Big Media

History Repeats (Now Will America Do Something About It)

Ernst Zundel’s prediction when interviewed by a Jew. You tell me, is he correct?

Ernst Zundel Warns The Jews About Doing To America What They Did To Germany.

Too late, I say.

Snordster thinks its too late. And it may be. You can bet your ass they own all the media which has brainwashed way too many of us. They own the government, which is totally subservient to them. They own all the major corporations which have off-shored your jobs (and influence the others to send them away, as well). They own Big Meds and Big Ag or manipulate them into providing their disease creating “food”. They control your money and are stripping YOU of your wealth with every passing day.

Even if America were to send them packing (what the real “Holocaust” was about), it may be too late to save the revolutionary spirit Ernst talks about. Its a question of numbers. Far too many of you have become brain dead or you fight against the wrong entities, just as the Jews have organized and hoodwinked you into doing, just like puppet masters.

Yeah, it may be too late already.

You Will NEVER See A Journalist Like This In The USA

It’s hard not to appreciate how thoroughly Irish journalist Vincent Browne shuts down these banker’s multiple attempts to weasel their way out of answering his questions. Don’t miss a short speech

Elia Kazan, American Hero by DCDave

Elia Kazan, American Hero

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elia_Kazan

Ben and Norma Barzman were Hollywood screenwriters and unapologetic members of the Communist Party.  As such, they became victims of the Hollywood blacklist and lived and worked in exile in Europe, mainly in France, from the late 1940s to the late 1970s.  The following passage is from Norma’s 2003 book, The Red and the Blacklist: The Intimate Memoir of a Hollywood Expatriate (p. 442):

proud Communist Party member
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk

In March 1999, ten years after Ben’s death, the Writers Guild restored screenplay credit to Ben for El Cid and solo original screenplay credit (“Written By”) to me for Luxury Girls.  At the same moment, the Academy announced their intention to bestow an honorary Oscar on Elia Kazan.  Along with Abe Polonsky, Bernie Gordon, Jean Butler, Bobbie Lees, and the other surviving blacklistees and their offspring, I was goosed into action.  I’d been comparatively quiet, attending blacklist retrospectives, promoting Tender Comrades at bookstores and universities.  But I was energized once again.  I collected money for ads in Variety and the Hollywood Reporter, picketed outside the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion with my grandson, Matthew, Daniel’s son; spoke on radio and TV.  A big demonstration greeted Oscar-goers, most of whom did not stand or applaud Kazan.

And what was it about belatedly honoring perhaps the greatest director the American motion picture industry has ever seen that had Ms. Barzman so exercised?  Here, by way of explanation, is how The New York Times began its March 22, 1999, article entitled “Amid Protests, Elia Kazan Receives His Oscar:”

Elia Kazan said ”thank you” tonight at the Academy Awards, and then walked off stage slowly to sustained applause.

It was, in some ways, a bittersweet finale to the controversy over the honorary Oscar for the 89-year-old filmmaker, a controversy dating back to 1952 when Kazan, the director of ”On the Waterfront” and other classics, named names before the House Un-American Activities Committee investigating Communist influences in Hollywood.

After an all-too-sketchy summary of Kazan’s many accomplishments, The Times gave Kazan’s detractors the last word with this conclusion:

But critics of the award to Mr. Kazan said that the director should not be forgiven for the decision he made in 1952. A full-page ad in Daily Variety, signed by some members of the entertainment world as well as lawyers and academics, said that Mr. Kazan ”validated the blacklisting of thousands” and that ”his action did enormous damage to the motion picture industry.”

Only a handful of the hundreds of signatories were well known, among them the actors Sean Penn, Ed Asner and Theodore Bikel.

CNN, in its coverage before the event, even went so far as to publicize the Kazan attackers by printing the Hollywood Reporter ad in its entirety:

“There is the story in our history of a man who was proclaimed a hero of the American Revolution. In one of the battles against the British he suffered a mutilating leg wound. Sadly, after the revolution he became a traitor. It was ruled that for treason he be hanged. But before they hanged him, the leg that was wounded was amputated so that the better part of him be not dishonored.

“Elia Kazan too was a traitor. Some of those betrayed were his close friends. Their lives and futures were destroyed. He became ally and accomplice to an infamous committee which shamed his country. There is no way for the films of Kazan to be amputated from the rest of him. Yet, if there were any decency left in him he should have refused the award so as not to once again sow discord and bitterness among those whose lives and devotion are given to cinema.” Signed, Jules Dassin.

Not to be outdone, in 2003 PBS had this to say about Kazan and his Congressional testimony:

One of Kazan’s defenders is Arthur Miller, much to the disappointment of many on the left. Miller is one of the heroes of the McCarthy Era. He defied the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1956, and refused, unlike Kazan, to name those whom he knew to be “fellow travelers.” For this he was held in contempt of Congress, fined, and sentenced to jail time.

Miller, who struggled at the time so mightily with his personal moral failing, emerged as the exemplar of courage in face of the Red scare. He has even taken on an aura of saintliness over the years. Kazan occupies the other end of the spectrum: a man defined almost entirely by his decision to name names. For many, Kazan’s brilliant career-all that he contributed to the theater, to film, to letters-will be tainted by a single decision he was forced to make some fifty years ago.

