Nothing on planet Earth incites pure rage inside me than when I see a White woman with a non white male. I am filled with a variety of emotions, sadness, despair but these are so totally overshadowed by the anger that there is no room to even consciously assess the rest.
So when Flanders sent this video (with a disclaimer) a while ago I nearly went into outer space.
When I think of Sweden I think of beautiful blonde women who have been preserved for thousands of years and who are a great testament to White racial purity.
If the jew hates anything it is White racial purity and as you can see by this clip they promote all manner of degenerate filth in order to destroy the White race. This isn't a joke, this isn't some blogger making a big deal out of nothing, this is the sad reality of the condition of White Western Civilization. Where what would be an attractive blonde sings the Swedish National Anthem while engaging in (hopefully) mock intercourse with a dumbass nigger.
My anger isn't wasted though, my resolve is only strengthened and I am given a harsh reminder of why I spend time writing.
Psa 139:19 Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
Psa 139:20 For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
Psa 139:21 Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
Psa 139:22 I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
Psa 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
Psa 139:24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
Showing posts with label Hook Nosed Rats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hook Nosed Rats. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Elie Wiesel Holocaust Winner
Wow, truth on fox news!
This Holocaust ™ is a winner for all of them, whoever devised this tale I'm sure is a hero to these rats. It allowed them to steal land murdering millions in the process, get reparations for all of their people, get billions of dollars worth of TV, movie and book deals, allowed them to "win" the most prestigious awards and anytime someone speaks out against their myriad of crimes against the entire planet they can just say "oy vey a nazi holocaust denier" and the dumbass sheeple consider this to be the worst crime ever.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Vains Of Jenna - The Art Of Telling Lies
From the first time I heard and especially saw Vains Of Jenna
a few years ago I was a fan. To me they are the best band to come out in the last 20 years. (not that that means too much since most new bands were nothing but worthless fads) When their newest album came out, The Art Of Telling Lies, I listened to it immediately and was not disappointed. Then I came to the final track, the title track The Art Of Telling Lies. Perhaps I am reading to much into it since I am a fan and want my assessment to hold some validity and I know that songs mean different things to different people and that musicians very often write the most ambiguous lyrics probably for that purpose.
So here is the song, with the lyrics underneath and I will write my interpretation in red.
This can’t go on
The madness that’s programmed in our minds (Programmed by years of jewish brainwashing everywhere you turn, TV, movies, textbooks)
All the time
History just keeps repeatin’
I’m sick and tired cause no ones takes the blame (Jews come in rape a society, then move on to the next host all while playing the poor oppressed jew card)
It’s so frustrating (Indeed it is)
Stand up and face what they have done
The strength is deep inside
It’s time to change what’s now become
The Art Of Telling Lies (At this point jews have perfected brainwashing and propaganda and people in this age group (20's) are waking up to this reality)
Don’t be afraid
Life can’t get much worse for us today (You spend 10's of thousands of dollars on school and can't even get a job, gas is 3x what it was 10 years ago house prices are still 3x what they were 10 years ago yet the money you make if you do have a job is the same as it was 10 years ago.
In every way
Blow up all your daily routines
And question every word you hear them say (Turn off the TV, the controlled books, and wake up to the reality, turn off talk radio and get your news from non controlled websites)
It’s all disgusting
Stand up and face what they have done
The strength is deep inside
It’s time to change what’s now become
The Art Of Telling Lies
Devil heads in dirty suits
Dissect the world that’s blinded to our eyes (Jews dissect and divvy up the wealth of entire nations that they drive to the brink of bankruptcy and what's more these kikes get bailed out by We The People, but it's blinded to us because they create our reality.)
Mislead by the choices made
Their broken trust has left us here behind (They tell you to go to the rat race be a good citizen don't question authority. But what has it gotten us? Tyranny and a raping of the people by the jewish bankers. So now we are left in a country to live in poverty while they pack up and head to the next host)
Puppeteers with promises
Speak empty words and tainted evil lies (The media, the politicians, the teachers lie, they lie everyday to keep you under control so that you don't go looking for the man behind the curtain, they want you to be a doubleplus good citizen)
Justify what’s good for them
They rape our souls and leave us here to die (They have no conscience, they rape our very way of life and they start by destroying the one thing that will in time be their undoing True Christianity, when this falls or become subverted everything else is like dominos, the family, homosexuality and all manner of degenerate filth becomes rampant, and THEY leave US here)
So you might be saying, "well isn't this type of music glamorizing a non productive lifestyle, how could this possibly mean what you think it means"
Well shortly after this albums release the song writer and lead singer left the band to marry his girlfriend and leave the jew dominated entertainment industry behind. His career was beginning to take off, and he was young only mid 20's. I see no other reason for his departure. In interviews he has stated that this was the only song that he had in mind when they went to record the album. I think he wanted to put these lyrics down and immortalize them.
For that reason, and going on my own personal hope I post them here now.
a few years ago I was a fan. To me they are the best band to come out in the last 20 years. (not that that means too much since most new bands were nothing but worthless fads) When their newest album came out, The Art Of Telling Lies, I listened to it immediately and was not disappointed. Then I came to the final track, the title track The Art Of Telling Lies. Perhaps I am reading to much into it since I am a fan and want my assessment to hold some validity and I know that songs mean different things to different people and that musicians very often write the most ambiguous lyrics probably for that purpose.So here is the song, with the lyrics underneath and I will write my interpretation in red.
This can’t go on
The madness that’s programmed in our minds (Programmed by years of jewish brainwashing everywhere you turn, TV, movies, textbooks)
All the time
History just keeps repeatin’
I’m sick and tired cause no ones takes the blame (Jews come in rape a society, then move on to the next host all while playing the poor oppressed jew card)
It’s so frustrating (Indeed it is)
Stand up and face what they have done
The strength is deep inside
It’s time to change what’s now become
The Art Of Telling Lies (At this point jews have perfected brainwashing and propaganda and people in this age group (20's) are waking up to this reality)
Don’t be afraid
Life can’t get much worse for us today (You spend 10's of thousands of dollars on school and can't even get a job, gas is 3x what it was 10 years ago house prices are still 3x what they were 10 years ago yet the money you make if you do have a job is the same as it was 10 years ago.
In every way
Blow up all your daily routines
And question every word you hear them say (Turn off the TV, the controlled books, and wake up to the reality, turn off talk radio and get your news from non controlled websites)
It’s all disgusting
Stand up and face what they have done
The strength is deep inside
It’s time to change what’s now become
The Art Of Telling Lies
Devil heads in dirty suits
Dissect the world that’s blinded to our eyes (Jews dissect and divvy up the wealth of entire nations that they drive to the brink of bankruptcy and what's more these kikes get bailed out by We The People, but it's blinded to us because they create our reality.)
Mislead by the choices made
Their broken trust has left us here behind (They tell you to go to the rat race be a good citizen don't question authority. But what has it gotten us? Tyranny and a raping of the people by the jewish bankers. So now we are left in a country to live in poverty while they pack up and head to the next host)
Puppeteers with promises
Speak empty words and tainted evil lies (The media, the politicians, the teachers lie, they lie everyday to keep you under control so that you don't go looking for the man behind the curtain, they want you to be a doubleplus good citizen)
Justify what’s good for them
They rape our souls and leave us here to die (They have no conscience, they rape our very way of life and they start by destroying the one thing that will in time be their undoing True Christianity, when this falls or become subverted everything else is like dominos, the family, homosexuality and all manner of degenerate filth becomes rampant, and THEY leave US here)
So you might be saying, "well isn't this type of music glamorizing a non productive lifestyle, how could this possibly mean what you think it means"
Well shortly after this albums release the song writer and lead singer left the band to marry his girlfriend and leave the jew dominated entertainment industry behind. His career was beginning to take off, and he was young only mid 20's. I see no other reason for his departure. In interviews he has stated that this was the only song that he had in mind when they went to record the album. I think he wanted to put these lyrics down and immortalize them.
For that reason, and going on my own personal hope I post them here now.
Time Magazine Paints An Honest Picture Of Kikestan...... In 1952
Was there ever a time when a leading organ of the US media could speak the unvarnished truth about the links between the United States and Israel?
Consider this quote from Time magazine of January 1952, embedded in an article that explained its choice of Mohammed Mossadegh as its Person of the Year for 1951. It had no compliments for Mossadegh, the man who was spearheading his country’s bid to take back its oil resources from the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. No surprise there.
Surprising, however, is Time’s candor on Israel. It minces no words. US support for the creation of Israel had alienated the Middle East: it had been a costly error, motivated not by national interest but petty considerations of presidential politics. Truman had supported the creation of Israel in order to court American Jewish votes. This was the plain truth: a US President had placed his electoral chances ahead of a vital national interest. Apparently, in those days, Time could write the plain truth without worrying about the tide of flak from the American Jewish community.
