Counter-Currents
1,022 words
In trying to articulate the white message—I mean primarily the morality of survival, since that is presently so critical—and reach others with it, it is essential to be aware of the differences between orality, print, and electronic media. This is true as well when studying history, for the generalizations one makes and the conclusions one draws about the past are closely related to the centrality of social communication in any given era.
Historically, it seems obvious once you think about it consciously, that societies based upon orality, writing (hand-written manuscripts), the printing press, and today’s electronic media (movies, television, radio-when-it-was-“TV,” pop music, video games, etc.) must necessarily have been vastly different in part because of the medium of social communication dominant at the time.
Thus, transitions from one form of media to another constitute social revolutions themselves.
In Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (1985), Jewish media critic Neil Postman called this “media as epistemology,” because the dominant form of media in any given age powerfully affects a culture’s ways of thinking, or even knowing. Thus, he referred to the transition from typographic (print-oriented) culture to electronic mass media culture as an “epistemological shift.”
Postman’s primary contention is that typographic culture was superior to electronic media culture. I feel the same way, and agree with most of the reasons he cites for thinking so.
Of course, who controls the media and who censors it is also vital. However, Postman is not forthcoming on that point. This is what motivates his belittling of George Orwell. Careful to emphasize that he is not making a “total assault on television,” Postman cites as socially beneficial features of the medium “not to be taken lightly” its emotional power “so great” as to “arouse sentiment against the Vietnam War or against more virulent forms of racism.”
By this he does not mean Jewish racism or anti-white racism. He means white consciousness. Similarly, the reference to the Vietnam War means television’s power to undermine anti-Communism (he dislikes Joseph McCarthy). Nevertheless, it is obvious that the emotional power of the medium could be used against Jews and other anti-white racists the same way it has been used against whites.
Postman believes it is a delusion that television and print “coexist,” since coexistence implies parity: “There is no parity here. Print is now merely a residual epistemology” (Emphasis added).
This is pretty important. Where do most people get their ideas, values, and beliefs from, even if they are unaware of it? His thesis is that print and television, in and of themselves, provide, facilitate, or impose different ways of knowing.
I suspect that, overwhelmingly, most people drawn to the pro-white or anti-genocidal cause arrive at it through print.
Certainly I arrived at my ideas through print. All my life I have been print-oriented, although I did not think of it that way. If I had had to articulate my limited self-awareness, it would have gone something like: “I love to read [books, mostly nonfiction, especially]. I read a lot. Gee, not many other people do.”
Furthermore, when we think of trying to persuade others, we tend naturally to think of writing—establishing websites for people to read (formerly, journals, magazines, tabloids, or newsletters) and writing books.
We harbor an essentially occult belief, or hope, that this can—somehow—change things.
In other words, we almost always think in terms of utilizing what Postman is convinced (correctly, I believe, as far as public discourse and social control is concerned) is “merely a residual epistemology.”
There are some obvious reasons for this. For example, print is within our means, or potentially within our means. It is also comparatively simple, technically. Electronic media are more capital intensive and require mastery of specialized, ever-changing technology. Their legal, regulatory, and business aspects tend to be complex. They are huge, oligopolistic, and, because of their enormous influence, tightly monitored and censored.
But something more fundamental is at work as well. Reading, compared to television, gives priority to “the objective, rational use of the mind”:
It means to uncover lies, confusions, and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense. It also means to weigh ideas, to compare and contrast assertions, to connect one generalization to another. In a culture dominated by print, public discourse tends to be characterized by a coherent, orderly arrangement of ideas. (Postman, p. 51)
I always thought of reading, in addition, as fun, a way to learn things—virtually anything, in fact, that might interest me. Reading has always been a voyage of adventure and discovery. I’ve traveled much further, and seen many more wonders sitting in my chair than most people who have never cracked open a book.
People who discover white nationalism are often those who have been actively searching for answers, and who possess a psychology peculiarly suitable to the sort of discourse Postman describes. Without being aware of it, they constitute a print-oriented minority in a culture dominated by and controlled through the electronic mass media.
I would argue a related point Postman does not make, though it is hugely important. Print is virtually the only medium where certain kinds of information can even be found—though, admittedly, it requires exceptional dedication and persistence to discover the scattered pieces of the puzzle even there, and to put them together in a coherent fashion. Not many people, even readers, can do this, or have any interest in doing it.
Nevertheless, precisely because print/reading is residual, it has, until recently, been less heavily censored than primary media. Indeed, where else can you find pro-white information, apart from someone in your life, typically a close friend or family member, who successfully brings the issue to your attention—which almost never happens?
Of course, at some point, as under Communism, society reaches the bottom of the Jewish barrel, and print becomes as valueless as television because the censorship is so heavy-handed, and the prevailing dogmas so hardened.
