The White Conservative Male

I recently watched Django Unchained, a movie I thoroughly enjoyed. At one point, slave-owning Leonardo asks concerning the blacks, “why don’t they just rise up?” The Last Psychiatrist already addressed this better than I could:

Anyway, perfectly ordinary slaveowner DiCaprio asks a rhetorical question, a fundamental question, that has occurred to every 7th grade white boy and about 10% of 7th grade white girls, and the profound question he asked was: “Why don’t they just rise up?”

Kneel down, Quentin Tarantino is a genius.  That question should properly come from the mouth of the German dentist: this isn’t his country, he doesn’t really have an instinctive feel for the system, so it’s completely legitimate for a guy who doesn’t know the score to ask this question, which is why 7th grade boys ask it; they themselves haven’t yet felt the crushing weight of the system, so immediately you should ask, how early have girls been crushed that they don’t think to ask this?   But Tarantino puts this question in the mouth of the power, it is spoken by the very lips of that system; because of course the reason they don’t rise up is that he– that system– taught them not to.  When the system tells you what to do, you have no choice but to obey.

If “the system tells you what to do” doesn’t seem very compelling, remember that the movie you are watching is Django UNCHAINED.   Why did Django rise up?  He went from whipped slave to stylish gunman in 15 minutes.  How come Django was so quickly freed not just from physical slavery, but from the 40 years of repeated psychological oppression that still keeps every other slave in self-check?  Did he swallow the Red Pill? How did he suddenly acquire the emotional courage to kill white people?

“The dentist freed him.”  So?  Lots of free blacks in the South, no uprisings.  “He’s ‘one in ten thousand’?”  Everybody is 1 in 10000, check a chart.  “He got a gun?”  Doesn’t help, even today there are gun owners all over America who feel that they aren’t free.  No.  You should read this next sentence, get yourself a drink, and consider your own slavery: the system told Django that he was allowed to.   He was given a document that said he was a bounty hunter, and as an agent of the system, he was allowed to kill white people.  That his new job happened to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident, the system decided what he was worth and what he could do with his life.  His powers were on loan, he wasn’t even a vassal, he was a tool.

This is not to minimize the individual accomplishment of a Django becoming a free man.  But for the other slaves, what is the significance?

Of course Tarantino knew that the evil slaveowner’s question has a hidden, repressed dark side:  DiCaprio is a third generation slave owner, he doesn’t own slaves because he hates blacks, he owns them because that’s the system; so powerful is that system that he spends his free time not on coke or hookers but on researching scientific justifications for the slavery– trying to rationalize what he is doing.   That is not the behavior of a man at peace with himself, regardless of how much he thinks he likes white cake, it is the behavior of a man in conflict, who suspects he is not free; who realizes, somehow, that the fact that his job happens to coincide with the trappings of power is 100% an accident… do you see?   “Why don’t they just rise up?” is revealed to be a symptom of the question that has been repressed: “why do the whites own slaves?  Why don’t they just… stop?”  And it never occurs to 7th graders to ask this question because they are too young, yet every adult thinks if he lived back then, he would have been the exception.  1 in 10000, I guess.  And here we see how repression always leaves behind a signal of what’s been repressed– how else do you explain the modern need to add the qualifier “evil” to “slaveowner” if not for the deeply buried suspicion that, in fact, you would have been a slaveowner back then?  “But at least I wouldn’t be evil.”  Keep telling yourself that.  And if some guy in a Tardis showed up and asked, what’s up with you and all the slaves, seems like a lot?  You’d say what everybody says, “look wildman, don’t ask me, that’s just the system.  Can’t change it.  Want to rape a black chick?”

Then I read this. According to the statistics given about one in four women suffers violence/rape at the hands of men, although, I have read elsewhere that this number is exaggerated and one in eight would be more accurate. But either way, tThe original giver of these numbers seems shocked that these numbers are so high.

I think the better question is why are these numbers so low?

When men are dominant over women in absolutely every area of power: physical strength, political strength, economic strength, capacity for violence, etc., and these same women hold control over the one base desire to rule them all, why isn’t there more use of force by men to take what they desire?

