examples of propaganda

Thanks to Diversity Chronicle for sending me the following video:

At first blush, Mr. Phillips sounds like a breath of fresh air, when we compare it to the usual drivel we get from the British establishment regarding race. He acknowledges that there’s truth to the various stereotypes about different ethnic groups in Britain. He brings attention to the scandalous whitewashing of the underage grooming crimes in Rotherham, and he even acknowledges the fact that British whites feel marginalized – that it’s almost as if being white is now a crime in Britain.

But in reality, Mr. Phillips says nothing new in this video; most of his proclamations are now common knowledge. It’s upsetting that, while he does a good job illustrating the awful way the authorities reacted to the Rotherham scandal, he neglects to mention that it was the BNP that brought the matter to public attention in the first place. In fact, the BNP is not mentioned even once in the video.

This is probably because the BNP no longer presents a serious political challenge to the ruling parties – but UKIP does. Therefore, Mr. Phillips dedicates a substantial chunk of the last part of his video to making UKIP look bad. This, and the fact that the British media/government allowed this video to air in the first place, tells me that the video is naught but a political move. A pathetic attempt to fool voters into thinking that Labour has turned a new leaf, that they never meant to set up a Stalinist state of fear in the first place. That it was all just an oversight on their part, that they’re sorry and that things will be different in the future.

At the very end, Mr. Phillips even implies that white youth benefit from diversity, because they too might get their turn at having some attention lavished upon them – after the educational establishment is done lavishing attention on all the other groups! How absurd!

The video may be of some use in bringing the uninitiated to an awareness of the excesses of political correctness in Britain, but let us not be fooled by such ploys. Did Labour deliberately overreach, in their campaign of political correctness, just so that they could backtrack later and “reinvent” themselves politically? I wouldn’t put it past them.

I normally do; I don’t much care what it looks like. As long as it doesn’t affect my job, or grow so long that it gets in the way, it’s a low priority for me. So I cut it myself whenever I feel like it.

Except that my daughter’s getting married in a couple of weeks, and I owe it to her to look presentable. So off to the nearest Greatclips I went, and this is what greeted me opposite the entrance:

great clips propaganda

My last propaganda post attracted some ridicule from the unenlightened. As expected, they view each instance of micro-propaganda in isolation, and make comments such as:

In that picture, it just looks like they put in a token black guy. But in the mind of a racist, putting a black man anywhere in an ad is idolizing them and furthering the “black agenda,” whatever that is.

If black women were featured with white/Asian men just as often as black men are shown with white women, then it might not be propaganda. But when we see the same pattern over and over again, we cannot view each instance in isolation. Intelligent people will ask, “Why is this pattern being presented to us so consistently? What are the motives of the powerful people who make such decisions?”

These are not unreasonable questions to ask. What is unreasonable is to willfully blind oneself to a phenomenon as ubiquitous as the one in question.

People are so used to seeing black males idolized, and elevated above all other demographics, that they don’t even notice it anymore. Their subconscious has been conditioned to equate “diversity” with the worship of black males. I believe that corporations promote this partly out of economic necessity (depicting black men as anything less than top dog might bring lawsuits or boycotts) and partly out of a sick sense of ethnomasochism.

Most people don’t notice this subliminal propaganda, but I do. Here’s an example I spotted just today, while shopping at Winco:

winco prop

The black man is in the center, taking the dominant position. He’s the one holding the ball, and he’s the one positioned next to the white women. The lone white man is farthest from the white women. He doesn’t care; he’s too busy worshiping black male athletes.

As for the Asian man, he’s the only one whose torso is obscured. It’s almost as if he was added as an afterthought, and he stands behind the other men, more toward the white man – so that the two non-black men are the only ones standing behind the letters “NO.”

Notice that it’s only the black man and the white women wearing sports jerseys. They’re part of “the team.” White men, and Asian men (apparently) are not part of “Team Diversity.”


We can open any major newspaper, on any given day, and find examples of anti-white propaganda. I came across an Oregonian from January 10th and found these:

Alcohol, drugs not a factor in fatal stabbing

… The results show that Juventino Bermudez Arenas, 33, a tree farm worker never known to be violent, was not drunk or high when he walked into a convenience store and stabbed Parker Moore, 20, whom he’d never met.

