It's been around for a while, probably throughout recorded history: Propaganda - the gift that keeps on giving. Rulers have always needed ways of keeping the ruled from wandering off the reservation. When some other ruler was giving trouble, or the ruler wanted to cause that ruler trouble, it was hard going without having the subjects on side. Nasty things needed to be said. After all, it would take clever manipulation to convince a man to leave his humdrum but relatively comfortable groove and march off into cannon fire and bayonet charge for something that lacked any real advantage to himself.
Propaganda worked equally well in revolutions. Who for example with any solid historical knowledge would believe that Marie Antoinette ever actually said something as crass as "let them eat cake" when informed of the lethal shortage of bread. Trained from birth to take her place in royalty, she would no doubt have learnt something about noblesse oblige - nobility obliges, or put another way, with great power and privilege goes responsibility - a duty to care about one's people. For those living in a poisonously cynical age of "liberal democracy" in which our "leaders" deserve all the cynicism that can be mustered, it's difficult to believe that royalty once took this responsibility seriously. But if wanting to ginger up the rabble even more than they'd already been gingered, did a possibly more effective tool exist with which to do it? It was a gem, a benchmark, a Shakespeare to every budding writer. Possibly, who knows? if that embodiment of callousness had never been attributed to her, Marie may have even kept her head.
After Gutenberg invented the first true printing press in the fifteenth century and, like all new technology, it started becoming cheaper and thus more available, just about anyone with a cause could amplify his voice exponentially. So began the era of the pamphleteer, able to produce usually succinct, hard-hitting literature cheaply. Extremists of both the left and the right with pamphlets as their dueling weapons could fight it out to their hearts content. Obviously, exponents of graffiti had been doing this since the advent of written language - the Pharaoh's a dickhead! But naturally this could in no way match the sophistication and reach of the pamphleteer.
Printing presses of course also opened the way to mass produced newspapers taking advantage of the freedom of the press, albeit, as is often said, the freedom of those who owned the presses. This was probably the point at which the power to mould public opinion began to resemble the awesome mind-bending potential with which we are familiar today. It was also a greatly enhance vehicle of the political cartoon, the message of which could be instantly understood by even the most plodding of readers. They were highly effective and still are. Witness the hounding to an early grave of our own late, great Bill Leak who, even after his death, suffered the indignity of having those under whose skin he'd gotten dancing on that very same grave.
During World War 1, the British showed themselves to be true masters of the art of propaganda posters and cartoons. It was of such high quality and so effective - the British public fully believing German soldiers were storming through Belgium bayoneting babies for sport - that a certain Doctor Joseph Goebbels, so impressed by the efficacy of this propaganda, determined to employ a new and improved version in Round 2, or as it was called, World War 2. He was greatly aided in this by the radio being by now an item to be found in most households.
Of course the other side wasn't standing still in this propaganda arms race. It was in fact warming to the task with tall tales of the industrial disposal of European Jewry with elaborate touches such as the lampshades made out of Jewish skin, soap made out of Jewish fat (perhaps slim pickings from those said to be so emaciated) and blood bubbling up from mass graves like the oil of the Beverley Hillbillies.
There was though a stark difference between the British propaganda of the war to end war and the Allied propaganda of the war to follow: the Brits, after the guns had stopped smoking, and being the good sports that they were, came clean and admitted that all the beastly things they'd said about the "Hun" had been complete bullshit. All's fair in love and war, eh chaps. However, no such retraction was made after Germany was left a smouldering, smashed ruin in 1945 and millions of its citizens allowed to perish in the ensuing "peace".
