Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

why is the Great Dr. Strangelove a nazi scientist rather than a jew scientist?

10 views
Skip to first unread message

animalishness

unread,
May 16, 2008, 8:21:48 PM5/16/08
to

germans are an intelligent people but no match for the jews. german
science was oriented towards teutonic technology, machinery, and
engineering than theoretical brilliance that could really lead to some
truly big shit. this is why nazi germany made a lot of excellent
planes, tanks, guns, cannons, and rockets but miserably failed in the
race to make the atomic bomb. the jews were the experts of the bomb
on every level. when german scientists were captured and secretly
observed after WWII, it became clear that the best 'aryan' minds
hadn't a clue about nuclear science. they were not even close. they
were cavemen compared to the jews. it was like hulk hogan trying to
be witty as woody allen. it was like polacks trying to screw on a
lightbulb.

indeed, this is why german scientists employed by US and USSR after
the war focused on stuff like rocket technology than advanced
theoretical stuff. consider werner von braun. when it came to fine
theoretical details, jews were the king. and they still are, which is
why the computer industry is dominated by jews. all the superduper
billionaires in america will be jews working in hightech, and they're
gonna use their tremendous amount of money earned thru hypercapitalism
to, ironically, fund socialism. jews are funny this way. part of them
wanna make all the money, and another part of them want to control
society like a giant laboratory according to their social theories.
money-loving jews go into capitalism, and idea-loving jews write the
books. money-loving jews read the books of idea-loving jews and also
fund the idea-loving jews(who are leftist). so, we have jewish
hypercapitalism supporting jewish socialism. jews rise above us and
then preach to us about equality. if george soros and sergei brin
wanna be equal, they should work at walmart and get an ass tattoo like
the rest of the working class. instead, they make billions, fund
socialists, and preach to us about 'social justice'.

anyway, it's funny that the character of Dr. Strangelove should be a
nazi scientist and the leading brains behind the doomsday nuclear war
machine. shouldn't he be a jew since jews were the ones who invented
and built the nuclear bomb? but, i guess the jews who made the film
didn't wanna give us a monstrous jew as the harbinger of doom for all
mankind. (ironically, it's rocket science perfected by ex-nazi
scientists which got the free world to the moon and made us reflect on
the fragility of mankind on a small blue planet.) also, it was so
fashionable to portray an ex-nazi as the personification of perversity
and evil.

yet, it's not so simple. in some ways, dr. strangelove is--and was
slyly meant to be--the most admirable character in the movie. he's
least hypocritical and most cold eyed truthful about world politics
and human nature. in Full Metal Jacket, an commander says 'inside
every gook is an american trying to get out'. in Dr. Strangelove,
it's like 'inside every american, there is a nazi trying to get out'.
but, given the nature of strangelove's brilliance, one could also say,
rather perversely, that 'inside every nazi is a jew trying to get
out'--or maybe, 'inside every jew, there is a nazi trying to get
out'. this is partly true because jewish kubrick used dr. strangelove
as his mouthpiece. if kubrick philosophically identified with any
character in the movie, it was dr. strangelove. this isn't to say
kubrick was a sociopathic psycho but to say he has a very
unsentimental and cold-eyed view of mankind. when he was making
Eyes Wide Shut, kubrick told frederic raphael that 'hitler was right
about everything'. he obviously didn't meant that hitler's hatred was
justified or that 6 million jews deserved to die. but, he agreed with
the nazi position that the only REAL revolution can come thru genetic
evolution/revolution, not thru social policy, politics, economics,
etc. mankind is essentially biology. spirituality is a stuff of
human imagination, not human genetic makeup. if spirituality is the
answer, it must grow within us genetically and not merely thru our
power to fantasize. this is why david bowman in 2001 is GENETICALLY
spiritualized by the mysterious alien folks.
as long as man fundamentally remains an hairless ape with animalistic
instincts, our social policies and laws can only do so much. thru
social ideas and policies, we can never be higher or better human
beings but only better-controlled human animals. but, greater
advances in technology also means greater ability for mankind to
destroy itself--with nuclear weapons and such. also, the danger of
science and rationalism is this silly idea that intelligent people can
devise social policies that can make us into better people. we saw the
hollowness of that idea in A Clockwork Orange. alex is programmed
from a dangerous human animal to a defenseless human animal than into
a better human being. this is all the more confused when most of
human creativity is fueled by animal instincts. sucking out all the
animalistic hormones from humans will make them less dangerous but
also into useless veggies without any will to do anything.

also, what passes for liberal goodness is really founded on naivete
that is stupidly or willfully blind to the ruthlessness of the natural/
human order. for example, the reason why humans are safe from nature
is because we ruthlessly wiped out nature around human communities.
this sense of security has convinced many people to see wild animals
as simply wonderful, safe, and noble; so, when people actually
confront mean animals in nature, they are shocked. or, consider racial
problems in the US. during the civil rights movement, whites fooled
themselves into thinking whites and blacks could get along just
famously; after all, most blacks seem to be law-abiding and respectful
to honkeys. what most liberals failed to understand was that blacks
were ostensibly respectful and relatively self-restrained due to their
fear of white power and violence. once whites all turned liberalish
and pussified, the physically stronger blacks began to kick honkey ass
and rip up the racial contract of the civil rights movement.
and, for a long time, the western world looked upon the chinese with
compassion and sympathy as hopelessly poor and inept yellow sick man
of asia. but look at the rise of china today and their nasty national
and chauvanistic international policy. liberalism is willfully blind,
naive, and faggoty bullshi*. worse, it's been a luxury made
affordable by western domination of the world. even as white liberals
will never admit this, western liberalism would not have been possible
WITHOUT western domination. it was a sense of security gained thru
the western gun that allowed white man to delude himself that the west
is respected for its liberty and goodness than for its power, wealth,
and might. this isn't to say that might-is-right but merely to say
that right-must-be-backed-with-might. overly self-critical white
liberalism will not make non-whites respect the white man more but
only feel more contempt and hatred.

because human genius and creativity is paradoxical combination of
aggressive animal instincts and calming spiritual wisdom, kubrick's
ONLY optimistic film is 2001 where david bowman is altered genetically
reconfigured by higher beings. even though the real secret to human
progress is in our genes, humans cannot succeed at bio-engineering
because the structure of the human brains only lead to the building of
more elaborate cages as we try to break out of preexisting cages. this
is both psychologically and socially true. all this psychanalysis
stuff has only caged people in new mental prisons. also, the more we
try to make our lives easier thru technology, the more enslaved we
become to technology. electicity is great, but if a power company
goes down, millions of us are helpless. or, consider the rising cost
of oil. cars are great but without oil, our entire economy shuts down
and we become helpless. humans are way too utilitarian in everything
they do. so, genetic science may simply regard man as just a living
machine even as we treat machines more as programmed organisms. no
matter how we perfect man, we cannot go beyond man; yet, the only way
to save humanity is to go beyond humanity. but, how can man go beyond
man? so, we need higher beings, as in 2001.

also, we saw the result of man trying to achieve genetic revolution/
evolution in the case of nazism, and it was horrific. also, it was
funny that less intelligent germans were killing off more intelligent
jews in the name of weeding out the inferior race. so, even nazi
idealism wasn't true to its ideals. if intelligence was one sign of
racial superiority, then germans should have put jews at the top of
the social order. but, what really motivated nazism was germanic
tribalism than any real scientific understanding of human races.
nothing made this point clearer than the competition between aryan
scientists and jewish scientists during WWII. the aryans built some
badass heavy duty rockets but jews figured out a way to level an
entire city with a few ounces of nuclear material. german science was
badass but jewish science was awesome. japs found out too--their pagan
gods were no match to the god of the jews. it was like yul brynner in
Ten Commandments saying, 'their god IS god' after his army gets wiped
out in the red sea.

so, kubrick's remark that 'hitler was right about everything' has to
be taken with a grain of salt. what he meant was no ideology or
system can really save or change man unless the man is changed at his
molecular/genetic core. everything else is purely cosmetic. it was
like undergoing plastic surgery to make an ugly face pretty, while
disregarding the fact that the dna code of the person is still ugly-
faced. for the face to be truly pretty, the dna code must be made
pretty. for man to be truly moral, the dna code must be reprogrammed
to make man wiser. but, what is the secret? hitler didn't know. he
was more like gay texas chainsaw massacre dude pretending to be an
expert surgeon. and, the scientists in A Clockwork Orange didn't know
either; they only perfected a method of behavioralism which
manipulated only the external mechanisms thru crude biochemistry. so,
kubrick could only be hopeful by inventing higher beings from another
world in 2001 Space Odyssey.

but, there was something of a kinship between kubrick, hitler, and dr.
strangelove. kubrick, like the crazy nazis, had little trust in human
nature. he had a very grim, even brutal view of humanity. kubrick was
no humanist nor a sentimentalist. he was certainly capable of empathy
but not real sympathy. if spielberg identified mainly with david in
AI, kubrick surely identified most with the scientist who done created
david.
also, he may have agreed with hitler except on the matter of the
superior race. the superior race was not the aryan but the jew.
though he could never say admit it publicly, kubrick was kinda like a
jewish hitler who saw jews at the top of the racial hierarchy. this
isn't to say that he was murderous and genocidal. but, he clearly did
see hierarchy as the essence in nature and among humans. kubrick was
into the nietzsche thing. so, more accurately, kubrick was more like a
jewish nietzsche than a jewish hitler. he rejected the notion of
equality of the races or 'all men are created equal'. unlike hitler
though, he was curious about all peoples and cultures. like hitler, he
saw biology as far more deterministic of history than ideas; indeed,
even ideas were shaped by biology. the reason why black africans
never produced a moses, buddha, jesus, or socrates is largely due to
black emotional and intellectual makeup. the reason why chinese never
produced a coltrane is because chiners have a different set of
collective auditory archetypes stamped in their psyche. there are two
kinds of ability. ability that grows from with and ability that is
learned or mimicked. anyone can mimic, learn, and even master jazz,
but only the black genetic soul could create it from within.
similarly, while negroes can learn the wisdom of jesus, blacks
couldn't have come up with that stuff because it's hard for a negro to
sit still for 40 days and meditate on the meaning of life. all of
human knowledge and ability is a combination of ingrown ability and
imported ability. this is why, even as japs imported western ways,
they still do in a japanese way. and, this isn't merely a cultural
matter but a genetic matter. japanese culture turned out the way it
did party due to the natural inclination of japanese genes. take bob
and james. bob is wild, crazy, and extroverted and comes up with
great drum music. james is quiet, withdrawn, and meditative and comes
up with a spiritual idea. bob can learn from james but is much less
likely to come up with james's ideas. james can learn from bob but is
much less likely to come up with bob's drum rhythms. indeed, this is
why pussyboy whites worship black music; it's something that
faggotyass white boys couldn't have come up with on their own.

both kubrick's view and hitler's view had common roots in the idea of
the nietzschean superman. notice that in 2001, it is one superior ape
that first figures out that a bone can be mighty instrument.
even if kubrick wasn't murderous, psychotic, or genocidal, he was
contemptuous of most of humanity.(on the set of Eyes Wide Shut, he
treated tom cruise and nicole kidman as porn pawns on a chessboard.)
kubrick also shut himself off from the rest of the world. also, while
he asked help from others, he rarely reciprocated. in all his movies,
there isn't much regard for mankind. a movie like A Clockwork Orange
is especially vicious. perhaps, the movie would have been more
feasible morally had it been directed by a lesser talent. directed by
kubrick with mind-blowing brilliance and originality, moral matters
became secondary to the spectacle of alex's charismatic showmanship.
the movie became a kind of Triumph of the Swill. though evil, alex
registers as a superdude who smashes conventional rules because such
are only for boring, dull, insipid, naive, softheaded morons or
stiffnecks. at one point, alex beats up a useless drunkard. when he
attacks the good-hearted writer and his wife, we can't help feeling,
'what a couple of stupid, do-goody, naive liberals!!' who deserve to
be punished for their stupid trust of humanity. later, when we meet
the writer again as a bitter vengeful man, he seems worse and more
deranged than david. in this universe, goodness can either be naive or
easily wiped out by grim social reality.

anyway, kubrick wasn't just happy to be jewish nietzschean. a part of
him felt that jews were the REAL ubermensch, but another part of him
desired for the aryan. part of it was sexual. he felt that in terms
of beauty, aryans had a certain advantage over the jew. so, he
married a german wife. he supplied the brains, she supplied the
looks. kubrick wasn't just an intellectual genius but always had an
eye for beauty. he started out as a photographer and loved art all
his life. he loved cerebral modern art but also classical and
traditional art whose central themes were beauty. also, kubrick
admired strength and power. one of his first films was about boxing.
so, while he knew that jews were intellectual ubermensch, they were
not ubermensch of beauty and strength.
this is why Dr. Strangelove is such a strange character. he is the
anxious product of creative union of jewishism and aryanism. it's a
jew trying to break out the aryan, and the aryan trying to break out
of the jew. he has jewish smarts but aryan spirit.
spirit is important here because kubrick has tremendous appreciation
for artistic creativity. though the main creatives forces of the
modern world were jewish, kubrick had to admit that goyim thru the
centuries had come up with stuff that even super jewish intelligence
couldn't touch--greek architecture, aspects of roman civilization,
german classical music, etc. just how did less intelligent goyim
come up with that shi*? and, how come even the greatest jewish brain
cannot reach the heights of talents like beethoven and shakespeare?
this may be the real nature of harold bloom's obsession with
shakespeare. bloom knows that the greatest brains are jews. yet, the
greatest writer of all time was shakespeare. just how did a goy do
that? it's like a negro pondering the phenomenon of larry bird.
of course, bloom knows that there have been many great goy writers
thru history--indeed, far more than great jewish writers. but, bloom
could understand the operative secret of most great goy writers--
figure out what made them tick. also, bloom could explain the
relative late start of jewish creativity due to religious dogmatism
and/or goy discrimination. but, how do you explain the genius of
shakespeare which is beyond what bloom's superhigh jewish IQ can
figure out? in a way, bloom may be hinting, rather cryptically, that
maybe, just maybe, shakespeare was a jew or front for a jew--similar
to his notion that the genesis may have been written by a woman.

anyway, though kubrick was proud of his jewish powers he wasn't
necessarily proud of his jewishness. he saw too much of jewish
society and culture as grubby and crass(money worshipping hollywood
producers), too pushy and self-righteous(leftwing and radical jews),
too vulgar and shameless(entertainment jews), and just downright ugly
and repulsive.
he loved his jewish powers of intellect but was ambivlaent about
jewish culture and attitudes. he grew up in NY but settled in a
mansion in a quiet english town. part of him wanted the dignified
gentlemanly english life. part of him was always the topsy turvy
creative NY jew. he never took on english manners and accent like T.
S. Eliot did.
but, kubrick didn't just wanna be a jew jew. aesthetically, he
preferred the aryan ideal. 2001 has solid white males as heroes than
grubby looking jews. and, in a way, The Shining about was about
jewish anxiety in the House of Privileged Goyim. even as nicholson is
king of the overlook hotel during winter, he doesn't really belong
there. and, no matter how much he tries to devote himself to
creativity, he can't help feeling that what really matters in life is
power, wealth, privilege, and etc as represented by the hotel.
so, kubrick wanted to be more than a jew. he wanted to be an aryan
jew. he was afflicted with the hannah arendt syndrome of worship of
german culture. yet, it was this crazy passion for german culture
that led to the destruction of jewry in WWII. so, it was a difficult
issue for kubrick to fathom. yet, deep in his heart, he shared some of
the same passions as german culture worshippers that led to nazism and
the holocaust. can one love/admire/worship german culture and still be
a jew? don't all cultures come with certain built-in prejudices and
biases? after all, it's difficult to worship jewish culture and
jewish god AND embrace polytheism. was there a strong strain of mono-
racialism at the core of german artistic genius and beauty? what did
this mean for the jew who loved german culture?
perhaps, the only answer was the fusion of jew and german genes--as in
the case of kubrick and his german wife. would this lead to the best
of both worlds? or, would it undermine or violate the best of both?
take sarah jessica parker, a blonde jewess. she's disgusting! an ugly
jewess is better than an ugly jewess adorned with touches of aryanism.
but then, there's paul newman, an almost perfectly beautiful creature
with best of aryan and semitic traits.
though tom cruise isn't very jewish looking, he partly represented
jewish anxiety in Eyes Wide Shut. he's a short dark haired
guy--'jewish'--married to a tall blonde aryan goddess type, which is
rather like kubrick with his german wife. this may be one of the
reasons why kubrick avoided the public eye--he knew that he would look
stupid walking next to his wife.
but, tom cruise only partly embodies jewish anxiety in Eyes Wide Shut.
the other part of his duality embodies the anxiety of the earnest goy
in a world that is ruled by a ultra-aryan/jewish fusion of assholes.
the mansion of fancy fuc*ery is where the big guns of old wasp power
and new jew power come together to slobber all over the best looking
pussies around the world. it's where the brains get the beauties.
brains gain the most riches and power. riches and power afford the
best pussies. is this right or wrong? is it as it should be or as it
just is?

so, what is to be done? can mankind be saved? can any idea or value
system save us? a better social policy? such can improve our lot but
cannot make us better. the only hope for improvement is thru
genetics, and that means reproduction. we don't know which child will
be born with the new mutations that will be the genetic basis for
higher man. but, such child may one day be born. so, all we can do is
cross our fingers, 'FUC*', and hope, as nicole kidman suggests at the
end of the movie. maybe, just maybe, out of the billions of new kids,
there will be the Star Child. so, we should learn to stop worrying and
do some fuc*ing.

william

unread,
May 16, 2008, 8:54:44 PM5/16/08
to
On May 16, 8:21 pm, animalishness <animalishn...@live.com> wrote:
> germans are an intelligent people but no match for the jews.

Have you read the directions on your prescription or do you just down
the pills by the handful?

William
www.williamahearn.com

TBerk

unread,
May 16, 2008, 9:21:28 PM5/16/08
to

Hi Gaza.

> On May 16, 8:21 pm, animalishness <animalishn...@live.com> wrote:
>

> > germans are an intelligent people...

<snip>


Lets just say they have some like everybody else.

Besides, whos to say the scientist in the film wasn't both?


TBerk

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 16, 2008, 9:53:02 PM5/16/08
to
On May 16, 8:21 pm, animalishness <animalishn...@live.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »

This is the anonymous intenet, and there is little (if any)
censorship.

A writer is allowed to express politically incorrect ideas.

Making stereotype and racist argumentation rantings happens when a
drunk-driving celebrity is
caught, and let's it all hang out, and here in n.g. it's much fun to
piss on shibboleths.

So, a writer's "id" is loosened, and I admit it can be obnoxiously
entertaining, as per the overall movie itself.

The
teutonic character--I've read--is takeoff on Edmund Teller &/or Henry
Kissinger

General Bat Guano (feces) is another mocking takeoff.

The President character played by Buck Henry is rational, waspy, and
gratuitously inoffensive.

My favorite is of that fake cowboy Hollywood Jewboy, Slim Pickins,
riding the bomb.

Them Jews is humorous, and no gentile could be so brilliantly
buffoonish, except
the catholic cowboy Kinky Friedman.

George C. Scott plays more than one character.

Immortalist

unread,
May 16, 2008, 9:53:23 PM5/16/08
to
On May 16, 5:21 pm, animalishness <animalishn...@live.com> wrote:
>
> anyway, it's funny that the character of Dr. Strangelove should be a
> nazi scientist and the leading brains behind the doomsday nuclear war
> machine.  shouldn't he be a jew since jews were the ones who invented
> and built the nuclear bomb?  but, i guess the jews who made the film
> didn't wanna give us a monstrous jew as the harbinger of doom for all
> mankind. (ironically, it's rocket science perfected by ex-nazi
> scientists which got the free world to the moon and made us reflect on
> the fragility of mankind on a small blue planet.)   also, it was so
> fashionable to portray an ex-nazi as the personification of perversity
> and evil.

Since Dr. Strangelove satirizes the Cold War and the doctrine of
mutual assured destruction and is loosely based by screenwriter Terry
Southern on Peter George's Cold War thriller novel Red Alert (aka Two
Hours to Doom), it would seem that you are making unfair demands upon
comedy productions. At first blush it appears that you have committed
the "Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion)" wherin an
arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic. [see satire
and black comedy] He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted
if his opinion is not treated with respect. Before trying to be a
movie critic maybe you should learn a little literary criticism
skills.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#laziness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_theory

In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings
are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque,
irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about
improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose
of satire is not primarily humor in itself so much as an attack on
something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon
of wit.

