Monday, September 15, 2014

"Anti-Semitism"? Zionists Whitewash Gaza Massacre

Demonstration against anti-Semitism in London.

It was on August 20, 2014, that Deborah E. Lipstadt wrote an editorial in the pages of the New York Times entitled, “Why Jews are Worried: Deborah E. Lipstadt on the Rising Anti-Semitism in Europe.”

Lipstadt compares the current wave of anti-Semitism in Europe with the situation there in the 1930s. She does not see parallels, but then says, “I wonder if I am too sanguine.” She mentions pro-Gaza demonstrators on Berlin’s Kurfuerstendamm, the grand boulevard, who chanted, “Jews, Jews, cowardly swine.” She also tells us that demonstrators in Dortmund and Frankfurt chanted, “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas!” Other anti-Semitic events in Europe are discussed.

Then she writes, “It would be simple to link all this outrage to events in Gaza.  But this [anti-Semitic] trend has been evident for a while.” What about Israel’s “trend”? Israel has attacked Gaza in 2002, 2006, 2008, 2008-9, 2012 and 2014. And Israel has brutally occupied Gaza and the West Bank since 1967.  That’s 47 years, the longest political occupation of land in history.

Pro-Gaza demonstration in Paris, France.
The editorial focuses on this “new” strain of anti-Semitism, which, for some unknown reason to Lipstadt, is primarily the work of European Muslims.  What is the reason for this “new” anti-Semitism? She writes that “…in the past century a distinct strain of Muslim anti-Semitism has emerged….it mixes Christian anti-Semitism - imported to the Middle East by European missionaries - and a more leftist, secular form of anti-Semitism.  It is evident in political cartoons, editorials, television shows and newspaper articles.”

It is interesting to note that Muslim anti-Semitism has emerged “…in the past century…” because that coincides with Zionist settlement in Arab Palestine.  Ahad Ha'am, who, after visiting Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles criticizing the aggressive behavior and political ethnocentrism of Zionist settlers. Ha'am, a leading Zionist, wrote that Zionists settlers:

...deal with the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamefully for no sufficient reason, and even boast about their actions. There is no one to stop the flood and put an end to this despicable and dangerous tendency.

Is it possible that there is a causal relationship between European Muslim anti-Semitism in 2014 and the death of between 2,000 and 2,143 Gazans (including 495-578 children), as well as the wounding of between 10,895 and 11,100 Gaza civilians - not to mention the destruction of electrical and water supply and housing stock and infrastructure - during Israel‘s ‘Operation Protective Edge’ in 2014?

Ignoring Israel’s vicious and brutal attack upon the people of Gaza, Lipstadt writes, “Seventy years after the Holocaust, many Jews in Europe no longer feel safe.” She closes her editorial with: “Jews are worrying.  It is time for those who value a free, democratic, open, multicultural society to do so, too. This is not another Holocaust, but it’s bad enough.”

The irony here is that the current strain of world-wide anti-Semitism was brought about by Israel’s bloody actions and that the “Jewish state” is anything but “a free, democratic, open, multicultural society.”

It seems that the above editorial provides a smokescreen.  If “anti-Semitism” is being reported as “news” everywhere, then how can anyone criticize Israel? Then the Jewish state will be able to continue to do what it wants vis-√†-vis Palestine, its “settlements” and war mongering against Iran.  And, of course, an imminent threat of another “Holocaust” should also silence Israel’s critics.

A report in the BBC News Magazine, published the same day as Lipstadt’s editorial, also discusses anti-Semitism. But this piece actually discusses a spike in anti-Semitic incidents that coincide with Israeli attacks upon Gaza.  In Britain the Jewish organization Community Security Trust (CST) monitors anti-Semitic incidents, including attacks on people or property, threats, anti-Semitic graffiti and online expressions of hatred towards Jews.

The CST said it received around 240 reports of anti-Semitic incidents in July, 2014; that’s five times the monthly average. The UK Association of Chief Police Officers has discussed a “significant rise” in anti-Semitism since the latest fighting began in Gaza in early July. The BBC report also says that “Looking at previous conflicts, such as the Israeli offensive in Gaza in 2008-2009, anti-Semitic incidents do seem to rise in their wake, before falling again.”
Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an American Zionist organization, took a poll earlier this year.  The results are actually quite laughable.  The poll surveyed people in 101 nations around the world and determined that a full 25% of the world’s population is anti-Semitic. Critics say that the ADL presented 11 leading statements about Jews, including “Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars” and “Jews have too much control over the United States government.” Those who answered “probably true” to six or more of the statements were classified as “anti-Semitic” by the ADL.

The reputable Pew Foundation 2014 Global Attitudes survey tells us that 10% of people in France have negative attitudes towards Jews, while the ADL “poll” says that 37% of French people are anti-Semitic. 

Yet again a smokescreen is being created.  This time the ADL wants everyone to think that a quarter of the world’s population hates Jews.  That “news” would take away criticism away from Israel, especially if a “second coming of the Holocaust” were in the works.

But of course in the United States issues such as these are up for debate and discussion.  In response to the above editorial by Lipstadt was a letter sent to the New York Times by Yale University Episcopal chaplain Bruce Shipman.  He wrote three sentences:

Deborah E. Lipstadt makes far too little of the relationship between Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza and growing anti-Semitism in Europe and beyond. The trend to which she alludes parallels the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank. As hope for a two-state solution fades and Palestinian casualties continue to mount, the best antidote to anti-Semitism would be for Israel’s patrons abroad to press the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for final-status resolution to the Palestinian question.

But unfortunately, Shipman lost his job at Yale over this letter.  Within hours of publication of the letter, Shipman says, people on and off campus began demanding his ouster. Two weeks later he felt compelled to resign.
Bruce Shipman, Yale U. pastor who lost his job over a letter on Israel.
Zionist apologists wrote scathing letters about Shipman.  One can almost see the foaming at the mouth of the authors of these letters.

