examples of propaganda


Once again we see the corporate-controlled media pretending to be knights in shining armor, coming to the aid of crime victims. It was this self-same media that was responsible (in large part) for the Charlotte church shooting. It was their ongoing coverup, of black-on-white crime, that pushed the unstable shooter over the edge.

The bodies of that shooting are practically still warm, and now we see headlines such as this one (from New York Magazine):

white privilege

The article bemoans our “rape culture” as it tells the stories of 35 victims of rapist Bill Cosby. Almost all of these victims are white – yet the article directly under this one deals with “white privilege.”

This is the sort of blatant, in your face, hypocrisy that enrages so many people. Even as this article condemns Cosby for his hypocrisy, by opening with lines such as this one:

Consider the evidence of October 2014, when an audience member at a Hannibal Buress show in Philadelphia uploaded a clip of the comedian talking about Bill Cosby: “He gets on TV, ‘Pull your pants up, black people … I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom.’ Yeah, but you rape women, Bill Cosby, so turn the crazy down a couple notches … I guess I want to just at least make it weird for you to watch Cosby Show reruns. Dude’s image, for the most part, it’s fucking public Teflon image.

It was precisely media outlets, such as the New York Magazine, that created this “Teflon image.” Let’s look back a bit, to 1984, and examine what the New York Magazine was writing, about Cosby, back then:

The Cosby-Show is a Valentine to middle-class American family life; it sells fatherhood, reassurance, and Jell-O…

Cosby sells reassurance… you will find yourself doubting that Bill Cosby could ever really hurt anyone… nevertheless, tirelessly, Cosby reassures. Love goes on, even if it’s black. Children get his message, especially if they’re white. Cosby isn’t dangerous…

This is the message that the corporate-controlled media has been selling us for decades: Black men aren’t dangerous. They’re reassuring. They represent love, responsibility and old-fashioned American family values.

It appears that New York Magazine was right; white kids DID get his message – and as a result, over 30 of them got raped. Are they enjoying their “white privilege?”

There are lots of ways to advocate for white people. You can educate friends and family, hand out flyers, post comments online, attend conferences, choose who we do business with and give our wireless networks provocative names.

But shooting up worshipers in a church does not advance our cause. It’s true that blacks victimize us on a regular basis, but probably not the sort of blacks who were worshiping at the Emanuel African American Episcopal Church on that fateful day. If any of their survivors are reading this, I extend my condolences.

Somebody pointed out that when a black man murdered eight white coworkers in 2010, in a crime that was clearly racially motivated, the media never called it a hate crime. Nobody demanded that the flag be lowered to half mast, and In fact, some news reports were actually sympathetic to the shooter. For example, an NBC article reads, in part:

“Everybody’s got a breaking point,” Joanne Hannah said.

“This is a disgruntled employee who shot a bunch of people,” Teamsters official Christopher Roos said.

Thornton was not a problem employee and had not had any previous disciplinary issues, said Gregg Adler, a lawyer for the Teamsters Local 1035. He said he was not aware of how much beer Thornton was alleged to have stolen.

Kristi Hannah had been with him Monday night and had no indication he was planning anything violent, her mother said.

Joanne Hannah described Thornton as an easygoing guy who liked to play sports and video games. She said he had a pistol permit and had planned to teach her daughter how to use a gun.

It’s true. Everybody does have a breaking point, and for unbalanced people, such as Dylann Roof, that breaking point is more easily reached.

We can view an individual like Roof as a pressure cooker. Perhaps he was bullied by blacks at a young age. This would have served as kindling for a flame under the pressure cooker. Awareness of black-on-white crime ignited the flame. He saw numerous white women, his age, dating black men – but he couldn’t even get a date. The flame intensified. He noticed the media constantly glorifying blacks, covering up black-on-white crime, while giving the impression that blacks are under siege by white racists. The intensity of the heat inched up. He wanted to speak out publicly about the gross injustices, and media misrepresentation of them – but doing so would only marginalize him further, and label him a “racist.” The pressure in the pressure cooker climbed. The fire under the pressure cooker was now relentless, but there were few outlets to let off excess steam. Eventually, the pressure cooker exploded, and nine innocent people are dead.

