By Alex Kurtagic | 9 Comments | 
Print
Straw Dogs
I have suggested in previous articles, as well as in my dystopian novel, Mister, that the longer we allow our enemies to carry on as they are, the harsher the measures that will be required to extricate ourselves from the present mess.
This is not a profound insight; it is something every schoolboy learns in the playground. When a challenge is allowed to pass without a forceful response, the challenger is immediately emboldened into starting a program of escalating depredations. The greater the depredations, the greater the retaliation needed to end them. After a while, the level of retaliation needed to regain peace becomes so destructive that victory over the predator ultimately becomes a pyrrhic victory. It is, therefore, always preferable to take the first challenge very seriously, and to respond forcefully, even disproportionately, rather than ignore it or let it pass in an attempt to keep the peace.
Perhaps no film serves as a better metaphor for this than the controversial 1971 psychological thriller, Straw Dogs
Having hired four workmen to finish his garage roof, David becomes absorbed in his work and Amy, bored and craving attention, begins flirting with the men – one of these is Charlie, who has a previous history with Amy. David had encountered a status challenge early on in the film (see below), but he had chosen to ignore it, thus triggering idle talk and a progressive loss of authority before the workmen.
One evening, David finds their cat dead, hung by the neck in their closet. Amy claims the workmen have done it as a provocation, to prove that they could get into his bedroom. David, however, is a coward, and lacks the nerve to confront the workmen. Instead, he attempts to win their friendship, and invites them in for a beer. Amy is horrified, but David argues that he wants to ‘catch them off-guard’. She is not fooled, however, and, when David fails to mention the cat, as expected, she visibly loses respect for her husband.
The workmen suggest that he come duck hunting with them, and David agrees; but on the appointed day the workmen leave him stranded on a lonely moor, after promising to drive ducks in his direction. Charlie then goes back to the Sumners’ house and rapes Amy, who, after some resistance, soon appears to enjoy the violation. Upon finishing, however, another workman shows up, and forces Charlie at gunpoint to hold Amy down while he takes a turn at raping her.
After several hours of standing around looking like an idiot on the moor, David finally realizes that he has been had and decides to walk back to the farm. By the time he arrives back home it is dark, and he finds his wife in bed, disheveled and withdrawn; she does not tell him about the rape. David tells his wife how the workmen stuck it to him, but is patronizing — as he always is towards her — and makes himself look even more of a fool in the process; Amy rebukes him for his cowardice and failure to confront the workmen about the cat. True to form, however, David blames Amy for ‘pushing’ him.
The following day David fires the workers, but even at this point he does it nervously and with diffidence. Later, David and Amy attend a church social. Amy is haunted by the trauma of the rape, and David, noticing her discomfort (yet still unaware of its source) suggests that they leave early.
They do, but it is a foggy night and, on the drive home, they hit the village idiot, Henry Niles. David takes him back to the farm. Unable to reach anyone as he telephones for help, however, he eventually telephones the village pub, with whose landlord he leaves a message.
This proves a mistake, though, for Niles had earlier in the evening disappeared with Janice Hedden, a village girl, who was later found dead: the girl’s father, Bobbie, an unemployed drunk and Charlie’s uncle, was by the time of David’s telephone call out for blood. Upon learning that Niles is at the Sumners’ farm, he and the workmen, including the two who raped Amy, decide to go there.
All drunk, they pound the door of the Sumners’ house and begin breaking windows. David refuses to give them Niles, despite his wife’s remonstrations, deciding it is a matter of principle. The violence escalates until the local magistrate arrives; the latter, however, is shot dead by Janice’s father. At this point, seeing that there was no turning back, the workmen decide to pull all the stops, and begin a violent siege. David attempts to defend his home, but, eventually, defenses are breached and some of the workmen gain access to the house. One by one, however, David kills them all. The last scene is David driving Niles back to town, smiling.
The film was meant to be an exploration of violence, and Dustin Hoffman is said to have agreed to play David Sumner because he was intrigued by the idea of a pacifist who was unaware of his capacity for violence.
