Hitlary is Past Her Prime; Old, Haggy, Fish-Like, and All She Offers is Lies

[Governor Swill]

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>> Which Reagan didn't do for the working classes.
>
>Of course he did.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Swill

 

[English-Elephant]

Hi,

Cant be as bad as the current president.

Thanks

 

[Patriot Games]

"English-Elephant" <mancmanc@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:862935da-a993-4ff4-a45c-2a487a5b8aa6@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> Cant be as bad as the current president.

Really. Hitlary said she was "co-president."

Did Hitlary destroy the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan? No. Bush
did.

Did Hitlary remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan? No. Bush did.

 

[Governor Swill]

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>"English-Elephant" <mancmanc@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>news:862935da-a993-4ff4-a45c-2a487a5b8aa6@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>> Cant be as bad as the current president.
>
>Really. Hitlary said she was "co-president."
>
>Did Hitlary destroy the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan? No. Bush
>did.
>
>Did Hitlary remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan? No. Bush did.
>

Is Bush destroying the training camps in Pakistan? No, but Obama
will.

Is Hillary allowing the Taliban to consolidate it's power and come
back? No, Bush is doing that.

Swill

 

[Patriot Games]

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hr8ho3p79o1jn8dkrbn21itqvqq3e2r59i@4ax.com...
> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
> babble
>>"English-Elephant" <mancmanc@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>>news:862935da-a993-4ff4-a45c-2a487a5b8aa6@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Hi,
>>> Cant be as bad as the current president.
>>Really. Hitlary said she was "co-president."
>>Did Hitlary destroy the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan? No. Bush
>>did.
>>Did Hitlary remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan? No. Bush did.
> Is Bush destroying the training camps in Pakistan? No, but Obama
> will.

And he said that where?

> Is Hillary allowing the Taliban to consolidate it's power and come
> back? No, Bush is doing that.

Nobody is doing that....

 

[Topaz]

The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind

Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University

Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.

We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?

We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.

Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.

Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.

And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.

Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...

The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...

How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.

In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.

<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>



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

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

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

 

[Governor Swill]

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>> Is Bush destroying the training camps in Pakistan? No, but Obama
>> will.
>
>And he said that where?

In two of the debates and one other public speaking event. He said
clearly that he would violate Pakistan's territory if he had
compelling and actionable intel.

>> Is Hillary allowing the Taliban to consolidate it's power and come
>> back? No, Bush is doing that.
>
>Nobody is doing that....

It's happening. Somebody must be doing something to cause/allow/not
prevent it.

Swill

 

[Patriot Games]

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jmnno3tjpmj96qhjf8v5vklhheldgcrn2s@4ax.com...
> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
> babble
>>> Is Bush destroying the training camps in Pakistan? No, but Obama
>>> will.
>>And he said that where?
> In two of the debates and one other public speaking event. He said
> clearly that he would violate Pakistan's territory if he had
> compelling and actionable intel.

No. He SPECIFICALLY said he'd violate Pakistan's territory if he had
actionable intel IN OSAMA BIN LADEN. Zero mention of "compelling," ZERO
mention of "training camps in Pakistan."

>>> Is Hillary allowing the Taliban to consolidate it's power and come
>>> back? No, Bush is doing that.
>>Nobody is doing that....
> It's happening. Somebody must be doing something to cause/allow/not
> prevent it.

No, it isn't happenning. The Taliban has ZERO government power anywhere in
Afghanistan.

 

[DeserTBoB]

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:20:29 -0500, "Patriot Games"
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:

>No, it isn't happenning. The Taliban has ZERO government power anywhere in
>Afghanistan. <snip>

Really! Then why are we deploying 3200 Marines, MONTHS after NATO
warned that, if they didn't get ground and air support ASAP, the
Taliban would be back in power of the whole country by Q1 2008? They
already have retaken control of most of the southern rural areas...or
don't you read "news," because reading and gathering information is
some sort of "communist plot?"