A very common, almost defining feature of satire is its strong vein of
irony or sarcasm, but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition,
comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in
satirical speech and writing.

Black comedy, also known as black humour or dark comedy is a sub-genre
of comedy and satire where topics and events that are usually treated
seriously (death, mass murder, suicide, domestic violence, disease,
insanity, fear, drug abuse, rape, war, terrorism, etc.) are treated in
a humorous or satirical manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_comedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Alert_%28novel%29

In conclusion your argument results in a straw man, if you think about
it, this, unless it was the actual intentions of the satarists. But if
that were the case then the sceenwrites for Charly Chaplins great
dictator must have been racist right, but it was also funny as hell.

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=great+dictator

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" is
fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply
does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as
well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the
person.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Merton Lippschitz

unread,
May 16, 2008, 10:44:58 PM5/16/08
to

"animalishness" <animal...@live.com> wrote in message
news:a7d19cad-6a47-440c...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> germans are an intelligent people but no match for the jews. german
> science was oriented towards teutonic technology, machinery, and
> engineering than theoretical brilliance that could really lead to some
> truly big shit.

But yet not one of those smart ghetto jews ever thought of inventing a
toilet in 2000 years lol Something the ancient Romans and Minoans and a
lot of other people had. The jews didn't even have toilet paper something
the Egyptians had haha

this is why nazi germany made a lot of excellent
> planes, tanks, guns, cannons, and rockets but miserably failed in the
> race to make the atomic bomb. the jews were the experts of the bomb
> on every level.

The jews are experts at stealing other people's ideas. And the Germans were
working on an Atomic bomb.

when german scientists were captured and secretly
> observed after WWII, it became clear that the best 'aryan' minds
> hadn't a clue about nuclear science.

Nonsense.


they were not even close. they
> were cavemen compared to the jews. it was like hulk hogan trying to
> be witty as woody allen.

Woody Allen is not funny.

it was like polacks trying to screw on a
> lightbulb.
>
> indeed, this is why german scientists employed by US and USSR after
> the war focused on stuff like rocket technology than advanced
> theoretical stuff. consider werner von braun.

Without rockets nuclear weapons would not be able to be delivered. You'd
have to drop them out of planes like they did in Japan and planes are easily
shot down. The Japanese were defenceless at the time.

when it came to fine
> theoretical details, jews were the king. and they still are, which is
> why the computer industry is dominated by jews.

The modern computer was the idea of an Englishman, Babbage. Jews had nothing
to do with the developement of the computer or the Internet. They saw a good
thing and they took advantage of other people's idea.

all the superduper
> billionaires in america will be jews working in hightech, and they're
> gonna use their tremendous amount of money earned thru hypercapitalism
> to, ironically, fund socialism. jews are funny this way.

Not for themselves haha If you added up all the billionaire's money in the
world it would still amount to very little. Besides, it's all tied up in
stock in their companies. Do you think Gates has a billion lying around in
cash? lol

part of them
> wanna make all the money, and another part of them want to control
> society like a giant laboratory according to their social theories.
> money-loving jews go into capitalism, and idea-loving jews write the
> books. money-loving jews read the books of idea-loving jews and also
> fund the idea-loving jews(who are leftist). so, we have jewish
> hypercapitalism supporting jewish socialism. jews rise above us and
> then preach to us about equality.

And no one listens to their childish theories. Communism is dead.


if george soros and sergei brin
> wanna be equal, they should work at walmart and get an ass tattoo like
> the rest of the working class. instead, they make billions, fund
> socialists, and preach to us about 'social justice'.

Do you know how many of these rich jews go broke and end up killing
themselves?

>
> anyway, it's funny that the character of Dr. Strangelove should be a
> nazi scientist and the leading brains behind the doomsday nuclear war
> machine.

Strangelove was directed by Kubrick, a jew. They are obsessed with Nazies.

shouldn't he be a jew since jews were the ones who invented
> and built the nuclear bomb?

No. Fermi did.


but, i guess the jews who made the film
> didn't wanna give us a monstrous jew as the harbinger of doom for all
> mankind. (ironically, it's rocket science perfected by ex-nazi
> scientists which got the free world to the moon and made us reflect on
> the fragility of mankind on a small blue planet.) also, it was so
> fashionable to portray an ex-nazi as the personification of perversity
> and evil.

They still do this in their films. Even if the villian is not a Nazi they
always make the Aryan looking character the bad guy and the Negro is the
hero lol Well, I guess they don't want to offend the morons who watch these
films or TV shows.


>
> yet, it's not so simple. in some ways, dr. strangelove is--and was
> slyly meant to be--the most admirable character in the movie. he's
> least hypocritical and most cold eyed truthful about world politics
> and human nature. in Full Metal Jacket, an commander says 'inside
> every gook is an american trying to get out'. in Dr. Strangelove,
> it's like 'inside every american, there is a nazi trying to get out'.
> but, given the nature of strangelove's brilliance, one could also say,
> rather perversely, that 'inside every nazi is a jew trying to get
> out'--or maybe, 'inside every jew, there is a nazi trying to get
> out'.

They got out and formed their own country called israhell.

this is partly true because jewish kubrick used dr. strangelove
> as his mouthpiece. if kubrick philosophically identified with any
> character in the movie, it was dr. strangelove. this isn't to say
> kubrick was a sociopathic psycho but to say he has a very
> unsentimental and cold-eyed view of mankind. when he was making
> Eyes Wide Shut, kubrick told frederic raphael that 'hitler was right
> about everything'. he obviously didn't meant that hitler's hatred was
> justified or that 6 million jews deserved to die. but, he agreed with
> the nazi position that the only REAL revolution can come thru genetic
> evolution/revolution, not thru social policy, politics, economics,
> etc. mankind is essentially biology. spirituality is a stuff of
> human imagination, not human genetic makeup. if spirituality is the
> answer, it must grow within us genetically and not merely thru our
> power to fantasize. this is why david bowman in 2001 is GENETICALLY
> spiritualized by the mysterious alien folks.

You contradict yourself here. Learn to think clearly. Your genetic makeup is
what determines what religions or philosophies you invent.

> as long as man fundamentally remains an hairless ape with animalistic
> instincts, our social policies and laws can only do so much. thru
> social ideas and policies, we can never be higher or better human
> beings but only better-controlled human animals. but, greater
> advances in technology also means greater ability for mankind to
> destroy itself--with nuclear weapons and such. also, the danger of
> science and rationalism is this silly idea that intelligent people can
> devise social policies that can make us into better people. we saw the
> hollowness of that idea in A Clockwork Orange. alex is programmed
> from a dangerous human animal to a defenseless human animal than into
> a better human being. this is all the more confused when most of
> human creativity is fueled by animal instincts. sucking out all the
> animalistic hormones from humans will make them less dangerous but
> also into useless veggies without any will to do anything.

If you read the book you will know that Alex went back to what he was, the
conditioning was reversed. He did however change into a normal person when
he became more mature at age 21. The Kubrick film was based on the US 20
chapter version of the Burgess novel. For some reason the US publishers
dropped the 21st chapter of the book when they published it in the US. This
is the version that Kubrick read. In the 21st chapter. little Alex just grew
up and realised that what he was doing wrong and pointless.


>
> also, what passes for liberal goodness is really founded on naivete
> that is stupidly or willfully blind to the ruthlessness of the natural/
> human order. for example, the reason why humans are safe from nature
> is because we ruthlessly wiped out nature around human communities.
> this sense of security has convinced many people to see wild animals
> as simply wonderful, safe, and noble; so, when people actually
> confront mean animals in nature, they are shocked. or, consider racial
> problems in the US. during the civil rights movement, whites fooled
> themselves into thinking whites and blacks could get along just
> famously; after all, most blacks seem to be law-abiding and respectful
> to honkeys. what most liberals failed to understand was that blacks
> were ostensibly respectful and relatively self-restrained due to their
> fear of white power and violence. once whites all turned liberalish
> and pussified, the physically stronger blacks

Negroes are not physically stronger than Whites. In fact, the opposite is
true. Even under identical conditions, Whites will live longer and be
physically fit longer. Whites and Asians are closely related but sub
Saharran Negroes are a different breed. btw, the reason that Whites don't go
into sports so much is because they have better things to do. And by Whites,
I think you're referring to US Whites. Take a look at some of the sports
figures from Eastern Europe and see who's stronger- Negroes or Whites.

began to kick honkey ass
> and rip up the racial contract of the civil rights movement.
> and, for a long time, the western world looked upon the chinese with
> compassion and sympathy as hopelessly poor and inept yellow sick man
> of asia.

No one ever thought of them as sickly or weak. They did after all built the
US railroad and don't forget the Great Wall.

but look at the rise of china today and their nasty national
> and chauvanistic international policy. liberalism is willfully blind,
> naive, and faggoty bullshi*. worse, it's been a luxury made
> affordable by western domination of the world. even as white liberals
> will never admit this, western liberalism would not have been possible
> WITHOUT western domination. it was a sense of security gained thru
> the western gun that allowed white man to delude himself that the west
> is respected for its liberty and goodness than for its power, wealth,
> and might. this isn't to say that might-is-right but merely to say
> that right-must-be-backed-with-might. overly self-critical white
> liberalism will not make non-whites respect the white man more but
> only feel more contempt and hatred.
>
> because human genius and creativity is paradoxical combination of
> aggressive animal instincts and calming spiritual wisdom, kubrick's
> ONLY optimistic film is 2001 where david bowman is altered genetically
> reconfigured by higher beings. even though the real secret to human
> progress is in our genes, humans cannot succeed at bio-engineering
> because the structure of the human brains only lead to the building of
> more elaborate cages as we try to break out of preexisting cages. this
> is both psychologically and socially true.

Humans want to dominate other humans, not put themselves into cages.


all this psychanalysis
> stuff has only caged people in new mental prisons. also, the more we
> try to make our lives easier thru technology, the more enslaved we
> become to technology. electicity is great, but if a power company
> goes down, millions of us are helpless. or, consider the rising cost
> of oil. cars are great but without oil, our entire economy shuts down
> and we become helpless.

Then they'll go to nuclear power.


humans are way too utilitarian in everything
> they do. so, genetic science may simply regard man as just a living
> machine even as we treat machines more as programmed organisms. no
> matter how we perfect man, we cannot go beyond man; yet, the only way
> to save humanity is to go beyond humanity. but, how can man go beyond
> man? so, we need higher beings, as in 2001.

Then they will no longer be men but some new species.

>
> also, we saw the result of man trying to achieve genetic revolution/
> evolution in the case of nazism, and it was horrific. also, it was
> funny that less intelligent germans were killing off more intelligent
> jews in the name of weeding out the inferior race. so, even nazi
> idealism wasn't true to its ideals. if intelligence was one sign of
> racial superiority, then germans should have put jews at the top of
> the social order.

Not really. A handful of jews most of whom were probably genetically German
does not represent an entire ethnic group.


but, what really motivated nazism was germanic
> tribalism than any real scientific understanding of human races.
> nothing made this point clearer than the competition between aryan
> scientists and jewish scientists during WWII. the aryans built some
> badass heavy duty rockets but jews figured out a way to level an
> entire city with a few ounces of nuclear material.

Fermi did.

german science was
> badass but jewish science was awesome. japs found out too--their pagan
> gods were no match to the god of the jews. it was like yul brynner in
> Ten Commandments saying, 'their god IS god' after his army gets wiped
> out in the red sea.

Nice film written by a jew and made AFTER WWII.


>
> so, kubrick's remark that 'hitler was right about everything' has to
> be taken with a grain of salt.

No, what he meant is exactly what he meant. He believed this racial
superiority stuff, he just believed the jews were on top. No different from
Nazies.

what he meant was no ideology or
> system can really save or change man unless the man is changed at his
> molecular/genetic core. everything else is purely cosmetic. it was
> like undergoing plastic surgery to make an ugly face pretty, while
> disregarding the fact that the dna code of the person is still ugly-
> faced. for the face to be truly pretty, the dna code must be made
> pretty. for man to be truly moral, the dna code must be reprogrammed
> to make man wiser. but, what is the secret?

Breeding. But no matter how much you breed people they will still always be
just people.


hitler didn't know. he
> was more like gay texas chainsaw massacre dude pretending to be an
> expert surgeon. and, the scientists in A Clockwork Orange didn't know
> either; they only perfected a method of behavioralism

Actually it was just crude classic conditioning. Alex still had the violent
impulses but to avoid the feeling of sickness would think of something nice.


which
> manipulated only the external mechanisms thru crude biochemistry. so,
> kubrick could only be hopeful by inventing higher beings from another
> world in 2001 Space Odyssey.


>
> but, there was something of a kinship between kubrick, hitler, and dr.
> strangelove. kubrick, like the crazy nazis, had little trust in human
> nature. he had a very grim, even brutal view of humanity. kubrick was
> no humanist nor a sentimentalist. he was certainly capable of empathy
> but not real sympathy. if spielberg identified mainly with david in
> AI, kubrick surely identified most with the scientist who done created
> david.
> also, he may have agreed with hitler except on the matter of the
> superior race. the superior race was not the aryan but the jew.

Exactly. It was only fear that jept the jew in line otherwise they'd be no
different than the Nazies. Read the Torah and see how they acted when they
had any power.


> though he could never say admit it publicly, kubrick was kinda like a
> jewish hitler who saw jews at the top of the racial hierarchy. this
> isn't to say that he was murderous and genocidal. but, he clearly did
> see hierarchy as the essence in nature and among humans.

It is.

chazwin

unread,
May 17, 2008, 4:46:45 AM5/17/08
to
The point about Dr Strangelove is that he was loosly based on Werner
Von Braun and his team that were snatched by the USA "space program"
to design the rockets for nuclear weapons in the arms race.

chazwin

unread,
May 17, 2008, 4:50:44 AM5/17/08
to
George C Scott play General Turginson - only ONE character!
It is Peter Sellers that plays multiple characters: Dr Strangelove,
Group Captain Mandrake and President Muffley.

Avenger

unread,
May 17, 2008, 7:15:40 AM5/17/08
to

"chazwin" <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59dcfcbb-ec50-46ed...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

George C Scott play General Turginson - only ONE character!
It is Peter Sellers that plays multiple characters: Dr Strangelove,
Group Captain Mandrake and President Muffley.

Yes, as he did in Lolita.

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 17, 2008, 11:51:46 AM5/17/08
to
On May 17, 7:15 am, "Avenger" <aven...@avengers.co.uk> wrote:
> "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > George C. Scott plays more than one character.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I was all of eleven or twelve years old when I saw it, and there was
more than one doomsday movie in the 1950s, which is why I probably
said "Buck Henry"

Theme song, WALTZING MATILDA, Tony Perkins, submarine, name this 1959
era movie, i always forget its name, the telegraph key like thing was
stuck, everybody had died, <Tony was to become or had been Norman
Bates in PSYCHO and then subsequently got few roles because the
audience so typed him in the Hitchcock classic>

FIVE DAYS IN MAY, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, boring somewhat, too
profound for its popcorn chomping, sticky cola spilling audience
including moi

wull

unread,
May 17, 2008, 12:06:54 PM5/17/08
to

"Robert Cohen" <robt...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:509fe8c9-825d-4f81...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On May 17, 7:15 am, "Avenger" <aven...@avengers.co.uk> wrote:
> "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:59dcfcbb-ec50-46ed...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> George C Scott play General Turginson - only ONE character!
> It is Peter Sellers that plays multiple characters: Dr Strangelove,
> Group Captain Mandrake and President Muffley.
>
> Yes, as he did in Lolita.
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is the anonymous intenet, and there is little (if any)
> > censorship.
>
> > A writer is allowed to express politically incorrect ideas.
>
> > Making stereotype and racist argumentation rantings happens when a
> > drunk-driving celebrity is
> > caught, and let's it all hang out, and here in n.g. it's much fun to
> > piss on shibboleths.
>
> > So, a writer's "id" is loosened, and I admit it can be obnoxiously
> > entertaining, as per the overall movie itself.
>
> > The
> > teutonic character--I've read--is takeoff on Edmund Teller &/or Henry
> > Kissinger
>
> > General Bat Guano (feces) is another mocking takeoff.
>
> > The President character played by Buck Henry is rational, waspy, and

It has been years since I saw the movie but I remember the president as
being another role for Peter Sellers. I knew he had 3 roles and never saw a
third one. On the way home from the movie I was discussing it and it dawned
on me that Seller's third role was the President. I know I could look it up
but I also know Mr. Mahoney will know the answer.

Wull

Frank R.A.J. Maloney

unread,
May 17, 2008, 12:45:05 PM5/17/08
to
Newsgroup list trimmed:

wull wrote:

[deletions]

> It has been years since I saw the movie but I remember the president as
> being another role for Peter Sellers. I knew he had 3 roles and never saw a
> third one. On the way home from the movie I was discussing it and it dawned
> on me that Seller's third role was the President. I know I could look it up
> but I also know Mr. Mahoney will know the answer.
>
> Wull
>

Who is this Mr. Mahoney of whom you speak so confidently?

But you're right about Sellers: Group Captain Mandrake, Dr. Strangelove,
*and* President Merkin Muffly.

(I'm sure you know this, but in case someone else hasn't gotten the memo
let me mention that a merkin was a genital wig as well as a corruption
of "American".)

[deletion]

> I was all of eleven or twelve years old when I saw it, and there was
> more than one doomsday movie in the 1950s, which is why I probably
> said "Buck Henry"
>
> Theme song, WALTZING MATILDA, Tony Perkins, submarine, name this 1959
> era movie, i always forget its name, the telegraph key like thing was
> stuck, everybody had died, <Tony was to become or had been Norman
> Bates in PSYCHO and then subsequently got few roles because the
> audience so typed him in the Hitchcock classic>
>

_On the Beach_ (1959) was the "Waltzing Matilda" movie. I saw it again
recently and had trouble sticking with it, despite its obvious virtues.
Perhaps I'm finally over my nuclear jitters.

> FIVE DAYS IN MAY, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, boring somewhat, too
> profound for its popcorn chomping, sticky cola spilling audience
> including moi

You were probably too young for a serious thriller, whereas black comedy
is always accessible to any moderately bright child, not that you
weren't prodigiously precocious. But a terrific cast: Lancaster,
Douglas, Ava hubba-hubba Gardner, Fredric March, Edmond O'Brien, Martin
Balsam, et alii.

The novel by Knebel & Bailey was an excellent read, if I remember correctly.


--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."

wull

unread,
May 17, 2008, 1:47:10 PM5/17/08
to

"Frank R.A.J. Maloney" <fr...@blarg.net> wrote in message
news:sfKdnTMmrqAPlrLV...@posted.isomediainc...

> Newsgroup list trimmed:
>
> wull wrote:
>
> [deletions]
>
>> It has been years since I saw the movie but I remember the president as
>> being another role for Peter Sellers. I knew he had 3 roles and never
>> saw a third one. On the way home from the movie I was discussing it and
>> it dawned on me that Seller's third role was the President. I know I
>> could look it up but I also know Mr. Mahoney will know the answer.
>>
>> Wull
>>
>
> Who is this Mr. Mahoney of whom you speak so confidently?

My apologies Frank. I have always mixed those two names.

I saw the other two movies also, they were both good.
There are certain actors and a few actresses that were always good even when
a movie was not up to par.
I can't think os any today that would fit that mold, except maybe Ellen
Burstyn and Meryl Streep and usually Gena Rowlands.

Wull

Halmyre

unread,
May 17, 2008, 1:53:43 PM5/17/08
to
In article <xoDXj.1201$BL6...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>, wma...@sbcglobal.net
says...

It's said that Sellers was supposed to play the B52 pilot (Major Kong) as
well, but couldn't hack the accent, and invented a sore leg as an excuse.

Which is good, in a way, because then we got Slim Pickens in the role.

--
Halmyre

That's you that is.

Kelpzoidzl

unread,
May 17, 2008, 3:32:01 PM5/17/08
to

"wull" <wma...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xoDXj.1201$BL6...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...

