Select date
Saccharine Sentiment and Slitting Throats: How Feelism Triumphs Over Realism in Leftist Propaganda, by Tobias Langdon
The central strategy of leftism is very simple and very effective. It runs like this: “Heads we win, tails you lose.” In pursuit and preservation of power, leftists will distort, mutilate and censor reality ad libitum. Or they will simply lie. When the Black criminal George Floyd caused his own death in 2020, the left responded with deadly riots and lying rhetoric about the “murderous racism” of the police. When three little White girls were slaughtered by an imported Black savage in 2024, the leftist politician Humza Yousaf, former First Minister of Scotland, demanded something entirely different:
Our only response to the evil we witnessed in Southport yesterday should be an outpouring of grief for the children and adults killed in such a senseless attack.
If you use such a horrific tragedy to fuel bigotry, then you are the worst of humanity. (Tweet by Humza Yousaf, 30th July 2024)
Yousaf demands that Whites “thinka da paw ickle kiddies” – and do nothing more than that. Leftists like him want grief to be the “only response” because grief is useless. It will not solve the very serious problem of non-White violence against Whites. Leftists don’t simply refuse to care about that problem: they refuse to admit that it exists. It’s real, after all, and leftists don’t believe in realism. Instead, they believe in feelism, in the exploitation of emotion to promote or protect leftist lies. When Number 10 Downing Street, the official residence of the British prime minister, was bathed in pink light “to remember the Southport victims,” the Labour government was using feelism to protect leftist lies. When the Guardian published a cartoon of an entirely imaginary little girl, it was using feelism to promote leftist lies. Here is the cartoon in question:
As Tom Sunić pointed out in a comment at the Occidental Observer: “Excessive sentimentality and hypermoralism are trademarks of the Liberal System.” The cartoonist Ben Jennings was dishonestly exploiting the innocence and helplessness of little girls (note also the slender, unthreatening neck of the caring non-White father). His cartoon says: “Finka da paw ickle kiddies!” But unlike Humza Yousaf, Jennings wants a lot more than that. He’s not just being sentimental, he’s also justifying the harsh repression of the White working-class whom he sneers at the cartoon. It was his leftist response to the White riots of 2024 and to a violent attack on a hotel housing so-called “asylum seekers” in the Yorkshire town of Rotherham. White girls and women have been raped, prostituted, tortured, and murdered by non-White Pakistani Muslims in Rotherham for decades. Jennings has never drawn any cartoons about the rape-jihad in Rotherham or about the murder of three little White girls in Southport. After all, the rapes and murders are real.
Instead, he has drawn a cartoon about an entirely imaginary little girl. The hotel in Rotherham was housing adult male non-Whites. There were no little girls on the premises. If there had been, they would have been at serious risk of molestation and rape by the non-White men. After all, those men come from the most misogynist and rape-friendly countries on earth. If you want to learn more about the rape-culture and misogyny that flourish in the Third World, the Guardian itself is an excellent source. On the day after the newspaper published that cartoon about an imaginary non-White girl being menaced by White men, it published this story about real non-White women being brutally harmed by non-White men:
She wanted a divorce so her father hacked her legs with an axe: how Pakistan fails women
Sobia Batool Shah is being protected in hospital after a mob of male relatives attacked her in a harrowing case that highlights Pakistan’s epidemic of gender-based violence
The household was fast asleep when the six men broke in. They sought out Sobia Batool Shah, 22, and one of them attacked her with a hatchet, chopping at her limbs in an effort to sever her legs. “He was relentless and must have hit me at least 15 times,” she says. … Shah was attacked by men from her own family – including her father, Syed Mustafa Shah, her uncle and cousins – who broke into the house, in Naushahro Feroze, in Pakistan’s Sindh province, as “punishment” for refusing to withdraw her application to divorce her husband. …
“It’s all about power control,” says Dr Summaiya Syed Tariq, chief police surgeon in Sindh’s capital, Karachi. Syed Tariq, who also heads the Sindh police medico-legal department, has seen hundreds of women physically and mentally abused, raped, burned and murdered over the last 26 years. “We are nurturing abusers who are worse than animals,” she says.