The Continuing Communism Whitewash

What in the world is going on here?  At the time that Kazan gave his testimony, we only knew a small part of the evils of Soviet Communism under Joseph Stalin.  Nikita Khrushchev had not yet made his famous speech on the cult of personality and its horrible consequences.  The Soviet historian Roy Medvedev hadn’t published his exposé of Stalin entitled Let History Judge.  Most importantly, The Gulag Archipelago and the other great writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn were still in the distant future.  On the American political scene, the revelations of a number of former Communists had been published in the form of a book entitled The God That Failed three years before, in which the insidiousness of the Communist Party in the United States was put on full display.  Former Communist spies Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers had given their Congressional testimony, and one of the people Chambers accused of being a Soviet spy, Alger Hiss, had been convicted of perjury, but there were still a lot of people who believed that he, Lauchlin Currie, Owen Lattimore, and other high level Communists and Communist sympathizers were just victims of a witch hunt.  Allen Weinstein, previously a Hiss defender, had not yet written Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case, showing to the satisfaction of almost everyone in the history community how right Chambers was about Hiss and the Communist infiltration of the government.

One would think that in 1999, a decade after the collapse of the Soviet empire, Kazan would be the vindicated one and all those long-time promoters of the Soviet Union like Norma Barzman and her friend Polonsky—who, demonstrating his unreconstructed Stalinist tendencies was quoted as saying on the eve of Kazan’s award, “I’ll be watching, hoping someone shoots him. It would no doubt be a thrill in an otherwise dull evening.”—would be the ones slinking away with their tails between their legs.  Rather, it is the contrary, and they are given reinforcement by our national opinion-molding mainstream.  They are now the unvarnished heroes, while Kazan, politically at least, is the villain.

Consider the shallow and contradictory attacks they make on the man.  He “validated the blacklisting of thousands,” they say.  They don’t say that he supported the blacklisting, which he certainly did not, as he showed with his professional assistance of the pro-Communist Zero Mostel:

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Mostel

It was not until 1950 that Mostel again acted in movies, for a role in the Oscar winning film Panic in the Streets, at the request of its director, Elia Kazan. Kazan describes his attitude and feelings during that period, where, according to biographer Arthur Sainer, “MGM blacklisted Zero Mostel way before the days of the blacklist.”

Each director has a favorite in his cast, . . . my favorite this time was Zero Mostel—but not to bully. I thought him an extraordinary artist and a delightful companion, one of the funniest and most original men I’d ever met. . . I constantly sought his company. . . He was one of the three people whom I rescued from the “industry’s” blacklist. . . For a long time, Zero had not been able to get work in films, but I got him in my film.

Perhaps by choosing the word “validated” they mean that he confirmed that there were, indeed, members of the Communist Party, which he, himself had been for a short time, working in the entertainment industry in key positions.  He named eight former associates who were also Communists.  One of them, the playwright Clifford Odets, he noted, had left the Party the same time as he did.  All of them, as it happens, were already known by the committee to be Communists.  PBS is simply wrong, then, to call them “fellow travelers,” suggesting that they were just sympathizers with some of the things that the Communists purported to stand for and it is doubly wrong to put the expression in quotes, which implies that it might just be someone else’s characterization of them.  Kazan’s critics can’t have it both ways.  He either validated the hunt for genuine Communist Party members in show business or he did not.

Who Was the Traitor?

Jules Dassin’s use of the word “traitor” to describe him is also quite interesting.  The most common understanding of “traitor” is “one who commits treason,” that is, one who betrays his country.  Could one find a better word to describe those who remained loyal to the American Communist Party throughout the Stalin period than “traitor?”  As Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley has put it so succinctly in his very revealing book Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1930s and 1940s, “…the essence of American Communism was loyalty to Stalin.” (p. 287)  Anyone who was a member of the party for any length of time could see that that was the case, but one hardly had to be a party member to see it.  Just watching how quickly the Communists turned from being the biggest opponents of American involvement in the war in Europe to being the biggest proponents when Hitler turned on his Soviet allies should have been education enough.  In the national loyalty sense of the term, then, the word “traitor” comes a lot closer to describing the people Kazan fingered, with the exception of Odets, who had ended his membership in the Party.

Dassin must mean, then, that Kazan was a traitor in the sense that he betrayed either his cause or his friends and associates.  Since he had long since parted company with the “cause” of the American Communist Party, the charge boils down to his ratting out some of his former comrades, who, unbeknownst to him, had already been effectively ratted out.  For that, the sweeping conclusion is reached that by that deed this great contributor to the film-making art somehow did “enormous damage to the motion picture industry.”

It really is hard to take people seriously who speak in such absurd hyperbole.  Clearly there can be no connection between his confirmation of the Communist Party membership of those few individuals and any damage to the quality of movie making in America.  Maybe it’s somehow just the principle of the thing that they’re talking about.  But when it comes to the question of the principles involved, there is no better authority than Kazan himself.  Here, in the full text of an advertisement he purchased in The New York Times on April 12, 1952:

In the past weeks intolerable rumors about my political position have been circulating in New York and Hollywood. I want to make my stand clear:

I believe that Communist activities confront the people of this country with an unprecedented and exceptionally tough problem. That is, how to protect ourselves from a dangerous and alien conspiracy and still keep the free, open, healthy way of life that gives us self-respect.

I believe that the American people can solve this problem wisely only if they have the facts about Communism. All the facts.

Now I believe that any American who is in possession of such facts has the obligation to make them known, either to the public or to the appropriate Government agency.

Whatever hysteria exists — and there is some, particularly in Hollywood — is inflamed by mystery, suspicion and secrecy. Hard and exact facts will cool it.

The facts I have are sixteen years out of date, but they supply a small piece of background to the graver picture of communism today.

I have placed these facts before the House Committee on Un-American Activities without reserve and I now place them before the public and before my co-workers in motion pictures and in the theatre.

Seventeen and a half years ago I was a twenty-four-year old stage manager and bit actor, making $40 a week, when I worked.

At that time nearly all of us felt menaced by two things: The depression and the ever growing power of Hitler. The streets were full of unemployed and shaken men. I was taken in by the Hard Times version of what might be called the Communists’ advertising or recruiting technique. They claimed to have a cure for depressions and a cure for Naziism and Fascism.