I, however, see the film as an exploration of pacifism, and I believe David Sumner illustrates rather well how stupid we must look to our racial competitors when we remain silent in the face of their depredations and rationalize tolerating endless forced concessions and humiliations. To them, we are David Sumner; to us, they are the drunken villagers.
The villagers are rough, uncouth, virile, hard, clannish, and menacing; they wear Wellington boots and coarse garments; they represent low cunning, brute force, excess, base instinct, and manual labor. David Sumner is polished, polite, feminine, soft, individualistic, and physically insignificant; he wears cloth shoes, cotton, and wool; he represents intelligence, pacifism, moderation, high principle, and mental work.
The sad moral of the film is that low cunning and brute force tends to be an effective strategy for resource acquisition. It is certainly also a universal one, which is favored by the bulk of humanity. And even if David emerges victorious in the end, we are forced to think of what he has lost: his cat has been killed, his wife has been raped, his home has been trashed, his peace has been stolen, and any goodwill he might still have enjoyed among the villagers has been fully expended. It is reasonable to speculate that he will have to move out and be tried for the deaths of the men he has killed — he might even be convicted for some or all of those deaths, and his wife might even leave him in the end.
Despite his intelligence, his high principles, and good will, the evil, lazy, drunken, and dumb workmen are unimpressed and they manage to take everything away from him — everything, including his sense of self, for through his final resort to slaughter, he abdicates the intellectualism, pacifism, and high principles with which he sought to define himself. All right, the workmen lose their lives, but what do they care? Their lives seemed rather useless anyway and they are dead, so they do not suffer their loss.
There are a number of key points in the film worth noting.
As Charlie rapes Amy, she is seen to become enthralled by his obvious masculinity, and she, accordingly, allows herself to be dominated. This scene was controversial at the time and instigated bans and cuts. Yet, it is probably one of the most educational scenes. There is no doubt here that she re-discovers in Charlie what her husband is lacking; even if only momentarily, her brewing contempt for, and anger at, her husband for his spinelessness is what causes her only to mount a weak resistance and to finally melt and embrace Charlie’s usurpation.
And despite the second rape by one of Charlie’s friends, of which Charlie is an accomplice, the two men subsequently show neither remorse nor worry at the prospect of David finding out. It does not seem to even cross their minds for the remainder of the film. Throughout it, both before and after the rape, the workmen remain tight and maintain a united front; the Sumners, by contrast, are divided: they undermine each other; she taunts him he ignores her; she is petty, he is patronizing; she rebukes him, he dismisses her; and, in short, they fail to act as a unit — to synchronize, complement, and synergize — which is one of the keys to a solid marriage.
Although Amy’s anger was triggered by the cat incident, David’s weakness and the fissures in their marriage, not apparent to her until that point, are revealed much earlier, during the initial scenes of the film. The latter begins in Amy’s native village in Cornwall. She has obviously been away with David in America, and has only just returned; David has obtained a research grant and the nearby farm is to serve as a retreat.
Amy encounters Charlie as David is loading the Sumner’s car with groceries, and Amy and Charlie engage in conversation. She attempts to show off her husband, telling Charlie about his research. But she does not explain it accurately, and David makes a patronizing and dismissive remark.
This is mistake number one: a married man ought never to undermine his wife in front of third parties; only a coward would do so to a loving wife, and only a man not interested in keeping his wife would thus invite others to steal her from him.
Then, David, upon learning that Charlie is unemployed, decides to hire him, as the workman he had previously hired to build the roof of his garage was taking too long. David asks for a cost estimate, but Charlie says simply ‘Reasonable,’ an unspecific answer that David accepts.
Mistake number two: if your money is on the line, you always demand precise answers; you always establish who is boss.
David then goes to the pub nearby to purchase a packet of cigarettes. Bobbie Hedden, hunched over at the bar and drunk, notices David walking in and facially registers his scornful disgust at the sight of David’s unmanly shoes; David, oblivious, looks immediately weak in the hard, working man’s pub, standing wide-eyed as he blows his nose. By the time he approaches the bar and orders his cigarettes — apparently the wrong kind, as far as the locals are concerned — he has already marked himself, not only as an outsider, but as prey: he speaks quietly and unassertively and is, accordingly, ignored by the barman.
