Category Archives: politics

art, philosophy, politics

>Situationism, Part 2

Leave a comment

>Originally posted September 18, 2007.


Part one of the Situationism series can be found here.
In addition to this you may want to read about Oswald Spengler as well, here (English) and here (Swedish).
—

I take my desires for reality because I believe in the reality of my desires.
(Anonymous graffiti, Paris 1968)

People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth.
Raoul Vaneigem, The Revolution Of Everyday Life

The situationist movement was at its peak in the late sixties, but kind of folded after the riots and shit that were trendy at the time. Their ideas live on, though. And mind you, I’m not that much into their art – or anti-art – since most of the times it just sucks. It’s their ideas that I like.

Having concluded that the art and culture of bourgeois society was intellectually fucked, doomed to repetition and soulless, meaningless activities, the situationists referred to art as something that truly could change peoples lives and their way of thinking.
Art to them was not just something to feed the senses for a while, making you feel good and momentarily happy. That way of looking at art is shallow. In the eyes and mind of Guy Debord, art was revolution. Art was war. War against the everyday madness, the everyday slaughter of the soul. Most of all, art was real and goddamn important, and the situationists were determined to see through the lies, myths and bullshit that is being thrown at us every single second of our lives.
“It was about the radiation of art into pure existence, into social life, into urbanism, into action and into thinking which was regarded as the important thing”, as stated in the book Situationister i konsten (1966). Art wasn’t supposed to be a useless medium.


So what do you get when you mix art with politics?
Street art, of course. It’s available for free for everyone to see, and the creator is most of the times totally anonymous. We cannot judge the art and the message by who the creator is, but rather by what the message constitutes and how it is executed. True art. True politics. No names, no games. Well, names in a way, since there’s usually a tag attached somewhere, but close to nobody knows the person behind the tag, and that’s what’s fascinating about graffiti. It’s the deed and action that counts, not who’s done it.
No gods, no masters.

Must erase…all signs of…life by Hop Louie
Banksy at the separation wall in Israel/Palestina

Banksy at the separation wall in Israel/Palestina

Art of Destruction Sweden (AODS)

However, street art to me is not about reclaiming the streets. Well, it is in a way, but since Reclaim The Streets today seem to equal mindless destruction executed by degenerated fuck ups with nothing better to do, I strongly reject that kind of “reclaiming”. And I bet most of the serious situationists of the 60’s would’ve done so too. Such behaviour is nothing but fake and I spit blood on their useless corpses.

The moment of revolt is childhood rediscovered, time put to everyone’s use, the dissolution of the market and the beginning of generalised self-management.
The long revolution is creating small federated microsocieties, true guerilla cells practising and fighting for this self-management. Effective radicality authorises all variations and guarantees every freedom. That’s why the Situationists don’t confront the world with: “Here’s your ideal organisation, on your knees!” They simply show by fighting for themselves and with the clearest awareness of this fight, why people really fight each other and why they must acquire an awareness of the battle.
Raoul Vaneigem, The Revolution Of Everyday Life
Mindless scribbling on walls is not about reclaiming the streets,
it’s about mindless scribbling on walls.

On a sidenote:
Scribbling is for children (and adults!), and we should strongly encourage them here. Marvin Bartel has written an essay entitled “Working with children who scribble on walls” here. You should read it! And when reading, try to relate to graffiti…


Debord et al argued that the great Spectacle, the world’s greatest soap opera, is so influental that not only does it superficially bomb us with commercials, but it possesses such power that it shapes almost all human life (this Spectacle being a small ruling minority dominating the masses, forcing the individual only to consume and participate in society as an alienated, passive idiot).

In this consumer’s society, everything is always “getting better and better”. There’s no end to perfection. Just think about it; how will Gillette’s razor blades look in a year or two? Like a rocket ready to be sent into outer space? It seems like they’re inventing a new revolutionary shaving system every year.


When will this madness end? Not until we say so. And that’s where the passive idiot thing enters the scene. The Spectacle is by no means a dialogue. It is in fact the exact opposite – a monologue, talking to itself, about itself. And as we all know, opposition (for example, in the form of street art) is not looked upon with keen eyes. This artificial “evolution” of Gillette’s shaving systems is a lethal blow to our own evolution. We’re trapped and cannot evolve at all. The situationists labelled this forced existence “a colonization of our everyday lives”.