JUST what the USMC needs...too few troops, too late...as IF they
haven't taken heavy enough losses already in Bush's fairy tale oil
field, Iraq. If Dubya, Cheney and Dumbsfeld did what I THOUGHT they
should have done after 9/11, kick the taliban's asses and HOLD the
country, we wouldn't have ANY of this crap going on that we do
now...simple fact, and one shared by the 9/11 Commission and all even
reasonably intelligent persons of interest in Washington...except
those in the White House, it seems.

Wait..."intelligent" and "bush...that's an oxymoron, indeed!

 

[Governor Swill]

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>> In two of the debates and one other public speaking event. He said
>> clearly that he would violate Pakistan's territory if he had
>> compelling and actionable intel.
>
>No. He SPECIFICALLY said he'd violate Pakistan's territory if he had
>actionable intel IN OSAMA BIN LADEN. Zero mention of "compelling," ZERO
>mention of "training camps in Pakistan."

Which is a tough position that will attract those who highly prize
national security assuming he actually means it. He said it with
great conviction and it might well be his intention, but that doesn't
mean that world affairs will allow him to do so when the time comes.

>>>> Is Hillary allowing the Taliban to consolidate it's power and come
>>>> back? No, Bush is doing that.
>>>Nobody is doing that....
>> It's happening. Somebody must be doing something to cause/allow/not
>> prevent it.
>
>No, it isn't happenning. The Taliban has ZERO government power anywhere in
>Afghanistan.

False. The writ of the Kabul government doesn't run in much of the
country just as Mushie doesn't have control of significant areas of
HIS country. How many died in the bombing attack in Kabul last week?

Swill

 

[Patriot Games]

"DeserTrannyBoB" <desertb@rglobal.net> wrote in message
news:d8f0p3hsjsc9qh2s8u9sfopqgc860961gk@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:20:29 -0500, "Patriot Games"
> <Patriot@America.com> wrote:
>>No, it isn't happenning. The Taliban has ZERO government power anywhere
>>in
>>Afghanistan. <snip>
> Really! Then why are we deploying 3200 Marines, MONTHS after NATO
> warned that, if they didn't get ground and air support ASAP, the
> Taliban would be back in power of the whole country by Q1 2008?

I bet you thought putting "alt.test" in the newsgroup line was clever...

Because we're finding that the Euro-pussies NATO provided are poorly trained
in counter-insurgency ops and generally pussified ass-poppers.

So the Marines are going to demonstrate to the NATO Euro-pussies how to kick
some ass.

And in so doing put a death-smackdown on a bunch of straggly Taliban that
were thinking of a counter-offensive this Spring.

> They
> already have retaken control of most of the southern rural areas...or
> don't you read "news," because reading and gathering information is
> some sort of "communist plot?"

The Taliban has ZERO government power anywhere in Afghanistan.

 

[Topaz]

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

Feminism: A Jewish Adversary Movement Against Gentile Culture.
Here is a list of some of the Jewish founders and leaders of the
modern feminist revolution. Keep in mind that this list is by no means
complete-these women are simply the more well-known within the
feminist movement; thousands of lesser-known Jewish women lead local
and obscure feminist groups

-Gloria Steinem (1934- ); founder, Ms. Magazine.

-Bella Abzug (1920-1998); Civil rights and labor attorney elected to
Congress (House of Rep.) from New York City; served 1971-1977.

-Betty Friedan (1921- ); feminist leader and author of the book "The
Feminine Mystique" (1963).

-Shulamith Firestone (1945- ); Canadian feminist. Wrote "The Dialectic
of Sex" (1970).

-Andrea Dworkin (1946- ); radical; apparent lesbian. Author of the
book "Intercourse" (1987).

-Susan Brownmiller (1935- ); U.S. feminist. Wrote the book "Against
Our Will" (1975).

-Susan Faludi (1959- ); author of the book "Backlash" (1992).

-Naomi Wolf (1962- ); advisor to Al Gore in the 2000 U.S.
presidential election.

-Emma Goldman (1869-1940); early U.S. feminist.

-Ernestine Rose (1810-1892); b. in Poland; early feminist.

-Phyllis Chesler (1941- ); U.S. feminist; author of the book "Woman's
Inhumanity to Woman" (2002).

