On the Racial Subversiveness of Popular Culture
February 10, 2014
IN 2004, the late Sam Francis wrote a column for VDare.com about an especially lewd Monday Night Football ad featuring Nicolette Sheridan. The column is worth revisiting because he makes an important point. Conservative commentators had complained about the sexual innuendo of the ad, but Francis, the former Washington Times columnist who was fired for his writings on race, objected to its racial message as well:
The message of the ad was that white women are eager to have sex with black men, that they should be eager, and that black men should take them up on it.
So far only one voice has mentioned the ad’s racial meaning and denounced its “insensitivity” (to blacks)—that of black Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy.
Blacks are permitted to notice race. Whites aren’t.
But the ad’s message also was that interracial sex is normal and legitimate, a fairly radical concept for both the dominant media as well as its audience.
Nevertheless, for decades, interracial couples of different sexes have been sneaked into advertising, movies and television series, and almost certainly not because of popular demand from either race. The Owens-Sheridan match is only the most notorious to date.
In the minds of those who produced the ad, race is at least as important as the moral and aesthetic norms their ad subverts.
To them, the race as well as the religion, the morality, and the culture of the host society are all equally hostile and oppressive forces that need to be discredited, debunked and destroyed.
If the destruction can’t happen at the polls or through the courts, they can always use the long march through the culture that control of the mass media allows.
Breaking down the sexual barriers between the races is a major weapon of cultural destruction because it means the dissolution of the cultural boundaries that define breeding and the family and, ultimately, the transmission and survival of the culture itself.
The promotion of interracial coupling by popular culture is similar to its promotion of homosexuality. Ultimately, both are an attack on social bonds that are the only powerful competition to the power of the managerial class.
— Comments —
Sheila C. writes:
There’s a related post up at Steve Sailer today about a typical liberal Jewish columnist claiming that marriage is a poor deal for lower-class (particularly black lower class) women and that it would be “monstrous” for society to tell them, prior to getting married, not to have children at all. Steve refreshingly refers to America’s horrific bastardy rate and notes that somehow these baby mommas can’t find a man good enough to marry but plenty of men purportedly good enough to father their children. The roots of this attitude go back to the early 1900s and Franz Boas. The Frankfurt School did far more than assault our understanding of anthropology, race, society, and social values. The constant (and heavily Jewish) media promotion of bastardy and miscegenation is all of a piece. As one comment at Sailer’s site notes,
“When I first started telling people – that the goal of The Frankfurt School in all of this is nothing less than the utter and complete destruction, annihilation, and eradication of Western Civilization – my perception was that they all thought that I was completely nuts.
But one-man/one-woman was one of the defining sociological attributes of the pre-Christian West.
Almost nowhere else in recorded history do non-Western societies forswear the big-man/big-harem model as the foundation for the relationships between the sexes.
And even ol’ Saul of Tarsus himself urged the early Jewish converts to Christianity to forswear their old polygamous ways:
Let the deacons be the husbands of ONE WIFE…
Seriously – you can’t get a much more direct, frontal, absolutist assault on Western Civilization than to attack the ideal of one-man/one-woman.”
Laura writes:
Christian marriage is indissoluble. America lacked from its earliest beginnings the theological and political principles to protect the institution of marriage.