In a future post I’ll probably write something about the situationist critique against urbanism, which in some ways touches upon what Spengler had to say about cities and such.

philosophy, politics

>Situationism, Part 1

Leave a comment

>Originally posted August 13, 2007.


Looking at political critique today, the usual opinion is that it’s an attack against the state, and debating sacred subjects is looked upon as something suspicious, odd and even dangerous. In my sinister and pure way of looking at things, it definitely should be dangerous! I love it when independent thinking is considered a threat, for to combat blindness and stupidity one has to think for himself.
Independent thinking all comes down to one thing: trying to understand your situation.

Irreverence, blasphemous thoughts, depriving something of its sacred character… That’s disgusting! You should go to work, consume and obey, and that’s it. Shut up. Do not speak your mind. Preferably, do not think at all. Because if you do, you might want to change things. And change is dangerous!

Shallow thinking means you’re subject to lies – or for the sake of it, let’s just call it “illusions”. Sounds less… dangerous.
I’m talking about everyday illusions, like meaningless “any friend of yours is a friend of mine”-clichés, or commercials, where happiness is the latest mobile phone. They soothe your mind. They are there so you won’t have to think for yourself, because if you did chances are you might go berserk with a loaded gun.


There’s an old saying:
“When faced with two options, choose the third”, meaning you should look for new perspectives instead of having to choose between two forced options.

We live in a world so dominated by consumer goods that even our social relations are “commodified”. We relate to others through cars, stereos, mass-produced music, TV shows and vacation packages.


Guy Debord and the situationists had some great ideas, mainly regarding consumer society and the human condition therein.

“The situationists see modern consumer society as a society of the spectacle where our selves are absorbed into the mass entertainments provided by film, TV, music, advertising, and consumer goods. The spectacle breeds isolation, and alienates us from meaningful work, play and communities. We are caught up in false choices between spectacles in a society which offers us spectacular abundance, yet at the same time separates us from each other and from active resistance to the cultural alienation this society represents.”

But then again, commercials and buying stuff can be damn fun! I’m a big fat sucker for records, books, movies and everything Adidas, but still; some awareness might be good if you want to make a change.
Independent thinking is revolutionary thinking.

The great band Counterblast put it this way in their song Independence:
There’s no point in life, but a big point in living.

politics

>Political tests

1 Comment

>Originally posted September 02, 2007.

Ny Moral, along with bloggers Dan Eriksson, Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum, Becqon, Fas and Robsten, was encouraged by Oskorei to take some political tests. Read about Oskorei’s results here, and about some of his views here and here (Swedish only).
Oskorei… A very interesting character, indeed.

I took the tests, but first some disclaimers:

I tend to think too much sometimes, and that’s exactly what happens when I do these tests. They come off very stiff and are simply not made for my kind of mind. Some are very confusing. Some I cannot even answer properly because I don’t have enough knowledge, facts and/or understanding (for example, my knowledge about political economics is pretty slim…), or sometimes I may have chosen the “wrong” answer because I may have misunderstood the question. Also, these tests seem to be made for Americans.
And let’s face it, some questions are just plain stupid.

However, the tests may reveal some mindbending information about the moral and political stance that you may not know you had inside. They may help you understand why you think what you think, and since independent thinking is about trying to understand your situation everybody should give it a serious try.
Don’t take the results too serious though…

For your information:
I consider party politics to be extremely one dimensional, and thus not very creative or useful. The left and right bullshit told by those in power has lost its true meaning (and power) a long time ago. That way of defining political views is by no means applicable to the world and the societies we live in today.

Now let’s get on with the tests.

—

Political compass
This test is introduced with the following words:
The old one-dimensional categories of ‘right’ and ‘left’, established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today’s complex political landscape. For example, who are the ‘conservatives’ in today’s Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It’s not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can’t explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as ‘right-wingers’, yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

My results:

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

Moral politics
This test explains why you think what you think by mapping your personal moral system. Moral views are the major factors that influence political opinions. Every political stance can be explained by one’s moral position on the inner value of human beings and their role in society.

My results:

You scored -7 on the Moral Order axis and 1.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

The following items best match your score:
1. System: Socialism
2. Variation: Moral Socialism
3. Ideologies: Activism, Libertarian Socialism
4. US Parties: Green Party
5. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (85.18%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (95.06%), John Kerry (76.51%), George W. Bush (39.69%)

PoliticsForum Quiz 2.0

My results:

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a small-government, internationalist, protectionist, non-absolutist, kind of person.
These characteristics would put you in the overall category of social conservative protectionist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Conservatism area.