The reasons for this aren't all that difficult to understand. Between fifty and sixty million (although vastly overshadowed by the supposed six million - the former being merely goyim) had perished in an easily avoided war, one that would have remained a border dispute, a localised war, or at worst the probable clash between National Socialism and Stalinism, with the latter being a ten to one on loser. That being the case, history would have taken a different course: Eastern Europe would not have disappeared into the Soviet maw and Korea, Vietnam, and Red China with the concomitant loss of millions of lives would not have happened. No, far better to forever sing the praises of "the good war" and the defeat of the blackest evil ever to appear outside of Satan's kingdom. Naturally enough, Adolph Hitler, as the demented Anti-Christ determined to take over the world and rule it as his personal fiefdom had to be kept alive for all eternity. The History Channel does a bang-up job of this. Even if, for argument's sake allowing that the six million were actually hurried off this mortal coil, he was nowhere near in the same league as Stalin (60,000,000) or Mao (45,000,000 in just the four years of the Great Leap Forward). If the truth be known, even Pol Pot (1,800,000 or around a quarter of the Cambodian population) would make Adolph look like a rank amateur. But of course these mass murderers weren't killing the Chosen, and in the case of the Soviet Union, it was the Chosen doing most of the killing.
|THE FAMOUS STAB IN THE BACK|
Zionists managed to contain their glee over the suffering of their fellow Jews - and let's not forget who was co-operating with Hitler in getting Jews from Germany to palestine - but would be hard-pressed to deny that it was a gift from God ("the one god", their exclusive god, meaning of course that non-Jews are therefore godless, soulless and mere "cattle").
What better demonstration was needed of plague-like anti-Semitism than the attempt to do away with the entire Jewish "race"? And of course Zionists need anti-Semitism like alcoholics need alcohol. How else to keep the Jewish sheep corralled than the permanently instilled fear of totally unfounded and irrational hatred of them by the Goyim? Why before you knew it, the dear, innocent souls would be wandering off to intermarry with the other that they'd found to be not so bad after all. The Jewish people hadn't survived for more than three thousand years against all odds just to see that happen. NO SIREE!
As a bonus that couldn't be matched by a million combined quiz shows, the Zionists won Israel. No Holocaust - no Israel. But it didn't stop there. There were fabulous compensations to wrenched out of Germany as well as Swiss banks to be shaken down. And there was so much guilt, wonderful, beautiful guilt, a basement full of guilt as big as Scrooge McDuck's basement full of gold - and gold it was. There was more than enough to go around. Why not share it around to those not directly responsible for the roughing up Jews had experienced during the war? First up, there were all those Germans who claimed to not know what was happening (as well as the Red Cross who were regularly visiting the "death camps"). Ha! They knew all right, those "willing executioners" of Hitler.
And so the ripples of guilt spread. What about those countries, even though they were destroying the persecutors of the Jews, refused to accept Jewish refugees? It was about time they accepted their share of the guilt. On further thought, the Jewish experience during the war was simply the tip of the iceberg. It could not have existed without the support of the nine tenths hidden underwater, that is, the perennially existing, forever lurking anti-Semitism endemic to the West (Western Christiandom).
This could be fairly pinpointed as the beginning of the phenomenon that has come to be known as "white guilt". It was this point that the West began to veer off in a direction radically different from its course throughout the millennia. Good would become bad, healthy would become sick, abnormal would become normal, self-preservation and love of one's own would become "hate". In short, everything which had been believed in throughout the west was stood on its head. How could this have happened in little over half a century?
A certain astute Marxist political thinker named Antonio Gramski, being infinitely more realistic than other Reds of his time, accepted that the industrialised west, where the workers had never had it so good, was not going to crumble before anything as unsophisticated as a Bolshevik style revolution. No, several orders of magnitude more of sneakiness was required. He visualised a Marxist takeover being slipped in through the backdoor, and aimed at the power-points of western society - what came to be called the march through the institutions. A certain group of Jewish Marxists that would come to wear the tag of "the Frankfurt School", running away from the National Socialists to set up shop in New York decided this was an excellent strategy and began implementing it. And the cunning bastards actually pulled it off, showing once again what a tightly organised, supremely ethnocentric group, which thinks only of its own tribe, can achieve in the midst of an unsuspecting, atomised society. They went straight for the jugular - the universities. The rest would be easy.
This was necessary but not sufficient. Much more was needed to turn the west into the cesspools we see today. In Goebbels's day, master of propaganda that he was, he was limited by the relatively primitive tools he had at his disposal - basically radio and newspapers and film, still though in its infancy. Today, a plethora of media is available with which to control people's minds, with television being king of the castle and cinema being also highly effective in its subtlety, devilishly clever when used as it is - most people believing they are simply being entertained. Now here's the 65,000 dollar question: who owns most of this media? No, forget the sixty five grand. There's no prize at all. The question is far too easy.
