal arts graduate students, part time workers at feminist bookstores in Portland, and a sprinkling of the wealthier members of Occupy Wall Street. Panem has somehow reversed Hegel’s master-slave relationship — the one who is unwilling to risk his life for honor has become the master.
Selectively controlled technology makes it possible. The Capitol’s media manipulation, genetically engineered creatures, warplanes, and hovercraft remind the reader of the current Hollywood Imperium’s unmanned drones. In contrast, Katniss is a poor and uneducated white huntress, precisely the kind of person sneered at nightly by the likes of Bill Maher or Jon Stewart Leibowitz. Hailing from the Appalachian coal country, she is from the one group that our own society despises beyond all others.
The districts are contrasted with the Capitol because they produce actually useful products and necessities for life. Workers here are willing to risk their own lives in dangerous jobs to secure food for deeply loved families and friends. Meanwhile, those connected to the system can wallow in pointless luxury. Even the ostensible Führer, Coriolanus Snow, surrounds himself with roses to conceal the smell of blood from his mouth sores and secured his position through poison and intrigue, rather than charisma, strength, or ideological fanaticism.
The name of the country itself says it all: the point of Panem is consumption — the pursuit of happiness, in its most degraded form. Rather than some departure from America, the Capitol is contemporary America taken to its logical conclusion. Neither market worshipping conservatives nor trendy lifestyle liberals should be comfortable with the results.
It’s been said that if I tell you our society is ruled by an oppressive elite, you will call me a liberal, a reformist, and an idealist. If I tell you who that oppressive elite is, you will call me a Nazi, a racist, and an anti-Semite.
The Capitol of the present United States continues to grow in wealth and power, systematically sucking wealth and productivity from the “districts” in flyover country. Federal government employees enjoy higher salaries and benefits than the productive classes and the patronage system is governed almost entirely with the objective of providing free educations and cushy jobs.
Meanwhile, Eric Holder’s own “peacekeepers” at the Department of Justice periodically sortie out into the districts to suppress local resistance to the central regime, whether its voter ID in Texas, an immigration law in Mississippi, or a troublesome sheriff in Arizona, even as entire cities become ungovernable.
All of this is meant to suppress white workers, the white middle class, and what’s left of an actually existing folk community, as the existence of a real country would interfere with an economy seemingly based on debt driven finance capitol, media manipulation, and services for a degenerate and sociopathic upper class. As in Panem, the lower classes are given reality television and the promise that — if they play by the rules — they may be given a taste of the good life, like the victors in the Games.
Media manipulation is also central to the story. Katniss’s encounters with the tributes trying to kill her or the obstacles the “gamemakers” throw her way are relatively simple compared to the necessity of creating the media image needed to survive. Participants in the Hunger Games are watched by citizens of Panem who have the ability to send “gifts” such as food, armor, or medicine to the players they choose. Of course, in order for “sponsors” to want to spend their hard-earned money to send gifts, the fighters have to create a relationship with the very people who are watching them die on television. Makeup, witty remarks, even completely fictional relationships are created in order to develop artificial human interest to invest the people of Panem in a particular fighter. Her assigned mentor Heymitch, a past winner of the games, trains Katniss more in media relations than in actual fighting. Katniss’s relationship to Peetra is partially one of sentiment, partially one of circumstance, but mostly, at least from her perspective, a deliberate ploy to win audience sympathy and their twisted form of love.
To win the Hunger Games, you have to become a celebrity. Behind the primitivism of spears, bows, and fighting to the death, the book is a product of the internet age, where a viral video or sex tape can make or break fortunes in an instant. Everyone is available and accountable to everyone else. This is the first generation that takes for granted that social networking, the internet, and media allow each person to present a completely artificial image to the rest of the world, one that eventually has the power to replace the “real” person behind it. In the age of Facebook, even supposedly passionate teenage relationships are about appearances as much as reality. Katniss is manipulated into a “relationship” with Peetra for her own survival and by the end of the book, even she doesn’t know what she feels anymore. She’s also dependent on the mass society that gives her the supplies she needs to face another day, but is also deriving entertainment from her suffering. “Why am I hopping around like some trained dog trying to please people I hate?” she says (p. 117). Of course, if she openly dissents from the Capitol, even with the slightest remark, Katniss, her family, and her friends will all be destroyed. The white advocate of today can sympathize.
