Anti war protestors are inhumane
Walt Horning
do, punishing him for his war crimes, saving the world from chemical
and biological attacks and bringing freedom and liberty to Iraqi
citizens (who have been tortured and slaughtered by this man and still
does it today).Thus Iraq anti-war protesters must support inhumanity
to other humans and thus are inhumane themselves.
Come to think of it, it sounds like France, Germany, Russia and China
also support inhumane treatment of humans in Iraq, since they are
unwilling to support a war there to bring liberation to Iraq, even it
is the pretense the Sadam is not complying with disarming, and in fact
he is not disarming.
abracadabra
"Walt Horning" <w...@www.www> wrote in message
news:5r2u4vc8kseg7bii0...@4ax.com...
If you think we are going to "liberate" Iraq - meaning getting rid of Saddam
and turning the country over to a civilian, democratic government, then
you're nuts.
We'll get rid of Saddam, the Iraqis will cheer, and then we'll give them a
new dictator or take over ourselves until we can groom a puppet government.
dmtsymphony
Walt Horning wrote:
Man, you are preaching to the converted if anyone buys your jive, cuz us
sane folks think you are nuts.
David
wrote:
No, it's only the liberal cowards like yourself who think it's nuts.
: )
Walt Horning
wrote:
You are a liar just like Sadam Hussein and you are a super evil person
since you obviously support letting Sadam using his biological weapons
one day on me and my family. You evil scum!
Walt Horning
wrote:
>
>
Sane?
What is sane about letting a super evil person continue to rule a
super evil regime so that one day he can kill again. It has been
estimated that he still has over 1 million pounds of chemicals and
biologicals, per the UN.
If you support Sadam Hussein and oppose taking him out when its
blantantly obvious the man is hiding his evil weapons for the day he
can use them, then YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE YOURSELF.
Walt Horning
Yes, total cowards. Did you know that even after the evil Japanese
Empire bombed Pearl Harbor that they still were only able to get 1/3
to enlist, the other 2/3rds had to be drafted.
These cowards want all the benefits and freedoms and high standard of
living, but when it comes to defending it they run for the hills.
Everyone is naturally afraid of dying on the battle field, but if you
are not willing to fight for your freedoms, you do not deserve them at
all.
I have to wonder if these are not the same people who do not want
citizens own guns to even defend their own lives from common street
crime or attack in one's own home.
I mean if their own cowardice refuses to let them own a gun to defend
their own life or the life of their children from a common criminal,
its not surprising they are cowards when it comes to war.
Oddly, with some common sense assistance/methods cowards could become
brave people willing to face their responsibilities to the common good
of all. My guess is that bulk of anti-war protesters live in a world
where everyone else must be accountable but them. And that is because
they are essentially selfish, evil little shits who manifest narcism
to the nth degree.
Roger R.
<David (David)> wrote in message
news:3e4f3666...@news.chartertn.net...
When you have to resort to emotional insults, you have clearly lost the
argument.
Walt Horning
So who are you referring too, since the the first guy used "nuts" and
the second guy did too?
>
Roger R.
"Walt Horning" <w...@www.www> wrote in message
Cuba under Castro, Mugabe, Syria, Libya, Egypt under Nasser, Iraq a decade
ago, Iran under the Mullahs until recently, probably Yemen and Saudi Arabia,
most of the current members of the Russian Federation, Russia itself - and
possibly the USA under Bush.
I realize that you are a shill for the Bush conservatives and will strongly
support anything they say (much like the post-WWII Communists supported
whatever policy Stalin decided to implement) but doesn't it seem strange to
you that the US has been attacked by Al-Queda terrorists, but is for some
strange reason going to war against Iraq which has no known connection to
Al-Queda or any non-Palestinian terrorist organization? Yet the Bush
admininstration is supporting Pakistan which is clearly supporting
terrorists agains India. North Korea is a nastier dictatorship than Iraq,
the Bush people have known since they entered office that North Korea has
nukes, they are threatening to use them (unlike Saddam) yet the Bush people
are doing absolutely nothing about North Korea?
Even if going to war in Iraq is the right thing to do and properly should be
our highest priority, the Bush people have made a total hash of it
politically. First they pissed off nearly every ally we had, then they
decided to go into Iraq without allies (gee, I wonder why?) and then when
finally convinced that was impossible, they have been simply saying they
were going to go because Saddam is a nasty man and might someday do nasty
things. Even people who think that we must go in and take out Saddam must be
asking themselves if Bush is the leader we want to follow to do it.
Are we going to go in, get the locals pissed off at us, pull out in a few
months and leave them in as bad a shape as when we went in as we have done
(twice now) in Afghanistan? Sure we are. Bush can't get reelected in 2004
without getting more tax cuts passed, and the US can't do anythng
constructive in Iraq if the government has no money, a massive deficit, and
rising interest rates sucking the life out of the economy. Yet the bushies
only set up a department to planhow to handle Iraq after we take it three
weeks ago. They have been building up troops for months. What kind of idiots
are running the insane asylum we fondly call the White House?
David
<jayrayn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Translation; I can't refute a thing that David has said. : )
neptune3
>Ridding the world of Sadam and his regime would be the humane thing to
>do, punishing him for his war crimes,
"I'm sure people over in Iraq think that we need dictatorship.
Let them have whatever they want to have. I see more people over there
waving pictures of Saddam and
celebrating in the streets than I see people waving pictures of
Clinton or Bush over here. And over
here people are protesting instead of celebrating. No groups of
thousands in the streets celebrating
like over there.
Still, if you choose to ignore that and go buy the propaganda that
your government tells you, like that
they all secretly hate saddam and want us to get him out, then you go
right ahead and believe that.
Nobody had to help us get rid of king George. If enough citizens
REALLY don't like the government, they
have a revolution.
It is none of the US's concern what sort of government Iraq or any
other country has. We need to stop
overthrowing governments and putting in place democratic ones that
report back to our leaders and see to
it that we benefit from them somehow while the citizens of those
countries get screwed.
Russians citizens are not very happy with their new democratic
government either."
jungle jim
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.whtt.org/ www.AmRen.com
Walt Horning
<jayrayn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Your argument, such as it is, could have applied to Stalin, North Korea,
>Cuba under Castro, Mugabe, Syria, Libya, Egypt under Nasser, Iraq a decade
>ago, Iran under the Mullahs until recently, probably Yemen and Saudi Arabia,
>most of the current members of the Russian Federation, Russia itself - and
>possibly the USA under Bush.
I agree, and in many of these cases either sanctions or other
diplomatic pressure was applied, and it some cases the use of military
force was applied. So what is your point?
>
>I realize that you are a shill for the Bush conservatives and will strongly
>support anything they say (much like the post-WWII Communists supported
>whatever policy Stalin decided to implement) but doesn't it seem strange to
>you that the US has been attacked by Al-Queda terrorists, but is for some
>strange reason going to war against Iraq which has no known connection to
>Al-Queda or any non-Palestinian terrorist organization?
Well, in a post-911 world, there can no longer be "business as usual".
I mean that terrorism does not just come from al-Qaeda. The lesson
learned from 911 is that if terrorists or terrorist nations will
disarm they will be left alone, but if they do not they will be
disarmed. To sit back and wait for some other terrorists organization
to attack again, regardless of what name they go by is "suicide".
You also need to differientiate between countries that use rather
conventions means of warfare and those that resort to terrorism.
Now in the case of Iraq, since Sadam realizes he can no longer resort
to open warfare against his neighbors or others, his ego now has him
preparing to distribute poisons and biologicals to terrorist orgs so
as to strike back at those he hates. Remember arrests were made
connecting would-e assasins to Sadam Hussein, who were attempting to
assinate the former President Bush. And my point is only that Sadam
will resort to other means.
And finally, there is much more evidence that what Colin Powell
revealed the other day with respect to Sadam's connection with anti-US
terrorists orgs.
And still furthermore, his present behavior with respect to the UN
demands is clearly evidence he is hiding his weapons so that he can
use them one day, either directly or via terrrorist orgs.
>Yet the Bush
>admininstration is supporting Pakistan which is clearly supporting
>terrorists agains India.
That is not true. Pakistan is being supported because its country's
leaders are going after al-Qaeda and others. As for India, they have
had a disputed over Kashmire for long before all this began, and there
are no terrorist activities only military activities. Any terrorist
activities are by religious finatics, not the government of Pakistan.
>North Korea is a nastier dictatorship than Iraq,
>the Bush people have known since they entered office that North Korea has
>nukes, they are threatening to use them (unlike Saddam) yet the Bush people
>are doing absolutely nothing about North Korea?
That is a diversion. But we can go there if you wish. You like to talk
about taking sides with polticians, fine. Then you must have liked
Clinton and Albright, his Secretary of State, who reflected Clinton
policy by saying that you use different cookie cutters with different
kinds of cookies. In otherwords, how you deal with a dangerous country
depends on the situation. Kennedy dealed with Cuba with the threat of
a war, and the Russians back down. Clinton dealt with N Korea with
promises and deliveries of alternate energy sources and food and
medicine if N Korea agreed to no nuke development, but it cheated and
lied.
Well, as in any conflict you do not start with war, you start with
negotiation. So at present that is where things are with N. Korea. If
they cannot be resolved and N Korea starts to get really nasty, then
war can be a last resort.
Iraq though has been given every chance through negotiation to disarm
but has not so that is where we are now, the negotiations are nearly
over and war is possible soon.
>
>Even if going to war in Iraq is the right thing to do and properly should be
>our highest priority, the Bush people have made a total hash of it
>politically. First they pissed off nearly every ally we had, then they
>decided to go into Iraq without allies (gee, I wonder why?) and then when
>finally convinced that was impossible, they have been simply saying they
>were going to go because Saddam is a nasty man and might someday do nasty
>things. Even people who think that we must go in and take out Saddam must be
>asking themselves if Bush is the leader we want to follow to do it.
So you do not know how France, Germany, Russian and China have
lucrative, big-business trade agreements with Iraq that are making
them all billions. Think maybe that is the real problem here? Oh, and
while we are on this big-business subject, how come you liberals, who
have a "hate campaign" against big-business explotation, are not on
this one like a fly on shit? If you were, then maybe you would change
your tune a bit.
