106 Comments

There have been a number of such psyops perpetrated on the West. One of those was to always go along with the group, even if it seems foolish to you. Here is a blog from the guy who developed the 1980s TV show "Dungeons & Dragons."

"The kids were all heroic — all but a semi-heroic member of their troupe named Eric. Eric was a whiner, a complainer, a guy who didn't like to go along with whatever the others wanted to do. Usually, he would grudgingly agree to participate, and it would always turn out well, and Eric would be glad he joined in. He was the one thing I really didn't like about the show.

So why, you may wonder, did I leave him in there? Answer: I had to.

As you may know, there are those out there who attempt to influence the content of childrens' television. We call them "parents groups," although many are not comprised of parents, or at least not of folks whose primary interest is as parents. Study them and you'll find a wide array of agendum at work…and I suspect that, in some cases, their stated goals are far from their real goals.

Nevertheless, they all seek to make kidvid more enriching and redeeming, at least by their definitions, and at the time, they had enough clout to cause the networks to yield. Consultants were brought in and we, the folks who were writing cartoons, were ordered to include certain "pro-social" morals in our shows. At the time, the dominant "pro-social" moral was as follows: The group is always right…the complainer is always wrong.

This was the message of way too many eighties' cartoon shows. If all your friends want to go get pizza and you want a burger, you should bow to the will of the majority and go get pizza with them. There was even a show for one season on CBS called The Get-Along Gang, which was dedicated unabashedly to this principle. Each week, whichever member of the gang didn't get along with the gang learned the error of his or her ways.

We were forced to insert this "lesson" in D & D, which is why Eric was always saying, "I don't want to do that" and paying for his social recalcitrance. I thought it was forced and repetitive, but I especially objected to the lesson. I don't believe you should always go along with the group. What about thinking for yourself? What about developing your own personality and viewpoint? What about doing things because you decide they're the right thing to do, not because the majority ruled and you got outvoted?

We weren't allowed to teach any of that. We had to teach kids to join gangs. And then to do whatever the rest of the gang wanted to do."

https://www.newsfromme.com/pov/col145-2/

Expand full comment

This is horrifying

Expand full comment

I instinctively knew there was a hidden agenda with these censorship groups masking their agenda to weaken the youth in every capacity.

Expand full comment

well, now Grouchy Smurf makes a whole lot more sense.

Expand full comment

Fascinating! And just awful

Expand full comment

I remember seeing precisely that.

Ironically Eric half the time had better plans or simply stated a fact like " We don't know where Venger (the villain) is, so how can we find him?" and it was painted as smart-ass & whiney even though it was true. But 'somehow' they just wander in to Venger later on (He actually attacks them) & then the group makes fun of Eric for not "trusting the plan"...

Expand full comment

As another counter example, I am reminded of the famous Magnum, PI (with Tom Selleck, not the horrible reboot) where Magnum captures a Russian Agent named, of all things, Ivan. Ivan confidently asserts that Magnum, being honorable, would never shoot an unarmed man.

Magnum shoots him in the face.

I remember being absolutely shocked by that.

Expand full comment

The same thing happens in the first Jack Reacher movie. The villian tells Reacher he will never get punished because he has powerful friends who can subvert the justice system at will. Reacher contemplates this and says "You're right", then shoots him.

Expand full comment

That was great and a wonderful villain portrayal by Werner Herzog. The Amazon TV series is such a disappointment even though the actor is physically much better suited to play Reacher than the diminutive Tom Cruise.

Expand full comment

This reminded me of something I read 30 years ago. A professor of classics (unWoke) wrote that in modern Western cinema, the villians are much more interesting characters than heroes. The villains had depth and complexity while the heroes were usually two dimensional and formulaic. I believe this is because today's script writers identify far more with the villian than the hero. Degenerates, no matter how much talent they have, are incapable of portraying real heroes. It's really an alien concept to them, which is why the hero characters are so superficial. Of course now when any hero deviates for the accepted narrative, they are called "anti-heroes".

Expand full comment

Yeah after the guy killed his naval buddy Jack.

Best Episode ever.

Expand full comment

Great piece. An eye for an eye was my first dissident right wing belief and the first philosophical principle I conceived of independent of authority.