Religion columnist and Yale lecturer Mark Oppenheimer wrote that Shipman’s approach “gives license to all sorts of stereotyping, racism, and prejudice. . . . why wouldn’t one write, ‘The best antidote to stop-and-frisk policing would be for black men everywhere to press other black men to stop shooting each other’? Why wouldn’t one write—perhaps after a Muslim was beaten up by white-supremacist thugs—’The best antidote to Islamophobia would be for radical Islam’s patrons abroad to press ISIS and Al Qaeda to just cut it out’?”

Chabad at Yale, a Jewish student group, issued this statement: “Reverend Bruce Shipman’s justification of anti-Semitism by blaming it on Israeli policies in the West Bank and Gaza is frankly quite disturbing. His argument attempts to justify racism and hate of innocent people, in Israel and around the world.”

David Bernstein wrote for the Washington Post, “Next on Rev. Shipman’s bucket list: blaming women who dress provocatively for rape, blaming blacks for racism because of high crime rates, and blaming gays for homophobia for being ‘flamboyant.'”

So much for free speech and debate.  It is obvious that on the topic of Israel, no debate is allowed.  No opinion but the politically correct one is allowed.  And if you veer from the acceptable view, you will be dubbed an “anti-Semite” or “self-hating Jew.”

COPYRIGHT (C) PROPAGANDA PRAVDA 2014. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Zionists Gone Wild: Lebensraum in Israel-Palestine

by Eric Brothers © 2014
Jewish "settlement" in Israel-occupied West Bank.
It was shortly after completing ‘Operation Protective Edge,’ a seven-week war against the Hamas-governed Gaza Strip, that Israel announced its taking nearly 1,000 acres of Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank in order to build a new Jewish city.

Operation Protective Edge was sparked by the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers who lived in the West Bank.  Israel’s response to the brutal act was a crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank.  At the time, however, there was no proof whatsoever that Hamas was involved in the killings. The land taken by Israel is in the region where the three teens were killed.

Israeli bombs hit Gaza 2014.
The end result of the war includes the following:
  • The death of between 2,000 and 2,143 Gazans (including 495-578 children)
  • The wounding of between 10,895 and 11,100 Gaza civilians.
  • The death of 66 Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers, 5 Israeli civilians and I Thai civilian.
  • The wounding of 450 IDF soldiers and 80 Israeli civilians.
  • The UN and human rights organizations say that 70-75% of Palestinian casualties were civilians. And six days after the carnage in Gaza was over Israel announced its latest land grab in the West Bank.

The Israeli land policy in the West Bank is tantamount to Lebensraum, a policy developed in Nazi Germany. 

Lebensraum (literally ‘living space’) was the Nazi policy of territorial expansionism as being a law of nature for people of superior races to displace people of inferior races. This was especially true if the people of the superior race were overpopulated in their existing territory. This seems to be the framework upon which Israel has been building settlements in the occupied West Bank, which is the remnant of Palestine with an Arab population.


Lebensraum in Israel: The white is Jewish land and the green is Palestinian.
The Lebensraum policy of Israel essentially assumes the ‘superiority’ of Jews over others, and gives them the right to displace Palestinians due to their ‘inferiority.’ Additionally, Israeli Lebensraum must be ethnically homogeneous to avoid intermixing with ‘inferior’ Arabs.

The controversial idea of Lebensraum in Israel was the theme of an editorial by Israeli writer Yossi Sarid in the pages of Haaretz.  In 2011, Sarid wrote, “Suddenly we are short of space here in Israel, which has become full to capacity and needs Lebensraum.  Every cultured person knows that this is a despicable German concept, banned from use because of the associations it brings up.  Still, people are starting to use it, if not outright then with a clear implication: We are short of land, we are short of air, let us breath in this country.”

Jewish "settler" in West Bank harasses Palestinian women.
Sarid’s belief in Jewish superiority over the Arabs is implied in his writing: “We were fortunate when we occupied the West Bank because had we not done so, where would we come to live? And who knows how high housing prices would have risen?”

Israeli acceptance of the need for Lebensraum is much more complex than a desire for affordable real estate.  Israel wants to be a Jewish state, not a democratic, tolerant state with a heterogeneous population. There are currently 550,000 Jewish “settlers” living in the occupied West Bank.  Given the opportunity, the majority of Israelis would take the entire West Bank and give it to “settlers.” But then what would happen to the Arabs living there now? They would continue to be persecuted and victimized and forced to leave their ancestral home and become part of the Palestinian Diaspora.


Jewish "settlers" in West Bank taunt Arab woman.
It was in 2010 that Carlo Strenger and Menachem Lorberbaum wrote that Israel had to choose between two European traditions: “the Enlightenment with its emphasis on universal individual rights and divisions of powers, or that of political romanticism with its emphasis on the connection between an entity called ‘the nation’ and land.”  Another way of expressing that is nationalism. The Lebensraum policy is part and parcel of both political romanticism and nationalism. Israel considers itself a Jewish state and obviously does not want its non-Jewish residents.


Jewish "settlers" take over Arab land in West Bank.
A recent example was reported in the Jerusalem Post.  Human Rights Watch published a report dated 9.9.14 that says Israel’s policies towards African asylum-seekers are coercing them to leave, even though they face dangers in their countries of origin, which is a breach of international law.

The report states that about 7,000 asylum-seekers, mostly from the Sudan, have left Israel in the past two years.  The Israeli government has mostly refused to process asylum-seekers claims for refuge status, and those it has reviewed have overwhelmingly been rejected.  The report says that Sudanese and Eritreans in Israel are given two choices: either live in fear of spending their lives locked up in detention camps in the desert, or risk detention and abuse in their homeland.
African migrants protest Israeli asylum policy in Tel Aviv.
Former interior minister Eli Yishai is quoted as saying in 2012, “Until I have the possibility of expelling them, I will lock them up in order to make their lives miserable.” Current Israeli interior minister Gideon Sa’ar said earlier this year that “the purpose of our policies is to encourage the illegals to leave.”

The report says that Sudanese and Eritreans in Israel are given two choices: either live in fear of spending their lives locked up in detention camps in the desert, or risk detention and abuse in their homeland. “International law is clear that when Israel threatens Eritreans and Sudanese with lifelong detention, they aren’t freely deciding to leave Israel and risk harm back home.