Some have even accused the US that a war with Iraq is over oil, yet
the four countries above who are seemingly opposed to war at this time
are the ones receiving all this oil in exchange for all the goods and
services being delivered to Iraq at this time. How come liberals are
not all over that like fly on shit?
>
>Are we going to go in, get the locals pissed off at us, pull out in a few
>months and leave them in as bad a shape as when we went in as we have done
>(twice now) in Afghanistan?
Well, from all truthful reports, it sounds like after the troups
rolled in in the Gulf War and from present reports it sounds like 99%
of Iraqi citizens are going to be waiving American flags as our troops
roll in.
>Sure we are. Bush can't get reelected in 2004
>without getting more tax cuts passed, and the US can't do anythng
>constructive in Iraq if the government has no money, a massive deficit, and
>rising interest rates sucking the life out of the economy.
Ever heard of war reparations? Not to make a profit, but to just cover
the cost of the war. Also, it seems after the first Gulf War there was
not dent in the economy.
>Yet the bushies
>only set up a department to planhow to handle Iraq after we take it three
>weeks ago. They have been building up troops for months. What kind of idiots
>are running the insane asylum we fondly call the White House?
>
Well, you are missing some facts here. First and foremost is that Iraq
has a strong infrastructure, which will only be slightly damaged by
war, as it was true in the Gulf War. The intent, if war happens and is
won, is to keep in place the majority of the govenment, except its
poltical heads (obviously). Intelligience sources already have
indicated that Iraqi rank and file government workers will continue to
run the country as they have been doing for essential services.
I have taken a lot of time to fairly respond. However, my impression
is that you really only want to win your argument, because there is a
lot of diversion and lot of half-truths. I have tried to stick to the
facts as I know them, however,
I hope this straightens things out a bit.
Walt Horning
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:54:16 -0500, Walt Horning <w...@www.www> wrote:
>
>>Ridding the world of Sadam and his regime would be the humane thing to
>>do, punishing him for his war crimes,
>
>"I'm sure people over in Iraq think that we need dictatorship.
>
>Let them have whatever they want to have. I see more people over there
>waving pictures of Saddam and
>celebrating in the streets than I see people waving pictures of
>Clinton or Bush over here. And over
>here people are protesting instead of celebrating. No groups of
>thousands in the streets celebrating
>like over there.
Have you ever asked yourself how may Germans waived and supported
Hitler or Stalin? That is propaganda and/or it is simply the fact that
people do not know any better. They have only one press source, the
official line from Sadam.
So, while it could be that what you say is true, the consensus from
most press sources, liberal and conservative is that this is not so
real.
And have you ever know the people of any country to have pictures of
another president in large numbers in the street? I think that is a
laughable to try to make any point that way, since its just silly.
>
>Still, if you choose to ignore that and go buy the propaganda that
>your government tells you, like that
>they all secretly hate saddam and want us to get him out, then you go
>right ahead and believe that.
I think they rather openly "hate" Sadam. I do not think Bush or Powell
have kept that a secret.
>Nobody had to help us get rid of king George.
Acutally, the French helped us quite a bit.
>If enough citizens
>REALLY don't like the government, they
>have a revolution.
The Czech tried that and were slaughtered and the Chinese tried it,
etc. When the government has all the guns, then its really hard you
know. (Maybe that is why some Americans feel gun ownership is
important, namely to fight the US governemnt should it be taken over
by some evil dictator.
>It is none of the US's concern what sort of government Iraq or any
>other country has.
You are right. We do not care. But we and all countries of the world
do care which other countries are our enemy and want to destroy us, or
use terrorist means to kill our citizens.
>We need to stop
>overthrowing governments and putting in place democratic ones that
>report back to our leaders and see to
>it that we benefit from them somehow while the citizens of those
>countries get screwed.
Funny, we are not doing that. You see if a country were leaving us
alone and was not being a threat to us we would not do this. We have
not attacked Canada or Brazil in South America, as an example.
But when a country attacks us or is conspiring do so then its not
about overthrowing governments, but about self defense. (You sure seem
to have a strange set of concepts here?)
>
>Russians citizens are not very happy with their new democratic
>government either."
That is not the reason they are unhappy. It is not democracy that
hurts any more than a country ruled by a king, its people who are evil
and take advantage of the people. In a kingdom or dictatorship, the
leader can still be a really nice person who makes life pleasant for
all or the leader can be a real tyrannt. In a democracy, its hard for
a government ot last long if they do not treat the people nice.
However, in a democracy capitalism flurishes. Capitalism has two
faces, one in which economic incentives result in growth and low
unemployment, but the other face is that it is a vehicle to exploit
labor.
Part of the problem in Russia today is eploitation by big business.
However, this is not say that a lack of democracy is the solutiion,
since dictatorial governments can also exploit workers.
abracadabra
"Walt Horning" <w...@www.www> wrote in message
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:06:35 -0500, "abracadabra" <ab...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Walt Horning" <w...@www.www> wrote in message
> >news:5r2u4vc8kseg7bii0...@4ax.com...
> >> Ridding the world of Sadam and his regime would be the humane thing to
> >> do, punishing him for his war crimes, saving the world from chemical
> >> and biological attacks and bringing freedom and liberty to Iraqi
> >> citizens (who have been tortured and slaughtered by this man and still
> >> does it today).Thus Iraq anti-war protesters must support inhumanity
> >> to other humans and thus are inhumane themselves.
> >>
> >> Come to think of it, it sounds like France, Germany, Russia and China
> >> also support inhumane treatment of humans in Iraq, since they are
> >> unwilling to support a war there to bring liberation to Iraq, even it
> >> is the pretense the Sadam is not complying with disarming, and in fact
> >> he is not disarming.
> >
> >If you think we are going to "liberate" Iraq - meaning getting rid of
Saddam
> >and turning the country over to a civilian, democratic government, then
> >you're nuts.
> >We'll get rid of Saddam, the Iraqis will cheer, and then we'll give them
a
> >new dictator or take over ourselves until we can groom a puppet
government.
> >
>
> You are a liar just like Sadam Hussein
No I'm not. It sure is easier for you to call names then to actually debate.
Pretty pathetic of you, Walter
and you are a super evil person
> since you obviously support letting Sadam using his biological weapons
> one day on me and my family. You evil scum!
Name calling little conservatives.
Where have the rational conservatrives gone?
Walt Horning
wrote:
But you yourself defined yourself as evil. Its virtually as if you
said, "I am evil folks."
And as for name calling, you "opened" the door first by calling me a
nut. So you are at fault, not I. Furthermore, you must not be able to
debate either.
And finally, you are just using a diversion to divert the readers from
the truth that Sadam Hussein is indeed an super evil monster as
demostrated by his past and present conduct.
abracadabra
"Walt Horning" <w...@www.www> wrote in message
Lying again.
Pretty pathetic, Walter.
> And as for name calling, you "opened" the door first by calling me a
> nut.
That was an accurate observation, not name calling.
If I called you an unwashed, smelly nut it would be name calling.
> And finally, you are just using a diversion to divert the readers from
> the truth that Sadam Hussein is indeed an super evil monster as
> demostrated by his past and present conduct.
Who said he isn't? You cat like somebody's arguing the point, when nobody is
supporting Saddam.
Walt Horning
wrote:
Ja, Ja, Die alt dopel standard.
abracadabra
"Walt Horning" <w...@www.www> wrote in message
s.
> >> >> >We'll get rid of Saddam, the Iraqis will cheer, and then we'll give
> >them
> >> >a
> >> >> >new dictator or take over ourselves until we can groom a puppet
> >> >government.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You are a liar just like Sadam Hussein
> >> >
> >> >No I'm not. It sure is easier for you to call names then to actually
> >debate.
> >> >Pretty pathetic of you, Walter
> >>
> >> But you yourself defined yourself as evil. Its virtually as if you
> >> said, "I am evil folks."
> >
> >Lying again.
> >Pretty pathetic, Walter.
> >
> >> And as for name calling, you "opened" the door first by calling me a
> >> nut.
> >
> >That was an accurate observation, not name calling.
> >If I called you an unwashed, smelly nut it would be name calling.
>
> Ja, Ja, Die alt dopel standard.
It's no double standard at all, silly.
Find any EUropean or USA anti-war protest that was "PRO SADDAM". TO qualify
people had to be openly supporting Saddam, because as you know (if you're
rational) being against a rush to war is not being "pro saddam"
Good luck!
maxwell
ELC
My my! SUPER evil, no less! So is there a Super Axis of Evil? You
better call the superfriends. Also get Batman and Robin, they will
save you with duct tape.
Roger R.
"Walt Horning" <w...@www.www> wrote in message
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:17:34 GMT, "Roger R."
> <jayrayn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Your argument, such as it is, could have applied to Stalin, North Korea,
> >Cuba under Castro, Mugabe, Syria, Libya, Egypt under Nasser, Iraq a
decade
> >ago, Iran under the Mullahs until recently, probably Yemen and Saudi
Arabia,
> >most of the current members of the Russian Federation, Russia itself -
and
> >possibly the USA under Bush.
>
> I agree, and in many of these cases either sanctions or other
> diplomatic pressure was applied, and it some cases the use of military
> force was applied. So what is your point?
Going back to the part you snipped, your argument simply doesn't require
active war. That was my point.
>
>
> >
> >I realize that you are a shill for the Bush conservatives and will
strongly
> >support anything they say (much like the post-WWII Communists supported
> >whatever policy Stalin decided to implement) but doesn't it seem strange
to
> >you that the US has been attacked by Al-Queda terrorists, but is for some
> >strange reason going to war against Iraq which has no known connection to
> >Al-Queda or any non-Palestinian terrorist organization?
>
> Well, in a post-911 world, there can no longer be "business as usual".
> I mean that terrorism does not just come from al-Qaeda. The lesson
> learned from 911 is that if terrorists or terrorist nations will
> disarm they will be left alone, but if they do not they will be
> disarmed. To sit back and wait for some other terrorists organization
> to attack again, regardless of what name they go by is "suicide".
