So, I came across this comic/meme (link below) whilst scrolling mindlessly through my Facebook feed, generously ‘shared’ by a gentleman with ultra-progressive, very liberal, “educated” (university, undergrad) and”tolerant” values; whom I had a “conversation” with… well, rather a lecture, about the value of studying – at university – a sociology degree, because it “helps one understand the bad aspects of our own [western] culture, and that other cultures are better off without Western intervention (western influences in changing cultures – which implies that principle applies unilaterally, including foreign cultures entering into Western countries = No assimilation!)”. Basically, the guy shits on Western culture, promptly said his farewells and left the conversation, vegan burrito in hand. We’re getting a picture of the nature of this cartoon, already.

The title really gets the presuppositions flowing (I’ve italicized key words, which i will get to later):

“The Simplest and Most Perfect Explanation of Privilege I’ve Ever Seen”

My initial response to the cartoon is as follows:

“Hey, did you know that the socio-economic (class) factor isn’t the only factor in outcome (also known as Marxist classism, with presumed egalitarianism)?

Ethnicity (race) and the correlating IQ is also a factor – “Human biodiversity”; men and women too have spreads on the Bell-curve of IQ, so sex is also factor; so too is whether people are raised in single parent households, or married households; whether the person was abused as a child (including spanked/yelled at); and culture – what behaviors and practices breed success in high IQ societies. So, to imply there’s a 1:1 correlation between any one factor (class/”identity”) is untrue – imagine of the comic used race & iq as the only factor in outcome!
Some food for thought. Reject Marxism.”

Upon further review and thought on the comic, I have highlighted some key points, I believe worth while in exploring in an attempt to understand the Memetics and Semiotics at work (keep in mind the conclusion I arrive at in my ‘initial response’) within the comic/meme:

  1.  The italicized words in Brightside’s title: “Simplest” is implying that the non acceptance, or understanding of, the idea of ‘privilege’ is A) stupid, B) anti-intellectual (new leftist meme, btw), C) rejects evidence. “Privilege” is the presupposition here, the assumed knowledge of fact that different outcomes are based entirely on class (in this particular case).
  2. It’s also important to acknowledge the meme that is the company’s name -“Brightside” – it implies brightness, feelings associated with intelligence, warmth, happiness and, together with “side“, being on “the right side of history” –  a sentimentalist’s [sophist’s] argument that the Left is the moral side, the righteous team, to attract young new voters (Obama used this statement to justify sanctions against Russia, regime change in the middle east and interventionist foreign policy).
  3. The people. Firstly, in the cartoon the main characters, indeed everybody,  are unmistakably not white. In fact, they are clearly not any race at all, but a mix-race global homogenized ‘human’ race/ethnicity (maybe an attempt to avoid racism from the author?). However, they both have White/Anglo features, which is more pronounced in the successful male’s character (the hair) and his parents are noticeably ‘more-white’, but really, the only key and distinguishable difference between the protagonists is gender/sex, male vs female, and of course: Class.
    1. They are “blank-slates”, human-water – ready to mold any container they are placed into – because race is non-existent and a non-factor in outcome (another presupposition).
    2. The Female comes from a lower socio-economic class, thus has less ‘opportunity’
    3. The Male comes has wealthy parents, thus has plenty of ‘opportunity’
  4. Work Ethic, Characteristics: While the male sits in his room, slouching, reading a book, his room is a mess with beer bottles and pizza (implied gluttony/decadence and Laziness – lack of work ethic), the female character is hard at work, frantically cleaning dishes whilst studying & becoming ‘in-debited’, while the male character has his university fees paid for by his wealthy parents.
    1. We’re also presented here with the presupposition that all wealth is created out of labor.
    2. This in turn highlights the authors sympathies for Marxist-Leninist ideology.
  5. We’re being emotionally connected with the female protagonist when her father is bed-ridden, presumably on his death bed; while in contrast, the male protagonist is being offered a “bourgeois” job due to fathers connections, not his virtue and work ethic
  6. Resentment – This deepens once we see that the wealthy male is being encouraged on his first day, whilst the female, in a ‘workers’ job is being “oppressed” by the manager/owner.
  7. Implied elitism – the bourgeois elite arrogantly proclaiming: if only the proletariat  would work (labor) harder, they could be wealthy like us! – “victim blaming”, essentially.

Basically we arrive at the conclusion that indeed the only difference in outcome is due to Class. what, then, does this conclusion of 1:1 correlation between class and outcome serve to function? Does it create resentment between those who have and those who have-not? It clearly makes bold conclusions of correlation between cause and effect. It seems willfully ignorant of any other causation of difference in outcome, outside of implied male privilege. it definitely rejects the concept that ethnicity/race is a factor in outcome, whilst implying white privilege.

In summation, we are presented the problem: Negative outcomes. The cause? Socio-economic class. We’re also presented with the dichotomy: the arrogant bourgeoisie vs the hard worker, in a position of suffering caused solely by their social-economic background.

Most people aren’t going to spend the time looking into a cartoon to understand the implications of it’s claims, the bias’s of the author and the semiotics at work, whether conscious or unconscious. In fact, most people (& I could be wrong) don’t know the extent to which Marxist-propaganda has infiltrated every aspect of the Western world; whether it’s cultural, or the education system (even from early learning, as one must go through university to become a teacher), entertainment or political.
Why is this ‘propaganda’? It provides no clear solution. It manipulates the reader on an emotional level and causes the reader to double down on one’s own beliefs. The use of assumed presuppositions, appeals to sentimentality, strategic and tactical use of language furthers this doubling down. Moreover, the reader is presented with a moral argument: hard work and strong work ethic should result in the same outcome as the wealthy class, especially because they do not have a strong work ethic and haven’t put in the hard work.

What is the point of providing a moral argument, use of dialectics and agitations of class resentment? I believe this is to lay the ground work for when a Marxist-Leninist government could be installed, and there will be little-to-no resistance.

I think it is important that we reject Marxist-Leninist Communism where ever we find it – and to find it every where we go. This world dominating system that will result in literal hell on earth, and is an evil that few stand in comparison. The only rival it has may be Islam, but that is a topic for another time.


Resist Communism. Celebrate Liberty. Dream of Freedom.