Here is the quote, with italics added for emphasis:
The word “American” no longer has a good sound in that part of the world [the Middle East]. To catch the Jewish vote in the U.S., President Truman in 1946 demanded that the British admit 100,000 Jewish refugees to Palestine, in violation of British promises to the Arabs. Since then, the Arab nations surrounding Israel have regarded that state as a U.S. creation, and the U.S., therefore, as an enemy. The Israeli-Arab war created nearly a million Arab refugees, who have been huddled for three years in wretched camps. These refugees, for whom neither the U.S. nor Israel will take the slightest responsibility, keep alive the hatred of U.S. perfidy.
No enmity for the Arabs, no selfish national design motivated the clumsy U.S. support of Israel. The American crime was not to help the Jews, but to help them at the expense of the Arabs. Today, the Arab world fears and expects a further Israeli expansion. The Arabs are well aware that Alben Barkley, Vice President of the U.S., tours his country making speeches for the half-billion-dollar Israeli bond issue, the largest ever offered to the U.S. public. Nobody, they note bitterly, is raising that kind of money for them.
Time does not see Israel as a victim. There is no mention of the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ either. Instead, Israel had been created “at the expense of the Arabs.” It refuses to “take the slightest responsibility” for the million Palestinian refugees. It is also the source of Arab hostility towards the United States.
Missing also is the cant – so common over the past half century – about Arab threats to Israel. Instead, Time speaks of Arab fears of Israel. “Today, the Arab world fears and expects a further Israeli expansion.” Prescient words too.
The true victims are recognized – the Palestinians – and there is sympathy for them too. “The Israeli-Arab war created nearly a million Arab refugees, who have been huddled for three years in wretched camps.” There is obfuscation too: the Arab refugees were created by the Israeli-Arab war. Israeli propaganda had succeeded even at this early date. There is no admission of Israel’s planned ethnic cleansing of Palestinians or the massacres that attended this outrage.
Astonishing too is the spectacle of a US vice-president at this early date campaigning for an Israeli bond issue: like a hired salesman, he tours the country, making speeches to sell Israeli bond worth half a billion dollars. Did Israel raise the full value of the bond issue? It is a neat sum, enough to buy an army the best weapons in those days.
Notable too is the Time’s willingness – unthinkable today – to see the issue from an Arab perspective: how they see the world’s failure to send the refugees back to their homes. “These refugees, for whom neither the U.S. nor Israel will take the slightest responsibility, keep alive the hatred of U.S. perfidy.” It is not often that the US media speaks of “U.S. perfidy.”
Such journalistic candor was not good for Israel. The major Jewish organizations soon flexed their muscle: they organized to police what the US media could write or say about Israel. Their success was devastating. Israeli lies soon commanded unalloyed allegiance of every segment of American media.
Only recently that situation is beginning to change, as Israeli threats to US interests and to world peace become harder to ignore. This shift is tentative, however. Pro-Israeli forces are fighting back: and the few voices critical of Israel could be silenced by any number of events, not least another terrorist attack on US soil.
Consider this quote from Time magazine of January 1952, embedded in an article that explained its choice of Mohammed Mossadegh as its Person of the Year for 1951. It had no compliments for Mossadegh, the man who was spearheading his country’s bid to take back its oil resources from the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. No surprise there.
Surprising, however, is Time’s candor on Israel. It minces no words. US support for the creation of Israel had alienated the Middle East: it had been a costly error, motivated not by national interest but petty considerations of presidential politics. Truman had supported the creation of Israel in order to court American Jewish votes. This was the plain truth: a US President had placed his electoral chances ahead of a vital national interest. Apparently, in those days, Time could write the plain truth without worrying about the tide of flak from the American Jewish community.
Here is the quote, with italics added for emphasis:
The word “American” no longer has a good sound in that part of the world [the Middle East]. To catch the Jewish vote in the U.S., President Truman in 1946 demanded that the British admit 100,000 Jewish refugees to Palestine, in violation of British promises to the Arabs. Since then, the Arab nations surrounding Israel have regarded that state as a U.S. creation, and the U.S., therefore, as an enemy. The Israeli-Arab war created nearly a million Arab refugees, who have been huddled for three years in wretched camps. These refugees, for whom neither the U.S. nor Israel will take the slightest responsibility, keep alive the hatred of U.S. perfidy.
No enmity for the Arabs, no selfish national design motivated the clumsy U.S. support of Israel. The American crime was not to help the Jews, but to help them at the expense of the Arabs. Today, the Arab world fears and expects a further Israeli expansion. The Arabs are well aware that Alben Barkley, Vice President of the U.S., tours his country making speeches for the half-billion-dollar Israeli bond issue, the largest ever offered to the U.S. public. Nobody, they note bitterly, is raising that kind of money for them.
Time does not see Israel as a victim. There is no mention of the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ either. Instead, Israel had been created “at the expense of the Arabs.” It refuses to “take the slightest responsibility” for the million Palestinian refugees. It is also the source of Arab hostility towards the United States.
Missing also is the cant – so common over the past half century – about Arab threats to Israel. Instead, Time speaks of Arab fears of Israel. “Today, the Arab world fears and expects a further Israeli expansion.” Prescient words too.
The true victims are recognized – the Palestinians – and there is sympathy for them too. “The Israeli-Arab war created nearly a million Arab refugees, who have been huddled for three years in wretched camps.” There is obfuscation too: the Arab refugees were created by the Israeli-Arab war. Israeli propaganda had succeeded even at this early date. There is no admission of Israel’s planned ethnic cleansing of Palestinians or the massacres that attended this outrage.
Astonishing too is the spectacle of a US vice-president at this early date campaigning for an Israeli bond issue: like a hired salesman, he tours the country, making speeches to sell Israeli bond worth half a billion dollars. Did Israel raise the full value of the bond issue? It is a neat sum, enough to buy an army the best weapons in those days.
Notable too is the Time’s willingness – unthinkable today – to see the issue from an Arab perspective: how they see the world’s failure to send the refugees back to their homes. “These refugees, for whom neither the U.S. nor Israel will take the slightest responsibility, keep alive the hatred of U.S. perfidy.” It is not often that the US media speaks of “U.S. perfidy.”
Such journalistic candor was not good for Israel. The major Jewish organizations soon flexed their muscle: they organized to police what the US media could write or say about Israel. Their success was devastating. Israeli lies soon commanded unalloyed allegiance of every segment of American media.
Only recently that situation is beginning to change, as Israeli threats to US interests and to world peace become harder to ignore. This shift is tentative, however. Pro-Israeli forces are fighting back: and the few voices critical of Israel could be silenced by any number of events, not least another terrorist attack on US soil.
Monday, December 20, 2010
SPLC Suffers Blow To Legitimacy
FULL STORY WITH LINKS
The SPLC suffered a blow to its legitimacy today when 22 congressional Republicans (including Steve King and Lamar Smith) and numerous other prominent figures in the conservative movement signed a statement condemning the SPLC as a “liberal fundraising machine” and a radical leftwing organization trying to shutdown informed discussion on important public policy issues.
This effectively pulls down the curtain on the SPLC’s influence as a “watchdog group” in conservative circles. Their various exposes of “hate” and “bigotry” will now be read and taken seriously only by their fellow likeminded progressives. The statement consigns the SPLC to the same ideological ghetto that the NAACP now occupies in the eyes of White America.
Alinsky Lessons
In Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky repeatedly stressed the point that the right thing in politics is almost always done for the wrong reasons. If you want to win an important victory in politics, you will usually have to seize upon the wrong reasons to mobilize a sufficient number of people who do not necessarily agree with you to support your course of action:
Alinsky’s field of action was the field of change and a constant stream of conflict. Alinsky knew that in today’s world, people are not motivated by altruism, you need to somehow appeal to their self-interest. The right thing usually done for the wrong reasons. When he came into a community in order to organize it, he had to get the local churches involved. He said that he never appealed to the ministers or priests in terms of Christian principles because they did not really believe in Christianity. Therefore, Alinsky appealed to what really motivated them, their self-interests and talked more about membership and more money. It worked every time.
This book is full of so many gems of good practical advice. You won’t understand my change of approach until you read it. I can flip through the book and find excerpts that address many of the comments I get here on a daily basis:
But the answer I gave the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: “Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing — but this only swings people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.”
The psychos and the wailing wallers are ubiquitous in the pro-White movement. The pragmatic realists are a much rarer breed:
With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason — this is a fight with a windmill.
Alinsky stressed the importance of incremental compromise:
But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.
I came away from Alinsky a much more effective radical than I had been before. I started seeing all the “square” conservatives in a new light, not as gullible lemmings or enemies of my agenda, but people who I could work with who already agree with me on the most important issues.
If we don’t reach these people and influence them, our progressives enemies like the neocons will succeed in doing it, and we will be setback and left worse off than we were before.
Late To The Party
The Family Research Council and these other Christian groups didn’t see the light until their own ox was gored and the SPLC miscalculated and tarred them with the “hate group” label. That’s fine with me.
Misery loves company.