We agree on this point. The problem is that terrorists and nations are not
tightly linked. You cannot knock out terrorist groups by attacking nations,
for the most part. Yet the US seems fixated on attacking Iraq as the cure
for the terrorism problem. But who do you go after in Malaysia, or
Indonesia, or for that matter, even Pakistan.
>
> You also need to differientiate between countries that use rather
> conventions means of warfare and those that resort to terrorism.
I agree. Now, what hard evidence is that that Saddam supports terrorism
outside the Israeli/Palestine area?
>
> Now in the case of Iraq, since Sadam realizes he can no longer resort
> to open warfare against his neighbors or others, his ego now has him
> preparing to distribute poisons and biologicals to terrorist orgs so
> as to strike back at those he hates.
And the evidence for this is?
>Remember arrests were made
> connecting would-e assasins to Sadam Hussein, who were attempting to
> assinate the former President Bush.
An effort a decade ago in Kuwait does not seem to me to be evidence that
should cause us to go to war with him now.
>And my point is only that Sadam
> will resort to other means.
>
> And finally, there is much more evidence that what Colin Powell
> revealed the other day with respect to Sadam's connection with anti-US
> terrorists orgs.
That is your assumption. Which leads me to my belief that the Bush
admininstration has done an incompetent job of handling the war-with-Iraq
issue. If the evidence exists, then credible spokesmen should have been
making talks like the one Powell gave to the UN, but they should have been
doing it since last Summer.
I don't mean talks that blow sources. I mean get credible spokespersons,
convince them, and have them give edited versions. When Cheney goes to court
to keep the names secret of the people he spoke to before the energy policy
was realeased (just a single example of the most secretive admininstration I
have ever seen, even more than Nixon's) and the only argument they present
is that Saddam is evil, they needed an education program that at least
sounded like it wasn't just Bush off his mental rails about Saddam trying to
kill his father. I don't believe that last, but it is more credible than
~anything~ they presented before Powell's talk to the UN
Then there is a broader view of Bush's Presidency. No American President has
~ever~ gone to war without having to raise taxes. Bush is fixiated on
another round of tax cuts even as we go to war. The Saudi's and Kuwaitees
paid much of the last Gulf War, but the cause of war was a lot clearer.
Saddam's troops were sitting in Kuwait and poised to move into Saudi Arabia.
We didn't have to do a lot of mind reading of Bush 41 to determine why we
were there. CNN told us. When we go in this time, it will be on our nickle.
I read the tax cuts as meaning that Bush really isn't serious about Iraq, or
he doesn't have a clue regarding how a government has to pay for a war and
what it will do to our economy.
As for reparations, if we touch a drop of Iraqi oil, then everyone
world-wide will know that we went into Iraq for their oil. The next time we
need the UN (and we will-no, I don't know how.) guess how the world will
react? Decisions the President made previously affect how people react to
the current decisions. Do you think we would be having the trouble with the
UN Security Council if Bush hadn't dissed Kyoto and the world conference on
racism and ignored the World Court? His early rhetoric about going into Iraq
alone if no one else agreed was really bad.
In short, Bush's inconsistentcy between going to war and giving up tax
revenue when it will be needed, his admininstration's penchant for absolute
secrecy and the utter failure to prepare public opinion for the war makes me
suspect (strongly) that there is a hidden agenda to destroy American
government as we know it.
Do I trust our erstwhile President? Of course not. Anyone who does is a
fool. The very kindest thing you can say about them is that they are running
scared after 9-11 and have no clue regarding how to deal with what they are
facing. I am retired military, and I have to say teh military aspects of
this are being handled competently. It is the political aspects which are
not. Clinton would have never been trapped into a situation like this.
>
> And still furthermore, his present behavior with respect to the UN
> demands is clearly evidence he is hiding his weapons so that he can
> use them one day, either directly or via terrrorist orgs.
Yeah, he is hiding something. Is it weapons of Mass Destruction? If he has
them, does he really plan to use them? I'll buy A, but B? Saddam is a
survivor. He may be ignorant regarding the outside world, but I think we
have gotten his attention. The arguments against him using WMD are: 1) He
isn't going to do it himself for fear of leading us back to him when we were
justifiably angry and 2) his international power is based on the idea that
he might have WMD. If he gives them to terrorists, he loses control of them
(not a likely move) and he runs into the same problem of being accused and
attacked if they are used. While such a move is 'possible' it seems to me to
be unlikely. "Possible" isn't strong enough to require a war, and there
simply is not evidence that would move it out of the possible category into
a 'somewhat likely' category.
>
>
> >Yet the Bush
> >admininstration is supporting Pakistan which is clearly supporting
> >terrorists agains India.
> That is not true. Pakistan is being supported because its country's
> leaders are going after al-Qaeda and others. As for India, they have
> had a disputed over Kashmire for long before all this began, and there
> are no terrorist activities only military activities.
The terrorists who attacked the Parliament would be glad to hear you
consider them military. But they weren't.
>Any terrorist
> activities are by religious finatics, not the government of Pakistan.
Apparently you are unaware that many of the terrorists are probably being
directed by the Pakistani Central Intelligence Agency. Musharrif does not
have control of that agency.
>
> >North Korea is a nastier dictatorship than Iraq,
> >the Bush people have known since they entered office that North Korea has
> >nukes, they are threatening to use them (unlike Saddam) yet the Bush
people
> >are doing absolutely nothing about North Korea?
>
> That is a diversion. But we can go there if you wish. You like to talk
> about taking sides with polticians, fine. Then you must have liked
> Clinton and Albright, his Secretary of State, who reflected Clinton
> policy by saying that you use different cookie cutters with different
> kinds of cookies. In otherwords, how you deal with a dangerous country
> depends on the situation. Kennedy dealed [dealt] with Cuba with the
threat of
> a war, and the Russians back down. Clinton dealt with N Korea with
> promises and deliveries of alternate energy sources and food and
> medicine if N Korea agreed to no nuke development, but it cheated and
> lied.
NK is an awkward problem. Which is why the UN won't touch it. The NK's hold
Seoul hostage with conventional weapons so that a war is too expensive to
risk. They want to make their existance the subject of two power discussions
between the US and NK, which we don't want to do. We are tryng to ignore
them and they are trying to escalate the situation so that we can't.
See my earlier comment about us needing the UN again.
>
> Well, as in any conflict you do not start with war, you start with
> negotiation. So at present that is where things are with N. Korea.
Yeah, they want our guarantee of their future existance as a regime. They
saw what happened with West Germany absorbed East Germany. [My son has an
East German history professor who is in the US because of prejudice against
East German workers.] They have never trusted the Chinese and don't think
much of the Russian. The Japanese are almost totally anti-North Korean. They
want us to guarantee their regime. That is where any real negotiations have
to go. Even the Bush administration sin't that dumb - I don't think.
>If
> they cannot be resolved and N Korea starts to get really nasty, then
> war can be a last resort.
>
> Iraq though has been given every chance through negotiation to disarm
> but has not so that is where we are now, the negotiations are nearly
> over and war is possible soon.
>
>
> >
> >Even if going to war in Iraq is the right thing to do and properly should
be
> >our highest priority, the Bush people have made a total hash of it
> >politically. First they pissed off nearly every ally we had, then they
> >decided to go into Iraq without allies (gee, I wonder why?) and then when
> >finally convinced that was impossible, they have been simply saying they
> >were going to go because Saddam is a nasty man and might someday do nasty
> >things. Even people who think that we must go in and take out Saddam must
be
> >asking themselves if Bush is the leader we want to follow to do it.
>
> So you do not know how France, Germany, Russian and China have
> lucrative, big-business trade agreements with Iraq that are making
> them all billions. Think maybe that is the real problem here?
Interesting side issue. Yes, I was aware of it.
The comment to which you presented this non sequiter was that the Bush
administration has made a total hash of the process of leading up to this
war. I beleive that I have made my case earlier.
>Oh, and
> while we are on this big-business subject, how come you liberals, who
> have a "hate campaign" against big-business explotation, are not on
> this one like a fly on shit? If you were, then maybe you would change
> your tune a bit.
>
I am an accountant with a strong grounding in economics, and I have no
problem with big business when it is in a competitive market. I become
suspicisous when the market becomes an oligopoly, and I strongly think that
monopolies should be treated with anti-trust or with powerful regulation.
Anyone who disagrees with that approach simply doesn't understand economics.
In political-Economics it should be clear that Germany, France and the US
are all democracies in which big business has too much ~political~ power.
The UN Security Council vote is simply an example when we are on the
receving end of such improper power of businesses.
> Some have even accused the US that a war with Iraq is over oil, yet
> the four countries above who are seemingly opposed to war at this time
> are the ones receiving all this oil in exchange for all the goods and
> services being delivered to Iraq at this time. How come liberals are
> not all over that like fly on shit?
>
>
> >
> >Are we going to go in, get the locals pissed off at us, pull out in a few
> >months and leave them in as bad a shape as when we went in as we have
done
> >(twice now) in Afghanistan?
>
> Well, from all truthful reports, it sounds like after the troups
> rolled in in the Gulf War and from present reports it sounds like 99%
> of Iraqi citizens are going to be waiving American flags as our troops
> roll in.
One percent of 35,000,000 people is 350,000. Our troops will be inside base
camps and under constant threat for as long as they are there. The liklihood
of democracy taking root is slim to none and all the fantasies about that
are just that. Within a year we will be blamed to the failure of the Iraqi
economy to quickly recover and will be attacked as colonial
master-wannabees. The Shiites, the Kurds, the Sunni's and the Bath Party
members will be at each others' throats. If you really want a model of what
we will be getting into, look at Lebanon. Nothing will satisfy the
fundamentalist moslems, and they will be after our troops almost
immediately. The 99% is overstated to begin with, and those who are happy to
see us will quickly become disillusioned or threatened off.