In a country of some 350 million people, there are bound to be some as unbalanced as Dylann Roof. I hold the media responsible for setting them off. Yahoo, MSN and CNN might as well have been firing the gun. Their censorship of black-on-white violence, along with the grotesquely biased reporting of what they do report, amount to “fighting words.”

For news organizations to consistently report white-on-black crimes (real or perceived) as national news, while reporting black-on-white crimes only locally (if at all) amounts to incitement. The shooting of criminal Michael Brown, killed while attacking a police officer, was “national news.” But the 2009 black attacks on innocent whites in downtown Denver were practically ignored at the national level. One had to read either local, or specifically pro-white websites, to learn about them. When a white person commits a “bias crime,” we are constantly reminded of his race. But when the perpetrator is black, we are left to figure it out on our own if there is no accompanying photo.

Such lopsided reporting breeds resentment both among blacks, who honestly believe they are under siege from whites, and from some whites, who become angered by the vast disconnect between what they know and what is reported. Corporate media outlets are messing with our minds, and it’s a dangerous game they play.

In this game, it’s the corporate media that holds all the cards. They’re going to use the Charleston shooting as a tool to call for anti- “hate-speech” laws. They’ll discover that Dylann Roof visited pro-white websites, perhaps even this one, and they’ll call for the banning of blogs such as this one. If they are successful, it will inevitably lead to even more bloodshed. We can safely assume that this is what they want. After all, it’s good for business.

Summer has started early here in Oregon, and I’ve wasted no time exploring some of the beautiful places within driving/riding distance from my home. This is the time to hop on my scooter and spend time outdoors.

It’s also the time to sweat. I’ve noticed people around me suffering immensely from the heat, even when it’s not very hot. While I’m comfortable with temperatures in the mid 80s (Fahrenheit, not Celsius), those around me seem to constantly complain. Having spent much of my life in hot climates, I’ve tended to attribute this to what one is accustomed to. Either that or some sort of genetic predisposition.

But recently I’ve considered another possibility: The regular use of antiperspirants. Since the early 20th century, Americans have been bombarded with propaganda (from the antiperspirant/deodorant industry) that body odor is evil, that we must wage relentless war against it, and that anybody who doesn’t use the marketed products is a savage. An unclean, unkempt, inconsiderate social misfit. It’s marketing by shaming. Americans, and many others, have come to believe that antiperspirant use is as important as bathing or brushing one’s teeth.

I readily admit that the judicious use of such products is important in certain circumstances: When one is in regular close contact with others or when one actually has a body odor problem. But current public opinion is more akin to a phobia than a concern for the comfort of others. As a society, we’ve crossed the line from concern about genuine hygiene to absurd fastidiousness.

Like so many other issues, there are extremists on both sides. There are those who claim that antiperspirants are dangerous, that their ingredients are toxic. Defenders of the current status quo sometimes use the “Loose Change” tactic, whereby they latch onto conspiracy theories, almost as a straw-man argument, in order to defend their worldview. Thus we find articles such as this one, which address only the toxic ingredient angle of antiperspirant use, while ignoring the fact that blocking a natural function of our bodies, sweating, is likely to have consequences. I’ll quote Dr. Mercola:

Why Sweating Is Important

You have two different types of sweat glands: eccrine sweat glands, which are distributed over your entire body, and apocrine sweat glands, located on your scalp, armpits, and genital area.

While abhorred by many, sweating actually has numerous health- and beauty-related benefits. Your skin is the largest organ of your body, and serves important roles just like any other bodily organ. For example, sweating helps your body:

  • Maintain proper temperature and keep you from overheating
  • Expel toxins, which supports proper immune function and helps prevent diseases related to toxic overload
  • Kill viruses and bacteria that cannot survive in temperatures above 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit
  • Clean the pores, which will help eliminate blackheads and acne

Interestingly, you’re born with anywhere between 2 million and 4 million sweat glands, and the number of such glands you have will determine, in part, how much you sweat. While women generally have more sweat glands than men, men’s glands tend to be more active and produce more sweat.2

As your body temperature rises, your body will automatically perspire to release salty liquid from your sweat glands to help cool you down.

