Just got done reading it. MacLaren is simply brilliant. National Vanguard is a stellar news source for WN's and Whites in general.

What Happened in 1969? Media manipulation: It's still happening now...
by Alpin MacLaren

Posted on: 2006-01-19 16:43:48 -- THE REASONS our school system is turning out poorly educated -- but well-indoctrinated -- graduates have their roots and stalk in the controlled media.

While browsing through the items on a table in a used bookstore, I found a copy of the May 16, 1969 issue of LIFE magazine (pictured). The cover alone shows the hard work that the media were putting into dismantling our schools in the year that our country first landed men on the Moon. Let us look at a few of the items revealed here.

1. First, there is a poll that is included inside the magazine. No matter what the absurdity or the outrage, the media have always used polls to promote it, obscure it, and/or desensitize the public toward it. The implication is that your input is actually being considered as to what is going on -- and, if you don' t like what is going on, something will be done to fix the problem. The reality is that your opinion will never change anything, and the poll is there as a propaganda tool and nothing else.

2. The main headline reads, "COLLISION COURSE IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS." It sounds as if there are two runaway trains and all we can do is stand by and watch them crash into each other. The two items that are going to collide are not specified here, but there are implications created by the material below the headline. Since there are several items, it is left to the reader to determine if the subjects of the collision are the people shown in the pictures, the people who are represented by the labels beside the pictures, the political issues behind the questions sprinkled over the page, or something else not mentioned at all on the cover.

In reality, what were colliding were the interests of the White American people, who made up more than 90% of the American population at the time, and the interests of those who owned the media. The collision turned out to be like that of a VW bug and an 18-wheeler. The American school system was obliterated, and it no longer produces enough well-educated graduates to even fill the high-tech jobs in our rapidly shrinking high-tech job market. The best school system in the world was gutted and the American people were left to suffer the consequences.

3. Next we see three pictures. There is one of a White teenager, one of a middle aged White man, and another of a Black man. They are labeled, STUDENT, PARENT, and FACULTY respectively. Look at what was done with these pictures. The kid's picture is placed in the dominant position on the page. It is centered and above all the other pictures. The White parent was shown in a smaller picture than either of the other two subjects, and he is in a lower position than the student, and the perspective makes it look like he is turning away. Notice the body language of each. The kid is self-confident; pointing his finger to emphasize his opinion, which he is sure is right. He is talking, not listening, and he wants to take charge right now. The parent is totally confused. He has a lost look about him, as if he has no idea what is going on, or what to do about it if he did. He appears timid, back-stepping, and incapable of making up his own mind on anything. He is out of the picture in reality, because he is afraid to act. Lastly is the faculty member. He is Black, sitting in confident repose, the sage on the mountain. The picture is saying that everything will be just fine if we turn our schools over to this intelligent, and perfectly wise man.

4. These three pictures are all propaganda, and nothing else. The media lords were beating this same drum in all of their outlets: from television nightly news; through television entertainment programming; and in every printed form in existence at the time. There was a movement afoot. Where did it start? What was fueling it? Why were the issues it raised so important right then? The media owners' agenda was the correct answer to all these questions and many more. The movement was aimed at taking down the greatest nation on earth -- and, judging from our present condition, it could not have been more effective.

The kids [then, the first TV generation -- Ed.] were being raised to the position of rulers, while the older members of society were politically being relegated to the trash heap. Suddenly the media were completely absorbed with what the kids had to say, and laughed at what the parents had to say. Where is the living reservoir of any society's culture located? It is in the elders of the community. If you want to destroy a culture, you have to cut the older people out of the picture. The only way that a culture can continue to exist is for the older members of the society to pass the culture down to the younger members. As we can see from these pictures, that process was intentionally being disrupted. Kids are confident, and old people are confused. Let's listen to the kids!

The fact of the matter is that, while all teenagers think they "know it all," they have a long way to go before they have real answers to life's questions. At this stage of their lives they need direction from the older members of society. The last thing they need is to have that direction removed and have the responsibility of controlling their educational institutions laid upon them at the same time they are supposed to be learning from those institutions. The parents, who are the backbone of creating the next generation of citizens, are cut out of the picture by this process, and the school is organizationally torn down. A school controlled by a bunch of adolescents is no better than an asylum controlled by the patients.

5. As if that propaganda message were not enough, the editors of LIFE threw in a third piece of brain manipulation by including a picture of a Black man as a representative of the "faculty." In most of the schools which the children of the readers of this magazine were attending at the time, there were no Black teachers, and certainly no Black principals -- which this picture seems to imply that he is, judging from his pose. This was not a representative picture of a faculty member, but instead an attempt to propagate the idea that this is what should be. It is not discussed, just asserted.

6. Next there are four questions on the page. Sitting beside the "student" picture there is the question: How much should students decide policy? The question does not ask if students should decide policy, but only how much. It is a given that students should be controlling their schools; there is only debate as to what degree this should be the case.

There is an old story of a man who asked a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She replied that she would. He then asked her if she would sleep with him for one dollar. She replied, offended, "What do you think I am?" He answered "We have already determined that -- we are only dickering over the price." The media had already determined that students should be running the show at school; now it was merely pretending to debate the degree of that control.

7. The next question is placed above the picture of the parent. Once again it should be noted that visually the parent is relegated to the lower and less important position. Not only is he smaller and lower than the student, he is even below a question, while the student is above everything but the highest and largest headlines on the page. The parent is also way off to the right, way off center and looking like he's starting to turn away, unlike the "faculty" picture.