You scored 50 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.

You scored 55 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.

You scored 72 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.

You scored 61 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.

You scored 36 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are less likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.

You scored 65 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.

You scored 40 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.

You scored 50 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.

—

Phew! Interesting stuff. I’ll leave you without commenting any further and let you draw your own conclusions about my political stance and moral views, if you’re at all interested…

philosophy, politics

>Här finns inget varaktigt och allmängiltigt

Leave a comment

>Originally posted July 24, 2007.


I wrote an essay for the Swedish paper Tidningen Kulturen and it was published today. It’s about Spengler again (more about him here), but this time in Swedish. I named it “Här finns inget varaktigt och allmängiltigt – kulturens förfall, enligt Oswald Spengler”.
By coincidence, Dagens Nyheter published an article by Mikael Löfgren today entitled “Vad ska vi ha kulturen till?“. Read that one as well.

But for now, here’s the essay. Enjoy.
Photos shot by me, myself and I in July 2007.
Skanstullsbron, Stockholm.

—

Här finns inget varaktigt och allmängiltigt
Kulturens förfall, enligt Oswald Spengler

Finns det plats för den fria anden i dagens samhälle?
Vårt rotlösa irrande på jakt efter uppmärksamhet, status och bekräftelse – och kanske framför allt jakten på tid för att hinna med jakten (!) – ger svaret nej. Själva tror vi kanske att vi är det bästa som historien kunnat frambringa – en produkt som formats, alltjämt till det bättre, sedan evolutionens begynnelse. För en utomstående torde det västerländska levernet dock te sig allt annat än intelligent.
Och det är vår intelligens som kommer att föra oss ner i avgrunden.

Så trodde Oswald Spengler (1880-1936). Han levde i den tyska turbulenta tid som föranledde politisk, ekonomisk och själslig katastrof, och han var förmodligen väl medveten om vad som stundade. I sitt mest kända verk, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (1918-1922), Västerlandets undergång, utgiven i två volymer, menar han att vi i dag befinner oss i en tid där kulturen – mänsklighetens egenvärde – är på väg att dö ut.

Spengler verkade som filosof och bemöttes kanske just därför med frän kritik från etablerade historiker för sitt nästintill mystiska och måhända flummiga sätt att skildra världshistorien.
Han kritiserade å sin sida historikerna för att de inte ”på allvar studerade övriga civilisationer”, undgick att se parallellerna och det återkommande cykliska, och i stället fokuserade alltför mycket på nutiden och det egenupplevda.

Spengler menade nämligen att det traditionella linjära sättet att se på historien åskådliggör den västerländska egoismen; som vore den västerländska människan ett praktexemplar av all tidigare mänsklig verkan, som om nuläget är det bästa möjliga. Att betrakta mänskligheten som en enda lång utveckling från lågt till högt är dömt att misslyckas. Han skriver:

”Det som fattas hos den västerländska tänkaren och som inte borde fattas hos just honom, är insikten om den historiskt relativa karaktären i hans resultat, som i själva verket är uttryck för en speciell, unik tillvaro. Han borde förstå att det finns nödvändiga gränser för resultatens giltighet och att hans ”eviga sanningar” och ”ovedersägliga insikter” är sanna för honom och hans aspekt på världen. Det borde vara en plikt för honom att söka efter andra insikter, som människor i andra kulturer utvecklat med samma grad av visshet. En framtida filosofi borde ha en sådan fullständighet. Först då skulle man förstå historiens formspråk, den levande världen. Här finns inget varaktigt och allmängiltigt. Allmängiltighet är felslutet att mitt också gäller för andra.”

Spengler uppmanade alltså läsarna att upptäcka och utforska bortom sig själva. Han jämförde själv vilt mellan olika kulturer genom världshistorien för att påvisa likheter och bevisa sina teser.

Enligt Spengler finns det blott åtta högkulturer som stått för den kulturella evolutionen: den babylonska, egyptiska, kinesiska, indiska, mexikanska (Mayakulturen och Aztekerriket), grekisk-romerska, arabiska och västerländska (europeisk-amerikanska). Var och en av dessa högkulturer har bidragit till utvecklingen, och alla har varit lika värdefulla.
Tydlig gemensam nämnare för att styrka Spenglers tes om de åtta högkulturerna: de varar alla i omkring tusen år och följer samma evigt återkommande organiska livscykel. De rymmer således både födsel, blomstring, förfall och död. Det finns ännu inga undantag.

