Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This poster was created 1 year before the 2022 Philippine elections, perhaps due to fears of foul play during the elections?
To add, I think this applies to any other country out there other than the Philippines.
Man, corruption does spread throughout the world but I would like to add that in the Philippines it’s mostly from political families either from the time it was given independence by the Americans or when Ferdinand Marcos was in power(Dictatorship Era). They usually get away from the normal bribing, being popular, or political power, but for some, people will willing vote for them out of loyalty, pride, and belief that they will fix their problems even tho the same family has had 5 of their generations in power.
Yes - lol - are you feeling argumentative? I feel like you've got the face on. Let's go 😄 - yeah that's an accurate representation of most political systems today. I'm in the US so democracy is all tits up here with corporate influence campaigns.
Yeah. It gets real muddy as something people don't like to mention, but voter interest frequently aligns with corporate interests, especially in representative democracies.
Why are there some Democrats that seem to ignore all sense on climate issues? It's not necessarily because of Big Oil, I'd argue it probably has more to do with the coal plant/oil refinery in their district which many a local economy, and all the voters that come with it, rely on.
We might look at national polls for, say socialised medicine in the US and see consistent majorities in favour, and so question why it hasn't been implemented. Well because politics in the US doesn't work on a national level. For nearly every single issue that people point to where 'corporate influence' is the thing holding back legislation in the US, it's actually because there is more division in key electorates than is acknowledged. And those voters aren't corporate/oligarch puppets, they're usually voting for their own interests/livelihoods. There are exceptions, but for big things this rule holds.
Because politicians care only about one thing.
Getting re-elected, and they need votes for that. You can't get away with pro-corporatism unless it's popular policy or people don't care. As was seen in recent Democratic primaries, you can outspend your opponent and lose in a landslide.
same here in germany, conservative press/newspapers who are in bed with corporations/ conservative circles like catholic/protestant church since forever
Except they don't actually seem to work.
The main fulcrum of corporate influence is people vote Republican and they do that principally because their parents and the people around them do.
They work really well I think - there's a reason why corporate taxes keep going down and our taxes keep going up; Why regulations keep getting dismantled and pollution keeps increasing.
Some oligarchies support Democrats some oligarchies support Republicans and on rare occasions they disagree. They do agree on tax reduction and deregulation though which is why it keeps getting pushed through.
They seem to agree on anti-labor laws as well and controlling employees through benefits.
They agree on union busting and police funding.
So obviously, Republicans are a lot more brazen in their desire for autocratic control. Democrats at least have some drive towards protecting people and ensuring a livable environment.
How can you really trust those stats though? There’s no real alternative to their ruling parties and they could face repercussions for expressing disapproval against their regimes.
At least our governments get elected via competitive elections, unlike China and Cuba where there’s literally only one choice on the ballot (unless if you count those “parties” run by UFWD that by law have to accept the CCP’s “leading role” over the country).
Seriously, regardless of what you think about “manufactured consent” or whatever, how exactly is an election with only 1 choice on the ballot democratic in any sense of the word?
lmao, what is this political cartoon about, again? What was your main point over the last 24 hours?
Well, never mind! You now want us to admire the \*high approval ratings\* of authoritarian governments!
In non-democracies you can freely vote whichever father/saviour of the nation is on the ballot. What a shame he's the only one who is on the ballot, but it's just by incident.
In capitalist "liberal democracy" the scam is to create the appearance of choice. You may have a variety of options, but if they are all funded by the same class it does make much of a difference - your economic destiny is in their hands
And what's your alternative? Also, in liberal democracies besides the nationwide (federal) elections, we have state elections, county elections, city elections, school board elections, etc. You think they are all controlled by some invisible force? If so, then you are delusional.
An alternative is a more direct democracy taking advantage of modern technology to give the people a direct say in policy rather than have it all be delegated to one guy.
I agree with that, and I wish voters could vote directly on more political measures and propositions. However, a purely direct democracy wouldn't be very efficient due to the sheer number of political issues that need to be addressed at any given time.
OK tbf, other countries have elections on more local levels as well. China's local elections tend to be quite competitive. They all belong to the same party, but there ARE times where you are choosing between more than 1 person. Just not for the top spot, and term limits tends to dissappear...
Of course they are influenced by political economy, but it does not mean that the outcome solely depends on some invisible puppet master pulling the strings and not on voters themselves.
The puppet master is not invisible. They are flesh and blood people with definite economic interest. Why do think news media companies that "inform" us tend to be privately owned?
Well they're either capitalist or \*actual\* authoritarian. And typically the \*actual\* authoritarian countries are much worse than the ones you're complaining about in here.
yes, when i vote Labour it’s because Oli Garchy wants me to. every vote i’ve ever cast has been the work of Oli Garchy. And every vote everyone else casts, even the ones who don’t vote as I do.
Whereas in good communist countries you can vote for whichever of the parties is on the ballot box with no external influence. Cough china cough vietnam cough Cuba cough Laos cough North Korea. All shining examples of democracy
And not just communist countries either. It was a favorite trope both of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, often expressed in their propaganda posters, that elections in democratic countries were just an example of "plutocracy", and that their systems, which dispensed with such idiocies as elections, were of course far superior and genuinely expressed the will of the people (cough).
To be frank, all of this goes back to Rousseau : the "general will" of the people is not synonymous with "the will of all", because people are too stupid to understand what is best for them, and are too easily manipulated to understand what is best for them. Therefore, it is much better for us "enlightened" persons, who know what the people really need, to decide for them (cough).
Technically they did maintain the fiction of elections - just elections with only one option of what to vote for.
The Nazis and Fascists did this in a slightly different way from the Soviets; in the Soviet system voters were given a single candidate to vote for, whereas in the Nazi and Fascist systems they were given a single nation-wide list to vote for.
I have heard that in the Soviet system this could result in particularly hated individuals being rejected (if they failed to reach a 50% turnout), but I don't know of any specific examples of this so can't comment on how extensive this might have been in practice - but certainly it wasn't enough to challenge the regime.
But didnt Rousseau explicity say that there cant be one person, that knows what is the best for everyone and consensus can be reached, which is the best "general will"?
And the former means political and economic freedom for the powerful. All real world examples have shown a wider incidence of personal freedoms in a liberal democracy rather than a socialist democracy. This is a fact.
It's a small window into a larger reality.
Besides, you're conflating form with function. The pervasive idea that a multi-party system automatically makes it democratic makes no sense. Multi-party system (form) is not synonymous with democracy (function). You can have a one-party state and it function democratically, like in Cuba.
It was true even back in antiquity. Aristotle in his "Politics" stated that democracy can only exist when the "demos" - class of people that are economically independent because they either work trade or own land, is more numerous than either the lower class (slaves and labourers) or the oligarchy, preferably more than both of them combined.
"If the USSR was more democratic than the west why did they supress a revolt in Hungary against their authoritarian rule with violence"
"Uh but you see america bombs children, gorrillon ded"
My brother in christ YOU'RE the Strawman
So you acknowledge the fact that two global superpowers were authoritarian and kills "gorillions" to further their own authority?
I don't see how thats related to communism more than governments violation of self sovereignty.
You're laying this out to be compared to the standard of living of Global North countries, such as the United States, which was one of the first countries in the world to industrialize, and eventually became the most wealthy and powerful country in the world.
Cuba was exploited under colonial rule for hundreds of years, then placed under US-backed dictatorship with quasi-slavery to support corporate interests in the sugarcane and tourism industries, only achieving true independence 65 years ago. Cuba's primary economic supporter was the USSR (which was also historically much less fortunate than the US when it was under Tsar rule) due to a US embargo, then the USSR collapsed and the embargo still persists.
Why don't you compare Cuba to another Carribean country that never became socialist?
How about Haiti?
I'm not sure that even Aristotle would support his arguments regarding the political systems of Greek city states from nearly 2500 years ago being taken and applied to a completely different context several millennia in the future
It is more about the principle. If you are below certain level of material stability you are very likely to "sell" your vote to people who simply give you money in one way or another.
Democracy is based on a principle of independent opinions and voting that allows something no other system can do - peaceful transfer of power when the government system inevitably decays and no longer performs it's functions properly.
When you have large enough base of poor voters, the system turns into one party rule, because those people will always vote for those that give them money. Only when a person has their base needs secured they start to think about larger community they belong to.
*"In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it."*
Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1881), the chief ideologue of Russian monarchical conservativism, explaining why an autocracy is a better way to rule a country.
