Dysgenic Media Influence


... and the role we play in our own marginalization

~ By Alt-Right THEORIST

 This movement needs a serious facelift – and in order to accomplish that, the best place to start is by brazenly commandeering the formerly hegemonic role mass-media has played in shaping our public image – and ruling over it, unapologetically.

As evidenced by decades of hitherto-sensationalist coverage, the white nationalist community has invariably been portrayed either as a completely harmless side-show that nobody should pay attention to or conversely, a dangerous underground sect of the Republican party that is just waiting in the wings to break ground on the neighborhood concentration camp!

(Incidentally, just ask any white nationalist what he thinks about the neighborhood concentration camp and he's likely to point to the nearest public school – but that's another manifesto entirely.)

Sometimes in the editing room, these media-manipulators even manage to synthesize our two disparate personalities into one schizophrenic whole; somehow suggesting that our insanity can only be explained by the views which simultaneously result from it.

Are we The Murdermen, or just the Minute-men?  Is this insanity the cause of our beliefs, or just the result of them?  Are we a distraction, or an attraction?  The very fact that the mass-media cannot seem to makeup their collective minds about any of this should give you enough pause not to either.

But perhaps this confusion is not entirely accidental.  Perhaps it's because both characterizations are ultimately useful but toward different ends, and under different circumstances.  Let me explain:

When Nationalist sentiment beings to once again gain a foothold in white American politics, the “dangerous” tactic serves well to scare middle-class conservatives away from speaking their minds – and thus taking that one step further (at-least, publicly) into total race-realism.  Afterall, they wouldn't want to be labeled supremist simply for voicing their views on immigration – or rather, their reasons for them – now would they?  Even if those views merely reflect the moderate Democratic party-line, circa 1995; e.g., The Clinton Administration.

Conversely, during times in which Nationalist sentiment seems to be waning amongst mainstream conservatives (like when Republicans win a major election, and the “everything is fine!” modality sets-in again) it's probably safer to just treat these activists as paranoid clowns; further distancing average whites from openly discussing their political concerns for fear of being marginalized by an altogether different variety of ostracism.

Either way, what matters is that ostracism is the goal – and we know that whites respond very strongly to it. Why else would you be so paranoid that somebody might suddenly look over and notice the URL that you're visiting right now?

See – gotcha


 (But "blacklisting" is racist!)


Speaking of gotcha moments, those are a big part of the problem too. Anytime the media covers a “representative” of our views, the interviews that they conduct ALWAYS seem to revolve around cheap 'gotcha' questions that do nothing to address our legitimate political concerns.  We do have them – as do most other white Americans. The only area in which we seem to stand completely alone is in our steadfast willingness to express these concerns openly (and to take the perfunctory punishment for doing so).   
  When you realize it's precisely this willingness that threatens the establishment as a whole – even moreso than the ideas themselves – this phenomenon begins to become far easier to understand. Why do you think they're trying so hard to get us, or anyone who even likes us, banned from the public discourse? “There's no place in our society for that type of rhetoric,” they will say; until of course it is (((them))) who're steering the wheel of public perception in how that “rhetoric” is being presented.   
  Clearly, the absolute worst thing that could happen to their anti-nationalist agenda would be for a wide segment of the population to voice these concerns along with us, without fear of consequences or social/legal-reprisal; thus permanently removing the taboo associated with speaking one's unadulterated mind in reckless abandon of superficial social-mores. Mores, I contend, which have been foisted upon us with the express purpose of silencing our discontent and nothing else – which would explain why they've been changing so frequently, recently...


Speaking of Change...

Here's an example of how wildly the left veers in its course of anti-western ideology. Thirty-odd years ago, I was required to write a 'concerned citizen' letter to my local grocery-store (required, of course, by the neighborhood concentration camp). I would characterize this requirement as junior political-activism; we didn't have a choice in the matter, even with regard to our position on the subject (a position as informed as our seven-year-old minds could be). The subject was Paper Bags, and how they were destroying the rainforest. This made perfect sense at the time as we had just finished reading Just a Dream by Chris Von Allsburg, the famous activist children's writer.          

In Just a Dream, Allsburg takes us on the journey of his story's protagonist, Mother Earth, through the lense of a little boy named Walter. In an early example of guilt-tripping the younger generation into getting “more politically-involved,” Walter learns an important lesson regarding how his everyday decisions adversely affect the environment through a series of terrifying dreams – hence, the title of the story.     


In one segment of this nightmarish dream scape, Walter is presented with a scene involving several lumberjacks chopping the rainforest down into oblivion. Walter then asks them what all those trees are going to be used for, and the foreman says “it's for something very important.” Upon closer inspection, Walter notices that the opposite end of the automatic tree-trimmer is being used to make [shocking!] toothpicks. How very un-hyperbolic, and not in any way an exaggeration of the issue.          