Intolerance for others, which is an important element of Lebensraum, began well over a hundred years ago for Zionists. According to historian Avi Shlaim, throughout its history up to the present day, Zionism “is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt towards the indigenous population.”

The evidence of this behavior goes back to 1891 when Ahad Ha'am, who, after visiting Palestine that year, published a series of articles criticizing the aggressive behavior and political ethnocentrism of Zionist settlers. Ha'am wrote that the Zionists "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly upon their boundaries, beat them shamefully without reason and even brag about it, and nobody stands to check this contemptible and dangerous tendency" and that they believed that "the only language that the Arabs understand is that of force."

The German roots of Zionism encompass much more than Lebensraum.  Unlike French nationalism, which developed from Enlightenment thought and considered all men equal, Zionism sprang from German idealism and romanticism with its emphasis on the “Volk” and organic connection with the Fatherland. Dr. Hans Kohn points out that Zionism defined Jewish identity, borrowing organicist, determinist terms such as “blood, destiny and organic folk community” from nationalist German thought to describe the Zionist definition of Jewish nationhood. Kohn writes that his Zionist friends felt that “a man of Jewish ancestry and cultural heritage could never be a true German, Italian, Frenchman or Dutchman.  He is bound to remain alien everywhere except in his own ‘ancestral’ soil.” This “biological determinism” runs counter to the spirit of the Enlightenment.
German-Jewish writer Hannah Arendt.
Dr. Hannah Arendt writes on the same theme in her essay, “Zionism Reconsidered.” She traces the “crazy isolationism” of the Zionists back to an “uncritical acceptance of German-inspired nationalism.” Arendt finds this ideal to be based on an irrational belief that the nation is “an eternal organic body, the product of inevitable growth or inherent qualities.” This view explains “peoples not in terms of political organizations but in terms of biological superhuman personalities.”

The Germanic “blood, soil and destiny” theme of Zionism is most clear when considering the allegedly unique, unbroken connection for 4,000 years between the Jewish people, aka the People of the Book, and the Land of the Bible. What makes it even more irrational is that Zionists are secular Jews who say that God promised them the land of the Bible. And any Jew (or non-Jew) - religious or atheist - who agrees with them helps justify seemingly endless wars, the persecution of Arabs and others, and constant breaking of international law - with no end in sight.

Other source:

Abdul Wahab Al-Massiri, The Racial Myths of Zionism.
COPYRIGHT (c) 2014 ERIC BROTHERS.  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.



Friday, July 4, 2014

Spider Baby: Lon Chaney, Jr.'s Creepy Cult Classic

by Eric Brothers (C) 2014
Bruno (Lon Chaney Jr.) comforts Virginia (Jill Banner, aka Spider Baby) in Spider Baby.

Merrye sisters: Elizabeth (Left, Beverly Washburn) and Virginia (Jill Banner).

Spider Baby was produced for $65,000

Shot in twelve days in 1964, Spider Baby was written and directed by Jack Hill. The budget was a paltry $65,000 and the investors/producers were Paul Monka and Gil Lasky, two real estate developers who wanted to get into the movie business. Unfortunately, the California real estate market crashed and Monka and Lasky found themselves in bankruptcy court which put Spider Baby in Hollywood limbo.

Jack Hill, writer and director of Spider Baby.

Movie had 3 titles and was in limbo for 4 years

Originally called Cannibal Orgy, the title was changed to Spider Baby, or the Maddest Story Ever Told (the original subtitle) by promoter David Hewitt, who acquired it in 1968 when it first became available. In 1968, he couldn’t put a black-and-white feature at the top of a double-bill, so it ran as a second feature to a color film. In 1970 he renamed it The Liver Eaters and made a hefty profit on the drive-in theater circuit.


The Merrye Syndrome: "savagery and cannibalism"

Spider Baby is about a rare disease called the ‘Merrye Syndrome,’ which is only found in the Merrye family. The infected regress to a “pre-infantile state of savagery and cannibalism.” The family chauffeur, Bruno (Lon Chaney Jr.), is the guardian and protector of the three Merrye children. Teenage Virginia (Jill Banner) believes herself to be a spider and enjoys eating insects and trapping and killing humans when possible. Her tattletale teenage sister Elizabeth (Beverly Washburn) wears pigtails and dresses like a little girl. Their older brother Ralph (Sig Haig) is the most severely affected by the Merrye Syndrome. His entrance is unforgettable--he crawls out of the limousine on all fours like a psychotic toddler-puppy as he is fussed over by his sisters.

Ralph (Sig Haig) is most severely affected by Merrye Syndrome.
A letter arrives saying that two distant Merrye relatives and their attorney and secretary are arriving to claim their rightful share of the Merrye estate. It is Bruno’s job to make things around the Merrye house seem as “normal” as possible under the situation.

Chaney was director’s choice to play Bruno

Jack Hill wanted Lon Chaney Jr. to play the role of the paternal chauffeur. The actor’s agent, however, was stalling on Chaney’s accepting the part as an attempt to get more money out of the production. Hill said, “we just didn’t have the budget for it, and luckily, that same agent also represented John Carradine.” So when Hill asked to have the script sent to Carradine, Chaney immediately took the part and the $2,500 salary that went along with it. Hill tells us that Chaney “loved the script…it gave him a chance to do comedy.” The actor also did not want to lose a part to his professional rival Carridine.

Virginia enjoys a snack during Spider Baby.
Alcoholic Chaney stayed sober for the 12-day shoot

Chaney--an alcoholic for many, many years--was famous in Hollywood for drinking on the set during the shooting of his films. Director Hill, however, insisted that Chaney not drink at all during the 12-day shoot. Hill reports that, “he made a truly heroic effort to stay on the wagon during the shoot, allowing himself only one glass of beer” each day.

Carol Ohmart in a racy scene in the film.

Critical acclaim for Chaney Jr. and Spider Baby

Nate Yapp writes in his review, "Chaney turns in the best performance of the latter half of his career. His Bruno gently exudes compassion and duty....It's the kind of role Chaney does best--the affable guy with a terrible burden." Writes Bryan Senn, "Spider Baby is...a film that remains completely unique, one that simply can't be pigeonholed but must be seen to be believed--and enjoyed."