It is better to arrive late to the party than to not show up at all. Now the SPLC can be denounced as “anti-Christian” and as a partisan leftwing organization that considers the Bible to be “hate speech.” That’s not why White Advocates oppose the SPLC, but it is a message that can be sold to other bigger White constituencies to provoke them into opposition to the likes of Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, which has the same effective result.
This statement only made our task of discrediting the SPLC easier. I fail to see what exactly the problem is here.
The SPLC suffered a blow to its legitimacy today when 22 congressional Republicans (including Steve King and Lamar Smith) and numerous other prominent figures in the conservative movement signed a statement condemning the SPLC as a “liberal fundraising machine” and a radical leftwing organization trying to shutdown informed discussion on important public policy issues.
This effectively pulls down the curtain on the SPLC’s influence as a “watchdog group” in conservative circles. Their various exposes of “hate” and “bigotry” will now be read and taken seriously only by their fellow likeminded progressives. The statement consigns the SPLC to the same ideological ghetto that the NAACP now occupies in the eyes of White America.
Alinsky Lessons
In Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky repeatedly stressed the point that the right thing in politics is almost always done for the wrong reasons. If you want to win an important victory in politics, you will usually have to seize upon the wrong reasons to mobilize a sufficient number of people who do not necessarily agree with you to support your course of action:
Alinsky’s field of action was the field of change and a constant stream of conflict. Alinsky knew that in today’s world, people are not motivated by altruism, you need to somehow appeal to their self-interest. The right thing usually done for the wrong reasons. When he came into a community in order to organize it, he had to get the local churches involved. He said that he never appealed to the ministers or priests in terms of Christian principles because they did not really believe in Christianity. Therefore, Alinsky appealed to what really motivated them, their self-interests and talked more about membership and more money. It worked every time.
This book is full of so many gems of good practical advice. You won’t understand my change of approach until you read it. I can flip through the book and find excerpts that address many of the comments I get here on a daily basis:
But the answer I gave the young radicals seemed to me the only realistic one: “Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing — but this only swings people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.”
The psychos and the wailing wallers are ubiquitous in the pro-White movement. The pragmatic realists are a much rarer breed:
With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason — this is a fight with a windmill.
Alinsky stressed the importance of incremental compromise:
But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.
I came away from Alinsky a much more effective radical than I had been before. I started seeing all the “square” conservatives in a new light, not as gullible lemmings or enemies of my agenda, but people who I could work with who already agree with me on the most important issues.
If we don’t reach these people and influence them, our progressives enemies like the neocons will succeed in doing it, and we will be setback and left worse off than we were before.
Late To The Party
The Family Research Council and these other Christian groups didn’t see the light until their own ox was gored and the SPLC miscalculated and tarred them with the “hate group” label. That’s fine with me.
Misery loves company.
It is better to arrive late to the party than to not show up at all. Now the SPLC can be denounced as “anti-Christian” and as a partisan leftwing organization that considers the Bible to be “hate speech.” That’s not why White Advocates oppose the SPLC, but it is a message that can be sold to other bigger White constituencies to provoke them into opposition to the likes of Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, which has the same effective result.
This statement only made our task of discrediting the SPLC easier. I fail to see what exactly the problem is here.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Done With House
I have heard since Fox's House MD first came out how good a show it is. How I would like it and how great Hugh Laurie was in it. As I'm sure you all can imagine I watch very very little TV but I decided to give House a shot.
After the first few episodes the show had promise, only minimal propaganda from what I could tell the most brazen example is the black Doctor played by Omar Epps. The odds of a having a black doctor are extremely rare, I don't have any figures but I know that I nor anyone I have asked has ever even seen one. This propaganda is to be expected since no network will greenlight a White only show. The emphasis is put on pushing multi culturalism instead of accuracy of details. So this didn't come as a surprise to me.
A few episodes in a black billionaire donates 100 million dollars to the hospital and becomes chairman of the board. He tells his story one where his father gave him 20,000 dollars for school but instead he started a business and being so intelligent and hard working as blacks are known to be he turned 20,000 into over 1 billion. Again this has no basis in reality whatsoever. At the time of this writing there are a grand total of 3 black billionaires in the world of nearly 7,000,000,000 people. Only 1 in the US which is Oprah Winfrey. Oprah who was "made" a billionaire is far from an entrepreneur who started with 20,000 dollars and made over 1 billion. So having a black billionaire business man is literally so far removed from reality it's laughable.
About mid way through season one there is a heart transplant performed by.....you guessed it a black doctor. Now as I've said I have never even seen a black Doctor period let alone one skilled enough to perform a complex medical procedure like a heart transplant.
At this point the future of me watching the show is looking grim. So I talked to a friend today (the main one who recommended me the show) and told him of these concerns, and said well at least there hasn't been any race mixing. He explained that the black doctor does bed down with a White doctor brought in later in the show. At this point it became clear, I have no business watching this filth.
I can take a certain amount of propaganda (I would NEVER give any revenue to these jew networks)since I see through the brainwashing 10 miles away. But for filth like this I absolutely draw the line. Not much in this world sickens me more than seeing what would be an attractive White women with a nigger. It's sick, perverse and the hook nosed kikes love it.
So I am done with House, just like Home Depot, Levi's and McDonalds and Absolut Vodka and I don't want anyone to misunderstand. I'm sure some of you will say "oh he doesn't want black people to be on TV" and while this would be ideal it has nothing to do with me not watching the show. It has everything to do with the fact that these examples are pure propaganda, ZERO basis in reality and exist solely so that people think that blacks are equal to Whites and that bedding down with a black is no problem, nor is having little niglets.
It is a problem, it's an enormous problem and I won't support it in any fashion.
After the first few episodes the show had promise, only minimal propaganda from what I could tell the most brazen example is the black Doctor played by Omar Epps. The odds of a having a black doctor are extremely rare, I don't have any figures but I know that I nor anyone I have asked has ever even seen one. This propaganda is to be expected since no network will greenlight a White only show. The emphasis is put on pushing multi culturalism instead of accuracy of details. So this didn't come as a surprise to me.
A few episodes in a black billionaire donates 100 million dollars to the hospital and becomes chairman of the board. He tells his story one where his father gave him 20,000 dollars for school but instead he started a business and being so intelligent and hard working as blacks are known to be he turned 20,000 into over 1 billion. Again this has no basis in reality whatsoever. At the time of this writing there are a grand total of 3 black billionaires in the world of nearly 7,000,000,000 people. Only 1 in the US which is Oprah Winfrey. Oprah who was "made" a billionaire is far from an entrepreneur who started with 20,000 dollars and made over 1 billion. So having a black billionaire business man is literally so far removed from reality it's laughable.
About mid way through season one there is a heart transplant performed by.....you guessed it a black doctor. Now as I've said I have never even seen a black Doctor period let alone one skilled enough to perform a complex medical procedure like a heart transplant.
At this point the future of me watching the show is looking grim. So I talked to a friend today (the main one who recommended me the show) and told him of these concerns, and said well at least there hasn't been any race mixing. He explained that the black doctor does bed down with a White doctor brought in later in the show. At this point it became clear, I have no business watching this filth.
I can take a certain amount of propaganda (I would NEVER give any revenue to these jew networks)since I see through the brainwashing 10 miles away. But for filth like this I absolutely draw the line. Not much in this world sickens me more than seeing what would be an attractive White women with a nigger. It's sick, perverse and the hook nosed kikes love it.
So I am done with House, just like Home Depot, Levi's and McDonalds and Absolut Vodka and I don't want anyone to misunderstand. I'm sure some of you will say "oh he doesn't want black people to be on TV" and while this would be ideal it has nothing to do with me not watching the show. It has everything to do with the fact that these examples are pure propaganda, ZERO basis in reality and exist solely so that people think that blacks are equal to Whites and that bedding down with a black is no problem, nor is having little niglets.
It is a problem, it's an enormous problem and I won't support it in any fashion.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Going To War With Jewgle
On Dec 1st 2010 I posted this story
http://www.truthinourtime.com/2010/12/google-banning-word-jew.html
About google banning the word jew on their search engine since apparently this was sending too much traffic to sites like this where Whites are on to their schemes.
Dec 3rd 2010 I receive the following email from the kikes at google
Hello,
We continually review all publishers according to our program policies (
https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer.py?answer=48182&stc=aspe-3pp-en
) and Terms and Conditions (
https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms?&stc=aspe-3tc-en ). During
a recent review of your account, our specialists found that it was not in
compliance with our policies.
Publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on sites with content
advocating against any individual, group, or organization.
As a result, your AdSense account has been disabled.
Additionally, as stated in our Terms and Conditions, publishers who have
breached this agreement may not receive further payment. The earnings on
your account will be returned to the affected advertisers. Please note
that this step was taken in an effort to protect the interests of our
AdWords advertisers, and to maintain the quality of the AdSense program.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
So there you have it those spineless kikes send me a message not to speak out about their unfair manipulation of internet traffic. Those cocksuckers have an agenda and when you expose it they clearly don't care for the bad press.