I joined the Communist Party late in the summer of 1934. I got out a year and a half later.

I have no spy stories to tell, because I saw no spies. Nor did I understand, at that time, any opposition between American and Russian national interest. It was not even clear to me in 1936, that the American Communist Party was abjectly taking its orders from the Kremlin.

What I learned was the minimum that anyone must learn who puts his head into the noose of party “discipline.” The Communists automatically violated the daily practices of democracy to which I was accustomed. They attempted to control thought and to suppress personal opinion. They tried to dictate personal conduct. They habitually distorted and disregarded and violated the truth. All this was crudely opposite of their claims of “democracy” and “the scientific approach.”

To be a member of the Communist Party is to have a taste of the police state. It is a diluted taste but it is bitter and unforgettable. It is diluted because you can walk out.

I got out in the spring of 1936.

The question will be asked why I did not tell this story sooner. I was held back, primarily, by concern for the reputations and employment of people who may, like myself, have left the party many years ago.

I was held back by a piece of specious reasoning which has silenced many liberals. It goes like this: “You may hate the Communists, but you must not attack or expose them, because if you do you are attacking the right to hold unpopular opinions and you are joining the people who attack civil liberties.”

I have thought soberly about this. It is, simply, a lie.

Secrecy serves the Communists. At the other pole, it serves those who are interested in silencing liberal voices. The employment of a lot of good liberals is threatened because they have allowed themselves to become associated with or silenced by the Communists.

Liberals must speak out.

I think it is useful that certain of us had this kind of experience with the Communists, for if we had not we should not know them so well. Today, when all the world fears war and they scream peace, we know how much their professions are worth. We know tomorrow they will have a new slogan.

Firsthand experience of dictatorship and thought control left me with an abiding hatred of these. It left me with an abiding hatred of Communist philosophy and methods and the conviction that these must be resisted always.

It also left me with the passionate conviction that we must never let the Communists get away with the pretense that they stand for the very things which they kill in their own countries.

I am talking about free speech, a free press, the rights of property, the rights of labor, racial equality and, above all, individual rights. I value these things. I take them seriously. I value peace, too, when it is not bought at the price of fundamental decencies.

I believe these things must be fought for wherever they are not fully honored and protected whenever they are threatened.

The motion pictures I have made and the plays I have chosen to direct represent my convictions.

I expect to continue to make the same kinds of pictures and to direct the same kinds of plays.

For anyone who might still believe that Kazan’s attackers hold the moral high ground, I suggest that they just go back and read his statement again, perhaps a little more carefully the second time through.  Who can honestly take issue with a single line in it?  If that doesn’t work, then watch this powerful scene in the Kazan-directed On the Waterfront.

It is hardly noble or admirable, Kazan is telling us, to protect the secrets of murderous, power-lusting thugs in the name of loyalty to one’s associates.  And when it comes to murderousness and power lust, the mobsters who controlled the New York docks in the movie were very small timers compared to the controllers of those he informed on for HUAC.  As he wrote in his autobiography, “On the Waterfront was my own story.  Every day I worked on that film, I was telling the world where I stood and my critics to go **** themselves. (Elia Kazan: A Life, p. 529; quoted in Billingsley, p. 244).

The political climate has changed now so drastically, it is very hard for most Americans to appreciate how powerful and insidious the American Communist Party was in the Red Decade of the 1930s and well into the 1940s.  In his statement Kazan says, “I have no spy stories to tell, because I saw no spies,” but the main reason for that is that spies had no reason to infiltrate his line of work, but subversives certainly did.

“Of all the arts, the cinema is the most important,” is the quote from Vladimir Lenin that Billingsley uses to lead off his Part I.  Consonant with that dictum, burrowing into Hollywood and taking it over was as important to Stalin’s Communist Party as controlling the docks was to the mob in On the Waterfront.  And it was very successful.  Contrary to the popular notion we might have now that one was taking great risks for his ideals to be a Communist, at the height of the party’s influence, it was actually a career advantage in Hollywood:

For the cinema revolutionaries, wrote Eugene Lyons, Communism was “an intoxicated state of mind, a glow of inner virtue, and a sort of comradeship in super-charity,” a way for the wealthy to posture as proletarian wage slaves.  On the other hand, the Party triumphalist mind-set, the notion that they automatically write better screenplays and belonged to the victorious army of the future, led some to use ideology as a substitute for talent or even effort.  According to Louis Berg, longtime Hollywood journalist Max Youngstein of Universal circulated a memo informing all personnel that being a Communist was no longer sufficient reason to be employed there, and that doing a bit of work would also be required.

Former Communist screenwriter Roy Huggins says that there were a number of “awful writers” who wouldn’t have worked without their politics.  For this type of person, Huggins said, becoming a member of the Communist Party “was just another way of being Sammy Glick,” the hero of Budd Schulberg’s novel, What Makes Sammy Run? (Billingsley, pp. 58-59)

Misplaced Indignation

When it comes to the Hollywood blacklist, nothing could be clearer than that no finger of blame should be pointed in the direction of the great director, Elia Kazan.  Contrary to a popular belief that is perpetuated by people who are at odds with the truth, the blacklist had nothing to do with the junior senator from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy.  The blacklist was begun by the major studio heads in 1947.  That was the year Senator McCarthy took office.  He exhibited no public interest in the Communist subversion issue until he made his famous speech in 1950 in Wheeling, West Virginia, about Communists in the State Department.  Throughout his investigations, his entire focus and that of his committee staff was on Communists in the federal government.  He never had anything to do with Communists in Hollywood.  Inquiries into that subject originated with the House Un-American Activities Committee.  HUAC was formed in 1938, and its original concern was with Nazi subversion.  Under Chairman Martin Dies, Democrat of Texas, it could not help discovering, though, that Communist subversion was a far bigger problem.

