If you hold a three-year-old on your knee and tell him stories, he lives in the world you create for him. Your mind contains his mind. Stories rule.
As things stand now, we are not the storytellers, we are the three-year-olds. We live in someone else's story - an illusory world that someone else has created for us.
That has to change. If we are to have any hope of turning our situation around, we have to be the storytellers. As I said in Ministry of Illusion,
There is a fallacy that is widely believed: that in a conflict between races or cultures, the one with the best street fighters wins. That's not how it works. The one with the best storytellers wins.
I saw an article in Details magazine about Alex Gordon, a game developer from Vancouver. He says he wants to RAISE PEOPLE'S AWARENESS. Oh, I'm sure. He says "The easiest mechanism for teaching people has always been play. I would love to see a game that had a black man as a central character, and by playing and identifying with him, a die-hard bigot would let go of his own hatred. I really think that opportunity exists."
The opportunity exists, all right. Alex Gordon has his head so far up his ass, he thinks it's a new idea. They have been doing that in Hollywood for many decades. Of course it's unusual for anyone to acknowledge it so explicitly.
The opportunity exists for us as well as for them.
The simplest thing we can do is to write stories in which the roles are reversed. This is a superficial approach that will only take us so far, but it would be better than nothing. It may seem too petty to bother doing this, but remember, the other side doesn't think it's too petty. They do it all the time. In any movie or tv show that has a real villain - not a charming bad guy, but a real son of a bitch - what color is his skin? His eyes? His hair? What group does he represent? Think about the last 20 movies you have seen, or the last 200 if you see a lot of movies. If one of the characters was a vicious bastard who destroyed other people's lives, who was he? Do you see a pattern here? I'm talking about mainstream Hollywood movies and tv shows, not foreign movies or art house movies.
They do this because it works. When white people (especially kids) see show after show in which they are pieces of shit, it has an effect on the way they see themselves.
It will work for us, too, if we just do the same thing in reverse.
The next step up from this is to draw attention to the fact that most movies are biased. There are two ways to do this.
One way is to put them in the story. Write a story in which Alex Gordon is writing a story to "raise people's awareness." Write about who, specifically, writes and produces the anti-white stories. If they can write about us, then we can write about them. Of course they will accuse us of hate speech... well, then we can write stories about them accusing us of hate speech. Get that out in the open. Shine a spotlight on it. Put them in the story. Contain them.
The other way is to write stories that go against the grain - stories where the plot starts out like a typical Hollywood movie, and then goes in a completely unexpected direction, so the viewer becomes aware of how unreal most Hollywood movies are. For example, start with a black-and-white buddy story, and then segue into Act 2, where the characters start relating to each other the way whites and blacks actually do in real life.
That's just one example of what could be done. The idea is to contrast phoniness with reality in such a way that the difference is obvious.
In December of 2003, I read a review of a movie based on the Gospel of John. Surprisingly, it was a good review. I wouldn't expect the L.A. Weekly, of all things, to have a positive review of a Christian movie. It sounded like something I should see, so I did.
They tried to stay very close to the text. It's not an interpretation, it's an attempt to imagine Jesus, the disciples, Pilate, etc. actually saying and doing the things the gospel says they did. In other words they used the gospel itself as a script.
But it didn't work. It was a B movie. When you're acting, you always have to consider the question of motivation: why is my character doing this? What's going on here, psychologically? The trouble is, those questions have no answers in this case. The scenes don't make sense, psychologically. People don't talk like that, or do things like that. So the actors kind of stood there wondering what to do. They went through the motions of saying their lines, but it was obviously bogus.
So the lesson I got from the movie is that it couldn't have happened like that. Even if you grant the premise of the story, that Jesus could work miracles, even if you grant that he was God (whatever that means), it still couldn't have happened like that. People just don't interact with each other that way, even if one of them works miracles (or if the others think he does). Seeing the actors try to say those lines made it obvious - to me, at least - that whatever happened in 30 A.D., it had to be something quite different from what the gospel says.
The Gospel of John movie was a reductio ad absurdum, but it was unintentional, and the absurdity wasn't obvious to most viewers, because there was no contrast. What I have in mind is to juxtapose real and unreal characters in the same movie - you have some characters speaking well written dialogue and doing things that people actually do, alongside Jesus and the other Biblical characters speaking lines from the gospel. Then the absurdity would be so obvious that the audience, any audience, couldn't help seeing it.
The same technique could be used against political correctness. The general idea of political correctness is that we are supposed to pretend that what is, isn't. The general response is to bring that out in the open. Write stories in which some characters live in a pretend world, and other characters are just living their lives in the real world. Make the contrast obvious.
Reality is, ultimately, our only weapon. Setting up an obvious contrast between unreality and reality is one of our basic strategies.