Now I am a small fish in this world of big time blogs, but clearly someone monitors this website.
So while I am angry but not surprised at this stupid kike behavior I am encouraged and energized. My focus is narrowed and I look forward to continuing shining the light on what these scumbags do in the back room.
I abandon google as a search engine some time ago, I went to bing, but never felt good about supporting the batshit insane kike steve ballmer either so lately I have been using the Russian search engine Yandex.
http://www.truthinourtime.com/2010/12/google-banning-word-jew.html
About google banning the word jew on their search engine since apparently this was sending too much traffic to sites like this where Whites are on to their schemes.
Dec 3rd 2010 I receive the following email from the kikes at google
Hello,
We continually review all publishers according to our program policies (
https://www.google.com/support/adsense/bin/answer.py?answer=48182&stc=aspe-3pp-en
) and Terms and Conditions (
https://www.google.com/adsense/localized-terms?&stc=aspe-3tc-en ). During
a recent review of your account, our specialists found that it was not in
compliance with our policies.
Publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on sites with content
advocating against any individual, group, or organization.
As a result, your AdSense account has been disabled.
Additionally, as stated in our Terms and Conditions, publishers who have
breached this agreement may not receive further payment. The earnings on
your account will be returned to the affected advertisers. Please note
that this step was taken in an effort to protect the interests of our
AdWords advertisers, and to maintain the quality of the AdSense program.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Google AdSense Team
So there you have it those spineless kikes send me a message not to speak out about their unfair manipulation of internet traffic. Those cocksuckers have an agenda and when you expose it they clearly don't care for the bad press.
Now I am a small fish in this world of big time blogs, but clearly someone monitors this website.
So while I am angry but not surprised at this stupid kike behavior I am encouraged and energized. My focus is narrowed and I look forward to continuing shining the light on what these scumbags do in the back room.
I abandon google as a search engine some time ago, I went to bing, but never felt good about supporting the batshit insane kike steve ballmer either so lately I have been using the Russian search engine Yandex.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Google Banning The Word Jew
Fine with me I call them hook nosed rats.
http://www.google.com/explanation.html
If you recently used Google to search for the word “Jew,” you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We’d like to explain why you’re seeing these results when you conduct this search.
A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for “Jew” brings up one such unexpected result.
If you use Google to search for “Judaism,” “Jewish” or “Jewish people,” the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for “Jew” different? One reason is that the word “Jew” is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word “Jewish” when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp
Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like “Judaism,” “Jewish people,” or “Jews” than the single word “Jew” In fact, prior to this incident, the word “Jew” only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it’s likely that the great majority of searches on Google for “Jew” are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.
The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.
We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
P.S. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google’s search results on this topic.
http://www.google.com/explanation.html
If you recently used Google to search for the word “Jew,” you may have seen results that were very disturbing. We assure you that the views expressed by the sites in your results are not in any way endorsed by Google. We’d like to explain why you’re seeing these results when you conduct this search.
A site’s ranking in Google’s search results relies heavily on computer algorithms using thousands of factors to calculate a page’s relevance to a given query. Sometimes subtleties of language cause anomalies to appear that cannot be predicted. A search for “Jew” brings up one such unexpected result.
If you use Google to search for “Judaism,” “Jewish” or “Jewish people,” the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for “Jew” different? One reason is that the word “Jew” is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word “Jewish” when talking about members of their faith. The word has become somewhat charged linguistically, as noted on websites devoted to Jewish topics such as these:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/jonah081500.asp
Someone searching for information on Jewish people would be more likely to enter terms like “Judaism,” “Jewish people,” or “Jews” than the single word “Jew” In fact, prior to this incident, the word “Jew” only appeared about once in every 10 million search queries. Now it’s likely that the great majority of searches on Google for “Jew” are by people who have heard about this issue and want to see the results for themselves.
The beliefs and preferences of those who work at Google, as well as the opinions of the general public, do not determine or impact our search results. Individual citizens and public interest groups do periodically urge us to remove particular links or otherwise adjust search results. Although Google reserves the right to address such requests individually, Google views the comprehensiveness of our search results as an extremely important priority. Accordingly, we do not remove a page from our search results simply because its content is unpopular or because we receive complaints concerning it. We will, however, remove pages from our results if we believe the page (or its site) violates our Webmaster Guidelines, if we believe we are required to do so by law, or at the request of the webmaster who is responsible for the page.
We apologize for the upsetting nature of the experience you had using Google and appreciate your taking the time to inform us about it.
Sincerely,
The Google Team
P.S. You may be interested in some additional information the Anti-Defamation League has posted about this issue at http://www.adl.org/rumors/google_search_rumors.asp. In addition, we call your attention to Google’s search results on this topic.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
A Review Of Band Of Brothers
I have watched this miniseries and considered writing my own review. I have put it off for several months and then came across this, I may still do one in the future but for now this is a worthwhile read and a very accurate review of the show.
Full Story With Links
Band of Brothers, the 2001 TV miniseries, was produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks.
Episode 9 was directed by David Frankel and written by John Orloff.
Based on the 1992 book by Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers. E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle Nest, Simon and Schuster (reviewed edition by Pocket Books, 2001).
In ten episodes, Band of Brothers depicts how E (“Easy”) Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, trained in America and England and then fought from D-Day through to the end of the European phase of WWII. It is a technically strong and gripping production. The battle scenes are among the most realistic I have seen, though one must allow for the demands of the cinematic medium — emphasis of a few individuals and spatial compression of combat groups. I am reminded of the grim and gritty street battle sequences in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. This review looks at the ninth episode, which does not depict military conflict but is itself something of a black operation in the culture wars.
As our own Edmund Connelly has repeatedly demonstrated, Jewish interests have frequently been pushed by American television and Hollywood films in various ways, often as a backdrop to stories unrelated to ethnicity, like the omnipresent upper class Anglo twit and the Black genius technical expert. The 9th episode of Band of Brothers, titled “Why We Fight”, represents an unprecedented level of ambition — to claim America’s WWII sacrifices as motivated by the desire to save Jews from Nazi persecution, to make America’s sacrifice in WWII all about the Jews, not about Americans doing their duty in a tragic internecine conflict.
The episode opens with a scene of devastation in the German town of Thalem, on April 11, 1945. There is rubble in the streets and townspeople are cleaning up. A group of relaxed G.I.s looks on from a balcony. An impromptu chamber orchestra of old men is playing a Beethoven dirge.
Then a flash-back: “One month earlier, Sturzelberg, Germany”. The war is as good as over. The Wehrmacht has given up the fight. Roosevelt’s death is announced. There are scenes of looting by officers and men; of a soldier having sex with an enthusiastic blond German girl; of drinking. The bridge over the Rhine at Remagen is announced captured.
The company is still under orders, though the men are beginning to think about life back in the States. The company moves out in convoy. A Jewish G.I. — the only Jewish soldier in the series and in the book — talks about his plans for after the war. “I’m going to find a nice Jewish girl.”
Masses of German POWs march by in orderly ranks. An officer says admiringly that even in defeat the Germans look like soldiers. But the Jewish G.I. sees nothing but objects of hate and contempt, standing up in the vehicle and screaming: “You stupid fascist pigs. . . . You ignorant, servile scum!” This displays a sophisticated vocabulary for someone who we are told in the final episode went back to driving taxis after the War. The scene does not occur in Ambrose’s book.
The company drives past a scene of summary executions of three uniformed Germans, who are kicked out of a building, made to kneel, then unceremoniously shot in the head, blood spraying. Their killers then begin to go through pockets. The killers are also uniformed but are not Americans or British. Perhaps Czech troops. The troops of Easy Company are shocked by the murders. They look down grimly, except for the Jewish G.I., who smiles.
A patrol in a forest near Landsberg in Bavaria discovers a concentration camp full of starving prisoners. (A 21-minute clip, including the concentration camp material, is available here.) The 101st did in fact liberate a camp in the area. The Jewish G.I. is the company’s translator. He translates the words of an inmate being interviewed by the commander. This is a work camp for Jews, pause, and Gypsies. The scene in Ambrose’s book does not mention Jews or Gypsies. It is described as a work camp (pp. 262–263).
German civilians in the local town deny any knowledge of the camp but they are not believed by the G.I.s. Food is requisitioned from the local town, from a bakery. We see a fat baker complaining as his entire stock is removed without explanation or payment. In Ambrose’s book there is no such character. Instead an officer finds a store of cheese and has it distributed to the camp inmates without incident (p. 262).
Whether or not there was a baker, the way he is presented is an exemplary propaganda construct of the cheapest Hollywood films. His jiggling neck and self righteous possessiveness stands for all German civilians in the town who, we are led to assume, must have known of the camp. It is implied that they remained knowingly well fed while the Jews starved. An officer threatens the baker with his pistol and accuses him of knowing about the camp. The baker’s unpleasant appearance is another example of Spielberg using hackneyed propaganda technique. It is not enough that a person do wrong. He must also wear a black hat and waxed mustachio.