-Judy Chicago (Cohen) (1939- ); U.S. feminist. Author of the book "The
Dinner Party" (1996).

-Robin Morgan (1941- ); U.S. feminist. Former editor-in-chief, Ms.
magazine.

-Letty Cottin Pogrebin (1939- ); U.S. feminist; co-founded Ms.
magazine.

-Gerda Lerner (1920- ); b. in Austria.

-Annie Nathan Meyer (1867-1951); U.S. feminist.

-Maud Nathan (1862-1946); sister of Annie Nathan Meyer; U.S. feminist.

-Geri Palast (1950- ); chair, Committee on Women in the Global
Economy; U.S. feminist.

-Rose Schneiderman (1882-1972); b. in Poland.

-Anita Pollitzer (1894-1975); U.S. feminist; pal of artist Georgia
O'Keeffe.

-Gene Boyer (no birthyear available); a founder of N.O.W.; president
of Jewish Feminists; U.S. feminist.

-Lucy Komisar (1942- ); author of the book "The New Feminism" (1971);
U.S. feminist.

-Karen Nussbaum (1950- ); (apparently Jewish); leader of 9to5-National
Association of Working Women.

-Eleanor Flexner (1908-1995); (apparently Jewish); U.S. feminist.

-Riane Eisler (1931- ); b. Vienna; author/feminist; (apparently
Jewish-fled Nazis). Author of the book "The Chalice and the Blade"
(1987).



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

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

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

 

[Patriot Games]

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aut1p31qp7h6a5i8lq10m8f99i1a7vtjsq@4ax.com...
> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
> babble
>>> In two of the debates and one other public speaking event. He said
>>> clearly that he would violate Pakistan's territory if he had
>>> compelling and actionable intel.
>>No. He SPECIFICALLY said he'd violate Pakistan's territory if he had
>>actionable intel IN OSAMA BIN LADEN. Zero mention of "compelling," ZERO
>>mention of "training camps in Pakistan."
> Which is a tough position that will attract those who highly prize
> national security assuming he actually means it.

And by some special Demmy Magic people who thought invading Iraq was a BAD
idea will think invading Pakistan is a GOOD idea????

Right.....

>>No, it isn't happenning. The Taliban has ZERO government power anywhere
>>in
>>Afghanistan.
> False. The writ of the Kabul government doesn't run in much of the
> country just as Mushie doesn't have control of significant areas of
> HIS country. How many died in the bombing attack in Kabul last week?

Feel free to cite JUST ONE government position ANYWHERE in Afghanistan held
by a Taliban.

 

[Governor Swill]

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>> Which is a tough position that will attract those who highly prize
>> national security assuming he actually means it.
>
>And by some special Demmy Magic people who thought invading Iraq was a BAD
>idea will think invading Pakistan is a GOOD idea????

It's not a good idea and that is most likely why he didn't say he
would.

>>>No, it isn't happenning. The Taliban has ZERO government power anywhere
>>>in Afghanistan.

Wrong. They control large areas in the east and south and have now
begun to perptrate terror attacks in Kabul.

>> False. The writ of the Kabul government doesn't run in much of the
>> country just as Mushie doesn't have control of significant areas of
>> HIS country. How many died in the bombing attack in Kabul last week?
>
>Feel free to cite JUST ONE government position ANYWHERE in Afghanistan held
>by a Taliban.

The Taliban's officials would provide you with that I'm sure if they
weren't concerned it would make them targets.

Clue: There's a difference between a recognized goverment and who
controls territory.