Women have what men desire and there is little they can do to stop men from taking it. Yet, only a small minority do.

Why isn’t there more violence and rape?

Then I read this: white men are scary. The title says it all. Down in the comments Vanessa stated this:

White men gained power, not because of violence, but because of innovative technology and organization

That’s precisely what makes them scary. They’re not just violent, but clinically focused and horrendously efficient.

I’m German, you know. People think German men are cowards, but they’re not. They’re just very slow to anger, and thank God for that. It is as if the white men of the world have been asleep, and they’re starting to wake up. It’s going to get very scary very fast.

I’ve written about this before. The human male is the apex predator; the single greatest biological killing machine God and/or evolution ever brought forth. White men have brought this violence to levels of horrificness and efficiency previously unknown (except possibly Ghengis Khan).

And yet the question remains, as Vanessa points out:

I think the idea of “white male privilege” is the ultimate Frechheit. It’s not that white males privilege themselves, you ingrates, it’s that they privilege everybody else. They go out of their way to give help everyone else to the same standard of living that they have.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

I don’t know if this is ignorance, or their hate talking, but it makes them sound like clueless idiots.

I’ve written about this before as well. The white man created the greatest civilization in the history of the world and he has the unrivaled power to dominate any who oppose him and take anything he desires. Yet, instead of using this power for absolute domination and enslaving those who aren’t the white man, he allows others to become a part of his civilization.

Why is this? With this unrivaled power, Why does the white man not take more than a few nebulous “privileges”?

Then, we come to another roadblock: even among white men, there is a power differential, an ideological one.

Simply put, almost the entire capacity for violence among the white man rests in one ideological tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll label conservatives. The military is conservative, the police are conservative, gun owners are primarily conservative, white males. This ideological tribe controls every level of violence in society.

Yet, in white society, these conservatives are the outer party. Almost the entirety of the government, the media, the education system, etc. rests in the hands of the conservatives’ rival tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll call liberals.

This seems odd. The white, conservative male controls the hard power of society by a large amount, but invites others to share in his civilizational inheritance and allows the other white tribe to control the soft power.

Why doesn’t the white male, armed and capable of violence, take control of institutional soft power from the type of people who believe a moral lecture is “hardball”?

What is it about the white, conservative male that causes him to not use the power he has to dominate others?

Why doesn’t he rise up?

Following that: what happens if the white, conservative male sees he controls hard power and has the capabilities to completely dominate others? What happens if he decides to use it?

What happens when the white, conservative male realizes how the system is set up, and decides fuck this?

The system may seem invincible now, but as Vanessa said:

I think you are underestimating how angry young white men are and how little some of them have left to lose. They used to feel like they were the good guys, and they wanted to protect their reputation, but now they know everybody hates them.


18 responses to “The White Conservative Male

  • Nergal

    ‘The White Conservative Male…….WILL NOT BE SHOWN TONIGHT SO THAT WE MAY BRING YOU THIS EPISODE OF “Friends”‘

    Doodoo-doo-doo- doo-doodoo-doo

    You’re wrong about the power to use violence. The ability to kill other people for a political cause resides almost solely in the hands of leftists or liberals. Sure, conservatives have all the weapons and the skills to do it,but it’s like Bruce Lee vs the Chinese military.

    Bruce Lee CAN kill you with his bare hands if he wants to, but he doesn’t want to unless you’ve recently dishonored his family and/or a Shaolin temple. The Chinese Military may not be as badass as Bruce Lee on an individual basis and have to resort to numbers,crudely-made weapons, and oppressive storm trooper tactics, but they’ll kill you for using the wrong colors in your political poster and see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

    Think of all the people who’ve committed terrorist attacks on American soil in the last,say 50 years, and add up how many of them were either liberals or members of a group supported by liberals vs how many were conservatives and those supported by conservatives. I’ll bet the only terrorist conservatives you can think of were McVeigh (Who wasn’t really a conservative,because he supported leftist scientism) and a handful of abortion clinic bombings. For leftists,you’ve got the Symbianese Liberation Army, the Weather Underground, The Black Panthers,The Occupy Bridge Bombers, and every Muslim terrorist (who,ironically,ARE violent conservatives, but are whole-heartedly supported and to some extent co-opted by American liberals, to the point that I wouldn’t be surprised if the Boston Marathon Bombings were “payback” for the defeat of gun control). Even the KKK were liberals.