>
> Theme song, WALTZING MATILDA, Tony Perkins, submarine, name this 1959
> era movie, i always forget its name, the telegraph key like thing was
> stuck, everybody had died, <Tony was to become or had been Norman
> Bates in PSYCHO and then subsequently got few roles because the
> audience so typed him in the Hitchcock classic>


Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Fred Astaire, Anthony Perkins, "On the Beach"
directed by Stanley Kramer--very excellent film


>
> FIVE DAYS IN MAY, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, boring somewhat, too
> profound for its popcorn chomping, sticky cola spilling audience
> including moi


SEVEN days in May, decent book(1962) , decent film.(1964)

There was also the TV movie, on "Playhouse 90", "Alas Babylon"(1960)--very
excellent--- based on a hugely popular book also excellent(1959)

Dr. Strangelove (1964) sort of based on the non-comedic books Red alert
(so-so) (1958) and "Fail Safe" (so-so) (book 1962) (Sidney Lumet film
1964-also so-so)

Kubrick's was the comedy and really kicked off the Black Comedy concept.
"Alas Babylon" and "On the Beach," were masterpieces ---But Dr. Starngelove
took it to a new level.

dc


Howard Brazee

unread,
May 17, 2008, 8:04:56 PM5/17/08
to
On Sat, 17 May 2008 08:51:46 -0700 (PDT), Robert Cohen
<robt...@msn.com> wrote:

>Theme song, WALTZING MATILDA, Tony Perkins, submarine, name this 1959
>era movie, i always forget its name, the telegraph key like thing was
>stuck, everybody had died, <Tony was to become or had been Norman
>Bates in PSYCHO and then subsequently got few roles because the
>audience so typed him in the Hitchcock classic>

I saw _On The Beach_ when it came out, but didn't discover Neville
Shute until later. I still remember the haunting music favorably.

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 17, 2008, 10:31:05 PM5/17/08
to
On May 17, 7:15 am, "Avenger" <aven...@avengers.co.uk> wrote:
> "chazwin" <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > George C. Scott plays more than one character.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Humbert Humbert JAMES MASON, Shelly Winters' not friend, was the star,
w/Sue Lyon and Shellly Winters as mom

Peter Sellers was probably busy with Britt Eklund anyhow

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 17, 2008, 10:34:39 PM5/17/08
to

Not at all, the primary source for his characterisation was the
(autistic) RAND Corporation's sociopath, Herman Kahn, not von Braun
(who worked for NASA: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun),
not Teller (a Hungarian Jew who fled Germany in 1933), not Kissinger
(a German Jew and cynical pragmatist), while the military in the film,
Ripper and Turgidson, were largely based on the Curtis Le May MAD
clique (General Curtis LeMay was the head of SAC and in 1945 had
encouraged the creation of RAND and was often spoken of as its
"Godfather") who aligned with Kahn, but who's 'first strike/second-
strike' lunacy was eventually replaced by Albert Wohlstetter's 'basing
strategy'. Moreover, following the film's release, Herman Kahn even
went so far as to demand royalties from Kubrick, to which Kubrick
replied, "That's not the way it works Herman." It is also clear that
the stereotyped cripple with a 'Nazi accent' adopted by Sellers was
an attempt to draw an analogy between the madness of Nazism and the
madness of the paranoid cold-war lunatics running the US Military
Industrial Complex and their RAND strategists. [Today, of course, Dr
Strangelove's wheelchair would be occupied by a mad Christian-Zionist
fundamentalist, of which there is no shortage].

Brian Siano, when he used to be rational, wrote in "A Commentary on Dr
Strangelove" (at The Kubrick Site): "I think the best case can be made
that Herman Kahn was the best source for Strangelove. Kahn was one of
the earliest employees at the Rand Corporation, which had been set by
Gen. "Hap" Arnold to study nuclear war. According to The Wizards Of
Armageddon by Fred Kaplan, Kahn was notable for developing the
linguistic trick of referring to potential casualties with the "only"
word, as in "only two million killed." "Alluding almost casually to
'only' two million dead was part of the image Kahn was fashioning for
himself, the living portrait of the ultimate defense intellectual,
cool and fearless, asking the questions everyone else ignored,
thinking about the unthinkable." Indeed, his book On Thermonuclear War
(1960), Scientific American reviewed it as "a moral tract on mass
murder; how to plan it, how to commit it, how to get away with it, how
to justify it."

The case for Kahn: Dr. Strangelove himself refers to a study he
commissioned from the "Bland Corporation," a clear play on Kahn's old
haunts. The similarity to Kahn's own ideas in Strangelove's
pronouncements -- including the mine-shaft and ten-females-to-each-
male stuff -- is uncannily similar to Kahn's brand of futurism. And
since Kahn was the most famous nuclear war theorist at the time,
Kubrick must have been thinking of his work.

The case against Kahn: Kahn, despite his name, was American-born, and
was never a Nazi. Kahn was once asked about Strangelove, and his reply
was: "Dr. Strangelove would not have lasted three weeks at the
Pentagon... he was too creative."

My Best Guess is that Kubrick wanted to satirize the works of nuclear
intellectuals such as Herman Kahn. Kahn was clearly the most famous,
though it is not inconceivable that Kubrick was aware of Kissinger's
work in the field. In order to give an extra spin on the ultra-
rational, "pragmatic" pose, Kubrick added allusions to Von Braun's
Nazi past. The wheelchair and the physical infirmities were added to
give Strangelove a bizarre, grotesque appearance. But personally, I
believe that Herman Kahn was the single greatest influence on the
creation of Dr. Strangelove."

[Note: von Braun was actually a German Lutheran aristocrat who at one
point was arrested by the Gestapo and interrogated for two weeks.
Himmler charged that von Braun was a Communist sympathizer and had
attempted to sabotage the V-2 program. There is, however, a connection
with Kubrick: the 'cartwheel' orbiting space station in 2001 was taken
from a von Braun design that was first published in the 1950s. Von
Braun's designs for a manned space station "were published in a
Collier's Weekly magazine series of articles entitled Man Will Conquer
Space Soon! These articles were illustrated by the space artist
Chesley Bonestell and were influential in spreading his ideas."]

Further, the wiki entry on Kahn claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Herman_Kahn):
"Kahn was reportedly one of the models for Dr. Strangelove from
Stanley Kubrick's film of the same name, released in 1964 (other
prominent influences were Edward Teller, Robert McNamara, and Wernher
von Braun). It was said that Kubrick immersed himself in On
Thermonuclear War and insisted that the film's producer also read it.
Furthermore, Kubrick actually met Kahn personally, and Kahn gave him
the idea for the Doomsday Machine, which would immediately destroy the
entire planet in the event of a nuclear attack. In the film, Dr.
Strangelove, portrayed by Peter Sellers (who also portrayed United
States President Merkin Muffley and British Group Captain Lionel
Mandrake) refers to a report on the Doomsday Machine by the "BLAND
Corporation." The Doomsday Machine is precisely the sort of
destabilizing tactic that Kahn himself sought to avert, since its only
purpose was a threat or bluff rather than actual military application.

Also based upon Kahn was Walter Matthau's maverick character Professor
Groteschele in Fail-Safe, in which the U.S. President (played by Henry
Fonda) tries to prevent a nuclear holocaust when a mechanical
malfunction sends nuclear weapons heading toward Moscow.

The band Megadeth, got its name from the deliberate misspelling of the
word megadeath, a term coined in 1953 by Herman Kahn to describe one
million deaths, which was popularized in his 1960 book On
Thermonuclear War."

Halmyre

unread,
May 18, 2008, 6:13:11 AM5/18/08
to
In article <83fecb2e-6d6b-45fc-a1a0-605e60d7e116
@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, unhomed...@yahoo.com says...

>
> Also based upon Kahn was Walter Matthau's maverick character Professor
> Groteschele in Fail-Safe, in which the U.S. President (played by Henry
> Fonda) tries to prevent a nuclear holocaust when a mechanical
> malfunction sends nuclear weapons heading toward Moscow.
>

I thought Matthau's character was based on Edward Teller...

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 18, 2008, 10:41:22 AM5/18/08
to
On May 17, 10:34 pm, Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 9:46 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The point about Dr Strangelove is that he was loosly based on Werner
> > Von Braun and his team that were snatched by the USA "space program"
> > to design the rockets for nuclear weapons in the arms race.
>
> Not at all, the primary source for his characterisation was the
> (autistic) RAND Corporation's sociopath, Herman Kahn, not von Braun
> (who worked for NASA: seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun),

Well-informed and most plausible.

Kelpzoidzl

unread,
May 18, 2008, 1:24:30 PM5/18/08
to

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:rjsu24lm62r5lrp58...@4ax.com...


The book was great too, but the movie is one of those rare "as good as the
book." films.

That ending of the film was diabolical and had a major impact on my 12 years
old brain.

dc

Jerry Kraus

unread,
May 18, 2008, 3:48:45 PM5/18/08
to
On May 16, 7:21 pm, animalishness <animalishn...@live.com> wrote:
> germans are an intelligent people but no match for the jews.  german
> science was oriented  towards teutonic technology, machinery, and
> engineering than theoretical brilliance that could really lead to some
> truly big shit.  this is why nazi germany made a lot of excellent
> planes, tanks, guns, cannons, and rockets but miserably failed in the
> race to make the atomic bomb.   the jews were the experts of the bomb


Because they were thinking of Dr. Werner Von Braun, head of Nasa's
rocket program in the 1960's, and, formerly, Hitler's chief rocket
designer for the V1 and V2 rockets.

death from above

unread,
May 19, 2008, 10:38:25 PM5/19/08
to


kahn was a jew, right?

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 20, 2008, 12:11:27 AM5/20/08
to
On May 19, 10:38 pm, death from above <cerebureaucr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> kahn was a jew, right?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

re: religion/ethnicity of the original atomic bomb theorists &
Strangelove

Enrico Fermi and some other names mentioned in this WIKI article
apparently ain't members of the tribe,

re: Herman Kahn = Dr. Strangelove = Jew

Some German Jews are rather teutonic, authoritarian, cold, and
paranoiac.

Some Jews apparently had lived in southern Germany by the (Danube?)
river since the first century.

The artist/film-maker has a license to distort reality and to bash
nazis.

The commentator's ideas are provocatively-interestingly made, and are
semi-accepted as valid truths by me.

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 20, 2008, 12:13:25 AM5/20/08
to
> semi-accepted as valid truths by me.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi

Boed...@isp.com

unread,
May 21, 2008, 2:23:20 AM5/21/08
to
On May 17, 1:50 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> George C Scott play General Turginson - only ONE character!
> It is Peter Sellers that plays multiple characters: Dr Strangelove,
> Group Captain Mandrake and President Muffley.

Peter Sellers was a good actor, but barmy. Like
most jews he was confused. His mother, Peggy Mendoza, was descended
from the former Heavyweight Champion
of the British Empire in the time of George 111.
David Mendoza, a Sephardic jew.


>
>
>
>
>
> > This is the anonymous intenet, and there is little (if any)
> > censorship.
>
> > A writer is allowed to express politically incorrect ideas.
>
> > Making stereotype and racist argumentation rantings  happens when a
> > drunk-driving  celebrity is
> > caught, and let's it all hang out, and here in n.g. it's much fun to
> > piss on shibboleths.
>
> > So, a writer's "id" is loosened, and I admit it can be obnoxiously
> > entertaining, as per the overall movie itself.
>
> > The
> > teutonic character--I've read--is  takeoff on Edmund Teller &/or Henry
> > Kissinger
>
> > General Bat Guano (feces) is another mocking takeoff.
>
> > The President character played by Buck Henry is rational, waspy, and
> > gratuitously inoffensive.

He was played by Peter Sellers.


>
> > My favorite is of that fake cowboy Hollywood Jewboy, Slim Pickins,
> > riding the bomb.
>
> > Them Jews is  humorous, and no gentile could be so brilliantly
> > buffoonish, except
> > the catholic cowboy Kinky Friedman.
>
> > George C. Scott plays more than one character.

He played only one character.

Boed...@isp.com

unread,
May 21, 2008, 2:25:25 AM5/21/08
to

He died of AIDS. His widow was killed on 9-11.
when her plane went down in Pennsylvania.


>
> FIVE DAYS IN MAY, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, boring somewhat,  too
> profound for its popcorn chomping, sticky cola spilling audience

> including moi- Hide quoted text -

Frank R.A.J. Maloney

unread,
May 21, 2008, 12:32:59 PM5/21/08
to
Boed...@isp.com wrote:

*PLONK*

Steven L.

unread,
May 21, 2008, 8:40:02 PM5/21/08
to

Teller was a Hungarian JEW.
Henry Kissinger is a German JEW.

So Kubrick got the best of three worlds here!


> Them Jews is humorous, and no gentile could be so brilliantly
> buffoonish, except

The radio operator in the B-52, "Goldie," looked and talked like he was
supposed to be Jewish. (I assume that was short for "Goldman" or
"Goldstein" or just "Gold," all Jewish last names.)

--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

unread,
May 21, 2008, 8:42:51 PM5/21/08
to
Harry Bailey wrote:

> [Note: von Braun was actually a German Lutheran aristocrat who at one
> point was arrested by the Gestapo and interrogated for two weeks.
> Himmler charged that von Braun was a Communist sympathizer and had
> attempted to sabotage the V-2 program. There is, however, a connection
> with Kubrick: the 'cartwheel' orbiting space station in 2001 was taken
> from a von Braun design that was first published in the 1950s.

Here, I think you have him confused with Willy Ley, another German
scientist. He worked with Bonestell on matte paintings for such sci-fi
movies as "Conquest of Space," which featured an orbiting wheel-type
space station, and which were featured in popular magazines like Collier's.

Steven L.

unread,
May 21, 2008, 8:52:10 PM5/21/08
to
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On May 16, 7:21 pm, animalishness <animalishn...@live.com> wrote:
>> germans are an intelligent people but no match for the jews. german
>> science was oriented towards teutonic technology, machinery, and
>> engineering than theoretical brilliance that could really lead to some
>> truly big shit. this is why nazi germany made a lot of excellent
>> planes, tanks, guns, cannons, and rockets but miserably failed in the
>> race to make the atomic bomb. the jews were the experts of the bomb

In a less politically correct age, it was considered common knowledge
that the Jewish intelligence tends more toward the speculative than the
practical. A perfect match for theoretical physics.


> Because they were thinking of Dr. Werner Von Braun, head of Nasa's
> rocket program in the 1960's, and, formerly, Hitler's chief rocket
> designer for the V1 and V2 rockets.

The V-2 was brilliant design, years ahead of its time. The Germans even
had plans under way to launch V2 missiles against America from U-boats,
which would have been the world's first submarine-launched ballistic
missiles, 15 years ahead of the U.S. Polaris missile of 1960. But
Germany had pretty much lost the war by then.

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 21, 2008, 10:41:37 PM5/21/08
to

> > The
> > teutonic character--I've read--is  takeoff on Edmund Teller &/or Henry
> > Kissinger
>
> Teller was a Hungarian JEW.
> Henry Kissinger is a German JEW.

[and Kahn's parents were Polish Jews]. So what? What's your point? The
film makes no mention whatsoever of anyone's religious affiliations,
fetishes, or paranoia ...
It seems to me that the original poster who started this thread is -
structurally - an eager pathological victim of the very racialising
delirium of which the Nazi's themselves were guilty of: a
deterministic racialising dementia derived from the deterministic
ravings of Eugenicists, Social Darwinists, and Bell Curve racists ...

With the - predictable - result that today even the use of the word
"Jew" is widely seen (particularly by Zionists and their apologists)
as 'anti-semetic', to such an extent that if you type the word "Jew"
into the Google search engine, the following is corporate-capitalist-
ideological Google's response:
----------------------------------------------------------
"An explanation of our search results.

If you recently used Google to search for the word "Jew," you may have
seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views
expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by
Google. We'd like to explain why you're seeing these results when you
conduct this search.

A site's ranking in Google's search results relies heavily on computer
algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page's relevance
to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to
appear that cannot be predicted. A search for "Jew" brings up one such
unexpected result.

If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish
people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search
for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used
in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to
use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith. The
word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites
devoted to Jewish topics such as these:


http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp

Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more
likely to enter terms like "Judaism," "Jewish people," or "Jews" than
the single word "Jew." In fact, prior to this incident, the word "Jew"
only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it's
likely that the great majority of searches on Google for "Jew" are by
people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for
themselves.

The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as
the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our
search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do
periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust
search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such
requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our
search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do
not remove a page from our search results simply because its content
is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will,
however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its
site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required
to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible
for the page.

We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using
Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.

Sincerely,
The Google Team

p.s. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-
Defamation League has posted about this issue at
http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we
call your attention to Google's search results on this topic. "

http://www.google.com/explanation.html
---------------------

One in ten million? Then why is it a 'problem'?

Will they create a similar automated response for anyone who types in
'Catholic', 'Protestant', 'Muslim', 'Scientologist', 'Atheist', etc?

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 22, 2008, 12:41:11 AM5/22/08
to
> http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp
> Defamation League has posted about this issue athttp://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we

> call your attention to Google's search results on this topic. "
>
> http://www.google.com/explanation.html
> ---------------------
>
> One in ten million? Then why is it a 'problem'?
>
> Will they create a similar automated response for anyone who types in
> 'Catholic', 'Protestant', 'Muslim', 'Scientologist', 'Atheist', etc?

This dictionary tactfully explains the negative connotation of "Jew,"
and the potential insult of the alternative, "Jewish person."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jew

Words are about culture, connotations & denotations.

Somewhat similarly, the term "gypsy" has a strong negative connotaion
as does, "jew."

When I buy a car, I try to "baptist 'em down."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jew

Kelpzoidzl

unread,
May 22, 2008, 2:24:46 AM5/22/08
to

"Harry Bailey" <unhomed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9fc206b4-e0f6-44f1...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> > The
> > teutonic character--I've read--is takeoff on Edmund Teller &/or Henry
> > Kissinger
>
> Teller was a Hungarian JEW.
> Henry Kissinger is a German JEW.

[and Kahn's parents were Polish Jews]. So what? What's your point? The
film makes no mention whatsoever of anyone's religious affiliations,
fetishes, or paranoia ...
It seems to me that the original poster who started this thread is -
structurally - an eager pathological victim of the very racialising
delirium of which the Nazi's themselves were guilty of: a
deterministic racialising dementia derived from the deterministic
ravings of Eugenicists, Social Darwinists, and Bell Curve racists
...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A most evil lot.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with the - predictable - result that today even the use of


http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~mendele/vol01/vol01.174
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp

Sincerely,
The Google Team

http://www.google.com/explanation.html
---------------------

A digital gag-order.

dc

chazwin

unread,
May 22, 2008, 4:18:24 AM5/22/08
to
On 18 May, 03:34, Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 9:46 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The point about Dr Strangelove is that he was loosly based on Werner
> > Von Braun and his team that were snatched by the USA "space program"
> > to design the rockets for nuclear weapons in the arms race.
>
> Not at all, the primary source for his characterisation was the
> (autistic) RAND Corporation's sociopath, Herman Kahn, not von Braun
> (who worked for NASA: seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun),

I think you are shooting yourslef in the foot here. The fact that he
was a Nazi suggests that Dr Strangelove is a composite character.

Indeed the link you gave makes that clear: .": Dr Strangelove is
usually held to be based at least partly on von Braun."
The fact that he is disabled echoes some of the roles of Erich von
Stoheim often seen with a monocle, a dodgy arm and a limp so lovingly
parodied in by the Burgemeister in Young Frankenstein who holds his
darts by knocking them into his wooden arm.

>
> My Best Guess

Indeed? - we can all copy and paste from wiki

David Matthews

unread,
May 22, 2008, 7:03:08 AM5/22/08
to

> The V-2 was brilliant design, years ahead of its time. The Germans even
> had plans under way to launch V2 missiles against America from U-boats,
> which would have been the world's first submarine-launched ballistic
> missiles, 15 years ahead of the U.S. Polaris missile of 1960. But Germany
> had pretty much lost the war by then.
>
> Steven L.


When the first V-2s hit London the British didn't know what they were. The
V-2s traveled faster than sound and disintegrated on impact. The British
thought the damage done was due to either IRA activity or natural gas
explosions, it was a while before they realized that they were being
bombarded by rockets.

Dave in Toronto

Bill Reid

unread,
May 22, 2008, 10:00:10 AM5/22/08
to

Harry Bailey <unhomed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9fc206b4-e0f6-44f1...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> It seems to me that the original poster who started this thread is -


> structurally - an eager pathological victim of the very racialising
> delirium of which the Nazi's themselves were guilty of: a
> deterministic racialising dementia derived from the deterministic
> ravings of Eugenicists, Social Darwinists, and Bell Curve racists ...

And newsgroup posters?

> With the - predictable - result that today even the use of the word
> "Jew" is widely seen (particularly by Zionists and their apologists)

Hmmm, doesn't like "Zionists", why does this not surprise me...