As Billingsley in his book makes abundantly clear, HUAC’s interest in Communist infiltration of Hollywood was hardly an idle one.  There was ample reason for their interest.  The Hollywood blacklist began with the denial of film industry employment to the members of the industry, known popularly as the Hollywood Ten, who refused to cooperate with the committee in October of 1947.

It is wrong to point the finger of blame at HUAC, though.  Perhaps it is a novel idea these days that the United States Congress should show public concern over the subversion of American institutions by a foreign country, whether the subversion be of the government or the opinion-molding industry, but that is precisely what the HUAC inquiries were about.  HUAC was not responsible for the Hollywood blacklist, though.  That was entirely the work of the heads of the major studios, who had a vise-like grip on employment in Hollywood at that time. Seeing how the molders of public opinion have come to characterize everything concerning Communists and Hollywood as just the manifestation of paranoia by grandstanding politicians, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Hollywood moguls’ blacklist was nothing but a ploy.

Like the Soviets, who airbrushed Trotsky and other foes of Stalin out of official photographs, the Hollywood Party replaced fact with legend.  The Communist Party and its involvement with Hollywood was simply left out.  The story only begins when the Committee, a group of black-hatted inquisitors, rides into town tarring anything that moves with a red brush, persecuting noble idealists, censoring artists, and launching the “dark epoch” of the blacklist, part of the “McCarthy era.”  That template, plus the appealing plot of [Dalton] Trumbo, [Michael] Wilson, and others who duped the studios by working through fronts, simply overrode the long and complicated story of the Communist Party’s cultural offensive, the front groups, and the studio labor conflicts.

As for “the industry,” it was not up to admitting that it had played the role of what Lenin called “useful idiots,” duped and bilked by militant Communists.  Though it was the industry, not the government, that blacklisted writers and performers, the blacklist legend allowed the studios to pose as victims themselves, a cover-up too intoxicating to pass up. (Billingsley, pp. 272-273)

Had the movie moguls been really sincere in their newfound anti-Communism we would have seen them producing at least an occasional movie that reveals the truth about the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and afterward.  More than half a century has passed and we have not yet seen anything out of Hollywood that might counteract the impression they left with 1940s movies like Mission to Moscow, Song of Russia, and The North Star.  That has certainly not been for lack of good potential dramatic material.  Solzhenitsyn alone, we know, has stories galore, but there have been lots of others like Eugenia Ginzburg’s Journey into the Whirlwind or the sad stories of Americans in the Soviet Union like Thomas Sgovio, Victor Herman,* or Robert Robinson, whom we mention in our recent review of The Forsaken.  While Hollywood never seems to tire of movies that vilify the Nazis and, more recently, the Arabs and the Muslims, it is yet to produce anything about the Soviet bloc that begins to compare to the French movie, Est-Ouest (East-West), or the German movie, Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others).

Rather, Hollywood still seems to prefer to romanticize Communism with movies like The Way We Were and Reds and to save its greatest opprobrium for those who called attention to the Communist subversion and infiltration problem.  The most recent example of the latter that comes to mind is George Clooney’s Good Night and Good Luck. 

Sen Joe McCarthy

This negative focus upon the Hollywood blacklist in the one instance and upon Senator Joe McCarthy in the other suggests that what we are seeing in action here in both cases is nothing less than the thirteenth of the Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression.  Our opinion molders have successfully changed the subject by creating a distraction.  So now, just as the story of Hollywood subversion by Communists begins with HUAC, the story that M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein recount with their new book Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government, as far as the dominant creators of national opinion are concerned, begins with Senator McCarthy’s presumed overly vigorous inquiries into that highly successful subversion.

There is ample reason to feel a sense of indignation at this whole sorry episode of American history.  If it must be directed at one particular American, it should be at the person responsible for consciously allowing Stalin’s subversion to go as far as it did.  Our previous writings have amply demonstrated who that person is.  His profile can be found on the dime, and he is currently being worshipfully portrayed by Asner in a one-man show.

________________________________________________________________________________

*CBS did air a rather poorly done movie version of Herman’s tragic but inspiring epic, Coming out of the Ice, in 1982.

David Martin

March 19, 2013

Gaslighting

Gaslighting

Posted: Jan,06 2013

Compiled by : Cassperssoapbox

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory, perception and sanity.Instances may range simply from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

Ingrid Bergman in the 1944 film Gaslight

The term “gaslighting” comes from the play Gas Light and its film adaptations. The term is now also used in clinical and research literature.

Comment: This kind of psychological abuse is in the newspapers daily. Ever notice how some of the mainstream stories are completely absurd, such as “gun owners are racist?” Other forms are pronouncements from DHS “Department of Home Land Security” and TSA “Transportation Security Administration” regarding their foolish view of the public in general saying their physical and psychological tyranny is to “keep you safe.” That is a glaring lie. There are so many statements like this you do not have to go very far, and pull out your red marker giving an F grade to these MSM, “Main Stream Media” government and sometimes shill website people.

They are Gaslighting the public with lies and nonsense, to break our will, to make us doubt ourselves. Too many fund raising and alarmist statements from the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center order non issues in this way. Our US government seems to take it as their bona fide source on too numerous occasions. Look at almost anything on any subject, from GMO crops to the latest war while detecting the lies and reading it very critically. You are not going crazy, but the news media is trying to drive you crazy.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
~Voltaire [French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)]

The atrocity all too often is going along with it by lending your support to it.
Our free press seems to be gone when there is no debate and critical thinking, only empty snippets and slogans. It is up to us to supply in our own studies what may have been once that free press.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe.”

~ Thomas Jefferson.

