The “Africa Addio” (1966) documentary (now titled “Africa Blood and Guts”) by the Italian film crew that rushed to record first-hand the sudden transfer of power to independent African states was absolutely terrifying to me. It knocked the blue pills right out me. From the violent framework it introduced, I could reexamine many of my assumptions and take a harder look at the actual leaders for who they were. I understand the desire to go for a knockout punch by identifying and tearing down the opponent’s ideals and characters of our side. There’s a feeling that their foundations are Biblical feet of clay that, if disrupted, can bring the whole rotten edifice down.
Youre right to point to the icon of Bunker as it is the pattern of the narrative.. All in the Family gave way to the Jeffersons, Carroll's police chief in The Heat of the Night was replaced by Apollo Creed, all setting the stage for the rise of the Fresh Prince (Mandela).
Forensicly, facts didn't change. Narrative drove the change. While facts don't care about your feelings, the Will to Power doesn't care about the facts.
I think that the idea of removing idols is necessary. How can we move forward if the old and fake heroes persist in the mind? The issue is that simply going on the attack can seriously backfire.
Take, for example, how Muslims are preached to by Christians and Atheists in the west. It can always be heard how "Muhammad married a 6 year old" or how he was a violent conqueror or whathaveyou. These things can be argued for, and perhaps even convincingly, but all it even does is get a person's armour up and knock off a few people who had questionable loyalties to their ideology as is.
I think an easier and more effective tactic is to have heroes superior to their older ones. That way, those people will simply be naturally be drawn to the superior by the inferior. There were heroes like Lord Kitchener and Gordon of Khartoum who were replaced by the likes of Churchill. Why not find a better and more real hero?
It reminds me of The Silver Chair. Poking holes in an opposing narrative, taking down idols, is what the witch does. The protagonists could never have beaten her using the same tactic, she already has the advantage that they are living in her narrative. So Puddleglum instead rightly asserts the inherent superiority of his narrative, his heroes, over hers.
The liberal-progressive worldview cannot really be criticized in the same way they deal out criticism. It's nominalism all the way down, its not built, it's the act of tearing down. All their positive claims are transitory, intended to be discarded at some point. If you push them, that simply becomes the point at which the inconvenient claims are discarded, as they were to be anyway.
However, it is incredibly assailable by any position innately more appealing to human nature. It requires a constant barrage of propoganda upon a base of mal-education to convince someone they prefer electric lights to the sun. It is therefore very easy to convince someone the sun is real, not by arguements, but because, well, even if the sun isn't really, it's a damn sight better than the fake one.
Of course, it wasn't just this appeal that broke the witch's spell, it also took some pain.
I would very much agree. We can and should knock down these modern idols, but we can also simultaneously replace them with new, more deserving figures. A complete historiographic value-realignment, if you will.
I agree that Archie has become a gremlin. However, I'm old enough to have watched the show as a child with my parents every week. I remember Archie before Norman Lear told everyone they were supposed to despise him. My dad at the time was a Democrat, but he loved Archie. Part of that is due to Meathead, who was presented as an enthusiastic idiot. The contrast gave Archie the aura of a cynical yet wiser man. And Edith, a saint, loved him, so he had to be okay.
How did that Archie become the icon of a conservative troll? I don't know. Your argument that our stories are more important than our policies seems strong. How are our stories built, though? There's an alternate future with an Archie story that's different, possibly. Or, every story is a result of truth. In that case, Archie could never be anything but a rightwing monster.
I think your argument has another layer to it. It's been thought-provoking. Thanks.
Fantastic post! I think I restack-quoted half of it. And great job using the symbols of Memento to address these themes. We really are like Leonard Shelby, trying to understand ourselves without any memory of, or emotional connection to, a context larger than the present historical moment, and so we are easy marks for the calculated manipulations of folks with various hidden agendas. Connection to a greater context is truly what we need. Thanks for this!
I'd like to add, that wiki about Amy Biehl is just hard to read. It reminds me of Pedro Gonzales's back and forth with Lutheran Satire over another recent death where the father "forgave" the killer... and it makes Pedro look more and more in the right.
This piece was awesome. Absolutely loved it. Also, I pretty much can read these now in your voice.
"Founding myths need to have heroes and villains. So if Churchill and Roosevelt weren’t the good guys then who was? Stalin? And if there weren’t any good guys, how could the great mustache-man himself, Adolf Hitler, be the bad guy?"
I think this is ultimately one reason out of many for the meltdowns. Once the mirrors are up, everyone looking at themselves are going to realize the heroes and villains weren't so simple... policies and repercussions from the Enlightenment may of steered fates way ahead of time. Indeed, one finally has to wrestle with the question, "is Adolf Hitler Satan, or is he a mixture of bad human choices in a toxic soup of post war resentment and rage that fell into power?" A much more human and possible experience that could happen to anyone.
Gosh, I hate to nerd out, but I think my late 90s early 2000s anime/videogame hobbies (somehow I was spared from the worst of the weirdos and filth) set me up to be ready and willing to fight the post-war myths of my public school education. I remember fighting with my folks about demonizing the Japanese in WWII as a teenager, and I think of decent writing from early Final Fantasy games (Tactics especially) where coincidentally enough, some pretty normal guys in unsavory time periods (in this case a carbon copy of the War of the Roses) get supernatural power granted and it twists them. And man! Attack on Titan was a really disappointing ending. Honestly it's 1 of 2 shows I've watched where I think the creators realized what they did in accidentally attacking sacred myths on history and power and then walked it back. One of the key characters in AoT heel turn that seemed to shock many makes complete sense in light of all culminating events, but I think most people can't believe weaker humans, especially ones not guided by faith but vague secular ideas of freedom would instead hit the nihilistic or Hitler button. I mean, look at the war on Ukraine and anyone that tries to explain that narrative. Even racial relations people can't seem to grip outside of a comic book hero depiction.
Another good example was the show 100 (on CW, stop judging me) for that example... teenage drama, awful... some of the sci-fi stuff... stupid. That show was solid based off three adult characters and how society shits bricks when civilization is wrecked. Yes, it's been done before... but I hate zombies. If I could rewrite the show I would put a Curtis Yarvin self-insert with more leather, screaming "They will understand, will make them understand!" as he sucks the air out of the room, literally. I think that show too realized what it was saying, didn't like it and then reverted the themes back to compromise and peace... and it ended kind of meh.
Big apologies for the segway, but I definitely feel the anger and urge to not care anymore. If our myths brought us to where we are now, then to hell with them... even if it means I have to look Hitler in the eye and see something human... because even if Darryl deleted that tweet... I would of kept it up.
This goes well with Academic Agent's new video. Churchill stands as one of the regime's icon, being overly quoted about "never surrendering" against their fascist boogeyman
We trundle our children off to school by the millions and for decades. Indoctrination centres; Against this you expect what?
Please, the iron grip of human ignorance only knows one antidote, war, lest we forget. Our Alma mater, yes?
I know how to fix it.
Little ole’ me.
This is impossible to do because no such mechanism exists or ever could exist, but what the hell. Switch jobs: have police teach our children, and have teachers police our streets. This would change everything, can you imagine?
We are fallen, which is religion and elegant or as a nonbeliever, I say, we are merely overclocked chimps and our best rationality is no match for our animal instincts. Oh well, we aren’t the first people or generation to figure this out. We’re basically shitty.
There's a lot to unpack here and honestly I'm not a philosophical person so I'll let others debate the best course of action going forward.
But I do have a question about the statement "And Archie Bunker was indeed a loser." By what criteria? I know the writers intended to depict him as a loser but he had a job and owned a home despite not having much education; he was married; he raised a daughter who, while ditzy and having poor taste in men, otherwise seemed like a good person. She didn't have tattoos and piercings and hate his guts like many young women today hate their daddy. Archie did not abuse alcohol or drugs. He was not physically abusive to his family. He clearly cared about his family and other people despite the tough outward facade he put on. He may not have been the smartest person but he was able to see through a lot of the lies and nonsense peddled by the media. Frankly, I think many young men on the Right would cut off their left nut to attain what he had. Its hard to see Archie Bunker as anything other than wildly successful in overcoming his poor upbringing and education.
To me, and I think to millions of other viewers, the clear loser in the show was the unemployed, self-righteous, angry, left-wing, pompous ass of a son-in-law. Turns out it wasn't much of an acting stretch for Rob Reiner. And its people like Rob Reiner who have been running things since All In The Family ran on TV. Dare I say, we'd have been much better off had people like Archie Bunker been running America for the last fifty years.
He did not lose. He raised a family who loved him and he did the best with what he had. He had a successful life by any reasonable measurement. The fact that things have gone to shit since is not his fault. Had more people been like him, the world may not have gone to shit. By your definition, you are a loser. I am a loser. We're all losers because we're on the side that lost. I think that's a ridiculously broad brush you're using.
Well, we're more than two decades into the 21st century and we're still losing, even worse than before. The story of the 21st century thus far is that the Right is just getting its ass kicked all over the place now. We're considered domestic terrorists and being jailed by our oppressive government which is also busy taking away all of our rights. So, I just want to make sure I understand your point. You are a loser because you are on the side that's losing. Is that right?
If you are a loser, and by your criteria you most certainly are, then why should anyone listen to an admitted loser? What does someone foolish enough to leave the winning side to join the losing side have to offer the rest of us losers?
Very good essay. I wonder if any group has the ability to create an Archie Bunker today? In 1971 a third of America watched "All in the Family" on any given night. That's an insane amount of soft power which they probably didn't even fully realize.
Why would the left ever do anything to compromise when they can just import Infinity Haitian Migrants to voodoo machete chop all of us to death while nobody fights back?
This is an _outstanding_ essay. I could restack every paragraph.
Thanks
agreed
The “Africa Addio” (1966) documentary (now titled “Africa Blood and Guts”) by the Italian film crew that rushed to record first-hand the sudden transfer of power to independent African states was absolutely terrifying to me. It knocked the blue pills right out me. From the violent framework it introduced, I could reexamine many of my assumptions and take a harder look at the actual leaders for who they were. I understand the desire to go for a knockout punch by identifying and tearing down the opponent’s ideals and characters of our side. There’s a feeling that their foundations are Biblical feet of clay that, if disrupted, can bring the whole rotten edifice down.
Youre right to point to the icon of Bunker as it is the pattern of the narrative.. All in the Family gave way to the Jeffersons, Carroll's police chief in The Heat of the Night was replaced by Apollo Creed, all setting the stage for the rise of the Fresh Prince (Mandela).
Forensicly, facts didn't change. Narrative drove the change. While facts don't care about your feelings, the Will to Power doesn't care about the facts.
I think that the idea of removing idols is necessary. How can we move forward if the old and fake heroes persist in the mind? The issue is that simply going on the attack can seriously backfire.
Take, for example, how Muslims are preached to by Christians and Atheists in the west. It can always be heard how "Muhammad married a 6 year old" or how he was a violent conqueror or whathaveyou. These things can be argued for, and perhaps even convincingly, but all it even does is get a person's armour up and knock off a few people who had questionable loyalties to their ideology as is.
I think an easier and more effective tactic is to have heroes superior to their older ones. That way, those people will simply be naturally be drawn to the superior by the inferior. There were heroes like Lord Kitchener and Gordon of Khartoum who were replaced by the likes of Churchill. Why not find a better and more real hero?
It reminds me of The Silver Chair. Poking holes in an opposing narrative, taking down idols, is what the witch does. The protagonists could never have beaten her using the same tactic, she already has the advantage that they are living in her narrative. So Puddleglum instead rightly asserts the inherent superiority of his narrative, his heroes, over hers.
The liberal-progressive worldview cannot really be criticized in the same way they deal out criticism. It's nominalism all the way down, its not built, it's the act of tearing down. All their positive claims are transitory, intended to be discarded at some point. If you push them, that simply becomes the point at which the inconvenient claims are discarded, as they were to be anyway.