The Nov. 15 stabbing has baffled investigators, who say they may never know why it happened. They say there was no confrontation between Moore and his killer…

Arenas was (he was killed by police) mestizo. Moore was white. The article never even brings up the possibility that this was a racially motivated killing.

The comic strip “Stone Soup” features an interracial marriage between, surprise surprise, a black man and a white woman. Don’t they ever get tired of pushing the same old thing over and over again? We get the impression that the author, Jan Eliot, believes this is some sort of ground-breaking, revolutionary, iconoclastic art statement. In fact, he is only rehashing the same meme we’ve had forced down our throats for decades – using every medium known to Mankind.

The opinion section includes a column, by Nicholas Kristof, titled “In the wake of a mindless attack, don’t give in to mindless Islamic caricaturing.” In this column, Kristof urges us to keep an open mind about Islam. After admitting that radical Islam is behind much of the violence, and intolerance, we see today, Kristof writes:

Terror incidents lead many Westerners to perceive Islam as inherently extremist, but I think that is too glib and simple-minded. Small numbers of terrorists make headlines, but they aren’t representative of a complex and diverse religion of 1.6 billion adherents. My Twitter feed Wednesday brimmed with Muslims denouncing the attack – and noting that fanatical Muslims damage the image of Muhammad far more than the most vituperative cartoons.

The vast majority of Muslims of course have nothing to do with the insanity of such attacks – except that they are disproportionately the victims of terrorists…

To a point, I agree. I recently posted a comment on Amren stating:

Most Muslims are peaceful (in that they won’t actually go out and murder people), but wherever there is a large population of Muslims, a certain proportion of them will be dangerously non-peaceful. There is no way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Peaceful Muslim parents may have dangerous offspring. Therefore, the only safe solution is for non-Muslim nations to see to it that large Muslim populations are not allowed to accumulate within their borders.

The vast majority of gun owners are also responsible, peace-loving, people. Yet Kristof is a proponent of gun-control. He is not against guns, much as I am not against Muslims. But just as he believes we should have laws to minimize the damage done by guns, in the hands of criminals, so do I believe we should have laws to minimize the dangers posed by Muslims – by carefully regulating (or stopping) the immigration of Muslims into Western countries. Can Kristof show us even one majority-Muslim country where civil liberties, including freedom of speech, are respected? Is it not obvious to him that large Muslim populations, in otherwise non-Muslim countries, tend to bring about an erosion of safety, well-being and liberty?

It’s a natural right to own guns; we all have the right to protect ourselves, our freedoms and those we love. But it is not a natural right for any particular religion, or ethnic group, to colonize the lands of others. Therefore, in the above analogy, Islam-control makes more sense than gun-control.


As required by law, I answered my jury summons today. They packed us into a large waiting room, equipped with a few magazines, a coffee machine – and several big-screen TVs strategically located for easy viewing.

After explaining how to fill out the paperwork, they showed us a brief documentary about our civic duties as jurors. I thought it was pretty good. It did a fine job of reminding us that even though we’re being inconvenienced, ultimately, those of us who are selected will make a decision that will profoundly impact the lives of others. I got the impression that none of us took our duties lightly after viewing the film.

Both the movie and the young woman who guided us made it clear that we are not, under any circumstances, to consult newspapers, computers or smartphones to look up anything about pending cases. Anything that might compromise our absolute objectivity would be grounds for dismissal – or worse.

Over the course of the next few (very boring) hours, they played a couple of movies on the TVs. The first one was a Christmas special that I’m not familiar with; I spent my time reading. When that movie ended, and we got closer to the actual selection process, they played a second movie: The Blind Side.

I’ve never seen the film, and I spent the time during its showing pacing back and forth. But it was obvious that this film, like so many others, portrays blacks in an idealized light. Indeed, according to The Wire:

  • ‘Is Sandra Bullock’s New Movie Racist?’ asks Thaddeus Russell at the Daily Beast. He accuses the film of pacifying Oher, molding him into an unrealistically noble and non-threatening “black saint.” As such, Russell argues, Oher takes on the trappings of a stereotype that emerged in the 1950s, as white, liberal filmmakers sought to change negative perceptions of African Americans. Ultimately, he says, the take is a patronizing one:

His table manners are impeccable. He exhibits virtually no sexual desire. He is never angry and shuns violence except when necessary to protect the white family that adopted him or the white quarterback he was taught to think of as his brother. In other words, Michael Oher is the perfect black man.