Learn more : Link Wikipedia .

Also see :Google/Gaslighting

Censorship of dissenting views as a means of pushing an agenda. the truth does not matter and seems true that perspective is lost to the spirit of the chase. Ignorance may be bliss until what has been lost in the fog of perceived righteous indignation bears fruit for those who would enslave us all. Do not forget the lessons that were not hidden in plain sight. For those simple truths hold the answer to our salvation. It’s a sad state of affairs when humans have no choice but to seek information from the grey area on either side of the line between fiction and non-fiction, because once-legitimate sources of information such as mainstream news have become so perverted that they are no longer relevant to human society. However, like it or not, that is the world we all currently live in.

Spielberg’s Hoax – The Last Days of The Big Lie

Spielberg’s Hoax – The Last Days of The Big Lie

The Last Days of the Big Lie is a documentary which debunks the disgusting liars glorified as heroes and victims in the Steven Spielberg produced, Academy Award winning “Holocaust” documentary The Last Days.

The Last Days of the Big Lie uses Spielberg’s Oscar winning hoax as a jumping off point to debunk Spielberg’s USC Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation as well as the greater Holocaust Hoax.

Created by Eric Hunt,
HolocaustDenier.com

Fox News Sex Surrogates and their Zombiefied Customers

Fox News Sex Surrogates and their Zombiefied Customers

Original Article by Greg at The Goon Squad (Where Brains are Tenderly Washed, Disinfected and Made Usable Again):

http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2013/02/fox-news-sex-surrogates-and-their.html

Fox News Viewers are the Most Misinformed: A Seventh Study Arrives to Prove It — and Vindicate Jon Stewart!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/11/22/374434/fox-news-viewers-misinformed-study-jon-stewart/

Fox News Makes Stupid People:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/left-rejoices-as-poll-of-612-new-jerseyans-declares-fox-news-makes-people-stupid/

Turn Off Fox:

http://www.turnofffox.org/

Block Murdoch:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/murdoch-block/moepiacmhnmbiilhpojodnaopndhddpg

Video and narration by BuelahMan

http://buelahman.wordpress.com/

The Definition of a Parasite

Adapted from Greg’s work at the Goon Squad.

B’Man’s Rights Watch: Unraveling The Net

Image by Khalil Bendib (http://www.otherwords.org/media/safety_net)

The Sheople’s Church Of The Immaculate Voting Booth: The Gospel According To Government

Why Are Jews Persecuted?

Adapted from Jayne Gardner’s article at rense.com, entitled “Why Are Jews Persecuted?“

http://rense.com/general80/whj.htm

Most images sourced from Brother Nathanael’s Real Jew News:

http://www.realjewnews.com/

Narrated by B’Man

The Grand Bargain IS Paulsterity

Image found at http://geniusofinsanityworld.blogspot.com/2012/05/spending-vs-austerity.html

I have warned you multiple times about Paulsterity. I told you that it didn’t matter whether or not it was Ron Paul or Paul Ryan’s plan, or whether or not the liar-in-chief, Obama, wins another term, Austerity is coming. I have warned you that it doesn’t matter which of the two complicit duopolistic parties win, the end result will be hurting poor folks at the expense of the rich getting richer (why do you think they give all this money to the elections in the first place: because they “love America”?).

Morons.

Image found at http://contemporarycondition.blogspot.com/2012/03/science-and-ethics-of-austerity-lessons.html

They give all that money because they want something in return. They want to control the money (and control it right into their own pockets). They will do so by attacking the social network while NOW is the time to keep their greedy fingers off of it. Now, the worst financial situation this country has ever found herself in is a result of privatization which simply makes those who can afford to buy even richer at your expense.

I mentioned a friend’s unwavering dedication to Romney and the Republicans, mainly because he thinks Obama is a communist and Romney is a Capitalist (indicating that he would be better than Obama). I insisted that on the issues that matter, disregarding the propaganda of Rush Limbaugh (he did use him as an example), they are the same, and that they are both bad for this country.

In a passing comment about Romney vs Obama, I wrote:

As for preferring Romney over Obama… one is just as evil as the other. Both are corrupt, as are both parties. Both serve Israel’s interests (Romney will probably be much worse than Obama, as a matter of fact).

To me, my concern isn’t about which person or party wins, for we all lose with either one.

He countered:

Sorry B’Man, can’t agree with much of what you say below. Your belief that Romney and Obama are the same is simply wrong, and I’m very sad that you think this way. Obama is a communist, plain and simple, and his communist roots and education are plain for all to see. Romney is a successful capitalist and a decent man. Are saying communism is morally equal to capitalism? If so, you couldn’t be more wrong and I would hardly know where to start in convincing you otherwise. How about this: Do you want this country to look like Cuba, Russia, or China?

You see, he immediately went for at least one of the Seventeen Techniques For Truth Suppression.

I had to explain, again, that the system is corrupt (I used the word “evil”) and had to bring out my tired old motto:

My motto is “Ne’er an R or D Again”.

The two party paradigm has grabbed you. I am sorry that you don’t understand what I’m saying. You have lived much longer than I and surely have experienced the ping pong effect. One election year is the lesser of two evils. The next election year, it is the other lesser of two evils. I assume you understand evil. Evil is evil. Period.

The debates are controlled by those two parties. Big Money controls both parties. It is obvious simply by following where they put their money in each election cycle (Opensecrets.org).

Obama is evil. Romney is evil. The system is evil.

And this is the mindset that keeps us in bondage to Big Money. An undying allegiance to one of the two dominating evil parties. A lack of discernment, both politically and spiritually. A trust in one’s favorite “lesser of two evils” and the total abandonment of sanity and/or clear thinking. A purposeful dedication to an evil, corrupt system that is blatantly obvious to any open-minded, sane person.

