Significantly Different Signifieds

This is one of the most infamous referents in history:

Looks a little different, though, doesn't it? I'm sure that that didn't stop you from immediately thinking of the Nazi Swastika. The evil event that the swastika represents will be forever associated with it.

I was thinking about signifiers and signified and a video that I watched in middle school during our Holocaust period came into my mind. With a little help from Wikipedia I was able to find out a little more about the symbol before the Holocaust.

Before Hitler corrupted it and turned it into what we understand the swastika to be today, it was part of many religions. In the Buddhist religion, the swastika was a sign of love and harmony. In Hinduism, it stood for the creation of the universe. Some celtic religions also used it as a symbol for the sun god and used it for their coat of arms in prestigious families. It's amazing how an image that was once considered so lucky and peaceful has, through one man, become a symbol of hurt and evil. It's the same referent, the same signifier, just a different signified. Society has the power to change a signified just by associating it with something strong and powerful. Whether it's making a rainbow mean God's covenant or turning a pumpkin with a face in it into a national symbol of Halloween. Either way, a pumpkin is just a pumpkin. Or is it?

Demistifying the Wizzard

So I was a little confused with Ideology at first, but I think that it finally clicked for me. If it didn't, and my example is completely wrong, then someone PLEASE tell me!
I was pondering what Steve said about an author being the diamond/pearl in Marx's excerpt of Capital. It's true that we do make the author into this valuable, almost royal, person who magically produces wondrous works of literature. When we first started to read about how an author shouldn't matter, I really did have to take a step back and consider that.
Anyways, back to diamonds and pearls. Marx says that there is no natural value in these things, but that we create an exchange-value for them. Even now I sit here and think about what used to be considered worthy as being used as exchange: shells, beaver pelts, linen, gold. They have nothing in common, nothing that's built into them. It's all about what we establish as being "valuable."
Now, there's no telling how this brought me to my next conclusion but Marx's idea of commodity and value suddenly had me thinking of the Wizard of Oz. That's right, good 'ol "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!" Almost the entire movie is spent seeking out the great and powerful wizard (aka the diamond, the pearl, the gold): This 'wizard' is basically the 'author' of the whole entire Emerald City. The citizens have made him into this valuable source of knowledge and magic. But of course we all know what happens next...he turns out to be this guy:

Oops...
The point is, just like a diamond, the 'great and powerful wizard' isn't born with this incredible power and value. Society gave him his importance and value over others. Does any of the ring a bell? With the word...author, perhaps? I guess what I'm trying to say is 'great and powerful wizard' = author. Their value is created, but if you look past that ideology, you can see that they really don't hold any special value over the rest of us.