examples of propaganda


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 to 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

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.”

 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 188 other followers