Mistake number three: in a hard setting, hard presentational tactics apply; the moment the newcomer enters the scene he is under observation, and male observers begin determining his position in the power hierarchy; it is essential to confidently and unambiguously establish an assertive position, and to scare off challengers before they dare surface.
David then walks to the window and witnesses Charlie putting his hand around his wife’s neck, in a possessive gesture of masculine assertion. Charlie is trying it on, attempting to revive an old romantic flame. David watches the scene, says nothing, and does nothing; therefore, it falls upon Amy to rebuff him, which she does. Charlie backs down as David returns. Despite what he has just witnessed, however, his behaviour remains agreeable.
Mistake number four: self-explanatory.
Thus we see that the mock politeness of Charlie and his workers and, subsequently, their escalating transgressions have very subtle and fleeting points of origin. David, a classic introverted, intellectual type, attaches little importance to what I would like to call here ‘primate politics.’ He probably has never even thought about it.
Perhaps this is because David grew up in, and inhabited, a rarefied environment, where other people were very much like him, and where, therefore, he lived a sheltered existence. As a result, with offensive and defensive instincts very weak, power moments and status challenges pass either unnoticed or unacknowledged, with power and status gains invariably defaulting to the challenger.
This is very much analogical to the position of European-descended peoples in relation to the ever-growing presence of, and ever-escalating challenges from, immigrants from the Third World in Europe and across the Anglophone world.
European man is said to be the product of environmental evolutionary pressures that occurred in relative geographical isolation and, therefore, occurred away from intensive ethnic and racial competition. With the environment, rather than competing human collectivities, presenting the main source of challenges, group strategies designed for dealing with competition from the latter appear not to have been as important as those designed for dealing with the former: it could be that for European man intelligent cooperation, rather than cunning competition, proved more adaptive, and that, consequently, any inborn ethnocentrism became weakened or recessive.
Be that as it may, it is clear that modern European man unwittingly marked himself as prey long ago, and that he continues to do so now because, like David in the film, he encounters a psychological — and perhaps even a physiological — barrier when faced with the need to overcome evolved temperamental proclivities that were once adaptive but have become maladaptive in the changed human ecology of traditional White homelands.
Besides what I outlined at the beginning of this review, a key lesson of this film is the importance of being alert, of remaining vigilant, and even of being on the lookout for those subtle power moments that fly by in an instant, well before a visible, tangible challenge occurs. Before present negative trends became established, there were plenty of opportunities to pre-empt even their origin — yet we failed to notice them, and, when we did, we failed to act upon them, each time in the belief that it was only a minor incident, not worth the hassle and the unpleasantness of kicking up a fuss. Even the most minor of transgressions needs to be taken very seriously, and retaliation has to come fast and overwhelmingly.
Straw Dogs is a splendidly shot film, and both the interiors and exteriors are highly evocative, sometimes because of their bucolic charm, sometimes because of their natural beauty, sometimes because of their chilling grimness. It is also a film that perpetuates the tired old stereotype of rural and small-town Whites: the village’s tightly-knit community is portrayed here in a blatantly negative way, to the point where the villagers are quasi-animalistic, nearly deformed, and positively sinister.
This is likely to resonate with a Jewish audience, not only because the village is what one would imagine is every Jew’s worst nightmare, but also because Dustin Hoffman is so obviously Semitic in his physiognomy and — being cerebral, bespectacled, puny, urban, and high minded — a fairly common type of hero in Jewish American cinema. (Sumner’s swipe at Christianity at one point in the film contributes to this perception.)
Yet, for those who know and appreciate European village folk and the charms of living in a close, friendly rural community, the villagers in this film resemble not real life ones in Cornwall, but our new non-European fellow citizens and arrivals — although many of the latter are far uglier, far ruder, far more lustful, far more primitive, far more rapacious, and far quicker to engage in evil violence.
It works in this case, but such negative portrayal of Cornish villagers ought to be admonished all the same. The Duchy of Cornwall should have slammed the filmmakers with an immediate suit for defamation, if only to teach them a lesson.