The book then goes on to highlight several areas of environmental concern such as Human water usage, recycling, and overpopulation. Due to the fact that we were experiencing a severe drought in my native California at the time, this story affected me so badly that I actually thought we were going to run-out of water forever! Pretty scary stuff for a seven year old who's charged with watering the rose-bushes every other weekend...

          The second half of our assignment was to then contact the grocery store, and ask them to stop using paper bags – or at-least, to offer plastic bagging as an alternative. Why plastic? Because at that time, the environmentalists told us that it was better for the environment. Thirty years later, they're still changing their minds.



Where others see a natural and logical development away from plastic bags due to developments in recycling and off-site transportation, I see instead a pernicious and unyielding assault on the western political consciousness; from what we eat (meat), to how/where we sleep (apartments vs. housing), to how we produce energy (coal OR nuclear, they seem to keep changing their minds about this one as well), to – where we are now – whether or not we can even continue producing "justifiable" offspring at all...

         As a result, the only running theme I can really see in all of these “public awareness” campaigns is the unrelenting demonization of the western way of life; and for that, all I have to say to the public school system is thanks for making me a part of the problem.

   If you're looking for the real reason why the media still hates him, Donald Trump probably represented the first real threat to this anti-western hegemony within our collective memory. The Gipper, of course, stood-up to the Soviets.  However at that point in our nation's history, the governing establishment was arguably still pretty far away from the wholesale corruption we are seeing now – and as a safeguard against it, we still had this common-enemy to bond against as Americans other than a relentlessly obnoxious characterization of heterosexual white males.

         But hold on, just a second – we can't just blame this entirely on the media! Afterall, white nationalism is not a “social-justice” movement. Therefore we do not shy-away from taking responsibility for our legitimate mistakes, and we shouldn't shy-away from criticizing those of our forebears either.

        George Lincoln Rockwell, for instance, was a fantastic speaker both on the script and off the cuff. His commitment to evangelizing National Socialist principles in a way that was both academically sound and philosophically serious was not only commendable, but something to behold (and the fact that he was a naval commander during WWII probably didn't hurt either).

But come on – The “National Socialist White People's Party?” 


Goebbel's Gerbils had more discipline

 These types of theatrics may have been shock value-added during his time, but we have a word for that today: it's called cosplay

To be fair, we have to realize that a lot of this was probably an earlier version of what we also have a common term for nowadays: trolling.  In those two respects, Rockwell was certainly ahead of his time.

And speaking of time, many of his statements have stood the test of it too.  Consider this example:  


Unfortunately, since the opposition media couldn't directly attack this quote on its merit or rhetorical credibility and still expect to be taken seriously, their only remaining resort were Rockwell's obvious public displays and antics – and thus in a sense, he kind of made himself a target; a target with a giant Swastika for a bulls-eye:

George Lincoln Rockwell smoking his pipe hatemonger hill

Now they know where you live

On the other hand, without some of these theatrical tactics so early-on in our organizational development, perhaps nobody would have ever even listened to the guy!

(And while researching for this article, it turns out that Vice news actually agrees.)

Afterall, it has been argued by others in the movement that what passes for the “alt-right” today is nothing more than what would have qualified as milquetoast 1950's conservatism... except with less torches (those were for the Democrats): 


It's okay when THEY do it

  And perhaps, it was in this respect that GLR played a foundational role in the contra-symbiosis which persists to this day regarding white nationalism's almost schizophrenic “coverage” by the mainstream press – at one moment existentially dangerous, and at the other pathetically laughable.  Perhaps, he set the initial dissonant tone afterall...

ON THE OTHER HAND, I did not sit down to write this article merely for the purpose of ripping on our predecessors! (or posting awkward pictures of their members wearing utility-belts, either...) 