"Bottom line, Spider Baby is a first-feature, low-budget, imaginatively creepy movie," writes Rick "Ojo" McGrath, "that benefits from a generally offbeat cast and an obviously keen director."

Sources:

Svehla, Gary J. and Susan (Ed.) Lon Chaney, Jr. Midnight Marquee Actors Series. Midnight Marquee Press, Inc. 1997.
Smith, Don G. Lon Chaney, Jr. Horror Film Star, 1906-1973. McFarland & Company, Jefferson, NC and London 1996.
Yapp, Nate. "Spider Baby (1968). Review." 10-05-05. Classic-Horror.com
McGrath, Rick. "Spider Baby, or the Maddest Story Ever Told. Review." 2000.



Thursday, June 26, 2014

Gay Propaganda? Horror Classic 'Bride of Frankenstein'

by Eric Brothers (C) 2014
Ernest Thesiger (Dr. Pretorius): “one of the most outrageous queens of 30s movie queendom.”

Bride of Frankenstein is indeed a horror film, but did director James Whale, writes Gary Morris in his essay, "Sexual Subversion: The Bride of Frankenstein," discover “a strategy for creating a commercially viable product that would also—in subtext—subvert existing mores”?  It could be argued—quite strongly—that this film "full of fantasy and monster-outsiders" from 1935 was "the perfect medium for indulging the most radical aspects of a gay sensibility.”

James Whale (with cigar) directing Karloff on set of "Bride."
The reviewer of the film in Time magazine seems to have gotten the message back then. Published on April 29, 1935, he writes, “Director James Whale [has] given it the macabre intensity proper to all good horror pieces, but [has] substituted a queer kind of mechanistic pathos for the sheer evil that was [the] Frankenstein [monster].”

Elsa Lanchester is "mannish" while Shelly and Byron “look, talk, and act with an outlandish, caricatured femininity…”

1935 review says Elsa Lanchester is "mannish in dress"

The review, for some reason, discusses actor Charles Laughton (who was not in the film), the husband of actress Elsa Lanchester, who does appear in the film, as well as Miss Lanchester herself, “Although he [Laughton] is known for his plump effeminacy, she [Lanchester] is mannish in dress.” Why in the world would that be written in a film review of 1935?

Ernest Thesiger in full drag in the 1920s or 1930s.

Ernest Thesiger: "fruity" and "perverse"

Director Whale was gay and made no effort to hide that fact. Morris points out that major characters are played by gay or bi-sexual men, including Ernest Thesiger (Dr. Pretorius), who Morris writes was, “one of the most outrageous queens of 30s movie queendom.” Brunas, Brunas and Weaver write that Thesiger’s performance is “fruity” and “pompous and slyly perverse.” Known to be a “skilled” female impersonator, the actor once asked playwright W. Somerset Maugham why he never wrote any parts for him. Maugham claimed that he did, and quipped, “but Gladys Cooper always plays them.”

Percy Shelly and Lord Byron have "outlandish, caricatured femininity"

The opening prologue of the film, when author Mary Shelly chats in a “plush” parlor with husband Percy Shelly and friend Lord Byron, writes Morris, which is “allegedly irrelevant to the narrative, actually goes far in establishing Whale’s tone of homosexual revenge...” Both men wear heavy make-up and “look, talk, and act with an outlandish, caricatured femininity…”

Valerie Hobson (Elizabeth) and Colin Clive (Henry Frankenstein) in "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935).

Henry and Elizabeth have "straight" relationship

The one “straight” relationship in Bride of Frankenstein is that of Henry Frankenstein and his fianc√©, Elizabeth. A major conflict of the film is that the experiments leading to the resurrecting of the dead are a threat to the “normal” relationship between them. Elizabeth says to Henry, “The figure of death seems to be reaching for you, as if it would take you away from me.” Morris writes that “death” can be interpreted metaphorically as “a heterosexist vision of homosexuality” that is a “barrenness, the inability--or worse, indifference--to producing children.”

Pretorious (standing) and Henry Frankenstein.

Two "queens": "mincing" Pretorius and "overwrought" Henry

When Dr. Pretorius (Thesiger) arrives, the maid Minnie (Una O'Connor) says in an aside, "He's a queer fellow!" Morris writes that Whale shows us two "queens": the "mincing" Pretorius and the "emotionally overwrought" Henry, "whose attempts to marry and enter into conjugal hetero bliss with his wife are endlessly thwarted..." Pretorius mocks "conventional" love throughout and even mocks the bible--in a 1935 film!--when he says, "Sometimes I wonder if we'd all be better off being devils, and no nonsense about angels." 

Karloff as the Monster.
Morris writes that the monster (Boris Karloff) is "society's paranoid vision" of the result of a "homosexual tryst." Pretorius is the monster's involved, but "manipulative" parent figure, writes Morris, "the embodiment of society's fears of the vast damage the homosexual, nefariously moving into the role of domestic caretaker, teacher of social values and sex-role attributes, is capable of doing."

"Domestic bliss" between monster and blind hermit

True "domestic bliss" in Bride of Frankenstein is found only in the scenes with the monster and the blind hermit. Morris sees these scenes as quite powerful, and resonating on different levels: satire of the nuclear family; full of interchanges resembling a "typical" family, "and as a bitter view of society's ultimate responsibility for seeing intelligent, sensitive people—read: homosexuals—as cripples and monsters."

The blind man is open and loving: "I have prayed many times for God to send me a friend...I shall look after you, and you will comfort me." This is a marriage, says Morris: the monster wants to learn and his blind friend wants to teach, and "both are driven by a need for acceptance and love."

"Domestic bliss": blind hermit and monster enjoy a meal.
Whale reminds viewers, however, that society does not approve when the monster—the outsider— "is driven from his scene of domestic pleasure by two gun-toting rubes [one the un-billed John Carradine] who happen upon this startling alliance and quickly, instinctively, proceed to destroy it."

"Birth" of the Bride of Frankenstein

The exciting climax of the movie—the creation of the bride—is well worth the wait and the price of admission. Lights flash, faces are locked in serious concentration—with Pretorius looking like a Mephistophelian drag queen. The Time review says, "they impregnate her [the bride] with crackling life from a lightning bolt brought down on gigantic kite-cables." We are bombarded "with dazzling forced perspectives, tilted angles, and wide angle close-ups of the crazed participants."

