eiceocft

[eiceocft]

> "theyre just joking lol"

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

- Jean-Paul Sartre

[ Content Warning: Nazism, KKK, Residential schools, Fascism ]

Have you noticed the overton window has moved so far that it is no longer "acceptable" to denounce Nazism? That now its common for people to say "I dont think that this person is a fascist, but if they WERE then thats not a huge problem for me?".

The fascists of today hate the comparison to the fascists of yesterday because it makes them violently uncomfortable. It puts them in an impossible position where they have to either admit their cruelty, or denounce the monstrous men of yesterday, which they would not like to do. So they stay silent, except to defend those cannibals they love so much.

Late stage capitalism is what comes before fascism. "Sustainability" and "responsibility" are not words in the capitalists vocabulary. What happens when you no longer have enough to have more than you need? You use your strength to take a little from the poor. Then a little more. Eventually, they can't live and they start to get angry. So the fascist will divide them and create a culture war, a race war, a gender war. Any war but class war for them. Almost without exception, every fascist country was born from economic strife. Late stage capitalism is almost over, and in capitals terminal stage it will take from its citizens - and then cry for war with other nations to take more from them. And the same things will repeat again, as from the past.

The Ku Klux Klan and groups of hate will be allowed to have their free reign while the police look the other way. Organizations reminiscent of the residential schools will arise that denigrate any culture but what is accepted, and enforce their bible studies and punish anything not the norm. And then come the state celebrated deportations, the concentration camps, and soon the fascists will be openly celebrating things like piles of crushed bones in dark back rooms.

Do not let them feel normal about this. Do not allow the positive speak of these things to become normalized. Do not let the fascists feel the space around you is a safe one.

Self defense and the protection of others is the only way that this ends. Match their efforts. Organize. Keep yourself healthy and strong to the extent that you're able. Practice your rights to arm yourself if in a place where legal, and train often. There is no allied coalition like that in WW2 of the USA, USSR, and UK to protect us this time when the major nations of today are the perpetrators. We can only count on eachother.

[eiceocft]

Not even twelve hours after I posed this, and the american regime has their CPAC meetup where we get:

- More conservatives sieg heiling

- Banners talking about removing term limits for Trump

- More Trump tweets about annexing nearby nations with manufactured reasons

- Trumps press secretary telling reporters that Canada "Will become the 51st state".

Fascism is not "on its way", it is already here. Take notice of which of your centrist/conservative "friends" defend these increasingly indefensible actions and tell you trump his fascists are "just trolling" or "joking". At this point it does not just warrant an eyeroll from you, but to take it as a safety concern to not share personal information about yourself with that person, do not trust that person with your safety, and do not waste your friendship on that person.

If theyve seen all this and havent made up their mind, then my friend, that person is a fascist too and they do not give a damn about you or your family.

[ Content Warning: Nazism, KKK, Residential schools, Fascism ]

Have you noticed the overton window has moved so far that it is no longer "acceptable" to denounce Nazism? That now its common for people to say "I dont think that this person is a fascist, but if they WERE then thats not a huge problem for me?".

The fascists of today hate the comparison to the fascists of yesterday because it makes them violently uncomfortable. It puts them in an impossible position where they have to either admit their cruelty, or denounce the monstrous men of yesterday, which they would not like to do. So they stay silent, except to defend those cannibals they love so much.

Late stage capitalism is what comes before fascism. "Sustainability" and "responsibility" are not words in the capitalists vocabulary. What happens when you no longer have enough to have more than you need? You use your strength to take a little from the poor. Then a little more. Eventually, they can't live and they start to get angry. So the fascist will divide them and create a culture war, a race war, a gender war. Any war but class war for them. Almost without exception, every fascist country was born from economic strife. Late stage capitalism is almost over, and in capitals terminal stage it will take from its citizens - and then cry for war with other nations to take more from them. And the same things will repeat again, as from the past.

The Ku Klux Klan and groups of hate will be allowed to have their free reign while the police look the other way. Organizations reminiscent of the residential schools will arise that denigrate any culture but what is accepted, and enforce their bible studies and punish anything not the norm. And then come the state celebrated deportations, the concentration camps, and soon the fascists will be openly celebrating things like piles of crushed bones in dark back rooms.

Do not let them feel normal about this. Do not allow the positive speak of these things to become normalized. Do not let the fascists feel the space around you is a safe one.