    The reason you don’t see more violent attacks from conservatives is that they are like Bruce Lee. Unless you dishonor (attack) their (THE) family or dishonor their Shaolin temple (the church),they aren’t going to do anything to you. Whereas leftists are about forcing their POLITICS on everybody, whether you like it or not, and will use bombs,guns,nooses, or whatever they’ve got to do that. Nobody who isn’t a leftist/liberal is even human to them.

  • Nergal

    Sorry for spamming, but I forgot to add that when I saw that “whites are scary” post, I thought it was more of the anti-white PC nonsense that we see so much of and just basically ignored it,but I HAD thought of joining in the fray to say something similar to this:

    “I think the idea of “white male privilege” is the ultimate Frechheit. It’s not that white males privilege themselves, you ingrates, it’s that they privilege everybody else. They go out of their way to give help everyone else to the same standard of living that they have.”

    This is the God’s honest truth with a capital T. Look, racism exists. Blacks DO suffer discrimination, I’d be a liar if I said otherwise, but the idea of white privilege is an outright misrepresentation of the way whites act and believe. White people don’t privilege the most successful in society, themselves and asians, but those we see as less capable,i.e. black people. This is one aspect of the racism I am speaking of.

    When a white person sees Donald Trump they say “He’s got his shit together, maybe this public money would be better spent elsewhere”,like helping black people learn to read or giving them public housing. We privilege people that we subtly look down upon as a way to assuage our guilt at considering them as less capable than us.

    People like those in the Duluth “Is white skin FAIR skin?” campaign take advantage of this white psychic mechanism in order to extract resources from us all the time. If they aren’t aware of the facts I have stated, they’re the dumbest white people in our entire group. They literally depend on the fact that whites privilege those we see as less capable than ourselves for their bread and butter.

    For high-achieving whites, we hold an emotion akin to contempt or disgust. We heap hatred and scorn upon them. Probably because they remind us of their inverse counterparts, the low-achieving blacks, and the guilt we feel in seeing them as less capable than ourselves.

    I think “white privilege” is attractive because it’s an easy cop-out for white racists who see blacks as less intelligent or capable to say to themselves, “I’m not giving blacks money or houses because of my racism against them, the only reason why these black people are struggling is because whites privilege themselves” and it’s also an easy cop-out for low-achieving blacks to say similar things about themselves “Why should I try harder when some white person is just going to get the job,scholarship,etc.?”.

    I’m glad somebody else said it,because it’s been on my mind since I read about the now-infamous Oberlin Incident.

  • oogenhand

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    In the comments, a good analysis of the Convervative mentality vs. the Leftist mentality.

  • AAB

    ‘I think the better question is why are these numbers so low?’

    I think you answered this question in your article on slavery (https://freenortherner.wordpress.com/?s=slavery): it’s simply that certain types of people prefer to be slaves rather than being free. And, unfortunately, this might mean certain genders have a preference for being ruled over, and certain races too.

  • Heraclitus

    The white race is a very religious race. Even when they secularize their religion in the form of the leftism, they still retain the same fervor and devotion. It’s been said that communism was so effective because it inspired men to the same zealotry as a religion. Being a religious people, they are a people obsessed with moral behavior. Frank Herbert summarized all of religion as ,”thou shalt and thou shalt not” reducing religion to it’s most finite form, an ethical treatise.

    The leftists thrive on holding the dominant moral narrative. Whoever can dictate right from wrong can control a people more securely than with violence. Whoever controls the moral narrative controls the people.

    Today, that narrative of Western Civilization is controlled by secular Christians, called liberals. They operate under the guise of equalism which has its roots in Christianity.