The G.I.s begin to feed the camp inmates but a doctor warns of the danger of overeating following starvation. The inmates must remain in the camp under medical supervision. The Jewish G.I. is ordered to make the announcement, which he does reluctantly because he knows how much the inmates desire to be free at last. After making the announcement and pleading with the inmates he collapses in tears.
The next day all able-bodied German civilians are ordered to clean up the camp. The scenes of the cleanup are disturbing, as townspeople wade among the corpses.
The wife of a German general, seen earlier in her home facing down an American looter, is now seen pulling at bodies, humbled and distraught.
Flash forward to the episode’s start date, 11 April. Hitler’s death is reported. The company receives new orders: to occupy Berchtesgaden, Hitler’s mountain retreat.
The closing message of the episode reads: “These camps were part of the Nazi attempt to effect the ‘Final Solution’ to the ‘Jewish Question’”.
In fact these were work camps for building jet fighters. As the book states: “It was a work camp, not an extermination camp.” The film makes no mention of the POWs from Russia, Italy and other countries, German communists and homosexuals who also suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Spielberg’s film and many others like it steal the memory of the camps and the sufferings of many nations and relabel them “Jewish property”. This is an obvious lapse of scholarly standards in deference to Jewish sentiment.
The next caption reads: “Between 1942 and 1945 five million ethnic minorities and six million Jews were murdered — many of them in the camps.”
This again distinguishes Jewish suffering inside and outside the camp system. It implies that Jews were not an ethnic minority, which is incorrect. And it omits the ethnic majorities in Slavic lands who suffered inside and outside the camps. The high death toll among Polish and Russian civilians during the War is deemed unworthy of mention in Spielberg’s film. If the forced labour of Jews was an act of genocide, why not pay respects to the Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish nations?
The episode claims the forced work camps for Jewish victimhood. Its lies and distortions must have been deliberate because the script was read by experts. This is a work of black propaganda that exploits fine acting and technical wizardry.
Who did Spielberg choose to direct and write the episode? With David Frankel as director and John Orloff as writer it has the appearance of complete ethnic vertical integration. Was nothing left to chance? The other executive producer was Tom Hanks, not a Jew. But he would have been no counterweight to Spielberg’s ethnic dedication. Hanks is a typical tame Hollywood WASP who has done nothing for his people, produced no equivalent of Schindler’s List.
The series received the recognition it deserved. Orloff’s depiction of the concentration camp was honoured by the American Jewish community, not at all surprising considering that it was written for them. Here he is receiving the award for Best TV film from Sam Rubin at the 2nd Annual Jewish Image Awards in Film and Television at the Four Seasons Hotel in Los Angeles, Ca. Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2002.
More on the book version
The episode’s depiction of the concentration camp differs radically from that in the book. Instead of a concentration camp full of Jews, the book describes a “Displaced Persons’ camp” at Dormagen, containing forced labourers brought from occupied Europe (p. 255). The 101st did liberate the concentration camp Kaufering IV near Landsberg on the Lech in April 1945 but this section of Ambrose’s book is not titled “Why We Fight”. The book and most of the miniseries depicted the experiences of Easy Company. Not the liberation scene. This is based on a film made by the U.S. Army at the time, and supplied to Spielberg and Hanks by the European Holocaust Memorial organization in Landsberg (see links section of the Wikipedia article).
There is documentary evidence of the mixed status and ethnic composition of workers in the Landsberg camps. In October 1944 a local administrator estimated that there were 21 camps with 5,251 inmates working for various manufacturing companies. This included eight separate Jewish camps, with one more under construction. The administrator noted that there were also prisoners of war from Poland, Russia, and France. These figures do not tally with another estimate of just one facility near Landsberg for the period 15 July to 15 August 1944, when the workforce consisted of 9,000 prisoners brought from a concentration camp — many Jewish — plus 3,000 foreign workers and 3,900 German workers. Either way there were a great many non-Jews involved.
The phrase “why we fight” does not occur in the book. Ambrose quotes Maj. Winters as saying: “Now I know why I am here” (p. 263), which was an understandable emotional reaction to the misery of the camp, not a considered philosophical statement, and not one linked exclusively to the plight of Jews. It expressed a humanitarian sentiment. It is not a warrant to rehearse the Holocaust ritual yet again and push aside the men’s true responses and priorities.
The soldiers felt that they were fighting for America, not to end suffering most Americans did not know about until after the war’s end.
Less than one page of text about the camp becomes half an episode in Spielberg’s rendering. In the book there is no mention of the Jewish Holocaust. Yet the series is presented as based on Ambrose’s book. The G.I.s did not see Jews; they saw suffering humanity. Spielberg’s biggest crime is to have rewritten the scene to represent the G.I.s as feeling and thinking like him, focused on his ethnic kin. In effect he claims the Finest Generation for the Jews.
There are also errors of omission. For example the series ignores the praiseful reaction of the G.I.s to Germans, once they began to occupy German territory. There is a story! It could have been told by someone who was sympathetic to the innocent German civilians or merely objective and looking for an interesting tale to tell. The series could have depicted American G.I.s discovering how similar the Germans were to themselves. There are dramatic possibilities in this realization. Intimate moments of self doubt, of stunned realization. Close-up encounters with vulnerable human beings; flawed but very much like Americans. One can imagine a story in which some soldiers realize they have been fighting a sort of civil war. This is not a fanciful construction — it is right there in Ambrose’s book.
The book deals with American-German relations in some details. For example the soldiers began to realize how similar the Germans were to their own loved ones — they began to realize their own ethnic kinship. On one occasion a G.I. was clearing an apartment block so that it could be requisitioned by the company. This was wartime and the G.I.s’ hearts were hardened. The procedure was to go from door to door telling the occupants they had five minutes to vacate their apartments, taking no bedclothes so that the G.I.s would be comfortable.
They came pouring out, crying, lamenting, frightened. “I knocked on this one door,” Carson recalled, “and an elderly lady answered. I looked at her and she stared at me. God, it was a picture of my own grandmother. Our eyes met and I said, ‘Bleib hier,’ or stay here.”(p. 260, emphasis added.)
This is genetic similarity at work — one genotype recognizing a similar other. The old lady did not speak. All the G.I. perceived was her face. There is more along these lines that one would never guess from Spielberg’s series, except for the Jewish G.I.’s compassion for his people in the camps
Ambrose summarizes the American soldier’s judgment of various nationalities during WWII, mostly negative.
He felt the Arabs were despicable, liars, thieves, dirty, awful, without a redeeming feature. The Italians were liars, thieves, dirty, wonderful, with many redeeming features, but never to be trusted.
The French provincials and Parisians had assorted negative traits, while the British were “brave, resourceful, quaint, reserved, dull”. The Dutch were “simply wonderful” though few American soldiers were in Holland.
Wonder of wonders, the average G.I. found that the people he liked best, identified most closely with, enjoyed being with, were the Germans. Clean, hard-working, disciplined, educated, middle-class in their tastes and lifestyles (many G.I.s noted that so far as they could tell the only people in the world who regarded a flush toilet and soft white toilet paper as a necessity were the Germans and the Americans), the Germans seemed to many American soldiers as “just like us” (pp. 248–9).
Americans admired the German civilians who, of their own volition, began picking up rubble the morning after a battle. In that regard they compared the Germans favourably to other Europeans they had encountered. How easy it would have been, how inexpensive, to have the G.I.s utter a few words of praise as they watched German civilians clearing the street at the start of Episode 9.
Ambrose suggests that some of the good impression made by the Germans was due to the comfort provided by their middle class homes. But even Webster, a convinced German hater, could not help but soften. He wrote to his parent in April 1945 that the “Germans I have seen so far have impressed me as clean, efficient, law-abiding people”. They were churchgoers. (Couldn’t Hanks persuade Spielberg to allow just one scene of Germans in church?) “In Germany everybody goes out and works”, unlike other nationalities. “They are cleaner, more progressive, and more ambitious than either the English or the French” (p. 250).
The shock of ethnic recognition experienced by G.I.s as they entered Germany has been discussed elsewhere. Ambrose quotes one author, Glenn Gray, thus: “The enemy could not have changed so quickly from a beast to a likable human being. Thus, the conclusion is nearly forced upon the G.I.s that they have been previously blinded by fear and hatred and the propaganda of their own government” (p. 250).
The only pronounced reference to ethnicity concerns the only Jewish member of Easy Company, Joseph Liebgott. He is seen early in the series objecting to an anti-Semitic outburst by a fellow private. He has no visible Jewish characteristics, unsurprising because he is played by Ross McCall, a Catholic Scotsman. Apparently Spielberg knows when genetic similarity is useful. Because the character played by McCall is so different to the real Liebgott as described in the book, I have referred to the former as “the Jewish G.I.” This is the (miniseries) character who screamed collective insults at German prisoners of war and smiled at the murder of others.
