Acknowledging Our Enslavement, part 1: Mask Wearing
by Blake Hood
IT’S OFTEN SAID THAT the first step in solving a problem is admitting to yourself that it exists. This seems to be a stumbling block for many racially conscious Whites — they refuse to acknowledge the depths of our enslavement.
People buy into the comforting System lie that White men are somehow still on top or that the institutions we built have only recently and temporarily been overrun with enemies. Jews carefully maintain this public lie of White privilege and security for good reason. The genius of their rule is that almost no one knows them as the true rulers. Thus, they are served by inculcating an ‘above-it-all’ attitude among the White middle class especially (though this is changing now with the more explicit attacks on “whiteness”).
It’s time to start thinking like the slaves that we actually are, and studying tools and strategies that other oppressed peoples have used to survive, and eventually win freedom. And for this we must look to ‘leftist’ literature such as James C. Scott’s book, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (Yale University Press, 1990). Scott’s book is a great study of power relations between dominant and subordinate groups in history. The patterns of behavior he identifies and the means of resistance by the non-elite are of particular relevance for Whites living in the Jewish-dominated West today.
Scott uses the term “public transcript” to refer to the elite-controlled formal records, statements, and public events in a given society. The “hidden transcript” is testimony and actions by the generality or common folk that often contradict the official line. Scott describes how these dueling worlds affect how we conduct ourselves in the public sphere:
The greater the disparity of power between dominant and subordinate and the more arbitrarily it is exercised, the more the public transcript of subordinates will take on a stereotyped, ritualistic cast. In other words, the more menacing the power, the thicker the mask.
The idea of ‘putting on a face’ and of masking your true feelings is particularly relevant to those on the receiving end of the power system: “Those obliged by domination to act a mask will eventually find that their faces have grown to fit the mask. The practice of subordination in this case produces, in time, its own legitimacy.” Everyone who has ever had an independent thought in his head, knows what it means to wear the mask society demands. We do it to survive, but it has its cost; the longer we engage in dissimulation, the more our true self is lost to us.
In this great dance, the powerful are also obliged to adopt a mask; they must act the part of dominator. And though penalties for mask slippage are more severe for the low, both parties are required put forth credible performances on a regular basis. Elites who step out of line and contradict the ruling ideology, must still make good with a public apology, as their dissension is potentially more threatening to the consensus. Think of the off-color remarks made by celebrity Mel Gibson: He was made to grovel before he was accepted back into the (((fold))). While it is true that the dominant never control the stage absolutely, we see that in the public arena they almost always get what they want.
But that is not true offstage, in the hidden transcript. The Internet and especially online anonymous commentary is our space — our only space. By necessity, the taverns of 17th-century England or the café backrooms of 19th-century France, once gathering places of dissidents and rebels, have been abandoned. Now the magic happens on social media platforms like Gab and Twitter, or small encrypted chatrooms. “Tactical prudence ensures that sub groups rarely blurt out their hidden transcript directly. But taking advantage of the anonymity of a crowd or that of an ambiguous accident, they manage in a thousand artful ways to imply that they are grudging conscripts to the performance.”
The public transcript — presented in the Jewish media — is “the self-portrait of dominant elites as they would have themselves seen” but the Internet is the true reflection of our times. And as in real life, communication online is often done in coded language. Jokes and euphemisms are the folk culture of dominated groups — it’s how we speak to ourselves in relative safety:
In extreme cases, certain facts, though widely known, may never be mentioned in public contexts — for example in forced labor camps in the Soviet Union, until Gorbechev’s glasnost. Here is a question of effacing from the public discourse facts that almost all know. What may develop under such circumstances is virtually a dual culture: The official culture filled with bright euphemisms, silences, and platitudes, and an unofficial culture that has its own history, its own humor, its own literature and poetry, its own biting slang, its own music, its own knowledge of shortages, corruption, and inequalities that may, once again, be widely known but that may not be introduced into public discourse.
Euphemisms are used for taboo subjects. Consider they bounty of euphemistic words and sayings that we once used for sex. Most of the time these are healthy (and a bit silly) expressions of an organic folk culture. But when taboos are imposed from above — like, for instance, (((political correctness))), then these euphemistic words are used to mask (with sanitized language) the domination of the elite group.
Think about the word “affirmative action.” It is a seemingly neutral word that is actually pretty meaningless when you think about it. But in practice it is used as a weapon of deceit — to “put a benign face on an activity that would normally offend many.” The same goes for words like “diversity,” “tolerance,” and “inclusion.” “Affirmative action,” in reality, means purging and excluding Whites from all public and private institutions. “Diversity” means ethnically cleansing Whites from their own communities and homes.
Scott says that when this is allowed to go on, when it enters the public transcript unopposed, then the lie “never has to explain itself, and has nothing to answer for . . . only when contradictions are publically declared do they have to be accounted for.”
“Diversity” is taken to be intrinsically good today; its value is not questioned. The lie has sunk deep into the minds of the dominated. I recall when I was a child, I asked my mother why “diversity” was good, and she answered, “It just is!” And that was that.
* * *
Source: part of a continuing series on James C. Scott’s work Domination and the Arts of Resistance at Volkish.org