DCDave sent me a link this morning to The Activist Post (I have been a long time subscriber to their site and must have forgotten this comparison of the two evil, lying characters running for POTUS. They write that there are “40 Points That Prove That Barack Obama and Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate‘:

1. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported TARP.

2. Mitt Romney supported Barack Obama’s “economic stimulus” packages.

3. Mitt Romney says that Barack Obama’s bailout of the auto industry was actually his idea.

4. Neither candidate supports immediately balancing the federal budget.

5. They both believe in big government and they both have a track record of being big spenders while in office.

6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both fully support the Federal Reserve.

7. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are both on record as saying that the president should not question the “independence” of the Federal Reserve.

8. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both said that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did a good job during the last financial crisis.

9. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both felt that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke deserved to be renominated to a second term.

10. Both candidates oppose a full audit of the Federal Reserve.

11. Both candidates are on record as saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has done a good job.

12. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both been big promoters of universal health care.

13. Mitt Romney was the one who developed the plan that Obamacare was later based upon.

14. Wall Street absolutely showers both candidates with campaign contributions.

15. Neither candidate wants to eliminate the income tax or the IRS.

16. Both candidates want to keep personal income tax rates at the exact same levels for the vast majority of Americans.

17. Both candidates are “open” to the idea of imposing a Value Added Tax on the American people.

18. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the TSA is doing a great job.

19. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the NDAA.

20. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both supported the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act.

21. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the federal government should be able to indefinitely detain American citizens that are considered to be terrorists.

22. Both candidates believe that American citizens suspected of being terrorists can be killed by the president without a trial.

23. Barack Obama has not closed Guantanamo Bay like he promised to do, and Mitt Romney actually wants to double the number of prisoners held there.

24. Both candidates support the practice of “extraordinary rendition”.

25. They both support the job-killing “free trade” agenda of the global elite.

26. They both accuse each other of shipping jobs out of the country and both of them are right.

27. Both candidates are extremely soft on illegal immigration.

28. Neither candidate has any military experience. This is the first time that this has happened in a U.S. election since 1944.

29. Both candidates earned a degree from Harvard University.

30. They both believe in the theory of man-made global warming.

31. Mitt Romney has said that he will support a “cap and trade” carbon tax scheme (like the one Barack Obama wants) as long as the entire globe goes along with it.

32. Both candidates have a very long record of supporting strict gun control measures.

33. Both candidates have been pro-abortion most of their careers. Mitt Romney’s “conversion” to the pro-life cause has been questioned by many. In fact, Mitt Romney has made millions on Bain Capital’s investment in a company called “Stericycle” that incinerates aborted babies collected from family planning clinics.

34. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both believe that the Boy Scout ban on openly gay troop leaders is wrong.

35. They both believe that a “two state solution” will bring lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israel.

36. Both candidates have a history of nominating extremely liberal judges.

37. Like Barack Obama, Mitt Romney also plans to add “signing statements” to bills when he signs them into law.

38. They both have a horrible record when it comes to job creation.

39. Both candidates believe that the president has the power to take the country to war without getting the approval of the U.S. Congress.

40. Both candidates plan to continue running up more government debt even though the U.S. government is already 16 trillion dollars in debt.

I am not saying that I agree with every point (for instance, I don’t see number 12 being correct… neither want “universal healthcare”, what they want is to privatize the system and continue feeding the beast that is draining the system, Health Insurance… NOT the same thing. Nor is ObamaCare “universal healthcare”… #13). But, by and large, most are an accurate comparison.

It truly boils down to Big Money and austerity measures to keep afloat the very ones that have wrecked our economy, at YOUR and my (and our children for generations to come) expense. They truly desire to create a third world country where the few ultra-rich dominate the millions of us poor folk.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Paulsterity (Paul Ryan’s Plan).

A vote for Obama is also Paulsterity (or the Great Bargain).

The insanity (or stupid allegiance, whatever) to continuing the support of either “Party” or the bought and paid for candidates that the bogus media has brainwashed you with, is not only horrific for me and my family, but it is equally bad for your family. Its time you get your heads out of your butts and see what’s going on.

One could simply not vote (and if enough were to stay away, in protest, perhaps it would send a message). But there is another way, if enough people got on board, and that is to vote for ANYONE else that is unassociated with an R or D (reTHUGlican or demoRAT).

A poster promoting the virtues of austerity. But who really benefits? Photo: Flickr Creative Commons

There are some third party or independent candidates running, personally, I am voting for Merlin Miller (will write him in, if he is not on the ballot). At least he is not afraid to call out the best reason we are falling apart as a country.

At least then, we would easily be able to see the obvious election manipulation that will permeate the corrupt voting machines as Dr Paul Craig Roberts highlights in today’s post at his site.

You will finally recognize that next year, when they cut your Social Security, Food Stamps, Medicare/Medicaid… when you see the poor people begin to starve and/or get sick and die because you didn’t have the sense or discernment to see what is obviously coming… when you will be the one that suffers burdens to take care of your elderly mother, because they are taking away the safety net that all of us poor rednecks have piad for all of our lives… when they complete the cycle of theft, by taking your savings because there is no interest paid on the meager money you do have left… when the final condition will be them taking your home because you cannot afford the taxes…

THEN and only then will the brain-dead, political sycophantic fools FINALLY realize that dumb ole redneck, B’Man, warned you to the best of his ability.

But then it will be too late.

Morons.

h/t DCDave, The Real News, Paul Craig Roberts, and Activist Post

“The Establishment’s Contempt For The Truth” Finally Gets Some Big Media Illumination

My friend, Mike Campbell, has been working for nearly a quarter century to tell people the real truth about the death of Amelia Earhart and her navigator, Fred Noonan. I have tried to help with this itty bitty blog by highlighting the story, DCDave’s review, and Mike’s insistence that very large publications get the story right.