    During the Enlightenment the philosophers performed a reverse transmutation. For centuries alchemists attempted to transmute lead into gold. Lead being symbolic of base matter and gold being symbolic of spirit, the reverse transmutation happened when scholars turned the “equality of all men’s souls” into “all men are created equal.” They secularized Christian ethos turning gold into lead. The American and French revolutions followed, a revolt against hierarchy and inequality. All leftist revolutions were derivatives of this ethos.

    Continued on my own blog: http://novelandmundane.blogspot.com/

  • Will S.

    Rudyard Kipling

    A Song of the White Men

    1899

    Now, this is the cup the White Men drink
    When they go to right a wrong,
    And that is the cup of the old world’s hate–
    Cruel and strained and strong.
    We have drunk that cup–and a bitter, bitter cup–
    And tossed the dregs away.
    But well for the world when the White Men drink
    To the dawn of the White Man’s day!

    Now, this is the road that the White Men tread
    When they go to clean a land–
    Iron underfoot and levin overhead
    And the deep on either hand.
    We have trod that road–and a wet and windy road–
    Our chosen star for guide.
    Oh, well for the world when the White Men tread
    Their highway side by side!

    Now, this is the faith that the White Men hold–
    When they build their homes afar–
    “Freedom for ourselves and freedom for our sons
    And, failing freedom, War.”
    We have proved our faith–bear witness to our faith,
    Dear souls of freemen slain!
    Oh, well for the world when the White Men join
    To prove their faith again!

  • Tia

    “Simply put, almost the entire capacity for violence among the white man rests in one ideological tribe, which, for simplicity’s sake, we’ll label conservatives. The military is conservative, the police are conservative, gun owners are primarily conservative, white males. This ideological tribe controls every level of violence in society.”

    Police are generally not conservative. Legal gun owners are generally not the people committing murders either.

    “The white man created the greatest civilization in the history of the world”

    I’m not impressed.

    I prefer ancient South Asian and Egyptian civilizations. Of course, I didn’t live back then (that I know of or can remember) so I could be viewing them through retroactive rose colored glasses.

    I don’t really see the point of “Western Civilization” (though when Gandhi asked what he thought about it he said it would be a good idea) and I don’t recall ever reading that it had one.

    Any thoughts?

  • Tia

    And slaves did in fact rise up. And some were killed for it, along with their entire families. There’s a lot of slave history out there that you won’t be taught in the White Man’s school system.

  • Will S.

    Let’s not feed Trollette.

  • Tia

    Speaking of slavery, this is making Facebook rounds lately posted under the pic of the Congo man staring at the cut off hands of his daughter;

    Photo: Man from Congo drowned in thought as he stares at the hands of his daughters.

    The below speech which shows the real intention of the Christian missionary journey in Africa was exposed to the world by Mr. Moukouani Muikwani Bukoko, born in the Congo in 1915, and who in 1935 while working in the Congo, bought a second hand Bible from a Belgian priest who forgot the speech in the Bible. — Dr. Chiedozie Okoro