Self defense and the protection of others is the only way that this ends. Match their efforts. Organize. Keep yourself healthy and strong to the extent that you're able. Practice your rights to arm yourself if in a place where legal, and train often. There is no allied coalition like that in WW2 of the USA, USSR, and UK to protect us this time when the major nations of today are the perpetrators. We can only count on eachother.

[eiceocft]

[ Content Warning: Nazism, KKK, Residential schools, Fascism ]

Have you noticed the overton window has moved so far that it is no longer "acceptable" to denounce Nazism? That now its common for people to say "I dont think that this person is a fascist, but if they WERE then thats not a huge problem for me?".

The fascists of today hate the comparison to the fascists of yesterday because it makes them violently uncomfortable. It puts them in an impossible position where they have to either admit their cruelty, or denounce the monstrous men of yesterday, which they would not like to do. So they stay silent, except to defend those cannibals they love so much.

Late stage capitalism is what comes before fascism. "Sustainability" and "responsibility" are not words in the capitalists vocabulary. What happens when you no longer have enough to have more than you need? You use your strength to take a little from the poor. Then a little more. Eventually, they can't live and they start to get angry. So the fascist will divide them and create a culture war, a race war, a gender war. Any war but class war for them. Almost without exception, every fascist country was born from economic strife. Late stage capitalism is almost over, and in capitals terminal stage it will take from its citizens - and then cry for war with other nations to take more from them. And the same things will repeat again, as from the past.

The Ku Klux Klan and groups of hate will be allowed to have their free reign while the police look the other way. Organizations reminiscent of the residential schools will arise that denigrate any culture but what is accepted, and enforce their bible studies and punish anything not the norm. And then come the state celebrated deportations, the concentration camps, and soon the fascists will be openly celebrating things like piles of crushed bones in dark back rooms.

Do not let them feel normal about this. Do not allow the positive speak of these things to become normalized. Do not let the fascists feel the space around you is a safe one.

Self defense and the protection of others is the only way that this ends. Match their efforts. Organize. Keep yourself healthy and strong to the extent that you're able. Practice your rights to arm yourself if in a place where legal, and train often. There is no allied coalition like that in WW2 of the USA, USSR, and UK to protect us this time when the major nations of today are the perpetrators. We can only count on eachother.

[eiceocft]

" "When will it be day, comrade?" I always hear this question, that they asked each other, comrades, while an old cruiser in the harbour yelled at full blast: Revolution! "

[ QUAND FERA-T-IL JOUR CAMARADE // MIREIELLE MATHIEU]

WHEN DOES THE LEFT GO TOO FAR?

A video exhibiting all of the times the right wing/fascists have said that the left was "going too far"!

When somebody tells you your ideas are radical, communist, or "impossible" - remember that all of those things are true, within the capitalist imperialist framework. This system was not designed for the rights of the many. Those rights had to be hard fought for against the system, and each and every single time the people who fought for those rights were persecuted, were beaten down by law enforcement, and most of all - told that they were being radicals. That they were going too far.

Remember, "too far" is anything past what the current system allows. The system the powers of fascism uphold. If you find that the system has outlawed your rights, your safety, your friends and family, and you - advocating for your own life is going "too far" in their eyes. If the fascists start to sweat, and say that "you're going too far" - you are on the right path.

The fascists like having you afraid. They like making you feel isolated, small, helpless, and most of all they like to pretend that they are a big scary and unstoppable force. Thats why they hate when we organize, when we publicly show that we have the numbers and encourage people to join us - that we won't lie down, shut up, and take it - and we make ourselves stronger, more organized, and more well armed. Capitalists will fire you from your job youve dedicated your life to to save a cent, Imperialists will take your land to mine it for resources in the name of "national security" and kill your people, and the Fascists will erode your rights and hurt your family based off of ignorance. The common thread between all of these groups is they think you are prey and they are invulnerable predator.

Organize. Stand your ground. Be loud, be proud. Make fascists afraid again.

This video reminds us of some of the times that the left "went too far". Such as, in order of appearance:

Protests standing with Palestine

Protesting climate change

Protesting oil pipelines being built over Indigenous clean water zones

Occupy Wallstreet / protesting wealth inequality

Womens Suffrage / gender equality

Stonewall protest for LGBTQ rights

Anti war [Iraq/Vietnam/Cuba] protests

Nuclear weapon de-proliferation protests

Civil rights / Black rights in america

Black panthers defending communities

Ending apartheid in South Africa

Minority groups legally arming themselves

Establishing an Anti-Fascist group and counter-protesting fascists

Thomas Sankara protecting Burkina Faso from outside imperialism, and Ibrahim Traore picking up the torch

Dr. Fidel Castro defending Cuba from the Bay of Pigs American invasion

Dr. Mohammad Najibullah and Babrak Karmal, leaders of Afghanistan during the communist era that gave women equality, industrialized the country, and brought equity to all

The Soviet Union defending itself from the Siege of Leningrad by the Nazis

The USSR pushing back the Third Reich into Berlin

The Red Army liberating the Auschwitz concentration camp

Taking thousands of Nazi officers prisoner

The Soviets destroying symbols of Nazism

Not a single one of these things was done by insisting on working together with the fascists in a system of their design. This is why they get angry and afraid when you want to change that system. They have reacted the same to all of the aforementioned events. Do not let that discourage you, because despite those reactions, all of the aforementioned things happened anyway.

Not a single one of our civil rights or strides into progress was made through asking our oppressors. When the road ahead seems dark, think of all the achievements listed; and remember they all happened in approximately the last 125 years. All of that change in the span of less than two lifetimes.

Can you imagine what the world will look like in another two lifetimes from now?

With hard work, it will look like something beautiful for everybody.

[eiceocft]

We've all made petty fortunes, but we can't afford a life Confined to pull out quotes and hotel rooms They all scream "California!" and its toppling empire But can't you see the end is coming soon?

[ENTERTAINMENT // RISE AGAINST]

Isnt living in the modern world fun? So much media to pick to consume from, and at every turn, you can't help but feel like something is wrong. Somebody is trying to sell you something. Or am I the product? It's all so very tiring. Is it about capital, is it my data, do they want my political leaning?

Communication is nuanced, and I am of the opinion that propaganda is simply communication where the intended message is hidden under layers of subtext that prey on a viewers pre-existing biases to say something to the viewer without directly saying it, and cementing that view in the viewer covertly without them knowing. Let's talk about propaganda, and discuss an example of it together, and see what tips and tricks we can use to identify it together going forward. We're all knowledgeable on the subject, but a refresher doesnt hurt right?

My career has been intelligence related my whole working life, both in the private and public sector. Privately, a lot of what I do has been related to viewing documents and verifying authenticity and bias. I have always found media analysis interesting, and I found a video that discussed scientific research which piqued my interest. I watched it and, while I wont share the link so as not to attack a creator whose work I know nothing about - I'd like to take us through it and identify the many, many points of propaganda and manipulation that I found present in the video, whether intentional by the content creator or not.

I want to preempt this by saying I am by no means an expert on the subjects being discussed, and for this reason I don't want to link the video in question. It would be irresponsible of me to claim that I know for fact that a self proclaimed expert in their field is not only wrong, but purposefully wrong in the interests of malicious manipulation, when I know nothing of this field myself, or of the persons character outside of this incident. Perhaps they are right about everything theyre saying, or some of it, or none of it; that is not my place. I am only making this as regardless of the contents accuracy, the content had point after point that is almost in all manipulative propaganda. I would like to go through these things that I noticed, and point out these tips that you can look for as well when consuming media.

The video in question was from a Youtube science channel which claimed to be whistleblowing a correspondence they had received.

"I want to read you an email that I was asked to keep confidential"

Our first point comes quick: they are saying that they must keep this correspondence confidential, and that of course the viewer may not believe them as they can't prove it.

This seems like a modest and honest admission at face value, but it is a common tactic used to appeal to the everyman. It tells you, with subtext, that not only is there a secret club in society that you wouldnt have access to if it were not for this person, but they are going to let you in on it. That they are sacrificing their own integrity, just for this chance to be honest with you.

It also serves the more important purpose of pridefully brushing away the responsibility of the burden of proof. This is key. If they can get you to dismiss the need of evidence once, and allow them to say what they would like to say without being further bogged down by the need for proof of these claims, then youve already mentally allowed them to tell you anything. You will have been psychologically primed to accept anything that follows as fact, and you will feel so lucky that they have bravely chosen to include you on this venture. So selfless of them!

"I am going to read this to you, and hopefully it will help explain why I am worried about the future of scientific research"

A thesis statement is not sinister in it of itself, however we must note that this is when the creator of the content is sharing their point with us. It is also notably non-specific. There is no claim except fear. The subtext here is "I am an expert in this field and I am sounding the alarm that something is not right." Coupled with the earlier point, "something is not right and it is a secret that they don't want you to know".

In any issue or conflict, there is always an opposition of course. In a conspiracy like this, that opposition is usually a "they". A secret society, minority group being scapegoated, the government, et cetera. We must determine who is the they, and this will unlock more subtext for us.

The video creator goes on to explain how they received this correspondence several years prior in response to a paper they had published about how they had lost faith in scientific research, and that many scientific papers in their field were "non-sense".

We will add to our notes about the content creators biases that they feel, and by their own admission have felt strongly enough to write and publish a paper many years ago, that the scientific research community is, to some degree, either inept or corrupt.

Compounding this with our prior points, this means the "they" seems to be scientists and members of the scientific research community. Academics are the enemy that this content creator is taking aim at.

Now that we have our "they" - who is the "we"? Typically the "We" is assumed to be the working class, the proletariat. However, you will find that good propaganda aims to divide that further. In racist propaganda for example, they would direct their content at white people to divide them from non-white presenting people. Lets continue to find our "we."

The content creator goes on to say that this correspondence was received from somebody who was a top figure at one of the top institutions of their scientific field in the United States. They again say that though they were asked to keep the contents confidential, they have omitted any identifiable details.

We see a repetition of the fact that none of this can be verified.

We are shown that this information comes from a representative of the head of a very large institution. A respected institution. The subtext here being, that if this person is admitting it, then it is an absolute truth of this field.

We gain more information on our "we". The information herein is directed to the citizens of the United States.

[The following excerpts are said from the person sending the content creator the correspondence they are responding to]

The writer introduces themselves and then says, "congratulations on a nice paper. If you wanted to attract attention, you managed to do this."

When you consume any media, the majority of the time there is an implicit understanding that you are on the side of the media creator. Following this line of logic, any opposition to the media creator is the enemy.

This is the voice of our "they".

In many conspiracies, much of the power of the claimant comes from the fact that they are being silenced by "them", their opposition. This first line supports that, and de facto sweeps you into their ranks and serves to rile the viewer up into a war they previously did not know was happening a second ago - but now we are ready to defend our media creator.

Everything said in this letter here on out will be viewed through the lens as being words of the enemy, a mysterious unidentified person that is trying to silence our side.

The writer then says that the reason for their writing is for the content creator [again, in regards to their writing an article calling for heavier critique of scientific researchers] is that they wish the content creator would think less of themselves and more of the "scientific community" before writing any more papers in the future.

Confirmation that our "they" is the scientific research community, with this representative at the helm.

They want you to feel that the scientific research community is the enemy. They are hurting "us". But how? Let's continue.

The writer continues, asking if the content creator is aware of the consequences they may bring among the research community. Specifically, "What about the [physics] model builders with exaggerated self-opinions going to do afterwards? What about experimenters that survive hiding in big [physics] collaborations? Can you offer them any decent employment alternatives?"

This is where my faith in the validity of this communication immediately plummeted. Lets examine it further!

Does this seem like a natural way for a real person to present their argument? Say you are trying to convince your friend that beans are the best source of protein. Do you base your entire argument off of, "If we don't eat beans, who else will eat what is obviously a terrible source of protein?"

In less allegorical terms, the writer wrote a correspondence to someone requesting for that person to take their craft more seriously and respectfully, by then immediately saying their craft is unworthy of respect and those who practice it are sinister individuals that are also unworthy of respect. They then ask that you have compassion for these people that they, again, have just established are not worthy of it.

The writer goes on to say that these individuals will starve, suffer homelessness, face deportation, or similar ill fates if we do not perpetuate the lie that their research is valid and that their science is worth researching.

While this seems well meaning at face value, we must deconstruct this point for a moment.

In the politics of both today and yesteryear, there has always been the prevailing theme - though unsaid - of "empathy or no empathy?". Such is why the battle of socialism versus capital persists. Many of the aforementioned two factions will argue in loops and not understand why, despite the fact that both their claims seem obvious and self explanatory, the other is not converted. A socialist, typically, believes that all humans deserve rights; including but not limited to food, water, housing, healthcare, and fair treatment. A capitalist typically believes these things are earned. If these are your core values, any affront to these things will be viewed with scorn.

