Ren and Stimpy Work For China’s Central Propaganda Department. Unhappy Muslims Will Be Shot!

ren stimpyAfter you watch enough CCTV (China Central Television) or read enough Xinhua “news” agency press releases (one of the principal sources of Chinese information for Western journalists in China – go figure), you begin to recognise a handful of mass-produced phrases as the essential ingredients of every product churned out by China’s Propaganda Department, now euphemistically called in English the “Publicity Department”. They changed the English translation from “Propaganda” to “Publicity” because they finally figured out that in the West there is – or at least used to be – a widespread belief that propaganda makes people stupid. Just like advertising and “public relations”. In a way, it’s true that the name change is a distinction without a difference.

At any rate, one of the Propaganda Department’s essential phrases is, “happy life”. It ranks perhaps third or fourth among those stock phrases, as in the following bit about the “happy life” of the Uighurs of Xinjiang who happily are prohibited from practising their ancient religion of Islam or teaching it to their children, and their happy life is cultivated all the more by confiscation of their passports:

Chi Chongqing [Party Sec’y Xinjiang Tourism Admin], “This activity is a good opportunity to show the prosperity and stability of Xinjiang, as well as the peaceful and happy life of its people.”

Then I remembered a special Ren and Stimpy cartoon, and realised, “Hey, the Propaganda Department ain’t so bad! Ren and Stimpy work for it! And as they’re both good North Americans, we ought to take the words and messages and implications of North American “public relations” agents in China a BIT more seriously, yeah?

Click the green link below, green in remembrance of the religion of the Uighurs, as green is the traditional colour of Islam, one of the religions the Propaganda Department is striving hard to exterminate. Here are Ren and Stimpy, good North Americans working for China’s Central Propaganda Department:




This entry was posted in Beijing Olympics, media censorship, Ned Kelly's Pub, religious freedom, Wall of Shame and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Ren and Stimpy Work For China’s Central Propaganda Department. Unhappy Muslims Will Be Shot!

  1. C.A. Yeung says:

    As we are contemplating the “happy happy joy joy” lives of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, please don’t forget to check out this recent SBS Australia Dateline Program interview with a handsome Uighur woman that the CCP Propaganda Department loves to hate:

  2. Ned Kelly says:

    Ah, but Catherine, you see Islam just isn’t cool among the American right OR left wings. So you won’t see such revelatory coverage of the persecutions of Uighurs, or of your above-mentioned Muslim dissident Rebiya Kadeer, in American media as you’ve seen in Australia.

    Now, Hollywood CAN pretend to love Tibet because it so, like, “transcendent”, man, so “spiritual.” “Spiritual” is the American left’s Orwellian euphemism for “religious”, which is forbidden because the feminists have decided it reeks of “patriarchy”. And Islam is, after all, a patriarchal religion, at least in its leadership if not unexceptionally in its treatment of and regard for Women. Unknown to most Westerners, early Islam was especially attractive to women because it treated them as Humans instead of Objects; THAT was the whole point of Muslim women covering their faces and bodies in the first place, so that they wouldn’t just be sex objects.

    So for all those reasons and more – such as the fact that the proportion of prominent Muslims to Jews in Hollywood is almost equivalent to the proportion of Muslims in the Chinese government – Islam is just not fashionable among the Feminist (and “differently gendered” or whatever the hell Orwellian phrase they’re using now) Mullahs of America’s entertainment industry and mainstream media – aka, the fast-food-and-circuses industries. Don’t expect to see Richard Gere hanging out with any advocate of Muslim liberation – not even a powerful female one – anytime soon.

    And as for the right-wing’s attitude to Islam, that’s an all too obvious horse of a different colour, but going in the same direction toward popular ignorance and populist hatred, and from THAT direction much of the hatred is being brewed not by Jewish “entertainment” (a different word really should be used for what those creeps do) purveyors, but by a recrudescent populist hard-right wing, especially in continental Europe. In Europe (and to some extent in America), Muslims are becoming the equivalent of the Jews of the 1930s, the designated aliens to be scapegoated. But of course I would never trust the hard-right populists of any country to keep Jews off of their list of scapegoats for long; it’s just a matter of time. Who knows, given enough time, they might start going after Catholics too, or even worse, the “wrong kinds” of Catholics. Hatred is a many-splendoured thing, in Hell’s terms.

