Author: Nathan Jameson

Per John Hopkins Medicine…

A phobia is an uncontrollable, irrational, and lasting fear of a certain object, situation, or activity

There are a handful of terms levied against rational citizens of the West who oppose the propagandists. These include “homophobic”, transphobic”, “xenophobic” and “Islamophobic”.

“Homophobes” aren’t afraid of gay people. Church-going mothers don’t clutch their Bibles in fear of sex-crazed lesbians. Straight women aren’t afraid of having their fart boxes forcefully tongue-punched by roving bands of fur burger connoisseurs. My straight male friends aren’t afraid of gay men, either. They’re repulsed by the thought of homosexual male sex IN THE SAME WAY gay men are repulsed by the thought of heterosexual sex. Anecdotally, I’ve asked gay guy friends their thought of sleeping with a woman and they’ve all responded with some form of, “Yuck!”

“Transphobes” aren’t afraid of trans people. They deny the reality of it. Someone can fact check this, but I guarantee 99.9% of people have either XX or XY chromosomes. The remaining 0.01% are hermaphrodites. People reject trans ideology because humans evolved to recognize patterns. If you have two apples and add two more, you have four apples. Anyone saying you have three or five apples would be appropriately criticized as stupid, ignorant or insane.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”

“Xenophobes” COULD be afraid of different people. Of all the phobias, this is the most rational. Xenophobia is the fear of foreigners or strangers. This one makes sense. Didn’t your parents tell you to be wary of strangers? Don’t get into the cargo van of the strange guy offering candy! The phrase “stranger danger” is in our lexicon because EVERY HUMAN is xenophobic to some degree. If a Minnesotan was dropped off in El Salvador, they would be afraid. They don’t know the culture, the norms, the language or how those people operate. That person is in a completely foreign environment and thus justified in their rational fear.

“Islamophobes” COULD be afraid of Muslims. “The religion of the sword” expanded and converted through violence for centuries. Consider 9/11 in America, the Charlie Hedbo Muhammed cartoon attacks and numerous bombings and vehicular murders across Europe committed by pro-Hamas or pro-Hezbollah Jihadists. These fears are not irrational. Isn’t it odd that Muslim refugees from the Middle East and North Africa are being shuttled to Europe instead of countries with similar values like Saudi Arabia, Syria or Lebanon? Weird, huh?

These labels share the same thing in common: most people aren’t irrationally afraid of these groups. Their fear is rational. They don’t want their social norms and culture changing. The propagandists use these words to embolden fringe or minority groups to push those groups’ agenda, and in turn, destabilize countries.

Old farts like me remember the days of sanity. Sanity began eroding when “political correctness” entered our culture and finally collapsed after Occupy Wall Street. Since then, there’s been a paradigm shift in comedy.

Pre-“political correctness”, and for most of human history, probably, most humor was “punching down”. The in-group would make jokes about the out-group. The in-group is the majority of that group, town, state, country, etc. The out-group are the others.

We’ll frame this in the America I grew up in as a straight white man. This was the culture of Ohio in the 80s, 90s and aughts.

• Straights made jokes about gays.

• Whites made jokes about minorities and other whites.
• Men made jokes about women.
• Guys called their friends “retards” when they did something dumb.

But, wait! Where I grew up wasn’t “multicultural”, but we had a decent amount of non-straight non-white non-males in our proximity. Of my three social circles in high school, we had a member or two of these groups. Also, men of my mother’s bloodline tend to kick the bucket early, so I grew up around a lot of grandmothers, aunts and nieces.

From that perspective…

• Gays made jokes about straights.
• Minorities made jokes about whites and other minorities.
• Women made jokes about men.

There’s one major difference between these groups teasing each other. The in-group could do it openly for the most part and the out-group had to accept it with grace. If the out-group made a joke about the in-group and the in-group heard, some would laugh and some would be upset. The difference is a simple dynamic of power: the majority rule, the minority drool. History has always been this way.

With the rise of “political correctness”, punching down was considered bad form. The days of Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle and Bill Burr ripping on their in-group and other out-groups were over. Comedians and friends still make those jokes, but the amount of in-group backlash has increased dramatically. In 2025, if I dropped an n-bomb or gay-bomb amongst polite company of my in-group, many would be abhorred.

The propagandists are smart people. They realized humanity will always crave an outlet for humor and a sense of superiority through teasing or making fun of other groups. Where we once “punched down”, now we “punch up” to sate that hunger. The vast, vast majority of the time, the only acceptable groups to make jokes about are whites, men, conservatives or the wealthy (provided they vote Republican). The propagandists’ organization of society is based on “privilege”, or how easily opportunities are afforded to a group.