> as 'anti-semetic', to such an extent that if you type the word "Jew"
> into the Google search engine, the following is corporate-capitalist-
> ideological Google's response:

For some real Google(TM) fun, go to Google(TM) Groups, then
go to Advanced Groups Search. Then enter "alt.movies.kubrick"
in the "Group" box, and the "n-word" (the actual word) in the "Find
messages with at least one of the words", then press the "Google
Search" button. Note carefully which poster's messages come
up, and the number of them.

It's enough to make you go "wow-wow-whee-wow"!!!

---
William Ernest "That's Nice!" Reid

stalepie

unread,
May 22, 2008, 8:01:13 PM5/22/08
to
On May 22, 10:00 am, "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> > as 'anti-semetic', to such an extent that if you type the word "Jew"
> > into the Google search engine, the following is corporate-capitalist-
> > ideological Google's response:
>
> For some real Google(TM) fun, go to Google(TM) Groups, then
> go to Advanced Groups Search.  Then enter "alt.movies.kubrick"
> in the "Group" box, and the "n-word" (the actual word) in the "Find
> messages with at least one of the words", then press the "Google
> Search" button.  Note carefully which poster's messages come
> up, and the number of them.
>
> It's enough to make you go "wow-wow-whee-wow"!!!
>
> ---
> William Ernest "That's Nice!" Reid

Awesome!! I'm the second one that comes up!

FWIW, I once tried to ... uh this was years ago... I once tried to
talk about race and evolution here and I got shot down by pretty much
everybody. Nobody was openly receptive of it. So I think that speaks
to AMK as being a consistently non-racist newsgroup.

It's funny, one time on Youtube I was defending Israel and I was
called a kike. And then recently on Ha'Aretz in the comments under an
article I defended this Holocaust guy in France for saying he didn't
think it happened, I mean I was defending his right to say that
without getting fined, and I was called a cracker.

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 22, 2008, 8:14:22 PM5/22/08
to
On May 22, 3:00 pm, "Bill Reid" <hormelf...@happyhealthy.net> wrote:
> Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> And newsgroup posters?
>
> > With the - predictable - result that today even the use of the word
> > "Jew" is widely seen (particularly by Zionists and their apologists)
>
> Hmmm, doesn't like "Zionists", why does this not surprise me...
>

The ideological pathologies that are both Zionism and Nazism have
similar historical origins - in German Romanticism - which should be
obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of 19th century
German, and European, history. Contrary to the ludicrous myth peddled
by Zionists, Zionism was not a response to the Nazi holocaust, but a
racist colonial project conceived well before (in the 19th century)
the judeocide of the Nazis.

Antisemitism as a form of racism emerged in colonial ideology within a
system of classifications in which both Arabs and Jews were designated
'Semite', a supposedly inferior 'race' to the 'Aryan' whose precocious
civilizations were being 'unearthed' in India. This is why Benjamin
Disraeli considered the Arabs "Jews on horseback". Now, this has
consequences. If anti-Muslim racism and antisemitism (in its
contemporary sense as anti-Jewish racism) are historically joined at
the hip, then this compels us to see them as not merely equivalent
(which is obvious, yet implicitly denied by those ignorant of
history), but as part of the same historical sickness, part of the
same system of Othering and dehumanisation.

Zionism was imbricated with British colonialism in Palestine, and with
the vicious repression of the Palestinian national movement. Had it
not been for WWII, the Zionist war of conquest would have been fought
and probably won anyway. The fact that many Jewish people turned to
Zionism after the Nazi holocaust is one of the real tragedies of
history, because in practise it was nothing other than the racist
murder and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. To justify that is
shameful, and to justify it with reference to the Nazi holocaust is
perverse (ie playing "the Holocaust card"). There has been no greater
crime in human history. Does that make the case for a racist, Zionist
Israel? Does genocide make the case for ethnic cleansing and mass
murder? Only in the mind of someone who has wholly swallowed the
racialising pathology and propaganda of Zionism. But of course, I
should mention Israeli antisemitism isn't just aimed at Arabs. It
isn't even just aimed at Sephardic Jews either. Zionism replicates
almost exactly the
discourse of classical European antisemitism, with its ideological and
etymological origins in Aryan racial discourse . And any defense of
Zionism is by logical corollary an antisemitic gesture.

Jewish people are not some homogenous bloc (and most of them are
increasingly anti-Zionist), or some grouping that could possibly have
a collective 'will' and interest represented in a national state. In
general, I think such an idea is an essentialist, delirial absurdity
that should be left to antisemites and Zionists, who are ideological
co-dependents these days.

On colonialism, blood and soil:

The full gamut of the Zionist movement made much of what was dubbed
the 'historical right'. ([Anita] Shapira also
refers to it as the 'proprietary right') of the Jews to Palestine. It
was a "right that required no proof ... a
fundamental component of all Zionist programmes". Steeped in German
Romanticism, the claim was that because the forefathers of the Jewish
people had originated and been buried in Palestine, Jews could only -
and only Jews
could - establish an authentic, organic connection with the soil
there. Noting the 'German source', Shapira points
to the 'recurrent motif' in Zionism of the 'mysticism that links blood
and soil', the "cult of heroes, death and
graves", the belief that "graves are the source of the vital link with
the land, and they generate the loyalty of
man to that soil", and that "blood fructifies the soil (in an almost
literal sense)", and so on. Even so sober a
thinker as Ahad Ha'am could aver that Palestine was "a land to which
our historical right is beyond doubt and has
no need for far-fetched proofs". The veteran Zionist leader, Mennahem
Ussishkin, pushed the logic of the argument
to its ultimate, if fantastic, conclusion, stating that "the Arabs
recognise unconditionally the historic title of the Jews to the land".

This sort of 'historic right' was also siezed by the Romantic
precursors of Nazism and, with a vengeance, by the
Nazis themselves, to justify the conquest of the East. Germany was
said to have legitimate claims on Slavic
territory (especially but not limited to Poland) since it was "already
inhabited by the Germans in primeval times", "fertilised by the most
noble ancient German blood", "germanic for many centuries and long
before a Slav
set foot there", "teutonic-German Volksbloden for 3,000 years as far
as the Vistula. ... In the 6th and 7th
Century after Christ the Slavs pushed outward from their eastern
homelands and into the ancient German land... -
admittedly only for a few hundred years", etc. The Slavic
'interlopers', by contrast, were seen as 'history's
squatters' who merely 'existed' in surroundings that they 'could not
master' ... Thus in 1939, the eminent pro-
Nazi historian, Albert Brackmann, portrayed Germany as Europe's
'defender' and 'bulwark' against the 'East', and
the 'bearers of civilisation' against 'barbarism'. A half century
earlier, Theodor Herzl portrayed the prospective
Jewish state as Europe's "wall of defense against Asia", and an
"outpost of civilisation against barbarism".

...

[T]he claim of Jewish 'homelessness' is founded in a cluster of
assumptions that both negates the idea of liberal
citizenship and duplicates the anti-Semitic one that the state belongs
to the majority ethnic nation. In a word,
the Zionist case for a Jewish state is as valid or as invalid as the
anti-Semitic case for an ethnic state that
marginalizes Jews. (Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the
Israel-Palestine Conflict, Verso, 1995, pp 100-1).


Some examples of racist and anti-semitic Zionist dementia:


"We are different, we are a chosen one, and a special one, selected
for purity and holiness. There is no reason to
being a Jew, unless there is something intrinsically different about
him. No, we are not equal to Gentiles, we are
different. We are higher." - Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish
Defense League.


Anti-Arab racism had in fact been evident from the first wave of
settlers in 1882, who (Anita Shapira reports)
behaved as if "they were the rightful lords and masters of this land",
while they believed Arabs "respected
strength and that the language of physical force was the only idiom
[they] understood". When any of the natives
got out of line, the colonial instinct was to reach for the whip. Ahad
Ha'am wrote in 1891 that the Zionists
behaved "hostilely and cruelly to the Arabs, encroaching on them
unjustly, beating them disgracefully for no good
reason" - and they did not "hesitate to boast about their deeds". The
Arabs were seen as 'sly', 'underhanded',
'cruel', 'cunning', 'immoral', 'lazy' and so forth. Hebrew writer Y H
Brenner wrote, upon arriving at Haifa,
"there's another sort of alien in the world that one must suffer
from. ... Even from that filthy, contaminated
lot, you have to suffer." Uri Zvi Greenberg, a Labour Zionist in the
1920s, was also the author of Hebrew hate
literature against the Arabs, describing the Arab as "a murderer,
knife honed and dipped in poison". Anita Shapira
recalls that socialist Zionists like Ben Gurion were "not repelled" by
Greenberg's "malevolent description of
Arabs" because they "answered to their 'gut perceptions' of reality".
Another Labour Zionist, Tabenkin, expatiated
frequently on the need for peace, yet managed to pepper his statements
with descriptions of Arab barbarism, and
the insistence that they "understood one thing only, namely, force".
----
Zionist Herzl now developed a frankly shocking attitude to anti-
Semitism. He wrote that he was ready to understand and pardon it.
Pardoning anti-Semitism allowed him to develop a perverse diplomatic
initiative in Russia, which shook many even in the Zionist camp.
Several months after one of the most bloody pogroms ever, at Kishinev
in 1903, when nearly 50 Jews were killed, Herzl held a meeting with
Siacheslav Konstantovich Pleve, the Tsarist minister held responsible
for the Black Hundred pogromists. Far from being on the defensive,
Pleve told Herzl that the problem was the Jews threatening revolution.
Pleve claimed that young Jews comprised up to half of the membership
of the revolutionary parties. Herzl listened sympathetically. He
reported to the sixth Zionist Congress that year that his supporters
in Russia who backed revolution should start behaving 'calmly and
legally' ... Herzl had been ready to help protect the Tsarist status
quo because he wanted the Tsar to put pressure on the sultan, the head
of the Ottoman Empire, to let more Russian Jews into Palestine. He had
already made a highly offensive and demagogic appeal to the sultan
where, aiding and abetting those voices already gleefully exaggerating
and raising
allegations about Jewish financial power, Herzl had offered Jewish
regulation of the sultan's finances in return for letting the Jews
into Palestine. (From: John Rose, The Myths of Zionism, Pluto Press,
pp 114-5).

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 22, 2008, 8:58:02 PM5/22/08
to
On May 23, 1:01 am, stalepie <uhhhhhhhhhhh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's funny, one time on Youtube I was defending Israel and I was
> called a kike. And then recently on Ha'Aretz in the comments under an
> article I defended this Holocaust guy in France for saying he didn't
> think it happened, I mean I was defending his right to say that
> without getting fined, and I was called a cracker.- Hide quoted text -

So you defend both Zionism ('Israel') and a (Holocaust-denying) Nazi
('free speech'). Not at all surprising (and far from being 'funny'),
as both racist pathologies have the very same origin, as described
previously.

stalepie

unread,
May 22, 2008, 9:11:10 PM5/22/08
to

I hate you.

fla...@verizon.net

unread,
May 22, 2008, 10:04:25 PM5/22/08
to

Lying to excuse your hatred only makes you look even dumber.
(HTH)

Susan

fla...@verizon.net

unread,
May 22, 2008, 10:04:49 PM5/22/08
to

On 22-May-2008, Harry Bailey <unhomed...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The ideological pathologies that are both Zionism and Nazism have

> similar historical origins - in German Romanticism [flush rest of crap]

Your stand up routine needs work.

Susan

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 22, 2008, 11:26:35 PM5/22/08
to

re: zionism

By emphasizing that German (including of course Herzl of Austria)
Jews were involved in seeking zionism, you're deliberately ignoring
history, 3-4 thousand years of Jewish history.

Zionism is an ambiguous concept, and it certainly has beaucoup
nuances.

Quoting Meir Kahane as zionism personified is rhetorical over-kill.

Correct: Fifty percent or more of the Jews in Israel are agnostic,
atheistic, humanistic etal.

Contemporary zionism is the product of what Jews particularly
experienced since the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity.

Herzl was a secularist, not a religious type.

When Dreyfus was allegedly framed by the military establishment of
the most liberal & tolerant nation then on Earth, founder Herzl
concluded France/Europe was hopeless.

And, yeah, socialism-romanticism was Herzl's ideal.

The Shoah subsequently influenced the overwhelming masses, including
the UN in 1948.

re: relative morality of Israel's existence

I'm a moral relativist, not an absolutist.

I can not deny Palestinians have experienced immoral treatment.

Morality has to do with degrees of good.

In my mind the alleged genocide of Darfurans currently illustrates the
real world at its immoral worst

Apparently street Arabs & Persians are generally ignorant and
indifferent about Sudan's alleged immorality.

.

Boed...@isp.com

unread,
May 23, 2008, 1:33:25 AM5/23/08
to
On May 21, 9:32 am, "Frank R.A.J. Maloney" <fr...@blarg.net> wrote:

And thick as 10 planks.

B.H. Cramer

unread,
May 23, 2008, 7:31:35 AM5/23/08
to

<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:JCpZj.21802$4K5.1629@trnddc03...

Might I suggest you heed your own advice, you lying, hate-filled, dyslexic,
thick Irish cunt?


Frank R.A.J. Maloney

unread,
May 23, 2008, 12:57:22 PM5/23/08
to

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 23, 2008, 1:40:56 PM5/23/08
to
On May 23, 4:26 am, Robert Cohen <robtco...@msn.com> wrote:
> re: zionism
>
> By emphasizing  that German (including of course  Herzl of Austria)
> Jews were involved in seeking zionism, you're deliberately ignoring
> history, 3-4 thousand years of Jewish history.

I was referring to the 19th century origins of Zionism (in 'Aryan'
racialising discourse), a racist political ideology, not to the
historical origins of Judaism, a religion.

Needless to say, this is always a controversial topic (and more often
than not, it's discussion attracts raving, hysterical zombies only
interested in hurling abuse, as some of the responses here already
indicate), but it is evident that many people have great difficulty
distinguishing between racist ideology and religion when discussing
Zionism and Judaism, invariably confusing - or worse, unifying - the
two. Nobody, for instance, confuses Nazism (and Fascism) with
'Catholicism' despite the fact that all the principal fascists of the
20th century - Hitler, Mussolini, Franco - were conservative
Catholics. Precisely because Nazism was not 'Catholic', not based on
any actual religious beliefs, but on a racialising pathology. Fascists
may be of any religious persuasion, just as many Zionists are - There
are 'Christian' Zionists, there are even neo-Fascist Zionists eg. the
neo-Fascist who has been recently elected Mayor of Rome in Italy -
whose supporters gave the Nazi salute when his election-win was
announced:
[http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/05/23/
rome_diary_italy_s_leap_into_the_dark]. The new Mayor was backed by a
sizeable portion of Rome's Jewish population because of his support
for Israeli Zionism. (Importantly, however, the Jewish quarter was
also the site of early protests against the new mayor). And London's
new Mayor, the rightist performing clown, Boris Johnson, is now in
coalition with Zionist-supporting neo-Fascists.

And indeed, the proper way to undermine the legitimacy of Zionist
racial dogma and oppression is to point out the structural similarity
between Israel's Zionist-dominated racism and European antisemitism,
between its modes of domination and those of European states.


>
> Zionism is an ambiguous concept, and it certainly has beaucoup
> nuances.

It is not at all ambiguous; its racist and colonialist basis is
crystal clear.

>
> Quoting Meir Kahane as zionism personified is rhetorical over-kill.

Not at all. Such views (the belief in a 'superior' select, exclusive
people, and it's corollary, the belief in 'inferior' groups ... is
racism at its purest) are widespread.

>
> Correct: Fifty percent or more of the Jews in Israel are agnostic,
> atheistic, humanistic etal.

Which is to say they have become secular, they are no longer Jews, no
longer subscribe to the Jewish religion. I'm assuming you don't
actually believe that Jews are a 'race' (ie 'once a Jew always a
Jew'), as the Nazis and Zionists believe. There is no such thing as
'race', except as an imaginary construct and as a phantasmatic
displacement of underlying social antagonisms.


> I'm a moral relativist, not an absolutist.

'Moral relativism' is the abandonment of the moral. The moral, by
definition, ALWAYS has an absolutist dimension, or rather, is that
which is universal, that which is based on a Principal; that is what
it means to be moral. For example, take Kantian ethics, where he
begins with an unconditional law that is not actually based on any pre-
existing idea of the good. Such a conception of an ethical law only
refers us to the universality that we are ourselves supposed to bring
about with our actions: "Act only according to that maxim by which you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law," goes
the famous formulation of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. So
in Kant's formulation, ethics is not a question of 'relative good' or
of base or lofty motives, but a question of principles. What you are
calling 'moral relativism' here is simply an equivocating pragmatism,
the absence of the moral as such.

>
> I can not deny Palestinians have experienced immoral treatment.
>
> Morality  has to  do with degrees of good.

It has to do with acting according to a (Universalist) principal. Just
as there is a morality of Good, there is also, alas, a morality of
Evil, where the principal is not based on the universal, but on some
underlying pathology (Nazis and Zionists, for instance, believed/
believe their actions to be 'moral').

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 23, 2008, 4:03:56 PM5/23/08
to
re: h.b.'s reality

I perceive h.b.'s take of z as rigid & dogmatic.

There are many adaptations of z.

The Knesset (Israeli legislature or Parliament) is composed of several
(4-8?) political parties or factions.

Each party defines z somewhat differently.

The left-liberal HARRETZ definition differs from the right-
conservative JERUSALEM POST.

For me and many/most others:

Z is Jewish nationalism.

I wouldn't expect particularly the Orthodox to agree with me about the
meanings of z.

Orthodox disagree with other Orthodox.

Some Orthodox do not accept modern zionism, though they may reside
there.

Rightwing secular zionists disagree with leftwing secular zionists.

Z is dynamic, and nobody exists in an ideological vacuum, no matter
that some try.


Harry Bailey

unread,
May 23, 2008, 6:57:59 PM5/23/08
to
On May 23, 9:03 pm, Robert Cohen <robtco...@msn.com> wrote:
> re: h.b.'s reality'

We were discussing the origins of Zionism, not 'h.b.'s reality'. You
seem to be deliberately distancing yourself from this discussion, as
if your views were not actually your views, while simultaneously
appearing to remain a Zionist apologist.

>
> I perceive h.b.'s take of z as  rigid &  dogmatic.

You are mistaking lucidity and clarity on the subject for the 'rigid
and dogmatic.'


>
> There are many adaptations of z.

It doesn't matter how many 'adaptations' of Zionism there are: none of
them question it's fundamental racist assumptions, none of them, that
is, are anti-Zionist/anti-racist/anti-semitic. In many ways those who
put a 'liberal' spin on it are just as bad as the extremists, either
mystifying it as 'complex' or disavowing any direct identification
with it while simultaneously opposing all attempts at confronting or
changing it.

> For me and many/most others:
>
> Z is Jewish nationalism.

That's like describing Nazism as 'just' Aryan nationalism, an attempt
to make it seem 'reasonable' and 'harmless,' when in fact it is
founded, is dependent for its very existence on the perpetuation of a
violently exclusivist, viscerally anti-democratic, supremicist regime
totally dependent on a racialised, 'inferior' Other (Arab, Muslim) who
must forever be removed from the body politic, by whatever means
(despite being the majority population in the area). Most of the
world recognises Zionism for what it is, a racist and murderous
ideology, which is why Israel is also considered a pariah state among
most of the civilised world. In case you hadn't noticed ... [Combine
that with nuclear weapons (which it has threatened to use) and its
status as a U.S. satellite/military proxy and you have a recipe for
eventual utter disaster in the Middle East].


Robert Cohen

unread,
May 23, 2008, 8:22:09 PM5/23/08
to
re: nationalism, universalism

Mankind is the sum total of evolution.

We've been pond scum, cave-persons, semi noble savages, tribalists,
nationalists, and some are ideologue universalists.

Since Rome prevailed in ancient Israel, Jews had been a landless
people, subject to the folkways, mores, institutions, and laws of non
Jews.

Despite diffusion and absorption including voluntary & forced
conversion, Jews held-on to a spritual identity with Israel.

Despite a high inter-marriage rate in Germany particularly, Jews re-
discovered that even the liberal secularists (the Heidiggerists)
reject their Jewish colleagues as "landsmen."

Pragmatism & expediency are reality.

Modern zionism is not impractical for the stateless refugee, and
surviving against enemies is ...self defense & "expediency."

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 23, 2008, 9:37:08 PM5/23/08
to
On May 24, 1:22 am, Robert Cohen <robtco...@msn.com> wrote:
> re: nationalism, universalism
>
> Mankind is the sum total of evolution.