Pretorius and Henry "give birth" to the Bride of Frankenstein.
Morris's brilliant and scathing essay also builds to a climax that is worth the wait. "They"-— Frankenstein and Dr. Pretorius—"work together to 'give birth' to a woman," writes Morris, "...two homosexuals replacing the heterosexual modes of male and female parenting."

In closing Morris writes, "Whale's magical rendering of this scene, one of the greatest in Hollywood history, validates the power [of Whale's] tremendous abilities as a gay artist...The intense dynamism of this scene serves as Whale's reminder to the audience...of the majesty and power of the homosexual creator."

Sources:

COPYRIGHT (C) ERIC BROTHERS 2014.








Monday, June 23, 2014

Strange Zionist Propaganda: Islam Blamed for Holocaust

by Eric Brothers (C) 2014.
Zionist Pamela Geller, who leads the AFDI.


Beginning in late May, strap-hangers in Washington, D.C., were greeted by the image of Adolf Hitler during their morning commutes, thanks to a controversial new propaganda campaign that plastered a photograph of the Nazi leader onto the sides of 20 buses in our nation's capital.  The anti-Muslim advertising was created by Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), which is also known as the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), an American far right-wing,anti-Islamist, anti-Muslim, and Islamophobic organization led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists SIOA as a hate group.




The 15-foot posters present Hitler talking to Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who teamed up with the Nazis in an attempt to try to drive Jews out of Palestine. According to the Washington Post, Al-Hesseini once supported Hitler’s policy of exterminating the Jews.  The propaganda was created in response to the below ad by The American Muslims for Palestine that appeared on the side of Washington DC buses in March and April of 2014.


The ad reads, “We’re sweating April 15 so Israelies don’t have to! Stop US aid to Israel’s occupation!” the ads read. Geller called the pro-Palestine group's campaign “Jew-hating.” The American Muslims for Palestine spokesperson said that her organization doesn’t usually react to Pamela Geller. “This is the kind of thing she does, countering political speech with racist, Islamophobic speech,” Kristin Szremski said.

The above American Muslims for Palestine ad refers to the fact that the U.S. gives $3 billion in aid to Israel every year.  This money is provided by U.S. taxpayers.  A careful look at the image and copy does not reveal any "anti-Semitism" to this author.  Calling the ad "anti-Semitic" is actually quite laughable.  It is common, of course, for any criticism of Israel to be greeted with cries of "Jew-hating" or "anti-Semitism."  And, of course, the Holocaust is usually brought up to show that any criticism of Israel will bring about another Holocaust.  It is meant to silence all critics of Israel and negate the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. But it is just a pathetic Zionist version of "crying wolf."

Propaganda by AFDI in 2012.
It was two years ago that the above propaganda was presented in New York City subways and other mass transit around the country by Geller and the AFDI.  According the Gawker blog, "We told you...that Pamela Geller's wildly offensive pro-Israel ads, which paraphrase Ayn Rand to call Muslims 'savages,' were set to make their debut in New York City's subways sometime in September.  Well, ten of those ads went up today [9/25/12], and it was only a few short minutes before several of them were vandalized by quick-on-their feet street artists out to remind everyone that, yes, it is racist to tacitly suggest that all Palestinians are monsters while Israelis are 'civilized men.' Good work, New York."

COPYRIGHT (C) 2014 ERIC BROTHERS.

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Censorship of Palestinian Children's Artwork

by Eric Brothers (C) 2014
Artwork created by Palestinian child in Gaza.
This blog post features images that were part of an art exhibition by Palestinian children depicting the Israeli assault during 2008-09 on the Gaza strip.  During the Israeli attack approximately 1,400 people were killed, including several hundred children; Gazan children have used art therapy to process their trauma and grief. This exhibit was the result of art therapy sessions for these emotionally-battered children.

These drawings were supposed to be shown at the Museum of Children's Art in Oakland (MOCHA), entitled 'A Child's View from Gaza' which was cancelled on September 8, 2011.  The drawings in the exhibit were created by children ranging in age from about 9 to 11 and included bombs dropping, tanks and people getting shot.  "They are pictures of what these children experienced. It's their experience," said Barbara Lubin, executive director of the Middle East Children's Alliance (MECA), which was organizing the exhibition.



The Berkeley-based Middle East Children’s Alliance stated in a news release that "there was a concerted effort by pro-Israel organizations in the San Francisco Bay Area to pressure the museum to reverse its decision to display Palestinian children’s art."

Lubin was notified by museum officials on on September 8, 2011, that they were cancelling what had become a controversial exhibit that was putting the children's museum in the midst of the long-standing conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. Museum board member Randolph Bell said that it had become a distraction to the main objective of bringing arts education to all children.  "The pressure was ... well, we were getting calls from constituents that were concerned about the situation," Bell said. "We don't have any political stake in this thing. It just became apparent that we needed to rethink this."  In other words, the museum caved in to political and economic pressure and censored the exhibition.

The group's executive director, Barbara Lubin, described the move as censorship. “We understand all too well the enormous pressure that the museum came under. But who wins? The museum doesn’t win. MECA doesn’t win. The people of the Bay Area don’t win. Our basic constitutional freedom of speech loses. The children in Gaza lose."

Museum officials said the exhibit space is in a multi-use area that brings in children as young as 2. While art should "provoke people and generate emotion," the museum couldn't handle the divisive issue in that space, said Hilmon Sorey, the board's chairman.  "Our aim, as with all exhibits, is to foster insight and understanding," Sorey said in a statement. "However, upon further review and engagement with the community, it became clear that this exhibit was not appropriate for an open gallery accessible by all children."

However, In 2007, the museum exhibited paintings made during World War II by American children in the Kaiser shipyard child care center. Their work featured images of Hitler, burning airplanes, sinking battleships, empty houses and a sad girl next to a Star of David.  Earlier, in 2004, art by Iraqi children hung on the museum's walls. The pictures, made shortly after the U.S. invasion, included a drawing of a helicopter shooting into a field of flowers.


