Don’t Feed the EnemyMark Gullick
How many friends have we over there?
The border guards fight unconvincingly.
Whate’er we do it seems things are arranged.
We always have to feed the enemy.
— Magazine (Howard Devoto), “Feed the Enemy“
I believe it was Pamela Geller who coined the term “enemedia.” She is, of course, a woman with concerns which would not necessarily chime with Counter-Currents readers — of which more later — but, as we used to say in England, in the days when the pubs were still open, a good dart is a good dart.
The mainstream media, legacy media, regime media, call it what you will, are the enemy of anyone on the political Right. They are essentially the paramilitary wing of globalism and its client governments in the same way that the IRA is the paramilitary wing of Irish political party Sinn Féin. They are not in existence to inform you. They despise you, in fact, and part of the point of the media is to remind you of your humiliation in the face of the secular taqiyya that is contemporary corporate Western news content.
They are not working alone. Big tech is the boot-boys, the goon squad, who provide cover for the traditional media and keep the road ahead clear of dissenters, but the fourth estate is now the engine room of the woke crazy train, having gone from speaking truth to power to being told by power what the truth is.
I say big tech is the goon squad, but you won’t see Dorsey or Zuckerberg breaking down doors. The rough stuff is left to the now-compliant police in the countries that interest big tech and their handlers most, as well as the more subtle but rapidly developing Chinese-style social credit system in European countries and North America. Since I wrote recently about the ex-BBC journalist Alex Belfield, hounded by the police for embarrassing what is chillingly called Britain’s “state broadcaster,” we have increasingly seen the penchant the deep state has for using its police to enforce its new categorical imperatives.
However, and as the editor of this very site said after his own politically motivated arrest in Norway, “we have our own media now.” But who are “we,” and how effective can “our own media” be if they are fragmented and internally adversarial? One of the main strengths of the mainstream media is their ideological unity. The truth is not important except as a construct. What is important is the faultless learning of lines from the same script.
Of course, you don’t get journalism with any integrity under the current ideological junta of corporate-controlled content manipulators. Why expect it? What you get is information design. The media are demonstrably Left-wing, and for the Left, truth is not a testamentary record of objective truth, but a moveable feast. It’s like origami. You take the plain piece of paper and make it into whatever you like. So, where does that situate the Right-wing media, if we can even locate them to begin with?
There are no Right-wing mainstream media in the UK and you wouldn’t get a job if you were even suspected of having conservative sympathies, particularly while white. Journalism has changed its requirements. In America, the main TV media channel considers gay sock-puppets such as Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper to be journalists. They are not; they are political activists.
In passing, and although the situation is much the same across Europe and the anglophone Commonwealth countries, an honorable mention goes to Sky News Australia. A random excerpt from this weekend shows this channel’s bullish and conservative nature, refreshing as that is. A Conservative government minister, Nicolle Flint, made a short speech in the Australian parliament in which she discussed the very real problem of Aboriginal rape culture. ABC, the Australian Broadcasting Company, simply stopped their radio broadcast while she spoke, and transmitted 20 seconds of “dead air.” Sky News Australia was all over this in a shot, as they are with “woke” culture generally, and that simply would not happen in the UK. Tucker Carlson might chase it in the US, but, as noted, the UK lacks any genuinely conservative media voice, with the very, very occasional and exceptional conservative perspective from journalists such as Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips. Other than these glitches, if you want a Right-wing perspective on events and their consequences, you have no choice but to turn to dissident online media.
However, the plot thickens. Although the media is almost entirely under the control of the Left and their new cultural Marxist commissars, all is not well in the camp. The traditional media have been in gradual decline for some time in terms of sales (and thus advertising revenue), and this is beginning to accelerate. Many newspapers have not found the transition to an online format an easy one to negotiate, and TV ratings for some of the major news providers are, if not exactly in freefall, then on a downward glide.
As refuseniks as different as Greg Gutfeld and Mark Dice noted in the same week, the major American news outlets still need Trump to provide the bilious outrage on which the Left survive, and now he’s gone. Like the supervillain in a comic-book franchise, they are desperately trying to bring him back to life, if only to keep voter attention away from the crazy train gathering speed toward the missing section of the bridge with interim president Joe Biden at the wheel like an Alzheimerian Casey Jones.