Swill

 

[Topaz]

Disney and the Jews:
Eisner and His Kind Must Stop Harming Our Children
by William L. Pierce

We've spoken about the Jewish control of the news and entertainment
media before, but it's a matter of such urgency that we need to talk
about it again and again. It is absolutely essential for us to
understand who controls our mass media and how they use their control
to undermine America.
Very recently a major rearrangement in the media world took place when
the Walt Disney company paid $19 billion to take control of Capital
Cities/ABC, the company that owns the ABC television network. That
makes the Disney company the biggest of the media conglomerates. And
it makes the man who controls Disney, Michael Eisner, the most
powerful media boss in the world.
What does this mean for the future of our people? Should we be
concerned that the company which brought us Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck,
and Snow White will in the future be playing a much bigger role in
forming the opinions of American television viewers and setting the
moral and cultural standards of our nation?
I'll answer that question: Yes, we certainly should be concerned,
because the Walt Disney company is not what it used to be. It has been
transformed from a wholesome producer of children's entertainment into
a malign instrument of subversion.
To understand how this happened, let's go back to the beginning. Walt
Disney was born in 1901 in a working-class, Midwestern American
family. He spent his early years on the family farm in Missouri. As a
teenager he helped support his family by delivering newspapers. He
later attributed his ability to overcome obstacles and achieve success
to the work discipline that he developed as a boy with the newspaper
route.
Although young Walt came from a typical American background, with no
advantages or privileges, he was a person of exceptional talent and
drive. He felt a strong artistic urge while he was still in grade
school, and he took a correspondence course in drawing. He continued
to develop his drawing skills in high school as a cartoonist for his
school paper. He dropped out of school at 16 and served in the First
World War. After the war, instead of finishing high school, he and
another young artist began experimenting with animated films in a tiny
studio of their own in Kansas City. Using very primitive equipment,
they made short, animated cartoons based on fairy tales. They tried to
market their films through a New York film distributor, but the New
Yorker took advantage of the struggling, young filmmakers: he stole
their work and left them destitute.
In 1922, at the ripe age of 20, Walt Disney decided to make a fresh
start in Hollywood. He sold his camera to raise enough money to make
the trip to California. There he enlisted the support of his brother
Roy as a business manager, and he persuaded his fellow artist in
Kansas City to come join him. With Walt's drive and determination,
they opened a new film studio. They invented a film character they
called Oswald the Rabbit, and a series of animated cartoons featuring
Oswald enabled the small studio to gain a foothold in the film
business.
Later, when sound films were introduced in 1927, Walt invented Mickey
Mouse. Walt himself provided Mickey's voice. Mickey Mouse was an
enormous success and helped Walt Disney Productions prosper and grow.
Over the years Walt Disney's fertile imagination gave us Donald Duck,
Goofy and Pluto, Dumbo the elephant, and a score of other animal
characters which have fascinated children all over the world for more
than 60 years. In 1937 Disney produced his great masterpiece, Snow
White and the Seven Dwarfs. This beautifully animated fairy tale
appealed to adults as well as to children. Like many fairy tales its
roots lie deep in the consciousness of our people.
After Snow White came Pinnochio, Fantasia, and Bambi. Walt Disney
Productions became a major power in the American film industry. And it
was unique, in that it was the only major film producer in Hollywood
not owned or controlled by Jews. The fact that Walt Disney was not a
Jew caused problems for him, however. He was surrounded by Jews who
resented his influence on American culture. A whispering campaign was
organized against him. Stories were spread that he was a fascist. He
began having labor problems.
The real problem, of course, was that Walt Disney's vision of the
world, as reflected in the films he produced, was wholly different
from that of the Jewish film producers around him. As long as Walt was
making Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck cartoons, this problem could be
overlooked. When he began animating feature-length fairy tales like
Snow White and Cinderella, the Jews in Hollywood became increasingly
nervous. The world of Snow White was an entirely White world, a
European world. It stirred deep feelings in European Americans, and
the aim of the Jewish media bosses then as now was to make White
Americans forget their roots. They wanted to begin promoting
multiculturalism as soon as the Second World War was over, and Walt
was in their way. They couldn't push racial mixing in their films and
have someone as popular as Walt Disney refuse to go along: the
contrast would be obvious to the public. Even Disney's extremely
popular Nature films were resented by the rest of Hollywood. Films
which promoted a love for animals and the natural world were viewed
with suspicion by men whose view of life was entirely economic and
metropolitan.
These may seem like subtle differences, and in fact most people
outside of Hollywood were oblivious to the ideological and cultural
conflict between Walt Disney and the other film producers. The closest
that the conflict came to attracting public attention was during the
1940s and early 1950s, when Walt Disney's total lack of sympathy for
Communism and his refusal to let Communist propaganda be introduced
into any of his productions set him apart from the rest of Hollywood.
While Walt was alive, however, there wasn't much that Hollywood could
do about him. He was too popular with the American people.
After Walt died in 1966, however, the situation changed. His company
had depended on his genius for its prosperity, and without him it had
a difficult time keeping up with the competition. After Disney company
profits had declined for several years, Jewish corporate raiders Saul
Steinberg and Irwin Jacobs moved in for the kill. In 1984, after
Steinberg had milked the company of $32 million, Disney family
shareholders were too weak to resist a takeover by Michael Eisner, the
Jewish boss of Paramount Pictures. Eisner in turn brought in as his
second in command another Jew, Jeffrey Katzenberg. The company that
Walt Disney built-the company that gave us Snow White and Fantasia --
has been in Jewish hands ever since.
During his first day as chairman of the Disney company-his first day,
believe it or not-Eisner ordered the production of an R-rated film,
about the kinky sexual misadventures of a typically neurotic Jewish
family in the Los Angeles area. This was the first R-rated film ever
produced by the Disney company-but certainly not the last.
Actually, what Michael Eisner has done to the Disney company is far
worse than cutting the soul out of it. He has transformed it into
another instrument in the Jewish campaign to multiculturalize America.
He has made it into a spiritually destructive propaganda instrument
aimed at our children.
There are no better examples of this than a couple of recent
children's films produced by the Disney company under Eisner: The
Jungle Book and Pocahontas. Actually, in 1967, the year after Walt
Disney's death, the original Disney company made an animated film
based on Kipling's Jungle Book stories of India. It was a film in the
Disney tradition, made to entertain children and not to brainwash
them. Last year Mr. Eisner produced a new, Politically Correct version
of The Jungle Book. The new version, which uses live characters
instead of animation, promotes interracial sex. In Mr. Eisner's
version, White males are portrayed as contemptible, cowardly, inept,
and disloyal. The White heroine rejects her British-officer fiancee',
and lets herself be wooed and won by an Indian jungle boy, played by a
Chinese actor. And, of course, it bears no resemblance at all to
anything written by Rudyard Kipling. I hardly need comment on the film
Pocahontas, which has received so much publicity recently, except to
say that its message is the same as that of Eisner 's version of The
Jungle Book: namely, that racial mixing is A-OK, that there's
absolutely no reason why a White man should not marry an Indian woman
or why a White woman should not have an affair with a Chinaman.
It took Mr. Eisner ten years to drag the Disney company down to the
Pocahontas level. He is a careful man. He knows that there is a lot at
stake. He certainly doesn't want to move too fast and cause a negative
reaction from the American public. He didn't want to alert the
American public to his intentions ten years ago. So he started with
R-rated sex films and gradually moved to films which tell White
children that miscegenation is fine and noble, and that non-Whites
really have much more character than Whites. But I believe that Mr.
Eisner had this outcome clearly in his mind from the first day that he
took over the Disney company and began degrading it.
And now Mr. Eisner will have the ABC television network under his
control too. I don't expect that to change the party line at ABC very
much. ABC, like the other TV networks, has been pretty solidly Jewish
from the beginning. It was headed by Jewish media boss Leonard
Goldenson for more than 30 years. The fact that Capital Cities
Communications, whose chairman is Thomas Murphy, a Gentile, merged
with Goldenson's ABC ten years ago didn't really have much influence
on programming. Goldenson's people remained in the policy-making
positions. Eisner's buyout of ABC just consolidates things in Jewish
hands a bit. It takes Murphy out of the picture and makes it easier
for ABC to become even more Politically Correct than it was. It means
that we will be seeing programs on the ABC television network
promoting miscegenation and undermining White self-confidence a little
more frequently than before. It speeds up the schedule a bit for
introducing even more destructive propaganda than before. It means
that our children will be subjected to somewhat more intense
brainwashing than before.
The situation with the rest of the mass media of news and
entertainment isn't really different, of course. Just as Jews took
over Hollywood in the 1930s, they also took over the other media, and
today they have such an overwhelming influence that even those who are
not Jews go along with their policies in order to get along.
Often when I point out this fact of Jewish media control to persons
who are Politically Correct, they will respond by saying that it makes
no difference who controls the media. Why does it bother me that Jews
run Hollywood, they ask in a sneering, condescending tone. I know that
people who respond in this way aren't being honest. They would
certainly think it made a difference if I controlled the media, for
example. And actually I'd be concerned if any group with an agenda of
its own had control of the media. I'd be concerned if all of the media
were in the hands of Southern Baptists, for example, or radical