This is controlled by your autonomic nervous system, which you cannot consciously control. However, certain emotions, such as anxiety, anger, embarrassment, or fear, can prompt you to sweat more.

Since exercise raises your body temperature, sweating associated with exercise is a sign that you’re exerting yourself and gaining the many benefits that exercise has to offer. However, sweating in and of itself may also be beneficial.

Sweating May Fight Skin Infections Via Antimicrobial Properties and Reduce Kidney Stones

Dermcidin is an antimicrobial peptide with a broad spectrum of activity that is expressed in eccrine sweat glands and secreted into sweat. In the average healthy person, research shows that sweating leads to a reduction of viable bacteria on your skin surface, which may lower your risk of skin infections.

In fact, one study suggested that people with atopic dermatitis, who have recurrent bacterial or viral skin infections, may be lacking dermcidin in their sweat, which may impair the innate defense system in human skin.3

Research has also shown that people who exercise, and therefore sweat more, have a lower risk of kidney stones. One reason for this may be because they sweat out more salt, rather than having it go into the kidneys where it may contribute to stone formation. People who sweat more also tend to drink more water, which is another way to lower your risk of kidney stones.

The propaganda campaign against body odor has rendered a large segment of America’s population hateful of their own bodies. Our bodies are wonderful machines. In their healthy state, we should appreciate their appearance, their sounds, their functions – and yes, even their odor. As long as it’s not excessive, body odor should be accepted as part of being human.

I suppose this is part of the natural progression of civilization. First, we learned to feel ashamed of the sight of our bodies, so we began to wear clothing to cover our nakedness. Then we began to consider any sound our bodies might make, with the exception of speech, to be vulgar. Finally, even the smell of our own bodies became “unacceptable.”

The global antiperspirant business is now estimated to be an 18 billion dollar industry. Some people are making a fortune off of the odor-phobia they have manufactured.

Personally, I think deodorants and antiperspirants are useful products, but too many people consider them a daily necessity when they’re not, and people who resist the propaganda juggernaut should not be shamed for doing so.

There are enough real instances of Jews publicly calling for the destruction of Western civilization, and the eradication of the white race, that we don’t need fake ones. This latest diatribe, attributed to a professor named “Emily Goldstein,” smacks of trolling or, at best, satire. Here’s the first part of the opinion piece, which appears on a blog called “thoughtcatalog.com“:

One of the more common memes that I’ve seen white supremacists spread around recently has been “diversity is a code word for white genocide”. The concept here is that diversity is only promoted in white nations, and that the end goal is to eliminate white people altogether by flooding all white countries with non-white people until there are no white people left. Well, guess what, white supremacists? That’s exactly right. Diversity IS about getting rid of white people, and that’s a good thing.

First off, I am a white person myself, so allow me to get that out of the way. I’m extremely glad that the white race is dying, and you should be too. White people do not have a right to exist. Period. That may sound like a bold statement, but it’s entirely true. Any white person with even the faintest knowledge of history should curse themselves every single day for being white. Throughout all of recorded history, whites have engaged in oppression, genocide, colonialism, imperialism, and just plain evil on a massive scale. White people have denied every other race the right to exist, and have – at some point in history – oppressed every single race on the planet.

Why, then, should whites now be allowed to live in peace when whites have historically been the world’s #1 source of conflict and oppression? Whiteness is racism. Period. Whiteness is the source of all oppression in the world. Whiteness is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and heteropatriarchal capitalism. Eliminate whiteness and you eliminate every single form of oppression that the world currently faces. No white people means no oppression. White people are like a cancer and oppression is a symptom of the cancer. Cut out the cancer altogether – with the cancer being white people – and you get rid of all of the oppression which white people cause.