Totally meaningless claptrap.

>
> We've been pond  scum, cave-persons, semi noble savages, tribalists,
> nationalists, and some are ideologue universalists.

You forgot to include film stars, media tycoons, medieval warriors,
feudal despots, tyrannical ego-maniacs ... the list is endless ...
what's your point?

>
> Since Rome prevailed in ancient Israel, Jews had been a landless
> people, subject to the folkways, mores, institutions, and laws  of non
> Jews.

This is pure fantasmatic idiocy. Clearly, you are attempting to
RACIALISE those who subscribe to the religion of Judaism.

>
> Despite diffusion and absorption including  voluntary & forced
> conversion,  Jews  held-on to a spritual  identity with Israel.

"We will be REDEEMED! (if only we could get rid of all them nasty
Arabs!")

>
> Despite a high inter-marriage rate in Germany particularly,  Jews re-
> discovered that even the liberal secularists  (the Heidiggerists)
> reject their Jewish colleagues as "landsmen."

>
> Pragmatism & expediency are reality.
>
> Modern zionism is not impractical for the stateless refugee, and
> surviving against enemies is ...self defense & "expediency."

I'm sorry to have to say, but your post is completely nonsensical,
paranoid, and reactionary gibberish.

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 24, 2008, 11:14:58 AM5/24/08
to
re: reality sucks and then I die

I'll leave it here, and continue rationalizing worries about the usual
shite, while you obliviously fantasize as a Jimmy Stewart.

Boed...@isp.com

unread,
May 26, 2008, 5:11:34 PM5/26/08
to
On May 23, 4:31 am, "B.H. Cramer" <Iamhre@them'oment.bizz> wrote:
> <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:JCpZj.21802$4K5.1629@trnddc03...

>
> > On 22-May-2008, Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On May 23, 1:01 am, stalepie <uhhhhhhhhhhh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > It's funny, one time on Youtube I was defending Israel and I was
> >> > called a kike. And then recently on Ha'Aretz in the comments under an
> >> > article I defended this Holocaust guy in France for saying he didn't
> >> > think it happened, I mean I was defending his right to say that
> >> > without getting fined, and I was called a cracker.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> So you defend both Zionism ('Israel') and a (Holocaust-denying) Nazi
> >> ('free speech'). Not at all surprising (and far from being 'funny'),
> >> as both racist pathologies have the very same origin, as described
> >> previously.
>
> > Lying to excuse your hatred only makes you look even dumber.
>
> Might I suggest you heed your own advice, you lying, hate-filled, dyslexic,
> thick Irish cunt?-

"Killfile" The net equivalent of earplugs for the braindead,
cowards and now, Irish drunks, it would seem.
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dude

unread,
May 26, 2008, 5:58:11 PM5/26/08
to
On May 16, 8:21 pm, animalishness <animalishn...@live.com> wrote:
> germans are an intelligent people but no match for the jews.  german
> science was oriented  towards teutonic technology, machinery, and
> engineering than theoretical brilliance that could really lead to some
> truly big shit.  this is why nazi germany made a lot of excellent
> planes, tanks, guns, cannons, and rockets but miserably failed in the
> race to make the atomic bomb.   the jews were the experts of the bomb
> on every level. when german scientists were captured and secretly
> observed after WWII, it became clear that the best 'aryan' minds
> hadn't a clue about nuclear science.  they were not even close.  they
> were cavemen compared to the jews.  it was like hulk hogan trying to
> be witty as woody allen. it was like polacks trying to screw on a
> lightbulb.
>
> indeed, this is why german scientists employed by US and USSR after
> the war focused on stuff like rocket technology than advanced
> theoretical stuff. consider werner von braun.  when it came to fine
> theoretical details, jews were the king. and they still are, which is
> why the computer industry is dominated by jews.  all the superduper
> billionaires in america will be jews working in hightech, and they're
> gonna use their tremendous amount of money earned thru hypercapitalism
> to, ironically, fund socialism. jews are funny this way.  part of them
> wanna make all the money, and another part of them want to control
> society like a giant laboratory according to their social theories.
> money-loving jews go into capitalism, and idea-loving jews write the
> books.  money-loving jews read the books of idea-loving jews and also
> fund the idea-loving jews(who are leftist). so, we have jewish
> hypercapitalism supporting jewish socialism.  jews rise above us and
> then preach to us about equality. if george soros and sergei brin
> wanna be equal, they should work at walmart and get an ass tattoo like
> the rest of the working class. instead, they make billions, fund
> socialists, and preach to us about 'social justice'.
>
> anyway, it's funny that the character of Dr. Strangelove should be a
> nazi scientist and the leading brains behind the doomsday nuclear war
> machine.

It was the Russians who invented the doomsday device in the movie Dr
Strangelove. Dr Strangelove worked for the americans and didn't know
about the doomsday device until the russian diplomat informed him and
the president.

Since you've completely missed this obvious fact, I suggest you re-
watch the movie and delete all the posts you've made on this thread.

 shouldn't he be a jew since jews were the ones who invented
> and built the nuclear bomb?  but, i guess the jews who made the film
> didn't wanna give us a monstrous jew as the harbinger of doom for all
> mankind. (ironically, it's rocket science perfected by ex-nazi
> scientists which got the free world to the moon and made us reflect on
> the fragility of mankind on a small blue planet.)   also, it was so
> fashionable to portray an ex-nazi as the personification of perversity
> and evil.
>


Kelpzoidzl

unread,
May 27, 2008, 3:16:09 PM5/27/08
to

<Boed...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:06cc0e9e-20e0-479e...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...


This thread is absurd.

It begins with a long, callous, over-think post that digs up many wounds
and has no specific point other then a vague focus on genetics and much
error about Kubrick, is replied to by a few actual overt rascists, a
couple conversational posts, siome more errors on Kubrick, and then an
attempt to show rascism whether zionism or nazism as coming from the same
kind of pathology and that Judaism is a religion not a race----then that
idea is attacked or considered rascist, but hard to say what is being said
in those attacks, or what misunderstandings of positions is happening,
becasue the thread is such mud. Only the overt rascists posters are
obvious, but the preoccupation with shallowness reigns supreme.

At any rate it is a nonsensical thread, starting with the totally silly uses
of words such as Aryan or Jew and avoiding such basic ideas as human race
or human beings of the human family.

I think it is safe to say that Dr. Stranglove was a fictional character,
created for humor, and a composite. There is no hidden meanings, it is
just a brilliant comedy full of caricatures that transcend any racial bias
and just show the workings of idiocy itself. This idiocy is entirely
ubiquitous in the haman race and could only be changed with some remarkable
universal event like people getting smarter and more compassionate but best
not to hold one's breath.

In the meantime Kubrick is mischaracterized and numerous errors about
Kubrick and the films appear.

While reading this thread I kept thinking about the lyrics to an obscure
Yardbird's Song "Think About It"..... speaking from a more cosmic
perspective (with my little remarks in parentheses)

(Keith Relf / Jim McCarty / Jimmy Page)

When will the clouds (negativity and baloney) all roll away?
When will the good people have their say? (the people based in compassion)
I hope you're still round to see the day. (The intimation that there is a
cosmic payback for being a jerk, so best to pay attention and stop being an
ass, because cause and effect is real)
Take a while,
Think about it.
Take a while,
Think about it.
Take a while,
Think about it.


Who can tell what is up or down? (people locked in words can't escape from
their own dichotomies and mental polarities)
You can be the king or be the clown. (karma-cause and effect)
Then climb your tree, take a look around. (vantage point of deep meditation
and awakening)
Take a while,
Think about it.
Take a while,
Think about it.
Take a while,
Think about it. (Like the Buddha sitting in Meditation)

Circles of life, an infinite plane, (when the illusion of separateness and
polarities, is destroyed)
That which is now, will be again. (can't escape without learning from it and
then awakening)
Who can decide who is insane? (Will the real troll please stand up)
Take a while,
Think about it.
Take a while,
Think about it.
Take a while,
Think about it.


(Will the real troll please stand up)

dc

the savage cabbage

unread,
May 27, 2008, 4:42:56 PM5/27/08
to
>
> The ideological pathologies that are both Zionism and Nazism have
> similar historical origins - in German Romanticism - which should be
> obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of 19th century
> German, and European, history.

rather a broad statement, don't you think? there are too many sources
of modern racial ideology. also, we should distinguish racism from
bigotry. bigotry is a kneejerk dislike, dismissal, discrimination
against, or even hatred for other people. racism is the belief that
general races of man exist. racial science or racism was rooted in
darwinism, and the rise of rational science. nazism applied certain
racial theories to the real world. what was truly appalling about
nazism was it merely tried to legitimize what were pre-scientific
biases, prejudices, and hatreds--comtemptuous or vengeful--with
scientific terminology and theory. this isn't to say that nazis were
merely cynical, as they genuinely believed in their theories. but,
their ideas were rooted as much in science--or cult of science--as on
romantic/irrational notions of will, fate, beauty, vision, sacredness,
etc. at any rate, both nazism and zionism merely gave a modern twist
to age-old tribal passion of manking.

>Contrary to the ludicrous myth peddled
> by Zionists, Zionism was not a response to the Nazi holocaust, but a
> racist colonial project conceived well before (in the 19th century)
> the judeocide of the Nazis.

this is true in the theoretical or ideological sense. but, no ideology
merely has one set of values, mission, or prioriites. all ideologies
and visions change. take the idea of americanism. what it meant in
the 19th century isn't what he it means today. even the idea of
jewish identity changed overtime. at one time, a jew meant a person
of the Book. in modern times, it means someone of jewish background.
so, even if zionism started out as a nationalist movement to carve out
a piece of jewish empire, after the holocaust it did morph into a save-
the-jews crusade. some jews were genuinely eager to escape from
europe; after WWII, even jews who never wanted to settle in palestine
were eager to do so.
we should also keep in mind that arab nationalism--and palestinian
nationhood is a subset of this--also developed along the modern
european model. is nationalism good or bad? both. it led to
violence, discrimination, prejudice, etc. but, it also led to
oppressed people to join together and overthrow foreign rulers. prior
to the rise of natioanlist ideology in india, most people of the asian
subcontinent didn't do much about british rule. but, once indians got
hold of the idea of Indian nationhood, they united and threw out the
british.

fla...@verizon.net

unread,
May 27, 2008, 5:18:55 PM5/27/08
to

On 27-May-2008, "Kelpzoidzl" <kelp...@mastadon.net> wrote:

> <Boed...@isp.com> wrote in message
> news:06cc0e9e-20e0-479e...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

> On May 23, 4:31 am, "B.H. Cramer" <Iamhre@them'oment.bizz> wrote:
> > <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in
> > messagenews:JCpZj.21802$4K5.1629@trnddc03...
> >
> > > On 22-May-2008, Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On May 23, 1:01 am, stalepie <uhhhhhhhhhhh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > It's funny, one time on Youtube I was defending Israel and I was
> > >> > called a kike. And then recently on Ha'Aretz in the comments under
> > >> > an
> > >> > article I defended this Holocaust guy in France for saying he
> > >> > didn't
> > >> > think it happened, I mean I was defending his right to say that
> > >> > without getting fined, and I was called a cracker.- Hide quoted
> > >> > text -
> >
> > >> So you defend both Zionism ('Israel') and a (Holocaust-denying) Nazi
> > >> ('free speech'). Not at all surprising (and far from being 'funny'),
> > >> as both racist pathologies have the very same origin, as described
> > >> previously.
> >
> > > Lying to excuse your hatred only makes you look even dumber.
> >
> > Might I suggest you heed your own advice, you lying, hate-filled,
> > dyslexic,
> > thick Irish cunt?-

Oh, is Boedicia Irish?


>
> "Killfile" The net equivalent of earplugs for the braindead,
> cowards and now, Irish drunks

I see she must be.

> , it would seem.
>
>
> This thread is absurd.

It certainly is now.
Anything that is infested by Boedicia & BenZonah KKKramer autotmatically
becomes such.

Susan

fla...@verizon.net

unread,
May 27, 2008, 5:20:01 PM5/27/08
to

On 23-May-2008, Harry Bailey <unhomed...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 23, 9:03 pm, Robert Cohen <robtco...@msn.com> wrote:
> > re: h.b.'s reality'
>
> We were discussing the origins of Zionism, not 'h.b.'s reality'.

No, he was right & you are still wrong.

A shame that you weren't joking, earlier.
But I rather suspected you weren't.

Susan

fla...@verizon.net

unread,
May 27, 2008, 5:20:47 PM5/27/08
to

On 27-May-2008, the savage cabbage <animal...@live.com> wrote:

> at any rate, both nazism and zionism merely gave a modern twist
> to age-old tribal passion of manking.

& this is false as well.
Thanks for playing.

Susan

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 27, 2008, 7:19:59 PM5/27/08
to
On May 27, 9:42 pm, the savage cabbage <animalishn...@live.com> wrote:
> > The ideological pathologies that are both Zionism and Nazism have
> > similar historical origins - in German Romanticism - which should be
> > obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of 19th century
> > German, and European, history.
>
> rather a broad statement, don't you think? there are too many sources
> of modern racial ideology.

Certainly, but I was referring specifically to the historical origins
of Zionist and Nazi racial ideology, not to the basis of ALL
(contemporary) racism.


>also, we should distinguish racism from
> bigotry.  bigotry is a kneejerk dislike, dismissal, discrimination
> against, or even hatred for other people.  
>racism is the belief that
> general races of man exist.  

Agreed, and the issue then becomes that of why racists have a need for
such a fantasmatic belief.

>racial science or racism was rooted in
> darwinism, and the rise of rational science.  

It was 'rooted' in a reactionary and twisted response to Darwin's
theories, to his findings that man was, in purely evolutionary terms,
ultimately no different to other animals. Darwin was not a social
theorist, and wrote nothing about human 'races'. Rather, it was more
likely that racists, their species narcissism devastatingly humiliated
by Darwin's ideas, hopelessly misapplied them (via a belief in
biological essentialism) within the human species itself, to different
human groups, to reinstate a 'natural' human hierachy.

The problem with all those who "reckon" that genes determine 'race' is
that they CAN'T because no set of human characteristics, even when
they are common to a certain population at a given time, is a STATIC,
cultural identity-determining biological certainty. What people think
of as "blackness" ends up having very little to do with black skin and
certain common-looking features, and everything to do with CULTURAL
attitudes and poses.

The argument is that the things that people are talking about when
they think of "racial" characteristics, although the biological traits
associated tend to be skin color and facial features, include cultural
traits. You might argue that most of what a racist is talking about
when they talk about the "inferiority" of, for example, black people
has even more to do with the cultural traits associated with
"blackness" than with superficial traits like skin color. According to
the logic of the racist, these negative cultural attributes are simply
PRODUCTS of the genetic predisposition of black people. To a white
supremacist, a black person is "inferior" (their music is bad, their
culture is "evil" and "savage", they are less "intelligent", they are
natural born rapists and murderers, they are animalistic etc.) because
their "race" is distinguished from others by certain unique DNA that
predetermines these characteristics.

While human genetics are incredibly complex, biologists are the first
to recognise that you cannot find any direct, distinct, or one-to-one-
corresponding biological origins for socially constructed race norms.
We may one day find out which genetic markers (eg) make some people
have red hair and fair skin with freckles and a certain height-weight
ratio, but that STILL would not be tantamount to having found a
genetic origin for "Blackness" or "Jewishness" or "Italianness" or
"Arabness" or the sort of traits that comprise such socially-
constructed identities.

The point is that our genes and the sort of things that comprise
racial or ethnic identity have little to do with one another in any
scientifically valid way, EXCEPT, of course, in the racialising
imaginary of identity-obsessed racists.

>nazism applied certain
> racial theories to the real world.  what was truly appalling about
> nazism was it merely tried to legitimize what were pre-scientific
> biases, prejudices, and hatreds--comtemptuous or vengeful--with
> scientific terminology and theory. this isn't to say that nazis were
> merely cynical, as they genuinely believed in their theories. but,
> their ideas were rooted as much in science--or cult of science--as on
> romantic/irrational notions of will, fate, beauty, vision, sacredness,
> etc.   at any rate, both nazism and zionism merely gave a modern twist
> to age-old tribal passion of manking.

We are dealing with an imaginary cartography, which projects onto the
real landscape its own shadowy ideological
antagonisms; much of this projection is racist. First, there is the
old-fashioned, unabashed rejection of the foreign Other (despotic,
barbarian, Orthodox, Muslim, corrupt, Oriental) in favour of true
values (Western, civilised, democratic, Christian). But there is also
a 'reflexive', politically correct racism: the liberal,
multiculturalist perception of the foreign (in the Middle East for
instance) as a site of ethnic horrors and intolerance, of primitive,
tribal, irrational passions, as opposed to the reasonableness of post-
nation-state conflict resolution by negotiation and compromise. The
racism of the West is then projected by the West as a disease of the
Other,is disavowed, while we in the West are then rendered as merely
observers, neutral, benevolent and righteously dismayed.

The usual illusion is that racism (psychoanalytic theory defines it as
an Envy of the Other's Jouissance, post-Marxist critical theory as a
(delusionary) displacement of underlying social antagonisms) is a kind
of fundamentalist remainder of the past. No it is not a remainder from
the past (not some essentialist "age-old tribal passion of mankind";
it is not some remainder of old traditions to be dissolved by progress
toward an even more computerized Spinozist universe. Instead, it is
produced by modernity. What we call fundamentalisms (racist,
religious, biopolitical, etc) are precisely desperate attempts to
cling to some forms of jouissance.

Consider the Nazi notion of Jewish existence, which was pure racism,
and which then tried to claim via a twisted
scientism that anti-Semitism had an empirical basis, a result of
'factual' observations about Jews. But Nazi anti
-Semitism had nothing to do with actual Jews, but rather with a
racialized delirium that attributed (displaced) blame for the social
traumas of Germany on to a phantasmatic other labelled 'Jew'. If it
was such a distinct group, then why were Jews required to wear
identifying tags, among many other perverse indignities? Because the
racializing imaginary designated it so, as a distinct group that could
be so obsessively designated by 'empirical' means in order to 'prove'
their Nazi pre-assigned status.

The real question to ask, and the true enigma, is why did the Nazis so
desperately, so pathologically need this
imaginary, essentialist figure of the Jew for their paranoid ideology
to function, constructing it in such an obscenely racialized way that
it bore no relation to any empirical social reality? Why is it that
when you take away their - phantasmatic - figure of the Jew the whole
Nazi edifice disintegrates? Just as when you remove the 'barbaric
negro' from the slave trade, that whole system also collapses?

And, more relevantly, why does today's West require it's equally
paranoid 'war on terror' [again now racialized primarily onto the
Arab, Muslim, Oriental Other] for its ideology to function?


LMC Society

unread,
May 27, 2008, 7:33:18 PM5/27/08
to

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 28, 2008, 2:07:34 AM5/28/08
to
On May 22, 1:42 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> > [Note: von Braun was actually a German Lutheran aristocrat who at one
> > point was arrested by the Gestapo and interrogated for two weeks.
> > Himmler  charged that von Braun was a Communist sympathizer and had
> > attempted to sabotage the V-2 program. There is, however, a connection
> > with Kubrick: the 'cartwheel' orbiting space station in 2001 was taken
> > from a von Braun design that was first published in the 1950s.
>
> Here, I think you have him confused with Willy Ley, another German
> scientist.  He worked with Bonestell on matte paintings for such sci-fi
> movies as "Conquest of Space," which featured an orbiting wheel-type
> space station, and which were featured in popular magazines like Collier's.

There really is no actual confusion. Yes, Ley (who had originally also
worked with von Braun as his "rocket tutor" in the 1920s German Weimar
Republic. See: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/Ley.html)
did work with famous space artist Bonestell over a lengthy period, as
did other scientists and writers (See:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/Colliers_space.html), but
he's not the source of the 1952 design referred to here; von Braun is.
The SF film Conquest of Space appeared later, in 1955, and did indeed
feature a self-contained cartwheel station orbiting around earth
(picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Conquest_of_Space.jpg),
but this is taken directly from von Braun's earlier design, here,
again, illustrated by Bonestell, and there is no doubt that this film,
though melodramatically bizarre, had some direct influence on 2001's
design ideas; however, the 1949 non-fiction speculative science book
from which the movie was very loosely adapted, and which was written
by Ley and illustrated by Bonestell, does not feature such a space
station. The book was more in the nature of a space art book featuring
a collection of 58 of Bonestell's paintings accompanied by Ley's text.