It was on Saturday, September 24, 2011, the day that 'A Child's View from Gaza,' was originally scheduled to open at MOCHA, that over 500 people — led by a marching band — stood outside the museum carrying the childrens’ precious artwork in their hands, celebrating both the young Gaza artists and their freedom of expression.   MECA’s executive director, Barbara Lubin, announced that the exhibit had found a new venue — a bigger, better gallery space around the corner from MOCHA. Some days earlier, Lubin said that MOCHA board members had advised her that they would reconsider putting the show back on at their museum, but it would need "modifications."

In response, MECA stated that: "We at MECA made a commitment to the children of Gaza to share their experiences and perspectives, and consider any modifications to the art exhibit as a form of censorship. Children everywhere deserve to be heard, but we have an even greater responsibility to listen to the stories of children under siege and who survived Israel’s brutal military assault in 2008-2009."


It is clear that supporters of Israel did not want the truth about the brutal attack upon Gaza in 2008-09 known to the American public.  Americans enjoy freedom of speech.  Why is it that Israeli supporters abuse the freedoms that we cherish here in the United States?  Where is the loyalty of American Zionists who censor information that places Israel in a poor light, but uses every media outlet available when anyone attempts to publicly criticize Israel, cynically invoking the same rights that they are actively crushing?

COPYRIGHT (C) 2014 ERIC BROTHERS.





Sunday, June 15, 2014

Zionism: Nationalism, Colonialism, Racism

By Eric Brothers (C) 2014


"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, President of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, published in Yediot Aahronoth, 14 July 1972.

Zionism is the nationalist movement of Jews and Jewish culture which resulted in the creation of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined in the Old Testament of the Bible as the Land of Israel, which is, in the words of its leadership, a Jewish state.  Therefore, non-Jews in the Jewish state of Israel, who currently number 20 percent of the population, have less rights and privileges than do Jews. Israel has been heralded in propaganda as the only "democracy" in the Middle East.  However, it could be considered a "limited democracy" at best.  The movement reached its stated goal in 1948 when the State of Israel was approved by the United Nations. But Israel is a nation that has been beset by endless wars, while Zionism is a movement that has been fraught with controversy from its inception to the present day.

Zionism: Jewish nationalism

Zionism is a nationalist movement that in its beginning did not really care where that Jewish nation would be.  They could return to Palestine, the historical home of the Jews, or settle in Argentina or Uganda, where Jewish states were seriously proposed. This was because Theodor Herzl and other early political Zionists saw the creation of a Jewish national homeland as the primary goal.  To them it did not matter where the “Jewish State” existed--as long as it did indeed exist.  Also the use of Hebrew as an official language was not originally desired.  Herzl picked his own German as the official language of the Jewish state.  His Jewish homeland was firmly based upon the Germanic culture of his upbringing.  It fact, Herzl was reluctant to employ Hebrew as the vernacular of the Jewish state.

Theodor Herzl.


In the late 19th century there were three major strains of Zionism. The political Zionists, as noted above, led by Theodor Herzl, saw the formation of a Jewish state as the main goal, no matter where it may be.  The cultural Zionists, led by Ahad Ha’am, saw the creation of a movement that emphasized the national cultural revival of the Jewish people at its core. According to Ha’am, the Jewish state would be a spiritual haven for the Jews and should be created in the Jewish homeland of Palestine.  The third faction was Orthodox Jews, who were unique among Zionists as claiming Palestine for the Jews solely on religious, rather than political or historical grounds.  These religious Zionists believe that God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants and that Zionism was a sign that deliverance was at hand.  In their eyes, Palestine belonged to the Jewish people and establishing the Jewish homeland in Palestine was the fulfillment of that right.

If Palestine was an empty land, bereft of people, then there would be no problem.  However, the Zionist propaganda line, "A land without people for a people without a land," which is still used in Israeli text books to this very day, was a bold-faced lie.

Palestinians fleeing during the Nakba.


In 1948, when the State of Israel was formed by the United Nations, there was a Palestinian exodus, known in Arabic as the Nakba ("disaster," "catastrophe," or "cataclysm").  It occurred when approximately 711,000 to 726,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.  The term Nakba also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949, and is synonymous in that sense with what is known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut).

Around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (50 percent of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes during the Nakba. It was the Deir Yassin massacre that frightened Palestinians and motivated many to flee their homes. The massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from the Irgun Zevai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist paramilitary groups attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian Arab village of roughly 600 people.  Around 107 villagers were killed during and after the battle for the village, including women and children—some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes.

Factors involved in the Nakba include Jewish military advances, attacks against Arab villages and fears of another massacre after Deir Yassin; expulsion orders by Zionist authorities; the voluntary self-removal of the wealthier classes; the collapse in Palestinian leadership; and an unwillingness to live under Jewish control. Later, a series of laws passed by the first Israeli government prevented Palestinians from returning to their homes, or claiming their property. They and many of their descendants remain refugees.  Later in the war, Palestinians were expelled as part of Plan Dalet. The expulsion of the Palestinians has since been described by some historians as ethnic cleansing.

Jewish Nationalism means War

“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”— David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

It was as early as 1922 that Ben-Gurion, the leader of the Histadrut ("General Federation of Laborers in the Land of Israel") said:

[...] The possibility of conquering the land is liable to slip out of our grasp. Our central problem is immigration ... and not adapting our lives to this or that doctrine. [...] We are conquerors of the land facing an iron wall, and we have to break through it. [...] How can we run our Zionist movement in such a way that [... we] will be able to carry out the conquest of the land by the Jewish worker, and which will find the resources to organise the massive immigration and settlement of workers through their own capabilities? The creation of a new Zionist movement, a Zionist movement of workers, is the first prerequisite for the fulfillment of Zionism. [...] Without [such] a new Zionist movement that is entirely at our disposal, there is no future or hope for our activities.


