Borat - an alternative discourse analysis

[Lucifer]

i'm just saying that the hijacking was successful

Similarly in Orwell's 1984 the hijacking of the terms 'freedom' and 'liberation' were successful by the state terrorists who defined Newspeak, especially among the citizens who were subjected to the bombardment of media propaganda; however in the colonies where there was still resistance against, 'Big Brother' the terms meant freedom and liberation 'from' Big Brother.

There is an old saying that 'you cannot fool all of the people all of the time'

When George Bush gives his speeches and uses words such as 'freedom' and 'liberation,' some people are totally hypnotised, but then many people such as, I assume most people on this forum, and probably the majority of the oppressed people of the world do not accept his definitions.

Good and evil both use the same terms of language to define themselves and their enemies. If a person were to use Newspeak in Iraq for example and claim that the Anglo-American state terrorists represent 'freedom' and 'liberation' and 'democracy (people power)' then they would probably be shot in the head.

- if you look in the dictionary only the fake-jewish (ashkenazim)-gotta-have-the-land-of-the-palestinians type is discussed.

Yes of course, but that is simply Orwellian Newspeak. The 'success' of such a definition is limited to those who are hypnotised and accept such a definition. When the supporters of Ariel Sharon and the Rothschild Usury gang speak of 'anti-Semitism,' 'Zion' and the 'Israelites,' such definitions have no success at all on me and on an entire generation of Jews of the Socialist Left who don't accept such definitions. For every Jew who goes to a synagogue and supports the terrorist state of occupied Palestine, there are probably 50 others who are 'Left socialists' who reject such definitions.



Dietrich Eckhart was a Nazi, but he and other Nazis were correct in a number of assumptions: 1: The god of the Israelites was / is the god of an army of militant non-Aryan slaves in revolt against their masters. 2: Communism is the modern day political faith which is the equivalent of the faith of the Egyptian slave revolution 3600 years ago. 3: Communism is a bigger political faith among Jews than the synagogue idiots. 4: Marx and Trotsky were admired by the enslaved and despised by the economic and religious masters in much the same way that Moses and the prophets were in their age.

Fuck the dictionaries. Burn them.
Away with the dross of the ages.

_______________________

Addendum: On Zionist Judaeo-Communism.

Frankly Judaeo-Communism (kibbutzim) is by far the most successful practical (non-utopian) Communist experiment thus far and is the model of collectivism and for the liberation of the Third World (the feeding of the 6 billion, or however many are left after apocalyptic war) and the substantiation of economic Heaven on Earth. However this is 'despite' the state terrorist government of Occupied Palestine (aka Israel). 100 years ago Jews and Muslims lived together in peace in Palestine. Kibbutzim (collectivism) has nothing to do with religion; it is an economic model that could have been transferred to the population of Palestine (whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, atheist or whatever), however both the Palestinian and Israeli governments have chosen Capitalism.

If you consider the cost in economic terms (labour hours) of building greenhouse (glass is made mostly with sand which is in abundant supply in Palestine) agricultural collectives in the deserts of Palestine with the cost in both economic terms and human terms (i.e., militarisation and the suffering of poverty) of throwing Palestinians off their land and building a wall to keep the Palestinians out, it would have taken much less effort to introduce collective farming; instead millions of Palestinians live in refugee camps, most are unemployed, poor and full of justifiable hate. The Judeao-Communists (kibbutzists) in Palestine have thus far lost the battle against the state terrorists, but the revolution will never be over until the eradication of the last government and the last Capitalist from the face of the earth .

Sword to Ploughshares (agricultural tools) and economic heaven on earth for everyone can only be achieved through collectivist agricultural revolution and the total eradication of Capitalism / private propertyism. There is no other way that is not Utopian (impractical idealism).

[Aaronmedia]

Hmm, when I saw Borat, I kept waiting for Ashton Kutcher to jump out and scream, "Oh yeah, you've been Punk'd!"

Is this brilliant social satire as many are claiming?

Granted, Borat has its few funny moments, but ultimately I think it is a failure as a satire. There's nothing that groundbreaking or insightful in its presentation. Good satire, from the anti-authoritarian point of view tends to aim its pies at cherished institutions. I suppose Borat does this to the limited degree, but not anything extraordinary.

The scenes with the rodeo cowboy, its patriotic crowd and the one with the racist, sexist frat boys were superficial and obvious. One needs only to go to some fundamentalist church or some college party to see this. Most of these kinds of people who hold these views are products of a backwards political environment. I suppose people laughing at them makes them feel better about themselves. This isn't that productive, if we're analyzing as a social, political satire. After all, it's not enough to show people saying racist, sexist, xeno/homophobic things. It's more insightful to show it why it exists.

There are other problems with this film too. Again, there are undeniably funny parts. Much of the film though was more irritating and painful than anything. The most fatal flaws involved the scenes that completely backfire. One was with the feminists. Cohen seemed to be using the self-consciously tired tactic of being the "equal opportunity offender," (the "if we're going to make fun of right-wing fundamentalists, then we better make fun of left-wingers too, so we can offend no one by offending everyone" routine) but instead of making the feminists look shrill and self-righteous (which I assume was to be the purpose), the feminist seemed rather (rightly) fed up with Borat's foolishness.

Another scene is with the Southern dinner society. Here, there is potential to ridicule the upper crust subjects, but instead, they just seemed merely fed up that they were being had. There seemed to be an attempt to make them look racist and elitist, but one could probably feel some sympathy for the subjects' irritation at Borat's hijinks, which wasn't supposed to be the case.

And of course, a lot of this was staged. I'm not sure what the whole point was with the Pamela Anderson thing, to give it some semblance of a plot?

Oh well, missed opportunities. I found it to be more of a series of prank on camera skits than any meaningful satire.

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I liked the character of Borat, but not Bruno.
Borat was a parody of a stereotype, but Bruno often seemed less like a parody and more like an actual stereotype.