vegetarians.
I am especially concerned about the Jewish control of the media,
however, for two reasons. First, the people who control the media also
control the political process in America: they control, in effect, the
policies of our government and the course taken by our society. That's
because the politicians, whether they're Democrats or Republicans,
will not stand up to the Jews. Instead they grovel at the Jews' feet.
Every politician knows that he must be portrayed favorably by the
media if he is to be elected, and every politician knows who controls
the media.
The second reason why Jewish control of the media is such a disaster
for us is based in the unique nature of the Jews. If Baptists
controlled the media perhaps they'd persuade the government to have a
law against making love on Sunday. If radical vegetarians controlled
the media, we might have to eat soyburgers instead of hamburgers.
But we can survive those things. We might not be happy, but we could
survive: our people could survive. Neither the Baptists nor the
vegetarians would be trying to corrupt us spiritually or to destroy
our race.
But corrupt and destroy are exactly what Mr. Eisner is doing. That's
the purpose of films like The Jungle Book and Pocahontas. They are
aimed, first, at the spiritual corruption of our children and,
ultimately, at the destruction of our people.
I know that statement sounds extreme to some people who are not
familiar with the facts of Jewish media control. They think that two
recent children's films from the Walt Disney company which promote
racial mixing aren't enough evidence to condemn all of the people who
control our news and entertainment media. And I must agree. One needs
much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone
who is not afraid to look at it, for anyone who is not so determined
to be Politically Correct that he refuses to see it.
For example, consider what has happened to the popular music industry
in recent years. It's not just the "gangsta rap" that we've heard a
few Republican politicians complaining about because the media people
who've been pushing "gangsta rap" moved a little too fast and caused a
negative reaction from the American people. It's the whole trend of
popular music away from traditional White forms and toward non-White
forms. I don't have to tell you who controls the popular music
industry in America, but I will anyway. In particular, the biggest
music companies promoting Black "rap" music among White children-
companies like Time Warner and MTV-are solidly Jewish. A Jew named
Gerald Levin is to Time Warner what Michael Eisner is to Disney. And
MTV is owned by Sumner Redstone, another Jew, through his Viacom
Corporation. These three companies that I've just mentioned-Disney,
Viacom, and Time Warner-are America's three biggest producers of mass
entertainment-they're number one, number two, and number three,
respectively-and they're all controlled by Jews. Is that just a
coincidence? Think about it!
I could spend the next hour talking about the genealogy of the biggest
media bosses. What you really need to do to be convinced, however, is
to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough
facts to get you started. Just write to me.
The idea I want to leave you with today is this: In this era in which
the mass media have such a powerful influence over our people's ideas
and attitudes and values, it is essential that we take the control of
those media away from a group which is utterly alien to us. It's a
group whose primary aim is to deaden our sense of identity and kill
any sense of racial consciousness among us, so that we will not be
able to resist the poisonous doctrines which they're promoting. These
doctrines are multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism and egalitarianism
-- and, of course, "diversity"-all of the racially destructive "isms"
of Political Correctness.
In this era when the single most important influence on the
development of a child's self-image is television entertainment, it is
essential that people like Michael Eisner and Sumner Redstone not be
the ones setting the tone for that entertainment.
We all know that America has lost its sense of purpose and is
drifting. We all know that American society is coming apart. We all
know that our traditional values, our traditional life-style, our
traditional heroes and role models have been disparaged and ridiculed
by the controlled media. We all know that the idea of White racial
guilt, the idea of deferring to minorities, the idea that we should
tolerate perversion and accept it as "normal"-all of these ideas have
been pushed by the mass media. Alienation and delinquency among our
young people are increasing. The traditional American family is in
serious decline. Racial intermarriage is on the rise. Non-White
immigrants are pouring across our borders, and no serious effort is
being made to stop them. Our political system has become hopelessly
corrupt.
The only way that we can even begin to cure this illness is to regain
complete control of our mass media. Our media must be used to give our
people a sense of identity; a sense of racial community; a sense of
kinship, of belonging; a sense of racial and national purpose. We must
take control away from the people who are using the media now to
confuse and alienate and mislead us. Only when our own people are
setting the standards for the media, only when our own people are
deciding what attitudes and values should be taught to our children,
can we become strong and healthy again-and that means breaking the
Jewish control of the media. Let me hear from you on this most
important of all the issues facing our people.