    At any rate, to paraphrase the famous lines by the dissident Bonhoeffer of the Nazi era, “first they went after the Uighurs, but we weren’t Uighurs – and in fact we were already conditioned to distrust Muslims – so we didn’t speak out…”

  3. kevinnolongerinpudong says:

    I agree that Islam isn’t particularly “all the rage” in mainstream American society at the moment. However, just to be fair, I would point out that Rebiya Kadeer was in fact given refuge by the US, and that she is frequently featured on Radio Free Asia, a US-government program.
    Commercial media in the US, however, has indeed done a poor job of covering her and her efforts. I can guess why.

  4. Ned Kelly says:

    Australia’s SBS TV would be approximately equivalent to America’s PBS TV network. SBS’ “Dateline” would be approximately equivalent to PBS’ “Frontline”, ie, mainstream network TV geared toward a somewhat more intelligent audience than Murdoch media.

    But don’t hold your breath waiting for Kadeer to appear on Oprah or Dr Phil, or for so-called “feminists” to point to her as a role model for women comparable to that paragon of moral courage and social progress, Nancy Pelosi. (Insert a thousand “sarcasm” emoticons there.)

  5. C.A. Yeung says:

    A special thanks to the SBS Dateline team, particularly its presenter George Negus, for the Kadeer interview.

    Negus was one of the pioneers in the Australian version of “60 Minutes” when the program was first launched in 1979.

    In reply to an question about the need for a journalist to be “fair and balanced”, Negus said, “I think people have gotten used to me taking a position because I treat the audience as a group of intelligent people who can decide if they agree or disagree. A lot of the rubbish that is talked about balance and bias is, I think, an insult to the audience.”

  6. Ned Kelly says:

    Regarding “fair and balanced” journalism as well as “fair and balanced” academia – the desiderata of intellectually and morally lazy hacks – one of the best responses I’ve seen has been by Deborah Lipstadt, concerning the recent invitation of Holocaust-Denier David Irving to speak at Oxford. I don’t think she’ll object to my quoting her post in entirety:

    Monday, November 26, 2007
    Oxford Union: My statement to pre-“debate” rally

    At the request of the organizers , I wrote the following statement which was read to the pre-debate rally:

    Why should the Oxford Union give one of its coveted places to a man such as this or a man such as Nick Griffin, who spews hatred and racial prejudice? I am firm believer in free speech. In my country the much maligned First Amendment gives everyone a chance to make a complete “arse” of themselves. However, the right to free speech does not mean that everyone is deserving of a platform at the Oxford Union. If the Union wanted to debate the issue of free speech and laws against expressions of Holocaust denial and racism, there are many good people with severely opposing views who could have been invited to do so. Inviting these two men smacks of a stunt which gives them what they most need to survive: publicity.

    The President of the Union has claimed that they are not being invited to spout their views. What then is there for them to say? That they have been denied the right to speak? Griffin has a platform anytime he wants it and David Irving used and abused your courts as a platform to spew his distortions of history.

    Some of those who have defended the Oxford Union have called for open minds. The problem with people with open minds is that sometimes their minds are so open their brains fall out. And that is the best that can be said of the organizers of this evening’s debate

  7. Adriana says:

    Kudos for Deborah Lipstadt and her scorn for the “fair and balanced” desideratum which most often than not is the unwillingness to choose and moral cowardice.

    About free speech, I think that at one time Hubert Humphrey said “The right to free speech does not include the right to be taken seriously”

  8. Ned Kelly says:


    I wonder how many Jewish-American journalists who ostensibly care so much about the “fair and balanced” desideratum would feel if – perhaps gradually, or perhaps suddenly – America’s presently latent, but numerous and determined, legions of antisemites and “revisionists” of WW II history became ascendant in America’s media and academia, so that the conventional American view of WW II would be that FDR and Churchill and “international Jewish something-or-other” were responsible for it, and thereby for the Holocaust. Not only the public freaks like David Irving, but also their legions of sympathisers (who, so far, are still trying to be careful about expressing TOO much public sympathy for Hitler), all recite that “fair and balanced” bullshit – but for what purpose? For the purpose of having their lies taken seriously.

  9. Ned Kelly says:

    By the way, the first time I heard the proverb Lipstadt quoted, “Don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out”, was from my German Language teacher. He was in fact an ethnic German (there are many in Australia – that’s who began our great wine industry – and even more in America), and he fought against Germany in WW II.
    So did General Eisenhower, another ethnic German. Not to mention Britain’s Royal Family. Yet David Irving the Nazi apologist is English. Such is the personal element in history; ultimately a person’s own character and his own choices determine his deeds and his inclinations and his loyalties, more than his “nationality” does – unless he chooses to believe otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s