Then there is the little detail that we have no staying power. We never lost
militarily in Viet Nam. We destroyed the Viet Cong in Tet and were getting
the South under control when Nixon and Kissenger pulled out the troops. We
lost because the cost got too high for the people at home. It won't take
nearly so long in Iraq. If you have a reasonable (pragmatic and
non-ideologic) way of avoiding that problem, I would love to hear it.
Nothing in the lead up that has been orchestrated by the Bush administration
seems to consider that issue at all. In fact, every possible way of avoiding
the issue has been used.
>
> >Sure we are. Bush can't get reelected in 2004
> >without getting more tax cuts passed, and the US can't do anythng
> >constructive in Iraq if the government has no money, a massive deficit,
and
> >rising interest rates sucking the life out of the economy.
>
> Ever heard of war reparations? Not to make a profit, but to just cover
> the cost of the war. Also, it seems after the first Gulf War there was
> not dent in the economy.
The first Gulf War was sanctioned by the UN and was a really broad
coalition. This one will not be. We won't se a dime from Saudi Arabia, and I
doubt anyone else will contribute much. This one is our dime.
But what do you expect when the President early on establishes that we are
going in alone if we have to? With that established, who needs to
contribute? And if we use Iraqi oil, then it is totally clear world wide
that we attacked for oil. I'm not sure which is worse. Take the oil and
confirm the suspicions the world has of this admininstrtion (see my above
comments on needing the UN later - and it will make us appear anti-Arab and
anti-muslim rather than anti-terrorist and anti-aggressor.
Do you really think we should ~confirm~ the worlds' worst fears of our
administration?
>
> >Yet the bushies
> >only set up a department to plan how to handle Iraq after we take it
three
> >weeks ago. They have been building up troops for months. What kind of
idiots
> >are running the insane asylum we fondly call the White House?
> >
>
> Well, you are missing some facts here. First and foremost is that Iraq
> has a strong infrastructure, which will only be slightly damaged by
> war, as it was true in the Gulf War. The intent, if war happens and is
> won, is to keep in place the majority of the govenment, except its
> poltical heads (obviously). Intelligience sources already have
> indicated that Iraqi rank and file government workers will continue to
> run the country as they have been doing for essential services.
>
> I have taken a lot of time to fairly respond.
Yes, you have, and I appreciate it. I have tried to do likewise. I do not
intend any diversion, although the North Korea references could perhaps be
viewed as such. I don't think they are. The Bush admininstration is facing
both problems at the same time, and they seem to be failing to deal
adequately with both for much the same reasons.
>However, my impression
> is that you really only want to win your argument, because there is a
> lot of diversion and lot of half-truths. I have tried to stick to the
> facts as I know them, however,
>
> I hope this straightens things out a bit.
I have been presenting what I see about the current situation(s) rather than
trying to win an argument. I do find that by presenting my views in a
debate, I am frequently forced to review them and modify them. Such debate
is, in my opinoin, very educational. As for winning, I don't expect to
change your mind. I really hope to change mine. So what are the flaws in my
argument?
By the way, I am frankly surprised at such a reasonable discussion from you.
Much of what I have seen you write has been (in my opinion) extremely
ideological, angry and emotional rather than reasonable and fact based. This
discussion has not been, and I greatly appreciate it. Emotional ideologues
are useless in my efforts to better understand what is happening.
Yes, I am a Democrat, but I am also retired military. The weakness of the
Soviet model of the military is that troops were supposedly motivated by
ideological ideas. We, however, are motivated by the need to defend our
nation and by the pragmatic need to protect our buddy. The generals look at
the first, the grunts look at the second. Data and Intelligence should
~never~ be filtered through ideology. That kills people (ours)
unnecessarily. Lies and secrecy do the same thing. secrecy is sometimes
necesary. Lies are rarely necesary, Ideology is ~always~ wrong.
If we are going to war in Iraq, then I want to know why. I want the American
people to know why our troops are there. I simply will not accept a war
which is not supported by the American People, and I don't care who says I
should. This bull shit that Saddam is evil just doesn't cut it.
OK. He has failed to live up to 12 or 13 UN declarations. So what. I am not
a member of the UN military. The UN appears to be the new League of Nations.
All talk, no bite - except by accident if none of the permanent members of
hte Security Council have a stake in the situation.
Saddam is a nasty dictator with illusions of grandeur. Yeah, so? How many of
such miserable ilk have we created and supported because they were also
anti-Communist? Like South Korea's Park, or Chiang Kai Check or Ferdinand
Marcos or the Shah of Iran, etc.? It simply isn't enough to ba a nasty
dictator for us to go after him. Why is Saddam so different?
Oh. You say he ~might~ give WMD to terrorists. Sure, and I might wander up
the street and rob the local Bank of America. So might my next door
neighbor. So why isn't the FBI knocking on my door? There is no evidence
that I am plannig to do so. But I have the weapons. That doesn't make me a
viable suspect. (Unless Ashcroft is released to implement his dictatorship -
but that is another issue. God I hate religious fanatics! Hate based on
fear, I might add. Cromwell was detestable. Irrelevant side issue - yeah, I
know. This one really is.)
OK. This is it. Do you see major holes in this discussion? Fact based, not
ideological based. If so, where are they?
Roger R.
neptune3
>
>Have you ever asked yourself how may Germans waived and supported
>Hitler or Stalin?
For one thing they wanted to free Germany from Jewish domination,
and they didn't support Stalin.
>That is propaganda and/or it is simply the fact that
>people do not know any better. They have only one press source, the
>official line from Sadam.
In the US there is one press sounce, the Jews.
There was a book in ordinary bookstores called "An Empire of
Their Own". It was a pro-Jewish book but it showed that the Jews ran
Hollywood.
Here are some quotes from a magazine for Jews called "Moment".
It is subtitled "The Jewish magazine for the 90's" These quotes are
from the Aug 1996 edition after the Headline "Jews Run Hollywood - So
What?":
"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish
power and prominence in popular culture. Any list of the most
influential pruduction executives at each of the major movie studios
will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names."
"the famous Disney organization, which was founded by Walt
Disney, a gentile Midwesterner who allegedly harbored anti-Semetic
attitudes, now features Jewish personnel in nearly all its most
powerful positions."
The head of Walt Disney studios is now the Jew Michael Eisner.
On studios that were bought out by the Japanese the magazine says:
"When Mitsushita took over MCA-Universal, they did nothing to
undermine the unquestioned authority of Universal's legendary - and
all Jewish - management triad of Lew Wasserman, Sid Scheinberg, and
Tom Pollack."
Here are some quotes from the paper "Jews Control the Media
and Rule America"
"American Broadcasting Companies (ABC), Coumbia Broadcasting
System (CBS), and National Broadcasting Company (NBC). Each of these
three has been under the absolute control of a single man over a long
enough period of time--ranging from 32 to 55 years--for him to staff
the corporation at every level with officers of his choosing and then
to place his imprint indelibly upon it. In each case that man has been
a Jew.
"Until 1985, when ABC merged with Capital Cities
Communications, Inc...the chairman of the board of directors and chief
executive officer (CEO) of the network was Leonard Harry Goldenson, a
Jew...In an interview in the April 1, 1985 issue of Newsweek,
Goldenson boasted 'I built this company (ABC) from scratch.'"
"CBS was under the domination of William S. Paley for more than
half a century. The son of immigrant Jews from Russia..."
"There has been no move by top G-E management to change the
Jewish "profile" of NBC or to replace key Jewish personel. To the
contrary, new Jewish executives have been added: an example is Steve
Friedman..."
"The man in charge of the television entertainment division at
CBS is Jeff Sagansky. At ABC the entertainment division is run by two
men....nearly all of the men who shape young Amercians' concept of
reality, of good and evil, of permissible and impermissible behavior
are Jews. In particular, Sagansky and Bloomberg arre Jews. So is
Tartikoff. Littlefield is the only Gentile who has had a significant
role in TV entertainment programming in recent years."
"American Film magazine listed the top 10...entertainment
companies and their CEOs...Time Warner Communications (Steven J Ross,
Jew) Walt Disney Co. (Michael D. Eisner, Jew)...Of the 10 top
entertainment CEOs listed above, eight are Jews."
"The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than a
lack of real competition among America's daily newspapers; it also
illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all organs of
opinion... The Newhouse's own 31 daily newspapers, including several
large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the
Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation's
largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all
its subsideries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television
broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the
countries largest cable networks- the Sunday supplement Parade, with a
circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen
major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madamoiselle,
Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Self,
Home&Garden...."
"Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership
and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising..."
"the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington
Post. These three...are the newspapers which set trends and guidlines
for nearly all others. They are the ones which decide what is news and
what isn't, at national and international levels. They originate the
news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in
Jewish hands...The Suzberger family also owns, through the New York
Times Co. 36 other newspapers; twelve magazines, including McCall's
and Family Circle..."
"New York's other newspapers are in no better hands than the
Daily News. The New York Post is owned by billionare Jewish
real-estate developer Peter Kalikow. The Village Voice is the personal
property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of..."
"There are only three newsmagazines of any note published in the
United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report....The CEO
of Time Warner Communications is Steven J. Ross, and he is a Jew.
"Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington
Post Co., under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham..."
"U.S. News & World Report... owned and published by Jewish real
estate developer Mortimer B. Zucherman..."
" The three largest book publishers...Random House... Simon &
Schuster , and Time Inc. Book Co....All three are owned or controlled
by Jews...The CEO of Simon & Schuster if Richard Snyder, and the
president is Jeremy Kaplan; both are Jews too."
"Western Publishing...ranks first among publishers of childrens
books, with more than 50 per cent of the market. Its chairman and CEO
is Richard Bernstein, a Jew."
"Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. "Ted
Turner isn't a Jew!" they will announce..."
"We are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence
on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also
are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children..."
>
>So, while it could be that what you say is true, the consensus from
>most press sources, liberal and conservative is that this is not so
>real.
Liberals and Conservatives are both leftists and enemies.
By Dr. William Pierce
"Last week I gave an interview to an English-language radio station in
Teheran. The program was "The Islamic Voice of Iran." We talked about
a
number of things, including Ariel Sharon's visit to the White House,
which was taking place at the time, and about President Bush's
popularity ratings. The Iranian interviewer asked me whether Bush
would
take a more sensible, pro-American policy in the Middle East or would
continue taking orders from Israel, to the detriment of American
interests, the way the Clinton administration had.