This is what “hate speech” laws and other forms of suppression are designed to accomplish—complete intellectual constipation, an environment congenial to ideologically prim, narrow-minded, intellectually unadventurous people such as journalists and academics.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
17 comments
Andrew,
Are you certain Postman was a Jew? I recall there being several inferences to his Christian faith in the chapter(s) comparing televangelism to churchgoing.
I agree wholly with Postman’s thesis – I defy anybody to not read ‘Amusing Ourselves to Death’ and not turn into a nodding bobblehead doll the entire time – but I’m not sure about your own (apparent) argument. The whole WN has plenty of non-print media outlets. Among these are tons of YouTube (or otherwise online) videos and a host of podcasts (I listen to David Duke’s at least once a week).
But I definitely agree that “hate speech” (or “hate facts” as some mockingly call them) can be censored in any media. People need to be reminded that they always have the right to be curious. That is an empowering truth, and far more appealing than the emotional paralysis caused by political correctness and hate speech laws.
David,
Postman did not say he was Christian anywhere. He came across to me as anti-Christian in the section on televangelists, and a couple of references to Jews he considered moral authorities (Elie Wiesel [!], for one). Cannily, he contrasted TV evangelists unfavorably with American Puritan divines of the 17th and 18th centuries—not by demonstrating the superiority of the latter, but simply asserting it.
All of the facts and circumstances surrounding the author suggest that he was Jewish (he died in 2003): geography, photo, family members’ names, his psychology, etc.
But there’s no need to rely upon good circumstantial evidence of that kind: he was interviewed for a book called Growing Up Jewish in America: An Oral History, in which he discussed his background.
Here’s my big interest: how are things going to change as passive electronic media (television) becomes superseded by interactive electronic media (videogames)? What difference currently exists between passive print media (newspapers and magazines) and interactive print media (blogs and forums)?
OT (but I think this is noteworthy enough to bring to GJ and CC attention. Not sure where else to put it)
A new metapolitical front. Did you know Greece and Rome are no longer European civilizations but Middle Eastern, merely one of many cultures centered mainly in North Africa, the Middle East and the Mediterranean? There is a movement working to make this approach the new standard. Basically, it’s mainstreaming of Bernal, ending the classics as a field of study, and transferring white civilization’s greatest achievements to the east. Andrew, I believe you have mentioned Bernal. The hits just keep on coming by the evil bastards. I’d bet money we will find Jews driving this one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2013/jul/11/ancient-greece-cultural-hybridisation-theory
Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization is the antidote to this nonsense as reviewed here by Collin Cleary.
https://counter-currents.com/2013/04/ricardo-duchesnes-the-uniqueness-of-western-civilization/
It was not in my local library, but I got it through the lending library province wide. The problem was that it is very dense and requires alot of thought. I hope it come out in a paperback version I can afford and take in, in smaller doses. I could not renew it.
“The Uniqueness of Western Civilization” is available in paperback:
http://www.amazon.com/Uniqueness-Civilization-Critical-Sciences-Academic/dp/9004232761
Lew,
You’ve probably already seen the comment by Domitius Corbulo on the Guardian article posted at TOO after you posted your link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/07/hybrid-fabrications-versus-greek-originality/
I suppose I should be more careful about where I wear my “I still read books” button.
Reading is racist and so is opera and classical music.
For opera lovers this site has a summer sale.
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/summeropera.php
rhondda:
You might want to put “The Uniqueness of Western Civilization pdf” in your search engine.
Thanks. That will take a while reading off of the computer.
No, download it.
Read at leisure as a charter member of the Jack London Reading Society, a subsidiary of counter-currents publishing!
While you all are arguing about whether Neil Postman is or is not a jew, nobody has pointed out that these ideas did NOT originate with Postman.
The idea that a change in the mediation mode leads to a shift epistemologically, to a reordering of the shape of “knowing” and the shape of affected social orders came from the pen and mind of …
Marshall McLuhan.
Anyone ever heard of “The medium is the message”?
McLuhan was so far ahead of the curve on these matters that he was widely misunderstood and misinterpreted in his “own time”, the 50’s thru the 70’s. And it appears that now, Postman, who stood on McLuhan’s shoulders, is credited with this thinking. An abomination!
C-C would do well to place McLuhan in its lineup of Great White Thinkers, and give him his due.
At the very least please don’t publish articles putting those who stood on his shoulders on a pedestal, and not even mentioning their master, McLuhan.
Reading: “Understanding Media: The extensions of Man”, “The Gutenberg Galaxy”. All available for about the last fifty years.
Mr. Hamilton,
You posed the question:
“Where do most people get their ideas, values, and beliefs from, even if they are unaware of it? His thesis is that print and television, in and of themselves, provide, facilitate, or impose different ways of knowing.”
