You have probably heard about Theresa May’s program to propagandise the British people with their own money.
In light of the spread of far-right bigotry and misinformation, Theresa May’s government has launched a campaign to fight back. As part of a £60m government project, the advertising group M&C Saatchi will be tasked with combating the increasingly widespread influence and propaganda of the so-called “alt-right”. The Home Office put out a statement on the day the new campaign was reported: “This government is determined to challenge extremism in all its forms including the evil of far-right extremism and the terrible damage it can cause to individuals, families and communities.”
The M in M&C stands for Maurice Nathan Saatchi, Baron Saatchi (Arabic: موريس ساعتجي).
The C stands for Charles Saatchi (Arabic: تشارلز ساعتجي). Maurice and Charles, according to Wikipedia, are two of “four sons born to Nathan Saatchi and Daisy Ezer, a wealthy Iraqi Jewish family in Baghdad, Iraq. The name “Saatchi” ساعتچی (sā’ātchi), which means “watchmaker”, originates from Persian. ساعتچي This name has a long history in Iran and its bearers are mostly Jewish. Famous for owning antique shops, watch shops, gold and jewellery.”
The Guardian has an article about the initiative, which is markedly enthusiastic in tone. You would think the Left might at least raise an eyebrow at a nominally conservative government funding a large-scale advertising campaign to influence unapproved political perceptions. But not a trace of reserve can be seen.
The article also seems to suffer from some unfortunate reality inversion. “Think different” it suggests. But the “Alt Right” are the ones who do think different. What this propaganda programme will propose is that those who already think different give it up and get back in line: stop taking those red pills, take this shiny new blue pill and clamber back into your pod.
Among the complex of ideas that comprise the ideology of the Alt Right are that 1) Governments abuse their power to foster the perception that immigration and ethnic diversity are desirable things; and 2) Jews work to promote immigration within majority European societies and stigmatise opposition to it. The campaign itself then, financed by a government, run by a Jewish agency, will clearly validate core elements of the Alt Right belief system. But although overt propaganda would be sinister enough, what is proposed goes far beyond that.
The agency is reticent about discussing the details of its government brief. It says its role is not to deliver a national ad campaign, but rather to support the work of civic groups around the country that are already working in communities to steer people away from extremist ideas. It is assisting in various ways, from straightforward logistics, such as helping small organisations to build websites, to strategic advice on how to identify and engage with particular audiences. Its job is not to define the message, but to offer creative advice to others where needed. It might be as simple as helping with how to word a headline on a leaflet or a post on Facebook.
“It will be under-the-radar stuff,” says Benedict Pringle, editor of the website PoliticalAdvertising.co.uk, who has studied in detail M&C Saatchi’s past political work. “If we see their work, then they will probably be doing something wrong.” In other words, the agency will be an invisible hand, guiding the communications of various other groups involved in the fight against extremism.
“What they will be good at is to help get into the mindset of the audience, and identify the strings they can pull to make them think again,” says Pringle. “They will be able to advise on media strategy: finding the best channels through which to communicate with the right sort of people. So they might monitor conversations on social media platforms and intervene in them in ways that might help change behaviour.”
So here we will have a Jewish “invisible hand” guiding communications, pulling strings and monitoring conversations. As far as validating “traditional antisemitic tropes” is concerned, this might as well have been taken straight out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The idea of paid government agents monitoring conversations and intervening in them, without revealing who they are, posing instead as ordinary members of the public, in order to “change behaviour” is, self-evidently, profoundly sinister and subversive of democratic norms. But there’s not a sign of any mainstream dissent on this issue. This, too, is one of the costs of diversity: the continuous erosion of European freedom, cheered on by an out-of-control elite, brought to a state of derangement by its obsession with “racism”, which, after all, is really just a reification of the resistance of the European peoples to their own extinction.