It may be that consumers of news are becoming wary and weary of the new orthodoxies faithfully adhered to by journalists: the scriptural edicts of woke, constant anti-white rhetoric, globalism, LGBTQ, the sanctity of blackness, the COVID melodramatics, Islam and its many wonders (not so much the bombs and beheadings and so on), transgenderism and all the other grotesques at the Leftist carnival. The next year could be a defining moment in testing the credibility of the public across a hemisphere.
This disenchantment, if such it is, is partly due to what we might call “brand constriction,” and the Left may be about to discover this design flaw in their strategies to close down debate. Their own alternative media are painting themselves into a corner as the range of possible, career-extending opinion narrows, and their claim to be in some way a resistance movement tends to fold under questioning when they realize who their allies are. It’s fine and dandy to be a firebrand Leftist online writer, fighting for social justice, “equity,” and the recognition of systemic racism. But it must be somewhat deflating to realize that you agree with the government. Aren’t you supposed to be against The Man rather than sitting on his knee?
So, the rogue gene in the DNA of the Left is the paucity of their vision. Their motivating ideologies, such as they are, are now complete. We know where the Left is going because they already got there. Thus far and no further. They can’t. They have nowhere to go. They have set out their stall with such precision there is no longer any room for progress.
All together now: White people and their history are evil. Blacks (and their train of supporting-role victim groups) are oppressed and by definition on the side of the angels. And, er, that’s it. Andrew Anglin, intellectually speaking, reads like Thomas Sowell by comparison, and Anglin doesn’t view a paragraph as well-crafted unless he’s called someone a kike or a nigger.
That is part of the problem, by the way, the dopamine hit some on the Right get from playground abuse. But we’ll get to that.
So, can the Right-wing, dissident media take advantage of this fault line, this chink in the Leftist armor? The phrase “Liberal hivemind” is a familiar one. It is, also, unfortunately, the main clue as to why the Left has such crushing control over Western culture. They not only think identically, but they have also put in place a proxy social credit system that can enforce this conformity. But this too has a built-in fault the Left lacks the intellect to see. They are the masters now, and they did not heed sage advice: be careful what you wish for. If you spent decades at the barricades screaming at the establishment, then find you are the establishment, it may not be long before the great unwashed finger you as poacher turned gamekeeper.
In the UK, certainly, the “establishment” was traditionally, and certainly throughout the period from 1950 to around 1990, perceived as Tory, or Conservative. But those Leftists who believe it still is are like sufferers from Phantom Limb Syndrome, who still feel an amputated arm or leg. The establishment, now in its new livery as the “deep state,” has crossed the floor and is now Left-wing, in some aspects hard Left. This is a weak spot the Right and its fractious and divided media should be exploiting. But we have built-in faults of our own.
Stop me if you have heard this one before, but when Orwell (don’t worry; it’s not 1984) arrived in Spain to aid the fight against Franco, as chronicled in Homage to Catalonia, what appalled him in the first instance were not the appalling conditions or the slim chances of victory, but the squabbling and in-fighting between the supposed allies on the Communist side. Again, I have used this before, but it is a riff worth repeating, and Monty Python’s Life of Brian features briefly sums this up with the rift between the Judaean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea. The dissident Right is in a similar pickle, and for tawdry reasons.
Now, I am an amateur opinion journalist, de facto. I get my features published in various online magazines and occasional dead-wood publications, the only pay I receive coming from these. (No one writes for the dissident media primarily to enrich themselves). That aside, I read 20 to 30 features online daily, and scan-read another 20 or so. A lot of headlines don’t really need further investigation, so there are unread features such as “Blahblah College to vet lecturers’ social media” which don’t really require further inspection or bookmarking unless you wish to source them.