Of course, I explained to him that there was really no difference
between Republicans and Democrats in that regard. They both dance to
whatever tune the Jews are playing at the moment, and that George Bush
would no more dare to disobey the Jews than Bill Clinton would. I told
the Iranian interviewer that there are minor differences between the
Republican Party and the Democratic Party, with the Democrats
pandering
a bit more to the welfare class and the Republicans paying a bit more
lip service to things such as military preparedness and energy
production, but that on the really essential issues -- immigration,
racial policy, media control, foreign policy -- both parties do what
they're told and don't give the Jews any back talk.
The Iranian had a hard time understanding this. If one party -- the
Democrats, say -- were controlled by Jews and supported Jewish
interests, then surely there would be another party -- presumably the
Republicans -- representing the interests of the American people. He
couldn't understand how the Jews, making up only 2.5 per cent of the
U.S. population, could have the whole political process under their
control and in particular could dictate U.S. foreign policy in the
Middle East, regardless of who is in the White House and which party
controls the Congress. What about the other 97.5 per cent of the
population? They also have interests, and they can vote. Why aren't
their interests supported by some political party?
The difficulty my Iranian interviewer had in understanding how
politics
works in America has two facets. One of these is the dominant
influence
the mass media of news and entertainment, which are largely in the
hands
of the country's very small Jewish minority, have on public opinion
and
attitudes, on the mass culture, and on the political process. In Iran
tradition is much more important in determining public opinion. And
Iran
is a much more homogeneous country, at least in a cultural and
religious
sense, than is the United States. In America the media have to a large
extent weaned the people away from their traditions and from their
cultural and religious roots and substituted a made-in-Hollywood
trash-culture with ersatz traditions in their place. The media are
increasingly important in influencing public opinion everywhere in the
developed countries -- even in Iran, no doubt -- but nowhere has the
process been as thorough and as destructive as it has been in the
United
States.
A second barrier to understanding is the subtlety and indirection
which
is used by the media bosses in achieving their aims. They almost never
make a head-on attack against the traditions or values of the host
population. They look for conflict, for inconsistency, for vice or
hypocrisy or weakness, and they exploit it to gain a foothold. Then
they
use one facet of popular belief or tradition to undermine another. For
example, they will proclaim themselves champions of "fair play," and
then they will persuade the public that fair play requires that no
distinction be made between Asians and Europeans in setting
immigration
policy. If we let Englishmen and Germans and Swedes into America, then
it wouldn't be fair to keep out Vietnamese and Chinese and Pakistanis,
they tell us.
Or they will play on the average American's resentment of governmental
interference in his private affairs to promote the idea that
homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality and that neither
the
government nor individuals should make a distinction between the two.
What people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no one else's
business, therefore the government should require landlords,
employers,
Boy Scout troops, and everyone else to treat homosexuals just like
heterosexuals: a bit of a non sequitur, but the media have been
remarkably successful at using such illogical arguments to shift
public
opinion on a number of issues.
And because the media are able to influence public opinion so
strongly,
all the politicians, Republicans as well as Democrats, dance to their
tune. The politicians understand that the tiny Jewish minority, only
2.5
per cent of the population, through their control of the media are the
single most important influence on the public's perception of issues,
of
government policies, and of the politicians themselves -- and
consequently are the single most important influence on the outcome of
elections. And it is for this reason that everyone can safely count on
George Bush's policy toward Israel being whatever the Jews want it to
be.
Anyway, although I explained this as clearly as I could to my Iranian
interrogator, I think he didn't really believe me. He was ready to
accept the fact that the Jews are a very bad influence on American
policy in the Middle East, but he couldn't accept the fact that
through
their control of the mass media of news and entertainment they have
made
irrelevant and meaningless the whole idea of mass democracy. He
couldn't
assimilate the idea that party politics in America has become just a
shell game to keep the rubes confused about what's really happening
and
who's running the country. He knew that Jews are bad news, but he
couldn't grasp the fact that the most powerful country in the world,
economically and militarily, is so totally in their malign grip.
And really, when I try to put myself in the Iranian's shoes, it's hard
for me to believe it myself: a mere 2.5 per cent of the population, a
historically despised and hated group who have been kicked out of
every
country in Europe, and there's not a single mainstream American
politician brave enough to defy them; a tiny, clannish group who have
a
stranglehold on the mighty American nation; a case of the tail wagging
the dog. How do they do it? It doesn't seem possible.
Well, of course, it is possible, and I'll tell you how they do it:
they
do it with images and myths. They do it by controlling the perceptions
that most people have of the world around themselves. The Jews create
myths about what the world is like and then generate false images to
match the myths. And they project these myths and false images of the
world into the minds of their hosts.
I'll give you a specific example of this. There is a new film out by
Universal Pictures. It's called The Fast and the Furious. It's a film
directed at White teenagers, a film designed to give them a particular
image of the world and instill in them a myth about the way the world
works. It's a film about modern, urban teenagers -- specifically
street
gangs in Los Angeles -- and cars and street racing. That might seem
harmless enough, but the street racing is just a gimmick on which to
hang the message, and that message is that the world is multicultural,
and it's good that it's multicultural. It's good not to live in a
White
world, with White friends and White role models and White values and
White standards and traditions. That's boring. That's not cool.
The message is that there's nothing special about being White. The
message is that if one is White, then one should hang out with Blacks
and Asians and mestizos. One should behave like non-Whites, talk like
them, dress like them, be like them. That's what's cool. That's what's
sexy. That's what everybody who's really cool is doing. And when you
feel like having some sex, you just reach for whoever is nearest. It
doesn't matter at all what race the other person is. If you're a White
girl, it's especially cool to have sex with a Black or Asian or
mestizo
male.
That's the most obvious message of the film, but actually it's more
than
that. It's not really that the film says race doesn't matter, that
we're
really all the same; that culture doesn't matter, that all cultures
are
equivalent. The film says that Whites should become non-White, because
non-White is better. The cultural milieu of the film is not raceless
or
a little of this and a little of that. The cultural milieu is Black.
The
culture is hip-hop. The music is hip-hop. The clothing style, with the
baggy shorts and the rest, is hip-hop. It's Black. That is the world
into which White teenagers should blend, the world to which they
should
subordinate themselves.
Surely, White teenagers aren't actually absorbing that message. Are
they? Yes, unfortunately, many of them are. The Fast and the Furious
is
drawing bigger crowds than any other film produced by Hollywood this
season. It grossed $78 million in its first ten days. White teenagers
are flocking to it more than to any other movie. The attraction, of
course, is the action, the street racing, the exciting car stunts.
That's the gimmick that pulls them in. But that's not the message. The
message -- which of course, is subliminal: that is, which is intended
to
change the kids' perception of the world at a subconscious level -- is
exactly what I just described: it's cool to be part of the hip-hop
culture; it's cool to be multicultural; it's cool not to act White,
think White, or be White.
That's the message, and it's a Jewish message: Jewish in its
conception,
Jewish in its promotion, Jewish in its genocidal intent.
You think I'm imagining things? I'll read to you from a story about
the
film in last Saturday's edition of the Los Angeles Times. I quote:
"Hollywood was stunned when the youth-oriented action film The Fast
and
the Furious streaked past the competition to become the number-one
movie
. . . With its relatively unknown cast of Latinos, Asians, and
African-Americans, heavy doses of high-speed chases, and a driving
hip-hop soundtrack, the movie defied expectations . . . . But the
teen-oriented movie's success isn't so surprising when one glimpses
the
youthful crowds flocking to theaters . . . . With their ultra-baggy
cargo shorts, doo-rags wrapped around their heads, and bodies
festooned
with tattoos and piercings, the look of these young moviegoers mirrors
the multiethnic melange of actors on the screen. . . .
"Hollywood likes to pride itself on being ahead of the cultural curve,
but with last summer's sassy white-versus-black cheerleading comedy
Bring It On grossing $68.4 million domestically and this winter's Save
the Last Dance, with its once-taboo interracial dating, raking in more
than $90 million in North America alone, the studios have only begun
to
catch up with the colorblind nature of today's MTV generation.
"Rob Cohen, who directed The Fast and the Furious, said the film not
only reflects today's "multiculti" youth culture without purposely
drawing attention to it, but depicts what is really going on. When the
movie opened, it drew a cross-section of races, Cohen said. Surveys
taken at theaters where The Fast and the Furious played showed that 50
per cent of moviegoers were white, 24 per cent were Hispanic, 10 per
cent were black, and 11 per cent were Asian. "I look at this and go,
'This is exactly what I'm talking about,'" Cohen said. . . .
Attracting
a young audience across the country -- a mainstay of big summer
popcorn
hits -- The Fast and the Furious has grossed an estimated $78 million
in
less than two weeks and is on track to make well over $100 million."
--
end of quote --
I want to emphasize a couple of things in what I just read to you,
besides the fact that the director of the film is the Jew Rob Cohen
and
the studio is Universal Pictures, owned by the Jew Edgar Bronfman.
First, note that Mr. Cohen is very much aware of the racial angle in
his
film. That's all he talks about, not the racing stunts. And note that
he
says he put the racial propaganda into his film in way that would not
"draw attention to it": that is, he put it in as subliminal
propaganda.
One other thing: the story in the Los Angeles Times implies that this
film and other films like it are imitating society, not the other way
around. But that's not true. These Jewish films are propaganda
deliberately designed to move society in the direction the Jews want
it
to go. White kids didn't start wearing baggy shorts and backward
baseball caps and listening to rap music and using jive talk just
because that's what young Blacks were doing: it was Jewish films and
Jewish television and Jewish advertising that pushed them in this
direction, that persuaded them it is cool to imitate Blacks.
The Times story refers to the studios catching up with "today's MTV
generation." But really, how did it become the "MTV generation"? That
name is appropriate just because it is MTV which has been the single
largest influence on White teenagers in moving them away from their
roots in their own race and making rootless cosmopolitans out of them.