This is certainly a strong and excellent film, even though made decades ago – and a must for its educational value.
Alex Kurtagic
Alex Kurtagic was born in 1970. He is the author of Mister (Iron Sky Publishing, 2009) and the founder and director of Supernal Music.
This pretty much resembles the Hemingway’s “Short happy life of Francis Macomber” enough distorted to match certain tastes and sensibilities. It’s significance is timeless and the conflict ever escalating. What to do when no one ever taught you how to defend yourself and your family, when it is almost forbidden to defend yourself because “we don’t make justice by our self, we are not vigilantes”.
What was David doing in Cornwall anyway? Why every town or village should accept the mathematician David? Only because David expects that? Immanuel Kant never traveled more than 20 miles around Königsberg. Why should David do otherwise? Just because David has a property there? Because he has the money?
Thousands of years the property and the value of property were given by your own tribe. Because your property can not be defended from the invaders by yourself.
Now David takes the girl and the property and everybody should respect it and recognize it. The so called “individual rights” are not a private matter as long as you are not able to defend them (value them). They are a matter of collectivity because there resides the force that gives them values. And this is the greatest problem of the individualists.
Another classic theme subverted Hollywood style in order to match a certain agenda. David is troubling the community, but we have to be sympathetic with him instead with the tribe. What if it wouldn’t be any “rape” but an old flame revived?
Treason to your tribe is really treason to yourself.
A thoroughly enjoyable analysis. Thank you for sharing your insight.
I posted this to a mainstream list (not religious) along with this:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/10/28/catholic-league-blasts-larry-david-curb-episode-urinates-jesus/
There are obviously many other associations that can and should be made, but since these items appeared on the same day, I made use of them.
There’s much that I could say about the points Alex makes in Straw Dogs; my own realization that we suffer increasingly painful consequences–and enjoy no reward– if we fail to respond to power challenges took place within my own family, where processes that prevail at all levels of social organization can sometimes be seen most clearly.
It’s preposterous to think that the weakness of whites in defending our race is due to the genetic adaptation to our ancient environments.
You don’t have to go back very far to remember the violence with which “racism” on the part of whites was suppressed. If people weren’t directly threatened by police (or the Air Borne troops Eisenhower sent to Little Rock and similar incidents), they were threatened losing jobs, lawsuits, etc. And there was much inducement for traitors to side with the “anti-racist” factions, etc. And even now it is primarily by violence that whites are repressed. Racial identity is so profoundly a part of our people that the widespread miscegenation of the sort we see today would have been utterly unimaginable to whites just 50 years ago. We all know this, right?
I remember when the communist regime of Ceauşescu went down in Romania in 1989, and people told how they had hated the government and had only shared this with a very few friends, who might meet and talk about it, but thought they were the only ones who thought this way. But then when the government and its goons fell, there was an explosion of people coming out, to the point the previously isolated were shocked to find that nearly everyone felt and had felt as they did about it.
Since following that story at the time, that’s how I have imagined we would find ourselves if we suddenly all found that it was okay to be “politically incorrect,” or even “racist.” Such a storm of white solidarity would break out, we’d probably frighten ourselves with it, were we not so overjoyed at such a freedom to be what we deeply and instinctively already are.
Take the insidious Jewish subversion of white societies out as a factor, and this whole stinking nightmare wouldn’t exist. Remove the violent repression even now, and it wouldn’t exist for very long at all. The internet has allowed many people to find out that they really are not alone in feeling themselves racially assaulted, though who knows how well the brainwashing has worked on the young already? Turn back the clock 30-40 years and you’ll find people who never would have consented, probably would have fought to death against, what you see out there now and which the media assure us is “normal.” That includes many who are alive and still in something of their prime today.
It’s not at all in our genes to permit this.
” The internet has allowed many people to find out that they really are not alone in feeling themselves racially assaulted, though who knows how well the brainwashing has worked on the young already?”
Ah but the young may LATER get on the ‘net and learn about Racialism!
There are still something like 200 million Whites here in North America, we are in a steep decline, but not anywhere near being knocked out yet.