Bonestell's 1952 illustrations of von Braun's cartwheel space station
designs are reproduced here:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast26may_1m.htm

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/vonBraun.html

And the historical development of space stations in science fiction
and science:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/station/inspired.html

"Mr. Bonestell’s remarkable technique produces an effect of realism so
striking that his paintings have often been mistaken for actual colour
photographs by those slightly unacquainted with the present status of
interplanetary flight. … To many, this book will for the first time
make the other planets real places, and not mere abstractions. In the
years to come it is probably destined to fire many imaginations, and
thereby to change many lives.”
-------> Arthur C Clarke, commenting on Bonestell's illustrations in
Conquest of Space, writing in the 1950 issue of The Aeroplane. Clarke
was at the time writing his first novel. Quote from:
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2002/1/2002_1_14.shtml

turtoni

unread,
May 28, 2008, 2:59:44 AM5/28/08
to
politically if we're grouping; nazi Vs jew

we're grouping. introspecting.

i'm not sure there's a great difference.

didn't Stan try to broaden our horizons to encapsulate us all?

"Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal,
weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests
are involved - that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and
violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to
create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably
doomed to failure." - stan kubrick

no justice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvJFISiEE9Y


Lippschitz

unread,
May 28, 2008, 4:20:28 PM5/28/08
to

<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3V__j.9098$ED6.8612@trnddc02...
> Susan<<< rather thick


Robert Cohen

unread,
May 28, 2008, 9:35:45 PM5/28/08
to

re: Jewish nationalism

If "Jewish nationalism" is the moral equivalent of nazism, then....,
then so is:

USA nationalism
Canadian "
Mexican :"
Cuban "
French "
British "
Italian "

Scottish nationalism
Irish nationalism
Icelandic nationalism
etal

Nationalism may be benign (where? when?) upon conquered natives.

Nationalism may be considered immoral if not fully "egalitarian."

As Orwell cynically says: Some are more equal than others: Cite a
nation where there is not an elite faction or class.

Jews have been a minority in all countries to degrees, and this
pragmatically worked (I suppose) until "pogroms"
(Inquisition, NAZISM) were intensified maximally & unacceptably.
,
The ugly cliche argument that NAZISM is not somewhat analgous to every
nation in the world except modern Israel is ludicrous rhetoric.


Harry Bailey

unread,
May 29, 2008, 1:03:08 AM5/29/08
to
On May 28, 7:59 am, "turtoni" <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> politically if we're grouping; nazi Vs jew

You are making the mistake of grouping a racist ideology (Nazism) with
a religion (Judaism) here. Both Zionism and Nazism are imperialist-
colonialist ideologies that were FOUNDED on (and so utterly dependent
on) a racializing pathology; Nazism on the displaced imagining of two
'races', the 'Aryan' and the 'Jew', the latter then posited as the
'obstacle' to the (impossible) realization and actualization of the
'pure' Aryan race - a suicidal ideology; Zionism also on the displaced
imagining of two 'races', the 'Jew' and the 'Arab/Muslim', in a
similar way and with potentially similar fatal consequences.

>
> we're grouping. introspecting.
>
> i'm not sure there's a great difference.
>
> didn't Stan try to broaden our horizons to encapsulate us all?
>
> "Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal,
> weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests
> are involved - that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and
> violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt to
> create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is probably
> doomed to failure." - stan kubrick

And likewise, any attempt to create a 'view of the nature of man' on
false social institutions is also 'probably doomed to failure', for
our theories of both are inescapably socially and psychically and
linguistically mediated: there is no 'pure', unmediated, 'nature of
man', for (our understanding of) nature is itself a construct. Real,
unmediated, Nature is directly inaccessible to us, is lost to us.

turtoni

unread,
May 29, 2008, 1:23:39 AM5/29/08
to

"Harry Bailey" <unhomed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e6f55bc2-6202-4d95...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

On May 28, 7:59 am, "turtoni" <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> politically if we're grouping; nazi Vs jew

>>You are making the mistake of grouping a racist ideology (Nazism) with
>> a religion (Judaism) here. Both Zionism and Nazism are imperialist-
>> colonialist ideologies that were FOUNDED on (and so utterly dependent
>> on) a racializing pathology; Nazism on the displaced imagining of two
>> 'races', the 'Aryan' and the 'Jew', the latter then posited as the
>> 'obstacle' to the (impossible) realization and actualization of the
>> 'pure' Aryan race - a suicidal ideology; Zionism also on the displaced
>> imagining of two 'races', the 'Jew' and the 'Arab/Muslim', in a
>> similar way and with potentially similar fatal consequences.

who's doing the mistaking? "didn't Stan try to broaden our horizons to
encapsulate us all?"

> we're grouping. introspecting.
>
> i'm not sure there's a great difference.
>
> didn't Stan try to broaden our horizons to encapsulate us all?
>
> "Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational,
> brutal,
> weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests
> are involved - that about sums it up. I'm interested in the brutal and
> violent nature of man because it's a true picture of him. And any attempt
> to
> create social institutions on a false view of the nature of man is
> probably
> doomed to failure." - stan kubrick

>> And likewise, any attempt to create a 'view of the nature of man' on
>> false social institutions is also 'probably doomed to failure', for
>> our theories of both are inescapably socially and psychically and
>> linguistically mediated: there is no 'pure', unmediated, 'nature of
>> man', for (our understanding of) nature is itself a construct. Real,
>> unmediated, Nature is directly inaccessible to us, is lost to us.

i disagree with you on this point because like stan says:

"Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal,
weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests
are involved - that about sums it up."

we know that much about the nature of man..

hence the need to construct social institutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hFydh-QhPA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Machine

saint...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 29, 2008, 1:42:21 AM5/29/08
to
> machine.  shouldn't he be a jew since jews were the ones who invented

> and built the nuclear bomb?  

He was a composite, but one of the faces was that of John von Neumann,
an Hungarian Jew.


turtoni

unread,
May 29, 2008, 1:59:11 AM5/29/08
to

"animalishness" <animal...@live.com> wrote in message
news:a7d19cad-6a47-440c...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> and built the nuclear bomb? but, i guess the jews who made the film
> didn't wanna give us a monstrous jew as the harbinger of doom for all
> mankind. (ironically, it's rocket science perfected by ex-nazi
> scientists which got the free world to the moon and made us reflect on
> the fragility of mankind on a small blue planet.) also, it was so
> fashionable to portray an ex-nazi as the personification of perversity
> and evil.
>
> yet, it's not so simple. in some ways, dr. strangelove is--and was
> slyly meant to be--the most admirable character in the movie. he's
> least hypocritical and most cold eyed truthful about world politics
> and human nature. in Full Metal Jacket, an commander says 'inside
> every gook is an american trying to get out'. in Dr. Strangelove,
> it's like 'inside every american, there is a nazi trying to get out'.
> but, given the nature of strangelove's brilliance, one could also say,
> rather perversely, that 'inside every nazi is a jew trying to get
> out'--or maybe, 'inside every jew, there is a nazi trying to get
> out'. this is partly true because jewish kubrick used dr. strangelove
> as his mouthpiece. if kubrick philosophically identified with any
> character in the movie, it was dr. strangelove. this isn't to say
> kubrick was a sociopathic psycho but to say he has a very
> unsentimental and cold-eyed view of mankind. when he was making
> Eyes Wide Shut, kubrick told frederic raphael that 'hitler was right
> about everything'. he obviously didn't meant that hitler's hatred was
> justified or that 6 million jews deserved to die. but, he agreed with
> the nazi position that the only REAL revolution can come thru genetic
> evolution/revolution, not thru social policy, politics, economics,
> etc. mankind is essentially biology. spirituality is a stuff of
> human imagination, not human genetic makeup. if spirituality is the
> answer, it must grow within us genetically and not merely thru our
> power to fantasize. this is why david bowman in 2001 is GENETICALLY
> spiritualized by the mysterious alien folks.
> as long as man fundamentally remains an hairless ape with animalistic
> instincts, our social policies and laws can only do so much. thru
> social ideas and policies, we can never be higher or better human
> beings but only better-controlled human animals. but, greater
> advances in technology also means greater ability for mankind to
> destroy itself--with nuclear weapons and such. also, the danger of
> science and rationalism is this silly idea that intelligent people can
> devise social policies that can make us into better people. we saw the
> hollowness of that idea in A Clockwork Orange. alex is programmed
> from a dangerous human animal to a defenseless human animal than into
> a better human being. this is all the more confused when most of
> human creativity is fueled by animal instincts. sucking out all the
> animalistic hormones from humans will make them less dangerous but
> also into useless veggies without any will to do anything.
>
> also, what passes for liberal goodness is really founded on naivete
> that is stupidly or willfully blind to the ruthlessness of the natural/
> human order. for example, the reason why humans are safe from nature
> is because we ruthlessly wiped out nature around human communities.
> this sense of security has convinced many people to see wild animals
> as simply wonderful, safe, and noble; so, when people actually
> confront mean animals in nature, they are shocked. or, consider racial
> problems in the US. during the civil rights movement, whites fooled
> themselves into thinking whites and blacks could get along just
> famously; after all, most blacks seem to be law-abiding and respectful
> to honkeys. what most liberals failed to understand was that blacks
> were ostensibly respectful and relatively self-restrained due to their
> fear of white power and violence. once whites all turned liberalish
> and pussified, the physically stronger blacks began to kick honkey ass
> and rip up the racial contract of the civil rights movement.
> and, for a long time, the western world looked upon the chinese with
> compassion and sympathy as hopelessly poor and inept yellow sick man
> of asia. but look at the rise of china today and their nasty national
> and chauvanistic international policy. liberalism is willfully blind,
> naive, and faggoty bullshi*. worse, it's been a luxury made
> affordable by western domination of the world. even as white liberals
> will never admit this, western liberalism would not have been possible
> WITHOUT western domination. it was a sense of security gained thru
> the western gun that allowed white man to delude himself that the west
> is respected for its liberty and goodness than for its power, wealth,
> and might. this isn't to say that might-is-right but merely to say
> that right-must-be-backed-with-might. overly self-critical white
> liberalism will not make non-whites respect the white man more but
> only feel more contempt and hatred.
>
> because human genius and creativity is paradoxical combination of
> aggressive animal instincts and calming spiritual wisdom, kubrick's
> ONLY optimistic film is 2001 where david bowman is altered genetically
> reconfigured by higher beings. even though the real secret to human
> progress is in our genes, humans cannot succeed at bio-engineering
> because the structure of the human brains only lead to the building of
> more elaborate cages as we try to break out of preexisting cages. this
> is both psychologically and socially true. all this psychanalysis
> stuff has only caged people in new mental prisons. also, the more we
> try to make our lives easier thru technology, the more enslaved we
> become to technology. electicity is great, but if a power company
> goes down, millions of us are helpless. or, consider the rising cost
> of oil. cars are great but without oil, our entire economy shuts down
> and we become helpless. humans are way too utilitarian in everything
> they do. so, genetic science may simply regard man as just a living
> machine even as we treat machines more as programmed organisms. no
> matter how we perfect man, we cannot go beyond man; yet, the only way
> to save humanity is to go beyond humanity. but, how can man go beyond
> man? so, we need higher beings, as in 2001.
>
> also, we saw the result of man trying to achieve genetic revolution/
> evolution in the case of nazism, and it was horrific. also, it was
> funny that less intelligent germans were killing off more intelligent
> jews in the name of weeding out the inferior race. so, even nazi
> idealism wasn't true to its ideals. if intelligence was one sign of
> racial superiority, then germans should have put jews at the top of
> the social order. but, what really motivated nazism was germanic
> tribalism than any real scientific understanding of human races.
> nothing made this point clearer than the competition between aryan
> scientists and jewish scientists during WWII. the aryans built some
> badass heavy duty rockets but jews figured out a way to level an
> entire city with a few ounces of nuclear material. german science was
> badass but jewish science was awesome. japs found out too--their pagan
> gods were no match to the god of the jews. it was like yul brynner in
> Ten Commandments saying, 'their god IS god' after his army gets wiped
> out in the red sea.
>
> so, kubrick's remark that 'hitler was right about everything' has to
> be taken with a grain of salt. what he meant was no ideology or
> system can really save or change man unless the man is changed at his
> molecular/genetic core. everything else is purely cosmetic. it was
> like undergoing plastic surgery to make an ugly face pretty, while
> disregarding the fact that the dna code of the person is still ugly-
> faced. for the face to be truly pretty, the dna code must be made
> pretty. for man to be truly moral, the dna code must be reprogrammed
> to make man wiser. but, what is the secret? hitler didn't know. he
> was more like gay texas chainsaw massacre dude pretending to be an
> expert surgeon. and, the scientists in A Clockwork Orange didn't know
> either; they only perfected a method of behavioralism which
> manipulated only the external mechanisms thru crude biochemistry. so,
> kubrick could only be hopeful by inventing higher beings from another
> world in 2001 Space Odyssey.
>
> but, there was something of a kinship between kubrick, hitler, and dr.
> strangelove. kubrick, like the crazy nazis, had little trust in human
> nature. he had a very grim, even brutal view of humanity. kubrick was
> no humanist nor a sentimentalist. he was certainly capable of empathy
> but not real sympathy. if spielberg identified mainly with david in
> AI, kubrick surely identified most with the scientist who done created
> david.
> also, he may have agreed with hitler except on the matter of the
> superior race. the superior race was not the aryan but the jew.
> though he could never say admit it publicly, kubrick was kinda like a
> jewish hitler who saw jews at the top of the racial hierarchy. this
> isn't to say that he was murderous and genocidal. but, he clearly did
> see hierarchy as the essence in nature and among humans. kubrick was
> into the nietzsche thing. so, more accurately, kubrick was more like a
> jewish nietzsche than a jewish hitler. he rejected the notion of
> equality of the races or 'all men are created equal'. unlike hitler
> though, he was curious about all peoples and cultures. like hitler, he
> saw biology as far more deterministic of history than ideas; indeed,
> even ideas were shaped by biology. the reason why black africans
> never produced a moses, buddha, jesus, or socrates is largely due to
> black emotional and intellectual makeup. the reason why chinese never
> produced a coltrane is because chiners have a different set of
> collective auditory archetypes stamped in their psyche. there are two
> kinds of ability. ability that grows from with and ability that is
> learned or mimicked. anyone can mimic, learn, and even master jazz,
> but only the black genetic soul could create it from within.
> similarly, while negroes can learn the wisdom of jesus, blacks
> couldn't have come up with that stuff because it's hard for a negro to
> sit still for 40 days and meditate on the meaning of life. all of
> human knowledge and ability is a combination of ingrown ability and
> imported ability. this is why, even as japs imported western ways,
> they still do in a japanese way. and, this isn't merely a cultural
> matter but a genetic matter. japanese culture turned out the way it
> did party due to the natural inclination of japanese genes. take bob
> and james. bob is wild, crazy, and extroverted and comes up with
> great drum music. james is quiet, withdrawn, and meditative and comes
> up with a spiritual idea. bob can learn from james but is much less
> likely to come up with james's ideas. james can learn from bob but is
> much less likely to come up with bob's drum rhythms. indeed, this is
> why pussyboy whites worship black music; it's something that
> faggotyass white boys couldn't have come up with on their own.
>
> both kubrick's view and hitler's view had common roots in the idea of
> the nietzschean superman. notice that in 2001, it is one superior ape
> that first figures out that a bone can be mighty instrument.
> even if kubrick wasn't murderous, psychotic, or genocidal, he was
> contemptuous of most of humanity.(on the set of Eyes Wide Shut, he
> treated tom cruise and nicole kidman as porn pawns on a chessboard.)
> kubrick also shut himself off from the rest of the world. also, while
> he asked help from others, he rarely reciprocated. in all his movies,
> there isn't much regard for mankind. a movie like A Clockwork Orange
> is especially vicious. perhaps, the movie would have been more
> feasible morally had it been directed by a lesser talent. directed by
> kubrick with mind-blowing brilliance and originality, moral matters
> became secondary to the spectacle of alex's charismatic showmanship.
> the movie became a kind of Triumph of the Swill. though evil, alex
> registers as a superdude who smashes conventional rules because such
> are only for boring, dull, insipid, naive, softheaded morons or
> stiffnecks. at one point, alex beats up a useless drunkard. when he
> attacks the good-hearted writer and his wife, we can't help feeling,
> 'what a couple of stupid, do-goody, naive liberals!!' who deserve to
> be punished for their stupid trust of humanity. later, when we meet
> the writer again as a bitter vengeful man, he seems worse and more
> deranged than david. in this universe, goodness can either be naive or
> easily wiped out by grim social reality.
>
> anyway, kubrick wasn't just happy to be jewish nietzschean. a part of
> him felt that jews were the REAL ubermensch, but another part of him
> desired for the aryan. part of it was sexual. he felt that in terms
> of beauty, aryans had a certain advantage over the jew. so, he
> married a german wife. he supplied the brains, she supplied the
> looks. kubrick wasn't just an intellectual genius but always had an
> eye for beauty. he started out as a photographer and loved art all
> his life. he loved cerebral modern art but also classical and
> traditional art whose central themes were beauty. also, kubrick
> admired strength and power. one of his first films was about boxing.
> so, while he knew that jews were intellectual ubermensch, they were
> not ubermensch of beauty and strength.
> this is why Dr. Strangelove is such a strange character. he is the
> anxious product of creative union of jewishism and aryanism. it's a
> jew trying to break out the aryan, and the aryan trying to break out
> of the jew. he has jewish smarts but aryan spirit.
> spirit is important here because kubrick has tremendous appreciation
> for artistic creativity. though the main creatives forces of the
> modern world were jewish, kubrick had to admit that goyim thru the
> centuries had come up with stuff that even super jewish intelligence
> couldn't touch--greek architecture, aspects of roman civilization,
> german classical music, etc. just how did less intelligent goyim
> come up with that shi*? and, how come even the greatest jewish brain
> cannot reach the heights of talents like beethoven and shakespeare?
> this may be the real nature of harold bloom's obsession with
> shakespeare. bloom knows that the greatest brains are jews. yet, the
> greatest writer of all time was shakespeare. just how did a goy do
> that? it's like a negro pondering the phenomenon of larry bird.
> of course, bloom knows that there have been many great goy writers
> thru history--indeed, far more than great jewish writers. but, bloom
> could understand the operative secret of most great goy writers--
> figure out what made them tick. also, bloom could explain the
> relative late start of jewish creativity due to religious dogmatism
> and/or goy discrimination. but, how do you explain the genius of
> shakespeare which is beyond what bloom's superhigh jewish IQ can
> figure out? in a way, bloom may be hinting, rather cryptically, that
> maybe, just maybe, shakespeare was a jew or front for a jew--similar
> to his notion that the genesis may have been written by a woman.
>
> anyway, though kubrick was proud of his jewish powers he wasn't
> necessarily proud of his jewishness. he saw too much of jewish
> society and culture as grubby and crass(money worshipping hollywood
> producers), too pushy and self-righteous(leftwing and radical jews),
> too vulgar and shameless(entertainment jews), and just downright ugly
> and repulsive.
> he loved his jewish powers of intellect but was ambivlaent about
> jewish culture and attitudes. he grew up in NY but settled in a
> mansion in a quiet english town. part of him wanted the dignified
> gentlemanly english life. part of him was always the topsy turvy
> creative NY jew. he never took on english manners and accent like T.
> S. Eliot did.
> but, kubrick didn't just wanna be a jew jew. aesthetically, he
> preferred the aryan ideal. 2001 has solid white males as heroes than
> grubby looking jews. and, in a way, The Shining about was about
> jewish anxiety in the House of Privileged Goyim. even as nicholson is
> king of the overlook hotel during winter, he doesn't really belong
> there. and, no matter how much he tries to devote himself to
> creativity, he can't help feeling that what really matters in life is
> power, wealth, privilege, and etc as represented by the hotel.
> so, kubrick wanted to be more than a jew. he wanted to be an aryan
> jew. he was afflicted with the hannah arendt syndrome of worship of
> german culture. yet, it was this crazy passion for german culture
> that led to the destruction of jewry in WWII. so, it was a difficult
> issue for kubrick to fathom. yet, deep in his heart, he shared some of
> the same passions as german culture worshippers that led to nazism and
> the holocaust. can one love/admire/worship german culture and still be
> a jew? don't all cultures come with certain built-in prejudices and
> biases? after all, it's difficult to worship jewish culture and
> jewish god AND embrace polytheism. was there a strong strain of mono-
> racialism at the core of german artistic genius and beauty? what did
> this mean for the jew who loved german culture?
> perhaps, the only answer was the fusion of jew and german genes--as in
> the case of kubrick and his german wife. would this lead to the best
> of both worlds? or, would it undermine or violate the best of both?
> take sarah jessica parker, a blonde jewess. she's disgusting! an ugly
> jewess is better than an ugly jewess adorned with touches of aryanism.
> but then, there's paul newman, an almost perfectly beautiful creature
> with best of aryan and semitic traits.
> though tom cruise isn't very jewish looking, he partly represented
> jewish anxiety in Eyes Wide Shut. he's a short dark haired
> guy--'jewish'--married to a tall blonde aryan goddess type, which is
> rather like kubrick with his german wife. this may be one of the
> reasons why kubrick avoided the public eye--he knew that he would look
> stupid walking next to his wife.
> but, tom cruise only partly embodies jewish anxiety in Eyes Wide Shut.
> the other part of his duality embodies the anxiety of the earnest goy
> in a world that is ruled by a ultra-aryan/jewish fusion of assholes.
> the mansion of fancy fuc*ery is where the big guns of old wasp power
> and new jew power come together to slobber all over the best looking
> pussies around the world. it's where the brains get the beauties.
> brains gain the most riches and power. riches and power afford the
> best pussies. is this right or wrong? is it as it should be or as it
> just is?
>
> so, what is to be done? can mankind be saved? can any idea or value
> system save us? a better social policy? such can improve our lot but
> cannot make us better. the only hope for improvement is thru
> genetics, and that means reproduction. we don't know which child will
> be born with the new mutations that will be the genetic basis for
> higher man. but, such child may one day be born. so, all we can do is
> cross our fingers, 'FUC*', and hope, as nicole kidman suggests at the
> end of the movie. maybe, just maybe, out of the billions of new kids,
> there will be the Star Child. so, we should learn to stop worrying and
> do some fuc*ing.

i think one huge problem with your interesting idea's is in imaging that
their are jewish brains and german brains for example. you have the
dualistic approach. and therefore seem to ultimately contradict yourself by
suggesting that we might fuck into existence a "Star Child".

