timely irony in a 1946 propoganda film

[solypsist]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=102585813125825400&q=documentary

two things:
1) Listen to them recite the pledge of allegience. Notice they don't say "Under God." This was because this video was made in 1946 and those words weren't added to the pledge until 1956.

2) This was a real film.

[lancelot]

I dont understand the significance of this...

[Tribesman]

This was a real film.
Why do you hate feedom , are you a terrorist supporter ?:san_wink:
The election one is ever so slightly , perhaps by a big stretch of the imagination and a blatant ignoring of the facts , quite representative of evil axis countries , yet totally unrepresentative of leading freedom loving democracies .:san_sad:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
GAH all streaming videos! :san_angry: Impossible to hear the sound without interruption. :san_cry:
.

[Lemur]

This thread is another part of the war on Christmas. Soly still needs to explain why he hates freedom.

[Tachikaze]

Well, let's take a look at this video. Why? Because information like this buried itself into the conscious of the US public. It explains part of why the generation of people who were in their formative years at that time see the world in black and white tones, with the US always white and at the top of the scale--except the KKK.

Power Scale
They mentioned "decision making in a few hands" as a path to despotism. And a society is low on the scale if power is in hands of the "bosses".

Well, the US is a corporate oligarchy. Most decisions are made to satisfy the corporations that supplied us with our government. As much as some good souls try to fight corporate pressure, at least to some degree, they are outnumbered by those who are in actuality working for the good of big business. This is not democracy. The corporations are the decision-makers and they are not run by elected officials. They can "disregard will of people"-- and do.

"One sign of a poorly balanced economy is the concentration of land ownership in the hands of a very small number of people". This is a great description of the modern US agricultural system.

Likewise, where "the control of jobs and business opportunities is in a few hands" is also where the US is headed. All of these mergers and takeovers are making those hands fewer and fewer. The more political influence the CEOs of these dwindling numbers of businesses gain in Washington, the less anti-trust legislation the US will have. It's a snowball effect.

Economic Distribution
While the US still has a fairly large middle class to keep buying frivolous conveniences and entertainment that keep the corporate oligarchy healthy, the range from the poorest to wealthiest is the greatest, by far, in the world. This creates a terrible burden on society as a whole.

The position of the US is further declining on the information scale as we speak, so to speak. Secrecy, in name of "protection" and "security", is another avenue to lead us down the dark path of despotism (as the film might put it). Protection and security have always been the excuses of regimes who carry out their actions in secrecy. Despots also are skillful in the use of bogeymen--hidden, dangerous, faceless enemies--to put fear and hysteria in the public. A fearful public is very easy to manipulate.

[LeftEyeNine]

One of the most interesting videos I've ever watched. Thanks, Soly. :bow:

When I listened to their hypothesis about the lowering of power and respect scales (and concentration of them), I interestingly found the ambition similar -but not the same- to anarchy.

After completely watching the video, I came up with my own idea : There is a thin line between despotism and anarchism.

Mouza, pause the video, let the grey bar fill up so that whole video is buffered on your machine (pausing does not stop buffering), then start playing it from the beginning. ~:)

[Ironside]

After completely watching the video, I came up with my own idea : There is a thin red line between despotism and anarchism.


:san_huh:

Only name of that "thin red line" I can come up with is revolution. And I hardly call that thin.

Interesting find soly

[InsaneApache]

As an aside the term 'Thin Red Line' has got absolutley nothing to do with either revolutions or the US army. It is, however, a description of the British Army in the 19th centuary. It came about from Wellesleys' use of his limited number of troops (the British Army has traditionally always been small) in line formation, rows of two, iirc, that were deployed to fight the 'column' of more numerous armies.


"But it's Thin red line of 'eroes' when the drums begin to roll -
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's Thin red line of 'eroes' when the drums begin to roll ".
Rudyard Kipling

Just shows how facts can get distorted.


There is a thin red line between despotism and anarchism.

Leaving the 'red' out of this phrase would be fine. :bow:

[LeftEyeNine]

Leaving the 'red' out of this phrase would be fine.

That's a seriously informative correction, Thanks..

Here's my post of the millenium.. :balloon: :turkey:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Secrecy, in name of "protection" and "security", is another avenue to lead us down the dark path of despotism (as the film might put it). Protection and security have always been the excuses of regimes who carry out their actions in secrecy. Despots also are skillful in the use of bogeymen--hidden, dangerous, faceless enemies--to put fear and hysteria in the public.
Welcome to :turkey:

LEN, thanks bro!
.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
This film is a gem!
.