The other basic strategy is to contain their dialogue within a larger dialogue - put them in the story. Write about them writing about us. They are constantly accusing us of hate speech. They will say that this page itself is hate speech. The idea is to reframe the story so the reader or viewer can see where the hate is really coming from.
The possibilities are endless. Use your imagination. The stories don't have to have an obvious moral. The idea is just to reverse the underlying assumptions about what's real and what isn't. Change the subtext, and the moral of the story will take care of itself.
The way I retold the story of the Third Wave is an example of what I mean by going against the grain. The Gospel According to Pilate is an example of a story on the theme of who contains whom.
Humor will generally get you farther than anger. Our stories don't have to be too earnest and didactic. Anger has its place, but comedy is usually more effective. It could be either lighthearted humor or black humor.
Tragedy has its place too. If you wrote a story about somebody who gets busted for growing pot, and goes to prison, with all that that entails (pun intended), and if you told the story as unsparingly as Shakespeare told the story of King Lear - it would be unbearable. Mel Gibson is leading the way here. He has taken a big step in the right direction - a step away from Bowdlerized stories, in the direction of real art. But it's only a first step. I don't buy what people say about The Passion of the Christ, that it was too violent. It was very, very tame compared to what could be done. And his characters are a long way from real people.
It would even be possible to combine tragedy with comedy. I think it was Mark Twain who pioneered the comedic principle that if you repeat something, and keep repeating it, the audience will eventually start laughing. A few years ago a young woman went to Africa as a missionary or something, and was brutally killed. Her father went over there, not in anger, but on a peace mission, to forgive the murderers. They were rude to him (putting it mildly) but he still just wanted to profess his love for them. That's not funny so far, it's just weird, but suppose it happened more than once. First his youngest children go to an integrated school, where they are pushed around and beaten up, their lunch money is routinely stolen, etc. He pontificates about racial brotherhood. Then his wife gets mugged, and he says the same thing. Then his older son goes to jail, gets gang raped, and kills himself. Mr. Liberal Christian makes the same speech once again. Then his daughter goes to Africa and gets eaten by cannibals, and he still goes on talking earnestly and obliviously about interracial love. As the situations get more and more over the top, his response gets more and more predictable, and more and more absurd. After the fourth or fifth repetition, the audience will be laughing in spite of themselves. This is very black humor indeed, but that's what the subject requires.
We need stories that explore the question of why confrontations turn out the way they do. Why is it that some people have moral energy, and some don't? See the pages about No-rap Zones and No-narc Zones for more about this. If you could get either of those scenarios in full focus and put it into a story with real characters, it would be very powerful.
We have to confront the question I discussed on the 915 page: why is it that some things cannot be said? One way to handle this is to write a scene in which somebody tries to say something, and his words disappear into a vacuum - and then get that scene in full focus. How does this work?
We also need epic stories that define us, like the Iliad and the Odyssey defined Greek civilization. Specifically, we need a story about a hero - not a hero who wins by brute force or dumb luck, but an intelligent hero who sees what needs to be done and does it. I know the Odyssey is a lot to ask, but that's what it's going to take. That's the level on which the game is played, and if we can't conceive a new story on that level, we aren't going to be able to establish ourselves as a force in the world.
The original epics themselves can be retold in our time. Eyes Wide Shut was based on the Odyssey. Tom Cruise went out on his midnight adventure, came to his senses, and returned to Penelope, who was patiently (more or less) waiting for him. Of course the second half of the story was missing. He didn't have to fight the suitors to reclaim his home. That part of the Odyssey could also be retold in a contemporary setting, and it would have the same force it has always had. (Suppose our midnight adventurer comes home and finds that his wife is not alone. Lenny Kravitz is there...)
But the original epics will only take us so far. We don't live in a Homeric world anymore. We have to have stories that address the reality we live in.
As I look over this page, especially the part about role reversal, there is something that bothers me. I seem to be suggesting that we write stories to promote an idea which has already been decided on. That's only true up to a point. As I said on the 915 page, it's easier to say what I'm against than to say what I'm for. Yes, we should contrast phoniness with reality, but reality isn't given in advance. Storytelling should be a process of discovery. As we try to set up contrasts between reality and unreality, we find out what's real and what isn't.
I am not suggesting that good guys are always white, or that white guys are always good! Sometimes white people really are pieces of shit, and we should not pretend otherwise. We should never pretend that what is, isn't. I don't want to replace one kind of political correctness with another. Stories should exhibit life as it is lived, not life seen through an ideological lens. Our stories don't have to have any political content at all. Form is more important than content. The idea is not to say something, but to make it possible for something to be said. This applies to stories at all levels, from epics to comics.
One of the best responses to the Thought Police is just to ignore them, and live our lives without thinking about what they want us to think about. Unfortunately, this is usually impossible.
The question isn't who's right about a certain issue. The question is who contains whom. If we can live our lives according to our own script, instead of playing a role in somebody else's story, then we win.
Near the beginning of this page, I quoted something from Ministry of Illusion: in a conflict between races or cultures, the one with the best storytellers wins. It might also be said that the one that is afraid to speak up at all automatically loses. We have to acknowledge that there is a conflict between races. We have to get that out in the open. I'm not talking about white vs. black. It's not black people who accuse us of "hate speech" whenever we say we have a right to exist. It's not black people who write story after story in which we are always in the wrong. I am talking about something that many great writers have dealt with - Voltaire, Goethe, Dostoevsky, Ezra Pound, and T. S. Eliot, just to name a few. There is no reason why we can't deal with it in our time. The only way to do this effectively is to go to the root of the problem. A superficial approach is ultimately useless.
The most powerful stories are found in Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. This story, or this collection of stories, trumps Homer and all the Greek and Roman stories, not to mention Beowulf. Here is Genesis, chapter 32:
So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's high so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go for it is daybreak."
But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."
The man asked him, What is your name?"
"Jacob," he answered.
Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."
Jacob said, "Please tell me your name."
But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there.
And here is Exodus, chapter 3:
The Lord said, "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with mild and honey... So now, go, I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt."
...Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
God said to Moses, "I AM THAT I AM." This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
Finally, selections from Deuteronomy chapters 7, 28, and 15:
This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.
If you fully obey the Lord your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.
For the Lord your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you.
This story - of course I have only given a tiny bit of it, just a few highlights - is the story we all live in. Is it possible for a story to contain this one?
One way to handle this is to do what I did with the Third Wave story: point out that it's not true on a factual level. When you catch on that there was no Exodus - when you catch on that Abraham, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, and Moses are fictional characters - that puts everything in a different light. In other words, factual history contains this story and pulls the rug out from under it.
But we still have to deal with the Torah stories as stories. We still have find some way to contain them. They have a unique power. They set up a dynamic process in the human mind that is found nowhere else.
Would it be possible to use the same techniques described above? Put them in the story, i.e. write a story about the author(s) of the Torah writing it. They looked as deeply into the human psyche as anybody has ever done. Writing about this would require going just as deep, and then one step further. If you like a challenge...
In this case, as always, and here above all, we have to remember that reality is not given in advance. Trying to contain the Torah is a process of discovery. We find out what's real and what isn't as we go along.
The thing is, the Torah is "true" in the sense that it does have the power it claims to have. People who use the Torah as the organizing principle for their minds do end up lending to other nations but borrowing from none. "You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you." Yes, that does happen. How does it work?
What is needed here is a story about Jews interacting with Gentiles, where the strength of the Jews and the weakness of the Gentiles is made apparent - where the source of the strength and weakness is revealed. I don't think there is anything supernatural about it. As I said above, the Torah sets up a dynamic process in the human mind. We have to get that dynamic process in focus by zooming in on characters who have it, and other characters who don't have it.
The New Testament also sets up a dynamic process in the minds of Christians - or in the mind of anyone who ponders it for a long time and tries to come to terms with it. The Gospel story contains the Torah and turns it inside out. For many centuries, the Gospel story gave Christians at least as much mental strength as the Torah gives Jews, but then sometime in the 19th century it started losing its power. The first time Kasparov played against a computer, a commentator said that the the final moves of one of the games, "Kasparov's position fell apart." That's what happened to us about 150 years ago. I don't think anyone understands what happened or how it happened. This too could be explored in the same way I have suggested above: write about it. Get it in focus. Write stories about characters who no longer have an effective organizing principle for their minds, and whose culture, therefore, is "falling apart."
This page started out as a set of notes addressed to myself, outlining some things I would like to do. I'm only a part-time writer. I have a lot of ideas, but most of my energy is applied elsewhere. I would like to write all these stories myself, but considering all the demands on my time, it probably won't happen. When I was younger I thought I could do everything. I thought I had an infinite life stretching out ahead of me. At this point I know better. I can only do so many things, and writing stories is, alas, on the back burner. So I decided to put this page on the website. Maybe it will be food for thought, for a few readers.
I would probably get more done if I had somebody to collaborate with.
I would like to hear from anybody out there who is writing stories (or plays, song lyrics, computer games, whatever) along these lines, or who is interested in making movies.
Games are particularly important. In fact it just occurred to me that the whole project described here could be reframed as a game in which players cast spells on other players by getting them immersed in stories.
If you are a writer who understands what I am getting at here, you must feel pretty isolated. But you aren't the only one. There may be others right there in your neighborhood who are in the same position. When an idea is in the air, several people think of it at the same time. What I want to do is create some kind of salon or workshop in which we can meet each other and trade ideas - especially ideas about how to get stories published and movies produced in spite of censorship by TPTB.
I can be reached at the following address:
nonrandom1 --- at --- the domain name, which is earthlink.net
Please do not send any attachments with your first message.
the home page
why I am not (exactly) a National Socialist
what "whiteness" is, other than color
torture blog
torture stories