But whether I am reading Breitbart or the Occidental Observer or Taki’s Magazine, watching Paul Joseph Watson or Tucker Carlson or I, Hypocrite, finding something of interest at Russia Today, Gates of Vienna, VDare, Zero Hedge or Guido Fawkes, or chuckling at Mark Dice or Greg Gutfeld, I know that I am looking at different prismatic shades of a spectrum produced by the same light source. Dice and Gutfeld, incidentally, a month after the agreement I mentioned over the media’s need to re-animate Trump, had markedly different positions on Caitlyn Jenner running for California governor. And that agreement followed by a difference of opinion is precisely my point, and what infects Right-wing media discourse.
Many on the Dissident Right, when commenting on or sneering at others of the same persuasion because of tiny doctrinal differences, like church fathers at the Council of Trent, remind me of a conversation about pop music I was once involved in. A pub conversation, many pints in, it was always going to be a good-humored difference of opinion. Band X is better than Band Y, although Band Y’s album A is better than Band X’s supposedly best album, B.
One guy’s opinion genuinely interested me. He launched an impassioned and quite lengthy diatribe against Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Now, I have always liked the song because I was a teenager when it was at number 1 for what seemed like a year and I like early Queen, but I wasn’t interested in this guy’s opinion because I like the band. I asked him not why he hated it, but why he hated it so much. His answer was revealing.
“I hate it,” he said, “because everyone else likes it.”
And that nutshells some on the Dissident Right, most of them commentators rather than writers. One gets the impression they would struggle to flesh out their comments, or the snippy reflux that passes for it, in essay form. “To essay,” after all, means “to try” in old English, and what these people do is at a far remove from any effort. It’s tippy-tap bedroom stuff.
The Right have to do what the Left have signally failed to do: they have to lose the crazies. I am not referring to those with opinions that seem unpalatable. That is what the Right ought to be about. I refer to those who, if they don’t read exactly what corresponds to the reverberations in their own echo chamber, dismiss the writer as gay, or a cuckservative, or a Jew. This is a page torn from the Leftist playbook, neither dignified nor intelligent. The Right has to learn to march together and in the same direction, just not in lockstep.
So what is the solution? It’s not easy to picture the Right-wing media sitting down for a type of dissident Apalachin, although, if they did, two things would be certain: the deep state and its Antifa shock troops would be about as keen for that to happen as state and local authorities were about the original in 1957, and the food would not be as good. But a virtual pow-wow is surely feasible. In the end, you may not like some dissident sites and outlets, but it will repay your time to find the ones who are rowing on the same tide as you.
We either hang together, or, well, you know the rest.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
***||| …the UK lacks any genuinely conservative media voice, with the very, very occasional and exceptional conservative perspective from journalists such as Peter Hitchens and Melanie Phillips. |||***
Melanie Phillips??? Really??
She is more a Zionist shill than as someone having ‘exceptional conservative perspective’.
She is a despicable anti-Iranian Judeophile.
I don’t think the author of this article is very much bothered by Zionism.
Melanie Phillips is fanatically defensive about Jews, Judaism and Israel. She attributes all criticism of these sacrosanct matters to an antisemitic tendency that, in her view, dominates the Western world. This is the basis of her ‘islamophobic’ utterances — for Melanie, too much Islam would be bad for Jews.
Having said that, the rest of her opinions are genuinely conservative, or at least conservative on social issues. She is on record as opposing BLM, transgender rights, radical feminism and the ‘progressive stack’ in general. This has been her undoing.
She is no longer really respectable and mainstream these days, having been banished from television to radio and from the intelligentsia’s news rags to the mid-market tabloids. It’s only a matter of time before she falls foul of Britain’s burgeoning hate crime legislation.
I’m mostly in agreement with this submission, that minor differences in opinion should not cause rifts on the right. However…
I’m not sure what to think about the Greg Gutfeld/Mark Dice example re: Caitlyn-Bruce Jenner.
Are we to surmise that the dissident right should be more open to hare-brained takes like Gutfeld’s? (And yes, I can’t avoid pointing out his tribal loyalties). Are we supposed to get on board with the idea of a crazy person who cuts off their own genitalia running the executive branch of (arguably) the most valuable piece of real estate in the world? As a supposed CONSERVATIVE?
