Those wondering why using terms like “marionette” when talking about Jews was not a clever or sensible
thing to do, following my adverse
comment on the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his superannuated
sleazebag sketchwriter Simon Carr’s abusive characterisation of Mil The Younger
the other day, are in luck: The Great Guido himself has told us why this is A
Very Bad Thing.
1930s anti-Semitism using a Marionette caricature
As the Holocaust
Chronicle shows, during the 1930s there were a number of portrayals of Jews
as “puppet masters”, with those they
thus controlled therefore mere marionettes.
This was also confirmed by the Fawkes rabble when they launched
an attack on Guardian cartoonist
Steve Bell, although Bell had deliberately used glove puppets and not
marionettes.
Bell’s suggestion that Israeli PM Binyamin Netenyahu was
manipulating William ‘Ague and supposed Middle East envoy Tone was milked
heavily by The Great Guido, to the extent of Staines ordering
up a crude Hitler characterisation from his resident and not very talented
cartoonist. The message was clear: the Fawkes folks were hot on any suggestion
of “Jews as puppet masters”.
Now look at Carr’s
“sketch” from Wednesday, which
asserts that Ed Miliband “dances at the
despatch box like a spastic
marionette”, following that with talking of his “convulsive string master
taking another swig of the meths”. Quite apart from the barrel-scraping
abuse of “spastic”, there is a clear
instance of anti-Semitism – from a blog that likes to pretend it is hot on
anti-Semitism.
And, on top of the rank hypocrisy, Staines will have known
full well that Carr had a tendency to this kind of behaviour. Take
this sketch from March 2011: “Over
here we have the tall, well-dressed captain of the Upper Blues, popular with
the grown-ups, easy way about him with the younger boys. And over there, that
specimen is the head of the Lower Reds with the ears, teeth, and peculiar mouth”.
Ready? Here it comes: “Not
exactly swarthy, but not what you'd
call properly English either. Something rum about him”. And what, Simon,
would you have meant by that? Something
Middle Eastern, perhaps? As in “Disney
could use him as a model for a villainous vizier in the Arabian Nights. Do you
get him up in the morning by rubbing his lamp?” Swarthy. Not properly
English. Rum. Perhaps Middle Eastern.
Then Carr introduces his “marionette” jibe, and we know exactly how “swarthy”, “not properly
English”, and “rum” he means. How
very far-right 1930s. How very nod-and-wink. How very driving-it-round-the-houses-to-avoid-a-direct-Jewish-reference.
And how blatant does the combination of anti-Semitism and hypocrisy have to be
to give off such a stench that someone calls a halt to it?
Staines and his pals have revealed their true colours. They’re totally out of order.
7 comments:
makes sense now
thx for the explanation
Best regards,
Spastic; Relating to or affected by muscle spasm.
The offensive way of interpreting the word fits your narrative better though and also says a lot about the kind of person you are to propagate it in such way.
@1
The shonky grammar is such a give-away, isn't it?
The word "Spastic" is loaded. Careful selection of one single definition of that word to suit the purpose of someone who doesn't have the bottle to identify themselves does not change that.
You've chosen the definition to suit your purpose. It's only loaded if you are looking for it to be loaded. You've simply chosen the side of the homonym that makes the person you are attacking look bad, when in reality Tim, it makes you look petty.
Don't let me pointing about your poor supposition, foil your plans to smear someone though. Tim, I mean that in the sense of preventing something from succeeding and not covering your plans in a thin sheet of flexible metal. I know you're prone to seeing things from your skewed point of view.
@4
Shonky grammar shonkily covered up is equally obvious.
The word "Spastic" is loaded. That is loaded, *period*.
So are you 100% certain that he is making fun of the disabled?
@anon
"In the 1980s, the term spastic became a general insult, partially because of the Blue Peter programmes following the life story of Joey Deacon in an attempt to show disability in a positive light during the International Year of Disabled Persons. Consequently, the society changed to its current name on 26 March 1994, following a two-year consultation with disabled people and their families" (from Wiki)
Why The Spastics Society changed its name to Scope.
Hope this helps.
Post a Comment