The Jewish G.I. character is given some balanced resolution in the tenth and final installment directed by Mikael Salomon. In July 1945 the division is occupying a part of Bavaria, which includes Hitler’s mountain retreat, the Eagle’s Nest. For much of that episode he is in a vengeful state of mind, occupying a black and white world where all Germans are on the dark side. He even kills a man on the hearsay that he had been a concentration camp commander and personally questioning him (well, he demands his death; another G.I. pulls the trigger). This is true to the book. We detect some softening when the Jewish G.I. translates a speech by a German officer. The officer is about to disband his company, and a watching American officer asks the Jewish G.I. to interpret. At first the translation is delivered mockingly, but the speech ends up winning the respect even of someone twisted by hate. The German officer begins by saying that it has been a long hard war. That he is proud of his men. That a spirit of comradeship has arisen from sharing the same dangers. They had become brothers. Some of the German troops weep. Later we see a friendly conversation between a German and an American soldier manning a checkpoint together, in which the German shows a human face (he recommended the Italian front over the Russian). The closing scene of the episode is in documentary format. A veteran of the 101st Airborne recites the great St. Crispin’s Day speech by Henry V in Shakespeare’s play, echoing the German officer’s words.
Other scenes relating to ethnicity include one in which half a dozen German prisoners of war are murdered in cold blood in the D-Day episode. The murderer is a handsome Anglo with Nietzschean views and homicidal demeanour, who hands around cigarettes to the unarmed Germans and gives them lights before shooting them down without provocation. The killer is not coarse or low class and he speaks standard American English without a trace of provincial or big-city accent. In the last few episodes the character is rehabilitated to become a hero. He is never punished or admonished. What is the point of this invented scene, which does not occur in the book? The closest event in the book is when a few German prisoners are shot while attempting to jump their guards (p. 77). The very different film version associates Anglo ethnicity with mindless, psychopathic aggression.
Despite a scene in which a German POW shows a human face (before being murdered as above), the Germans are once again nameless aggressors. Not much change from the usual Hollywood formula. Among the G.I.s the weak characters are all Anglos. The Italian soldiers have ethnic residues but are mainly regular guys.
Conclusion
The Finest Generation were fallible human beings who were nevertheless as noble a band of brothers as there could be. They fought for their nation’s interests. Most were patriots at a time when America was seen by most citizens as a White republic. The ninth episode of Band of Brothers is an act of identity theft, an attempt to rewrite history to misrepresent the American soldiers of WWII as having different identities and different motivations than they in fact had. The ninth episode and to some extent the whole miniseries is part of an effort to airbrush from the American people’s memory the authentic historical American nation and replace it with a lie that serves leftist ideology and Jewish interests.
How can this sort of outrage occur? Once a group is beyond criticism, let alone censure, its ambition can expand to fill the status vacuum thus created. That privilege is created by the ban on anti-Semitism so broadly defined that it includes reasoned criticism of Jewish political culture. Any attempt to criticize Spielberg or other Jews for ethnic bias would attract the anti-Semitism accusation, unleashing real penalties formal or informal. No other group is so privileged.
The replacement of White Christian historical memories with minority perspectives and sometimes by self-hate fantasies is limited by the inertial quality of those memories. The interviewees at the start of the 9th episode had mixed feelings towards Germans. Only one said that Germans were thought of as evil. One said that he could have been friends with them under different circumstances. All the veterans were relaxed. None got excited or showed hostility. None mentioned the concentration camp liberated by the 101st. None mentioned Nazis. This is congruent with the book’s cursory treatment of the work camp. While the cruel conditions in the camp were deplored, the G.I.s had seen other horrors.
Living memories also limit the chutzpah of the casting director. It is true that a Scot was cast as the Jewish G.I. However the predominance among the actors cast for the film of Northwestern European racial types and Anglo regional accents is accurate, as is the segregation of Negroes to transport duties. It will take one or two generations longer before these aspects can be falsified with impunity. It is reasonable to conclude that this is the direction film is moving when a Jewish producer can tell his White Gentile audience that their fathers fought and died not in defence of their nation but for his own ethnic interests, knowing that he is safe from effective reproach.
Full Story With Links
Band of Brothers, the 2001 TV miniseries, was produced by Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks.
Episode 9 was directed by David Frankel and written by John Orloff.
Based on the 1992 book by Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers. E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle Nest, Simon and Schuster (reviewed edition by Pocket Books, 2001).
In ten episodes, Band of Brothers depicts how E (“Easy”) Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, trained in America and England and then fought from D-Day through to the end of the European phase of WWII. It is a technically strong and gripping production. The battle scenes are among the most realistic I have seen, though one must allow for the demands of the cinematic medium — emphasis of a few individuals and spatial compression of combat groups. I am reminded of the grim and gritty street battle sequences in Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. This review looks at the ninth episode, which does not depict military conflict but is itself something of a black operation in the culture wars.
As our own Edmund Connelly has repeatedly demonstrated, Jewish interests have frequently been pushed by American television and Hollywood films in various ways, often as a backdrop to stories unrelated to ethnicity, like the omnipresent upper class Anglo twit and the Black genius technical expert. The 9th episode of Band of Brothers, titled “Why We Fight”, represents an unprecedented level of ambition — to claim America’s WWII sacrifices as motivated by the desire to save Jews from Nazi persecution, to make America’s sacrifice in WWII all about the Jews, not about Americans doing their duty in a tragic internecine conflict.
The episode opens with a scene of devastation in the German town of Thalem, on April 11, 1945. There is rubble in the streets and townspeople are cleaning up. A group of relaxed G.I.s looks on from a balcony. An impromptu chamber orchestra of old men is playing a Beethoven dirge.
Then a flash-back: “One month earlier, Sturzelberg, Germany”. The war is as good as over. The Wehrmacht has given up the fight. Roosevelt’s death is announced. There are scenes of looting by officers and men; of a soldier having sex with an enthusiastic blond German girl; of drinking. The bridge over the Rhine at Remagen is announced captured.
The company is still under orders, though the men are beginning to think about life back in the States. The company moves out in convoy. A Jewish G.I. — the only Jewish soldier in the series and in the book — talks about his plans for after the war. “I’m going to find a nice Jewish girl.”
Masses of German POWs march by in orderly ranks. An officer says admiringly that even in defeat the Germans look like soldiers. But the Jewish G.I. sees nothing but objects of hate and contempt, standing up in the vehicle and screaming: “You stupid fascist pigs. . . . You ignorant, servile scum!” This displays a sophisticated vocabulary for someone who we are told in the final episode went back to driving taxis after the War. The scene does not occur in Ambrose’s book.
The company drives past a scene of summary executions of three uniformed Germans, who are kicked out of a building, made to kneel, then unceremoniously shot in the head, blood spraying. Their killers then begin to go through pockets. The killers are also uniformed but are not Americans or British. Perhaps Czech troops. The troops of Easy Company are shocked by the murders. They look down grimly, except for the Jewish G.I., who smiles.
A patrol in a forest near Landsberg in Bavaria discovers a concentration camp full of starving prisoners. (A 21-minute clip, including the concentration camp material, is available here.) The 101st did in fact liberate a camp in the area. The Jewish G.I. is the company’s translator. He translates the words of an inmate being interviewed by the commander. This is a work camp for Jews, pause, and Gypsies. The scene in Ambrose’s book does not mention Jews or Gypsies. It is described as a work camp (pp. 262–263).
German civilians in the local town deny any knowledge of the camp but they are not believed by the G.I.s. Food is requisitioned from the local town, from a bakery. We see a fat baker complaining as his entire stock is removed without explanation or payment. In Ambrose’s book there is no such character. Instead an officer finds a store of cheese and has it distributed to the camp inmates without incident (p. 262).
Whether or not there was a baker, the way he is presented is an exemplary propaganda construct of the cheapest Hollywood films. His jiggling neck and self righteous possessiveness stands for all German civilians in the town who, we are led to assume, must have known of the camp. It is implied that they remained knowingly well fed while the Jews starved. An officer threatens the baker with his pistol and accuses him of knowing about the camp. The baker’s unpleasant appearance is another example of Spielberg using hackneyed propaganda technique. It is not enough that a person do wrong. He must also wear a black hat and waxed mustachio.
The G.I.s begin to feed the camp inmates but a doctor warns of the danger of overeating following starvation. The inmates must remain in the camp under medical supervision. The Jewish G.I. is ordered to make the announcement, which he does reluctantly because he knows how much the inmates desire to be free at last. After making the announcement and pleading with the inmates he collapses in tears.
The next day all able-bodied German civilians are ordered to clean up the camp. The scenes of the cleanup are disturbing, as townspeople wade among the corpses.
The wife of a German general, seen earlier in her home facing down an American looter, is now seen pulling at bodies, humbled and distraught.
Flash forward to the episode’s start date, 11 April. Hitler’s death is reported. The company receives new orders: to occupy Berchtesgaden, Hitler’s mountain retreat.
The closing message of the episode reads: “These camps were part of the Nazi attempt to effect the ‘Final Solution’ to the ‘Jewish Question’”.