The question is asked What do older people least understand? In case the picture's position was not enough for you to get the message that White parents were being phased out of the political scene, the question shows you where things are headed. It doesn't ask what parents know, or what they want, but instead it focuses upon their ignorance. As subsequent history has shown, what the White parents of the 1960s least understood was the fact that they were being manipulated into giving up their country, their heritage, the future of their children, and ultimately the existence of their race by allowing those who run the media to overthrow our government and our way of life.

This brazen question, along with many similar questions, was asked over and over again during those years. White parents were treated like stumbling idiots, while students were treated like geniuses. The reason the media wanted to make this "adjustment" in our society is plain. Falsely told that they were "free," children were really under the near-complete control of the media. Miseducated and saturated with brainless television, they were largely incapable of understanding the importance of their history, culture, or their inherited way of life. They only cared about the Beatles, the Stones, and the Doors -- who were putting out the messages that the media wanted. While the kids were programmed to love "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" by their rock heroes, the media were running propaganda pieces like this LIFE magazine cover, displacing the control of children's lives from its rightful place in the parent's hands -- and relocating it into the hands of the media lords.

Parents were suddenly perceived as "unsure of themselves." All of their values and societal assumptions came under severe attack. The confidence that their own parents had displayed was no longer tolerated by the media. If someone was confident in his beliefs, he was a "redneck," a "bigot," an "Archie Bunker," and was seen as uneducated and unsophisticated. The ability to perpetuate the White society that had been handed down to these parents was completely crippled by the media propaganda program. Even parents who knew something was going radically wrong with our society began to question their own ideas and beliefs, under the barrage of the media propaganda machine.

8. Beside the Black "faculty" member was placed the question, Would more blacks be harmful to your school? Today that question on the front of a magazine would cause a tumult of protest, calls for boycotting the magazine, and demands for the removal of the editor. For the observant, though, this question speaks volumes as to why our schools were the best in the world before the multiracialists destroyed them: they were all White. In 1969, many American schools were just beginning to accept some Blacks into them. Parents were uncomfortable with that, but they were having the confidence that they felt in their anti-integration position undermined continually by the media, and so they were not sure whether having Blacks in their schools was the disaster they feared it would be. As it turned out their fears were fully justified, as the rubble that is all that remains of our once world-leading school system demonstrates.

Since racial problems skyrocketed once they started putting Blacks in the White schools, of course putting more of them in would only exacerbate those problems. The question was an absurd one. It was a given that the answer was "yes." But the question was asked, particularly when juxtaposed with the wise-looking Black "faculty member," so White parents would question their own knowledge. It was intended, just like the previous question, to force uncertainty upon the people who held America's culture, and their rightful title as heirs to this nation's future, in their hands.

It is just as easily demonstrated that adding more racial diversity to any organization or grouping will create racial problems and strife, as it is to demonstrate that gravity is pulling things located on Earth's surface towards its center. There is no need to discuss it or think deeply about it. All you have to do is look at real life and it becomes crystal clear. Where there is only one race, there is no "racism." Where there is more than one race, there is "racism" and racial tension. Naturally, in a school system, racial tension is harmful to the educational process. Therefore, adding more Blacks to a White school will inherently be harmful to that school.

9. The last question on the cover is How much dissent should schools permit? Once again, the tactic is used in which they set the ground rules to some desired starting point -- and then "permit" us to discuss how much beyond that point we should go. This tactic was used very effectively by the media all during the anti-American revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Of course, today you don't often hear a debate about how much dissent should be allowed from the Politically Correct agenda, do you? There is no dissent allowed from the PC dogma on the issues of race or feminism. You will accept their point of view and keep your mouth shut. It is important to remember that this intolerant and rigid view is coming from the very same people who were calling so loudly for student dissent in 1969. Their hypocrisy is their most predominant feature.

These traitors and subversives who were attacking our way of life never cared about the students getting more power or their having the right to dissent. Such ideas were completely meaningless to them. All they ever cared about was overthrowing White American society. Period. Everything that happened at the hands of the media lords in the 1960s -- and which continues to happen to this very day -- has been done to bring White America down. Think about it. What else has really been accomplished? [Aside from the jew media barons making million$ and million$ on the 'counterculture' they created... --L.D.]

Our schools have been demolished: Even the media admit that our SAT scores have fallen since the integration of the public schools began. Our industry has been exported wholesale to non-White lands: In America we no longer build television sets, stereo sets, or much else in the high-tech fields, and our once dominant car industry has moved out, along with nearly every other important manufacturing enterprise you can think of. Worst of all, our White society is rapidly being obliterated: White people are continually moving to get away from the Black and Brown invasion of their neighborhoods, and they are running out of places to hide.

When I was born in California, that state was 90% White. Today Whites are a minority there. This is what the media lords' propaganda has done to California, and it is what will be done to the entire country by the year 2050 -- at the latest -- if present trends continue. If you think this just happened, or is the "natural flow of events," you only have to look at historical documents, like this LIFE magazine cover, to see that it was planned from the start.

It is clear that the editors of LIFE magazine were not trying to inform, but to manipulate. From today's perspective it is easy to see. And once you understand that, it becomes easy to see that they are still doing the same thing today. Your society is being destroyed by those who control the media, and it must stop!

Just got done reading it. MacLaren is simply brilliant. National Vanguard is a stellar news source for WN's and Whites in general.

I know Mr. MacLaren personally, and yes, he is an excellent writer. But National Vanguard doesn't deserve any credit for MacLaren's works. Long ago, when the much underrated but brilliant website "I Love White Folks" was in operation (later known as "White Future") MacLaren wrote such incisive essays as the one mentioned. Ironic that MacLaren is now drawing so much attention on this forum, as if he's someone new, when in fact he's been well-known for years, well-read by many, and inspired more people to stand by their race than the National Alliance and the NV combined.