With this framework in mind, when the writer is saying that "we need to perpetuate these lies to the public to keep these people living well", it gives the claim plausible deniability of well intentions from the writer. To the right wing, they will hear "your hard work and taxes will go to giving freeloaders a better life than you for doing fake work."

The writer continues. The writer claims that they themselves for example are well known for a particular model in physics that they admit is generally "useless", but if it helps scientists get grants, who does it hurt?

This serves to discredit what is meant to serve as the face of the enemy, the representative of scientific research. "See? Even the best of the best is a fraud, and they admit it themselves."

"if it helps get us grants, who does it hurt?" Cue audience shock. Why, the taxpayers pay those grants - it hurts us of course! In the real world, scientists know how hard it is to get government grants. Everybody knows how hard it is to secure publicly funded grants for anything. This is meant to evoke the feeling that a large portion of the amount taken from the working persons paycheck is thrown into the pockets of fraudsters in the name of false scientific research.

The writer goes on to say "For the people who pay us, all we do is just noise. They pay us from public funds (not their own)." The writer says that this work only serves to benefit universities to attract more students by claiming they support scientific innovation.

Extremely important. The three words in those parentheses are meant to appear as an afterthought but are meticulously placed. It is reassuring the viewer - these nothing jobs that cost a fortune? Yeah, theyre coming out of YOUR pockets. They would like you to be angry at this.

The content creator would also like you to be angry with universities, and anyone who supports scientific innovation by proxy.

The writer says the content creator has likely made change with their paper, irreversible change, to the way funding is allocated for further scientific research.

This adds credibility to the crusade of the content creator. They are leading the charge against these rogue agents of a false institution that are hurting you.

The content creator is credited with hurting those pesky scientists stealing your money, and returned it back to your pocket, or at least directly helped redistribute it where it really should be.

The writer apologizes to the content creator for their "harsh words", but justifies it by saying that "this is just how society is built. This problem does not just exist in [physics] research, but all other scientific fields".

Final confirmation of the real thesis - that scientific researchers are hiding that the majority of their jobs are bogus and blatant fraud, not just in the content creators field of expertise, but all scientific research.

The casualness of the remark is the point. It is meant to serve as an indicator that this is not some grand hidden truth, but something obvious to anyone in the know, to avoid serious critique into the remark. It does not beg further investigation - it is tauted as obvious fact.

The writer concludes their letter by sharing a gripe that their "heart bleeds for intelligent, different, independent thinkers in academia are shunned from it - while obedient idiots remain and follow the rules of academia and enjoy a comfortable life. But there is nothing we can do."

Why would the writer of this letter, which begs for a system they say is corrupt to be protected, then complain about the very corruption they just admitted is prevalent and defended?

Note, this verse panders to "different, independent thinkers shunned by the mass institution". This is very much similar to right wing talking points and agendas.

Final note that this seems more like a personal gripe inserted into this letter from the opposition.

We are now through with the correspondence and return to the words of the content creator, responding to the contents of the letter. They start by reiterating they cannot prove the validity of the correspondence. Then, immediately address the letter by saying "in contrast to the sender, I do not think the taxpayer is stupid".

Cementing the point that they cannot prove the correspondence is not forged.

At no point did the original writer of the correspondence claim the taxpayer was stupid. The content creator puts this insult in the mouth of the writer, and aims it at the "we".

Our confirmed "we", the target of this piece, is the United States taxpayer/proletariat class.

The "They" are scientific researchers fraudulently taking your tax money.

"I do not think the taxpayer is stupid - we want to see results. And soon, we will start asking some tough questions."

The content creator is taking off the cloak of "scientific researcher" they donned at the beginning of the video to gain your trust as an insider of the field, but is now one of you. They're one of you, theyre angry, and you should be too.

The content creator goes on to describe several current well known scientific research experiments, what they claim to be researching, and what the content creator says the actual results of those experiments will yield - "keeping physicists employed; because some of them have families and it'd be 'unfair' if they had to do something useful to earn their income". The content creator also says that perhaps these scientists aren't all malicious, as the content creator feels perhaps the scientists don't even know what they're talking about.