Spengler använde sig av årstiderna för att förtydliga sina resonemang.
Våren innebär kulturens nedkomst. Här formas religionen (bakom varje högkultur finns en värdefull, mentalt samlad religion) och de grundläggande principerna.
Sommaren är kulturens höjdpunkt. Har skapas bestående verk, väsentliga tankar föds och frodas och storslagna prestationer utförs.
Hösten betyder början till slutet. Kulturell förbistring, omfattande katastrofer, massiva människoomflyttningar och oförmågan att kommunicera bidrar till att vintern nalkas. Den fria, intelligenta tanken har resulterat i ateism, ett tänkesätt som försvinner i sinom tid, och i samband med städernas och civilisationens död sker en återgång till den ursprungliga religionen och släktskapet med naturen. Våren kommer alltid igen.
Spengler ser alltså en övergång mellan kulturen och civilisationen. För oss i väst skedde detta någon gång under 1800-talet.
Civilisationen representerar makt, pengar, irreligiositet, en koncentration av intelligensen till staden. Spengler skriver:

”Vad är morgondagens civiliserade politik i motsats till gårdagens kultiverade?”

Och det gäller inte enbart politiken. Även moralen, konsten, kunskapen, vetenskapen och känslolivet har drabbats av civilisationen. Konsten handlar om mode. Vetenskapen finner inga självklara svar. Politiken styrs av pengar. Kulturell förvirring råder. Det är den verkliga början till det verkliga slutet.
Civilisationen är en kulturs oundvikliga öde, då ingenting angår ”folket”. Den så kallade ”demokratin” styrs från städerna av en själlös människomassa, som till skillnad från den kultiverade människan riktar all energi utåt, uppåt, mot något evigt – något som följaktligen är ouppnåeligt. Självförintelse pågår.
De stora städerna utgör spiken i kistan för civilisationen.

Låt oss ta det från början:
Kulturen uppstår på landet. Bonden brukar sin jord – sin jord – och upprättar en själslig, andlig relation till den. Hembygden blir oerhört viktig, något att dö för, då det är det eget skapade som brukas. Bondens hus är ”bofasthetens stora symbol”, ty det har vuxit fram ur den egna marken.
Stadsmentaliteten representeras av en gruppsjäl. ”Det är inte storleken som skiljer staden från byn, utan existensen av en mentalitet”. De civiliserade jättestäderna föraktar bondens själsliga rötter och tar avstånd från lantlivet. I staden talas ett språk som endast talar till ögat och som till slut blir oförståeligt för bonden. Det finns nu två liv: ett utanför staden och ett innanför. Bysmeden lär ha mer gemensamt med bysmeden i andra länder och kulturer än med stadssmeden några kilometer bort.
Denna stadsbildning och distansering är en förutsättning för varje kultur. Alla stora kulturer har nämligen varit stadskulturer.
De tidiga byarna har samma sorts närhet till jorden. De följer landskapsbilden med kullar, ängar och vattendrag. De lantliga småstäderna bekräftar landsbygden, låter pyramiderna och katedralerna växa ur marken. Storstäderna vill vara något annat, något mäktigare. De trotsar naturen, förnekar den. De strävar uppåt och utåt, absorberar landskapet och kräver sitt utrymme i form av breda huvudvägar i stället för slingriga landsvägar, parker i stället för skogar och fontäner i stället för källor och så vidare. Det är konstgjort och själlöst. Stadsmänniskan blir därefter. Den har höjt sig över bondebefolkningen och dikterar nu reglerna. ”Antikens forum och den västerländska pressen är i hög grad andliga maktmedel för den härskande staden”. Stadsmänniskorna, som föraktar hela sin kulturs moderslandskap, bor nu i en världsstad som inte längre behöver hävda sig mot landsbygden. De är lika beroende av penningtänkandet som bonden förr var beroende av jorden. Imperialismen är slutepokens givna symbol.