MTV has been the foremost promoter of the hip-hop lifestyle among
young
Whites. And I hardly need to remind you that it is the very Jewish
Sumner Redstone, originally known as Murray Rothstein to his parents,
who owns MTV. Redstone's MTV and his Paramount Pictures studio may be
a
little ahead of the other Hollywood studios, but they're all pushing
in
the same direction as hard as they can.
This is an essential point: namely, that the Jewish media are pushing
our society, and not the other way around, and the Jews are
understandably reluctant to admit that. Last Saturday's Los Angeles
Times story interviewed another Jewish film producer in this regard,
and
I quote from the story: "Marc Abraham, one of the producers of Bring
It
On, noted: 'There is a much more interracial aspect in today's culture
than the way this country used to be. Any movie that reflects that --
and it doesn't mean they'll all be hits like The Fast and the Furious
--
will ring true with the audience.'" -- end of quote --
As I indicated, that is deliberate misdirection. And there's more
misdirection in the Times story. It also interviews the Black director
of Sumner Redstone's racemixing film Save the Last Dance, and I quote:
"'The movie business is certainly catching up with what's happening in
society,' said Thomas Carter, who directed Save the Last Dance. 'Youth
culture has been shifting a long time . . . . Places like MTV are
right
on the edge and totally involved in the change. In filmmaking we lag
behind.'" -- end of quote -- But of course, Redstone's MTV, which as
Carter notes is "totally involved in the change," is into filmmaking
too. Anyway, it's really an artificial distinction to contrast Jewish
television with Jewish cinema. Redsone isn't the only Jewish media
boss
who is deeply involved in both media.
One of Bronfman's subordinates, the Jew Marc Shmuger, says it a little
more plainly, and again I quote from last Saturday's Los Angeles Times
story: "'I think the segregated groupings are breaking down in today's
America, and I think today's movie audience is a complex mix,' said
Marc
Shmuger, vice chairman of Universal Pictures, which released The Fast
and the Furious. But Shmuger warned that if the movie industry starts
making multiethnic movies 'in a calculating and cynical fashion,' the
audience will sense that and stay away." -- end of quote -- In other
words, keep the propaganda subtle, keep it subliminal, so that we
don't
tip off the goyim that it's really propaganda.
I'll read one more section from the Los Angeles Times story. I quote:
"Just as The Fast and the Furious shows young people of all races
gathered in large groups unmindful of their racial differences and not
hung up on sex, Gary Scott Thompson, one of the film's writers, said
today's young movie audiences also are that way. 'It used to be that a
boy and a girl would go on a date,' he said. 'Now what's happening is
groups of kids who are friends -- multiracial boys and girls -- all
move
in date packs together. It's like a date, but they don't consider it
dating. Some of them might neck; some of them might not. None of them
think anything much about it. They are much more open when talking
about
sex . . . . They've broken down the cultural barriers.' . . . Rob
Friedman, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures Motion Picture Group,
said
the studio began noticing the colorblind nature of young audiences
with
its 1999 high school pigskin drama Varsity Blues. 'It's really about
their peers, regardless of race, and to a certain extent gender as
well,' Friedman said. 'When it came to Save the Last Dance, it became
more and more apparent young people don't care whether the
relationship
is interracial. The music is great, the story is great.'" -- end of
quote --
As I've already mentioned, Paramount Pictures belongs to Sumner
Redstone, and I hardly need to tell you that his employee Rob Friedman
is a Jew, like nearly all the other executives at Paramount Pictures.
This new development of White teenagers running in "date packs," as
the
scriptwriter put it, with Blacks, Asians, and mestizos and having very
casual and very interracial sex did not evolve spontaneously, as the
media bosses and their employees would have us believe. It has been
promoted deliberately by Hollywood and by television and by Madison
Avenue. Sumner Redstone's MTV may be a bit bolder in this regard than
the other Jewish media, but all of them have been working together for
decades toward the same goal, and that goal is the annihilation of our
people. They say, "Oh, we're just reflecting with our films and our TV
shows and our magazine ads what your society has become all by
itself,"
but that is a conscious, calculated lie. They know exactly what they
have done and are doing, and one can easily sense them gloating over
it
when one reads their remarks in the Los Angeles Times.
I've said this a thousand times already in different words, but when
we
permitted the Jews to come into our society and take over our mass
media
of news and entertainment -- our newspapers and our radio broadcasting
networks and our motion picture and advertising industries and then
television broadcasting -- we handed them the weapons with which they
intended from the beginning to destroy us and now are destroying us.
This program of theirs to corrupt and destroy us didn't begin with the
Second World War and the so-called "Holocaust." It is a consequence of
their nature. The "Holocaust" was not the cause of their destructive
behavior, but rather a consequence.
If you believe that I am hallucinating when I say that, see for
yourself
what Jews such as Edgar Bronfman and Sumner Redstone are producing for
the entertainment of our children, and you try to explain it in any
other way. I know that the majority of our own people, lemmings that
they are, are dancing to the Jews' tune now, along with the
politicians.
That is a shame, but it in no way excuses us from our task. Many of
those who have become blinded by the Jews and have become
collaborators
of the Jews will unavoidably become "collateral damage" in the
struggle
and the chaos which lie ahead, but we must do whatever is necessary to
free our people from the spell cast over them by the Jews. To that
task
I have consecrated my life, and I invite each of you to do likewise.
>
>And have you ever know the people of any country to have pictures of
>another president in large numbers in the street? I think that is a
>laughable to try to make any point that way, since its just silly.
It's not silly at all.
>
>I think they rather openly "hate" Sadam. I do not think Bush or Powell
>have kept that a secret.
Bush and Powell are doing what their Jew masters want them to do.
>
>
>>Nobody had to help us get rid of king George.
>
>Acutally, the French helped us quite a bit.
>
>>If enough citizens
>>REALLY don't like the government, they
>>have a revolution.
>
>The Czech tried that and were slaughtered and the Chinese tried it,
>etc. When the government has all the guns, then its really hard you
>know. (Maybe that is why some Americans feel gun ownership is
>important, namely to fight the US governemnt should it be taken over
>by some evil dictator.
The US government is taken over by an evil dictator.
>
>>It is none of the US's concern what sort of government Iraq or any
>>other country has.
>
>You are right. We do not care. But we and all countries of the world
>do care which other countries are our enemy and want to destroy us, or
>use terrorist means to kill our citizens.
The Jews are our enemy.
"I will quote to you from the most popular web site in all of Israel.
It is
called Gamla News and Views. It is a very extensive site in both
English and
Hebrew. You can check it out for yourself. It was instrumental in the
1996
elections in Israel, which brought the Likud and Netanyahu to power.
It has
articles in Hebrew and English. Usually, articles in all Hebrew
newspapers
are far more vehement against Gentiles than those they translate into
English. But, the following article appears on their site and is
written by
their most popular commentator Emanuel Winston, and it is in English.
You
can go to Gamla and read this entire article for yourself.
"Winston Mideast Analysis & Commentary: The Crack of the Whip", in
Gamla,
News & Views (www.gamla.org.il), September 16, 1998.
http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/1998/sept/win3.htm
Here's what this popular Jewish supremacist has to say about Europeans
and
it should be made clear that the author makes clear that what he calls
Europeans are those of European descent, including Americans. Quote:
"As any prostitute can tell you, for a fee they will agree to do
anything
you want. The Europeans are really a low, immoral people who would
sell
their mother... and then deliver.
".How easily any sense of humanity of civilization slips away from
their
face, leaving only the beast. This beast has many faces and names.
Sometimes
they are called Germans, Poles, Croatians, Ukrainians... While at
other
times they became the Church, the Red Cross, or Prime Ministers,
Kings,
Fuhrer. Then, in a quick change, we see some Americans, French,
English and,
finally, there is the contaminated Jew called the Leftist. It doesn't
really
matter, this name or that. Underneath there is strand, a bond that
society
teaches children to hate the "other" - the different ones."
Here is this obscenely hateful Jew calling Europeans prostitutes and
beasts
and then in the height of hypocrisy saying that Europeans teach
children to
hate the "other", the different ones, which, of course, he means to be
Jews.
The truth is that the very core of Judaism teaches hatred of Gentiles.
Then Winston goes on to cheer the genocide of the European people.
Quote:
"These are people of ultimate evil as the beast stays just below the
surface, ready to savage, ready to kill the Jew. The planet would be
well
rid of the European predator. Perhaps we will be fortunate to live in
such
interesting times (an old Chinese curse), to see the decline and
disappearance of the graveyard called Europe. The Europeans, the
English and
the American Arabists once again come together and crack the whip over
the
Jews."
Now, again, let me repeat, this is the top web site in Israel,
supported by
major Jewish political figures such as Benjamin Netanyahu. He calls
for the
ridding of the planet of the European people. The article is nothing
less
than a call for genocide.
Imagine for a minute if any major person in American called Jews
prostitutes
and beasts and said, quote:
"The planet would be well rid of the Jewish predator. Perhaps we will
be
fortunate to live in such interesting times, to see the decline and
disappearance of the graveyard called the Jewish people and Israel."
Could you imagine the outcry if any Christian made such a statement
about
Jews? In most countries of Europe they would be placed in jail. Even
American activists who have simply criticized Jews much more mildly
have
been put in jail, when they have touched down on European soil, such
as in
Germany. Do you think Mr. Emanuel Winston faces that possibility?
Don't hold
your breath.
And, in this very article, this paranoid Jewish supremacist accuses
the very
same nations who have unconditionally supported Israel and all of its
evil,
as hating Jews! As he calls us beasts and prostitutes and wishes for
our
genocide, he then says that WE are the ones hateful.
That is 14-carat Jewish supremacist hypocrisy and the western world is
filled with it.
If you don't believe what you have just heard, please go to the Gamla
site
in Israel and read Winston's article for yourself!
Of course, Jewish supremacists such as Winston are already working for
the
demise of Europeans just as they have worked for the destruction of
the
Palestinians. Jewish supremacists in every nation of Europe and in
America
have relentlessly led the effort to open the borders and make
Europeans a
small minority in our own nations. This is at the same time they make
immigration to Israel dependent on race. They have consciously led the
effort to wipe out our heritage and culture and even existence. They
are the
ultimate racial supremacists, the ultimate haters and, of course, the
ultimate hypocrites.
