How should Entertainment be handled in a Dissident society?

submitted by YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The culture industry is a very complicated issue. The main political advantage of advanced entertainment media is that they are a very powerful tool for social conditioning. People today spend their entire lives surrounded by media content, overwhelmingly of the same liberal character. The vast majority of people also interact with media in an uncritical or mostly uncritical way - most people lack the varied life experience and background knowledge to really distinguish consuming "entertainment for entertainment's sake" from an entertainment product that has certain ideological presuppositions or messages masked in its content. Not to mention that most people also consume media as a form of relaxation, meaning that even if they could examine media critically, most would probably not want to bother going through that effort. As a consequence, a group or an institution with the capacity to loosely control the general narrative themes of media in sufficiently large volume over a sufficiently long period of time would be able to enact large scale social engineering and manage the discourse on specific topics.

In principle, this system is neutral. It can benefit a variety of different worldviews and ideologies, depending on who controls it. The culture industry could be used to push constructive social engineering just as well as it could push destructive social engineering. The costs of this system, however, remain unchanged in all cases - the national body becomes conditioned to find comfort in passive consumerism and to waste its time with entertaining, but ultimately personally useless and unreal distractions. In other words, a based version of Netflix would be capable of endearing binge watchers to heroic narratives, but it would be no better for helping them live heroic lives than the current liberal Netflix. The culture industry relies on mass scale, high volume escapism for its existence and its profits - by nature it distracts and prevents people from living their own lives well. The system may be useful for mass control, as well as the standardisation and pacification of people, but it is difficult for me to see it as anything other than incompatible with an ambitious and virtuous people.

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

As a consequence, a group or an institution with the capacity to loosely control the general narrative themes of media in sufficiently large volume over a sufficiently long period of time would be able to enact large scale social engineering and manage the discourse on specific topics.

This is something that's very scary. I've thought for a while about how to "Jew-proof" so to speak our systems and other social constructions to ensure their sanctity long-term, but it's very difficult to do without overcomplicating things and/or causing other issues to emerge.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What exactly do you mean by that?

[–]YJaewedwqewqClerical Fascist[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Like, lets say hypothetically we, by some machination, take power cleanly and simply and among ourselves (us being the Dissident Right) select a group of leadership. How do we structure the government and all other societal systems to be immune or more resistant subversion?

In this specific case with entertainment, how do we ensure that all parts of the process stay at least mostly pure and how do we maintain that purity while retaining efficiency and functionality?

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, at least initially, the first thing to do would be elite replacement - you would need to replace all the heads of the culture industry with qualified people drawn from the political vanguard. If no such people exist, then the field in question will have to be closed down for a few years, until qualified people can be trained. If necessary, it can also be acceptable to work with technically talented ex-liberal opportunists, but only if you already have qualified, loyal and intelligent people drawn from the vanguard at the head of the organisations in question - you need these people to impart direction both on their organisation and its products. The important thing is to put people with the correct loyalties and skillset in all the positions that make a difference.

Obviously, a lot will have to do with educating a new generation of specialists with new values and new methods. If there is a sufficient supply of these people, the newly-selected institutional elites will be able to appoint worthy successors when the time comes, and create worthy products alongside their subordinates until then. Direct political control exercised by the government would also be able to introduce corrections where they are necessary.

As to sustaining these structures, some thinkers like Evola believed that aristocracy was one answer, since loyalties, function and purpose are inherited from the parents. Creating a new aristocracy that controls certain functions of the state and society would be one way to introduce long term stability. Another way would be to insitute a system that sorts people according to their personal preferences, loyalties, character and talents - this would allow the state to make use not only of the right people, but also in the right way. Yet another way would be to give a monopoly to all positions of power to elitist political organisations that are open to all but maintain very high requirements for entry and continued participation in every conceivable respect - this would also prevent those who seek profit and the easy life from ending up where they do not belong.

This is just a very brief and general examination of the issue. All of these ideas - and many others that I did not mention - could be developed in a lot more detail. I think the specifics should be figured out according to the situation and the context of the implementation. The main thing, in my opinion, is the size, quality and diversity of the vanguard - if there is a sufficient number of loyal, devoted, united and capable people, skilled in various fields from politics to entertainment, then it will be easy to achieve a smooth and effective transition and consolidation of power. If the number, character, unity or skills of these people prove insufficient, then all sorts of tremendous problems will emerge.