A polite term for propaganda is "public relations" and the so-called father of public relations was Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud. The man was an artist and studied human nature so ardently he learnt just about everything to know about what makes them tick, and what buttons to press to have them obeying like robots to his every suggestion. You can imagine the fabulous wealth he amassed from advertising. But of course the exact same methods used to sell products can be employed to sell ideas, political and social.
Part of what he learnt about human psychology was that, because people are social animals, the "herd instinct" that exists in other pack animals exists just as strongly in humans. One of the strongest human instincts is the need to belong, exile being one of our worst primal fears. So we go along to get along. If the herd changes direction, we don't want to be left hanging. We're also imitative but we have little desire to imitate losers and nobodies. We much prefer to imitate people with status. Ever wondered why film stars are paid small fortunes to say they use a certain shampoo or beauty aid. To the rational mind, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But it's not the rational mind being targeted; it's the not so rational unconscious.
Now what if high status individuals such as university professors, politicians, churchmen and others of inescapably high profile were promoting and repeating with hypnotic beat certain ideas, even if those ideas clashed markedly with the ideas previously held? (It goes without saying that these ring-leaders first had to be trained.) Who wants to be the Lone Ranger? Who wants to be exiled?
A never ending debate is who had the most accurate vision of the dystopian future we are entering, Aldous Huxley or George Orwell? It's a toughy. I'm sitting on the fence but my legs are hanging on Huxley's side. Orwell had the surveillance side of the story down pat. One only has to look at London with its from home to work, from work to home being followed every step of the way by CCTV. Many other world cities are not far behind.
China is currently experimenting with facial recognition technology which can tell which citizens have been good and which citizens bad. "Social Credit" has been given a new meaning by the CCP. Each citizen is given the same number of points to begin with as if in some kind of game. For every good action (perhaps praising the Party) points are added, for every bad action (littering, for example) points are deducted. Lose too many points and one becomes a kind of non-citizen effectively immobilised in home detention. Western governments affect to be scandalised by this development but behind the pretence they are no doubt watching closely, thinking, what a good idea.
It is Huxley's appreciation of the advantages of subtlety over brute force that gets him over the line first. The denizens of the Brave New World are, for example, encouraged to cavort endlessly in Bacchanalian sexual couplings - the distraction par excellence. Sound familiar. It may be the most appealing of distractions, but it's just one of the myriad keeping us blinded to who's pulling the strings. In fact, so distracted are we, we don't even know there are strings. The foolish brave new worlders believe they are living in the best of all possible worlds - because that's what they have been cleverly taught to believe. Are we really any different? It's as if, before Huxley even began writing his book, he'd come across Goethe's famous quote:
"None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
The mind-benders of today, being the miracle workers they are, are almost worthy of admiration. After all, look at what they've achieved: they've convinced the majority of the whites of the west that it's a good thing to give away their countries without a shot being fired - unprecedented in world history. Whites under their spell now believe that the poison of multiculturalism is "enriching" and not fragmenting their homelands. Mass immigration of the third world into the first world, thus converting it into the third world is viewed with contentment. Miscegenation, seen when the west was still healthy as a crime against nature, is robustly encouraged and millions of white idiots are dutifully doing their part. White genocide, a crime so enormous it defies comprehension, is not even believed to be being committed. Homosexuality is healthy and normal - let's share the love. It is selfish heterosexuals who are now suspect. And how about three cheers for the deadly scourge of Feminism sinking the white birth rate to below replacement levels.
Cui Bono? Who benefits from this catastrophe upon catastrophe? Or, to ask the perennial question, is it good for the Jews? Is it good that the people so loathed and feared by the Chosenites are being destroyed? You can bet your arse it is. Don't believe me? Then simply take a squiz at the Babylonian Talmud. Not enough time? Then the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion might have to suffice. Oh, I forgot - it's a forgery. Strange though how everything predicted in it came to be realised.