In fact these were work camps for building jet fighters. As the book states: “It was a work camp, not an extermination camp.” The film makes no mention of the POWs from Russia, Italy and other countries, German communists and homosexuals who also suffered at the hands of the Nazis. Spielberg’s film and many others like it steal the memory of the camps and the sufferings of many nations and relabel them “Jewish property”. This is an obvious lapse of scholarly standards in deference to Jewish sentiment.
The next caption reads: “Between 1942 and 1945 five million ethnic minorities and six million Jews were murdered — many of them in the camps.”
This again distinguishes Jewish suffering inside and outside the camp system. It implies that Jews were not an ethnic minority, which is incorrect. And it omits the ethnic majorities in Slavic lands who suffered inside and outside the camps. The high death toll among Polish and Russian civilians during the War is deemed unworthy of mention in Spielberg’s film. If the forced labour of Jews was an act of genocide, why not pay respects to the Russian, Ukrainian, and Polish nations?
The episode claims the forced work camps for Jewish victimhood. Its lies and distortions must have been deliberate because the script was read by experts. This is a work of black propaganda that exploits fine acting and technical wizardry.
Who did Spielberg choose to direct and write the episode? With David Frankel as director and John Orloff as writer it has the appearance of complete ethnic vertical integration. Was nothing left to chance? The other executive producer was Tom Hanks, not a Jew. But he would have been no counterweight to Spielberg’s ethnic dedication. Hanks is a typical tame Hollywood WASP who has done nothing for his people, produced no equivalent of Schindler’s List.
The series received the recognition it deserved. Orloff’s depiction of the concentration camp was honoured by the American Jewish community, not at all surprising considering that it was written for them. Here he is receiving the award for Best TV film from Sam Rubin at the 2nd Annual Jewish Image Awards in Film and Television at the Four Seasons Hotel in Los Angeles, Ca. Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2002.
More on the book version
The episode’s depiction of the concentration camp differs radically from that in the book. Instead of a concentration camp full of Jews, the book describes a “Displaced Persons’ camp” at Dormagen, containing forced labourers brought from occupied Europe (p. 255). The 101st did liberate the concentration camp Kaufering IV near Landsberg on the Lech in April 1945 but this section of Ambrose’s book is not titled “Why We Fight”. The book and most of the miniseries depicted the experiences of Easy Company. Not the liberation scene. This is based on a film made by the U.S. Army at the time, and supplied to Spielberg and Hanks by the European Holocaust Memorial organization in Landsberg (see links section of the Wikipedia article).
There is documentary evidence of the mixed status and ethnic composition of workers in the Landsberg camps. In October 1944 a local administrator estimated that there were 21 camps with 5,251 inmates working for various manufacturing companies. This included eight separate Jewish camps, with one more under construction. The administrator noted that there were also prisoners of war from Poland, Russia, and France. These figures do not tally with another estimate of just one facility near Landsberg for the period 15 July to 15 August 1944, when the workforce consisted of 9,000 prisoners brought from a concentration camp — many Jewish — plus 3,000 foreign workers and 3,900 German workers. Either way there were a great many non-Jews involved.
The phrase “why we fight” does not occur in the book. Ambrose quotes Maj. Winters as saying: “Now I know why I am here” (p. 263), which was an understandable emotional reaction to the misery of the camp, not a considered philosophical statement, and not one linked exclusively to the plight of Jews. It expressed a humanitarian sentiment. It is not a warrant to rehearse the Holocaust ritual yet again and push aside the men’s true responses and priorities.
The soldiers felt that they were fighting for America, not to end suffering most Americans did not know about until after the war’s end.
Less than one page of text about the camp becomes half an episode in Spielberg’s rendering. In the book there is no mention of the Jewish Holocaust. Yet the series is presented as based on Ambrose’s book. The G.I.s did not see Jews; they saw suffering humanity. Spielberg’s biggest crime is to have rewritten the scene to represent the G.I.s as feeling and thinking like him, focused on his ethnic kin. In effect he claims the Finest Generation for the Jews.
There are also errors of omission. For example the series ignores the praiseful reaction of the G.I.s to Germans, once they began to occupy German territory. There is a story! It could have been told by someone who was sympathetic to the innocent German civilians or merely objective and looking for an interesting tale to tell. The series could have depicted American G.I.s discovering how similar the Germans were to themselves. There are dramatic possibilities in this realization. Intimate moments of self doubt, of stunned realization. Close-up encounters with vulnerable human beings; flawed but very much like Americans. One can imagine a story in which some soldiers realize they have been fighting a sort of civil war. This is not a fanciful construction — it is right there in Ambrose’s book.
The book deals with American-German relations in some details. For example the soldiers began to realize how similar the Germans were to their own loved ones — they began to realize their own ethnic kinship. On one occasion a G.I. was clearing an apartment block so that it could be requisitioned by the company. This was wartime and the G.I.s’ hearts were hardened. The procedure was to go from door to door telling the occupants they had five minutes to vacate their apartments, taking no bedclothes so that the G.I.s would be comfortable.
They came pouring out, crying, lamenting, frightened. “I knocked on this one door,” Carson recalled, “and an elderly lady answered. I looked at her and she stared at me. God, it was a picture of my own grandmother. Our eyes met and I said, ‘Bleib hier,’ or stay here.”(p. 260, emphasis added.)
This is genetic similarity at work — one genotype recognizing a similar other. The old lady did not speak. All the G.I. perceived was her face. There is more along these lines that one would never guess from Spielberg’s series, except for the Jewish G.I.’s compassion for his people in the camps
Ambrose summarizes the American soldier’s judgment of various nationalities during WWII, mostly negative.
He felt the Arabs were despicable, liars, thieves, dirty, awful, without a redeeming feature. The Italians were liars, thieves, dirty, wonderful, with many redeeming features, but never to be trusted.
The French provincials and Parisians had assorted negative traits, while the British were “brave, resourceful, quaint, reserved, dull”. The Dutch were “simply wonderful” though few American soldiers were in Holland.
Wonder of wonders, the average G.I. found that the people he liked best, identified most closely with, enjoyed being with, were the Germans. Clean, hard-working, disciplined, educated, middle-class in their tastes and lifestyles (many G.I.s noted that so far as they could tell the only people in the world who regarded a flush toilet and soft white toilet paper as a necessity were the Germans and the Americans), the Germans seemed to many American soldiers as “just like us” (pp. 248–9).
Americans admired the German civilians who, of their own volition, began picking up rubble the morning after a battle. In that regard they compared the Germans favourably to other Europeans they had encountered. How easy it would have been, how inexpensive, to have the G.I.s utter a few words of praise as they watched German civilians clearing the street at the start of Episode 9.
Ambrose suggests that some of the good impression made by the Germans was due to the comfort provided by their middle class homes. But even Webster, a convinced German hater, could not help but soften. He wrote to his parent in April 1945 that the “Germans I have seen so far have impressed me as clean, efficient, law-abiding people”. They were churchgoers. (Couldn’t Hanks persuade Spielberg to allow just one scene of Germans in church?) “In Germany everybody goes out and works”, unlike other nationalities. “They are cleaner, more progressive, and more ambitious than either the English or the French” (p. 250).
The shock of ethnic recognition experienced by G.I.s as they entered Germany has been discussed elsewhere. Ambrose quotes one author, Glenn Gray, thus: “The enemy could not have changed so quickly from a beast to a likable human being. Thus, the conclusion is nearly forced upon the G.I.s that they have been previously blinded by fear and hatred and the propaganda of their own government” (p. 250).
The only pronounced reference to ethnicity concerns the only Jewish member of Easy Company, Joseph Liebgott. He is seen early in the series objecting to an anti-Semitic outburst by a fellow private. He has no visible Jewish characteristics, unsurprising because he is played by Ross McCall, a Catholic Scotsman. Apparently Spielberg knows when genetic similarity is useful. Because the character played by McCall is so different to the real Liebgott as described in the book, I have referred to the former as “the Jewish G.I.” This is the (miniseries) character who screamed collective insults at German prisoners of war and smiled at the murder of others.
The Jewish G.I. character is given some balanced resolution in the tenth and final installment directed by Mikael Salomon. In July 1945 the division is occupying a part of Bavaria, which includes Hitler’s mountain retreat, the Eagle’s Nest. For much of that episode he is in a vengeful state of mind, occupying a black and white world where all Germans are on the dark side. He even kills a man on the hearsay that he had been a concentration camp commander and personally questioning him (well, he demands his death; another G.I. pulls the trigger). This is true to the book. We detect some softening when the Jewish G.I. translates a speech by a German officer. The officer is about to disband his company, and a watching American officer asks the Jewish G.I. to interpret. At first the translation is delivered mockingly, but the speech ends up winning the respect even of someone twisted by hate. The German officer begins by saying that it has been a long hard war. That he is proud of his men. That a spirit of comradeship has arisen from sharing the same dangers. They had become brothers. Some of the German troops weep. Later we see a friendly conversation between a German and an American soldier manning a checkpoint together, in which the German shows a human face (he recommended the Italian front over the Russian). The closing scene of the episode is in documentary format. A veteran of the 101st Airborne recites the great St. Crispin’s Day speech by Henry V in Shakespeare’s play, echoing the German officer’s words.