In a majority white country like America, these groups are “privileged”, thus an acceptable target for “punching up”.

Consider these two real-life scenarios…
1) A decade ago, Hillary Clinton, during a rally in Reno, NV, told a story about having a lie-detecting dog that would bark upon hearing Republican lies. She then said, “arf arf arf”. She made a joke. There was zero to little blow back.

Later, at a Trump rally, some member of the crowd made the same “arf arf arf” sound and Trump responded, “Was that Hillary?” Again, he made a joke. However, the mainstream media tore into Trump, claiming, “Trump hates women”, “Trump loves insulting women”, “Trump has no respect for women”, etc. Trump, being a straight white conservative male, isn’t allowed to “punch down”, per the propagandists.

2) During the Covid-era, Jimmy Kimmel Live! showed the titular comedian make a joke about how hospitals should prioritize the well-being of Covid vaccine recipients over the unvaccinated. If memory serves, he said, “enjoy your horse paste dewormer (Ivermectin), wheezy”. His joke was that the unvaccinated should fend for themselves and shouldn’t receive professional medical care in an emergency.

Which joke seems more harmful? Using a woman’s soundbite against her or lending no aid to the unvaccinated? If you’re normal, you’re right in thinking the latter.

Kimmel’s joke was deemed hilarious and acceptable by the mainstream media. During the Covid years, those unvaccinated against Covid were lumped into the “basket of deplorables” with others considered “privileged”. In reality, it was more targeted attacks against those considered “up”.

The natural order of society is to “punch down” but the propagandists have inverted this dynamic. The mainstream media has added numerous groups to the “privileged” label, when it only meant “wealthy” in the past. If you’re considered “privileged”, you are the enemy of the propagandists.

Stories about revolutions have existed since cavemen learned dunking their dirty asses in a river would make the itchiness subside. These stories are compelling, because the vast majority of society have felt subjugated, oppressed or slighted in one form or another at some point in their lives. However, I discuss propaganda here and how it’s used to shape society. I recommend you read my Occupy Wall Street (OWS) article before venturing further. Propagandists employ obvious or subtle messaging through media to plant seeds of revolution in pliable minds.

Let’s analyze three movies released around the time of OWS. On a side note, I enjoy all three of these movies. Whether we like something or not shouldn’t prohibit us from understanding the underlying purpose.

In Time (2011)

Per Wikipedia…

In 2169, people are genetically engineered to stop aging on their 25th birthdays and are given one free year to live. Everyone has a timer on their forearm that shows their remaining time; when it reaches zero, the person “times out” and instantly dies.

In this dystopic future, time is the only currency. People are paid in time and barter in time. Want a cup of coffee? That’ll be 15 minutes. Need to catch the bus for a two-hour trip? It’ll cost you an hour. The movie showcases this economic reality throughout its run time. One can easily see similarities with modern life, where the poor barely subsist at survival levels (looking at you, Rio de Janiero).

Justin Timberlake is the main character. He meets a wealthy man with decades of “time” at his local bar. The elite man explains how the wealthy raise rates of various sundries and services, while lowering pay for workers. The message of CAPITALISM BAD is so obvious Helen Keller saw it coming from a mile away.

He becomes disillusioned with THE SYSTEM when his still-a-smokeshow mom, Olivia Wilde, perishes while seconds from being saved. Timberlake then crosses numerous time zones or districts to arrive where the most wealthy congregate. He fleeces what appears to be the most elite of the elite during a card game and accrues an enormous amount of time or wealth. He catches the eye of megababe Amanda Seyfried and upon being tracked down by Thomas Shelby for time-theft, takes her hostage to escape. She slowly warms to Timberlake’s idea that THE SYSTEM is corrupt, oppressive and needs to be burned down. They spend the second half of the movie robbing banks of “time” and distributing the ill-gotten gains to food pantries for the lower class.

What’s the message of this film? THE SYSTEM is bad, CAPITALISM BAD, burn it down. Funny how they never address that oligarchical collectivists always vacuum up resources after the revolution like a 500 pound man and slabs of roast beef at Golden Corral.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Per Wikipedia…

Panem is a dystopian nation divided into twelve districts and ruled by its Capitol. As punishment for a failed rebellion seventy-four years before, each district must choose two tributes, a boy and a girl between the ages of twelve and eighteen, to fight to the death in the annual Hunger Games until only one is left alive and declared the “Victor.” The event is televised across the Capitol and all districts

Jennifer Lawrence discovers her younger sister is selected to participate in the annual Hunger Games and volunteers herself as tribute to save her kin. The majority of the movie details how the Hunger Games are played and won, with the dystopic setting as the backdrop, not the main feature.