What is truly horrifying is that the Capitol residents are in some ways even more degraded then their slaves. As with our own society, all experiences are mediated. Life in the Capitol seems to be about watching the games and imagining some kind of a real connection with the contestants, to be discarded when they conclude. This is hardly different from Oprah watching housewives cooing over Madonna’s latest African baby, obsessing over Jennifer Aniston’s new boyfriend, or watching Dancing With the Stars. Like residents of the Capitol, many Americans can only be termed alive in the purely technical sense, as they have no purpose to their existence beyond living vicariously through the people on an electronic screen. At least in Panem, the contestants are actually fighting for their lives, as opposed to a record deal.
Race is not directly addressed in the Games, and yet, as always, it is. In the book and certainly in the casting of the film, Katniss, Gale, Heymitch, and Peetra are all white, the last with blonde hair and blue eyes. The black characters serve in the traditional role of numinous Negroes who help the white protagonist come to a greater understanding of his or her place in the world and the responsibility to work towards social justice. Cinna, a fashion designer who helps Katniss win the crowds in the book and supports her, has been transformed from a green eyed protagonist in the book to being portrayed by Lenny Kravitz in the film. He is the one character in the Capitol who is wholly sympathetic and somehow aware of the contemptible nature of the society he serves. Somehow, when compared to contemporary fashion designers, this character does not ring true.
The two black tributes in the film, Rue and Thresh, both hail from the agricultural district 2 where crop pickers are forced to work all day in a presumable nod to slavery. Rue is a small, agile young girl who allies with Katniss in the Games before bearing speared by another tribute. As a young small female who dies pitiably, she becomes Katniss’s moral center. As Rue dies, Katniss sings to her and holds her hand, salutes her, and then puts flowers on her before her body is taken away. Collins thus avoids the necessity for Katniss to actually kill a member of one of the victim classes at some point. Thresh, who is also from Rue’s district, inexplicably spares Katniss at a critical moment in gratitude for her kindness to Rue. Again, as in Batman: The Dark Knight, when the black criminal refused to blow up the ship to save his own life, the large black male character shows all the evil white people the true meaning of morality by reacting in a wildly unrealistic way in a life or death situation.
The bad guys of The Hunger Games among the contestants are the “Careers,” tributes who have trained for the contest all their lives and are eager to kill for a chance of glory. The leader is the blonde haired Cato, who is the required blonde haired villain familiar to every teen movie, even apparently post-apocalyptic ones. “Glimmer” the beautiful but evil Aryan chick, serves as part of his pack along with “Marvel,” another evil Aryan. There are a few borderline nonwhite tributes, who exist to be quickly slaughtered and forgotten without us learning their probably unpronounceable names. As always, the heroes are white, the villains are whites, blacks serve as moral mascots to help us tell good from evil, and a few non-whites run around for scenery and to fill a quota of some sort. Whether unconsciously, accidentally, slyly deliberately, or with the kind of sanctimonious liberal racism that presumes only whites can be moral actors for good or evil, the message is for us.
In any movie about social change and revolution, the marginalized assign their own meaning, and no doubt some Communist is writing his own review about the Marxist subtext of The Hunger Games. Nonetheless, while a traditional Leninist could find substance in narrative of exploitation, such a message is outdated when confronting our socially liberal, eminently fashionable, and militantly multicultural ruling class. The residents of the Capitol look more like guest bloggers for Gawker than the lords of the Kremlin. The Hunger Games confronts the nihilism of modernity, with struggle, even deadly struggle, presented as a path to redemption and morally preferable to consumption. Even brutality is better than passively watching others do it for your entertainment and at least it means asserting your own existence. Whites as hunters, fighters, and warriors, even as children, is a bracing image when contrasted to the passive, overweight, apologetic and diabetic couch potatoes our enemies’ society has carefully bred. Nor is easy to avoid who recognizing is the enemy when the very programs on MTV or E! promoting the film are hosted by bizarre surgically warped creatures that look like they crawled straight out of President Snow’s entourage.
All American whites have both the Capitol and the Districts in them, and the mass media that pushes the franchise contains within it a self-directed radical critique. The society is sick beyond saving, in Panem and the Capitol, and the only question is what group will step forward to offer the alternative. The message is Catching Fire.
Down with the Capitol!