Men det hemska slutar inte där. Spengler talar även om avfolkningen. Staden befolkas av intelligenta människor, och han menar att det är intelligenserna i varje kultur som utgör de ”sista” människorna. Han talar om den civiliserade människans ofruktsamhet:

”Storstädernas sista människor vill inte leva längre, möjligen kanske som enskilda individer, men inte som typ, som massa; där slocknar rädslan för döden. Det som fyller den äkta bonden med en djup och oförklarlig ångest, tanken på familjens och namnets utdöende, har förlorat sin mening. … Barnen uteblir, inte bara för att de blivit överflödiga, utan för att den skärpta intelligensen inte hittar några skäl för dess existens.”

Och det som är bundet till ”stenen och intellektet” går sakta men säkert under.
Spengler skriver emellertid, krasst konstaterande men ändå hoppfullt, att:

”Bonden är den eviga människan, oavhängig all kultur som tagit plats i städerna. Han finns före den, han överlever den, sturigt avlande nya släktled, inskränkande sig till jordbundna sysselsättningar och färdigheter, med en mystisk själ och ett torrt, till det praktiska bundet förstånd, basen för och den ständigt flytande källan till det blod som skapar världshistoria i städerna.”

Kjell Ahlinge, radioveteran med programmet Eldorado i P2 som ständig ledsagare, fick nyligen frågan ”Är kulturvärlden väldigt trångsynt egentligen?” av riotbrain.se. Hans svar löd:
– Det är mycket roligare att prata med frisörer och snickare än med dem som kommit långt i kulturvärlden.
Och det är så långt vi har kommit. Vi bevittnar kulturens dödsryckningar.
Här finns inget varaktigt och allmängiltigt.

Mattias Indy Pettersson

—

Published in Tidningen Kulturen #22/2007, July 24th

art, politics

>The Art of Persuasion, Part 3: German propaganda posters

2 Comments

>Originally posted July 18, 2007.


Part One (UK) and Part Two (USA) of these series.

—

Most nations would stop fighting when realizing there’s no chance of winning the war. Germany didn’t. They continued to fight long after they had abandoned all hope. I’d say this had very much to do with propaganda. And very much with a certain doctor.

On March 13, 1933, the Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda was founded under the direction of Dr. Josef Goebbels. No such thing had ever existed before, in Germany or in any other country. This was the time of the awakening of the (uneducated) masses.
Adolf Hitler had read Lord Northcliffe: “The bombardment of the German mind was almost as important as the bombardment by cannon”.
In Mein Kampf he writes:
“The psyche of the masses is not receptive to anything that is weak. They are like a woman, whose psychic state is determined less by abstract reason than by emotional longing for a strong force which will complement her nature. Likewise, the masses love a commander, and despise a petitioner”. One could say Hitler despised the masses…
He is also quoted saying:
“Haven’t you ever seen a crowd collecting to watch a street brawl? Brutality and physical strenght is what they respect. The man in the street respects nothing more than strenght and ruthlessness – women too for that matter. The masses need something that will give them a thrill of horror”.
Hitler argued that propaganda must be adressed to the emotions and not to the intellect. He had no need for educating the already educated. He spoke in black and white, and with enormous power and energy – always emotional.

With Goebbels as head of propaganda the Nazis rose to power. Goebbels described Hitler’s speeches as “religion in the most mysterious and deepest sense of the word”. He truly admired his Führer. And they used these very personal words – his Führer, my Führer – never the Führer; because it was a relationship, bonded by blood.

The propaganda machine worked the hardest at the mass gatherings. Each single individual underwent, in Goebbels words, “a kind of metamorphosis from a little worm to a giant dragon”. These huge demonstrations mostly took place at night when people’s minds were most open to persuasion. At the annual rally in Nuremberg half a million people attended to gather strenght.
Albert Speer was responsible for the art direction at the rallies, and the “cathedral of light” was his idea: 130 anti-aircraft searchlights placed around the rally field at intervals of forty feet. The huge eagle (over 100 feet in wingspread) was also one of Speer’s brilliant creations.

When the Second World War started, the Propaganda Ministry had complete control of the press, radio, film, posters, art, literature, music, theater… It is therefore nothing strange with people acting as they did. When every contemporay book you read, every newspaper, every film you see, every broadcast you hear for years and years, always with the same spirit, the same propaganda, you definitely lose your judgment.
Goebbels particularly enjoyed the cinema. He realized that this new art form could reach a far wider audience than books or theater. The old Motion Picture Law was replaced by the Reich Motion Picture Law in 1920, and from that moment nothing was approved that ran counter to the spirit of the times.
You’ve all seen Triumph of The Will (1935), and maybe even Olympia (1938), Leni Riefenstahl’s masterpieces of truly great art. There’ so much to say about those movies, but I intended these posts to be about the poster art, so… Maybe another time.