My John Lennon Boomer parents taught me word for word: "If someone hits you and you hit them back you're JUST AS BAD AS THEM". Notice this goes beyond simply "don't take justice into your own hands" which I could understand might be a necessary rule for practical reasons and especially with children and their under-developed reasoning where you could be arguing forever about who "started it". No, this was not that, they literally taught me fighting back is the moral equivelant of starting the fight.

Even as a child I understood the fundamentally anti-moral, anti-life, self-hating cuck spirit behind this sentiment. This is in fact the first principle of cuck leftism. It preceeds even anti-whiteness, which requires pacifist fundamentalism as its foundation to stand on.

Let our first principle be "punish the guilty" and thus we are right wing

Expand full comment

My mother had the same sentiment, but my Father would tell me, "I don't want you starting fights, but I do want you to finish them. If someone hits you, hit them back twice as hard for twice as long".

Expand full comment

Your dad is cool. My dad can't fight but is ultra competitive at everything else, (academics, work, sports) leading to a chip on his shoulder and an over zealous demand for society to repress violent impulses

Expand full comment

Yeah, I got that lesson too. Took me a long time to unlearn it.

Expand full comment

You literally have to get it beaten out of you. But once you do, your enemies have no idea what they've got coming

Expand full comment

To a degree it's correct. A sober, evidence based justice system is better than a hot blooded system of vengeance and feuds. But it still has to deliver justice. If a rules based justice system stops delivering justice then taking justice into your own hands is essential.

Expand full comment

Part of this sentiment is it makes things easier for adults. Because otherwise, when an adult sees two kids fighting, he has no idea who is at fault and kids can't be trusted to reliably explain what led to the fight.

Of course the above is solved if you simply exclude and remove known troublemakers before fights happen.

Expand full comment

Did you read past the first sentence before you wrote your comment?

Expand full comment

I don't have the slightest clue what you're implying

Expand full comment

Because that is how a weak child thinks, your lack of social standing mixed with your inherent germanic savagery and God-lessness made you this way.

your silly aristocracy is one of weak nerves pretending to be strong muscles.

Justice, to give the innocent what they deserve.

Can only exist simultaneously with Mercy, to give the guilty what they don’t deserve.

If it’s any consolation, you ARE the villains in the eyes of God. you’re just to narcissistic to see it just like your “father” s4tn.

your curses are Consummately Returned back to whence they came with A St Michael Prayer and A St Benedict Prayer.

Expand full comment

Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and kill everyone living there?

Where was His mercy for them?

Or is it that Mercy can only exist if there is a real threat of destruction? There must be a time where force is used or mercy is not mercy. It's pacifism.

Typical idiot brownoid, you don't even know what mercy is and you're trying to call others savages... fucking retard

Expand full comment

“living” is an odd way to describe them.

sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance, like what you are doing here, WILL be answered.

God To St Catherine Of Siena:

"they not only fail from resisting this frailty…but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid having dimmed the light of the understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them…It is disagreeable to the demon, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demons who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demons leaves."

your curses are Consummately Returned back to whence they came with A St Michael Prayer and A St Benedict Prayer.

Expand full comment

"Germanic savagery" Lmao. We could really use some more Germanic savagery in the world today.

Expand full comment

We have plenty, it’s every evil of the past 500 years along with every denial of Love, Absolute Truth, And Natural Law.

your curses are Consummately Returned back to whence they came with A St Michael Prayer and A St Benedict Prayer.

Expand full comment

I recently binge watched the Sopranos and there's a perfect example of this in the episode "Boca."

The main plotline covers how Tony discovers that the girls' soccer coach in the local highschool has been molesting one of the students, ultimately causing her to attempt suicide. Naturally, once he discovers this, Tony and pretty much everyone else wants to kill him. One of the non-mafioso characters (Artie) who normally never gets involved begs him to kill the man. All of his mafia buddies are deeply confused why he's still alive, the only question in their minds is who gets to do the job.

The only voice of "reason" in all of this is Tony's therapist who insists he must go to the police and this is the only moral thing to do. Tony himself makes it clear he believes that if he does so that the man will walk free and victimise another girl, but this is still treated as a huge crisis of conscience.