If this is what it means to be a Republican or a conservative in 2021, then I’m just going to keep on board the mass exodus of disaffected social conservatives from mainstream politics. Voting no longer means anything to me. I will not water down what it means to be a social conservative to the point where I support a crazy person just because they have an (R) beside their name and are for lower corporate taxes.
Not unless that crazy person is promising to enforce the 1st and 2nd amendments completely and absolutely, including in the private sector. That MIGHT be enough to change my mind.
“the faultless learning of lines from the same script”. Yes, orchestration. We hear this word-for-word orchestration of the message every day.
But for me, the mystery is: how does the party line actually get conveyed across numerous and ostensibly competitive networks?
By what mechanism is their message conveyed, word for word, down to the talking-heads who then spew it to the public?? By internal memo? At the morning conference? Verbally? The lowly talking-heads don’t just make the message up as they speak!
How does the sausage get made and conveyed? Numerous people inside media who daily see this process. Where is the whistle-blower? Or are they being so well fed that they are pleased to sing the song of they whose bread they eat?
And why do we not hear, from within the journalism profession, protest from all the passionate champions of “free speech”?
Because no one on the Left (or Right for that matter) ever cared a rats-ass about free speech. And certainly not now. But now, in the present climate, the Left thinks they can show their true lying faces and get away with it.
Aside from internal corporate channels, there are transmission belts for the industry. JournoList was one of them, until an outsider found out about it and spilled the beans. There are some fun compilations on YT of journalists saying the same thing – one television talking head after another reading from the same boilerplate, even ones from unaffiliated companies.
Individualism is suicide in a world of collectives.
The anti-Whites are moving in tandem toward their goal of total world domination. We White positive folk are floundering around in the anti-White narrative instilled in us at every turn.
When we White positive folk step out of the anti-White narrative together, lock arms and concentrate on the goal we choose to focus on, there will be no stopping us.
I could be wrong but Biden’s rule will devolve down into a Jonestown Massacre blended with a Manson Family Feud and a Waco Siege. But this time it’ll be the left doing it to the left and no one will get to pretend anymore. Biden is literally the embodiment of Mason’s prediction. A white figurehead ruling darkies. Its bizarre. Can’t end well.
>Alzheimerian Casey Jones.
Driving that train,
Exelon® in his brain
Biden Joe you better
Watch your speed!
Betcha that that notion
More than once crossed his mind …
Very good. Was his train called The Cannonball Express?
Sure, there’s something to this. We should disavow the crazies. “I’m not with him”. But policing the Right should be a secondary or tertiary activity. Our primary activity should be fighting the Left. With just about everyone who is willing and able and shows up.
Don’t feed them…..or take their bait either. A couple of weeks ago, a “White Lives Matter” rally was announced to take place just days before the date in Huntington Beach, California at the same KKK propaganda was being discarded all over the city. The turnout was small, if there even was one and the leftist/BLM counter protest was much larger. I think it goes without saying who really organized that event.
Now is a good time to lay low. What people have to understand is that that in general, blacks hate white people regardless of what side of the spectrum they are on. The only blacks that really support Biden are those ones who badly want acceptance and friendship of white liberal women. The kind who throw in the LGBTQ tag next to BLM, despite the fact that a black ethostate would be far more hostile to gays than a white one I think.
Biden’s danger lies not in that he’s super smart and pro-black. He’s actually really stupid. Stupid, but like most who run for president, a megalomaniac who’ll do and say anything to get people cheering, even at the expense of white society. But a fair system and “change” isn’t what blacks want. They want to destroy and tip the scale completely over to one side. A completely unfair system in their favor is what they want. Justice wasn’t served with OJ Simpson and they celebrated in the streets. It wasn’t served with Chavin and they celebrated some what, but it’s still not enough because crime still isn’t legal for blacks to commit without impunity. Biden, despite the rhetoric isn’t going to dismantle police any time soon.
