Whose Propaganda Is This?

The strange world of social media influencers, identical posts from different people presented as original thought, and some thoughts on "the sin of empathy"

You guys, I straight up forgot to do a newsletter last week! About halfway through last Friday I sat up and said HEY WHAT HAPPENED!

Well we’ve got an extra long one today, and here’s what’s in here:

* The main culprit in our extra-longness: a bunch of thoughts about three more-or-less identical social media posts from some guys who often say terrible things online. Who is feeding this to them?

* The latest from the Fascinating Podcast, where we talk about the ethics of social media influencers.

* I did a little interview on “The Wrong Podcast” about the so-called “sin of empathy.” I haven’t had a chance to listen to the rest of the podcast so I don’t know what the rest of the content is!

* It was Bruce’s birthday this week!

Anyway, let’s dive in! I generally don’t bother to do deep dives on content that is clearly not for me and not written by “my” people. But I couldn’t stop thinking about three posts from this week that were clearly connected to one another, and from three men who claim the same Christian religious community I do.

So this is fascinating:

Look closely at these three social media posts, all posted on the same day this last week, within hours of one another.

Now we’ve all heard that a million monkeys typing randomly would eventually type the works of Shakespeare (hey! It’s like we predicted AI!), but it stretches credulity to suggest that these three posts don’t have, as literary scholars might call it, a “source document.”

Before we get to the troubling content in these posts (which is no surprise, these are three accounts that specialize in trouble), I do think it’s interesting to think about how we end up with these kind of lock-step, identical, plagiarized-content social media posts which all present themselves as original thought.

This sort of thing happens with some regularity, honestly. Whether it’s movie reviews pushed by bot farms, political messaging being hammered home by partisans, or, thought-terminating agreement memes meant to be disseminated rather than an attempt at conversation, education, or argument.

Or you may remember this moment in 2018 when every single news source owned by Sinclair Media had a heartfelt op-ed from their anchors who all used the exact same words other than inserting their names and the names of their outlets and communities:

But, back to our three gentlemen who suddenly on the same day all wanted to say the precise same words on their social media this week, here’s my main question:

Who is actually talking to us?

If these aren’t original thoughts of these gentlemen, but rather content they are scraping out of some email that said, “Hey, you should say this to your audience” I’d sure be interested in knowing where that content came from.

It’s less than a year ago, for instance, that the Department of Justice revealed their case that some high profile social media accounts had been duped into getting PAID to share Russian propaganda and misinformation.

When I see propaganda like these three posts I always wonder, whose propaganda is this? Are they getting paid to share this? How did they get it? Who wants to get these ideas out there? What is the underlying hope or desire in sharing this content?

I’d like to talk about four things in this content:

* The “Third World”

* “Legal or illegal”

* the “cultural problem”

* The faith of these three men

The Third World

If we’re going to cut off ALL IMMIGRATION FROM THE THIRD WORLD it might be helpful to review what the “third world” even is.

This is a term that has fallen out of favor for a variety of reasons, and it can mean a variety of different things. The term originally came to us in the 1950s as part of the Cold War.

By Vorziblix - Own work, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19317533

I’m going to simplify a little here, but in the immediate aftermath of World War II, First World (blue) was the “western bloc.” The capitalist, anti-communist countries.

Second World (red) was “the Communists.” Russia, China, and other countries allied with them.

And the Third World (grey) were the countries who didn’t choose sides in the global superpower war, many of which were underdeveloped nations.

Over time, the term “Third World” became shorthand for underdeveloped or developing nations, “poor countries” and so on. Especially now that the Cold War is over, the terms have shifted… it’s no longer “who is on Russia’s side or the United State’s side” and who is neutral (especially given that the US is often on the “side” of Russia depending on the issue).

In fact in some circles it’s become common to use the term “the Global South” and “Third World” interchangeably. “Developed” countries and “developing” countries are the dividing line there, with China hilariously included as “developing” despite having moved itself into a superpower position in recent years.

By Specialgst - Blank map: mapchart.netUNCTADstat - Classifications. UN Trade and Development.Classifications - UNCTAD Handbook of Statistics 2023. unctad.org., CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=139254470

You may notice a strong racial division in the “Global South” vs. the “Global North.”

I think it’s helpful as we’re building context here to take a look at the countries that have been part of the current US “travel ban” as well.

That gives us an idea, at least, of what’s being suggested by a ban on “the third world”… which countries in addition to those currently banned are being targeted.

Given that the current administration has also encouraged (white) migrants from South Africa, it seems clear that what’s being asked for here has a strong racial component… which we’ll see more clearly when we talk about culture in a moment.

“Legal or Illegal”

A ban on Third World immigrants “legal or illegal” is a weird and interesting suggestion.

One cannot ban something that is illegal, first of all, because it’s already banned by definition, right? If they had just said “a ban on illegal immigration” that would be like saying “Let’s have a ban on drunk driving.” Most people would hear that and go, huh, that’s a strange thing to say. We already have that.