50 comments
I tried to read the first book of Hunger Games, as I generally like to keep in touch with youth culture, but the writing was so devoid of life that I simply could not get into it. I the author is wrong to group the Harry Potter series with Hunger Games and those vampire books, because JK Rowling is actually quite an entertaining writer with a powerful imagination. Clearly, however, these new series are tries at reproducing the success of the Harry Potter franchise, but the writing level in both series appeals to such a low common denominator that it saddens me. I think this is their most revealing feature–that the writing is so bad and no one seems to realize it. Even Steven King realized the greater quality of Harry Potter over Twilight.
I totally disagree. The Harry Potter stuff is so childish and silly that I couldnt even read one book. I have watched/fallen asleep watching the Harry Potter movies with Dresden more times than I can remember.
The Twilight series started out well in the books but got pretty predictable by the last book of the series, the movies are not so bad and the theme is actually pretty moral.
I love the Hunger Games, so do my kids and my sister and anyone else that I know who has read it. I guess I like the idea of rebellion against the controllers most. In this way I think that the theme and plot for the story of the Hunger Games is superior to both Twilight and Potter.
Okay, maybe I will give Hunger Games another try. But I’m not reading Twilight. That’s where I draw the line.
The Twilight books are unreadable. But the movies extract the stories from the unreadable prose.
Ugh………the movie was shit. I dont know how anybody who had not read the books would even have the slightest idea about what was going on. I expected at least as good as Twilight and it sucked big time. Plus the characters didnt look anywhere near what I imagined.
As a former Japanaphile, “Hunger Games” stole its premise from the novel/comic/movie “Battle Royale.” Of course it lacked the substance and analysis lying within “Hunger Games.” Excellent write-up Mr. Hood!
I actually head that the author got the idea from watching Survivor.
Stephen King’s first book, published under the pseudonym Richard Bachman, has a plot somewhat similar to the one in Hunger Games. It’s called the Long Walk. In it, 100 Boys are forced to compete in a walk where they must continuously walk four miles per hour. If they stop for too long, they get shot. Last man wins.
It’s much grittier than the Hunger Games but is still similar. It takes place in an alternate history of America that was taken over by a military dictatorship during WWII (the military staged a German false flag attack on the US east coast and used it as pretense to take control of the government), and the Long Walk becomes an annual cultural icon similar to the role the games play in the Hunger Games. Differences include that the Long Walk was more a way to placate the masses, as in the future American dystopia, being is a millionaire is not allowed. In the Hunger Games, on the other hand, the games are of course mere recreation for the decadent elite.
Yes, like Joan of Arc, for instance.
I cannot speak for IFA but my guess is that he’s complaining not about Joan, a true heroine, but about the fad that started in 1979 with Ridley Scott’s Alien, which reverted the traditional role of women in the movies and made males stupider than Ripley (which can also be seen in James Cameron’s sequel, Aliens). But that was just the beginning in Hollywood’s inversion of reality. Ramzpaul, whose video was featured yesterday here, has also complained in other videos that featuring a heroine in a martial masculine role in videogames is harmful for white interests.
It seems that Amazons and Viragos have become increasingly prominent in Jewish propaganda for masculinizing women and effeminizing men. Women like Boudicca, Joan of Arc, and Isabella the Crusader are certainly not creations of Jewish propaganda, but they may be regarded as exceptions proving the rule, and they were dependent upon men who fought for them.
Or Bradamante, the strong female knight from Orlando Furioso.
I’m with IRA in this case. The “strong female fighting character” is the most insufferable modern Hollywood trope of all.
Thank you for this review. I definitely do not want to read the book or see the movie. When the lesbian feminists pulled the Amazons out of the Greek myths, and made them icons for girls, they tended to forget the Amazons lost. They never asked the question ‘why did the Amazons lose?’ Achilles fell in love with Penthesilia AFTER he killed her. Hercules stole Hippolyte’s girdle (symbol of her power) etc. Pause for thought there, I do believe.
The main character in Hunger Games is a sort of avatar of Diana the Huntress. But maybe that’s Jewish-Lesbian propaganda too.
It all depends on how it’s used and in which society it’s used.
In traditional European societies, dominated by men, a Joan of Arc or a Daphne myth or a Britomart was a curious outlier, an exotic anomaly, and would not undermine the idealization of true femininity.
In modern society, where gender roles are reversed and toxic feminism is dominant, these character types become pernicious, and serve to further emasculate men and androgynize women.
My daughters want to learn archery because of these books. Archery has been a traditional sport for young ladies of culture for many years. I am so tired of all these men who are so threatened by any woman who is not barefoot, pregnant and silent…..