On an average day, the department receives reports of about six cases of sexual violence and 10 to 15 cases of domestic violence across the medico-legal centres at three public hospitals in Karachi. “In the case of sexual violence against minors, my assessment is that for every three cases that come to us, seven more go unreported. And I am not counting the dead bodies that we receive,” Syed Tariq adds.
Gender inequality is a global problem, but Pakistan’s indicators reflect especially alarming rates of disparities and violence faced by women. According to this year’s World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap report, Pakistan is ranked second from bottom out of 146 countries, behind only Sudan. It ranked 164 out of 193 countries on the 2023-24 UN gender inequality index. (“She wanted a divorce so her father hacked her legs with an axe: how Pakistan fails women,” The Guardian, 6th August 2024)
To repeat: “Pakistan is ranked second from bottom out of 146 countries, behind only Sudan.” Guess what? The Guardian had reported on Sudan a few days before. The headline ran like this: “Girls as young as nine gang-raped by paramilitaries in Sudan.” The following report said that “Some of the attacks … were so brutal that women and girls died ‘due to the violence associated with the act of rape’.” Both Pakistan and Sudan are non-White and Muslim. But what would happen if you told a Guardian-reader that the Guardian’s own reporting proves that immigration from Pakistan and Sudan will be very bad for White women in Britain? You will of course be denounced as a disgusting racist and Islamophobe.
In other words, you’ll be denounced as a realist, a hate-filled bigot who believes in basing his ideas on objective reality rather than ego-feeding emotion. Leftists believe in feelism, not realism. King Charles III, or Chuck the Cuck as I prefer to call him, is one of those leftists who prefer feelism to realism. He places feeding his own narcissism far above the welfare of his White subjects. Indeed, he doesn’t care in the slightest about the welfare of his White subjects. In March 2023, the BBC reported how Chuck the Cuck had met “former refugees from [the] Sudanese community” and told them “It’s been such a pleasure to meet you all — I’m so glad you’re safe here.” Chuck the Cuck can be “glad” about Blacks invading Britain because he doesn’t have to pay the costs of their presence. But a White woman had to pay those costs in 2019. She nearly died after her skull was shattered during a brutal rape by a Sudanese enricher called Zakarya Etarghi.
Raping White women delighted him
Among the many reasons that Blacks should not be residing in White nations is the stark fact that Black men commit sexual crimes at vastly disproportionate rates. Not only that: they specifically target White women, as the American Black Eldridge Cleaver (1935–1998) boasted way back in 1968:
Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women – and this point, I believe was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful over the historical fact of how the white man has used the black woman. I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spreads outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of of consternation throughout the white race. (Quote from Cleaver’s Soul on Ice, 1968)
Black men have a genuine “rape culture” directed at White women. But leftists in 1960s America did not care about the rape and murder of White women by Black men. That would have been realism about Blacks and leftists were concerned only with feelism about Blacks. Here’s a definitive example of that leftist feelism in one of the iconic images of the Civil Rights era:
Norman Rockwell slathers schmalz in The Problem We All Live With (1964)
Norman Rockwell (1894-1978) was both an excellent artist and a lying leftist. Like Ben Jennings’ cartoon, his painting dishonestly exploits the innocence and helplessness of little girls. It says: “Finka da paw ickle kiddies!” To be fair, Rockwell’s painting, unlike Jennings’ cartoon, was at least based on a real little girl, the now-sanctified Ruby Bridges (born 1954). But Bridges was not at all representative of Blacks and the threat they posed to Whites. That’s precisely why Rockwell chose her, of course. She’s a helpless little girl who has to be protected by large law-enforcement officers from evil White racists. She just wants to learn, as you can see from the ruler, pencils, and books she’s carrying. But that portrayal of Blacks as simultaneously helpless and studious is a lie. It’s feelism, not realism. In reality, Blacks are disproportionately violent and stupid. The entry of Blacks into White schools was a disaster for Whites and did nothing to improve academic achievement among Blacks.