I couldn’t help but wonder, if some of these jurors were confronted by a large black male defendant, mightn’t they identify with him in much the same way they were identifying with “Big Mike” in the movie? Notice how captivated they are by the movie:



What we’re looking at is the court staff indoctrinating the jury pool, polluting it with propaganda that might seriously compromise its ability to serve as impartial jurors. I found it ironic that the title of the movie so perfectly illustrates the blindness of today’s officialdom. Then again, these people had already been exposed to thousands of other films just like it – and they haven’t got a clue that they cannot help but be biased in favor of “marginalized, underprivileged, persecuted and disadvantaged” young black men. Not that they’re unable to find them guilty in the face of strong evidence, but more than likely, there’s a greater burden of proof to convict a black man than to convict a white man. Nobody wants to seem “racist.”

Was the showing of this film an intentional attempt to reduce conviction rates for black defendants? I’d like to think not, but stranger things have happened.

If you read CNN’s account of the interview with Brazilian serial killer, Sailson Jose das Gracas, you’ll see no mention of any racial angle to his crimes. It’s never pointed out that his victims were white, nor that he specifically targeted white women. The video clip that comes with the article is also devoid of any mention of race.

But if you read the same account, on UK’s Mail Online (which I found through a link on American Renaissance), it clearly states that:

Women for me has to be white, not black, because of my colour…

He said: ‘His desire to kill was for women, and he didn’t kill black women, just white.

The accompanying video also clearly includes this fact.

Why would CNN hide the fact that this prolific serial killer deliberately targeted white women? It’s because the corporate-owned media believes that whites can never be a “victim class” – because whites are, as a rule, the oppressors, not the oppressed. Media outlets, such as CNN, will even censor their stories in order to hide the truth from it’s audience. This is why such reporting is not “news” but propaganda.

By lying (through omission), CNN helps ensure that the general public remains ignorant about the scale of black-on-white violence. As a result, most whites are less cautious, around blacks, than they should be. CNN, and other corporate-owned media outlets, is thus responsible for the death of innocents.

Though Reuters is certainly not the only organization to engage in hate-mongering against whites, two recent articles illustrate its double standard when reporting interracial crime. Here’s one of the two articles, where the defendant was a white man:

JACKSONVILLE Fla. (Reuters) – Michael Dunn, a middle-aged white man, was sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus 90 years, by a Florida judge on Friday for killing an unarmed black teenager in an argument over loud rap music.

Reuters makes absolutely certain we all know that the murderer is white, while his victim was black. But when the perpetrators are black, and the victims of another race (such as Asian), Reuters is silent about the race of the perpetrators – as we see here:

(Reuters) – Two men accused of fatally shooting a pair of Chinese graduate students at the University of Southern California were charged on Tuesday with capital murder, making them eligible to face the death penalty if convicted, prosecutors said.

The only reason the (implied) race of the victims is mentioned is that the crime caused an international incident. Given that rap is primarily a black thing, and that incident #1 involved a white man who objected to loud rap, one could argue that the race of both parties was relevant enough to mention. However, we can make a similar argument regarding the second incident. The neighborhood was crawling with dangerous feral black “youth,” and the Chinese students were neither warned, nor prepared, for this. USC essentially killed them with political correctness – by withholding important information about blacks, and by not making John Derbyshire’s essay, “The Talk: Nonblack Version” available to them. When American universities accept students from safe parts of the world, it’s their responsibility to enlighten them as to the realities of life in the ghetto.

In fact, the second article continues:

Earlier this month the two Chinese students’ families filed a wrongful death lawsuit accusing the school of misrepresenting the area where they were shot as safe and failing to provide security patrols.

By and large, people are shallow creatures. They “know” whatever information is fed to them. They believe what they are told, and their blind obedience to trends and fashions allows certain industries to milk them like cattle, making countless billions of dollars in the process.

When the hoi polloi is fed a constant stream of media clips, which insidiously imply white guilt and black victimhood, reasoned argument cannot shake them from their resulting faith. It becomes ingrained in them.

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 185 other followers