"Criticisms of dualism have been very successful in modern science, and few
if any neuroscientists would consider taking such a position. Scientists
commonly assume that only the physical, and thus measurable, is real. Mental
states and processes are viewed as biological states and processes.
Nevertheless, there remains a practice, invisible but widespread in the
social and biological sciences, in which a logic of dualism persists, and
where an assumption of dualism can be demonstrated. This error is
illustrated in the following example from Richard DeGrandpre, which appeared
in 1999 in The Sciences:

In 1971 the neurologist Mary Coleman... reported the levels of the
neurotransmitter serotonin in blood samples from twenty-five hyperactive
children, none of whom were receiving drug treatment at the time of the
study. Coleman compared those serotonin levels with levels from a larger
sample of children who showed no hyperactivity. As she had expected, even
the children with the lowest serotonin levels in the control group had
higher levels of serotonin than all but two of the children in the
hyperactive group. Thus one could distinguish hyperactive from
nonhyperactive children through a biochemical measure alone, almost without
error.
Are those results evidence that ADHD is a biological disorder? Within the
framework of Cartesian dualism, in which mind and body are treated as
distinct entities, the answer is yes. The reason is that for biological
reductionists, mental or psychological states are denied any causal
efficacy - indeed, the question arises how mind and body could, even in
principle, interact at all. Thus for the dualist a correlation between
behavior and biochemistry is immediately treated as evidence that
hyperactivity is an entirely biological, and probably inherited, problem. No
messy, multiply determined psychological states need ever be invoked at all.
And that, as it happens, is precisely what most contemporary students of
ADHD suggest.[30]
DeGrandpre's point is that the failure to consider that both the
hyperactivity and the biochemical measure might both result from experience
and environment reflects an underlying and unexamined assumption of dualism.
The scientific monist, he argues, would assume that all psychological and
behavioral expressions have a physiological substructure, and thus would not
fail to consider a causal link between biological measures and past
environmental events. His point is advanced, as follows:

What is particularly intriguing about Coleman's study is that she resisted
the assumption that the physiological correlate was necessarily the basis of
the behavior. What would happen to serotonin and hyperactivity levels, she
asked, if the life circumstances of the children were to change? Coleman
arranged for the two most hyperactive children to spend a few additional
weeks in the hospital setting -- and away from the usual conditions of their
lives. By the end of their stays, the children's abnormally low serotonin
levels had nearly returned to normal, and their hyperactivity had lessened
considerably. Moreover, one boy's attention span increased from thirty
seconds to ten minutes, and the other boy's lengthened from three minutes to
fifteen minutes. Interestingly (albeit unfortunately), a month after the
boys left the hospital, their serotonin and hyperactivity had both returned
to the earlier, problematic levels.[30]
The results of this particular experiment illustrate the fundamental error
of what DeGrandpre has dubbed "the new scientific dualism", as it runs
roughshod over the basic scientific principle of cause and effect.

Another example may clarify this error. Psychiatric drugs typically consist
of molecules that bind to specific receptors in the brain and either block
or enhance the actions of certain brain chemicals, altering neuronal
pathways. This fact had led to a common claim in medicine that mental
disorders are biological, since biological agents produce a reduction of
symptoms. Critics, on the other hand, have argued that non-medication-based
approaches such as psychotherapy, exercise, or relaxation can also alter
brain pathways. For instance, studies have demonstrated that placebo effects
can reduce depressive systems by producing biological changes in the brain.

While these arguments differ on issues of mind, brain, and behavior, they
nevertheless each reflect a strain of the error of dualism. As in the
hyperactivity example above, the first shows the error of assuming that any
correlation between a brain change and a behavior is evidence that the
latter has a biological basis. The second also makes an error, albeit a more
subtle one, in suggesting that there is something surprising in the finding
that experience and environment alter brain biochemistry. If all but the
vestiges of dualism have been swept from modern biological science, why is
it not a prevailing and reflexive assumption that all psychological and
social phenomenon have a biological impact on, and/or expression within, the
brain. To suggest they do not is to adopt the scientific dualism of mind as
causal and yet also immaterial.


[edit] The function of dualism in modern science
If neuroscientists have adopted materialism over dualism, why does dualism
persist in modern biological science? One possible explanation involves
other underlying assumptions and biases regarding causality in the brain
sciences. As DeGrandpre points out,

As technological advances have offered a closer look at the brain's
connection to human thought and action, they have also enabled biological
psychiatrists and neuroscientists to promote a dangerous institutional bias
toward neurological reductionism. Spurred by funding from
multimillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and by the cultural penchant
for quick fixes, such investigators frequently exploit the intellectual
naivete of the media and the public by implying that any simple
physiological correlate of behavior is good evidence of cause. Thus they
mislead the public into accepting the view that all human psychopathology
is, at its roots, a biological pathology - instead of explicitly
acknowledging that mind, brain and behavior share irreducible
interconnections.[30]
The suggestion here is that much of the general public operates on an
assumption of mind and body as two different kinds, which is exploited by
brain scientists. If the public reflexively believes that the psychological
realm is distinct from the biological realm, then any correlation shown
between brain and behavior can be identified as a causation between brain
and behavior.

Criticisms of such causal claims have been leveled elsewhere. An editorial
in the American Journal of Psychiatry in May 1999 asked whether functional
magnetic resonance imaging (or fMRI) is twenty-first century phrenology. The
piece notes, "Neuroimaging offers a powerful probe of brain state, but we
are now faced with metaphysical questions; i.e., what is a brain state, and
how is it related to the outward manifestations of behavior? This has the
potential for degenerating into the old mind-body duality of Descartes..."

Similarly, Sandra Blakeslee points out in the New York Times that "just
because a brain area is correlated with a behavior in F.M.R.I. studies does
not mean that it causes the behavior... Imaging studies often make this
mistake" (March 14, 2000).

As noted above, there is a growing body of evidence showing the direct
impact of environment and experience on the brain, and this is undermining
scientist's ability to exploit dualistic tendencies in popular culture.
Nevertheless, the fact that such a tearing-down process has been necessary
with the rise of modern neuroscience suggests the degree to which a latent
mind-body dualism persists, even in the 21st century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#Problems_of_dualism

Boed...@isp.com

unread,
May 29, 2008, 2:44:28 AM5/29/08
to
On May 27, 2:18 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> On 27-May-2008, "Kelpzoidzl" <kelpz...@mastadon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <Boedi...@isp.com> wrote in message

> >news:06cc0e9e-20e0-479e...@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 23, 4:31 am, "B.H. Cramer" <Iamhre@them'oment.bizz> wrote:
> > > <flav...@verizon.net> wrote in
> > > messagenews:JCpZj.21802$4K5.1629@trnddc03...
>
> > > > On 22-May-2008, Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> On May 23, 1:01 am, stalepie <uhhhhhhhhhhh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > It's funny, one time on Youtube I was defending Israel and I was
> > > >> > called a kike. And then recently on Ha'Aretz in the comments under
> > > >> > an
> > > >> > article I defended this Holocaust guy in France for saying he
> > > >> > didn't
> > > >> > think it happened, I mean I was defending his right to say that
> > > >> > without getting fined, and I was called a cracker.- Hide quoted
> > > >> > text -
>
> > > >> So you defend both Zionism ('Israel') and a (Holocaust-denying) Nazi
> > > >> ('free speech'). Not at all surprising (and far from being 'funny'),
> > > >> as both racist pathologies have the very same origin, as described
> > > >> previously.
>
> > > > Lying to excuse your hatred only makes you look even dumber.
>
> > > Might I suggest you heed your own advice, you lying, hate-filled,
> > > dyslexic,
> > > thick Irish cunt?-
>
> Oh, is Boedicia Irish?

English you daft little boghopper. Been drinking
again I see.


>
>
>
> > "Killfile" The net equivalent of earplugs for the braindead,
> > cowards and now, Irish drunks
>
> I see she must be.
>
> > , it would seem.
>
> > This thread is absurd.
>
> It certainly is now.
> Anything that is infested by Boedicia & BenZonah KKKramer autotmatically
> becomes such.

You are as thick as 10 planks like most wannabes.
Now go and scrub a few floors and clean a few windows, but for God's
sake don't let your jew friends see you or they will wondering why you
don't have a "girl".

'BenZonah"?

NURSE!!

>
> Susan- Hide quoted text -

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 29, 2008, 6:31:51 AM5/29/08
to
On May 29, 6:23 am, "turtoni" <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
> "Harry Bailey" <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:e6f55bc2-6202-4d95...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 28, 7:59 am, "turtoni" <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>
> > politically if we're grouping; nazi Vs jew

> >>You are making the mistake of grouping a racist ideology (Nazism) with
> >> a religion (Judaism) here. Both Zionism and Nazism are imperialist-
> >> colonialist ideologies that were FOUNDED on (and so utterly dependent
> >> on) a racializing pathology; Nazism on the displaced imagining of two
> >> 'races', the 'Aryan' and the 'Jew', the latter then posited as the
> >> 'obstacle' to the (impossible) realization and actualization of the
> >> 'pure' Aryan race - a suicidal ideology; Zionism also on the displaced
> >> imagining of two 'races', the 'Jew' and the 'Arab/Muslim', in a
> >> similar way and with potentially similar fatal consequences.
>
> who's doing the mistaking? "didn't Stan try to broaden our horizons to
> encapsulate us all?"

>> And likewise, any attempt to create a 'view of the nature of man' on


>> false social institutions is also 'probably doomed to failure', for
>> our theories of both are inescapably socially and psychically and
>> linguistically mediated: there is no 'pure', unmediated, 'nature of
>> man', for (our understanding of) nature is itself a construct. Real,
>> unmediated, Nature is directly inaccessible to us, is lost to us.

> i disagree with you on this point because like stan says:

Don't you have views on this yourself?

> "Man isn't a noble savage, he's an ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal,
> weak, silly, unable to be objective about anything where his own interests
> are involved - that about sums it up."
>
> we know that much about the nature of man..
>
> hence the need to construct social institutions.

Kubrick made those declarations in the context of the controversy
that accompanied the release of A Clockwork Orange in 1972, where he
was questioning the fatalism of Rousseau's concept of the 'noble
savage', a context in which he also argued: "The age of the alibi, in
which we find ourselves, began with the opening sentence of Rousseau's
Emile: "Nature made me happy and good, and if I am otherwise, it is
society's fault." It is based on two misconceptions: that man in his
natural state was happy and good, and that primal man had no
society."

Primal man too had 'society', had formal social institutions,
families, tribes, rules, language, rituals, beliefs, etc. It isn't a
case of first there was Man, existing in a social vacuum of pure
undistilled 'brutal naturalness' and then 'society' suddenly
mysteriously appeared; the two emerged simultaneously: we are
(traumatically) born into symbolic social institution, it is integral
to Man, to the human, so splitting him from 'nature' and from being
identical with himself. It isn't possible to 'return' to the pre-
symbolic, to the pre-human, to a time before man was Man, to the pre-
lapsarian unmediated animalistic 'real' state of 'unity with nature',
despite human desires to endlessly attempt to do so.

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 29, 2008, 9:11:33 AM5/29/08
to
re: how nations states formed in history

The Mayflower was no humanist, universalist, liberalistic settler
movement.

The 13 colonies were founded and settled by various religion
interests.

If ye disagree, you've not been paying attention: Read between the
lines of the eleentary school etal textbooks.

Maryland was (I think) for Catholics, sponsored by Lord Baltimore. If
I err, then correct me specifically.

Rhode Island was fonded by the northern Baptists of Roger Williams,
expelled from Connecticut or Massachusetts.

Was all of this a nazi like thing.

If Noam Chomsky says so, that does not make it TOTALLY so.

NO analogue is perfect.

I'll say it again:

Equating Israel and NAZI Germany is contemptuous demagoguery.

Harry Bailey

unread,
May 29, 2008, 11:24:43 AM5/29/08
to
On May 29, 2:11 pm, Robert Cohen <robtco...@msn.com> wrote:
> re: how nations states formed in history
>
> The Mayflower was no humanist, universalist, liberalistic settler
> movement.
>
> The 13 colonies were founded and settled by various religion
> interests.
>
> If ye disagree, you've not been paying attention:  Read between the
> lines of the eleentary school etal textbooks.
>
> Maryland was (I think) for Catholics, sponsored by Lord Baltimore. If
> I err, then correct me specifically.
>
> Rhode Island was fonded by the northern Baptists of Roger Williams,
> expelled from Connecticut or Massachusetts.

None of these are examples of nation-states, but of American colonies
founded via European imperialist-colonialism. Nation states were (and
still are) formed in response to such oppressive colonialism, the vast
majority having formed during the 20th century, the era of post-
colonialism.


>
> Was all of this a nazi like thing.

Was what a 'nazi thing'?

>
> If Noam Chomsky says so, that does not make it TOTALLY so.

I don't recall Chomsky ever calling any of this a 'nazi thing'.

>
> NO analogue is perfect.
>
> I'll say it again:
>
> Equating Israel and NAZI Germany is contemptuous demagoguery.

Well it would be if anyone was formulating such an equation. We were
specifically discussing two racist ideologies, Zionism and Nazism, not
the two nation states, Israel and Germany.

Robert Cohen

unread,
May 29, 2008, 8:25:57 PM5/29/08
to
> the two nation states, Israel and Germany.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

re: "Racist."

Ashkenasic Jews are of Eastern Europoean enculturation.

Sephardim are southern Europe and the Mideast influence.

They've assimilated, though there have been & still are frictions.

The Russian Jews are different, though I'm assuming similar
divergencies & some mutual animus.

Ethiopians or Falasha have not assimilated as well as the caucasians
have mixed.

That's "race" in Israel, and it's probably not the worse situation in
the world,

Your're allowed to give me examples of where it's better integrated
and less frictional.

The non-Jews in Israel ARE discriminated against formmally and
informally.

The Israeli Arabs do participate in the national government, though
I've read (HAARETZ or wherever) their villages are not as modernized
as where the Jews live.

If that's "racism," then mozel tov, y'all gota real bullshite issue
there.

As for aggression toward guerillas and terrorists, you betcha.

Hobbes covers that very well in his writings about the function of the
State & the government.

NEWS BULLETIN: Israel is small, and very vulnerable to attack.

The awful FENCE I'll leave to that poet about ..."good neighbors".

Now what were you saying about Rhode Island & Massaachusetts: that
it's not about "race."

Well, how do you characterize their original reason to be?

Oh, "religion," well gee whiz, where else is religion a big deal
besides everywhere in the world.

Durban was bullshite.

You need Jews to be "easy kills," and that won't be as it had always
been.


samvaknin

unread,
May 30, 2008, 9:37:07 AM5/30/08
to

Harry Bailey

unread,
Jun 3, 2008, 7:59:53 AM6/3/08
to
I see that Jean luc Godard has just announced that he is boycotting
this year's Tel-Aviv film festival, following an open letter
suggesting he do so from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and
Cultural Boycott of Israel:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=4&Article_id=92625

I should add that it seems most unlikely that US film-maker John
Sayles, who has also been invited to the Tel-Aviv film festival, will
be boycotting the event. This may appear quite incredible given
Sayles' status as one of America's leading political film-makers of
the past 30 years; indeed, some of his work is often confused with
that of British film-maker Ken Loach, who boycotted Zionist Israel
long ago (many not knowing which of them directed, for instance, Bread
and Roses, Carla's Song, Matewan, Sunshine State, Lone Star, Land and
Freedom etc), their social realist aesthetics often indistinguishable.
But Sayles, unlike Loach, has always funded his independent films from
the proceeds of his scriptwriting for mainstream Hollywood movies, his
latest writing venture being the script for Steven Spielberg's soon-to-
be-released Jurassic Park IV (he also wrote the script that later
became the basis for Spielberg's E.T. in the early 1980s). An obvious
political landmine here, business corruption always trumps enlightened
politics in Hollywood, even on the left, as we know from the legacy of
McCarthyism..

No, sad to say, Sayles won't be joining.
------------------

But to resume the subject at hand:

"The attachment to race theory, for example, was presumably why it
didn't seem odd for Zionist leaders to be inviting Adolf Eichmann to
visit Palestine in 1937; why Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of
Likudism, so admired Mussolini (who was himself pro-Zionist); why
Mossad was working with the Gestapo to arrange Jewish deportation from
Germany at the behest of Reinhard Heydrich in 1939, later a chief
architect of the Nazi holocaust (he gave his name to one of its chief
components, Operation Reinhard); and why the Haganah (the Zionist
paramilitary which formed the core of the IDF) was receiving arms from
the SS. It was, all of it, part of the same murky world of colonial
domination, racist mysticism (the blood and soil kind) and volkish
nationalism."
-------------------------------------------------
The roots of Israeli barbarism

We have heard from people like UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard, who
says that the Zionist regime is worse than apartheid. The Israeli
historian Ilan Pappe now argues that Israel is pursuing a genocidal
policy in Gaza. The Israeli government's open threats of ethnic
cleansing and mass violence in civilian areas alongside the repeated
sieges, the imposed starvation, the mass imprisonment and the
killings, coupled with a deep-rooted perception of Palestinians as a
'demographic threat' and, well, everything else, could be seen as
adding weight to this view. But if the Israeli strategy is genocidal,
this is the latest degenerate stage in an ongoing counterinsurgency
war, the character of which is not well understood even by our own
gluttonously free press. Well, this is what can be said about the
ordinary run of the mill war, when there isn't a major theatre attack,
a mass crackdown, a re-invasion, an annexation or another country to
bomb: Israeli troops repeatedly use indiscriminate violence,
deliberate violence against civilians including against minors, they
use civilians as human shields, they detain tens of thousands
illegally, and they torture and rape prisoners. If you're a B'Tselem,
Amnesty, or even Human Rights Watch worker concerned with Israel/
Palestine, you encounter daily, grinding brutality that is rarely if
ever reported. Let me give you only a few examples. Here are some
excerpts from the latest B'Tselem report on human rights in the
'Occupied Territories':

Of those killed in 2007, at least 132 were civilians who were taking
no part in the hostilities at the time they were killed. As for
another 50, we were unable to determine the relevant circumstances.
According to these figures, approximately 35 percent of the
Palestinians killed in 2007 in circumstances known to B'Tselem were
civilians not involved in the fighting. In 2006, 348 civilians
uninvolved in the fighting were killed (54 percent). Illegal behavior
of an individual soldier and his commander is not the only cause for
the high number of Palestinians killed who were not taking part in
hostilities and posed no danger to security forces. The primary reason
for these deaths is Israeli policy, set by the army’s top echelon:
illegal easing of the military's rules of engagement, approval of
operations that constitute disproportionate attacks, and failure to
carry out independent investigations in cases in which innocent
Palestinian civilians are killed.