And although Rockwell’s painting was based on feelism, it does contain one element of realism. The large US marshalls reflect the reality of state force. Whites did not want their schools to be ruined by Blacks. But the state forced desegregation on them even as lying leftists like Norman Rockwell slathered schmalz over the process. Nor did Whites want their neighborhoods to be ruined by Blacks. Again, the state forced desegregation on them. And lying leftists like Norman Rockwell again slathered schmalz. Here’s another of Rockwell’s dishonest pro-Black paintings:
Norman Rockwell slathers more schmalz in New Kids in the Neighborhood (1967)
Again Rockwell uses a helpless little girl to propagandize for Blacks. Look at her in her pink dress and pink ribbons, with her adorable little pig-tail. She’s no possible threat. And see the white cat she’s affectionately holding. She loves animals just like the White children facing her with their young black dog. The whiteness of the cat and blackness of dog are symbolic, of course: the Black girl already loves something white even as the White children already love something black. This time there’s a Black boy in the painting too, but he’s slender-necked and goofy-looking. He’s no threat either. He’s carrying a baseball glove, so he loves baseball just like the White boy facing him in a baseball uniform. The Black and White children are the same under the skin, united by their love of pets and baseball. Harmony will surely reign after the moment of mutual uncertainty that Rockwell so charmingly captures.
That’s what the highly dishonest painting says. In reality, harmony didn’t reign after Blacks moved into White neighborhoods. Instead, violent crime reigned. So did noise, vandalism, and street-strewn garbage. In reality, the goofy-looking Black boy in the painting would have been beating up the White boys and, within a year or two, raping the White girl. And the little Black girl would have been torturing the white cat, not treating it with affection. Abuse of animals is characteristic of Blacks, not love of animals. But that’s realism about Blacks and leftists believe in feelism about Blacks. However, there are two sides to leftist feelism. Recall Tom Sunić’s comment about how “Excessive sentimentality and hypermoralism are trademarks of the Liberal System.” He went on to point out that the sentimentality applied only to approved groups, while the moralism justified any level of violence against unapproved groups: the Royal Air Force and United States Air Force “firebombed German cities during WWII – considered lairs of nonhumans.”
You can see those two aspects of leftism in the Guardian journalist Marina Hyde. She no doubt nodded with moist-eyed approval over Ben Jennings’ cartoon about the imaginary little brown girl. But a few years before she had sniggered and joked about the White nationalist Eugene Terreblanche being hacked to death by Blacks in South Africa. Countless other Guardianistas will have nodded with moist-eyed approval over the cartoon. And some of them were in the crowd that cheered, clapped, and laughed when the non-White Labour councillor Ricky Jones recommended a robust response to the “the disgusting Nazi fascists” who don’t like little White girls being slaughtered by Black savages. Jones said: “We need to cut all their froats [throats] and get rid of ’em all.” He then paused to let the cheers and laughter die away before leading the crowd in a chant of “Free, free Palestine!” Here’s a still from a video of the incident:
Note the two White woman grinning with approval as they stand next to the aspiring throat-cutter. The woman in glasses is wearing a tabard for Amnesty International, a self-proclaimed humanitarian organization that is resolutely opposed to violence. Out of sight she’s holding another of the SWP placards that say “SMASH FASCISM & RACISM By any means necessary.” The SWP is the Socialist Workers Party, a Trotskyist cult that hates White workers even more than the so-called Labour party does. When a senior male apparatchik in the SWP was accused of rape in 2010, the SWP responded not by reporting the matter to the police but by smearing the female accuser and clearing the male accused in a kangaroo court.
As ever, you can see that leftists are interested in only two things: pursuing power and feeding their narcissism. They are not interested in helping the groups they claim to care about. And they are certainly not interested in helping the White working-class. In this article I’ve discussed a leftist drawing a saccharine cartoon about a non-existent little brown girl menaced by the White working-class. And I’ve discussed another leftist recommending that his comrades “cut the throats” of the White working-class. Those are the two complementary sides of one evil ideology: “Excessive sentimentality and hypermoralism are trademarks of the Liberal System.”