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

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

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

 

[Patriot Games]

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:apdap3tklg5tbsan8ijfal230s2go70upv@4ax.com...
> "Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
> babble
>>> Which is a tough position that will attract those who highly prize
>>> national security assuming he actually means it.
>>And by some special Demmy Magic people who thought invading Iraq was a BAD
>>idea will think invading Pakistan is a GOOD idea????
> It's not a good idea and that is most likely why he didn't say he
> would.

He did say he would.

>>>>No, it isn't happenning. The Taliban has ZERO government power anywhere
>>>>in Afghanistan.
> Wrong. They control large areas in the east and south and have now
> begun to perptrate terror attacks in Kabul.

You FAILED to CITE The Taliban having government power anywhere in
Afghanistan.

>>> False. The writ of the Kabul government doesn't run in much of the
>>> country just as Mushie doesn't have control of significant areas of
>>> HIS country. How many died in the bombing attack in Kabul last week?
>>
>>Feel free to cite JUST ONE government position ANYWHERE in Afghanistan
>>held
>>by a Taliban.
> The Taliban's officials would provide you with that I'm sure if they
> weren't concerned it would make them targets.

Feel free to cite JUST ONE government position ANYWHERE in Afghanistan held
by a Taliban.

 

[Governor Swill]

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>>>And by some special Demmy Magic people who thought invading Iraq was a BAD
>>>idea will think invading Pakistan is a GOOD idea????
>> It's not a good idea and that is most likely why he didn't say he
>> would.
>
>He did say he would.

No, he didn't. You can spin what he said all you like but that won't
change the facts.

Swill

 

[Governor Swill]

Bush just said on TV, "That's the advantage of being President. You
don't have to fill the potholes or empty the garbage."

And then proceeded to stammer his way through an announcement that he
has an economic stimulus package without saying anything about what it
is. All three Dem candidates have been far more specific about their
economic plans that a sitting President.

Has any President ever been more out of touch with the American
People? Aren't you just so proud of his accomplishments you could
slash your wrists?

Swill

 

[Governor Swill]

"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>> Wrong. They control large areas in the east and south and have now
>> begun to perptrate terror attacks in Kabul.
>
>You FAILED to CITE The Taliban having government power anywhere in
>Afghanistan.

Leave your tube on Fox for the next 24 hours and you'll find those
cites. In the meantime, how about these.

Most schools in southern Afghanistan have been closed for security
reasons. The slack has been taken up by madrassas.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hWd6KVYThbz9hpLKm9J8NYekflYw
Well isn't that just ducky. The government sponsored secular schools
are closing, but the religious schools run by muslim fundamentalists
are taking on students. Another failure in the WoT.

"The extremist Taliban, which was in government between 1996 and 2001,
is leading an insurgency that was at its deadliest last year."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hca0chjZG2HjqA091dzgjRDVYDCQ

Another story has it that a spring offensive is not expected or is
expected to be minimal. Seems many Taliban fighters don't want to
leave Pakistan and go back to Afghanistan to fight. I guess they find
Pakistan's army much easier pickings.

Which brings us to the next point. The spread of militant Islam into
Pakistan. Another failure in the WoT because not only has one country
run by fundie muzzies not been completely cleared and made "safe for
democracy", another teeters on the edge and THAT one has nukes.