BTW the girl they chose for the role of Katnis was much more feminine and pretty and womanly than the way I imagined her in the book.
“BTW the girl they chose for the role of Katnis was much more feminine and pretty and womanly than the way I imagined her in the book.”
Yes, and predictably, the androgyny-pushing mainstream press has criticized her on this score.
BTW, there is a different path that is neither “barefoot, pregnant and silent” nor the lunacy of “110-pound woman kicking the crap out of dozens of 300-lb barroom brawlers,” the latter being the usual case in Hollywood today. Elizabeth, Götz’s wife in Goethe’s Götz von Berlichingen is Götz’s truest, most loyal ally, his rock and support. “Whom God loves, give him a wife like this,” Götz says. But that doesn’t mean that she can suddenly wield a claymore, mow down legions of knights single-handedly, and develop magical and anachronistic kung-fu skills, which would be the case in any modern Hollywood film.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Question for April Gaede:
You said:
I am so tired of all these men who are so threatened by any woman who is not barefoot, pregnant and silent…..
In reply:
Is this a particularly pronounced phenomena among White Nationalist males in particular?
I wonder, because they seem to be deeply concerned, even angered, about the idea of female empowerment, but seem absolutely silent on the feminization of men, a process that has been going on for several generations now.
This focus on half of the process seems rather inappropriate, and almost willfully calculated to be very ineffective.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Yes, and girls are taking it seriously. I worked with a woman who actually believed that women were as strong as men.
I guess I have to see this now. I’ve linked this review here:
Hunger Games and Battle Royale
I have to agree with those above, who said that Hunger Games is basically ripped off Battle Royale, which is incredibly much darker and more “mature”.
Excellent point about the TV-addicted culture of modern America, where people are like zombies and live through their celebrities on the screen. When a people are apathetic and decadent, when don’t have to struggle, they’ll eventually forget what it’s like to work for survival. They don’t truly live. I guess it’s the cycle of history that a group of people build up a great civilization through hard work, and eventually that civilization becomes so advanced that their descendants become spoiled, soft idiots who can’t maintain what their ancestors built up. So that civilization falls apart, and the whole thing starts anew.
(FYI, for those who complain about the Amazonian feminist heroine in Hunger Games, you should maybe check out Battle Royale. In that book, the male hero saves the day while the female heroine had a very nurturing role (that made all readers hate her). Of course, Battle Royale is set in a non-white society, a fascist Japan that won WW2, and doesn’t have much subtext that is relevant to modern-day white people.)
Great review, as usual. When it comes to gritty mass market fiction, I like Stephen King, Lee Child and George RR Martin. Kids, adolescents and women seem to drawn to The Hunger Games books. My wife is a huge fan of the series, and she is seeing the movie tonight, with my sister. At my wife’s request, I tried a few pages of The Hunger Games a while back and put it down after the first chapter. The book didn’t grab me because the writing is so obviously geared toward kids.
An excellent review of what is probably unworthy source material, though I won’t judge unless I see it.
When I read the premise of the story, it sounded like a mashup of two episodes of the old Star Trek series: The Cloud Minders, which depicts a world with a physically stratified society (“The people of Ardana are divided between the labor-class Troglytes, who work hard in the dangerous mines, while the elite city-dwellers reap all the profits and live in luxury”), and Bread and Circuses (note the title), on a planet where the Roman empire never fell and where the ancient gladitorial games have now become live television broadcasts.
Since Greg Johnson mentioned Diana the Huntress; she represents exactly the lesbian Amazonian. In mythology however, such archetypical women need to be conquered and then transfer their power to their conqueror (since Diana is a goddes, it would require a go for that purpose, this is why she has the human hunter killed that saw her naked). It reminds of the female chtonic power also lurking behind figures like world dragon Tiamat or Grendel’s mother. They do not exist to be left untamed forever or as a role model but it is up to true heroic solar men to cnquer them.
Oh you men need to stop being so threatened by fit and strong women. I was a horse trainer for over 25 years and better than most men in my field, it was not a Hollywood myth, it was the truth……
Forgive me for pointing this out, but saying that someone who doesn’t like something is “threatened” by it is a standard leftist ploy. Thus, for example, we have the fabrication of homophobia as a term for someone who is simply disgusted by perversity. Likewise, feminists constantly whine that men who don’t like “strong women” are “intimidated” by them. This does not follow, since one can dislike something and not be afraid of it.
(I only make this point because it’s worth indicating how our enemies’ unworthiest tactics are sometimes subconsciously imported into our own thinking.)
I am not “threatened” by “fit and strong” women. I simply find them completely unattractive and unappealing — at least in the form that female characters who fit this description are presented by Hollywood and the entertainment industry.
I only watched the trailer so far, haven’t bother to read the books and, as a newspaper criti, I could have received them for free.
But after seeing the trailer, the only thing that came to mind was: “Takeshi Kitano’s ‘Battle Royale’ ripoff, I hope they paid him copyrighs…”
Kitano’s movie is an adaptation of “Battle Royale” by Koushun Takami, was published in English language in 2009, and is available at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Royale-Novel-Koushun-Takami/dp/1421527723/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332692941&sr=8-1
If I had the time, and anything to gain by exposing Suzanne Collins as a plagiarist, I would bother reading and comparing both works on detail… but since I have better things to do, I won’t.
Thanks for the compliments, all.
For what it’s worth, I did look into the Battle Royale/Hunger Games connection prior to writing the review and Suzanne Collins denies taking anything from the former or even knowing about it before she wrote Hunger Games. Who knows the actual truth, but in the absence of any hard evidence to the contrary I just took her at her word and took HG as a stand alone creation.
I love The Hunger Games personally, but to each their own. As for the hate for strong female characters – it’s sad, but not unexpected. Generally I wouldn’t comment since I’m a female university student (and thus generally disliked by the Conservatives who often frequent sites of this nature), but I just wanted to say that a few technical mistakes were made in the review.
First of all, the male tribute from District 12 is Peeta, not Peetra, and the District 12 mentor is Haymitch, not Heymitch. Also, Rue and Thresh are from District 11, not District 2. District 2 is masonry and trains Peacekeepers, District 11 is agriculture. Also, District 2 is a Career district and where Cato and Clove hail from.
Generally I wouldn’t comment since I’m a female university student (and thus generally disliked by the Conservatives who often frequent sites of this nature)
It all depends on what sort of female university student you are as, to whether you’re disliked or not. For example, will you stand up to feminist professors who will condemn the majority of the traditional Western literary canon as being “sexist,” and defy them by asserting the greatness of these texts? Then you would be much liked. Or would you join in with the feminists in the denunciation of the great authors of the past as being “misogynists”? If so, then, yes, disliked. Very much.
“It all depends on what sort of female university student you are as, to whether you’re disliked or not”
so then I guess you are the one to judge that……. who says she wants to be liked by a bunch of neo con college Republican pukes? They sound boring.
Do you not see how you come off?
Truly strong wise mean are not upset by anything we women can say or do, they just deal with us. And yes, I do think that men who complain about women being too outspoken or strong willed are threatened by us. Did it ever occur to femiphobic ( I just invented that word btw to mess with you) men that we strong women don’t want or need them? We don’t care if we don’t attract them, we are looking for men who are stronger than us, not weaker. Men who complain about women being ” masculine” because we hunt or shoot or do active things ( or even things you cannot do, because I am pretty sure I could outride you any day of the week) are not the men we want. We want men like my husband who are strong athletes themselves, and intellectually sure of themselves.
I remember when I was about 13 I challenged a boy my age to a swimming race. I beat him soundly and made a big deal of it because I thought he was a jerk. My mom scolded me for not ” acting ladylike” and actually told me I should have let him win for his ego….Do men actually WANT women to not perform to their athletic best so that even weak sissy men can feel good about themselves????
Here we see it: the problem with attempting to restore the traditional Western structure that governed Western culture so well for centuries. Everyone has successfully been co-opted by the Cultural Marxists in their appeals to their selfish group interests.
Women might agree with some issues pertaining to race and what not, but when it comes to the ideology of feminism, nooooooo, we want that. That’s good for us. Who cares what it does to society.
The Jews make a show, sometimes, of participating in palecon/traditionalist circles, when when it comes to Israel, noooooo, that’s their sacred cow.
The gays participate in the movement to some degree, but banning perversity? Nooooo, they torture the argument every which way to pretend that homosexuality should be embraced.
So many seeming allies are only half-way allies. They have one foot in the traditionalist camp, and one foot in the modern world, a world that cleverly caters to their special interests.
Sorry, but it’s not a pick-and-choose scenario. You either rebuild the building whole, or you don’t. Western culture was an organic unit, and the establishment of traditional femininity, of racial awareness, of a recognition of the natural condition of heterosexuality and a suppression of the perversion of homosexuality, etc., were all a part of it.
As soon as one special-interest group (feminism, gay rights, etc.) gets theirs, the other group wants theirs, and quickly the structure collapses.
And incidentally:
“Truly strong wise men are not upset by anything we women can say or do, they just deal with us.”
That’s right. They deal with the situation — by going away. And I don’t blame them one bit.
This is why the men-going-their-own way movement is gaining ground — a movement that I find regrettable, but completely comprehensible. Men are not obligated to “deal” with “anything women can say or do.” Only a slave is obligated to endure “anything” someone else says or does.
Men will man up (become more masculine) once women start womaning up (being more feminine). It’s a two-way street. If this doesn’t happen, then the genders will continue to drift further apart, and the only people who benefit from this are our enemies, who had this goal in mind all along.
Fourmyle of Ceres
I have a very large chip on my shoulder from the treatment that I have received from some prominent WN men as well as a decade of listening to them whine about how “bad” we American women are….
From the fat ugly 50 year old bachelor who thinks he is going to get a 19 year old Russian beautyqueen to raise 10 kids to the young unemployed skinhead who bangs out child after child and treats his woman like dirt. I have seen so much of this over the years that it has left a really bad taste in my mouth.
White Nationalist men dont seem to want their women to do anything but cook and raise babies and keep their mouths shut. When a woman does come forward to try to raise racial consciousness or organize activism she is attacked by WN men for her private life ( even if the stories are not true they are too juicy to pass up). The men who stand by and allow this kind of badmouthing to happen are as bad as the perpetrators in my mind.
I am happy to cook and clean and homeschool my children but I am not going to keep my mouth shut and leave it all to the men.
I used to agree that we women were ” too feminized” but from what I have observed in reality, most racially conscious women want to be stay at home moms and wives. We want to support our men but so many of the men in the movement have become part of the he-man-woman-haters club that we end up feeling antagonistic toward them.
I am happy that my husband was raised by a strong woman. It makes us much more compatible because obviously I am not going to keep my trap shut……lol
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
April Gaede in blockquote:
Greg Johnson had the seminally important insight that, all too often, the males WN “attracts” are nihilists, and, extending his analysis, WN is the last rung on the ladder before they fall off the ladder of effective social interaction.
The problem is, as Harold Covington so astutely defined it, that they are coming to White Nationalism, a philosophy, to get something out of it, and not to put much of anything into it. Extending Johnson and Covington’s reasoning, it seems all too obvious they are looking at the Forms of solid Masculine “success,” without the Substance needed to either (1) make something happen at all , much less (2) make something better.
I have watched in silent horror as people talked of acts that said they saw the world as Children – somehow, as if by sympathetic magic, wearing ununiform uniforms of the NSDAP Cultural Moment would earn them the validation, the “respect,” they were so lacking in real life.
The attendance at the few WNist meetings I have attended broke cleanly into two demographics – smart guy wearing suits, wondering why no one wants to change a lifetime of political and social practices to adopt their new beliefs, and the “t-shirt crowd,” who are seeking any sort of validation they can get, by (almost) any means necessary.
I think that is a good part of the problem. Most of the WN “men” are so busy practicing sympathetic magic, like some sort of cargo cult (“If enough of us wear these uniforms, Uncle Adolf will come back and lead us to Victory!” No, Losers, if Uncle Adolf came back, he would be wearing Brooks Brothers suits.) The hard daily work of being a little better than you were yesterday, joining political parties to learn how to organize politically, and developing ethnocentric social and economic networks, is simply beyond them.
“The best Idea ever, attracting some of the worst people, ever.”
And, let me take your idea of the people who attack other people without foundation, and note that its almost as if a circuit breaker goes into effect when people of a certain higher Quality actually start to make headway. I don’t think it is always inspired by “mere” jealousy, and I don’t think it is by accident. If memory serves, Covington cited Tyndall as saying, “We are allowed to do anything we want but effectively organize politically.”
The “he-man-woman-haters” work to split us in two from the very beginning. I don’t think this is by accident, either.
Good.
William Pierce did a piece about trying to reform “The Movement,” stating he wanted to rid “The Movement” of “defectives.” He failed. My beliefs concerning Pierce have been stated elsewhere. The general assault on Masculinity didn’t help us, but Jack Donovan has some good ideas on how to deal with that.
I think the only answer is to try to move forward with the North American New Right political perspective, moderated by the temporal objective of a nation-state that is defined from its very foundations in ethnocentric terms. Harold Covington, alone, transcended all of the false dualities we are served up as “solutions,” and the Northwest Republic is the bridge between where we are, and where our Posterity deserves to be.
The first step is, of course, sending money to counter-currents each and every month. Any more? Send it to the Northwest Front. Any more? Do what you just did.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
A discussion exists in this thread concerning man-woman relations, and how these are changing, in what direction, to what degree, and why. It is worth being a bit more explicit about this in tying this discussion back to White Nationalism, in general, and the failure of historically defined White Nationalism to attract the “Better Sort” of people Pierce made reference to.
I want to avoid board wars, or trivializing the discussion. Yet, April Gaede has made reference to the many substandard (let’s be gracious!) men that have been attracted to historically defined White Nationalism. I have noted the absolute importance of Greg Johnson’s Insight concerning all too many of them coming to White Nationalism as part of their philosophy of nihilism.
What about women? Why does our philosophy seem to attract so many stunningly dysfunctional women? Yes, occasionally we get good quality people, but, by and large, the women seem to be either really smart people with the strategic perspective that allows them to understand the Fourteen Words as a living concept, or they appear to be the feminine counterpart to the worst of the t-shirt crowd, whose only skill seem to be opening beer bottles with their teeth.
The only example that attracts first rate women this everything into a metapolitical purpose – the Northwest Republic as the temporal bridge to the metapolitical project seems to have sufficient strategic depth to make it no just acceptable but desirable, to them. After all, where would they rather raise their children – the beautiful, bountiful snow-cap covered mountains to the Homeland, or the Third World Hell-Hole of Detroit? For that matter, where would they rather live the rest of THEIR lives?
What would it take for our philosophy to attract worthwhile women, to work alongside the worthwhile men in building a new nation?
Better men, doing better things, and that is pretty much it?
Have they become so demoralized that they have essentially surrendered to the mindless insensate hedonism selected for them by their Enemies?
Should we deal with this issue at all, or just build the New Nation, knowing that, when the time is “right,” the “right” women will flow into the last, best hope of the Race? Is the place to start right where we are, using the “build local” model of VNN/F’s “Hugh,” while focusing on the global issue of Race first, foremost, forever?
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
For some strange reason the song Attitude Adjustment by Hank Williams Jr. keeps invading my mind. I am not even a country music fan.
Race trumps sex April. By all means teach your daughters archery. Why don’t you start an archery club for mothers and daughters? Why aren’t you organizing women instead of trying to be one of the men and run the show? You are not Eva Peron you know and neither am I.
I will not sit back and play housewife and just let men run the show because they have done a pretty bad job of it so far. The current state of WN politics is a good example.
I am pretty sure that I am more a housewife and mom than most women around. Few women can outcook, outsew or outgarden me and I am a totally badass homeschool mom.
With that, there is no reason why I should just set back and let White Nationalist men do all the talking and planning. That is stupid. I am just as smart as many of those that claim to be leaders. I am not a WN leader because I proclaimed myself a leader. I am a leader because I do things, come up with awesome ideas and people follow me. I would love to be able to just sit back and cook and sew if WN men were doing enough. But they are not and so I have to continue to work hard for the 14 words.
Joan of Arc was engaged in mass war, and Diana the Hunter hunted animals.
These are quite different from the main character in Hunger Games who is involved in a kind of natural duel.
You’re picking nits here.
Greg,
The books are great. They were not written to be some major literary work, they were written to be consumed by 13year old girls. I found them entertaining, if that makes me immature then so be it, whatever. People are reading way too much into this movie. It seems to me it has bought out the anger in the he-man-woman-haters club. And the more those men who hate women come forward, the more it pushes women like me, stay at home moms and housewives to revolt against their hatred for us.
IN reply to karsten,
“Truly strong wise men are not upset by anything we women can say or do, they just deal with us.”
That’s right. They deal with the situation — by going away. And I don’t blame them one bit.
So you are saying that wise men run away from any conflict instead of being strong and dealing with their wives??? Wow you and I have a vastly different idea about what a strong man is. I think that you think men should only have to deal with women who are submissive and do exactly what they say. But the problem with those kinds of women are that they will be the first to flip and go along with the crowd that sings the multiculturalist agenda.