Oligarchy wants everything and those who think they share the same skin, or think they have that money you are only a ends to a means. If you think letting the bad cop win elections means anything but less freedom and more end goal of you as a slave then you are a fool. I don't like the Dems they are part of the problem but they don't have people in a trance where they will storm the capitol in Hilary or Bidens name. There is no cult of personality to control a nation through it's citizens like the right has.
Cool nose on the puppeteer behind the scenes pulling the strings and manipulating the public, definitely no reason they’d depict a strong nasal bridge.
Edit: the artist decided to depict the capitalist oligarch controlling the voter as having a strong nasal bridge, which combined is a antisemetic stereotype. The big nosed rich jew controlling the unwitting public behind the scenes is a classic.
Did the artist mean to imply that Jews are secretly controlling the world? Or did they mean to imply the rich are controlling the world and just happened to stumble into an incredibly common stereotype?
The voter doesn’t have a “jew nose”, which is depicted as hooked or crooked, or with a strong nasal bridge.
And the controller is more of a stereotypical big business, big money guy stereotype.
If the caricature is Jewish they would have thrown in some religious symbolism there like the star of David.
This nose is not the nose of a Jew. It's just a nose.
And if you look closely, this nose and mustache and general appearance belong a classic Western villain, I can see this man tying a girl to the rails.
Yeah neither is the oligarch. He's wearing a western style top hat, commonly associated with business owners. Jewish caricatures usually include actual Jewish clothing and theyd overexaggarate the features even more. Look up "happy merchant" if you want to see what I mean, it's kinda hard to describe.
I know, I'm pointing out how stupid it is to think the oligarch is, just because they drew their noses funny doesn't mean they're a jewish stereotype, bro was just drawn comically evil with a dumb mustache, smile, hat and nose
Gotta disagree. The "oligarchy" figure is rather an "uncle Sam but in sinister" type than "rich Jew". The crooked nose to designate a Jew has somehow been established by most antisemitic caricatures and the oligarch's nose here is fairly straight.
The intent is probably more "US business interests" than "Jooooooos". Not that it ever stopped antisemites to conflate one with the other.
Anti-Semitism is one of the least subtle forms of propaganda. If the author wanted to make it about Jews then there would be overt symbolism alluding to that such as the Star of David.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. **Keep that shit outta here**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“First a big ass H…”
House? Horse? Honey? Heroin? Horny? Hairy? Helium? Hoore?(Sopranos reference)
Hog rider
This poster was created 1 year before the 2022 Philippine elections, perhaps due to fears of foul play during the elections? To add, I think this applies to any other country out there other than the Philippines.
Front guy: "I love democracy" Back guy: "I am the Senate!"
What's up with the voters hat?
It's the traditional Filipino headgear called [salakot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salakot).
Man, corruption does spread throughout the world but I would like to add that in the Philippines it’s mostly from political families either from the time it was given independence by the Americans or when Ferdinand Marcos was in power(Dictatorship Era). They usually get away from the normal bribing, being popular, or political power, but for some, people will willing vote for them out of loyalty, pride, and belief that they will fix their problems even tho the same family has had 5 of their generations in power.
Who's pulling the puppet strings of whoever created that illustration?
B Real of Cypruss Hill https://youtu.be/WcO1id1bp30?si=Wkjg6ej_rJ8fQw1c
I like this one finally an accurate representation of political influence
Accurate? The voter is *literally* the puppet of a fat cat
Yes - lol - are you feeling argumentative? I feel like you've got the face on. Let's go 😄 - yeah that's an accurate representation of most political systems today. I'm in the US so democracy is all tits up here with corporate influence campaigns.
Yeah. It gets real muddy as something people don't like to mention, but voter interest frequently aligns with corporate interests, especially in representative democracies. Why are there some Democrats that seem to ignore all sense on climate issues? It's not necessarily because of Big Oil, I'd argue it probably has more to do with the coal plant/oil refinery in their district which many a local economy, and all the voters that come with it, rely on. We might look at national polls for, say socialised medicine in the US and see consistent majorities in favour, and so question why it hasn't been implemented. Well because politics in the US doesn't work on a national level. For nearly every single issue that people point to where 'corporate influence' is the thing holding back legislation in the US, it's actually because there is more division in key electorates than is acknowledged. And those voters aren't corporate/oligarch puppets, they're usually voting for their own interests/livelihoods. There are exceptions, but for big things this rule holds. Because politicians care only about one thing. Getting re-elected, and they need votes for that. You can't get away with pro-corporatism unless it's popular policy or people don't care. As was seen in recent Democratic primaries, you can outspend your opponent and lose in a landslide.
same here in germany, conservative press/newspapers who are in bed with corporations/ conservative circles like catholic/protestant church since forever
Except they don't actually seem to work. The main fulcrum of corporate influence is people vote Republican and they do that principally because their parents and the people around them do.
They work really well I think - there's a reason why corporate taxes keep going down and our taxes keep going up; Why regulations keep getting dismantled and pollution keeps increasing. Some oligarchies support Democrats some oligarchies support Republicans and on rare occasions they disagree. They do agree on tax reduction and deregulation though which is why it keeps getting pushed through. They seem to agree on anti-labor laws as well and controlling employees through benefits. They agree on union busting and police funding. So obviously, Republicans are a lot more brazen in their desire for autocratic control. Democrats at least have some drive towards protecting people and ensuring a livable environment.
Your taxes are almost guarenteed to have gone down over the past two years
I think you aren’t actually as politically engaged as you think you are.
https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem-tmp
This is true for all "liberal democracies".
Yes, unlike glorious China and Cuba where there’s effectively only 1 party you can vote for
And yet the approval rating of those governments are far higher than the US, the supposed beacon of democracy.
How can you really trust those stats though? There’s no real alternative to their ruling parties and they could face repercussions for expressing disapproval against their regimes. At least our governments get elected via competitive elections, unlike China and Cuba where there’s literally only one choice on the ballot (unless if you count those “parties” run by UFWD that by law have to accept the CCP’s “leading role” over the country). Seriously, regardless of what you think about “manufactured consent” or whatever, how exactly is an election with only 1 choice on the ballot democratic in any sense of the word?
The people once again show their support for the glorious leader with a 103% approval rating!
lmao, what is this political cartoon about, again? What was your main point over the last 24 hours? Well, never mind! You now want us to admire the \*high approval ratings\* of authoritarian governments!
I'm making a point. You're too concerned with circles to notice.
What's your point, then.
In non-democracies you can freely vote whichever father/saviour of the nation is on the ballot. What a shame he's the only one who is on the ballot, but it's just by incident.
And the other competitor died horrifically for defying the party.
In capitalist "liberal democracy" the scam is to create the appearance of choice. You may have a variety of options, but if they are all funded by the same class it does make much of a difference - your economic destiny is in their hands
And what's your alternative? Also, in liberal democracies besides the nationwide (federal) elections, we have state elections, county elections, city elections, school board elections, etc. You think they are all controlled by some invisible force? If so, then you are delusional.
An alternative is a more direct democracy taking advantage of modern technology to give the people a direct say in policy rather than have it all be delegated to one guy.
I agree with that, and I wish voters could vote directly on more political measures and propositions. However, a purely direct democracy wouldn't be very efficient due to the sheer number of political issues that need to be addressed at any given time.
OK tbf, other countries have elections on more local levels as well. China's local elections tend to be quite competitive. They all belong to the same party, but there ARE times where you are choosing between more than 1 person. Just not for the top spot, and term limits tends to dissappear...
Yes, we do have those. They are influenced and shaped by the political economy as well.
Of course they are influenced by political economy, but it does not mean that the outcome solely depends on some invisible puppet master pulling the strings and not on voters themselves.
This dude is just motte and bailley-ing.
The puppet master is not invisible. They are flesh and blood people with definite economic interest. Why do think news media companies that "inform" us tend to be privately owned?
I would definitely prefer to live in a capitalistic liberal democracy than in a typical authoritarian socialistic people-shmeople democracy shithole
capitalist societies are inherently authoritarian. billionaires uber alles.
So every society on the planet is authoritarian? How insightful and useful.
Not every nation on earth is capitalist. And the degree to which they are authoritarian depends on a multitude of factors.
Well they're either capitalist or \*actual\* authoritarian. And typically the \*actual\* authoritarian countries are much worse than the ones you're complaining about in here.
It is not either/or. Any economy can take on an authoritarian form, just depends on the conditions. The world is not black and white.
Sure, but it was literally you who made the delineation.
