Just recently the Rothschild organ The Economist depicted the Russian president Putin as a dangerous octopus.

bigger

The idea was not original at all. Russia has been the favored target of this denigrating comparison for more than a century.

The Guardian, no less anti-Russian than the Economist, now follows suit.

bigger

The Steve Bell Guardian cartoon, just like the Economist cover, demonstrates a lack of creativity and originality. The spider cartoon is an obvious rip-off from a anti-Russian Nazi campaign:

bigger

The archive description of the poster notes:

In early 1935, the Nazis unleashed an anti-Bolshevik campaign which it initiated with a series of traveling exhibits on the dangers of world Communism. This poster comes from the exhibit in Karlsruhe, the capital city of the German state of Baden. But its imagery is found in almost all of the posters of this exhibit.

Here Bolshevism is represented as a huge red spider, whose head is the familiar grinning skull topped with the red star. Sitting in the Soviet Union, the legs of the spider can still reach out to threaten the entire world.

The Guardian rip-off of Josef Goebbels' Nazi propaganda even copied the red star associated with communist ideology. How stupid - Putin and today's Russia are as capitalistic as it gets.

Plagiarizing others to foment anti-Russian sentiment is standard Guardian business. Its most fervent and stupid anti-Russian writer, Luke Harding, had to publicly apologize for stealing whole passages from the Exile, a Russian magazine in English language edited by Mark Ames, Yasha Levine and Matt Taibbi. For a good laugh watch this Real News interview on Harding's book "Collusion" in which Aaron Maté takes Harding apart.

One wonders how much the Economist, the Guardian and other anti-Russian outlets, writers and cartoon artists get from the $160 million fund the Obama administration budgeted to "counter an uptick in Russian propaganda". Taking such money would not be unusual. This 2015 Guardian report on a European Union anti-Russian propaganda fund was, for example, written by the U.S. government's RFE/RL propaganda outlet. A U.S. government propaganda write up about a EU propaganda fund ends up as content on the Guardian site. Hey - why not? Even original Guardian content rarely ventures off from the official line.

Who by the way might have financed the anti-Russian spy series Strike Back which now replays on live TV as the Skripal Novichok drama?

The enormous amount of money from the dozens of officials and unofficial slush funds surely creates a lot of the anti-Russian noise. But for all the taxpayer money spent on the issue can we please ask for better than a warmed up Nazi campaign?

This article was originally published by "Moon Of Alabama" -  https://twitter.com/NinaByzantina/status/975021531809038336