But equally weird is the suggestion that we need a “ban on legal immigration.” If we’re being generous to what is intended here, we could assume it means “Let’s remove all legal pathways to immigration for people from the Third World.” I don’t understand how you would ban something legal unless what you’re suggesting is making it illegal.

That first sentence is one that the more you push on it, the less sense it makes. “Ban all immigration” makes sense, but adding “legal or illegal” as a qualifier surely makes it sound like there’s something more being suggested here. I honestly can’t quite parse it myself. Especially because if “ban” means “make illegal” then “ban illegal immigration” must also mean “make illegal immigration illegal.” Huh?!

Regardless, what is chilling here is that Whoever Is Writing This Post that these three men shared, it’s an attempt to shift opinions away from what has been really the majority American position about immigration: so long as people come legally, I’m all for it.

Because the easiest way (and I suspect the right way) to read the sentiment here is “I don’t care if ‘third world’ immigrants come legally or illegally, they shouldn’t be coming at all.” So it is designed to be an argument against that majority belief that “legal immigration is good.” They’re suggesting that NO immigration is good, not if it’s from the Third World.

The “cultural problem”

Now we come to the only real split in the content between the three men, and it’s how they lay out the PROBLEM that a “no immigration” policy is the SOLUTION for.

Matt Walsh is very clear: People from the Third World are POOR. We can’t be the world’s “soup kitchen” anymore. It’s not a good argument, but it’s clear at least.

Our other two gentlemen argue, largely, that we’re experiencing a governmental systemic collapse because there’s just so darn many immigrants. Immigrants from the Third World are apparently causing the collapse of education, housing, finances, and “essential systems.” This is demonstrably false. That’s okay, because this isn’t an argument so much as some vibes to give their followers the feels. “Everything is broken!” Why? “Immigrants!”

And I don’t think there’s much reason to dive into the argument here or show that it’s false, but just as an off-the-top-of-head example I’ll mention that immigrants bring TONS of money into our financial systems and that illegal immigrants specifically (in addition to doing hard labor for low pay) put a lot of tax money into our systems and are not able to take much out. They’re a net income creator, not a net income drain, and at least partially because we have several industries that are built on using desperate, low income immigrants who are willing to do difficult jobs that most Americans do not want to do. Not at that price, anyway.

But setting that aside, let’s just acknowledge that immigrants (specifically from the Third World, however defined) are not causing all of America’s systemic problems. It’s an old argument, it’s an argument that has been disproven for literally over a hundred years, and it’s an argument clearly made in bad faith. (And again, Matt Walsh neatly sidesteps all that by just saying “we don’t need any more poor people”).

I do think it’s worth reflecting on the so-called “cultural” crisis that Third World immigrants are bringing us. What is being suggested here?

When I share social media posts like these I usually block out the names of the authors. I don’t want to increase the platform of the people who are saying these terrible things. But I kept all three of these men’s names in for this article specifically so we could talk about this cultural bit (and the religion of the posters in the next section).

Both Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiec are tied to white supremacist movements.

Now that might sound inflammatory to say, but it’s very easy to demonstrate (just search for either of their names with “white supremacy” and you’ll be drinking from the fire hose).

One of the things you have to understand about the white supremacist movement is that it’s NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT RACE but about race PLUS ethnicity.

Wait, what?

So, quick, vastly simplified distinction: race is physical traits, ethnicity is cultural traits.

Say I have a friend who has a Black parent and a white parent, and he grew up in primarily “white culture” somewhere.

What is his race?

It will 100% depend on *what he looks like* for most people. The very well-known comedian Trevor Noah is “Black” even though his father was white, right? Because his physical characteristics cause someone who’s never seen him to say “Oh that guy’s Black.” Race is about external characteristics.

But what is my friend’s ethnicity?

Say he grew up in a small white town in Montana where his parent was the only Black person. Is he *ethnically* Black at that point?

It might be easier to see in another context. Let’s say he grew up in Costa Rica. So he grew up speaking Spanish. He has Tico values and ways of looking at the world. He would then be, ethnically, what? Latino, right?

Okay, look, I was trying to make things simple but they’re already getting complicated.

So let’s circle back to white supremacy. White supremacy is not concerned about protecting white PEOPLE, because there are plenty of white people who are “enemies” of white supremacy. White supremacy is about protecting “white CULTURE.”

This is an enormous mess (we’ll come back to that), but the idea here is that when we let people of non-western cultures (you know, like people from South and Central America, the middle east, Africa) into our country, they *dilute our/American/white culture*. OR — a common concern of white supremacist thought — they “replace” or destroy white culture. There’s a consistent nagging fear in white supremacist thought that people of color (usually including Jewish people, as white supremacy is virulently anti-semitic as well) will come in and devour whiteness (again, not necessarily white PEOPLE). Whiteness as a *cultural value* will cease to exist.

Please understand that “whiteness as cultural value” isn’t (only) some liberal talking point, it’s a core tenet of white supremacy. As a Greek guy, I’ve asked a number of self-proclaimed white supremacists whether Greeks are “white” and been told many times that this 100% depends on whether I support the centrality of white culture.