People may forget an article, but they won’t forget a picture, especially when they see it often, everywhere, and when the message is pure and strong, black and white. A flyer could be thrown away, the radio turned off, the political meetings not attended… Everybody walks the streets, though. The poster could not be avoided. Graffiti artists use this direct method as well.
The master of Nazi propaganda posters was named “Mjölnir” (real name: Hans Schweitzer). “What lenghty speeches failed to do, Mjölnir did in a second through the glowing fanaticism of his powerful art”, as one Nazi leader put it.

Personally, I find the Nazi propaganda the most fascinating, and certainly the most beautiful, dark, powerful and striking. Maybe this has to do with me too being totally intoxicated by their visual force? However, I am not alone. The Nazi propaganda resulted in billions of artifacts inspired by the powerful art of persuasion (hello Dyanne Thorne!).

Bonus propaganda:
Goebbels assembled a swing band called Charlie and His Orchestra to perform Nazified versions of the jazz hits of the day! How about that?
First volume of their music
Second volume of their music

And now, the magic of the mystic art…

















art, politics

>The Art of Persuasion, Part 2: American propaganda posters

1 Comment

>Originally posted June 30, 2007.


During the last years of World War II the Office of War Information, a US department of psychological warfare, was showering occupied Europe with 7 million flyers a week, which was made possible due to the invention of the leaflet bomb which could hold 80,000 leaflets in one piece. On July 16, 1943, 16 million leaflets alone were dropped in every part of Italy, informing the Italians that they could either die for Mussolini and Hitler, or live for Italy.
That’s how much used propaganda was, and still is.
But the propaganda flyers didn’t only try to convince or persuade – they worked as warnings as well, often telling of coming bombing attacks, thus allowing time to leave the area. That’s why propaganda was read by so many.

Besides flyers, leaflets and posters, radio was a very important propaganda medium. Playing on the emotions of the public, utilizing great speeches and announcers, this made a deep impact. It frightened and inspired the people into action.
The Americans also used film to a great extent. “That which is done by Hollywood today will be emulated by American cities tomorrow”. Hollywood had very strong Jewish and British elements, and it did what it could to help. They created cruel stereotypes of the enemy, and it worked out really well, speaking directly to the primitive emotions of the American audience. The bad guy gangster became the bad guy Nazi, and so on.
Music was also used as propaganda, the well known label Decca Records, for example, producing vinyls entitled We’re gonna have to slap the dirty little Jap (and Uncle Sam’s the guy who can do it), and Columbia released Praise the lord and pass the ammunition, while Bluebird had their Good-bye mama (I’m off to Yokohama).

As stated in Part One of this series, the American propaganda used God, democratic values and stereotypes to persuade the public. A lot of the posters also speak of the danger of careless talk, most of the time depicting women as those careless talkers.

So, here’s some amazing propaganda posters, done the American way.
















art, politics

>The Art of Persuasion, Part 1: British propaganda posters

1 Comment

>Originally posted June 28, 2007.


Propaganda posters. They are commercials of evil; mindfucking the people, enslaving the masses. They don’t win any wars, these fascinating weapons of destruction, but they certainly play a huge part in creating hostility, fear, national pride and false consensus.
But first and foremost, as with almost any totalitarian art, the posters are beautifully crafted and do indeed hold some ancient power of belief, spirit and fanatism. Their influence cannot be denied, neither in the political sphere, nor in the world of art.

As strategic weapons, propaganda though flyers, posters, radio broadcasts and television serve as a compliment as good as any to military campaigns, diplomatic negotiations and economic sanctions. Back home people are being told to produce more for their country, to keep silent and to hate the enemy. At the front propaganda seeks to strengthen the morale of the troops and to weaken the enemy’s will to fight.
The strategy for propaganda differs between countries and ideologies. The Nazis idealized the Aryan übermensch and blamed Jews, bankers and Bolsheviks for everything bad in the history of the world. USA speaks of democratic values, the trust in God and creates grim stereotypes of the enemy. Britain, during World War II, used the “hate the enemy” themes, and the Soviets invoked the nationalist image of Mother Russia to make its people gain power and confidence.
The war game would not be the same without the art of persuasion.

First out in this small series: The art of British propaganda.