The last line implies the content creator is smarter and more competent than hundreds of scientists across the globe, particularly their compatriots in the United States, and that you should trust their opinion on this. They know more about these projects than all of these other comparatively accomplished workers in the same field.

Again, we see an appeal to right wing rhetoric emotion that these scientists are simply collecting unearned welfare for a non-job.

Going against many well known scientific projects has a more malicious intent of sowing public distrust in science, and the main reason for this video, unmasked - You should want to defund all science, research, and development for a better life. It is being abused. You are being abused. Leave it to corporations and let people vote with their capital on scientific ventures.

In a repeat of the prior point, the content creator describes another scientific research venture the government funded and again says - "whats it good for? They assume you're too stupid to understand."

Classic propaganda tactic of again, putting an insult in an enemy youve manufactured's mouth. Here, you will notice the content creator happened to actually say "they" even though they never actually defined who "they" was. Lucky for us, we already did! The content creator wants you to think the scientific community dislikes the taxpayer. Not only do they steal your money, but they think you are stupid. Are you angry yet?

An implicit repetition of the theme "they think youre stupid, but i know youre not - i am on your side."

The content creator goes on to say "Meanwhile, the Chinese are laughing their asses off at us that you think your country is worth defending".

I was taken aback by this one and actually laughed

Extremely out of the blue addition that an implied "enemy nation" are benefiting from the Americans...paying for research and development? Something the Chinese devote a significant part of their funds to doing aswell?

An odd reference to demoralizing a nations people from defending it from outside interference. It is an odd remark for any citizen to say - especially when in defense of the taxpayer of that home nation? This kind of remark does make sense from the perspective of the speaker being an outside provocateur, however.

The penultimate section is even more odd. The content creator says they fear the only solution to this issue is to stop paying researchers, and that they were scared this would happen, which is why they penned their original article that the writer responded in regards to. It almost seems as though the content creator is saying that this is unfortunate, and even goes so far as to agree that the writer of the correspondence we started with was condescending to researchers! And then...The content creator goes back to their original view that, they are so happy they are no longer part of an organization that is "corrupt to the core".

Appealing to centrism: The content creator takes a step back, and assures everyone they are not entrenched in any opinion. In fact, they hate this more than anyone! Maybe we could do something - but no. These are the facts. Something rash must be done. The organization is wholly corrupt and must be destroyed.

This is the ideological equivalent of relieving tension in the viewer - if the propaganda was successful, your worldview was shattered and rearranged to theirs, and now you must be coddled and rebuilt and if they do this correctly, you will feel you have now come a long way with this content creator. You now have a parasocial bond. The world is wrong, but they know whats right, and they will guide you, and most importantly - you can trust them.

The final talk is an appeal to aggression. The content creator addresses those who are their detractors - and insults them, speaks to them indignantly, and claims many are trying to silence them. They go after Youtube itself in this manner, and go on about the whole field of "nonsense science".

The indoctrination process is complete. If you have finished the video, and are on the content creators side, you are now part of the "we", against the "them", and the content creator would like you to take up [verbal] arms against all those against us.

"We" are being silenced by both mainstream academia and the mainstream media.

The only solution, they propose, is to defund public research, and to listen to 'alternative' voices that go against commonly held narratives.*

*I want to note here that while my intention is to highlight the extreme similarities between this and right wing talking points that, while I do think it is intentional, I do not by any means want to paint this content creator as intolerant of any people. That was not the point of their video, and I do not know their beliefs or views outside of this video. They have given no reason to believe that they are intolerant or practice any form of bigotry - I am simply highlighting that they are reusing the same talking points of those that do, because those talking points are effective.

I again want to add that I know nothing of this field and perhaps this content creator is right about everything they said, research wise - they've dedicated their whole lifes worth of efforts to a cause Im just a visitor to. That said, I believe the video they created was a veritable "Wheres Waldo?" of propaganda tropes, and while watching it I was stunned at how many traits of it the content exhibited.