I have dedicated my life to fighting racism, and I have determined – based on all available evidence – that the only way to really eliminate racism is to eliminate whiteness. Whiteness is the ocean from which racism flows. Get rid of whiteness and you get rid of racism. Despite what white supremacists often claim, white people do not have a “culture”. White “culture” consists of nothing more than oppression, genocide, and the disenfranchisement of minorities. White “culture” is racism and nothing more. When white supremacists talk about “white culture”, what they’re really talking about is racism. Over the course of history, white people have built a massive empire based entirely on the hard work of oppressed and disenfranchised minority groups. But guess what, white people? That empire is finally coming to an end now, and its demise is music to my hears. To quote the great anti-racist activist Tim Wise: “Do you hear it? The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently? Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”

Of course, this piece does express what many leftists actually think. But, from my own personal experience with leftists, I don’t think most of them actually want the complete extermination of whites – though their policies obviously will lead to this, I guess it’s not obvious to them. Maybe I’m being too generous toward them.

Looking through the comments, it seems that most readers actually believe it’s authentic. Maybe it is, but my internet searches didn’t turn up any professors, by that name, who are likely authors of the article. There are no links, on the page, to any other articles by this author, nor does it state which institution she teaches at, or what her specialty is. So I’m calling this one a hoax, satire or trolling.

As whites disappear from southern California, conflicts between blacks and Hispanics continue. In this latest episode of the black/brown war, which I experienced first-hand back in the 70s*, Hispanics are demanding the ouster of a black school principle. They claim “she is insensitive to Spanish-speaking parents.”

Local ABC news covers this story here.

Far be it from me to take sides in this conflict, which I know little about, but I found it interesting that the vast majority of protesters are clearly Hispanic – and ABC chose to highlight one of the few black protesters in their video. It could be this is because the Hispanic protesters didn’t speak English well enough. I suspect, however, that the real reason is that ABC wanted to portray an impression of solidarity, and harmony, between blacks and Hispanics. After all, they could easily have used an interpreter for a Spanish-speaking parent.

Reporting the news in an unbiased fashion would make the failure of “diversity” obvious for all to see, so they instead try to present it as a campaign against one individual, rather than as an ethnic conflict. But I seriously doubt that most Los Angeles blacks give two hoots about the sensitivities of Spanish-speaking parents.

* I was dark-skinned, and others assumed I was Mexican. People would sometimes come up to me and ask, “What are you?” One black kid asked me that, and then continued, “You better not be a Jew, ’cause I don’t like Jews.”

The Oregonian has a tradition, each year, of bellyaching about racism in the Portland rental market. I’ve written about this before, but with their latest installment of lies and deception, I feel they must be answered.

This year’s drivel, titled “Fair housing action fails to match bold words” appeared May 8th, and starts (on the front page):

Portland leaders pledged bold action and clear results in 2011 after undercover testing suggested that African American and Latino renters face frequent discrimination.

Yet four years later, with a new report on the persistence of bias, City Hall has offered more shrug than shriek.

Results of new testing, released in April, show landlords gave whites preferential treatment over black and Latino testers in 12 of 25 cases, or 48 percent. That compares with 64 percent of 50 cases four years ago. The samples are too small for meaningful comparisons or conclusions, and they don’t prove discrimination occurred.

The article continues (on page A11), under the subheading “Housing” and “All this rhetoric about equity”:

Portland, with high rents and rock-bottom vacancy rates, can be an unkind place for anyone seeking housing. But residents of color are hit hardest, as another city report on housing, released in mid-April, illustrates.

White residents earning the median income for their group can afford to rent in wide swaths of the city, according to the city Housing Bureau’s “State of Housing in Portland” analysis. But Latinos earning the median for their group have only a few pockets of affordability. African Americans at their median are priced out entirely.

On top of that, the new testing results add another uncomfortable reality for America’s whitest big city: more-subtle barriers because of skin-color.

I have a hunch that if the Oregonian did anonymous interviews with landlords, they’d discover that their aversion to black/Hispanic tenants has nothing to do with skin-color. Maybe, in their minds, such an interview would look something like this:

The Oregonian: So Mr. Landlord, you were caught discriminating against African American/Hispanic tenants. You can’t deny it; you were caught red-handed. How would you defend yourself? Why do you discriminate against African-Americans and Hispanics?