If you’ve never heard of the Great Replacement Theory, a quick search will give you a window into some of the fears fueling white supremacy.

So, what is our “cultural crisis” being caused by Third World immigrants? It turns out that most of them are not white. A few are… and we can make a carve out for those who are (like the US government recently did for white South Africans).

Which is only to say, obviously, that two out of the three guys here are making a barely disguised argument for “we should only be allowing white people from western countries into the United States.”

Now, just a quick aside into the enormous mess that is white supremacy. What, exactly, is white culture? Well, the favorite sort of touchstone for most white supremacists is to connect it to “western culture” and to use the bedrock of “Greek and Roman” civilization. The idea being, hey, white people have always been the most civilized, they founded these incredible empires, they invented laws, they built roads, they made statues, etc.

The hilarious problem being that both Italians and Greeks were not considered “white” until very, very recently in the history of Race. So the entire cultural propaganda of whiteness is supposedly based on people who would 100% were not white a hundred years ago.

Which, you know, just goes to show how thin the veneer of white supremacy is. It isn’t meant to be a completely rational or watertight philosophical system. It’s a vague gesture toward a philosophy, and underneath it is the idea that “if you’re white in the right way, you should be in power, and there are people trying to take that away from you.” Which people? I dunno, poor foreigners who aren’t white who are trying to come to America and destroy everything just by existing.

And again: none of this is new. This exact same argument goes back to the founding of the United States. Old Ben Franklin himself was real worried about the small amount of white people on the earth and said the US shouldn’t allow “blacks or tawnys” into the country. And given that he didn’t count the swarthy Greeks or Italians or Russians or SWEDES as white people, hey, I guess he was right that there weren’t many of them. If you weren’t Anglo-Saxon you weren’t white. Enjoy (?) this screen-cap of his thoughts on the matter:

I will note that at least in the last couple sentences he makes it clear that he is not interested in kicking out the Native peoples, even though they also are “tawny.”

All of which to say: aggressively terrible immigration law suggestions based in racial or ethnic quotas are certainly not new to the United States, and it shouldn’t be shocking to see two guys copying each other’s homework on this question.

The faith of these three men

I am a big believer in letting people tell ME what their faith is, not me deciding what I prefer their faith to be.

So what is clear is:

Matt Walsh is Catholic.

Charlie Kirk is Evangelical.

Jack Posobiec is Catholic.

They’re all three Christian men. Charlie Kirk in particular has made huge inroads into faith communities, is often invited to speak in certain areas of Evangelicalism, has created a youth movement targeting young Christians. He’s not at all embarrassed about his white supremacist ideas, and indeed sees them as primarily Christian. He overtly talks about things like the Great Replacement Theory and directly connects them to Christian scripture (or, you know, says they are connected even though they clearly aren’t). In his words, “—they want to replace white Anglo-Saxon Christian Protestants with Mexicans, Nicaraguans, with El Salvadorians” and look I’m not gonna send you directly to any Charlie Kirk content, but here’s a good example of how he links overt, unapologetic racist content to his faith.

And again, I am not here to say Charlie Kirk is not a Christian. The opposite, actually. He says he is, and I believe him. He attends a Christian church (a Calvary Chapel church) with a pastor who teaches a whole lot of the same things Kirk does and using the same extreme language.

What I am saying is, look, how fascinating is it that people who claim Jesus are wholeheartedly parroting some clearly anti-Christ propaganda. “Let’s keep out the poor and create some ethnic homogeneity” is like saying “What if we did everything we could to make sure NOT to reflect the heavenly kingdom.”

And, frankly, I think it’s less a reflection of these three men and much more a reflection of what the Christian religious culture has allowed to flourish in our midst. All three of these men have become rich with extremist political commentary dressed up in spiritual clothing because their audiences lap it up, pay for it, encourage it. They’ve all been invited to speak at Christian events, have all been on Christian television shows pushing their politics and their weird takes on what Christians should be doing… and a lot of people like it despite many of the things they say being in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ and the core ideals of Christianity.

Which, once again, brings us to the question:

Who is behind this content? Who is sending these three men an email or other communication, and why do they all jump to do this person’s bidding and get a social media post out all on the same day? I’d sure be interested to know.

---

---

The Ethics of Influence on The Fascinating Podcast

This week on the Fascinating Podcast we chat about the ins and outs of being a social media influencer, and whether there are ethical considerations to consider in that. Take a listen!

“The Wrong Podcast” and the Sin of empathy

I might have gotten in a little bit of a fight with someone online about the so-called “sin of empathy” and it scored me an invitation onto this podcast.

Happy birthday, Bruce!

It was Bruce’s birthday this last week (June 10th, please don’t steal his social security number using this information)!

Bruce is now six years old, which is approximately 51 in bunny years. He’s hale, hearty, and hopping along just fine.

Now, as for you, my friends, I hope you have a wonderful week where you feel younger than your age and see many beautiful things in the world that’s around you.

Peace to you,

Matt