Batman, early years

Rather, I sat down to write this article so I could ruthlessly rip-into the mainstream media and in so doing posit the claim that their influence on our movement has been unduly dysgenic to both its recruitment and retention prospects; as well as offer some alternatives to this monopolistic influence moving forward.   
  If this is a war of ideas (or on them, depending upon whom you ask) then the left-wing journalistic establishment would obviously think it advantageous to zero-in on the least appealing, intelligent or articulate members of our movement; and subsequently, to treat them as its sole spokespersons. Since there's obviously no vetting process involved with appointing these representatives by anybody but the show's producers, credentials are hard to come-by – and in many cases, the scanter the better. By the time the media report has finished, the public is conditioned to either fear us at worst or pity us at best.   
  Either way, all that ultimately matters is that they succeed in our social marginalization – and by extension, anybody who (secretly) shares our beliefs. Just imagine the disaster were a “Neo-Nazi” to be presented to the audience in a fair and equitable way such that their accurate representation risk actually garnering support from the audience, instead of disdain! The key-word here would by sympathy. Well as it turns out, this is precisely what happened with American History-X.
  Even with a subtext that was perfunctorily anti-Nazi, the simple and honest portrayal of Derek Vineyard's views (and his reasons for developing them) ran the real risk of eliciting exactly such sympathy from the audience; not necessarily because they felt sorry for Derek, but because THEY PROBABLY AGREED WITH HIM. The reason for this – outside of any nefarious underlying pro-Nazi agenda – was probably that the film simply would not have worked had the audience rejected Derek's reasoning out-of-hand. Unlike Crowe's “Romper Stomper,” a kernel of sympathy was actually required in order to drive the movie's moral point home, which was: it's not always about the information that you have at your disposal, but rather what you choose to do it that will determine the man you become (Or in Danny's case, not at all). Thus, Derek's “warped” perspective had to be just ideologically-accessible enough for the audience to understand why they should “morally” reject it.    
  Furthermore, you can tell it to be the strategy of the mainstream tell-you-what-to-think media not to travel down this road in everyday discourse by the way they overwhelmingly ignore those members of the movement who can similarly defend their views in real life, such as Matthew Heimbach, Lana Lokteff, and (of course) Jared 'HuWhite' Taylor.   
  However – and here's my point – long-standing practices such as picking the least appealing “members” of our movement to publicly represent it have the unexpected, yet long-term consequence of only serving to attract those into the movement who resemble – intellectually or otherwise – the archetype being interviewed.   
  To put it bluntly, if only relatively stupid persons are portrayed as lead representative for a given idea or organization, only those people stupider than they are gonna be interested in joining. Afterall, nobody wants to follow somebody whom they perceive to be less intelligent than themselves, do they?


(Unless, of course, you're a member of antifa...) 

As a direct result of this, the only people “stupid” or desperate enough to get in front of a camera would be the ones to do so. (I know there are exceptions – don't taze me bro.)  Therefore, this creates a whirlpool-effect – DRAINING the most intelligent people from our movement over time, while simultaneously pushing-away those who might feel sympathy for our ideas, just not our presentation.  This cyclical effect has then ultimately lead us to where we are today.


As opined before, it's time for us to take back control of how we are being portrayed; and part of that central aim is to seize-upon these reigns with a zeal not seen since the Völkischer Beobachter (or People's Observer).  Until we can represent ourselves in a manner elevated above these many years of low-hanging journalistic fruit that have opportunistically mischaracterized our portrayal, we hold zero hope of rescuing the movement from what it has become today - and that, in a word, is dysgenic.

As mentioned before, the only real distinction between us and the silent majority is our willingness to express their same views openly. Thus, we owe it to those who cannot speak for themselves due to pragmatic P.C. -concerns to represent them in a way that is fair, thoughtful, and overall true; how else can we expect to advocate their interests properly?   

Now that I feel we've correctly identified the problem, it's time to start talking about solutions; Back to Donald Trump: 


Do you know what set Candidate Donald Trump apart from the rest? Do you really really know?

I'll make it simple for you.  What set him apart – historically and contemporarily – was that he never apologized for 'offending' people.  

That's pretty much it – it isn't complicated. 

He never apologized to the Media.  

He never apologized to Mexico;  

and most importantly, he never apologized to Muslims.

Why Muslims, “most importantly?”  Because in current-year, Muslim-minorities seem to be the ones holding the most political-capital.  Afterall, they're currently in the lead of the “who's offended?” P.C.-hierarchy game; and as we know, when you build a power-structure around protecting people's feelings, obviously the most easily-offended demographic (intolerant of criticism) will rise to the top.  That, in a nutshell, is what's currently happening in Europe.

Incidentally, this is also why the controlled media is so fanatically-obsessed with him!  He just completely undermined their latest method of control (guilt).  He unabashedly stood-up for every white man against an establishment incessantly bearing-down upon us for who and what we are (and therefore, everything we believe); not so much by what he said, but by what he didn't say.  And that, in a word, was “Sorry.”

You see, since the left can no longer win any arguments on their ideological merit alone, what they've had to resort to is a little psychological-trick called “get them to apologize!”  It's the only weapon in their playbook, short of violence.  It doesn't require them to present any arguments or facts, and the best part is it only works on white people!  Think of this as a form of induced-forfeiture.  Once they have gotten you to apologize for any offending speech, the consequence is that you can never support that same speech again (or anything that remotely sounds like it).  THEREFORE, the more speech they can get you to apologize for, the less and less you're able to say!

Luckily, in order to defeat this tactic all you have to do is say the opposite from sorry, which is “No.”  And watch their cries fall silent, as you refuse to cave to their childish demands...