Strong women will stand up against multiculturalism while still being stay at home moms and housewives. You cannot expect us to fully understand the dire issues facing our race and just be content to sit back and make cookies and iron. Women who are not moved to fight for our race because they are too meek and mild will easily be swayed by what they read in the newspapers or watch on TV. Of course you can not allow your wife to read newspapers or watch TV…..
“blacks serve as moral mascots to help us tell good from evil”
I somehow found myself on this website and was struck by the above. What is a moral mascot? It sounds contradictory. How can a “mascot” have moral authority? What if I decide I don’t give a hoot about a mascot’s trivia concerning good and evil? Do I get arrested? Since this world appears to be totalitarian I have to assume the state decides what’s good or evil. If so, what is the relationship between these moral mascots and the state?
“I remember when I was about 13 I challenged a boy my age to a swimming race. I beat him soundly and made a big deal of it because I thought he was a jerk. My mom scolded me for not ” acting ladylike” and actually told me I should have let him win for his ego….Do men actually WANT women to not perform to their athletic best so that even weak sissy men can feel good about themselves????”
This sounds like two extreme positions to me. How about just winning the race and then being modest and self-effacing about it, understanding that though the boy was a jerk, some males tend to have fragile egos, a condition not cured by rubbing their nose in the dirt. It just makes them hate women all the more later in life. Strength through modesty but with an appreciation of your own worth. Knowing that being “stronger” than a male doesn’t prove s.f.a.
My mum endlessly told me to act like a lady and it didn’t always work. But 45 years later, I now understand. I guess that’s the way it is. Too soon old, too late smart.
I was 13, I hardly imagine that you were so “mature” at 13 that you knew all about men’s fragile egos and so forth. Besides, what about MY ego? If an Alpha woman kicks a Beta man’s ass, then it is certainly not the Alpha woman’s fault, it just teaches her to look for an Alpha man…..duh.
No, of course I didn’t know that stuff in any abstract sense. My point is that, decades later, you are defending the way you treated that boy. Don’t you have any regrets for your behaviour when you were young, even though it wasn’t your fault? I sure do, wishing I could turn back the clock. That we were young and ignorant is not something the world will forgive us for; I know that I’ve been chastised a-plenty for long-ago behaviour. Is this news to anybody?
I would like to point out that some girls did understand (this was 40 years ago) how to talk to boys and how to behave around them, without any knowledge of any sort of psychology. “Feminine” kinds of girls, not rather rowdy ones like me. Possibly it had been drilled into them how to act around the opposite sex or they were just born with a kind personality, an inborn sensitivity. Most likely the latter. I hope you will train your young’un how to behave around jerky boys. There IS a middle ground between slinking around eyes cast downward, letting them shit all over you, and being aggressive and unfeeling.
Stronza, those women you talk about and seem to hold in high regard for not revolting against ideas,( like men should be allowed to lead even if they dont earn it but just because they have a wiener) but rather playing the “game” of letting men run things are the same women who today at 45 are telling their daughters and sons that it is okay to race mix because the TV told them racism is bad.
Weak women are weak women in all ways. Women who allow sub par men to run things are weak because they are giving into the idea that society wants them to be submissive no matter what their instincts. I run by my instincts and always have, showing up sub par men is not a bad thing, letting them win for the sake of their fragile sub par egos is. These same women who cater to society and ” know their place” are the same women who are easily swayed by the strong media multiculturalism agenda because they are too ” sweet” to say or do anything about it.
If White Nationalism is to succeed, it needs to involve strong women who will stand up for the race, not sit back and worry about what the neighbors will think..
Nobody (not me, anyway) said anything about letting weak men “win”, not at all. Only that females have a burden to be gracious in a way that males are not expected to. Yes, there are different sets of rules when it comes to presentation and manners. About the swim race you had with a boy your own age – that is what I wanted to talk about – nothing wrong with challenging him. Just saying that a gracious response at his loss/your win would possibly have made a new friend. Because you were young you just did what you felt like doing, ie, making “a big deal of your win”, as many of us do at that age, because our opponent was an unlikable jerk.
The old ladies of the past were correct: smart women “run things” but let the [weak] men think they did it. It will always be that way. We have to be smart as foxes, understanding that strong men out there will deal with the weak men in their own way, as it should be. No woman ever cured a weakling by taking on a male role; at least I don’t think so.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.