When we make humor which refers to facts or situation which are tough, unfair, inhuman, ridiculous and generally contrary to the correct and healthy evolution of society, then we create satire. Satire is always caustic and points out the abuse in a pointed manner. This is a manifestation of covert anger and indignation by the one who is correctly making it and may have two results: if it is mediocre, to become an outlet and a diffusing of those watching it so that they will feel that they have sufficiently punished the ones satire is aimed at and therefore the audience feels vindicated without any further need to act. If satire is good or excellent then it is a spark for further constructive action against the ones satire is aimed at, with the anger having been preserved and correctly focused for further action and correction of the abuse.
But when satire is of bad quality, that which is does is to inhibit many personal and social processes and disorient the public feeling and determination for further action. This is accomplished primarily with bad humor which is turned constantly around profanity, vulgarity and presentation of non-existent caricatures as representative and important samples of the everyday Greek society. Bad satire highlights marginalized elements, which are neither important nor determining nor representative of reality, as important and valid points of an identity and a social group since nobody creates satire without concerning him/herself with important matters. Satire is always about issues of vital importance and situations and it is thus considered in humanity’s common unconscious.
Bad quality satire primarily lowers the qualitative and mental level of the audience watching since bad satire does not consider the audience capable of understanding humor or hints which are not related to basic body functions. Nor does bad satire consider the audience capable of being entertained with puns or wit which do not include basic physical and deviant or extreme situations. Through emotional intelligence / awareness the audience of bad satire feels degraded or vulgar or at least in a less favorable position since they are forced to laugh at things which society considers personal or traumatic.
Through the process of associating one situation with one other through the aid or a third catalyst (in this case bad satire) this sense of taboo and uncleanness caused by profanity and allusion to nasty or morally frowned upon behaviors is associated with the discussion of political situations and issues or humanitarian and social problems. Therefore, through the process of association (learning by association) bad satire teaching the people watching it to avoid discussing political problems, social injustices and Human Rights issues since emotionally they are associated with the concept of taboo or the category of the immoral behavior.
Also, through learning by imitation (modeling) bad satire teaches its audience not to respect customs they ought to (e.g. respect the third age or a Nation, correct science, the People and the Citizen as an active Political Arbitrator) and to respect and fear customs that they should check on and evaluate constantly (e.g. assorted ministries, legislation, policies on the economy or education, charlatan behavior/ scientificity, plutocracy / big capital holders and the mass as a Political Means).
This happens underhandedly and covertly during when, the audience needing to vent, be vindicated and amused, the individual’s guards are lowered and critical thought is not alert. On the contrary, there is a predisposition and expectation to accept what satire will get across. In this way messages get across without the critical evaluation that someone would make if he/she were forewarned that the satire he/she was about to watch was bad quality (not revolutionary, truthful or clever). A message which gets across without the judgment or the usual processes of thought is something that remains in the subconscious as an undisputed axiom until (or if) someone turns the focus to it and actively chooses to accept or reject it.
One such form of classic bad satire is the show by Lakis Lazopoulos, during which all the basic principles of bad satire are followed to the letter:
1. 99% of the ‘jokes’ and the ‘wit’ is around human natural needs and the bad sense/ version of sexuality.
2. all the references to women, the elderly, scientists and people of the Arts are demeaning, pejorative or badly represented with slurs of ‘artists’, ‘scientists’ and other people who wrongfully use or abuse some profession titles. In the show of last Tuesday in particular, the allusions to elderly people were strictly around their alleged lack of awareness or the stupidity he was trying to attribute to them, women were presented as hysterical with tendencies to dominate or limit the freedom of a man, men were degraded to a juvenile and immoral person, singers were presented as flat, obscene or unintelligent, psychologists as brimming with ridiculousness, irrationality or flattery and all the t.v. personalities as incompetent, insane or innocent due to insanity/ incapability.