    “Reverends, Fathers and Dear Compatriots:
    The task that is given to fulfill is very delicate and requires much tact. You will go certainly to evangelize, but your evangelization must inspire above all Belgium interests. Your principal objective in our mission in the Congo is never to teach the niggers to know God, this they know already. They speak and submit to a Mungu, one Nzambi, one Nzakomba, and what else I don’t know. They know that to kill, to sleep with someone else’s wife, to lie and to insult is bad. Have courage to admit it; you are not going to teach them what they know already. Your essential role is to facilitate the task of administrators and industrials, which means you will go to interpret the gospel in the way it will be the best to protect your interests in that part of the world. For these things, you have to keep watch on disinteresting our savages from the richness that is plenty [in their underground. To avoid that, they get interested in it, and make you murderous] competition and dream one day to overthrow you.
    Your knowledge of the gospel will allow you to find texts ordering, and encouraging your followers to love poverty, like “Happier are the poor because they will inherit the heaven” and, “It’s very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” You have to detach from them and make them disrespect everything which gives courage to affront us. I make reference to their Mystic System and their war fetish-warfare protection-which they pretend not to want to abandon, and you must do everything in your power to make it disappear.
    Your action will be directed essentially to the younger ones, for they won’t revolt when the recommendation of the priest is contradictory to their parent’s teachings. The children have to learn to obey what the missionary recommends, who is the father of their soul. You must singularly insist on their total submission and obedience, avoid developing the spirit in the schools, teach students to read and not to reason. There, dear patriots, are some of the principles that you must apply. You will find many other books, which will be given to you at the end of this conference. Evangelize the niggers so that they stay forever in submission to the white colonialists, so they never revolt against the restraints they are undergoing. Recite every day-“Happy are those who are weeping because the kingdom of God is for them.”
    Convert always the blacks by using the whip. Keep their women in nine months of submission to work freely for us. Force them to pay you in sign of recognition-goats, chicken or eggs-every time you visit their villages. And make sure that niggers never become rich. Sing every day that it’s impossible for the rich to enter heaven. Make them pay tax each week at Sunday mass. Use the money supposed for the poor, to build flourishing business centres. Institute a confessional system, which allows you to be good detectives denouncing any black that has a different consciousness contrary to that of the decision-maker. Teach the niggers to forget their heroes and to adore only ours. Never present a chair to a black that comes to visit you. Don’t give him more than one cigarette. Never invite him for dinner even if he gives you a chicken every time you arrive at his house.“

  • Randoms | Foseti

    […] Elusive Wapiti on Enjoy the Decline and Son of Brock Landers on Bailout. Free Northerner has some thoughts possibly related to the […]

  • bringthereality

    [[i]When men are dominant over women in absolutely every area of power: physical strength, political strength, economic strength, capacity for violence, etc., and these same women hold control over the one base desire to rule them all, why isn’t there more use of force by men to take what they desire?[/i]

    Because men who are truly in power got there by controlling their base desires to a degree where they could get that power in the first place. When a woman realizes she doesn’t hold the same sway over one man that she holds over other men, it makes said man that much more desirable.

    When I was 13-14, I realized that the girls didn’t dig me. So I spent the next few years dedicating myself to getting in shape and playing guitar instead of begging for the poosy like so many of my “friends”. And they still didn’t the girls or the bangs.

    This is part of what Roissy, et al, are talking about when they reference “a man with options” being more desirable. Within five years, all that practice time led to being in bands-> having chicks hang out-> heinous fornication, amongst other benefits.

  • Free Northerner

    @Nergal: You are correct. That’s what I’m trying to hint at. Why, when conservatives white males control all the weapons, are they not the ones committing more violence? White privilege is, for the most part, nothing but an attempt to extract resources from liberals suffering from white guilt.

    @AAB: Are you insinuating that conservative white men are more inclined to being natural slaves?

    @ Heraclitus: He who controls the moral frame controls the people. Right-wingers need to take that frame back.

    @Will: That’s a great poem; I haven’t actually read it before. Also, is Tia a known troll in these parts? I did stop replying to her after she attempted to derail one of my threads with one of her pet causes. She’s posted 8 long-winded comments in the last two days.

    @bringthereality: Interesting. Self-control leads to success which leads to not exercising what they succeeded in obtaining.

  • Ait

    @Tia
    “I could be viewing them through retroactive rose colored glasses.”

    You think?

  • AAB

    @Free Northerner:
    Not Conservatives or men, but rather people who have a particular genetic makeup. For instance women with Turners Syndrome have less testosterone in their system than men, which makes them more likely to be compliant and less likely to be assertive. As testosterone is just one hormeone among many, it stands to reason that if there is variety in hormone production amongst different groups of people (genders, ethnicities, sub-groups etc) then it follows that some groups of people will be more naturally compliant (tending towards being servile) than others.

  • Will S.

    Hey FN, I haven’t previously encountered Tia myself, before – unless under a different name, and I don’t know…

  • Free Northerner

    @AAB: Interesting. That seems plausible.

    @Will:OK.

  • The Cathedral Footsoldiers | Free Northerner

    […] and their family’s food simply because of their political opinions. This will result in them realizing we have all the guns and the cowards at Jezebel, Gawker, et al. have purposefully disarmed themselves. The […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: