These images are merely thumbnails...don't forget to CLICK 'em to see things for what they really are!

Thursday, November 10, 2011

THE FORGOTTEN MAN

5 comments:

  1. This is such a grotesque distortion of reality…. Obama has trampled the Constitution and not George W. Bush? And the Democratic presidents (FDR included!) are huddled with the ‘villains’ while the Republicans flock around the common man? Really? FDR did more for the common man than any other president in American history, and he was a Democrat, folks…. And Reagan is there beside Lincoln? Reagan raped and pillaged the country, while Lincoln worked to free it. McNaughton is obviously as gifted a painted as he is as muddled a thinker….. Monstrous stupidity!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You have eyes that see, Bob. Remove all personally held ideas concerning political leanings, look from above and you'll see pure propaganda, in this case, right-wing political propaganda. Romanticizing past Presidents and grouping them in a fantasy setting to suit his own political views, the artist has sought to express himself and influence others. Undoubtedly his expression is true to his own beliefs as he understands, yet the result is a staged creative, yet delusional, invention designed to elevate certain figures while denegrating others, pursuant to the artist's own political agenda. The resulting imagery is therefore not reflecting historical truth, but a contrived apparition, a wishful hallucination. Pure propaganda. Bravo.

    For more on propaganda and how we are bombarded constantly, see my previous post here...
    http://theblogattheendoftime.blogspot.com/2011/03/propaganda-and-you-part-2-power-and.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob is doing alright there in his critique except that he runs completely off the rails when he insists “FDR did more for the common man than any other president in American history”.

    Lots of national leaders have trampled on the laws of their lands — including constitutions — when doing things for the common man, or when trying to do things for the common man, or when pretending to do things for the common man.

    The worst abuses of the Constitution by the Administration of GW Bush were founded upon policies effected by FDR and court decisions reached at his behest (for example, Ex parte Quirin).

    As to what FDR did as he rolled over the Constitution:

    For its first five years. FDR's “New Deal” was essentially an expansion of the policies effected under Herbert Hoover.

    Although Hoover would praise individualism-and-all-that, he was a technocrat, not a believer in free markets. He subscribed to a theory that the Great Depression was primarily a result of ferocious competition destroying profits, and to a notion that the way to restore prosperity was to prevent prices from dropping by cartelizing industry and labor and by other regulations. That didn't work.

    Roosevelt originally campaigned as if he were more in favor of individualism-and-all-that than was Hoover, but he increased the intensity of this programme of cartelization, and implemented things at a Federal level that Hoover said should be effected at the level of the constituent states.

    It didn't work any better under Roosevelt than it had under Hoover, so in 1938 Roosevelt did a 180° on the cartelization of industry, and effected an industrial policy that said that, when a firm charged more than its ostensible competitors, this proved that it had monopoly power and was abusing it; that, when a firm charged less than a competitor, this proved that it was trying to get monopoly power; and that, when a firm charged the same amount as a competitor, this proved that they were colluding. The point wasn't coherence; the point was to bash those whom the Administration had identified as the Bad Guys, to be blamed for the fact that the economy had not recovered.

    Needless to say, that policy didn't lift the economy out of the depression either. After war began. the Pentagon advised Roosevelt that if he didn't stop the insanity of his industrial policy, then the US would lose the war because its industrial production was suffering gravely.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Daniel,

    Thank you for the analysis. As is usually the case, I bow to your critique.

    ReplyDelete