Tuesday, April 22, 2014

WW1 Anti-German Propaganda

Check out some WW1 anti-German propaganda posters. This is intense imagery. One poster draws an ape in a German helmet grasping at the globe. A knife has been lodged into the globe in Europe's spot with blood spilling out. Other posters have scary imagery of a muddy German clawing his way up, out of the trenches, and over the ocean towards you safe American! The German is called a Hun. Used by the Anglosphere nations, it was a derogatory term. Propaganda exists but how it is used changes. These posters versus the world of today reveal enough about our leadership to show that our elites are not American but disloyal globalists. America is not a nation among nations but the seat of empire with an imperial management system not a nationalist leadership class.

What I find interesting is how free America was to use harsh terms for propaganda for what was effectively a war of choice. World War Two propaganda was extremely graphic, but that war was a bit different due to the Pearl Harbor sneak attack (those crafty rat bastards). President Wilson ran on a platform of "He Kept Us Out of the War" to turn around within weeks of his inauguration to plunge us into the war and on the side of the Entente. Did it come down to the Entente owing JP Morgan more money than the Central Powers owed Jacob Schiff? Was Bismarck right that it was Americans speaking English and not German that would decide the 20th Century? Eugene Debs, whatever you think of his socialism, was jailed for a speech where he encouraged men not to go to war for the elite. Even Pershing put the brakes on deploying men even after arriving in France due to our raw recruits and lack of proper training and equipment. Looking at the timeline, how much of the Entente's machinations to get the Americans involved stem from a need for cannon fodder and to replace the sloppy Russian manpower on the eastern front?

Did the US use posters for our wars of choice like Vietnam, Iraq and even Afghanistan that said "Kill the Gook" or "Destroy the Towelhead"? I was not around for Vietnam, but I do not recall anything like that for Persian Gulf I or post-9/11 wars. George W. Bush said he wanted Osama Bin Laden Dead or Alive and the media threw a hissy fit. Terrorism training videos show white guys, and our federal agencies shoot at cutouts of white grannies and teens. The television program 24 that was tailor made for the post-9/11 world (debuting right after) could not be bothered to have Muslims attempting terror plots. What I remember of post-9/11 media was a rush to calm the population; tame the mighty beast that was American rage at the terrorist attacks. Fear of a backlash on Arabs or Muslims was mentioned in the news. My university sent Muslims to the local schools to teach the kids "see Muslims are just like us". It's a religion of peace... that stones women, gays and marries cousins to one another. Progressives were baiting Americans to lash out with full on Arab-Muslim hate, even accusing the heartland of Islamophobia before anyone could do anything Islamophobic.

Who defines Islamophobic? What is wrong with noticing the pattern of Muslim violence? The chattering classes and media say so. They say so and SWPLs (Faceborg example here) parrot their statements and beliefs into mocking reactions to Muslim violence even after events like the Boston Bombing. This "Islamophobic" expectation for Muslim violence was built into the White House's explanation for the Benghazi attack. It was over a video implies you think so low of Muslims that random Youtube videos will drive them to fire rocket launchers on American assets. Anyone call the State Department Islamophobic? This early '00s fear of a backlash on Muslims was all in the shadow of a bunch of Muslims committing the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. "This was our Pearl Harbor," was repeated often but wrong. This was our chance for blood lust, but it hasn't been. Finally that conflict the overstimulated Gen X crowd bemoaned lacking in Fight Club was here. It has not worked out that way, and I blame our elties and the media who have created our interconnected, globalization era. You think Muslims are flying planes into towers in Shanghai and the Chinese aren't marching across the Middle East until they get to Israel, shaking hands with some Jews and marching back across miles of bloody sand. Chinese hotels right now are not taking in Japanese patrons over tiny islands in the ocean.

Some commenters on my random posts say modern men wouldn't fight the Mexican invasion or step up to fight the Muslims. Bullshit. I'll take the other side of that bet. One condition. I'll do so if you give me control over the media and freedom to make propaganda posters like the above. Imagine Auster's small immigrant crime or Muslim dysfunction posts but writ large. You think men would not rise up to combat the Mexican invasion if I created movies showcasing the terror in the Southwestern US starting in 1986? Clinton would have had to form border patrols by '97 after I was done with propaganda. Real border patrol efforts unlike his phony '96 immigration act that was a response to populist anger in California. To play on the Yglesias "Green Lantern Theory" of military power, imagine starting anti-Islam propaganda in the '90s after the first World Trade Center attacks and bumped it up with the USS Cole. You would never hear "religion of peace". We would also need to have "ungrateful Muslim shits" reports after saving their asses in the random Balkans police actions (or would we even be fighting there). Starting right after 9/11, blare out non-stop exposes on Muslim dysfunction. At the end of a program when Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an America" blared and a bald eagle landed on an American flag, the masses would hold back tears and shoot wherever I pointed.