Anonymous landlord: I’m so ashamed of what I did… I’ve been thinking of taking my own life! My own family has disowned me, and I’m now a pariah in my own community (muffled sobs). Why did I do it? It’s their skin-color… Yes, I realize that African-Americans/Hispanics are just like me in every way – except for that damn skin-color. Every time I see that color, it makes me angry, so that I want to curse and break things. Not only that, but it clashes with the color scheme of the apartments.

No folks, race and color are NOT synonymous. I’ve already written about this here and here. But the Oregonian knows that if they repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Recently, while at work, a young coworker blurted out that race is just “skin-color.” I instantly corrected him, and told him there are many racial differences besides skin-color. Is what I said “work-safe?” It’s hard to see how one can get in trouble for simply stating an obvious scientific fact, without any malice. We’ve got to use the freedom of speech we have left, if we’re to maintain it at all. It’s our responsibility to educate ignorant people whenever the opportunity arises.

Should we generalize about racial groups? Some people might call this “stereotyping.” The Oregonian has no problem categorizing blacks and Hispanics as “victims” due to the fact that their median incomes are lower than that of whites. Landlords apparently do the same regarding crime rates. Blacks and Hispanics have much higher crime rates than whites or Asians. We don’t hear about housing discrimination against Asians. Why is this? Obviously, it’s because Asians have even lower crime rates than whites – so there’s no reason to discriminate against them. Blacks and Hispanics also tend to have lower credit scores than do whites and Asians.

Due to “affirmative action” policies, some blacks and Hispanics, who would not otherwise be “middle class,” are now counted among America’s middle class – but, since they were artificially placed there (through discriminatory policies/ affirmative action), culturally speaking, they have not acquired middle class values. So, even though their income is high enough to afford better apartments, they’re more likely to trash said apartments.

There was a time in my life when I was a landlord. I had troublesome tenants of all races, but the track record for blacks and Hispanics was noticeably worse. For the record, I never had a problem with their skin-color. There can be little doubt that my own experiences are shared by Portland area landlords as well – but the keepers of Leftist orthodoxy are not willing to speak to them.

In real life, we must learn to recognize patterns in order to survive. The very fact that we are here today is testimony to the fact that our ancestors mastered this skill. Every time a landlord is confronted with a prospective tenant, he must navigate a sea of unknowns. He can conduct background checks, contact references and confirm work histories – but these can only help minimize the unknowns; they don’t eliminate them entirely. He can never know, in advance, if this prospective tenant is a drug-user, if he’s prone to fits of violence, if he listens to loud music, leaves crumbs all over the house or has unsavory friends. A landlord has little choice but to play the odds – and these odds are better if he sticks with white and Asian tenants.

If the Oregonian can generalize about whites, blacks and Hispanics regarding income, then landlords can certainly generalize when it comes to overall criminality and responsibility.

When it comes to picking tenants, landlords have a lot at stake, but words are cheap for the Oregonian. Their campaigning will end up costing other people a lot of money, and possibly even their lives. Even as landlords suffer bankruptcy, or must bury their loved ones, the Oregonian staff will pat itself on its collective back for fighting for “social justice.”

The current edition of Discover Magazine includes an article titled “Days of Dysevolution.” The subheading reads:

Heart disease. Diabetes. Lower back pain. Athlete’s foot. Today’s humans are afflicted with ailments that virtually didn’t exist for our nomadic forebears. Can we adapt our way out of them?

The term “dysevolution” was coined by the scientist whose theories the article features: Biologist Daniel Lieberman. It refers to the mismatches between the conditions our bodies evolved for, over millions of years, and the sedentary lifestyle most Westerners lead today.

While it would be hard to argue against his basic premise, I got the impression that the article’s author, Jeff Wheelwright, was hobbled by political correctness – and a desire to adhere to its tenets while, at the same time, delivering some measure of truth.