Jennifer Lawrence cheats the Games by choosing voluntary suicide with her boytoy, rather than slaying him to become the sole victor. The message is that she defeated THE SYSTEM because she’s more virtuous, moral and kind. She stands against the oppressors and would rather die than participate in their chicanery.

Divergent (2014)

Per Wikipedia…

In a futuristic dystopian Chicago, society is divided into five factions: Abnegation (the selfless), Amity (the kind), Candor (the honest), Dauntless (the brave), and Erudite (the intelligent). The remaining population, the Factionless, holds no status or privilege. Upon turning sixteen, children undergo a serum-induced psychological aptitude test that reveals their best-suited faction, although they can choose any faction as their permanent group during the subsequent Choosing Ceremony.

Shailene Woodley grew up in the Abnegation faction, but is discovered as a “Divergent”, or a member of society incompatible with the Five Factions. She’s special. She has traits of all five factions. However, her secret isn’t divulged, saving her from joining the Factionless. She becomes a fearsome Dauntless warrior, despite her heroin-chic frame(girl power).

Woodley meets Four, who is later revealed to be Divergent. Who’s approving the quality control standards of these tests?! Divergents are slipping through the cracks left and right. They learn that Kate Winslet, the leader of the Smart Bros, is planning to use the Brave Bros to overthrow the Kind Bros. Woodley and Four foil the plot and escape for fear of reprisal.

What’s the not so subtle message of these movies?

You (yes, you) are special. You are more virtuous than others. You don’t fit into a box of society’s construction. You have the power to change the future. The present is bad. Capitalism bad. Burn it down.

Who falls prey to this brainwashing? Young idealists, broke bitches and naive Communists. Sometimes, this Venn diagram triad resembles a single circle. These are people with nothing to lose from the collapse of the system and everything to gain. As Stalin said, they are “useful idiots”.

THESE are the people at the vanguard of America’s societal and political fomentation. They’re lemmings with no skin in the game, seduced by promises of revolution and power.

When I’m President, I will sign an executive order to recreate the Hunger Games in Xichigan. Players from TTUN will be the only participants. Jim Harbaugh and Connor Stalions will routinely be flagellated with horse-hair whips during the Games.

Growing up in the ’90s, I remember when foreign citizens entering America were called “illegal aliens” on every news channel. “Illegal”, in that they entered our country illegally, and “aliens“ because they were of a foreign nation. Makes sense, right? It’s succinct and exact.

Over the years, our language has been weaponized and purposefully obfuscated to belie truth. No longer do some, or most, refer to the poverty-stricken masses trespassing our northern and southern borders as “illegal aliens”. It’s much more politically correct and sensitive to call them “undocumented migrants”.

If one was ignorant to propaganda and its implementation through semantics, one might think, “Undocumented migrants doesn’t sound so bad. They lost their ID or passport and they’re just coming here to pursue the American Dream. Everyone deserves a chance at a better life, right?” They would be wrong.

“Undocumented” minimizes the legal repercussions of entering a nation illegally. There are ZERO – count them – ZERO countries on Earth without an immigration policy. I’m not going to dig into the specifics of countries with the least restrictive policies, because that would be exhaustive.

The word “policy” itself means a written contract or legal framework. If something hasn’t been codified, it means no such policy exists. There’s no policy for how many cubic feet of air each human can inhale. There isn’t policy for how many times a human may defecate daily. By contrast, if a policy exists, then there’s at least one codified process, procedure or restriction to allow -whatever- action.

Since zero countries have “open borders”, then every country has at least one line of legalese to allow immigration. If that singular policy isn’t followed, then those immigrating are illegal. Hence, “illegal” alien.

“Migrant” is much more simple. Which sounds more threatening? “Migrant” or “alien”? “Alien” invokes fear of the unknown, unfamiliar and undesired. Open border advocates know “migrant” simply sounds like a person traveling. “They’re just migrating. What’s the big deal?” Any citizen who has moved two towns over is technically a migrant. We also call those people “transplants”.

Someone who legally moves from the US to the UK is a migrant, also. However, the implication is that migrant did so legally, because if illegally, they’re an illegal alien. In many countries, “migrant workers” designates a class of foreign-born individuals who migrate to work temporarily or seasonally, then return home to their country of origin after the work is completed. Seasonal fruit-pickers from Mexico meet this LEGAL definition.

The connotation of “undocumented migrants” is much more palatable and persuasive to the uninformed masses than the denotation of “illegal alien”.

When I’m President, I will sign an executive order to allow unrestricted immigration of every thin, attractive woman worldwide. It will be called the Berlusconi Bungabunga Bill.