We still have a chance, like the character in this film, to redirect our actions!
“It’s preposterous to think that the weakness of whites in defending our race is due to the genetic adaptation to our ancient environments.”
I am not the only one who thinks that low ethnocentrism among European-descended populations is probably an evolved trait. See the following paper by Kevin MacDonald, published in The Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 2(2), Summer 2002: 9-38:
What Makes Western Culture Unique
I think you and he start from the premise that Westerners are less ethnocentric, where I think that’s the point to be proven.
I think whites have an instinctive abhorrence of miscegenation, and especially with blacks. And I don’t think the reverse is the case or to nearly the degree. MacDonald’s ambling historical narrative itself speaks of the horror of the “illegitimate” birth, and I think any white mating with a black would have been immediately perceived as committing some sort of abomination in the Europe MacDonald writes about. The fact that the wealthy and powerful didn’t pile up harems was probably less due to their being simply uninterested than with the fact that white people have never so much viewed women as a commodity (perhaps until “the sexual revolution”).
The tradition is that North America became white because the English came here to settle as colonists, not to just loot some gold and rape the local women for sex (as with irresponsible drunken sailers), and hence the English brought women with them. Who could have imagined just deciding they’d mate with some local savage(s) and call that a wife and the progeny one’s children?
I think the white racial instinct is simply underestimated by this sort of assessment. It misdiagnoses the causes of our recent demise. Unleash whites from the legal, economic and social bonds that have been instituted since “integration” in the 60s, and I don’t think we would look to have so freely consented to all this. That impression has more to do with the way the media and schools have tried to project miscegenation, integration, anti-racism, etc. as the new norm. White people know in their hearts that this is a lie, even where they have allowed themselves, demoralized, to become self-deluded on it. In fact, I think it’s an unconscious expression of their awareness of this that accounts for much, maybe most, of the general demoralization one sees especially among young white men, who would rather become fobs and masters of silly video games than to girth themselves to acquire the more traditional manly virtues. Who cares about the virtues of Western culture, if it’s just to be handed on to the coming mudmen of their ex-nation? Might as well live for today, as do slaves and the underclasses everywhere!
The very fact that white is recessive suggests a built-in reminder, an inducement of white fathers to not even recognize children of a non-white mother, even she even recognizes them herself. It seems tome that whites may be the most preeminently racialist people on the planet. Those black radicals who say “ALL white people are racist,” may be perceiving something there, something stupid white people want to deny as an insult, though I doubt at a deeper level that they’re actually insulted.
“Who cares about the virtues of Western culture, if it’s just to be handed on to the coming mudmen of their ex-nation? Might as well live for today, as do slaves and the underclasses everywhere!”
You are correct sir!
Why work hard when you are just going to be passed over due to Affirmative Action!?!?!
Heck I didn’t even bother to take the SATs in High School since I knew it would do me little good and I had zero chance of actually reaching full potential in the current Zionist Occupied Government (clearly I could have made it, I scored in the top percentile in English in my State on the State mandated tests.)
A quote from one of my favorite movies sums up the general attitude you speak of:
“You see, there’s nothing to do anymore. Everything decents been done. All the great themes have been used up. Turned into theme parks. So I don’t really find it cheerful to be living in totally exhausted decade where there is nothing to look forward to and no one to look up to. ” — Mark Hunter (Pump Up the Volume)
To bring it back to this movie though, we are at some point going to have to turn it around like the main character in ‘Straw Dogs’, I’m 32 and hope I shall be alive to see it!!
Among the racially conscious there are two basic groups, Exposed, and Unexposed.
The Exposed are those who either grew up, or through the accidents of life, wound up, in constant contact with hostile non-Whites.
The Unexposed, are either middle to upper middle class Whites who, as a result of their socio-economic status have social protection (all White communities far from non-Whites) and psychic insulation (a room, or place, of their own, where, presumably, they can come into their own). Or they are the rural, and generally lower class to poor, Whites, whose customs and rtiuals are different from the middle to upper middle classes but who share the same social protection.
