Michael McEvil launches new organisation

by Image Maker Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:14

.

I'm voting YES

I'm voting YES

I'm voting YES

We're voting YES

by Rory Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:37

Ok so I understand you're sentiment (hard not to!) but this is the type of shallow contribution that leaves the left, the message and indeed indymedia without the necessary credibility.

Surely standards can be better than this muck?

by Peremy Jaxman Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:19

The top article is okay , it reports on a real event in a pointed and satirical way, and if you read the newpaper reports of the meeting, it doesn't actually stray too far from the truth.

It's just reporting it using overstatement and a kind of wry humour that borders on being offensive, but actually gets in a few truths. The corporate media really are reporting on evermore ludicrous groups of this or that "for Lisbon", or even more pointedly "for Europe" and shying away from covering the true issues of the referendum. One can imagine a report of "Pet owners for Lisbon" or "DIY Enthusiasts for Europe" any day now. It's not too far fetched to imagine something like the one in the article, and it wouldn't be surprising to see something like this in the Phoenix or Private Eye.

As regards the images which have been added, well, Godwin's law applies - referring to Hitler or the Nazis in a discussion about anything except Hitler and the Nazis means you have lost the argument.

The crimes of Hitler are too great, the destruction of humanity during the Third Reich period plumbed such a depth, that comparing them to any contemporary dispute trivialises them and marks out the accuser as a fool (or a Tarantino fan, which is the same). As the Economist magazine has noted "a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument.".

by Image Maker - Tarantino's School of Schlock Tue Sep 22, 2009 15:20

If you look at the series of images, submitted purposefully in that order, it suggests that Hitler would ask us to vote yes if he were around (I believe this to be true); it suggests that Mussolini would ask us to vote yes if he were around (I believe this to be true); and it suggests that Stalin would ask us to vote yes if he were around (I believe this to be true, also). It also makes the claim that these "leaders" think of us as "bastards" (read "difficult to deal with people").

Next I use a different phrase to suggest that Ahern and his friend are "bastards" (read "difficult to deal with people"), thus subverting the previous images, and that, if Ahern wants a yes, perhaps that's a good enough reason to vote no.

by Historian Tue Sep 22, 2009 15:47

93 per cent under Hitler, 89 per cent under Mussolini, 98 per cent under Stalin ( approximately )

by Historian Tue Sep 22, 2009 15:59

Hitler had the Churches martialled on his side ( like Cowan ) ,
Mussoline always had the Vatican intellectuals to contend with,
Stalin had no Churches to worry about at all .

by John Thu Sep 24, 2009 18:04

Pureile images - surely the standard of debate on this should be a bit higher?!

by Mike - Judean Popular Peoples Front Fri Sep 25, 2009 09:33

"the man who is credited with destroying the Progressive Democrat Party"

Whats so evil about that ?

by Image Viewer Sat Sep 26, 2009 00:20

Excellent images!! Nice to see some Humor in effect!

The use of Hitler is totally appropriate seeing as his political trajectory was the unification of Europe (albeit under Nazi rule).

The whole idea of Europe was to prevent another war between European nations &/or the rise of fascism. In this sense its quite ironic seeing far right parties blossom in European elections.

Its true that Hitler's (n Stalin n il duce's) Tyrannies were unique and awful, what about the US/UK/EU tyranny that is currently reigning??And Global capitalism in general??