When we are born, our minds are essentially a tabula rasa, a blank slate waiting to be written upon. We are wired to learn, for example we are programmed for language, and will absorb whatever language our nurturers teach us. Our minds can be roughly divided into two parts, the conscious mind (analytical, critical, decision-making), which has limited storage (about 5-9 bits of information on average, depending on the person), and the subconscious mind (emotional, intuitive, often irrational with virtually unlimited storage). As we grow from infancy and experience life, our beliefs, opinions and values are written onto the subconscious mind in the form of programs, much like software running on a computer. When we are exposed to new information, we use the critical faculty of our conscious mind to compare this data with what is already there in our library. If it is compatible, then our previous understandings are strengthened; if incompatible the information is usually stored as an anomaly, but not accepted. When young and impressionable, we usually unquestioningly absorb ideas given to us from those we trust, such as our parents, and those become truth for us.
The conscious mind is the part we are aware of, and when reading print, that analytical/critical part is activated. But like an iceberg, the greater mass of our minds is below the surface; namely the subconscious part. Humans are primarily driven by the attitudes, beliefs, habits and thinking patterns stored there, which are not usually analyzed by the conscious mind. That deeper, emotional part of us is king.
When people engage in self-sacrificing behavior (the kind which a political movement is built upon), they are being stimulated by the emotional subconscious, and not rationality. Soldiers rally around the flag and charge the enemy not for reasons of logic, but the strongest subconscious emotions (love of country and comrades) even overcoming self-preservation needs. The Jewish instinct driving them to attack an alien race emanates from the same place (likewise those who wish to defend their race are motivated from that same place). The great speeches that succeed in motivating have an emotional appeal (they often bring tears to the eyes of the listener).
To change a person’s beliefs, you must usually tap into their (primarily emotional) subconscious. The problem, of course, is that the critical faculty of our conscious minds acts as a gatekeeper, preventing ideas that disagree with our current knowledge from being accepted. In the case of print, everything is being processed by our conscious, analytical minds, and thus print is not best suited to persuading the subconscious. On the other hand, when we watch the Tube, we enter into a trace-state. This is a normal state that we enter into throughout the day (driving, day dreaming, our conscious minds drift off). In a trance, our critical faculties go to sleep to some extent, and we become highly suggestible, willing to integrate new ideas into our minds without much critical analysis. The subconscious mind reacts powerfully to emotion-driven ideas.
Studies show that within a few minutes of being in front of the Tube, our minds shift from our normal waking Beta State (brainwaves at 15 to 40 Hertz) to an Alpha state (brainwaves at 8 to 14 Hertz). In this trance-state, we are much more open to influence from commercials, and also the more implicit messages we receive. Ideas bypass our critical factor and become embedded in our belief system. This is of course the process involved in hypnosis, when our minds shift to the most suggestible state of Theta (brainwaves at 5 to 7 Hertz).
Thus, it is true that “Reading, compared to television, gives priority to “the objective, rational use of the mind”: It means to uncover lies, confusions, and overgeneralizations, to detect abuses of logic and common sense.”
But, persuasion in a political context is primarily an appeal to emotion, not reason. And the subject of the preservation of one’s kind is a highly emotional issue at heart, with an incredibly powerful draw. Like a mighty river held back by a dam, there is immense potential energy waiting to be unleashed.
With regard to “Roger’s” post, see this:
Reading is Racist (Actually)
Thanks for that link, MOB. While the stuff in that link barely scratches the surface of the SIGNIFICANCE of McLuhan’s thinking for understanding “what is going on in the West”, it’s a start, and I do think anyone who reads/views it will be enticed to “scratch deeper”.
As I’ve studied McLuhan over the last 3-4 years, I’m coming to realize that it wasn’t “The West” or “European Culture” which created/invented/whatever the medium of alphabetic literacy, but rather that alphabetic literacy, in the form of mechanically reproducible and easily distributed “things” called books …. CREATED “The West”.
Oh yes, there was a “geographic” and “cultural” West which preceded printing and books, but it was an entirely different thing, a thing which we, saturated as we now are with all forms of easy mediation, have a hard time even imagining. We tend to impose what is now “normal” on our mental picture of the shape of culture/life in pre-Gutenberg times; a huge mistake.
We can not “go back” to this age, from Gutenberg until say, the 40’s (pre-tv). We must learn to swim in the new waters. This will take a shape that will NOT be a peaceful “global village” in the way that mis-interpreters of McLuhan like to envision things.
McLuhan was a bit like that line out of the New Testament, and perhaps even a line by Freud. His message is not one of peace and “let’s all get along together”. Rather, he details how mediation changes, and the technologies which enable them, bring a SWORD, and a PLAGUE. Our future lies in understanding this, and directing the SWORD to our benefit, and becoming a PLAGUE for those who seek our destruction.
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.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment