Fashion is a word which seems inoccuos enough. At face value, the manipulation of the vanity of people who are so vacuous as to seriously believe that how they look is the be-all and end-all of their existence, seems to be a sad indictment of the self-obsession of the individuals in question. However, the curse of fashion should not be so readily dismissed. Fashion goes beyond clothing, hairstyles, and other such material matters, and is indeed a problem which must be addressed by anyone who has the desire to understand how our oppressors control the societies we live in, and who wish to use this knowledge to undermine this control and free us all from this menace.
When we think of fashion, we tend to think only in terms of physical appearance. From the ridiculous flared trousers of the 1960s to the revolting tracksuits tucked into socks of the 2000's, it is easy to regard fashion as comical - but is it? Is it really a source of amusement that chronologically adult people dress themselves in the manner of circus performers at the command of an industry which revels in the ability to make allegedly sensible people reduce themselves to figures of ridicule - and to put themselves into debt in order to do so?
The phenomenon of fashion is worthy of study as it is clearly displays the strategy of the ruling class in containing all the options available to the manipulated populace. For example, the mainstream fashion for girls may consist of the slutty look, with the fashion for those who reject the mainstream being the 'goth' look. Those who have the intelligence to see through the manipulation of the overt media are neatly herded into the camp of those who refuse to buy the designer label and TV-endorsed look. Far from expressing their individuality and freedom from the manipulators, they reveal that they too are falling in line with the mind controllers. Dressing in black and spiking one's hair may cause a reaction of indignation which serves to satisfy the desire to feel as if one is in rebellion against the system, but it is a completely controlled rebellion - ie no rebellion at all. When the punk group Crass stated that Punk was dead, they were referring to this manipulation - sadly the devotees of Crass, Conflict etc who confine their rebellion to clothing, music and repeating lyrics which they haven't bothered to examine, have fallen into the trap of becoming a part of the controlled opposition.
Fashion in music is an interesting arena. Unless one lives on a remote mountain top, with no radio or television, and no need to visit what passes for civilisation, one cannot escape exposure to what the establishment laughingly class as music. Nearly every shop, pub, cafe etc pumps out the music of the establishment. Whether it is the sexually explicit material, or it is the controlled anger of the tailor-made false rebels, there is almost no break from the relentless aural assault on the senses of the passive listener.
What does it matter that the people have bread and circuses to keep them occupied? What else would the masses do if we didn't have our sensory pleasures catered for? Perhaps, just perhaps, we would begin to think for ourselves and to see the world for how it really is, and not for how we have been conditioned to see it. What does is matter that pop culture is manufactured and all pervasive? Well, it matters precisely because it is all pervasive.
Pop music is targeted at children. Why? They are not economically independent, so the motive goes beyond material greed. Sexually explicit lyrics and calls to reject the authority of parents are not in the majority of songs played on the radio by mere chance. These lyrics are placed in the public realm deliberately. It is a much researched fact that repetition is a key method of brainwashing. Radio stations have a limited number of songs which they play over and over. The result is to place in the mind of the listener an attitude which is beneficial to the establishment. The ruling class needs to atomise society to the point where there are no familial ties and there is no respect between individuals and generations. What better way to destroy the natural order of a healthy society than to implant in the minds of its youth the idea that (as Mrs Thatcher stated in the 1980s) 'there is no society, only the individual'? Children sing about the primacy of the individual, the importance of being popular, about hatred of family, about love being an illusion, about meaningless anonymous sex with every man, woman, and animal being a positive thing. This self-brainwashing then transfers into reality - destroying the family, spreading selfishness and degeneracy, and giving authority to the establishment to the detriment of wholesome and natural structures.
In politics, traditionalism and respect for country is laughed at - except when the establishment require patriotism to bolster their homicidal wars of aggression. This cynical manipulation of the feelings of the public is gently pushed by the 'news' media, who select which stories to tell to the public, and in reality create the news. At present it is fashionable to be pro-war, to 'support the troops' (the images of British soldiers murdering defenceless civilian in criminally occupied lands, dead children and babies are hidden from the public gaze). Only a few years ago, flying the Union Jack in England was classed as racist - now failing to do so as the next parasitic 'royal' wedding approaches, is unpatriotic. - so easily are the people swayed by the fear of being 'different' and out of step. In truth the Union Jack is an imperialist rag which when one understands its significance as a symbol of the Monarchy and their Zionist co-criminals, deserves only to be burned whenever one comes across it.
Fashion has come to be an indicator of the power of the establishment. What is the reaction one gets when one is critical of the sexualisation of children, or the contrived immigration of cheap labour for the benefit of the economic elite? Are the arguments in favour of morality, decency, protection of children, defence of family, the primacy of the spiritual over materialism, the halt to degeneracy and decadence etc... are these arguments met with reasoned discussion? No! Those who uphold morality and decency are immediately labelled as 'old-fashioned' are by the application of this label, all debate is prevented!
We need to confront this farce and reject the pressure to conform to fashion. We are right to defend our people and to expose the enemy. Being out of step and out of fashion with the sickening Zionist cult which is destroying the world is no source of shame, but rather of pride.
Fashion is just another word for thought control. When Mao banned western fashion, he was right to do so. The Socialist Republic of the Isles will have no place for decadent debasing fashion - or for those who push it.
1 comment:
What a great piece of writing, but hold on.
Fashion is as you say, but there have been times in popular culture when it genuinely expressed rebellion.
I'm not talking about hippy or punk, the former being nothing more than the deliberately cultivated feminisation and pacification of the young middle class males in America that because of their status did not have to go to the killing fields of South East Asia in the 60s and early 70s, all in order that they wouldn't cause trouble at back at home. The real rebellion was of course occurring in the ghetto, militant black Americans had formed the Black Panthers with their armed civil defence and social programmes to help their community. Along with all that some pretty natty outfits to foster a sense of solidarity too, it had a purpose.
Punk of course was essentially a commercial endeavour from the outset, at first the preserve of London peacocks on the King's Road, long after they'd dropped it and moved on to the next affectation, the rebellion of choice for the polytechnic brats who would play it all down later when they got a job in the planning office at Wandsworth council.
Skinhead had two phases, for want of a better term I will call them Skin 1 and Skin 2. The latter was a place where punk mutated for those that were not to get a job at Wandsworth Council, only ever small in number, the dispossessed that were easy pickings for the cynically manipulative biological racists. Snarling, shouting "Oi" and getting grumpy with Mr Patel who you'd known since you were a kid did not a rebellion make.
Skin 1 was a different beast essentially, it was rebellion. It was exclusively a working class phenomena and a revolt against "hippy" which was not only essentially an American import, but the preserve of smug, middle class university students. The terraces were the proving grounds of masculinity, but now shorn of the family and elder guidance that once tempered excess by the fact that even working class fathers were now forgetting their local football loyalties in order to do DIY. The fashions of Skin 1 shouted both revolt against hippy and an invocation of working class dads and grandfathers, the short hair, braces, workwear boots. It was also young white working class males marking their acceptance of black British styles, Reggae was the music to be played and stomped too, blacks and white youth mixed in the youth clubs and on the terraces. Racism was a feature but not in a formalised way and was probably no deeper that was found broad spread throughout society at the time and was highly regrettably aimed at the Asian community. Newly arrived without having had time to integrate, they appeared alien to the youth that I've been discussing, but I offer no excuse for what must have been a harrowing experience.
So fashion can be any things, depending on the socio-political circumstances.
Post a Comment