I think it would be instructive, and possibly inspiring, to cull a number of different stories from these groups based on the extent of exposure, or lack of, and how their position shaped them and effected their lives.
In any event, this article struck me as having been written by someone who has had the good fortune to spend a lot of time reading (and perhaps also traveling?), and also the good fortune, or perhaps not, it’s hard to tell, of having little direct contact with hostile non-Whites. But when you put the two together, ie; lots of reading, and little direct contact with violent hostility, in an article that then proceeds to lecture us all on how we are supposed to respond, it makes for a mildly entertaing and positively irritating reading experience. Particularly for the Exposed, who simply know better. (If the writer turns out to be a member of the Exposed then I will retract my above statement, afterall, no one’s perfect; but for now, my hunch will stand).
Either way, there was too much over-simplification and either/or moralizing in this piece. And if he really is a member of the Exposed he should know better. The truth of the matter is far more complex.
I will say that the idea behind this article has an awful lot of potential and raises a lot of very interesting and important points. But then it wouldn’t be an article, it would be an essay, or book perhaps. And it could not be, should not be, written by a member of the Unexposed. But, obviously, I’m a little biased on the matter.
Be that as it may, I’m not sure what Mr. Kurtagic’s point is. That we become blood thirsty psychopaths incapable of any real human feeling long enough to kill our enemy?
I won’t deny for a second that that is one thought that does have its charms.
But, if we succeed then we truly will have achieved a Phyrric victory because we will have eliminated the defining characteristic of civilized man, which, as far as I’m concerned, is the circumnavigation of the use of force.
Or, perhaps the point is the “judicial” use of force applied in a timely manner in order to protect civilization.
Now who could argue with that?
Personally, I’m all for it. But that truly is a complex matter in desperate need of more careful analysis, not to mention concrete solutions, that go beyond mere moralizing we find in his piece.
I have a true story, pertinent to these considerations, that may be well worth telling at this point.
While working in Manhattan at a Hotel on the night of the Puerto Rican Day Parade (during the mid-90′s) after delivering a message to a guest I rode the elevator to the Lobby floor and when it opened up I saw a big Puerto Rican guy lumbering over a lady in a chair that I assumed was his girlfriend, since it looked like he was trying to kiss her.
It was my girlfriend, who had stopped by to drop off my apartment keys.
I simply asked him to follow me out of the door and on to the street. While we were walking out I could smell the reprocessed booze on his breath and he turned to me and started taunting me with references to my girlfriend and my mother. I remember two things very clearly at that moment. One, having an out of body experience as a result of wanting to kill the guy, and two, thinking, “if he’s capable of behaving like that in a public place and with someone else’s woman, who knows what else he’s capable of? ie, Does he have a gun? A knife? If he carries one or the other, or both, then he probably knows how to use it, or is willing to use it. Are people going to get hurt?” But above all, and this was the result of years of experience, from childhood to young adulthood to adulthood, my thought was, “No matter what I do, this could easily backfire against me, no matter how right I am, or how hard I fight.”
I’ve been in this position before.
In any event, I called security, which at this moment consisted of a Jamacain man who was a black belt that I had done a little training with at that time. He and the shift manager came outside and we tried to get this guy to go while he continued to taunt me as if I had done something wrong by asking him to leave the woman, my girlfriend, alone, and to leave the premises, which of course was what any employee, and boyfriend, would be expected to do.
He left off a doozy of a barrage of insults and the shift manager and security guard both stepped back — a non-verbal gesture that clearly said, “Let him have it.”
So I did. I hit him as hard as I could and he went down. I almost knocked him out, but not quite. After a few seconds he was shaking his head and up on his feet (like me, he’d been hit many times, you could just tell. But unlike me, he was a remorseless psychopath. And here lies the difference. It’s a big difference -– and one we would do well to remind ourselves, since it is clearly what we are up against. As far as I can tell, civilized people, for the most part, receive a certain training in manners and decorum that pushes out psychopathic behavior, while guys like him grow up steeped in it, so that they are practically psychopath addicts. Ya know, like the guys who control all of the major institutions today, from information media, to finance, to government).
At that point the “fight” was broken up and the Police arrived. When we were separated I went to check on my girlfriend who was strangely silent with me.
When I asked her what was wrong she told me flat out — “I’m not impressed that you hit someone for me.”
When the Police got there they turned out to be Puerto Ricans, both of them.
And their idea of “resolving” the situation was to actually ask me to give the guy I had just hit my home address so that we could meet and sort it out. At that moment I had another out of body experience, one I knew better than to act on.
I am sure that, with variations, this kind of thing has been, and continues to be, repeated throughout the Western world today, to the Exposed. Though this was one of the worst experiences I had it was one of many –- many –- such experiences for me.
Later, the Jamaican pulled me aside and gave me a luke-warm congratulations on hitting the guy but then immediately followed by saying “You didn’t hit him hard enough. After you got him on the ground you should have taken him by the collar and dragged him off the property where you could finish him.” Meaning, beat him until he can’t get up.
At least until my shift was over I guess. He assured me that that was the ONLY thing a guy like that would respect. And, because I didn’t do it, I should expect another visit.
I told him I didn’t want that guys respect and the Jamaican responded by changing his tone of voice to one of obvious racial resentment and told me “maybe he doesn’t want yours.”
In short, the Black security guard, the Puerto Rican Police and, my White girlfriend all came down against Me! Oh, as did, later, the Hotels Jewish GM. The only good news to come out of it was that I wasn’t fired. But, and for me, more importantly, and as if things couldn’t get worse, there was this.
The next day, understandably shook up, I called my mother, who lived two hours away, to tell her what happened.
She was a die-hard Northeastern, Irish Catholic Kennedy Liberal. Anything that did not fit into her template was rejected, and that included her son’s experiences with hostile non-Whites. In one sense, Especially her son’s horror stories, since they had the tendency to rip her worldview apart and blow it to smithereens. Obviously, I HAD to be guilty of Something! Nobody could be THAT unlucky.
I mention this because I know for a fact that I am hardly the only White man who grew up in the second half of the 20th century, or is growing up in the 21st, who was exposed and getting it from every possible angle, literally. All you have to do is refuse to give in, and offer even the slightest bit of resistance — and I had the tendency to offer a lot, as far as they were concerned.
As far as I’m concerned, all of them were wrong then and they are wrong now.
But they all had a group to go to.
I didn’t. So, it was Reality versus Consensus Reality.
For me it was a nightmare. It took me five years after that to get out, and I did. Barring a miracle I am never going back. What would I go back to, since the situation has only gotten worse? Given the fact that I got out, and my mother’s apology for a lifetime devoted to sentimentality and sanctimoniousness, instead of to her son, I would consider myself very lucky indeed, since many Exposed Whites never get out, and never get an apology, from anyone, ever.
Those people are the real Secret Heroes. Their suffering fills me with rage, since I know it so well.
But their ability to endure is inspiring. Why not focus on that? It would be worth it.
Especially since there are millions of us!
In any event, there is a difference between courageous and foolhardy. Just what are the dangerously exposed among us supposed to do? I did the best I could in those circumstances, and I think I did pretty well, considering the fact that, for all intents and purposes, I was alone. Or, might as well have been.
And now we get to the other problem that the exposed face. It is not just a Jewish led coalition of hostile non-Whites.
It is other Whites as well. And not liberals, but, those Unexposed, racially conscious Whites, who are manifestly indifferent to us. They have an obvious lack of concern for Exposed Whites and a corresponding, and cowardly, tendency to censor criticism just as the Jews that many complain about do. How inspiring do you think that is?
I think what is inspiring is rallying around an organizing principle, not yet more moralizing. I think what sets Whites apart from non-whites and Jews is the notion of the Free Spirit, in the Hegelian sense.
Or, as Nietzsche put it, the Sovereign Individual, which he rightly called the crowing achievement of Mankind.
That would be something worth fighting for, since a group is only as strong as its individual members.
But that would require us learning how to create, preserve and protect such an individual. An individual who is prepared to stand on his own, and also join others of his own race confident in the knowledge that those others will not fail him at the critical moment. Few will argue that that critical moment is here.
And the individuals?