Jewish colonization in West Bank city of Ramallah (2012).
Zionism: Jewish Colonization

In the Occupied Territories of  East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank, which are supposed to be Palestinian lands, Jews have rights and privileges, while the indigenous (West Bank) and displaced (Gaza) Palestinians are persecuted, terrorized, displaced from homes, and killed.  In essence, the Occupied Territories are colonies of an imperialist Israel with over 500,000 "settlers," i.e., colonists, living in the West Bank.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky, (1880 –1940) was a Zionist leader, author, orator, soldier, and founder of the Jewish Legion in World War I.  In his book, Instead of Excessive Apology (1911), he wrote: 

We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization...must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy. 

Jabotinsky also wrote of Palestine, "If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will maintain the garrison on your behalf. ... Zionism is a colonizing adventure and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces."  The State of Israel has indeed found "benefactor[s] who will maintain the garrison": firstly the British and currently the pliant and weak-willed United States, who often put Israeli political and military needs ahead of its own. 

The late Ariel Sharon, Israeli politician and general. 

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
Zionism: Jewish Racism

According to historian Avi Shlaim, throughout its history up to present day, Zionism "is replete with manifestations of deep hostility and contempt towards the indigenous population."  The evidence of this behavior goes back to 1891 when Ahad Ha'am, who, after visiting Palestine in that year, published a series of articles criticizing the aggressive behavior and political ethnocentrism of Zionist settlers. Ha'am, a leading Zionist, wrote that Zionists settlers:

...deal with the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamefully for no sufficient reason, and even boast about their actions. There is no one to stop the flood and put an end to this despicable and dangerous tendency.

Ahad Ha'am also wrote some prophetic words for the future state of Israel: "[But if things continue the way they are] ...the society that I envision, if my dream is not just a false notion, this society will have to begin to create itself in the midst of fuss, noisiness and panic, and will have to face the prospects of both internal and external war..."

Early Zionist and first Israeli PM David Ben-Gurion.


By the turn of the 20th century, Ben-Gurion advocated exclusively Jewish labor in Jewish businesses. He explained why a Jewish worker should earn a higher salary because: "[he was] more intelligent and diligent" than the Arab.

The treatment of Arabs during the boycott inspired Ahad Ha'am to write, "Apart from the political danger, I can't put up with the idea that our [Zionist] brethren are morally capable of behaving in such a way to humans of another people, and unwittingly the thought comes to my mind: if it is so now, what will be our relation to the others if in truth we shall achieve at the end of times power in Eretz Yisrael?"

Ben-Gurion wanted to segregate Arab and Jewish societies in all sectors from his earliest days in Palestine. For example, the Jews had their separate economical, social, health, educational, media, and political sectors that were opened to Jews only; Arabs were forbidden from participating at all. The segregation of Palestine's society was nurtured and pushed by the Zionists in order to make it easier to partition the country when the Zionist dream of a Jewish state became a reality.

It was in the 1920s that Ben-Gurion stated, "Without Hebrew labor there is no way to absorb the Jewish masses. Without Hebrew labor, there will be no Jewish economy; without Hebrew labor, there will be no [Jewish] homeland. And anyone who does anything counter to the principle of Hebrew labor harms the most precious asset we have for fulfilling Zionism."  Therefore no Arab should work with or for any single Jew in Palestine.  The racial segregation of early Zionism remains firmly in place in 21st century Israel and the Occupied Territories.

Arab Jews in Israel.  Second best?

The racism in Zionist society also extends to Jewish citizens of Israel.  Ben-Gurion spoke of Arab Jews when he said: "Even the immigrant of North Africa, who looks like a savage, who has never read a book in his life, not even a religious one, and doesn't even know how to say his prayers, either wittingly or unwittingly has behind him a spiritual heritage of thousands of years. . . ." A backhanded complement if ever there was one.

The picture of the "perfect" Zionist is a white Ashkenazi Jew from Europe or America.  Ben-Gurion said that European Jews were "the leading candidates for citizenship in the State of Israel. Hitler, more than he hurt the Jewish people, whom he knew and detested, hurt the Jewish State, whose coming he did not foresee. He destroyed the substance, the main and essential building force of the [Jewish] state. The state arose and did not find the nation which had waited for it." Thus Arab, African, Indian, and Asian Jews were accepted as poor replacements for "the nation" that Ben-Gurion desired.

Sources:

Gouz. "Emergence and Evolution of Early Palestinian and Zionist Identity." unpublished paper. University of Florida, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.  No date.


Also see links within post.

COPYRIGHT (C) 2014 ERIC BROTHERS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.





Tuesday, May 27, 2014

"North Korean" Propaganda Exposes American Hypocrisy


By Eric Brothers (C) 2014
Poster for "North Korean" film, Propaganda (2012).

Controversial to its core, this hard-hitting anti-Western propaganda film, which looks at the influence of American visual and consumption culture on the rest of the world from a North Korean perspective, has also been described as ‘either a damning indictment of 21st Century culture or the best piece of propaganda in a generation.’

A propaganda film about American hypocrisy that was made in North Korea? Huh?!  Really?

The film "Propaganda" covers the gamut of American culture from consumerism to celebrity culture; it also exposes contemporary Western culture for its its decidedly un-democratic imperialist and pro-corporate policies.  Released in ten parts in 2012, "Propaganda" was uploaded piece by piece with the title "North Korean film exposes Western propaganda." It was eventually accompanied by a statement, by Sabine, the woman who translated the film.

According to Sabine, while on a trip to Seoul, South Korea, in 2012, she was approached by two people claiming to be defectors from North Korea. Handing her a DVD, they asked Sabine to translate it and then place it on the Internet.  Due to what she called "the film's extraordinary content," she willingly translated it and then posted it on You Tube. She felt that the film was never intended for a North Korean audience. Additionally, Sabine believed that the people who gave the DVD to her work for the North Korean government. She does not agree with that nation's ideology, however, but chose to post it in its entirety "because of the issues it raises and I stand by my right to post it for people to share and discuss freely with each other."

 Interview with "Propaganda" Filmmaker Slavko Martinov.

"North Korean" film made by New Zealand filmmakers

But the cat was let out of the bag when "Propaganda" had a screening at the International Documentary Festival of Amsterdam (IDFA).  This "North Korean" cinematic attack on the West was the work of a group of New Zealanders; it was written and directed by Slavko Martinov. Therefore the film is a piece of supposed North Korean propaganda made by New Zealand filmmakers showing their take on how North Korea would attack Western values and culture, while presenting their own personal views on the subject.