In the end he anonymously reports him to the cops and they arrest him. This of course is treated as the "good" ending. This is pretty much the only example of him choosing this path in a show where he routinely executes people for much less and this change in moral standards is never brought up again during his character's journey.

Like you said, I'm pretty sure the writer wrote it this way because he identified with the villain and wanted to reframe leniency as justice. I suspect his internet history would make for an interesting read. These are exactly the same people who saw the owner of a pencil factory being caught trying to cover up the murder of an underage girl he raped and said "Wow, we have to stand up for that guy. He's one of us!"

Expand full comment

They killed people for nothing... The one character who 100% deserves it, let him go.

Expand full comment

I have to say, as an Orthodox Christian, that many folks ( laity as well as clergy ) assume ( in the course of conversation or mere asides ) a stance of moral superiority in seeking out martyrdom, giving themselves up as helpless sheep. Wiser church members have pointed out that one does not seek martyrdom, it seeks you and is only consummated if you display the necessary mixture of faith and courage. I've made no secret of my preference for defending my own by means of violence, and see no virtue whatsoever in allowing those who harm the innocent to go unpunished. It seems in older times people understood that punishment and forgiveness were not mutually exclusive. Occasionally some of my co-religionists are on the same page. But I admit to finding "love for enemies" far from my personal sensibility ( to say nothing of my Scotch-Irish genetic memory ). I watch scenes of brutal vengeance ( e.g. the final Rambo movie ) and experience a visceral cathartic adrenaline rush. I enjoy the wicked being punished and find it strange that fellow Orthodox consider that as sinful as the acts the wicked perpetrate on the innocent.

Expand full comment

I feel a similar thing as a Catholic Christian. For a time, for certain men and women, giving themselves up without fight into the hands of their enemies might have had it's place...but I don't think I'm in that place. I think I'm better placed to raise arms, so that maybe I can be the counter to those who choose to live by the sword. Even if I hope I may keep it sheathed, ever ready. If we never defend ourselves, we will all be killed. If we never retaliate on those who endanger us, we show weakness.

These aren't the fluffy comforting thoughts we want to entertain... but the world isn't a soft and fluffy place. It never has been.

Expand full comment

I think that as we have “progressed” we have forgotten that perhaps God has called some to be warriors as well as martyrs.

Expand full comment

I agree. Weren't the classic tripartite roles in Christendom warrior(=king), priest, worker?

Expand full comment

And of course all three could be martyrs given certain circumstances.

Expand full comment

The Outlaw Josey Wales

Dirty Harry

Death Wish

Expand full comment

Don’t forget “Gladiator.”

Expand full comment

Which were wildly popular because they finally gave the audience what they wanted maybe made at the first zenith of NYC crime? It would be interesting to look at the crew/studio and see how those snuck through. Was thinking of Dirty Harry primarily.

Expand full comment

A perfect example of this current trope can be seen in the modern, recent mini-series Dr. Thorne. In the original 19th c. book by Anthony Trollope a girl is jilted by her fiance. In response, her brother ambushes the man at his London club and hoesewhips him. This is presented in the book as an entirely admirable act. In the modern TV version, the brother ambushes the fiance, is about to beat him, and then declares, "Your not worth it!" And walks away.

Expand full comment

We've let antiwhites poison us with "entertainment, no? Thanks for explaining how.

Most people have more fake memories inserted by antiwhite Hollywood than they have real memories.

Expand full comment

I haven't seen this particular Batman movie, but the fact that Batman doesn't kill The Joker strikes me as borderline insane. I mean, in our world, serial killers who are not executed are generally confined. It's really, really hard to escape from a Maximum Security or Supermax prison, despite what you see in the movies. The chances that, say, Jeffrey Dahmer would have escaped if he hadn't been killed by another inmate, are effectively zero. Likewise the Unabomber.

But in the Batman world, people are being sent to Arkham Asylum and they escape, or they're released by government agents for bizarre reasons. So serial killers really can offend again in that world. The Joker murders Robin and paralyzes Batgirl AFTER he's already been apprehended multiple times! Not killing The Joker seems just irrational. The willingness to forego vigilante justice depends at least in some part on state effectiveness. That's not at all the case in the Batman world.