And they have the Chutzpah to make the false claim that I am a White
supremacist. In truth, I don't want to be supreme over any other
people; I
am not a supremacist: I am really just a preservationist: I just want
my
heritage and traditions to continue in our own European and American
homelands. Whereas Jewish supremacists fulfill the true definition of
supremacism, that is to be supreme over other peoples. Jewish
Supremacists
want control over every land, every government, every media. They want
total
Supremacy. They are the real supremacists, and they are the real
haters, and
they are the ultimate hypocrites!
And we must, if we love freedom, if we love our heritage, oppose them
with
every ounce of our being, even with our very lives. The time is now.
This has been David Duke sharing my latest thoughts."
Listen online now at http://www.davidduke.com/radio
>
>Funny, we are not doing that. You see if a country were leaving us
>alone and was not being a threat to us we would not do this. We have
>not attacked Canada or Brazil in South America, as an example.
Canada is also under Jewish domination.
"As you may be aware, the mass media in
Canada are as much under Jewish control as in the United States. The
undisputed top media mogul in Canada is Israel Asper, who is commonly
known by his nickname "Izzy." With his sons Leonard and David and
other family members, Izzy Asper owns CanWest Global Communications
Corporation.
A Gentile, Conrad Black, also used to be a major player in the
Canadian media, but a little over a year ago Black's Southam News,
Inc., was bought out by Izzy. CanWest now owns more than 60 per cent
of Canada's newspapers and other media outlets. That's more than 60
per cent of all of Canada's mass media in the hands of one Jew.
Included are 14 metropolitan dailies and 128 local newspapers across
the country, including the Vancouver Sun, the Vancouver Province, the
Calgary Herald, and the Montreal Gazette. CanWest also owns the
National Post, which is distributed throughout Canada. In addition
Izzy owns media in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and
Northern Ireland.
Last month Izzy issued a written directive to his newspapers,
instructing them that from now on they must print nothing critical of
Israel or of Israeli actions or policies. This is a rare thing.
Usually directives of this sort are oral only, and great care is taken
to keep them from coming to the attention of the public. But Izzy,
with even more brass than is customary for his tribe, made his
directive public. He announced that, beginning three weeks ago,
December 12, the editorial content of all of his newspapers would be
homogenized, and they all would be pro-Israel.
Now here's the interesting part: if all of Izzy's Gentile underlings
were simply corrupt -- were simply paid mercenaries who wrote what
they were told to write -- then there would be no controversy; all of
the local editors and reporters and columnists simply would follow
orders. But there is a controversy. A group of reporters and writers
at the Montreal Gazette have rebelled, at least for the moment. One of
them, Bill Marsden, an investigative reporter, revealed on a Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation radio program called "As It Happens" that his
editor at the Gazette had instructed him never to report anything that
might reflect badly on Israel. Paraphrasing Izzy's directive, Marsden
said, and I quote: "We do not run in our newspaper op-ed pieces that
express criticism of Israel and what it is doing in the Middle East."
--end of quote -- Marsden and 54 other reporters at the Montreal
Gazette went on strike in protest at what they describe as undue
corporate interference with freedom of the press.
Their strike has infuriated Izzy. Izzy's son David characterized the
striking reporters as "childish" and "self-righteous." He said, and I
quote: "Why don't they just quit and have the courage of their
convictions? Maybe they should go out and, for the first time in their
lives, take a risk, put their money where their mouth is, and start
their own newspaper." -- end of quote --
How's that for chutzpah, as the Jews like to call it? One can read in
David Asper's reaction to the reporters the thought, "How dare these
mere Gentiles, these mere goyim, question what we, God's Chosen
People, decide should be the party line for Canada's newspapers! How
dare they!" I mean it's not just that Izzy owns the Montreal Gazette,
and so he is entitled to set the editorial policy, and other
newspapers can set different policies. Izzy thinks that he is entitled
to set the editorial policy for all of Canada's newspapers and
determine what all Canadians think.
The man chosen by the Aspers to write the editorials for all of their
newspapers is Murdoch Davis. When asked by "As It Happens" whether or
not one of CanWest's newspapers would be permitted to buck the party
line on Israel, Davis replied, and I quote: "No. It is clearly the
intent that the newspapers will speak with one voice on certain issues
of overarching national or international importance." -- end of quote
-- When asked specifically whether or not one of the Asper newspapers
would be permitted to raise the question of Israel's long-standing
violation of international law and its defiance of UN resolutions
calling for withdrawal from illegally occupied Palestinian territory,
Davis again responded in the negative.
So that's the present situation with freedom of the press in Canada:
not really very different from the situation in the United States. So
what about the mentality of journalists? The fact that the reporters
at the Montreal Gazette are protesting Izzy's directive that they can
report nothing negative about Israel indicates that they are not
entirely mercenary. To me, however, it does not indicate that they are
independent thinkers. I believe that they are as much lemmings as the
dullest couch potato or sports fan. What caused their protest was the
arrogant and contemptuous way in which the Aspers went about
reconciling two conflicting elements in the Jewish party line.
On the one hand journalists have been taught that the United Nations
is a splendid and admirable organization, whose resolutions should be
obeyed. They also have been taught that all races and ethnic groups
are equal -- in fact, essentially the same -- but that racial
minorities and underdogs generally deserve our special sympathy, and
that in any conflict with a ruling group the underdogs are in the
right. That's standard liberal dogma. You have to believe that in
order to be a journalist. On the other hand, journalists have been
taught that Jews are wonderful people who can do no wrong, and that to
think otherwise is anti-Semitism, which is as bad as or worse than
racism. It's hard enough reconciling the elevated status of Jews with
the concept of racial and ethnic equality, but most journalists by
working at it are able to do it -- except where the conflict between
Jews and Palestinians is concerned. That requires a special effort and
really careful handling by their Jewish bosses. How do you explain to
a journalist who already believes all of the liberal dogma that if
Iraq ignores a UN resolution it should be bombed into the Stone Age
and then starved into submission with a rigid trade embargo, but if
Israel ignores 14 UN resolutions we should respond by sending the
Israelis more military and economic aid?
How do you explain to a journalist who has been taught that when South
Africa used to be a White country and practiced apartheid, and the
South African police sometimes beat information out of captured Black
terrorists, it was a terrible thing and had to be condemned in the
strongest terms, but when Israel practices apartheid, assassinates
Palestinian leaders, and tortures Palestinian prisoners, nothing
should be said about it?
How do you explain to a journalist that it is an intolerable threat to
the security of the world if some Muslim country develops weapons of
mass destruction, and the United States is justified in a preemptive
strike to destroy the weapons production facilities, but when a
psychotic little country like Israel builds an arsenal of chemical,
nuclear, and biological weapons, using materials and technology stolen
from us, it's OK, and we should ignore it?
How do you explain to a journalist steeped in the tenets of feminism
that he shouldn't say anything about Israel's booming slave trade in
girls and women kidnapped from eastern Europe and forced to work as
sex slaves?
How do you explain to a journalist who believes wholeheartedly in
egalitarianism that it's perhaps regrettable but certainly excusable
when Jews rocket Palestinian villages and use Palestinian children for
target practice, but it's "terrorism" and completely unjustifiable
when the Palestinians hit back?
Believe me, explaining these things is tricky, but it can be done, if
it's done with patience and care. It can be done, because when it
comes to matters of faith, a lemming really isn't rational. He's quite
capable of believing two mutually contradictory things at the same
time. The problem that brought on the mini-rebellion at the Montreal
Gazette is that Izzy wasn't patient and careful. He was arrogant and
contemptuous of his Gentile reporters. But they'll get over it, I'm
sure. They always do. They're lemmings.
But, as I said, what is happening now in Canada is interesting. It
gives us insight into the workings of journalists' minds, and it also
brings out into the open not only the monopoly Jewish control of the
Canadian mass media but also the way in which that control is used to
slant the news and Canadian public opinion so as to serve Jewish
interests to the detriment of Canadian interests.
Do you think that any of these revelations will be of benefit to
Canadians? Will the average Canadian say, "Oh, my goodness! I didn't
realize that one man, and a Jew at that, controls more than 60 per
cent of all the mass media in Canada and is using that control to
deceive Canadians as to what is happening in the Middle East. That's
terrible! We'd better have our lawmakers do something to break up this
media monopoly, so that we will have a better chance to learn the
truth about what's happening in the world when we read a newspaper or
watch a television news program."
What do you think? I think that about 98 per cent of Canadians won't
even look up from their ball games. I think that there's not a
politician in Canada who will dare go up against Izzy Asper. This
whole tempest at the Montreal Gazette will blow over in a few days,
and all of Izzy's newspapers and other media will toe the party line
as if nothing had happened.
And now I'm talking only to the two or three or four per cent of
Canadians -- and also to the two or three or four per cent of
Americans -- who aren't so absorbed in their ball games that they
don't notice things like this and don't really care either. I'm
talking to the small portion of the White population in both countries
-- and in fact, in countries around the world -- who do notice and do
care. I want you to understand that this is the way nations lose their
freedom. More than that, this is the way races become extinct.
The majority of the population in Canada and the United States and in
every country in Europe consists of lemmings, who always have been
manipulated by whoever is in power. For approximately the last 100
years the power to manipulate the thinking of the lemmings -- of the
masses, if you prefer -- has been shifting from the authority figures
in the government and in the churches to the people who control the
mass media. These days the people who control the media also control
the government for all practical purposes, and the churches have
become irrelevant, which is why the Canadian government won't try to
break up Izzy's media monopoly and why the politicians in the United
States will never go beyond pretending to be concerned about too much
sex and violence on television when they have a mock fight with the
media.