The left need villains and so does the media. White people are the only acceptable enemy. Which is why, for one small example, “Asian Hate Crimes” is presented as a problem of “white supremacy” and still blaming Trump despite most of the perps being non-white. This is also all geared towards keeping the heat and pressure off Biden and the Democratic Party. Trump is gone, but Portland is still burning. As we now see, suddenly the Biden’s FBI is changing their tune on Antifa and the mayor of Portland is suddenly talking about cracking down on them.
The media also isn’t driven so much by propaganda as they are a desire for money. Most articles are written by some 20 something struggling to live in a cool kid city. Problem for them, is that without Trump suddenly democrats who seemed to become radicalized commies suddenly became “bored with politics” the second Biden won office. So now they are really suffering and desperate.
Maybe I’m delusion or crazy. But I have an alternative theory Biden is the type who’ll let the far left and blacks purposely get so out of control that even white liberals will beg him to crack down. It’s not that hasn’t been done before.
“The media also isn’t driven so much by propaganda as they are a desire for money.”
Au contraire. Like Hollywood, their income does not derive from consumers but from wealthy backers and owners. They are far more concerned with getting their message out than they are with making a profit – this has been demonstrated over and over again by extremely profitable, semi-conservative or family movies being ignored or panned by critics and cultural arbiters. All the ‘cool kids’ who enter journalism have already bought into the vision of Numerica – they were fed a steady diet of anti-White and anti-Western hatred from their families and certainly their educational institutions. That each of them remains convinced he’s destined for wealth and fame in no way conflicts with devotedly following and regurgitating the narrative.
The Appalacin Conference that the article mentions was, essentially, the Mob’s Charlottesville.
It’s been all downhil since.
I’m not sure I like this analogy. Charlottesville was a perfectly legal activity (constitutionally protected) by actors with perfectly legal and reasonable goals, thwarted by not only the local and state governments, but also their civilian antifa goons.
Organized crime can be used as a model for various things, but I don’t think it’s a good look to compare the dissident right to the mafia.
You’re absolutely right. The mafia is romanticized despite some pretty heinous activities. The dissident right is completely demonized despite being pretty much harmless.
Note that the Jew obsessives
a. Prove the point of my feature
b. Need a new record on the juke box. We already heard that one.
c. Never write under their real names. Worried about your job, sunshine?
I always believe you write under your own name or you fuck off out of it. As a mobster would say, you have no balls.
The fundamental issue as I see it is the idea of a ‘Right’ at all. There’s really nothing that connects the entire spectrum of people on the ‘not-Left’. What connects Julius Evola with Greg Johnsons’ White populism? Nothing. Not even what ‘race’ means.
People will say that being on the Right means being ‘for hierarchy’ or something similar. Every person I ever met who stumps for ‘hierarchy’ thinks they’re going to be at the top of it. ‘Hierarchy’ as a political principle is the equivalent of the ‘any one can be billionaire’ capitalist BS that keeps people on a hamster-wheel to nowhere.
As a working class American, populism is my politics, more specifically White power populism. I believe the best way to achieve a political outcome satisfactory to the widest range of White stakeholders is to make the bedrock of North American White politics about nullification and unwavering support for local sovereignty in all matters.
We all know that, without coercion, Whites would largely separate from non-Whites. It’s what they do now when given the chance. However, in order to maintain their comfort level under the current regime the Whites who can afford it just keep moving.
Under a local sovereignty regime, this would not be necessary. Whites could just forthrighly eject or make very unwelcome any political or racial deviants they see fit.
For the fans of hierarchy, they, too, could attempt their variation of the ‘throne and altar’ politics they have been touting for so long…if they can find enough peasants over who to rule.
Local sovereignty is the form of pro-White politics that would have appeal across the entire spectrum of North American Whites. The White do-gooders can imagine themselves creating their utopia along with the racial purists. They would just be sharing the same physical or political space.
“The fundamental issue as I see it is the idea of a ‘Right’ at all. There’s really nothing that connects the entire spectrum of people on the ‘not-Left’.” I agree, and the same is true of the ‘not-Right,’ maybe even more. It’s doubtful whether either of these entities actually exists as typically conceptualized, including here.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall 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.
Edit your comment