|
Guardian Rips-Off Goebbels – Fascist Propaganda For Better Anti-Russian Smears
Just recently the Rothschild organ The Economist depicted the Russian president Putin as a dangerous octopus.
bigger
The idea was not original at all. Russia has been the favored target of this denigrating comparison for more than a century.
The Guardian, no less anti-Russian than the Economist, now follows suit.
bigger
The Steve Bell Guardian cartoon, just like the Economist cover, demonstrates a lack of creativity and originality. The spider cartoon is an obvious rip-off from a anti-Russian Nazi campaign:
bigger
The archive description of the poster notes:
In early 1935, the Nazis unleashed an anti-Bolshevik campaign which it initiated with a series of traveling exhibits on the dangers of world Communism. This poster comes from the exhibit in Karlsruhe, the capital city of the German state of Baden. But its imagery is found in almost all of the posters of this exhibit.
Here Bolshevism is represented as a huge red spider, whose head is the familiar grinning skull topped with the red star. Sitting in the Soviet Union, the legs of the spider can still reach out to threaten the entire world.
The Guardian rip-off of Josef Goebbels' Nazi propaganda even copied the red star associated with communist ideology. How stupid – Putin and today's Russia are as capitalistic as it gets.
Plagiarizing others to foment anti-Russian sentiment is standard Guardian business. Its most fervent and stupid anti-Russian writer, Luke Harding, had to publicly apologize for stealing whole passages from the Exile, a Russian magazine in English language edited by Mark Ames, Yasha Levine and Matt Taibbi. For a good laugh watch this Real News interview on Harding's book "Collusion" in which Aaron Maté takes Harding apart.
One wonders how much the Economist, the Guardian and other anti-Russian outlets, writers and cartoon artists get from the $160 million fund the Obama administration budgeted to "counter an uptick in Russian propaganda". Taking such money would not be unusual. This 2015 Guardian report on a European Union anti-Russian propaganda fund was, for example, written by the U.S. government's RFE/RL propaganda outlet. A U.S. government propaganda write-up about a EU propaganda fund ends up as content on the Guardian site. Hey – why not? Even original Guardian content rarely ventures off from the official line.
Who by the way might have financed the anti-Russian spy series Strike Back which now replays on live TV as the Skripal Novichok drama?
The enormous amount of money from the dozens of officials and unofficial slush funds surely creates a lot of the anti-Russian noise. But for all the taxpayer money spent on the issue can we please ask for better than a warmed up Nazi campaign?
—
h/t Nina Byzantina
Well done. Exploring the goals of satire for a moment.
What is the aim of satire? There are several ways to
answer that question and some of them are not mutually
exclusive.
Since the Greek high culture predates the Roman Empire,
the Latin version of ‘satira’ that made it into the
European language pool was not the origin of satire,
but the adoption of the Greek roots of it.
As it gets increasingly harder to find truthful
information on the interwebs in regards to history
– one is left to wonder that the wording for the
explanations of any subject’s etymology is exactly
the same – the explanation is likely better extracted
from previous generations and ages.
A Satyr was a literary version of the God Pan – the
God of the Fauna and Flora, the protector of Nature.
Pan was later utilized to depict the devil in
christian mythology. Those who enjoy Shakespeare will
also know about the nature of Pan – the nature of
Nature.
The evolving Satyrs were referenced as half man,
half goat beings, and thus men with animalistic
character. They were generally running around with
erect body parts. One must dive into the depth of
this mythology to arrive at the literal art form
of modern satire, that can still be happening on
a traditional stage play, or being condensed in
an image.
Whether something is satire or not, is not so much
due to the observer, but to the observed. Satire
is like a labyrinth, elusive as the original Satyrs.
It is therefore extremely difficult to interpret
satire – at best it creates differing meanings in
each observer, at worst it creates misunderstanding
for the lot of it.
One hallmark of satire is ridicule. Ridicule in
itself is a double edged sword. It cuts both ways.
The creator, or ‘perceiver’ of anything worth ridiculing
might be either too subtle, or too bold. In both
cases the meaning would be lost.
To look at the above imagery, a number of points come
to mind.
A) It is already satire to transport historic propaganda
into the present to allege that, whatever viewpoint
was behind the original propaganda has clearly not
evolved. Like the creation and demonization of an
enemy.
B) The ridicule of a way of thinking or viewing requires
a bold picture or play to achieve any reconsideration
of a mindset/viewpoint.
C) Due to times in which the satirist could have faced
certain death for ridiculing the powers that were,
a great deal needed to be extended to the composition.
In the best case, it will be impossible to pinpoint
the deeper meaning beyond a laugh. Satire is a way
to make people laugh about their own viewpoint.
A few modern stand up comedians knew how to play that
lute. George Carlin was one of them.
D) The goal of ridicule is to de-legitimize the subject
of such ridicule. In the heyday of political satire,
regimes cared to ridicule the leaders of the enemy
nation to depict them insane, inept, or plain stupid.
Not to be taken for serious for sure.
Therefore the difference between propaganda and satire
has to be obvious. If it isn’t, the satire risks to be
seen as propaganda.
It is more difficult to sell propaganda as satire,
since satire requires to possess a certain mindset to
decode it. One could say that satire is not for the
lesser mentally gifted. Although propaganda exploiting
this fact will aim at exactly these masses and be
looked through by intellectually seasoned minds.
To conclude, the fascist ‘Economist’ cover page is
propaganda, attempting to exploit the same sentiment/
fears as the Nazi propaganda does. Both are void of
the truth and excellent examples of fear mongering
to manufacture consent to go to war.
The Guardian cover by the satirist is extremely complex
and contains a large number of triggers. As stated by
others, the peruse of Nazi propaganda can already be
seen as satire, while if used in the same spirit, it
will not be able to convince people based on their
memories as to where this propaganda led those who fell
for it.
That would be akin to watch the “Wochenschau” and to
believe the propaganda it emanated weeks before the total
destruction of Germany.
The association of Russia in its personification with
Putin as a spider is also aimed at the characteristics
of such a spider. Any entomologist knows about the myriad
varieties of spiders. For most women they are unbearable.
As Russia/Putin is a webless spider, it can quickly run
around on the planet and bite anybody. How scary!
The introduction of the UK clown cart depicted as a
vacuum cleaner riding witch clown and her details brings
into the mix a dynamic that does offset the dangers of the
spider. The vacuum cleaner bears the face of Thomas the
Locomotive and alleges the train that the witch is riding.
The hairdo is definitely the one of BJ, so it’s a perfect
clown car – not to be taken serious in any way. As to the
duster, those colors are the colors of France and what better
way to use the French to squish the spider? On a long stick,
the spider can be dealt with without getting into personal
contact.
At that, this exact piece would have also worked in the time
leading up to WW II. It was the same Western values Nations
that pushed Germany at the spider. The duster would be red,
gold and black instead. The long nose is characteristic for
Pinocchio.
At least in a small circle of people, this cover created a
thorough discussion and that’s also what satire is meant to
achieve – conversations about the topic. It succeeded in doing
that, while the cover of ‘The Fascist’ is simply a projection
of its own degenerated content. On top of it, it is a
psychological projection par excellence, of the highest order.
Al this is to be taken with some grains of humor, but it is not
intended to take away from the severity of the Western values
regimes’ determination to repeat the Nazi assault on Russia/
Putin/The Communists/The Bolsheviks/The Slavs/The Sub-Humans…
Posted by: notheonly1 | Mar 19 2018 10:09 utc | 84
|