However, it is incredibly assailable by any position innately more appealing to human nature. It requires a constant barrage of propoganda upon a base of mal-education to convince someone they prefer electric lights to the sun. It is therefore very easy to convince someone the sun is real, not by arguements, but because, well, even if the sun isn't really, it's a damn sight better than the fake one.
Of course, it wasn't just this appeal that broke the witch's spell, it also took some pain.
You Hope Too Much.
Let us become saints, and by the will of God, be those better heroes.
I would very much agree. We can and should knock down these modern idols, but we can also simultaneously replace them with new, more deserving figures. A complete historiographic value-realignment, if you will.
I agree that Archie has become a gremlin. However, I'm old enough to have watched the show as a child with my parents every week. I remember Archie before Norman Lear told everyone they were supposed to despise him. My dad at the time was a Democrat, but he loved Archie. Part of that is due to Meathead, who was presented as an enthusiastic idiot. The contrast gave Archie the aura of a cynical yet wiser man. And Edith, a saint, loved him, so he had to be okay.
How did that Archie become the icon of a conservative troll? I don't know. Your argument that our stories are more important than our policies seems strong. How are our stories built, though? There's an alternate future with an Archie story that's different, possibly. Or, every story is a result of truth. In that case, Archie could never be anything but a rightwing monster.
I think your argument has another layer to it. It's been thought-provoking. Thanks.
Fantastic post! I think I restack-quoted half of it. And great job using the symbols of Memento to address these themes. We really are like Leonard Shelby, trying to understand ourselves without any memory of, or emotional connection to, a context larger than the present historical moment, and so we are easy marks for the calculated manipulations of folks with various hidden agendas. Connection to a greater context is truly what we need. Thanks for this!
I'd like to add, that wiki about Amy Biehl is just hard to read. It reminds me of Pedro Gonzales's back and forth with Lutheran Satire over another recent death where the father "forgave" the killer... and it makes Pedro look more and more in the right.
This piece was awesome. Absolutely loved it. Also, I pretty much can read these now in your voice.
"Founding myths need to have heroes and villains. So if Churchill and Roosevelt weren’t the good guys then who was? Stalin? And if there weren’t any good guys, how could the great mustache-man himself, Adolf Hitler, be the bad guy?"
I think this is ultimately one reason out of many for the meltdowns. Once the mirrors are up, everyone looking at themselves are going to realize the heroes and villains weren't so simple... policies and repercussions from the Enlightenment may of steered fates way ahead of time. Indeed, one finally has to wrestle with the question, "is Adolf Hitler Satan, or is he a mixture of bad human choices in a toxic soup of post war resentment and rage that fell into power?" A much more human and possible experience that could happen to anyone.
Gosh, I hate to nerd out, but I think my late 90s early 2000s anime/videogame hobbies (somehow I was spared from the worst of the weirdos and filth) set me up to be ready and willing to fight the post-war myths of my public school education. I remember fighting with my folks about demonizing the Japanese in WWII as a teenager, and I think of decent writing from early Final Fantasy games (Tactics especially) where coincidentally enough, some pretty normal guys in unsavory time periods (in this case a carbon copy of the War of the Roses) get supernatural power granted and it twists them. And man! Attack on Titan was a really disappointing ending. Honestly it's 1 of 2 shows I've watched where I think the creators realized what they did in accidentally attacking sacred myths on history and power and then walked it back. One of the key characters in AoT heel turn that seemed to shock many makes complete sense in light of all culminating events, but I think most people can't believe weaker humans, especially ones not guided by faith but vague secular ideas of freedom would instead hit the nihilistic or Hitler button. I mean, look at the war on Ukraine and anyone that tries to explain that narrative. Even racial relations people can't seem to grip outside of a comic book hero depiction.
Another good example was the show 100 (on CW, stop judging me) for that example... teenage drama, awful... some of the sci-fi stuff... stupid. That show was solid based off three adult characters and how society shits bricks when civilization is wrecked. Yes, it's been done before... but I hate zombies. If I could rewrite the show I would put a Curtis Yarvin self-insert with more leather, screaming "They will understand, will make them understand!" as he sucks the air out of the room, literally. I think that show too realized what it was saying, didn't like it and then reverted the themes back to compromise and peace... and it ended kind of meh.