>>>> False. The writ of the Kabul government doesn't run in much of the
>>>> country just as Mushie doesn't have control of significant areas of
>>>> HIS country. How many died in the bombing attack in Kabul last week?
>>>
>>>Feel free to cite JUST ONE government position ANYWHERE in Afghanistan
>>>held by a Taliban.

How about you answer my question? How many died in a Taliban
terrorist attack in the CAPITAL last week? That doesn't demonstrate
control of the country.


>> The Taliban's officials would provide you with that I'm sure if they
>> weren't concerned it would make them targets.
>
>Feel free to cite JUST ONE government position ANYWHERE in Afghanistan held
>by a Taliban.

Feel free to insist again that the Taliban don't control any territory
in Afganistan.

Bush is a failure. The WoT is failing. The war in Iraq is failing.
Bush's economy is failing. The great uniter has divided the country
even more and done damage to his own party that could take several
administrations to repair.

You just keep bailing, boy. I'll fine up here on the pool deck with my
cold drink watching your little gop dingy sink in the wake of it's own
misgovernance.

Swill

 

[Topaz]

By Dr. William Pierce
http://www.natvan.com

"The Jews were very influential in Germany after the First World War.
They were strongly entrenched in the legal profession, in banking, in
advertising and merchandising, in show business, in organized vice, in
publishing and other media. They were trying hard to change the spirit
of Germany. They were pushing modernism in art, music, and literature.
They were pushing for "diversity" and "tolerance." They were
ridiculing German tradition and culture and morality and the German
sense of personal honor, trying hard to make young Germans believe
that it was "cool" to be rootless and cosmopolitan. They were
promoting the same culture of lies that they have been promoting here.

That was the so-called "Weimar" period, because right after the First
World War some important government business, including the
ratification of a new German constitution, took place in the city of
Weimar. The Jews loved the Weimar period, but it was, in fact, the
most degenerate period in Germany's history. The Jews, of course,
didn't think of it as
degenerate. They thought of it as "modern" and "progressive" and
"cool." Really, it was a very Jewish period, where lying was
considered a virtue. The Jews were riding high. Many books have been
written by Jews in America about Weimar Germany, all praising it to
the skies and looking back on it with nostalgia. Even without the
so-called
"Holocaust," they never have forgiven the Nazis for bringing an end to
the Weimar period.

There was a Hollywood film made 30 years ago, in 1972, about Weimar
Germany. The film was called Cabaret, and it starred Liza Minelli. It
depicted Berlin night life, with all its degeneracy, including the
flourishing of homosexuality, and also depicted the fight between the
communists and the Jews and the other proponents of modernism on the
one
hand and the Nazis on the other hand. The Hollywood filmmakers, of
course, were solidly on the side of the degenerates and portrayed the
Nazis as the bad guys, but this film is another example of the Jews
outsmarting themselves. The Jews who made the film saw everything from
their viewpoint, through their own eyes, and the degenerate Gentiles
under their spell also saw things from the Jewish viewpoint, but the
Jews apparently didn't stop to think -- or didn't care -- that a
normal, healthy White person would view things differently. Check it
out for yourself. Cabaret is still available in video stores.

The point I am making is this: In the 1920s, after the First World
War, the Jews were trying to do to Germany what they began doing to
America after the Second World War, in the 1960s. Many Germans, the
healthiest elements in Germany, resisted the Jews' efforts, just as
many Americans have resisted the Jews' efforts in America. In Germany
the Jews were a bit premature. Although they had much of the media
under their control,
they didn't control all of the media. They tried to move too fast. The
healthiest Germans resisted and beat them.

In America, in the 1960s, the Jews had almost total media control
before they began their big push, and they proceeded more carefully.
In America they are winning. The culture of lies has prevailed in
America. It's still possible for Americans to win, but it's going to
be a lot tougher this time. We'd better get started. The first step is
to regain at least partial control of our media, so that we can begin
contradicting the lies. This American Dissident Voices broadcast is a
part of that first step."


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

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

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