Thomas Devine

Don’t think the man hasn’t done his homework, either. He has interviewed many US Military veterans who testified that they saw the plane long after the official story says it was lost. He has spent countless hours with other researchers and authors, combing through files and correspondence, finding discrepancies with the official story, and working to write two books on the subject.

His first was “With Our Own Eyes: Eyewitnesses to the Final Days of Amelia Earhart,” written in 2002, but subsequently after years of research with Earhart author and Saipan eyewitness Thomas Devine (Eyewitness: The Amelia Earhart Incident) searching through hundreds of files left by the deceased iconic newsman Fred Goerner (The Search for Amelia Earhart) and many others, he was privy to additional information that led to his second book, “Amelia Earhart: The Truth At Last“.  I happen to be reading the book right now and it is an amazing page turner that had me hooked immediately.

He begins the book by explaining the “official story,” with acute details I never knew and then gets

Fred Goerner

into the eye-witness testimony of people who claimed they saw the Earhart plane on Saipan. You can hear several of the witnesses in videos I shared here. One key witness certainly isn’t a nobody: Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, American naval forces commander in the Pacific during World War II, said that “Earhart and her companion did go down in the Marshalls and were picked up by the Japanese.”

These people knew what they saw and were frustrated that very few are telling the whole truth.

Mike is trying to make amends to this and hasn’t gotten much help from Big Media, until now, if one can categorize the Knoxville News Sentinel as “big media.”

The Knoxville News Sentinel, with a daily circulation of 123,000 has featured two prominent stories that you should read and share, if possible. The best is by Joel Freedman, entitled, “Campbell’s Book Shatters Earhart Disappearance Theories” and the second is by Melissa Priode, called, “Knoxville Man Works 24 Years To Reveal ‘Truth’ About Earhart’s Disappearance” (notice how “Truth” is set off in quotations, as if to avoid responsibility for the use of this word in a headline, because it might be a conspiracy).

No matter what, the book is excellent and a Must Read, as far as I am concerned, and as far as truth is concerned.

So Close, But Never Seem To Get To The Finish Line

I subscribe to several bloggers, videographers, news sources, etc (some I agree with and some I don’t) and my Reader gets about 500 entries or more per day. I generally scan through them and when one catches my attention, I sometimes make note and/or it instigates a thought process or reconstitutes my current thinking, giving me clarity. This is how I come to my ways of thinking and therefore gives me ideas for new posts. Many times, I will draft my thoughts, and that draft will stay in the draft folder for months at a time before I post on it.

I have said a few times that many of these people I follow seem to get close to naming the problem, but always fall a bit short. They use innocuous names and ideas, when the truth is blatant and obvious. Too many feel the need to stay politically correct and not call out the real perpetrators, so they use terminology that is watered down. Many others, who are thinkers and provide excellent information in certain correct realms, seem to stop short at getting to the real issue. I try to figure out if they are truthful and just ignorant or are disinformation specialists. This is a difficult differentiation.

I have seen a couple of videos recently where these types get close, but miss the cigar.

Now think about who he names and their affiliation to a certain group. But he won’t quite say it, will he? Why is that?

Here is another. This man has put out an extensive amount of work and in most cases, I find little I disagree with. But, the closer he gets to naming the evil, he ALWAYS falls short (why, I don’t know for sure):

The art of debunking only goes so far, apparently. I’ve addressed this before, but how can someone spend so much time explaining how history is generally a lie with a purpose to mislead us, use sources from the History Channel, then ignore one of that channel’s biggest draws, all the Nazi Germany stuff? How is it possible that virtually everything about the official American history is fraught with lies and distortions, yet they cannot look into the biggest hoax (and reason behind it) that we have ever been brainwashed into believing? Why cannot these smart people make the obvious leap in logic on this ONE subject, when they can on every other?

Here is a written example at the Economic Collapse Blog where they skirt all around the issue, but fail to connect dots?

One of the fundamental problems with our current financial system is that it is based on debt.  Just take a look at the United States.  The way our system works today, the vast majority of all money is “created” either when we borrow money or the government borrows money.  Therefore, the creation of more money creates more debt.  Under such a system, it should not be surprising that the total amount of debt in the United States is more than 30 times larger than it was just 40 years ago…

…

Why should banks be allowed to create money?

That is a very good question.

Why should sovereign governments ever have to borrow money from anyone?

That is another very good question.

Our current system is designed to enrich the bankers and get everyone else into debt.

And is that not exactly what has happened?

…

So why don’t we go to such a system immediately?

Well, the transition to such a system would undoubtedly be a major shock to the global financial system, and most people try to avoid significant short-term pain even if there are tremendous long-term benefits.

More importantly, however, is that the bankers have a tremendous amount of power in our society today, and they would move heaven and earth to keep a debt-free monetary system from ever being implemented.

Who runs those banks? Who invented debt based money (Usury)? Who controls every aspect of the monetary system? Who controls almost every aspect of corporation control and manipulation? Who controls every bit of print and video media, besides the alternative media (and obviously, a good bit of that is controlled by the same people, as well… Alex Jones being an example)?

Do you think that these monsters will ever give up their control? Why doesn’t that blog ask the obvious question or at least elude to the ones who invented the system, perpetuate it, and now have such a stronghold that they will NEVER give it up?

The Video Rebel doesn’t mind saying it (or is very close and his previous posts never held back).

On 9-11-2012 the Israelis working in conjunction with their Saudi allies attacked the American consulate in Benghazi killing the US ambassador Chris Stevens and others. As I have said before, the Saudi royal family were installed by His Majesty’s Jewish government. They are descendants of Sabbatean Jews which is to say they were Satanists as are most of Israel’s leaders.