Big apologies for the segway, but I definitely feel the anger and urge to not care anymore. If our myths brought us to where we are now, then to hell with them... even if it means I have to look Hitler in the eye and see something human... because even if Darryl deleted that tweet... I would of kept it up.
This goes well with Academic Agent's new video. Churchill stands as one of the regime's icon, being overly quoted about "never surrendering" against their fascist boogeyman
Love, Archie.
Great article, brilliant argument.
We trundle our children off to school by the millions and for decades. Indoctrination centres; Against this you expect what?
Please, the iron grip of human ignorance only knows one antidote, war, lest we forget. Our Alma mater, yes?
I know how to fix it.
Little ole’ me.
This is impossible to do because no such mechanism exists or ever could exist, but what the hell. Switch jobs: have police teach our children, and have teachers police our streets. This would change everything, can you imagine?
We are fallen, which is religion and elegant or as a nonbeliever, I say, we are merely overclocked chimps and our best rationality is no match for our animal instincts. Oh well, we aren’t the first people or generation to figure this out. We’re basically shitty.
mEmento
I wasn't making a satirical point FYI, I was correcting your spelling.
Thanks, changed
er, heh, heh… perhaps, as it’s Nolan, Memento?
There's a lot to unpack here and honestly I'm not a philosophical person so I'll let others debate the best course of action going forward.
But I do have a question about the statement "And Archie Bunker was indeed a loser." By what criteria? I know the writers intended to depict him as a loser but he had a job and owned a home despite not having much education; he was married; he raised a daughter who, while ditzy and having poor taste in men, otherwise seemed like a good person. She didn't have tattoos and piercings and hate his guts like many young women today hate their daddy. Archie did not abuse alcohol or drugs. He was not physically abusive to his family. He clearly cared about his family and other people despite the tough outward facade he put on. He may not have been the smartest person but he was able to see through a lot of the lies and nonsense peddled by the media. Frankly, I think many young men on the Right would cut off their left nut to attain what he had. Its hard to see Archie Bunker as anything other than wildly successful in overcoming his poor upbringing and education.
To me, and I think to millions of other viewers, the clear loser in the show was the unemployed, self-righteous, angry, left-wing, pompous ass of a son-in-law. Turns out it wasn't much of an acting stretch for Rob Reiner. And its people like Rob Reiner who have been running things since All In The Family ran on TV. Dare I say, we'd have been much better off had people like Archie Bunker been running America for the last fifty years.
"And Archie Bunker was indeed a loser." By what criteria? - he was on the side who lost.
He did not lose. He raised a family who loved him and he did the best with what he had. He had a successful life by any reasonable measurement. The fact that things have gone to shit since is not his fault. Had more people been like him, the world may not have gone to shit. By your definition, you are a loser. I am a loser. We're all losers because we're on the side that lost. I think that's a ridiculously broad brush you're using.
PS - The fight's not over yet.
In the 20th century that side lost. I am not saying it SHOULD have lost but it did. That's the story of the 20th century.
Well, we're more than two decades into the 21st century and we're still losing, even worse than before. The story of the 21st century thus far is that the Right is just getting its ass kicked all over the place now. We're considered domestic terrorists and being jailed by our oppressive government which is also busy taking away all of our rights. So, I just want to make sure I understand your point. You are a loser because you are on the side that's losing. Is that right?
If you are a loser, and by your criteria you most certainly are, then why should anyone listen to an admitted loser? What does someone foolish enough to leave the winning side to join the losing side have to offer the rest of us losers?
Archie Bunker and Elmer Fudd are just expressions of hatred for non-Jewish white men by making them look stupid and irrationally angry.
Very good essay. I wonder if any group has the ability to create an Archie Bunker today? In 1971 a third of America watched "All in the Family" on any given night. That's an insane amount of soft power which they probably didn't even fully realize.
Why would the left ever do anything to compromise when they can just import Infinity Haitian Migrants to voodoo machete chop all of us to death while nobody fights back?
/pol/ is always right.