It's easier to make a graphic than it is to research it

All right, considering my last post was making fun of Donald Trump and the Birthers some might think I have a left leaning political philosophy. I really don't. I have a "leave me alone" political philosophy. That said, it seems that some conservatives out there are going out of their way to give us cringe worthy material. Case in point, I found this image floating around on Facebook recently.




To quote Wolfgang Pauli "Not only is that not right, it's not even wrong."

I would like to point out the excellent use of spell check the author of this wonderful little graphic took the time to use. Note the excellent use of grammar where the plural of symbol is used to agree with the plural implied with the word people. Even though words like "only" and "own" might suggest singular, this person, quite correctly, dodged that obstacle. Then, sensing the upcoming power with some verbal mutant spider sense, the author narrowly avoided the linguistic trap of the homonyms there, their, and they're to correctly identify the middle form. Well played, unknown person, well played.

I point these things out because, as far as I can tell, they seem to be the only elements this person managed to get right. Although I do praise this person for, at least, not skewering the Queen's English with the ruthlessness he or she showed with the content of the message, it is also a bit of a pity. A pity, I say, because if this image were any less intelligible the author might have a promising career in cryptography. Navajo Code talkers be warned, this is your competition you are seeing here.

I suppose I should first start out with the obvious. The two symbols identified in the graphic are not the personal symbols of any one person. The one to the left, the swastika, most people might identify with Adolph Hitler but he could hardly claim it as his own. Actually, prior to a certain man with a truncated mustache, the swastika was a well recognized symbol across the globe. It actually appears in old European churches and other places as innocent as, say, a basketball team. Not even an evil fascist basketball team wearing jackboots as they goosestep down the court. The San Francisco YMCA basketball team was the Swastikas. Still, that was all pre-World War II, right? And now that symbol means something different. So the point is still valid, right? No, really it is not. Because that isn't Hitler's personal symbol. That, in fact, is the symbol of his political party. The National Socialists German Worker's Party or, as we know them these days, the Nazis.

Now, despite the word "socialist" being right there in the name, the ideology of this party is a far cry from your textbook definition of socialism. The ideology did condemn laissez-faire capitalism, yes, but it was also anti-communism, anti-democracy, anti-economic liberalism, and strongly for a state religion. They were strongly nationalistic, fought with other parties identified as Socialists, and had a strong racial agenda that even during World War II there were some doubts as to if Hitler himself met the criteria. This was a fascist party with a misleading name and was not meant to promote one person but an ideology that was considered bigger than any one person. So, calling it Hitler's personal symbol is not only wrong but grossly and inexcusably wrong. This would be like calling the Chicago Bulls logo Michael Jordan's personal sign. Just because he was popular and he wore the sign doesn't mean he owned it or that there weren't people before, after, or even during who weren't running around with the ball too.

So, the symbol on the left isn't Hitler's. What about the one on the right? Well, that's not Obama's personal symbol either. Actually, that is a symbol for a campaign group called "Obama for America." If you look at a list of its members you might notice a certain name is suspiciously absent. This is a group who is campaigning for and promoting a person it supports for a political office. Unlike the earlier Hitler example, most campaign groups do not actually have the person they are endorsing as an actual member. So, while Obama may be quite happy with the work they do, even support it, the sign up there doesn't belong to him in any way, shape, or form.

Campaign groups often come up with their own logos to promote their members.

Here is one for George W. Bush.

And here's one for McCain.

Here is a more historical one lest you think this is just some recent phenomenon.

The point is that a campaign logo, no matter how much a candidate may like it, cannot be considered a personal sign. Nor, on the other hand, can being a member of a particular political party make that sign your own personal sign. So, even the fact that these two people are identified by these symbols by association only, they are not associated with there respective symbols in the same way.

Trying to link their political philosophies by misleading statements about symbols isn't even worth a paragraph from a Dan Brown novel in debunking, but I may as well point out that fascist ideology is a supremacist ideology and a xenophobic one. Traits often identified as being associated with the far right. Calling Barak Obama a socialist and a Nazi would mean he is far left and far right at the same time. Please, people. Learn to identify your own political beliefs before you start attacking those of others.

Lastly, though, the part I truly find offense with is the statement that only two people in history have been identified with symbols. This person must be using a different definition of history not agreed upon by any lexicon I am familiar with. For one thing, it seems to excuse anyone who is Asian from belonging to history. After all, many Asian cultures use a personal seal in lieu of a signature. So, what? Just because these people don't speak English they aren't part of history? Hitler didn't speak English either. So all of history must only deal with Western or European cultures right? Oh, wait. European royalty totally did that too. Oh man, I guess by "all of history" we only really mean since the beginning of the Twentieth Century and for Western Culture, right? Oh wait. I forgot. Prince identified himself with that weird symbol taken from alchemy right. So, does that count? And then there was also ? from ? and the Mysterians. So, all of history means no Asians, no royalty, no heraldry, no musicians, and nothing before the 20th century. Oh, and, of course, nobody who has read this article. Well, quite a compelling argument when you put it in that light.

So, here's to you political graphic icon maker! Shine on, you crazy diamond! With research skills like your combined with your impeccable command of the English language I see a bright future ahead of you bringing, oh, two maybe three figures. Easily!