Doubt there is not an audience for it? Go watch the Hugh Hefner Comedy Central Roast, especially Drew Carey's bit. Taped weeks after 9/11 in New York, the jokes are on Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, but they deal in every stereotype about Muslims one can imagine. These are prog comedians yucking it up. Do you recall George W. Bush throwing out the first pitch (a perfect strike) at the World Series in the Bronx? I do not need to link the video because I can see it now. As dumb as it sounds, my friends and I all hugged thinking, "It's going to be ok". Give me that power over the message and I'll have the debate be not to bomb or to bomb, but do we turn the sand to glass or just bomb the cities to rubble and send in the A-10 Warthogs and Apaches vs. hold outs afterwards. Like with crime, those who enable and support the terrorists must feel the effect. Grim sure, but if you got drunk with your pals after 9/11, I know you had those talks.

Sadly, that is not our system. It's why they do everything to lull natives to sleep. Nixon's Silent Majority has become a sleeping majority that they just need to keep asleep until it is no more. Why else would they hyperventilate that Tim Tebow might lead Christians on new crusades instead of concentrating on rappers glorifying crime inspiring little kids for the thug life? That is not our system. Our Army could not do that even if we do have the technological power. The wealthiest of Arabs are important dollar recyclers and debt buyers in the petrodollar system. Our media would not allow it. Fast forward a couple of years after Drew Carey's Hefner Roast act, and Chris Rock is ringing the bell screaming paraphrased "anti-immigrant leads to anti-black and anti-Jew". We live in the flat earth, the global village, the interconnected world. I doubt enough of us have the stomach for a real clash of civilizations as we are conditioned now, but in the right setting with the right conditioning, we are capable of anything.


Anonymous said...

"Did the US use posters for our wars of choice like Vietnam, Iraq and even Afghanistan that said "Kill the Gook" or "Destroy the Towelhead"?"

America's two ways of waging war:


peterike said...

A large and fascinating topic. So many riffs could be riffed on this post.

Well, let's start by agreeing that yes, you can convince the populace to think just about anything (gay marriage, anyone?). But of course whether Vietnam or the Middle East, those enemies were non-whites, and demonizing them doesn't fit the program. It will be interesting to see what happens with the whole Russian situation, where you have Christian anti-gay whites (the Prog bogey man come to life!) opposing U.S. interests. There is already a ton of anti-Russian, anti-Putin media being pumped out, but I don't think we've gone after Russians as such yet (not that I'm paying much attention to the MSM).

Maybe this is because so much of the Russian presence in the U.S. is actually Jewish, and the Powers That Be won't create anti-Russian hysteria because Americans aren't going to be able to nuance the difference between Evil Russian Christian and Good Russian Jew.

PA said...

During the 1999 NATO bombing campaign of Serbia, news outlets sported a Serbian map with crosshairs on it. "Ethnic cleansing" was repeated like a mantra and Slobodan Milosevic was likened to Hitler.

peterike said...

PA, good point. Of course, Serbian = White Christian and hence can be demonized.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Milosevic wwas part of a list of the new Hitler. Putin is going thru it now. The decolonization massacres between African tribes were given passes. David Lamb wrote about that 30 years ago in The Africans. As he put it, a weird lower expectations and racism from the press who would call others racist.

PA said...

To play the devil's advocate, I don't think the public, in the age of mass media and internet, would stomach another Dresden. Americans can shrug off dead Iraqis, even when internet sources or Michael Moore bring us footage of dead children.

But dead white bodies would be too much. Mind you, there are lots of gruesome murders of white innocents directly engineered by the elites -- white victims of black crime, Boers... but those are one-off, easily buried stories. And even so, the media palpably panic when a high-profile murder happens. They usually counter with some bullshit racissss lead story in those instances.

Людмил Иванов said...

To PA: They already did get away with bombing whites, they weren't dropping flowers on Belgrade.

nikcrit said...

They already did get away with bombing whites, they weren't dropping flowers on Belgrade.

@ PA,
Yeah, abnd you yourself once noted as much in debate between you and I that took place either early at GLP or late-era OneSTDV.

You're slipping up in your citings of white martyrdom!!

Toddy Cat said...

"I don't think the public, in the age of mass media and internet, would stomach another Dresden"

Bull, people would stomach it just fine, bescause they wouldn't see it, just like you don't see much about the Wichita Atrocity. You would see plenty of whatever the powers that be want you to see, though.

Stanley Rogouski said...

As long as you're talking about 1917 and the "Mexican Invasion" I suppose someone should mention how policemen from the United States would regularly cross the border into Mexico to break strikes in the years leading up to World War I. Google "Cananea strike." THAT was a real invasion, not labor going back and forth across the border looking for better wages.