Intrepid journalist Hank Talbot continues his exposé of the disturbing political agenda behind the zoo world facebook propaganda blitz.
When we last left our hero, the glassy-eyed Franz Joseph II, he was touting a neo-imperialist zoo world regime in a facebook ad.
reign czech: habsburg–lorraine mulligan
When we last left our hero, the glassy-eyed Franz Joseph II, he was touting a neo-imperialist zoo world regime in a facebook ad. Under the cleverly-capitalised title of “UPgrade,” the ad’s artwork is a near-perfect reproduction of a late-nineteenth century propaganda piece commissioned by the House of Habsburg-Lorraine.
Employing a classic propagandist tactic, the ad begins with a rhetorical question: “Why have a Merry-Go-Round when you can have a Ferris Wheel?” In another context, one might consider this question rationally and come up with a number of valid reasons to opt for a merry-go-round. My back yard, for example, is well-suited for the modest dimensions of a merry-go-round, but much to small to house a ferris wheel. An environmentally-conscious individual might be concerned about the carbon footprint of a large, electrically-operated apparatus like a ferris wheel, and instead install a merry-go-round and a compost heap. Those in covenant-controlled communities might fear the wrath of their homeowners’ association should they erect a monstrous wheel of ferris, favouring the lower-profile of the merry-go-round.
I could go on, of course, but I needn’t. Before the reader can properly consider the question posed by the ad, an imperative is thrown his or her way: “Put one in your Zoo!” In this context, the question takes on its rhetorical tone because we focus on the fictional reality that is [our] zoo. Practical considerations suddenly matter not at all. If we return to answering the question first proffered (“Why have a Merry-Go-Round . . .”), we are likely to fall victim to one of the classic blunders. After (1) “never start a land war in Asia” and (2) “never go in against a sicilian when death is on the line,” there’s the perfectly simple (3) “never answer a question with a question.” Yet even the most wily facebook user might find himself sinking into the quicksand of rhetoric, and answer the ad’s query with “why not?” In this dangerous territory, the vermin of pride and prejudice can gorge themselves on promises of power until they grow to unusual size. It is a zoo world within a fireswamp, my friends.
But I digress. Suffice to say, a wary reader does not succumb to the seductive simplicity of a rhetorical question. Nor does an intrepid journalist fall victim to one of the classic blunders. As for pride and prejudice . . . well that is at the heart of this neo-imperialist propaganda piece. More to come.