[Grey_Fox]

Actually the term 'thin red line' wasn't used until around the Crimean War.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Actually the term 'thin red line' wasn't used until around the Crimean War.
It came as a product of the double line of Black Watch Highlanders at Balaclava. :rtwyes:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Why do they call it a propaganda movie? It's an informative summary on which developments to avoid in democratic countries in order to keep them from becoming dictatorship regimes in disguise. Something that has today gone very far even in western countries, btw. The movie summary makes you realize just how far it has gone, because of it excellently summarizes all the factors of major importance.

[LeftEyeNine]

It does praise Despotism -if I did not hear it all wrong- rather than trying to be informative. And that is propaganda isn't it ?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Did it PRAISE despotism? I thought it rather sounded like it warned about despotism... :confused:

[Mouzafphaerre]

It does praise Despotism -if I did not hear it all wrong- rather than trying to be informative. And that is propaganda isn't it ?
.
Just the contrary bro. It's much like an informative warning against the very symptoms of despotism. See how dramatized 'despotic' snippets are caricaturized.
.

[Papewaio]

There is a thin red line between despotism and anarchism.



Leaving the 'red' out of this phrase would be fine. :bow:

Actually the 'red' is apt given that inbetween despotism and anarchism we find a lot of ex-British colonies. :winkg: Much more then say those left behind by other EU powers. :gring: :tongueg:

[LeftEyeNine]

.
Just the contrary bro. It's much like an informative warning against the very symptoms of despotism. See how dramatized 'desptic' snippets are caricaturized.
.

Great, I failed my English listening again :angryg:

Then, the thread title is wrong or is this my 2nd mistake ? :embarassedg:

[Papewaio]

The irony is not in the film it is in how it applies to present events...

[LeftEyeNine]

The propaganda is about "dismissal of despotism" or "the democracy" ?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
We can take 'propaganda' in a sort of neutral meaning here; propagation.
.

[JimBob]

There is a thin line between despotism and anarchism
Thick as any other line. Anarchism is the idea that all people have equal power-a complete dissolution of heirarchy. Despotism is a government that has a ruling class and a ruled class and the ruling class has an iron fist.

[LeftEyeNine]

Thick as any other line. Anarchism is the idea that all people have equal power-a complete dissolution of heirarchy. Despotism is a government that has a ruling class and a ruled class and the ruling class has an iron fist.

And by saying the line is "thin", I mean that the transformation of anarchism into despotism is quite likely.

[Ironside]

And by saying the line is "thin", I mean that the transformation of anarchism into despotism is quite likely.

Ah, I was correct with the name then. :tongueg:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
May our anarchist/anarchophille/proanarchist or just outright informative friends please not take anarchism in LEN's context literally. The word has a crappy pseudo-meaning in Turkish mostly imposed by the 1980 junta regime.
.

[InsaneApache]

What the hell does that mean?....a further explanation might be in order.

ohh.....and a happy new year. :gring:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
:gring: The spell is working. Another confused and mindboggled victim.

*adds InsaneApache to the list* :stupido:


Serious part:

When a Turkishman says/writes about anarchisme, don't take it literally, ie in the exact meaning of anarchisme. It's been given a false meaning identical to rebellieon, terrorisme or what the despotic/conformist regime wants to label as so, and that pseudo-meaning was widely spread by the members of the 1980-83 junta regime (which is technically in continuation because the junta generals still cannot be tried in a court).
.

[LeftEyeNine]

Mouza

I meant in general meaning of anarchism being quite likely to transform into despotism - not the junta regime in Turkey you talked about. I'm not surprised to see that you found it strange and trying to make it sound rational ~:).

I've explained my ideas on anarchism before, after watching this film, I just came up with the idea that anarchism creates a big gap for the formation of despotism. This explanation has been better, I think. Thanks for trying to clear up things anyway, bro ~:)

[InsaneApache]

Thanks for explaining Mouza, I feel much less confused now. (the spell must be wearing off ~D )

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
~D

That's OK LEN but the point stands; if a Turkishman is talking about anarchism, it's less likely that he's aware of what he's talking about. ~;)
.

[LeftEyeNine]

Yep.

Easiest way to accuse some guy at a police station once (maybe still valid..never been to one.) :

" Are you anarchic ? Tell us ! "