The Daily Show famously pegged this last election as a competition not between votes for either candidate, but rather which candidate could accumulate the most “anti-votes” in-reverse.  This time, they were right-on the money...  And luckily, the American People did just that.  Then as we saw, when their little psychological trick was no longer working, what did they resort to next?  Was it reason and evidence that then they brought to bear in order to get their post-modernist message across?  No: it was violence of course, and America said “NO” to that too.

For as much as can be made – and there is much – about the statements made by Trump to break the silence surrounding “taboo” issues facing white America, it is the contention of this publication that what really struck their chord was his unwillingness to apologize for it.  Think of it as the first step toward voicing our opinions aloud, without feeling bad afterward (and if anything, actually feeling good).  In this case, we had the convenient benefit of turning to a voting-booth in order to do so.  However, it is unlikely that this opportunity will come to us again and while we still have white-interests on the radar, it's time for us to make the most of it.  Our future is in our hands, now.

So, what comes next?  Well, I'll tell you.   

First, it's time we stopped walking into every adversarial situation expecting to be treated like side-show conspiracy theorists.  Those days are over, and it's why we've created this site.  We've been conditioned repeatedly to accept this treatment as a given ancillary, but the ring of truth is on our finger now – and we're wearing it on the middle one.

I, for one, would like to see this movement (and our message) be taken seriously.  That is why I'm requesting writers like you to join our staff.  We have a plan; but it involves building a nationwide (and possibly, worldwide) network of creative and intellectual types to reference what they see going on in their own home-territories through the lense of identitarian sentiment (similar to B.E.T.).

The blacks have it; the Mexicans have it.  The WOMEN have it, so why shouldn't we?  They don't show any signs of stopping; and while it's great to make the case for Libertarianism to a crowd of onlookers who're only going to call you Fascist anyway, it's only their common hatred of us that is keeping them bound-together.  Once we're gone, the feminists are going to turn on the trannies; the Muslims are going to turn on the gays; and the non-whites are going to turn on eachother.  It's already happening; we just don't have to be there when it does.

Furthermore, what the left also doesn't realize is that by having assiduously kept us out of the “official” conversation, they've opened a giant market for us here!  Producing this publication is the first step to becoming organized – and thus, normalized.  People need to be informed of what is going on in a way that both reflects their “lived-experience” and provides something new to the uncommon discourse.  Again, we'll have a near monopoly on this market as a result and that is why it is so important to make ourselves both presentable and accessible:


  By the way, writers aren't the only talent we're looking for: videographers, photographers, and even poets are welcomed too. We're going to need artists for the political-cartoons, and drivers to take us to and from our meetups (and while we're at it, let's start getting the band back-together, man!)   “Unite the Right” may have looked to all the world like nothing more than a spontaneous gathering of ruffian factions – but at least they payed attention. Imagine if we were doing something regularly constructive with those same energies, instead. They wouldn't be able to stop us.
 Furthermore, if the internationalist-agenda relies solely upon people like us keeping our mouths shut and thinking we're the only ones who feel this way, then it stands to reason that coming-together for a common cause should be the most important thing we can do. That way, we can still kill two birds with one stone (except for Pigeons). But first:   
  Know yourselves. Get educated. Understand your reasoning. If you can't explain it to yourself, then you probably have no business running-around and preaching it to others. We only get one more shot at this, and we can't screw it up this time – everybody is watching. We are placing everything of value into this cart, so we'd better make damn sure the wheels don't fall off again.   
  The communists get all the chances in the world, because everybody knows they're insane. And what do insane people do? They keep trying the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. We're not them – we are their antithesis. And if nothing else, that should mean we learn from our mistakes.
  Our early predecessors made a lot of them. In many ways, they were victims of their own early successes and taught us the folly of mindlessly embracing an inflexible ideological-protocol unamenable to adaptation.


Let's not be that guy again...   

Finally, don't be afraid to work with those with whom we share a common-interest – even on the most tenuous of grounds.  Not only will this confuse the powers that be and take their abusive hegemony away, but Commander Rockwell wouldn't have had it any other way.

Commander George Lincoln Rockwell Nation of Islam Rally meeting June 25, 1961

Commander George Lincoln Rockwell

Invited Speaker

Nation of Islam Conference

February 25th, 1962

Join the Resistance

We're looking for "creatives" just like you.

We need to replace the existing media from the ground-up in order to stand any chance of securing our existence. Therefore, The White Sun is expanding and looking for local writers from across the country to express their "lived-experience" through editorial, human-interest and independent journalism just like this.  

The appeal at the end of our article wasn't just rhetorical; it is time for us to take the narrative back and it all starts with people who have something to say.  Contact us today!