Expand full comment

Batman not killing the Joker is actively immoral. By my standards, anyway.

Expand full comment

mine too.

Expand full comment

>The willingness to forego vigilante justice depends at least in some part on state effectiveness

This. When the state does it's job, and executes criminals, superheroes sparing villains by turning them over to the state is acceptable. But on the Nth time a supervillain is released or escapes because of apparent invulnerability or parity with the state... it's time to take the gloves off.

Expand full comment

Yeah. As much as I have loved Batman, what's the point of his crusade against crime and evil if he just sends them back through the revolving door every time?

Expand full comment

That’s why “The Killing Joke” is the definitive Batman story.

Expand full comment

I wonder how much of that trope was enforced by the Hays Code. It was definitely in the Comics Code of America. Comic book superheroes were not allowed to kill. (But check out very early Superman, back when his only power was strength. He roughed up a wife beater to let him know what it's like to be pushed around by someone stronger.)

When Hollywood started getting naughtier in the 60s, we do see some heroes who are more willing to exact vengeance. James Bond comes to mind; in Bond movies, it's the villain who is too slow to kill. Then we have Dirty Harry and Death Wish in the 70s. 80s action heroes could be quite cool with dishing it out: Mad Max, Rambo, Commando, and Conan the Barbarian come to mind.

And then there is the ending of "Doc Savage, the Man of Bronze" in the mid 70s. He doesn't kill the villain, but he has his personality wiped. Rather brutal if you thing about it.

Expand full comment

then there is Mickey Spillane: I, the Jury! https://amzn.to/4j4UvNe

Expand full comment

2 film adaptation... And they actually look interesting

Expand full comment

Excellent essay, CG

There hasn't been anything worth reading/watching from the West for at least a century.

That's why, as an old classicist who loves stories of heroes, self improvement, and epic journeys, I was glad to finally find Japanese stories.

Even old British literature doesn't have the grit and depth of The Odyssey. America has never produced a great heroic novel.

But everyday Japanese anime and light novels are full of heroes pushing themselves to be stronger and kill or be killed.

One could conclude--as I do--that Japan may be a superior culture vs the English-speaking world. After all, the English-speaking world has shown that, in the end, the population are fat, feeble-minded cucks

Expand full comment

Try The Book of the New Sun (4 books in 1 or 2 vols.) and The Urth of the New Sun (about 1600 pp. total) by Gene Wolfe, also the Wikipedia and Wolfeworld articles help in figuring out its mysteries. The Savior of dying Urth as a young torturer and headsman, cast out of his guild for enabling an innocent prisoner to kill herself. Great literature, an epic equal to or better than any.

In American history see my umpty-great uncle, Lewis Wetzel, who fought a one-man war of vengeance against the Indians, who called him "Deathwind": https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/early-america-review/volume-2/lewis-wetzel-dark-hero-of-the-ohio

(Ignore the first paragraph of that linked article added by some cuck editor.)

Expand full comment

uhhuhson

Expand full comment

I'm willing to change my mind. Please share your best recommendation for a heroic story/novel or show in English from the past 100 years.

Expand full comment
Jan 7Edited

I don’t have a qualified academic opinion to refute yours, I just don’t appreciate it. This is not a topic that I spend time on. Off the top of my head, here is a loosely connected set of heroes journeys, some admittedly degenerate in their relevance. True Grit, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Hell’s Angels, Catch 22, one Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Last of the Mohicans. … I’m sure there are others I’ll be embarrassed to remember.

Thanks for engaging, my red neck snark.

Expand full comment

Well put. Plain and simple, we lost our grit.

Expand full comment

Clint Eastwood films are the antidote...

Expand full comment

As I read this I thought of the phrase which has set my teeth on edge for four years now: “No one is above the law”. (Apparently, Donald Trump was below the law, but that’s fixed now!) But it’s the same sentiment: a vigilante is worse than the original killer.

Oh screw that, what are they so afraid of: that if victims or their loved ones avenge the crime, there will be fewer expensive prisoners to spend 20 or 30 years on Death Row? Right on ,Kukak: fight! Fight! Fight!

Expand full comment

but but wokeness started in 2016 -boomer

Expand full comment

Yeah and also its "on the decline" so we all need to calm down

Expand full comment