As a final addendum, it should be noted that one of the golden rules of propaganda is looking at what the speaker has to gain from it. Taking a hypothetical scenario, say a climate researcher with years of experience under their belt and published, peer reviewed papers suddenly says fossil fuels are actually The Bees Knees. Perhaps it would be prudent to check if that researcher has made a career switch to being a lobbyist for a oil and gas corporation. Or, in a more related example, if a decorated and accomplished scientific researcher has become a proponent of defunding the field which they previously raised issue with for already being underfunded. And maybe in this example, they have realized their prime revenue source is not research - but online engagement and sponsorships. Does this mean that they are not a good scientist, havent contributed to humanity, or havent made invaluable contributions? Absolutely not! But it does mean that once you realize this, you should put your guard up and be a little more critical of what that person has to say.

We grew up with the idea that propaganda was simple to recognize. Impassioned speeches, punchy sound bites, and cool posters. But the fact of the matter is - every piece of media you consume conveys its creators views [consciously or not], and in the more nefarious cases they hope you dont notice. They are counting on you not to notice, and take them at their word. Most content creators argue in bad faith and will present biased or misleading data, or omit certain facts. We do not live in a world where journalistic integrity is something most online creators care about. I used to operate under the assumption that everyone wanted a better world, however as I got older I realize that while thats true, there is a seconder, quieter, part - everybody wants a better world, but for many that better world is only meant to be better for a select few people. That does not include you.

The tools and resources exist for a better world - for each and every one of us. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Be critical of all those that tell you its not possible. Rip and tear and make noise for your rights and for every millimeter of progress. It won't happen on its own.

[eiceocft]

"We made our oath to Vavilov We'd not betray the solanum To our own pangs of starvation"

[When the war came // The Decemberists]

The year was 1941. The siege of Leningrad was well underway, as the fascist Axis powers invaded further inland to the USSR.

Nikolai Vavilov, a head of the Soviet institute of Botany, had dedicated his life along with his fellow scientists to traveling the world and furthering the research of making plants hardier, more nutritional, and propagate better. Vavilov saw the need for the worlds first seedbank - which, nowadays, are hosted in several countries - and instituted it in Leningrad.

The siege of Leningrad saw the Nazi faction making advances into the city day by day of the seven hundred and eighty two day invasion. The scientists working at the seed bank had also dedicated their lives to engineering agriculture for humanity, and saw the need to protect the seed bank with their lives. And so, inspired by Vavilov and all of their lives works, the brave men and women made the decision to safeguard the seed bank with their lives. Instead of evacuating, they continued their efforts. At all costs, the seed bank must be protected - for if famine and pestilence were to claim the world, and artillery shells were to decimate the land, humanity would stand no chance without it.

All of Leningrad starved under the Nazi encirclement - and the seed bank was no exception. Worse, it was the scientists entire job to maintain vegetation. They worked daily to nurture and protect acres of edible plant life, tending to it daily, and starving with their countrymen as they refrained from eating even a gram.

Alexander G. Stchukin, a peanut specialist, was found dead at his desk. Dmirtri Ivanov, head of rice collection, died of starvation with thousands of packs of rice in his possession. The science team began to grow accustomed to their comrades dying of hunger surrounded by food. And they persevered.

Surrounded by Nazi guns, while just behind the cover of Soviet artillery cannons hastily harvested from their Navy ships - these scientists continued to work at the seedbank through nine of their comrades dying through starvation. Vavilov himself also died of the same cause. They gave their lives for the ideals of progress, and a world where no people starved; a world where food was verdant and plentiful.

While we enjoy the scientific miracle of being able the enjoy fresh cut roses while it's a white winter Valentines day, lets remember the selfless and valiant heroes of science which helped shape the world as we know it today.

[eiceocft]

to all our February birthday cowpokes turning twenty five in Ontario this month.

we face the abyss together

[eiceocft]

when i tell people I dont have social media and they can contact me by my phone number and they tell me that is, Archaic, I tell them that I recently upgraded from my page boy. My telegram deliverer. my courier of post. And I send them this as a first text. the people love it. do you love it?

[eiceocft]

Welcome to this corner of old internet/Web 1.0, spooky content, and communism content! If any of the following apply to you:

Thrived on the old, Web 1.0 internet wild west

Enjoy feeling mildly spooked, slightly unnerved, and/or slightly perturbed by ye olde creepypasta

Want to take up arms in a communist revolution to enact a dictatorship of the proletariat

Then this is the page for you! We will attempt to alternate semi-evenly between all of these topics, and provide old internet spooks, retro aesthetics, and news or thoughts of collectivism.

I apologize in advance for the quality of the content this blog will peddle. We all suffer together, comrades :)