The Great Dissonance

Zander argues that unsustainable tension between popular will and the actions of elites inevitably results in great reckonings.

A friend recommended* the recent film Nefarious (2023) as a rare example of a genuinely right-wing production, something almost unheard of in mainstream Western entertainment today. Morals and politics aside, the film is a shining example of the power of a well-written, engaging screenplay. The majority of the film is based around the dialogue between two characters across a table inside a high-security prison, and yet the story remains utterly engrossing. Perhaps comparable is the 2013 film Locke, which is essentially one extended scene with the protagonist Ivan Locke, masterfully played by actor Tom Hardy, having phone conversations whilst driving his car. No prolonged, nausea-inducing CGI action scenes — just simple human drama brought out in captivating dialogue, filmed in one location, mostly one shot, centring on one character — and yet you can’t turn away.

* The fact it was a word-of-mouth recommendation is significant, as films like this are inevitably deprived of all the paid publicity enjoyed by the usual mainstream slop Hollywood pushes onto the public.

‘Human’ drama might not be quite the right description for Nefarious, as the plot revolves around a psychiatrist interviewing a convicted murderer to determine whether he is of sound enough mind to justify his execution. The killer refuses to play within these parameters, instead trying to convince his interviewer that he is a demon who has possessed his human victim.

The psychiatrist, absolutely perfectly typecast, is of a decidedly left-wing persuasion and staunchly atheist, refusing to entertain the possibility of the existence of anything beyond the earthly. This scene (not too much of a spoiler) brilliantly encapsulates the dialectic between the two characters.

For anyone not familiar, rottentomatoes.com is a film review aggregator which collates reviews by the general public and those by ‘official’ media film critics, giving an averaged score for each. Here’s how 21 mainstream media critics, represented by the ‘Tomatometer’ on the left, rated the film, vs Joe Public, represented in ‘Audience Score’ on the right:

It’s a striking disparity and yet not in the least surprising. No level of innate artistic excellence could ever win over the ‘critics’, because for all its objective merit, Nefarious is clearly written by a Christian conservative. It is a creative, masterfully effective polemic against the leftism, individualism and atheistic nihilism which characterise Western modernity — and this is exactly why they hate it. The public audience average rating of 96% (based on over a thousand reviews) tells quite a different story.

Two things struck me about this. The first was that this kind of ratio (low critic score, high audience score) is an excellent time-saving heuristic for choosing films to watch. The second was that this ratio perfectly signifies the disconnect between the elites and the public. The micro reflects the macro — it’s not insignificant that under Elon Musk’s less censored Twitter/X, it’s common to see tweets by leftist, establishment ‘blue tick’ accounts get ‘ratioed’ (the colloquial term for a tweet being dwarfed in popularity by a dissenting response) by a factor of ten or more.

In my last piece 7 Ways to be Pro-White, I touched on the elites’ contempt for popular will, a pattern occurring across the White world as we are subjected to betrayal after betrayal by our political classes. Successive British governments, whether Labour or Conservative, have repeatedly ignored the wishes of the public on immigration, a pattern established since the very first waves of post-war third world arrivals. In London’s Waterloo station stands a statue representing a black family arriving in the UK on the SS Empire Windrush. The monument bears the inscription ‘you called… and we came’. These words are taken from a poem written by the black self-described ‘global diversity and inclusive (sic) specialist’ Laura Serrant. The first part of the statement is, quite simply, a lie. The British public most certainly did not ‘call’ for these immigrants. Aside from the considerable Jewish involvement in organising Windrush, even many of Britain’s political rulers were largely unaware of it until the boat had arrived.

British Conservative politician Enoch Powell, who campaigned and frequently warned of the dangers of mass third world immigration in the 1960s and 1970s, had immense popular support. Various public opinion polls showed a solid three-quarters of the British public supported Powell, and furthermore that a clear majority favoured a policy of mass repatriation.

In response to Powell’s now famous ‘Rivers of Blood’ 1968 speech on immigration — with which the majority of the British public agreed — the Conservative party leader Edward Heath fired Powell. Two years later the Conservatives won the 1970 general election. Had Powell not been dismissed at that time, there is a very good chance he would have become prime minister.

Of course, similar patterns have occurred worldwide in White nations in relation to mass immigration ever since. More often now we see nominally conservative politicians like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni voted into power on a promise to control immigration, then doing precisely the opposite. Too often it seems like they just get away with it, and yet history is replete with examples of dramatic change resulting from a nation’s people reaching breaking point. I’m not here to argue that cataclysms such as the French or Russian revolutions were a good thing — but what’s certain is that they took place because ruling elites became so disconnected from the needs and wants of the populations over which they ruled that the systems over which they presided became unsustainable. The greater the tension caused by this dissonance, the smaller the catalyst required to ignite the touchpaper.

Imagine a public referendum in every White nation on the topic of mass third world immigration*. The question would be simple — something like ‘Should we halt mass third world immigration?’ The topic is clearly presented as a single issue, so there is no risk of cross-contamination from other related or non-related matters.

Now imagine (perhaps forced by the results of said popular vote) the same question voted on by all your political representatives — i.e. in parliament, congress as applies to your nation. How would the results look? My guess is they would look very much like the critic vs audience review scores above.

*The holding of such a referendum is a key campaigning issue for the newly-registered British nationalist political party Homeland.

The natives of the West do not want mass immigration. We do not want to be replaced by foreigners in our homelands. We do not want trans ideology and perversion pushed upon our children. We do not want our history and culture erased. We want no part of far-away wars on behalf of Zionist elites. We do not want to be controlled by unelected technocrats and subjected to their demented, dystopian plans. And yet, it seems the elites governing our nations have other ideas. Sooner or later, something has to give.

(This article was first published here.)