...

Another example of illegal expansion of the rules of engagement is the
establishment of “death zones” in areas close to the Gaza perimeter
fence. According to testimonies given to B'Tselem, certain units are
ordered to open fire automatically at any person approaching the
fence, without giving prior warning and regardless of the
circumstances or the identity of the person. This practice is
particularly grave because of the lack of demarcation, by signs or
otherwise, of the area in which entry is prohibited. In 2007, security
forces killed 55 Palestinians who tried to cross the Gaza perimeter
fence or were near the fence, in some cases even at a distance greater
than 100 meters. Of these, at least 16 were unarmed and not engaged in
hostilities, including four minors.

...

In 2007, B'Tselem documented in detail 74 cases in which security
forces beat (by punching, kicking, clubbing, or hitting with rifle
butts), humiliated, or threatened Palestinians. The perpetrators were
soldiers (in 41 cases), Border Police officers (27 cases), and members
of the regular police (6 cases) ... B'Tselem’s monitoring of
demonstrations against the Separation Barrier since 2004 indicates
that about 1,000 demonstrators have required medical treatment due to
injury from rubbercoated metal bullets, beatings, or tear gas
inhalation. Over 320 of these people were injured in 2007.

...

More than 6,000 Palestinians from the West Bank were detained in 2007
by Israel’s security forces. A significant majority of them were
subsequently interrogated by the Israel Security Agency on suspicion
of involvement in "hostile terror activity". In these interrogations,
the ISA, together with the Prison Service and Israel Police, routinely
use prison conditions and interrogation methods that individually
constitute forbidden ill-treatment.

...

The phenomenon of soldiers using Palestinians to perform dangerous
military tasks or to protect soldiers from gunfire (in other words,
using them as human shields) continued in 2007. Until mid-December,
B'Tselem documented 10 such cases, although it is likely that this
represents a minority of the cases that occurred.


These are conservative estimates based on documented cases, but they
clearly describe the systematic use of indiscriminate killing,
beatings, mass imprisonment, torture and the use of Palestinians as
human shields. I quoted some other examples of Israel's regular
brutalisation of civilians here. I want also to comment specifically
on the treatment of Palestinian children before moving on, because the
deliberate harming of children in any war is indicative of its
degeneracy - and is used as an indicator of such in most other wars.
The arrest and long-term detention of children is typical. For
example, in the months of February to May 2002, 8,500 Palestinians
were arrested in the West Bank, 10% of whom were children. The
circumstances were characteristic of an Israeli crackdown: door to
door house searches, with the rounding up of anyone who the soldiers
deemed a threat. The children, like their relatives, were frequently
beaten before being arrested, handcuffed, blindfolded for long periods
of time, denied access to medical treatment which they needed, and
subject to physical and psychological torture. One fifteen year old
boy described being beaten for an hour, his legs trampled on, then
thrown from one corner of the room to another for fifteen minutes,
then sprayed with cold water, then tied to iron steps which caused him
to fall and injure himself, then punched in the face. He also had
cigarettes stubbed out on his body and was struck with a steel ruler.
That's just one example. (See Catherine Cook et al, Stolen Youth: The
Politics of Israel's Detention of Palestinian Children, Pluto Press,
2004). The deliberate baiting and shooting of children has also been
reported. Chris Hedges wrote in 2001 of this practise by Israeli
soldiers at an Israeli colony ('settlement') near the Palestinian
refugee camp Faqah:


It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out
of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a
loudspeaker.

"Come on, dogs," the voice booms in Arabic. "Where are all the dogs of
Khan Younis? Come! Come!"

I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew:
"Son of a bitch!" "Son of a whore!" "Your mother's cunt!"

The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric
fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob
rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted
with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in
anticipation of what is to come.

A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or
eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand.
They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are
no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets
from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight
bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the
stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos.

Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom
were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they
kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more,
three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other
conflicts I have covered - death squads gunned them down in El
Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and
massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights
and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo - but I have
never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap
and murder them for sport. (Chris Hedges, 'A Gaza Diary', Harper's
Magazine, 1 October 2001).
-----

El Salvador, Guatemala, Sarajevo, and Algeria - those are instructive
comparisons. At any rate, this is just to indicate some of the
dimensions of Israel's barbarism that are usually unnoticed or, more
accurately, suppressed. It is a routine grind of racially aggravated
terror and humilitation, increasingly accompanied by various systems
of explicit segregation, including 300 kilometres of roads exclusively
for Israeli colonists in the West Bank. To it can be various forms of
economic blockade, with predictably devastating effects. As to its
roots, I have already argued that the reason for Israel's resemblance
to apartheid South Africa is because of their emergence from a very
similar historical complex of causes - colonialism and race ideology
in particular. The attachment to race theory, for example, was
presumably why it didn't seem odd for Zionist leaders to be inviting
Adolf Eichmann to visit Palestine in 1937; why Vladimir Jabotinsky,
the founder of Likudism, so admired Mussolini (who was himself pro-
Zionist); why Mossad was working with the Gestapo to arrange Jewish
deportation from Germany at the behest of Reinhard Heydrich in 1939,
later a chief architect of the Nazi holocaust (he gave his name to one
of its chief components, Operation Reinhard); and why the Haganah (the
Zionist paramilitary which formed the core of the IDF) was receiving
arms from the SS. It was, all of it, part of the same murky world of
colonial domination, racist mysticism (the blood and soil kind) and
volkish nationalism.

And the techniques of repression that I have described are rooted in,
specifically, the British colonial rule over Palestine, with which the
Zionists periodically collaborated, and in the inheritance by the
Zionist leadership of Britain's counterinsurgency war, which
continues. Some of the key training for Zionist paramilitaries before
1948 was in supporting British colonial repression of the Palestinian
Arab national liberation struggle in 1936-9, just as fascism was
ravaging Europe and the Gestapo, Wehrmacht and SS were refining their
own techniques of counterinsurgency. The collaboration in the
repression had started as the revolt began in 1936 with the formation
of the Jewish supernumerary police, which was 1,240-strong, but
expanded over the next two years so that by 1939, it numbered 14,500
men. The training they received was usually passed on to thousands of
others who were not included in the force. The Special Night Squads
were a notoriously brutal manifestation of this collusion. Orde
Wingate, a senior British army officer and Zionist, organised these.
His role in formulating Israeli military doctrine is still
commemorated. He is credited with having inculcated the principles of
surprise, offensive daring, deep penetration and high mobility, and
one of his most notable pupils was Moshe Dayan. He also taught them
torture, on-the-spot executions, mass detention without trial, black
flag operations. All of which was perfectly normal for the British. In
general, British strategy was that any suspicious-looking "Johnny
Arab" who looked suspicious could be shot out of hand, while beatings
were given out routinely during raids. And the British were not shy of
drawing on their extensive history of counterinsurgency in India.
Charles Tegart, who had controlled special branch in the Calcutta
police, was requisitioned to Palestine during the revolt, where he
provided his expert assistance in the formation of Arab Investigation
Centres (forebears of Facility 1391) where Palestinians would be
tortured. However, the Special Night Squads acquired a justified
reputation for brutality of a kind that would be familiar in today's
death squads, including the Special Police Commandos for example.
(What does is it say about the world's military and intelligence
classes, that 'special' for them always means particularly gruesome
murder and torture? For most of us, I suspect, 'special' is a wine-
drenched sunset or a kind of fried rice). Aside from this valuable
tutelage, at any rate, a further 50,000 Haganah troops were trained by
the British army during World War II.

It is useful in that context to consider the Zionists at the height of
their success, with the Arab armies easily defeated, and at least
700,000 Palestinians ethnically cleansed through a system of terror,
massacres, the destruction of villages, and dispossession based on a
detailed plan implemented throughout 1948. It had been in these
operations, beginning with Operation Nachson, that the various Zionist
paramilitaries had first bonded together in a single effort. From that
unity, that brothership of blood, was forged the IDF. By 1949, the
plan had been more or less fulfilled. But the techniques which they
had learned during the 1936 revolt and after would continue to be
invaluable. As Ilan Pappe describes it in The Ethnic Cleansing of
Palestine (2006), there was little let-up in the humiliation of, and
attacks on, Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinian men were held in
pens after systematic search-and-arrest operations, before being moved
to concentrated prison camps. The category of 'suspicious Arab' was
the basis for many of the arrests, as remains the case today: they
closed off cities or towns, started searching the houses, and selected
their victims. They took them off to be brutalised, subject to forced
labour, or summarily executed. Former Irgun, Stern Gang and Haganah
troops were employed as camp guards, and they were - despite
occasional formal recriminations - allowed to get away with murder,
including the Kfar Qassim massacre in which 49 Palestinians lost their
lives. In the towns and villages were Palestinians remained, they were
frequently subject to on-the-spot murder, as in Jaffa where Red Cross
discovered a pile of bodies and were told by Israeli authorities that
the people had been shot for not obeying the curfew between 5pm and
6am (during which time Israelis took the opportunity to loot
Palestinian property, thus compounding the earlier waves of
expropriation). They were forced into ghettos, as in Haifa were the
3-5,000 Palestinians who remained after 70,000 Palestinians were
expelled, were driven into tiny living quarters in the city. ID cards
were issued to help restrict and control their movement. They were
also subject to rape. One case describes how soldiers had wanted to
rape a girl, so they killed her father, wounded the mother, and
allowed at least one soldier to assault the girl. Another girl, twelve
years old, was kidnapped by soldiers in the Negev in mid-1949, had her
head shaved, and was raped and tortured for several days by 22
soldiers in the platoon until one of the men killed her. In general,
the Palestinians were subject to martial law, based on the British
Mandate's emergency regulations imposed in 1945, which limited rights
of expression, movement, and organisation, a status that ended only
formally in 1966. And all the while, the theft of the land continued,
as did the expropriation, vandalism and desecration, while the
refugees were prevented from returning.

That was the Zionist movement and state in its moment of triumph, when
the 'threat' of Palestinian self-government had been decisively
defeated. They required no Hamas to goad them into it. It was the
behaviour of self-confident promulgators of the Iron Wall - a doctrine
fit for a Duce - schooled in technique by the most vicious bastards to
have ever enslaved a quarter of the planet.

Day Brown

unread,
Jun 3, 2008, 11:04:31 PM6/3/08
to
Look it up. Barford, "the Early Slavs" for one, reports that the
Ashkenazic Jews were the (*ARYAN*) Khazar elite who converted to Judaism
in the lste 9th century. They were running an extension of the Silk Road
from Astrakhan on the Volga delta to the rivers that empty into the
Baltic, ie hooking up with the Viking trading network at places like
Kiev. They were doing business with the Moslems in Persia, the
Byzantines, and the Catholic princes, and Judaism solved lots problems
in avoiding enemies they didnt need.

They were smart motherfuckers from day one. But they'd never even been
to the "Holy Land" much less descended from the Semites. Ironic that
they now run the place. Course, Aryans have been invading it ever since
Alexander.

Recently, they found another Viking hoard outside Stockholm. It was all
9th century Islamic coins... that passed thru the hands of these "Jews".

fla...@verizon.net

unread,
Jun 3, 2008, 11:55:27 PM6/3/08
to

On 3-Jun-2008, Day Brown <dayb...@daybrown.org> wrote:

> Look it up. Barford, "the Early Slavs" for one, reports that the
> Ashkenazic Jews were the (*ARYAN*) Khazar elite who converted to Judaism
> in the lste 9th century

Lots of people report that stupid story.
What most of them have yet to grasp is that even if it were
true - & DNA evidence shows it's not - it wouldn't change
a thing WRT to who is a Jew & who owns Israel.

Susan

Dr. Lippschitz

unread,
Jun 4, 2008, 2:13:30 PM6/4/08
to

<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Pmo1k.3130$BY1.2643@trnddc06...

>
> On 3-Jun-2008, Day Brown <dayb...@daybrown.org> wrote:
>
>> Look it up. Barford, "the Early Slavs" for one, reports that the
>> Ashkenazic Jews were the (*ARYAN*) Khazar elite who converted to Judaism
>> in the lste 9th century
>
> Lots of people report that stupid story.

You're ignorant and know nothing of history.

> What most of them have yet to grasp is that even if it were
> true - & DNA evidence shows it's not

All DNA shows is that the jew invaders in israhell have the same DNA as the
jew khazars in Europe lol


- it wouldn't change
> a thing WRT to who is a Jew & who owns Israel.

It certainly would. You're stupid.
>
> Susan


TheZ

unread,
Jun 4, 2008, 2:46:24 PM6/4/08
to
The Potz calling the kettle black.

"Dr. Lippschitz" <lipps...@uni.org> wrote in message
news:eXA1k.4113$BV.3322@trndny05...

fla...@verizon.net

unread,
Jun 6, 2008, 1:04:09 AM6/6/08
to

On 4-Jun-2008, "TheZ" <Th...@nospam.com> wrote:

> The Potz calling the kettle black.

Oh, it's worse than that: he's one of the dumbest liars on Usenet,
& thinks that if he just keeps repeating his lies, & pretending that
everyone is dumb enough to believe them, it will make things so.


>
> "Dr. Lippschitz" <lipps...@uni.org> wrote in message
> news:eXA1k.4113$BV.3322@trndny05...
> >
> > <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:Pmo1k.3130$BY1.2643@trnddc06...
> >>
> >> On 3-Jun-2008, Day Brown <dayb...@daybrown.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Look it up. Barford, "the Early Slavs" for one, reports that the
> >>> Ashkenazic Jews were the (*ARYAN*) Khazar elite who converted to
> >>> Judaism
> >>> in the lste 9th century
> >>
> >> Lots of people report that stupid story.
> >
> > You're ignorant and know nothing of history.
> >

See?


> >
> >
> >> What most of them have yet to grasp is that even if it were
> >> true - & DNA evidence shows it's not
> >
> > All DNA shows is that the jew invaders in israhell have the same DNA as
> > the jew khazars in Europe lol
> >

See?


> >
> >
> >
> > - it wouldn't change
> >> a thing WRT to who is a Jew & who owns Israel.
> >
> > It certainly would. You're stupid.
> >>

See?

Susan

B.H. Cramer

unread,
Jun 6, 2008, 5:09:54 AM6/6/08
to

<fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:dz32k.13892$%Z1.3606@trnddc05...

>
> On 4-Jun-2008, "TheZ" <Th...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> The Potz calling the kettle black.
>
> Oh, it's worse than that: he's one of the dumbest liars on Usenet,
> & thinks that if he just keeps repeating his lies, & pretending that
> everyone is dumb enough to believe them, it will make things so.

Nah!

That has gotta be you, cohen.

You've been spraying the "I changed race and became a jew" for years. No one
has swallowed it yet.


Harry Bailey

unread,
Jun 6, 2008, 2:34:10 PM6/6/08
to
"National Socialists for Israel"

And unsurprisingly, a recent report in Har'retz states:

"Nazis against anti-Semitism? As bizarre as that sounds, a group of
Germans which calls itself "National Socialists For Israel" launched
its Web site in support of Israel.

"Stop the hatred of the Jewish people," the Web site reads. "The Jews
are a healthy, strong nation."

The organization - whose members have yet to reveal themselves to the
public - claims that Israel's right to exist is anchored in the
principles of social Darwinism, the same principles which the Nazis
adopted prior to the Second World War."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990228.html
---------------------------------


On Jun 3, 12:59 pm, Harry Bailey <unhomedivis...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I see that Jean luc Godard has just announced that he is boycotting
> this year's Tel-Aviv film festival, following an open letter
> suggesting he do so from the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and
> Cultural Boycott of Israel:
>

> http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=4&Artic...

> ...

Jack

unread,
Jun 6, 2008, 2:44:36 PM6/6/08
to
What philosopy is all that?


Harry Bailey

unread,
Jun 6, 2008, 3:13:05 PM6/6/08
to
On Jun 6, 7:44 pm, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What philosopy is all that?

Your question is cryptic.

The Har'retz report is further evidence that, increasingly, the
logical position for any far right party in Europe is to rally behind
Israel. It was probably inevitable, but the culture of the 'war on
terror' has accelerated the trend (of the far right in its racializing
hysteria substituting 'Muslim' for 'Jew'). And even if it is a prank
(as some are suggesting), it's a telling one: the BNP in Britain have
come out for Israel; Le Pen in France has come out for Israel; the
Italian fascists have come out for Israel. If this is someone's idea
of an 'ironic' student-rag-week dumb scam, in other words, it doesn't
work: it's an entirely realistic scenario.

Kelpzoidzl

unread,
Jun 6, 2008, 6:26:35 PM6/6/08
to

"Harry Bailey" <unhomed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8c392f64-1073-4012...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
"National Socialists for Israel"

And unsurprisingly, a recent report in Har'retz states:

"Nazis against anti-Semitism? As bizarre as that sounds, a group of
Germans which calls itself "National Socialists For Israel" launched
its Web site in support of Israel.

"Stop the hatred of the Jewish people," the Web site reads. "The Jews
are a healthy, strong nation."

The organization - whose members have yet to reveal themselves to the
public - claims that Israel's right to exist is anchored in the
principles of social Darwinism, the same principles which the Nazis
adopted prior to the Second World War."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990228.html
---------------------------------


http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6916/walktheearthfr5.jpg


dc

Topaz

unread,
Jun 6, 2008, 10:22:59 PM6/6/08
to
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:34:10 -0700 (PDT), Harry Bailey
<unhomed...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"National Socialists for Israel"
>
>And unsurprisingly, a recent report in Har'retz states:
>
>"Nazis against anti-Semitism? As bizarre as that sounds, a group of
>Germans which calls itself "National Socialists For Israel" launched
>its Web site in support of Israel.
>
>"Stop the hatred of the Jewish people," the Web site reads. "The Jews
>are a healthy, strong nation."
>
>The organization - whose members have yet to reveal themselves to the
>public - claims that Israel's right to exist is anchored in the
>principles of social Darwinism, the same principles which the Nazis
>adopted prior to the Second World War."


Here is part of an article titled Zionism, by Arno Schickedanz. It
was in Der Schulungsbrief, which was one of the most widely
circulated periodicals in National Socialist Germany:

"Non-Jewish observers and writers on Zionism who see political Zionism
only as an attempt at "national renewal" rather than an effort to
establish a unified Jewish leadership as well as Jewish rule over the
world, are therefore incorrect. The confusion of political Zionism
with Palestine can be understood only through the Jewish prophecies in
which Jewry is assured of control over all the goods of this world.
Knowing that the time was near, and would culminate in taking
possession of Palestine, Zionism developed the nonsensical notion of
an "historic claim" to the "promised land," to which Jews "without any
outside pressure" would gradually immigrate.
In the ideology of political Zionism, Palestine fulfilled the role of
an indispensable part of prophecy, just as certain rules are the
guarantee for success of the magical ceremonies of primitive peoples.
Political Zionism never intended Palestine to be the destination of
all Jews, rather it merely wants to make Palestine the center of
Jewish world policy. That must naturally be protected by a strong
Jewish population. The Zionist publication Jüdische Rundschau wrote:
"No one at any time has proposed that all Jews today should emigrate
to Palestine." Nabum Sokolow, Weizmann's colleague and current
chairman of the Zionist Committee, said it clearly in 1921: "The
Jewish people wants to return to Palestine, the Jewish people will
have its center in Palestine. Large parts of Jewry will live as a
Jewish periphery in the world. They must be cared for, their dignity
and their national rights must be assured.""


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

Alex May

unread,
Aug 10, 2008, 10:55:16 AM8/10/08
to


in article 69l2qiF...@mid.individual.net, David Matthews at
dmatt...@sympatico.ca wrote on 22/05/2008 12:03:

>
>> The V-2 was brilliant design, years ahead of its time. The Germans even
>> had plans under way to launch V2 missiles against America from U-boats,
>> which would have been the world's first submarine-launched ballistic
>> missiles, 15 years ahead of the U.S. Polaris missile of 1960. But Germany
>> had pretty much lost the war by then.
>>
>> Steven L.
>
>
> When the first V-2s hit London the British didn't know what they were. The
> V-2s traveled faster than sound and disintegrated on impact. The British
> thought the damage done was due to either IRA activity or natural gas
> explosions, it was a while before they realized that they were being
> bombarded by rockets.
>
> Dave in Toronto
>
The debris would have told them it was a rocket/aeroplane thingy straight
away.

0 new messages