According to a review in The Independent, "Early scenes show audiences on Oprah moved to hysterics and tears after receiving free consumer goods, and a man applauded by crowds and interviewed on the street after being the first person to buy a new iPhone. These pictures set up the in-depth criticism of a culture of people who are raised in fear of communism and terrorism, and who seek salvation through the empty promises of religion and capitalism. We are then warned to beware the one per cent, who through the mass propaganda machine known as ‘the public relations industry’, attempt to brainwash people into trusting brands with empty slogans like “Just Do It” and “I’m Loving It”. Meanwhile, the mainstream media utilises the films of Quentin Tarantino, and the TV Series Survivor, to portray the world as a violent place where only the most ruthless succeed."

 Watch Part 9 of "Propaganda" to see chapter on celebrities.

"Think Triumph of the Will meets The Blair Witch Project," writes the reviewer of the Huff Post's blog.  "It's a North Korean propaganda film, through and through -- alarmingly authentic and disturbingly precise, down to the comic bluntness (reality TV as "freak show programming" about "narcissistic parasites") and hyperbolic paternalism (tween marketing as "corporate pedophilia"). The film takes aim at advertising, war, TV, consumerism, taxes -- all of our American bogeymen. What's most stunning, though, is how often the film gets it right."

Filmmaker Slavko Martinov on "Propaganda"

During an interview published online at IndieWire, Slavko Martinov said, 

"First of all, it's the most unsharable film you can imagine.  Ninety-five minutes of being slapped about the face of your core beliefs as a Westerner.  You're hardly going to be popular with your friends if you share this. ...  

We were investigated by the NAS -- South Korea's CIA. I was asked, 'Are you in collusion with the North Korean regime?'  I started writing and researching at this point -- I started guiding them through the process.  'Yeah, but prior to 2003, when were you contacted and commissioned to do this[?]'  What do you say to that?  How do you even deny that logic.  To them, what really worried them was that North Korea had stepped up their game, they had hired a western filmmaker to make a PR coup." 

"Propangada": Award-winning and life-changing film

The film, which took nine years to complete, won numerous awards at film festivals, including the Grand Prize for Best Film award at the Traverse City Film Festival in Michigan, an invite-only annual festival co-founded and curated by Oscar-winning director, Michael Moore.  

It was reported in the New Zealand publication The Press that in February, engineer Eugene Chang from Christchurch, New Zealand, who narrated and acted in the film, was shunned by his South Korean community and accused of being a North Korean sympathiser and spy. Upon winning the award, Slavko Martinov told The Press that the award win was a "great help" for Chang and could lead to greater things for the Christchurch production crew, Sabineprogram. "It is a great help for Eugene, this award, because everyone here knows how he's been treated and stand by him in a big way," Martinov said.


Eugene Chang, who performed in "Propaganda" and was ostracized by the Korean community in Christchurch, NZ.
Perhaps this blog has stimulated your interest and you would like to watch "Propaganda" in its entirety.  Well, today is your lucky day.  Below please find the film that Films for Action called the "Number 1 Social Change Documentaries of 2012."
The film "Propaganda" in its entirety. 
 
 COPYRIGHT (C) 2014 ERIC BROTHERS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.






Friday, May 23, 2014

Racist Images in Asian Advertising

By Eric Brothers (C) 2014
Malaysian cookie ad from 2011.

Grey Advertising, one of the biggest ad agencies in the world, created the above print ad in their Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, office.  Believe it or not, this is an ad for cookies.  The product: Fluff & Stuff Cookies. Apparently racial stereotypes are a useful tool to market products to the Asian market.  Marketing blogger Leslie Chen writes of the ad: "Each of the different flavors are represented by a character; vanilla as a nun and strawberry as a vixen. Who would have thought flavors could look so good? Accompanied by the caption, 'Your inner desires. Right in the middle,' the Fluff and Stuff Cookies Ads are completed in the tastiest way possible." However, it is difficult to tell that a product is being advertised; the tag line and name 'Fluff & Stuff Cookies' are so small and seem to be afterthoughts.
'This Africa' cigarette ads feature monkeys and the slogan "Africa is Coming"!

According to a report in the The World Post, the KT&G tobacco company launched its new product, 'This Africa' cigarettes, in 2013, in South Korea with ads featuring a monkey with a microphone.  The ads to promote cigarettes dried and roasted in "traditional" African style showed monkeys dressed as humans, tagged with the slogan "Africa is coming!" For some reason the the African Tobacco Control Alliance (ATCA) called the ads "shameless" and "mocking," prompting KT&G to apologize and pull the ads, but not the product.
Cigarette packaging shows primates curing tobacco.
"We absolutely had no intention to offend anyone and only chose monkeys because they are delightful animals that remind people of Africa," a company spokeswoman told ATCA. "Since this product contains leaves produced by the traditional African style, we only tried to adopt images that symbolize the nature of Africa." An assistant manager at KT&G’s public relations firm told the Korea Times the response to the monkey ad was "totally unexpected," and that no one raised the issue of racism during the creative process.
Dunkin Donuts' ad from Thailand.
 According to a report in The Guardian.com, Dunkin' Donuts has apologized after it ran an advertisement in Thailand featuring a woman in "blackface" make-up. The ad, which was used to promote the company's new "charcoal donut," was called "bizarre and racist" by a leading human rights group. The Thai division of Dunkin' Donuts had planned both a poster and television campaign using the image, which it shared on Facebook. The controversial ad presents a woman wearing dark make-up and bright pink lipstick, with a 1950s beehive hairstyle. She is holding a "charcoal doughnut," out of which a bite has been taken. The slogan next to the image reads: "Break every rule of deliciousness."

The CEO for Dunkin' Donuts in Thailand, Nadim Salhani, was initially bullish about the marketing: "It's absolutely ridiculous," he said. "We're not allowed to use black to promote our doughnuts? I don't get it. What's the big fuss? What if the product was white and I painted someone white, would that be racist?"

COPYRIGHT (C) ERIC BROTHERS 2014.