3. he imposes the politicians, regardless the scope of their impotence, brashness, obtuseness, criminality, immorality or vulgarity he rightfully or summarily attributes to them, as a necessary evil the People ought to put up with.
4. he forbids/ ridicules the opinions of Individuals belonging to the People or he presents them as quaint or naïve figures which of course cannot have power or a weighted opinion.
5. he applauds disrespect or deprecation of National symbols and anyone who dares treat them seriously or with the respect the Constitution demands, presenting behaviors which are correct for any proper Citizen of his/her own State (e.g. emotionality or seriousness during the hearing of one’s National Anthem) while he tries to either associate them with persons he attempts to tag ludicrous in all levels or by respecting acts of treason and abuse of the Greek People according to the Constitution (e.g. burning of the National Flag).
In the Tuesday show, but in most of his shows as well, Lakis Lazopoulos in essence said and tried to impose the following, as they result from the scientific content analysis:
1. He tried to convince that: K. Karamanlis is the best necessary evil and the least thieving and the People should tolerate him because G. Papandreou is stupider/ more retarded than him and acts idiotically, while K. Karamanlis is just swayed by evil associates and is disjointed from reality but basically not stupid, not corrupt, not evil, not immoral. He imposed to the People all the unconstitutional blatant measures and laws, he looted and exposed the People to all their National enemies by mistake (Lakis Lazopoulos considers or wants to impose that negligence does not condemn someone for the same crime he’d do willfully. Of course we can’t interpret this as anything but an attempt by L. Lazopoulos to consciously manipulate the Greek People since L. Lazopoulos, with the Law Degree he holds must certainly be aware of the Criminal Law Code. He also is trying to exempt K. Karamanlis who he is defending “due to doubt” when there are innumerable pieces of evidence for his deceit and accessory/ subversion/ participation in all the National crimes committed or continuing to be committed during his office). Lazopoulos asked the People, trying to impose it as needed, to trust once more and vote once more K. Karamanlis instead of punishing him as the public wants.
2. L. Lazopoulos tried to convince the People that K. Karamanlis is a victim of bad ministers/ associates (e.g. Theodore Roussopoulos) and of the reaction of K. Mitsotakis retaliating for the implication of his daughter in bad publicity.
3. Concerning the scandal of the Vatopedi Monastery he referred to only the process of stealing National land (after he labeled them dirty on top of it all) and real estate without mentioning anything else or anyone else in a way that would draw attention to the culprits.
4. he didn’t make any mention of the economic crisis, except to just get across the message that the People who are plagued by this crisis are receivers of stolen goods or need to resort to stealing (since the only thing he showed was people cheering unknown individuals stealing food from super markets and giving it to Citizens) and not the need to simply activate the People’s Political Power to demand that what has been stolen be returned with interest.
5. he made no mention of the political situation in the USA.
6. he made no mention to the EU and its order that all the state mass transportation means be given over to the hands of private business people.
7. he presented (only orally and without any sort of proof) hooligans or provocateurs (the ‘known unknowns’) as good and proper Citizens.
Good quality satire makes the Individual have a clear view and be able to prove / support it, and above all be able to feel well and powerful (e.g. Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion ). L. Lazopoulos’ satire renders the Individual at a loss as to what to think beyond very general and arbitrary trajectories, cannot support these trajectories and above all feels helpless and doomed (e.g. “Greeks must get it into their heads that they will live [politically] with perpetual winters. Summers are all gone!”) and therefore it is very bad satire which is useful only as manipulation and brainwashing to the interest of the ones for whom L. Lazopoulos works. We can confirm that by looking at the support and promotion of this show of his (although it is presented as being ‘against the system’ which the mass media actually represent as we have many times proven) and the many awards and privileges he has received and continues to receive by big capital holders, politicians and private individuals/ officials L. Lazopoulos claims to be decrying and judging ‘dangerously’.
Nobody supports or promotes the one undermining them but the one protecting them or working for them.