Controlling a country's mass media doesn't mean just being able to
exert a decisive influence on a country's foreign policy, as Izzy
Asper is doing in Canada, and as his fellow Jews long have done in the
United States. It doesn't mean just getting a country involved in
unnecessary wars and subjecting its citizens to retaliatory terrorist
attacks. It means influencing immigration policy. It means influencing
educational policy. It means influencing social policy. It means being
able to control the way most of a country's people think about
everything: about race and morality and lifestyles and other countries
and freedom and the meaning of life. Most of the degenerative changes
that have taken place in America and in Canada since the Second World
War have been consequences of Jewish media influence. As that
influence continues to grow, the chances of our people being able to
throw off the yoke and regain control of our own destiny become
smaller and smaller.
In Canada at the moment, Izzy Asper's surfeit of chutzpah has brought
to the attention of the public -- that is to the attention of that
small portion of the public that cares about such things -- his
monopoly control of Canada's mass media and his intent to use those
media for Jewish propaganda purposes. Light has been cast on this
grave situation because most journalists are lemmings, and a few of
them are chattering excitedly now about things such as "freedom of the
press." Really, the whole debate is silly. Canada had no freedom of
the press even before Izzy got his greedy hands on most of Canada's
newspapers. For years it has been illegal in Canada to publish
anything considered "racist" or "anti-Semitic" or even Politically
Incorrect. When a Canadian buys copies of any of my books and they are
mailed to him, the Canadian secret police confiscate them at the
border. Publicly challenging the details of the Jewish "Holocaust"
story can result in a prison term for a Canadian. Canada's journalists
thought all of that -- stopping "hate," as they called it -- was just
fine. Pretty soon they will realize that requiring all mass media to
say only nice things about what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians
is also part of the noble effort to stop "hate," and that also will be
just fine with them.
We can't change the nature of lemmings. Someone always will manipulate
them. What is of the utmost importance is who it is that manipulates
them, because whoever that is will determine the course taken by the
whole society, by the nation, by the race. In the past, when it was a
king or a pope or a dictator who set the party line, many mistakes
were made, sometimes due to selfishness or irresponsibility, sometimes
due to ignorance or carelessness or stupidity or prejudice. But at
least the people setting the party line for the masses were our
people, members of our own race. Now, increasingly, the arbiters of
the party line are Jews or people wholly under Jewish influence. And
the Jews, as always, are looking out only for their own interests, not
for ours. To them we are merely tools to be used in advancing their
interests.
And that's at best. At worst they are pursuing policies intended not
only to advance their interests, but also to destroy us. Don't try to
debate this matter with the Jews; they will, of course, deny it. Just
look at the policies they have been pushing for the past 50 years and
where those policies have been taking us. Just consider the facts, not
their specious arguments designed to keep you demoralized and
non-resisting.
My fellow Americans and my fellow Canadians: we are in a bad
situation. Let us stop ignoring it. Let us begin deciding what we're
going to do about it. I'm doing what I can do in speaking out about it
and getting others to speak out. You must decide what you are able and
willing to do and then begin doing it.
Thanks for being with me again today."
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADVlist.
To subscribe send an e-mail message to: adv-list...@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
For more information about National Vanguard Books or the
National Alliance see our web site at http://www.natvan.com or
http://www.natall.com
==> The National Alliance has a strict anti-spamming policy. This
information is intended for interested parties only and is not to be
indiscriminately distributed via mass e-mailing or newsgroup posting.
To contact us, write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
or e-mail: nati...@NatVan.com please tell us if we can post your
comments and if so whether you want your name or e-mail address
given.
==> TO BE REMOVED send an e-mail message to:
adv-list...@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Unsubscribe
(c) 2002 National Vanguard Books
>
>But when a country attacks us or is conspiring do so then its not
>about overthrowing governments, but about self defense. (You sure seem
>to have a strange set of concepts here?)
The ones who are attacking us are the Jews. The ones who are
attacking our govenment are helping to save us from the Jews.
>
>That is not the reason they are unhappy. It is not democracy that
>hurts any more than a country ruled by a king, its people who are evil
>and take advantage of the people. In a kingdom or dictatorship, the
>leader can still be a really nice person who makes life pleasant for
>all or the leader can be a real tyrannt. In a democracy, its hard for
>a government ot last long if they do not treat the people nice.
"A couple of weeks ago I quoted a few sentences from a book published
in
1928 titled Propaganda, by ... Edward Bernays. Today I'll read to
you an expanded set of excerpts from Bernays' book to give you a
little
more of the gist of his message. I quote:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and
opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an
invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas
suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical
result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast
numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to
live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .
"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains
a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the
sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical
thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons .
.
. who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the
masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness
old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world. .
.
"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people
expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The voice of
the
people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is made up for
it
by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those persons who
understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .
"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making
the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of the
community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life."
--
end of quote --
I should mention that Bernays' book is not profound or especially
valuable in itself. It merely states a few self-evident facts about
the
way in which a modern society works. For the person interested in
propaganda, far more useful books are available. The fact that Bernays
was a Jew is not even especially relevant here except to emphasize
that
propaganda, the mass media, psychology, and the manipulation of others
always have been subjects of special interest to the Jews. It is not
for
nothing that they are as thick in these fields today as they were in
the
time of Bernays and Freud. The reason I chose Bernays' book to quote
is
that it provides a more concise and clear summary, in a few quotable
paragraphs, of the role of propaganda in modern life than most other
books on the subject.
If I were you I wouldn't even waste time trying to hunt down a copy of
Bernays' book. Although it is available in larger libraries, it's long
been out of print, and all it does is state the obvious: namely, that
the whole concept of democracy is meaningless in an age where a few
people have in their hands the mechanism for controlling the attitudes
and opinions of a majority of the electorate. And Bernays also takes
the
disingenuous position that not only is this control a fact of life,
but
it is a good thing; it is necessary to control and regiment the
thinking
of the public in order to avoid chaos, and it can only lead us to
greater progress and prosperity. He simply glosses over the question
of
who should exercise this control and what their motives should be.
If you really want to study the subject of propaganda, a good place to
start is with the 1962 book, also titled Propaganda, by the Frenchman
Jacques Ellul. That book is still in print and is available from the
sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books. Professor Ellul
deals
with the subject in much greater depth and with much greater honesty
than Bernays does, but he agrees with Bernays on the most obvious and
fundamental conclusions: on the irrelevance of the idea of democracy,
for example. I quote from Professor Ellul's book:
"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda
renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it
would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of
true democracy and propaganda." -- end of quote --
To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is
nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people.
Democracy
has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that the
policies
guiding our nation should be decided by counting the votes of every
featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It's like motherhood:
they're almost afraid to question it.
This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of
Joe
Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be
independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most
intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as
Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most
strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every
medium of propaganda.
And I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the ideas
drummed into me when I was in school that under a democracy people are
more free than under any other political system, that under a
democracy
we are all free to think and say whatever we want, and that we have a
greater responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make up our own
minds about things independently, and so on. Actually, we still have
some degree of individual freedom in the United States today because
more than 200 years ago men whose temperament was far more
aristocratic
than democratic in the modern sense of the word were willing to go to
war against their legitimate government in order to secure that
freedom
for us, and people with a truly democratic temperament, who have been
gnawing away at that freedom ever since, haven't yet succeeded in
suppressing it completely.
Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as
Professor Ellul's Propaganda - and many others - are readily
available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public
believing
in the myth of democracy is an important element in maintaining
control
over the thinking and behavior of the public. It is simply immoral and
scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It's like questioning
the truth of the "Holocaust" story. And for that reason we're not
likely
to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read in the
New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious and
self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We're still
taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who
control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are
working day and night to eliminate that freedom."
The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books.
It is distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list...@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe
To contact us via "snail mail," write to:
National Vanguard Books
Attention: ADVlist
P.O. Box 330
Hillsboro, WV 24946
The National Alliance: http://www.natvan.com
http://www.natall.com
>However, in a democracy capitalism flurishes. Capitalism has two
>faces, one in which economic incentives result in growth and low
>unemployment, but the other face is that it is a vehicle to exploit
>labor.
>
>Part of the problem in Russia today is eploitation by big business.
>However, this is not say that a lack of democracy is the solutiion,
>since dictatorial governments can also exploit workers.
>
In democracy money talks. And big money always exploits workers.
Walt Horning
wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:28:29 -0500, Walt Horning <w...@www.www> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Have you ever asked yourself how may Germans waived and supported
>>Hitler or Stalin?
>
> For one thing they wanted to free Germany from Jewish domination,
>and they didn't support Stalin.
>
>
>>That is propaganda and/or it is simply the fact that
>>people do not know any better. They have only one press source, the
>>official line from Sadam.
>
> In the US there is one press sounce, the Jews.
>
Oh, great, here we are trying to rid the world of Sadam because he is
a threat to the whole world, and in steps a Jew-hater.
<snip>
Pope Dilbert
"Walt Horning" <w...@www.www> wrote in message
> Ridding the world of Sadam and his regime would be the humane thing to
> do, punishing him for his war crimes, saving the world from chemical
> and biological attacks and bringing freedom and liberty to Iraqi
> citizens (who have been tortured and slaughtered by this man and still
> does it today).Thus Iraq anti-war protesters must support inhumanity
> to other humans and thus are inhumane themselves.
There are several dozens of nations and individuals who, if removed of
invaded, would be humane. We are ignoring most of them .. and even give
"Favorite Trading Practices" to oneof them - China.
WE KNOW that China uses politicalprisoners to do much of the workon the
products they now sell here - yet we still do business with them.
We saw pictures of Tienamen Square - yet we still do business with them. WE
KNOW they invaded Tibet, and massacred thousands - yet we still do business
with them.
WE KNEW of people like Idi Amin, who actually ATE his political opponents -
yet we did nothing.
Before you start (dittohead) bellowing about Saddam - you better hve a close
look at other nations in the world, our response to them .. and even our own
history!!!
>
> Come to think of it, it sounds like France, Germany, Russia and China
> also support inhumane treatment of humans in Iraq, since they are
> unwilling to support a war there to bring liberation to Iraq, even it
> is the pretense the Sadam is not complying with disarming, and in fact
> he is not disarming.
Come to think of it ... all you are doing is spreading the same conservative
bull shit that Bush is shoveling!