Take this paragraph for example:

Although human beings are still evolving, Lieberman doubts that natural selection can overtake our quicksilver culture and rectify our health problems. “I care about my children and grandchildren. I’m not going to wait for natural selection. It’s not that rapid,” he says. He favors fighting dysevolution on its own terms, by cultural means. Unhealthy habits and products will be passed down the generations as long as the advantages – convenience, low cost, appealing taste – are seen to exceed the disadvantages. What he calls cultural buffering, from protective clothing to antibiotics, screen the body from the harshness of the environment and of evolution. “Lack of selection, because of antibiotics, say, leads to an increase in [human] variation. People who might have been filtered out won’t be. They’ll pass on their genes,” he says.

In a society free from the chains of political correctness, this would be a natural segue to a discussion of the pros and cons of eugenics – for what he describes comes very close to dysgenics.

The article includes large illustrations depicting Australopithecus afarensis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens (hunter-gatherer), Homo sapiens (farmer) and Homo sapiens (industrial/post-industrial). I found the last three very telling.

Homo sapiens (hunter-gatherer) is shown as an athletic young man who could be Australian Aborigine or black African. He is described, in larger print on the heading, thus:

… Dark-skinned, narrow-hipped and fleet-footed. A rounder head had a face tucked below the brain.

Four text boxes describe the evolutionary highlights of this hunter-gatherer. All positive, they include, in bold: Long vocal tract, dexterous tongue/ Athletic/ Energy storage/ Adaptable.

hunter

The next illustration shows Homo sapiens (farmer). He is shown as a less athletic young man of European type. The heading reads:

… They settled down and began to raise crops and domesticate animals. This departure from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle led to most of the mismatch diseases from which we currently suffer, Lieberman says.

The three text boxes include (typed in bold) Shorter/ Sicker/ Paler.

farmer

The last one, Homo sapiens (industrial/ post-industrial) features a middle-aged white couple. The heading reads:

The past 250 years have seen more change in culture than the previous 250,000 years, dwarfing the changes to the human body. The world’s population booms, straining the world’s natural resources.

The illustration includes six text boxes titled, in bold: Smaller jaws and faces/ Vision/ Bad backs/ Reproductive cycle changes (leading to an increase in cancer)/ Foot problems/ Less athletic. Four of the six are presented as negative traits.

industrial

I would argue that these illustrations have crossed the line from science, and into propaganda. Why do I say this?

The progression is presented as going from good to worse, and as this happens, the samples shown are whiter and whiter. The implication is clear: Dark is good/ light is bad. While it’s true that most hunter-gatherers were probably dark-skinned – so are most industrial/post-industrial humans today. Furthermore, there were plenty of light-skinned hunter-gatherers in Europe prior to the agricultural revolution. As a matter of fact, all evidence suggests that Europe’s hunter-gatherers were lighter than its farmers, the latter having come from the Middle East.

While all the other subjects are shown in the prime of their lives, the sickly white couple, shown at the end, appear to be in their fifties. One might argue that, since people live longer in industrial societies, this makes sense. However, the article itself states:

It’s not true that hunter-gatherers died young, before heart disease and the like could manifest themselves. Those who survived infancy could live to around 70.

The fact that overpopulation is brought up only when showing white people is particularly galling – considering that all white populations, worldwide, are in decline. Whites aren’t even having enough babies to replace themselves. If overpopulation is to be brought up at all (and if it is, it should be explained how this fits into the context of the article), then it should be coupled with a depiction of black Africans; almost all of the highest fertility countries are located in sub-Saharan Africa.

One gets the impression that the author and illustrator made a special effort to depict white people as pathetic, weak and sickly. At the same time, by depicting more “advanced” humans as white, they’re making a backhanded admission that it was whites who invented modern society as we know it.

Here’s the opening illustration for the article. It’s obvious that the centrally positioned dark-skinned hunter-gatherer is considered as close to the “perfect human” as possible. He’s centrally positioned, with his primitive inferiors to his right, and his degenerate successors to his left. The old and tired white man looks as if he’s ready to collapse and die:

intro

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 194 other followers