Louis Farrakhan will say it (or something close). He keeps talking about Israel, but we know what that means. We know that it is a “Jewish State”.

But here is one that is not afraid to name it out right (and I appreciate it very much):

h/t BrassCheckTV, JohnFriendsBlog, The Economic Collapse Blog, and The Activist Post

Not A “Shred Of Hard Evidence”???

Image found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AE-Fred.jpg

I push for knowing the real truth regarding all of America’s false history (the “history” based upon ignorance, misdirection and/or outright lies). I have mentioned to anyone listening that most of what we are told is downright false, or uses slithers of truth, but poisoned with lies with an intent to mislead you and form an “official” belief paradigm in your brain. It is a strong draw for all of us to want to believe, but after so many lies, one has to start acknowledging that they are LIARS. Their overall purpose is still debatable, but it does become evident to someone truly seeking and not simply gullible enough to believe what the TV and major publications tell us.

I featured a review of Mike Campbell’s book (by DCDave), “Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last” in August (the book can be purchased via links found at Mike’s site). The review is excellent and does a good job synopsizing the story, including accounts from those who saw Earhart and Noonan at Saipan.

What is disturbing is that certain publications, TV programs, etc seem intent upon ignoring these revelations and have no real desire to look into these first hand accounts.

So, what to do? You do what Mike did. Write a letter to the publication, again informing them of their ignorance (or purposeful avoidance). I want to help Mike illuminate this, for there are significant conclusions that one must come to, once they understand why there is a cover-up.

Mike’s letter:

To:  Appropriate Editor at American Heritage Magazine and Tom D. Crouch, regarding Mr. Crouch’s  Summer 2012 article about Amelia Earhart and TIGHAR

I’ve just been informed about Tom Crouch’s Summer 2012 article about Amelia Earhart in American Heritage, and read it with mounting disgust. Once again, American Heritage and Tom Crouch, senior Smithsonian Air and Space curator, have teamed up to write almost exactly the same article they put out in 2007 for the 70th anniversary of AE’s loss. The piece is an extensive discussion of TIGHAR’s vapid, worn-out theory, albeit with a passing mention of the possibility that Gillespie might be wrong, because “most researchers agree that AE crashed and sank near Howland Island” or something similarly inane.  Mr. Crouch’s piece was probably written before the late June 2012 publication of my new book, Amelia Earhart: The Truth at Last, which presents the most comprehensive case ever for the presence and death of Amelia Earhart and Fred  Noonan on Saipan, but that has little or nothing to do with Mr. Crouch or American Heritage‘s aversion to the truth in the Earhart case.

As professional historians, it’s  impossible to imagine that Mr. Crouch and the editors at American Heritage are unaware of the mountains of evidence that place Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan on Saipan. Thousands, if not millions of murderers have gone to their executions based on the tiniest fraction of the witness testimony that’s been given by many that places Earhart and Noonan on Saipan. Even if you reject this overwhelming evidence, can you honestly claim that Mr. Crouch’s piece is a fair treatment of the massive evidence gathered over many decades by researchers such as Fred Goerner, Joe Gervais, Tom Devine, Vincent V. Loomis, Oliver Knaggs, Bill Prymak and others? Of course not. Something else is afoot here, driven by the same abject motivations that have informed the government-media establishment’s policy of complete denial of the truth in the Earhart disappearance from the beginning — protecting FDR’s reputation and their own longtime investments in the TIGHAR and crash-and-sank deceptions being prominent among them. Can anyone who is remotely informed doubt that the U.S. government and its media toadies, of which American Heritage is in the vanguard, are still engaged in the willful and purposeful suppression of the truth?

I dissected Mr. Crouch’s 2007 piece line by line in the final chapter of my book, and clearly exposed his assertions as pure U.S. government-issue poppycock. (Due to the media’s complete refusal to acknowledge the existence of my book, Mr. Crouch and American Heritage may also be unaware of  it. In that case I have attached the section of its last chapter that addresses Mr. Crouch’s 2007 article, as well as the following section, which addresses Gillespie’s fantasies). Now, in his 2012 repeat of the same nonsense, over several pages of propaganda, ostensibly covering the gamut of ideas about AE’s fate, Mr. Crouch could manage only the following about Saipan, far less than even in 2007, when he at least mentioned Devine’s work, although inaccurately and dismissively. Note the prominent use of the tainted word “conspiracy” in his reference:

“What are we to make of all the conspiracy theories? Is there a small flame of truth flickering somewhere beneath all that smoke? Most likely not. In three-quarters of a century of looking, no researcher has produced a shred of hard evidence to suggest that Earhart and Noonan were either spies or prisoners of the Japanese.”

Not “a shred,” insists Mr. Crouch, How can he so blithely ignore the hundreds of freely given and honest accounts of witnesses in the Marshalls and Saipan, GI veterans of Saipan, and three flag officer statements to Fred Goerner that Earhart died on Saipan, and much more? Quite easily, apparently, if he — and you — have an agenda of complete denial of the truth and suppression of the facts.

American Heritage needs to be reminded that their readership is not totally populated by morons and lemmings, so I hope this brief letter will at least accomplish that modest goal. I also know that American Heritage does not possess the integrity or intellectual honesty to publish this letter, but I’ll make sure I inform as many as I can about the continuing Earhart travesty and your role in perpetuating it.

Mike Campbell

Knoxville, Tenn.

www.Earharttruth.com

All The News Fit To Print (or watch)… As Long As It Has A Strong Jewish Imprint

What, B’Man??? You anti-Semite!!!! (As if I could care that you call me that)

Tell you what, prove the man wrong. Show me that Jews don’t control the media (or STFU). How ’bout that?

h/t ZionCrimeFactory