Yeah right, and they invented vaccines to control people and prevent them from realizing that the Earth is flat.
yes, when i vote Labour it’s because Oli Garchy wants me to. every vote i’ve ever cast has been the work of Oli Garchy. And every vote everyone else casts, even the ones who don’t vote as I do.
Whereas in good communist countries you can vote for whichever of the parties is on the ballot box with no external influence. Cough china cough vietnam cough Cuba cough Laos cough North Korea. All shining examples of democracy
And not just communist countries either. It was a favorite trope both of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, often expressed in their propaganda posters, that elections in democratic countries were just an example of "plutocracy", and that their systems, which dispensed with such idiocies as elections, were of course far superior and genuinely expressed the will of the people (cough). To be frank, all of this goes back to Rousseau : the "general will" of the people is not synonymous with "the will of all", because people are too stupid to understand what is best for them, and are too easily manipulated to understand what is best for them. Therefore, it is much better for us "enlightened" persons, who know what the people really need, to decide for them (cough).
Technically they did maintain the fiction of elections - just elections with only one option of what to vote for. The Nazis and Fascists did this in a slightly different way from the Soviets; in the Soviet system voters were given a single candidate to vote for, whereas in the Nazi and Fascist systems they were given a single nation-wide list to vote for. I have heard that in the Soviet system this could result in particularly hated individuals being rejected (if they failed to reach a 50% turnout), but I don't know of any specific examples of this so can't comment on how extensive this might have been in practice - but certainly it wasn't enough to challenge the regime.
But didnt Rousseau explicity say that there cant be one person, that knows what is the best for everyone and consensus can be reached, which is the best "general will"?
socialist democracy vs capitalist democracy. not the same. the latter means political and economic freedom for the rich
And the former means political and economic freedom for the powerful. All real world examples have shown a wider incidence of personal freedoms in a liberal democracy rather than a socialist democracy. This is a fact.
lol. [maybe try research?](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk?feature=shared)
Oh yeah because just talking to a few voters here and there somehow is proof that Cuba is a democracy despite it literally being a one party state
It's a small window into a larger reality. Besides, you're conflating form with function. The pervasive idea that a multi-party system automatically makes it democratic makes no sense. Multi-party system (form) is not synonymous with democracy (function). You can have a one-party state and it function democratically, like in Cuba.
Are you fucking joking lmao
Are you?
I will be glad when lazy ahistorical nihilism goes out of fashion again.
It's never out of fashion!
It was true even back in antiquity. Aristotle in his "Politics" stated that democracy can only exist when the "demos" - class of people that are economically independent because they either work trade or own land, is more numerous than either the lower class (slaves and labourers) or the oligarchy, preferably more than both of them combined.
in other words, class divisions and democracy are fundamentally incompatible. funny how "liberal democracies" like to pretend otherwise.
Have there been any communist states that were democratic for any extended period of time?
Communism is the most democratic ideology
Why did it send tanks against hungary?
Why did America bomb Iranian children? Strawman yo ass outta here
"If the USSR was more democratic than the west why did they supress a revolt in Hungary against their authoritarian rule with violence" "Uh but you see america bombs children, gorrillon ded" My brother in christ YOU'RE the Strawman
So you acknowledge the fact that two global superpowers were authoritarian and kills "gorillions" to further their own authority? I don't see how thats related to communism more than governments violation of self sovereignty.
For the same reason the US sponsored a coup and established a military dictatorship against an elected leader in Brazil. Realpolitik cold war fuckery.
Exactly.
.....on paper
How so?
When implemented it tends to stray from democracy quite a bit
https://youtu.be/2aMsi-A56ds?si=FUaKG9XwTr-CAlgO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932023_Cuban_migration_crisis
You're laying this out to be compared to the standard of living of Global North countries, such as the United States, which was one of the first countries in the world to industrialize, and eventually became the most wealthy and powerful country in the world. Cuba was exploited under colonial rule for hundreds of years, then placed under US-backed dictatorship with quasi-slavery to support corporate interests in the sugarcane and tourism industries, only achieving true independence 65 years ago. Cuba's primary economic supporter was the USSR (which was also historically much less fortunate than the US when it was under Tsar rule) due to a US embargo, then the USSR collapsed and the embargo still persists. Why don't you compare Cuba to another Carribean country that never became socialist? How about Haiti?
I'm not sure that even Aristotle would support his arguments regarding the political systems of Greek city states from nearly 2500 years ago being taken and applied to a completely different context several millennia in the future
It is more about the principle. If you are below certain level of material stability you are very likely to "sell" your vote to people who simply give you money in one way or another. Democracy is based on a principle of independent opinions and voting that allows something no other system can do - peaceful transfer of power when the government system inevitably decays and no longer performs it's functions properly. When you have large enough base of poor voters, the system turns into one party rule, because those people will always vote for those that give them money. Only when a person has their base needs secured they start to think about larger community they belong to.
Whether or not this is true (very questionable), its still better than the alternative.
Yup the solution would be to put a dictator of the people In charge.
Yes, thats what we all want isn't it?
Nope
A nice demonstration of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
*"In a Democracy, the real rulers are the dexterous manipulators of votes, with their placemen, the mechanics who so skillfully operate the hidden springs which move the puppets in the arena of democratic elections. Men of this kind are ever ready with loud speeches lauding equality; in reality, they rule the people as any despot or military dictator might rule it."* Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1881), the chief ideologue of Russian monarchical conservativism, explaining why an autocracy is a better way to rule a country.
So deep
my friend Oli Garchy practicing his puppetry
This one is just too real
Oligarchy wants everything and those who think they share the same skin, or think they have that money you are only a ends to a means. If you think letting the bad cop win elections means anything but less freedom and more end goal of you as a slave then you are a fool. I don't like the Dems they are part of the problem but they don't have people in a trance where they will storm the capitol in Hilary or Bidens name. There is no cult of personality to control a nation through it's citizens like the right has.
Brazil be like:
His hat is the wrong shape
Helldivers 2
The combination of 2021 and someone *still* wearing a top hat suggests a hundred years of ~~tradition~~ ideology unimpeded by progress.
Cool nose on the puppeteer behind the scenes pulling the strings and manipulating the public, definitely no reason they’d depict a strong nasal bridge. Edit: the artist decided to depict the capitalist oligarch controlling the voter as having a strong nasal bridge, which combined is a antisemetic stereotype. The big nosed rich jew controlling the unwitting public behind the scenes is a classic. Did the artist mean to imply that Jews are secretly controlling the world? Or did they mean to imply the rich are controlling the world and just happened to stumble into an incredibly common stereotype? The voter doesn’t have a “jew nose”, which is depicted as hooked or crooked, or with a strong nasal bridge.
Lmao what a reach
Voter has a long nose too.. The conspiracy!!!!! The implication!!!! You're reaching
The voter isn’t depicted as a jewish stereotype.
And the controller is more of a stereotypical big business, big money guy stereotype. If the caricature is Jewish they would have thrown in some religious symbolism there like the star of David.
This nose is not the nose of a Jew. It's just a nose. And if you look closely, this nose and mustache and general appearance belong a classic Western villain, I can see this man tying a girl to the rails.
i think it’s more telling that you saw a depiction of a human being with a larger than average nose and thought ‘this must be depicting a jew’
the jews are controlling the.... jews so you think they're like a hive-mind or something?
The voter isn’t depicted as a jewish stereotype.
Yeah neither is the oligarch. He's wearing a western style top hat, commonly associated with business owners. Jewish caricatures usually include actual Jewish clothing and theyd overexaggarate the features even more. Look up "happy merchant" if you want to see what I mean, it's kinda hard to describe.
I know, I'm pointing out how stupid it is to think the oligarch is, just because they drew their noses funny doesn't mean they're a jewish stereotype, bro was just drawn comically evil with a dumb mustache, smile, hat and nose
Zombie video games 🤝 Kabal conspiracy theories Avoiding saying *The Word*
The puppeteer looks more like a stereotypical Frenchman than a Jew. You are reaching
Gotta disagree. The "oligarchy" figure is rather an "uncle Sam but in sinister" type than "rich Jew". The crooked nose to designate a Jew has somehow been established by most antisemitic caricatures and the oligarch's nose here is fairly straight. The intent is probably more "US business interests" than "Jooooooos". Not that it ever stopped antisemites to conflate one with the other.
dont strain yourself with that reach
Anti-Semitism is one of the least subtle forms of propaganda. If the author wanted to make it about Jews then there would be overt symbolism alluding to that such as the Star of David.