Other scenes relating to ethnicity include one in which half a dozen German prisoners of war are murdered in cold blood in the D-Day episode. The murderer is a handsome Anglo with Nietzschean views and homicidal demeanour, who hands around cigarettes to the unarmed Germans and gives them lights before shooting them down without provocation. The killer is not coarse or low class and he speaks standard American English without a trace of provincial or big-city accent. In the last few episodes the character is rehabilitated to become a hero. He is never punished or admonished. What is the point of this invented scene, which does not occur in the book? The closest event in the book is when a few German prisoners are shot while attempting to jump their guards (p. 77). The very different film version associates Anglo ethnicity with mindless, psychopathic aggression.
Despite a scene in which a German POW shows a human face (before being murdered as above), the Germans are once again nameless aggressors. Not much change from the usual Hollywood formula. Among the G.I.s the weak characters are all Anglos. The Italian soldiers have ethnic residues but are mainly regular guys.
Conclusion
The Finest Generation were fallible human beings who were nevertheless as noble a band of brothers as there could be. They fought for their nation’s interests. Most were patriots at a time when America was seen by most citizens as a White republic. The ninth episode of Band of Brothers is an act of identity theft, an attempt to rewrite history to misrepresent the American soldiers of WWII as having different identities and different motivations than they in fact had. The ninth episode and to some extent the whole miniseries is part of an effort to airbrush from the American people’s memory the authentic historical American nation and replace it with a lie that serves leftist ideology and Jewish interests.
How can this sort of outrage occur? Once a group is beyond criticism, let alone censure, its ambition can expand to fill the status vacuum thus created. That privilege is created by the ban on anti-Semitism so broadly defined that it includes reasoned criticism of Jewish political culture. Any attempt to criticize Spielberg or other Jews for ethnic bias would attract the anti-Semitism accusation, unleashing real penalties formal or informal. No other group is so privileged.
The replacement of White Christian historical memories with minority perspectives and sometimes by self-hate fantasies is limited by the inertial quality of those memories. The interviewees at the start of the 9th episode had mixed feelings towards Germans. Only one said that Germans were thought of as evil. One said that he could have been friends with them under different circumstances. All the veterans were relaxed. None got excited or showed hostility. None mentioned the concentration camp liberated by the 101st. None mentioned Nazis. This is congruent with the book’s cursory treatment of the work camp. While the cruel conditions in the camp were deplored, the G.I.s had seen other horrors.
Living memories also limit the chutzpah of the casting director. It is true that a Scot was cast as the Jewish G.I. However the predominance among the actors cast for the film of Northwestern European racial types and Anglo regional accents is accurate, as is the segregation of Negroes to transport duties. It will take one or two generations longer before these aspects can be falsified with impunity. It is reasonable to conclude that this is the direction film is moving when a Jewish producer can tell his White Gentile audience that their fathers fought and died not in defence of their nation but for his own ethnic interests, knowing that he is safe from effective reproach.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Release of the ‘Dancing Israelis’, Coincidence or Blackmail?
By Doug Steil | Aletho News | November 16, 2010
By now, after nine years, anyone who has seriously looked into the circumstances surrounding 9/11 has read about the so-called “five dancing Israelis“, who, according to reports, had set up across the Hudson River “to document the event” (in their own words) in Manhattan, even before the crash of the first airplane coming from the north into the World Trade Center tower.
These “dancing Israelis”, as we can all surmise, were Mossad operatives, who were involved in operational aspects of the Zionist attack on lower Manhattan that fateful day, September 11, 2001. Two additional “suspects”, who were surely also part of the same Israeli operational team, were arrested on the approach to the George Washington Bridge, and, as was reported live that evening on the televised News (before this aspect to the story was buried), their van was laden with tons of explosives. (Though media reports may not have explicitly identified the people in the vans with explosives as Israeli, there should be little doubt that they were all part of the same team.)
There are two important aspects in conjunction with the 9/11 event in New York that have been virtually ignored even in the alternative media, which deserve closer scrutiny. One point involves the possible large-scale catastrophe that may have been induced by these operatives with explosives if they had not been apprehended as their van was about to drive onto the George Washington Bridge. The second aspect concerns the suspicious circumstances surrounding the crash of Flight 587, on November 12, 2001, more than nine years ago, in conjunction with the inexplicable release, just a few days later, of the “dancing Israelis” and other agents who had been involved in the 9/11 operation, including those who may have been on their way to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
By stalling the van at the middle of the bridge and getting away in time, a directed high-power explosion at that spot along the side might certainly have done some serious damage to a section of this bridge, given the dual cables per side , each slightly less than 36 inches in diameter. Most likely a truck explosion in itself would not have ripped both cables. But then, perhaps such a truck explosion was merely meant to serve as a low-tech trigger – to provide an explanation to the public, for why both cables on one side could have ripped – which itself would have been achieved by detonating a prepared coat of micro-thermite around the cables, just as the WTC towers were detonated by micro-thermite placed at crucial points along the structure weeks in advance, though the Government unconvincingly blamed structural failure caused by impacting airplanes and resulting fires. In light of what is known about the explosive thermite at the three WTC towers that were imploded into their footprint, it is not implausible, that the George Washington Bridge was also targeted for destruction that day, but this aspect of the operation was completely botched due to the van being intercepted. Just a few months earlier, in May, modifications to the George Washingtom Bridge were completed. Who would have ever noticed if coatings of micro-thermite were being applied during this renovation project ? Below are some quotes from NYRoads:
The project involved the rehabilitation of girders, columns, bridge decks, drainage and electrical systems, and roadway surfaces. New roadway expansion joints, guardrails, crash barriers, signs and lighting were also installed. The $38 million project was completed in May 2001.
Some pertinent questions arise in this context. Might some “follow-up work” of minor scope have been performed after the reported May completion date, shortly before 9/11, under the guise that something had not initially been done properly and thus needed to be corrected? What companies were involved in that multi-million dollar contract, and which companies were involved in the subsequent project, which would have removed any traces of micro-thermite coating that, according to this presumptive scenario, was applied more than nine years ago?
In 2002, the Port Authority began work to repaint the 604-foot-tall towers and the underside of the upper deck. Workers are removing older coats of lead-based paint, and are applying a three-coat paint system that includes a zinc primer, epoxy intermediate coat and a urethane topcoat. The $85 million project was completed in 2006.
Some investigative scrutiny of this previously neglected topic could certainly help in putting more pieces of the puzzle together, regarding what appears to have been planned as a spectacular and explosive encore on that ‘Demolition Day’, featuring live helicopter video of a major suspension bridge falling into the Hudson River, with only its two towers remaining. If one assumes that these putative Israeli suspects, disguised in Arab clothing, were prevented by their arrest at the on-ramp to the bridge from perpetrating a major crime – this would subsequently have impacted millions of people who commute between New Jersey and Manhattan – one can understand that it would take substantial pressure to get them released from custody. And we know from numerous reports, that they were all released just before Thanksgiving.
But why were these Isareli operatives ever released given their involvement? According to a report written by Christopher Ketcham, the Ha’aretz newspaper claimed that high-level Zionists in America were actively involved in obtaining their release:
Following what ABC News reported were “high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials”, a settlement was reached in the case of the five Urban Moving Systems suspects. Intense political pressure apparently had been brought to bear. The reputable Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that by the last week of October 2001, some six weeks after the men had been detained, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” were lobbying heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News close to the 20/20 report, high-profile criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also stepped in as a negotiator on behalf of the men to smooth out differences with the U.S. government.
These high-level efforts may not have been sufficient, given that these captured agents were certainly involved in more than event documentation or simply driving moving vans. Perhaps a bit more high-level pressure was required to get these people ‘moving’ again. In this context, an interesting aspect that has not been widely reported is the fact that, just a week before their eventual release, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed after takeoff from Kennedy Airport in Queens. Though it was not widely reported – on the contrary, it appears that once again there was a big cover-up in this matter – the likely cause, according to a credible expert, was sabotage:
Expert Marshall Smith opined, “A single point failure, the in-flight actuation of the left engine thrust reverser, can account for all three observed phenomena of the clean breaking off of the tail and the failure of both pylons holding the engines.”
The mechanical engineer, aviation ground school instructor and former NASA adviser painted this scenario: During the night, a terrorist saboteur disguised as a ground crew mechanic reached up in the back of the left jet engine of the American Airlines Airbus and cut the hydraulic line going to the thrust reverser actuator and the control safety sensor lines.
Knowing the conventional path that the airliner would fly upon takeoff from Kennedy Airport on its course to Santo Domingo in the Caribbean Sea, the saboteurs could be almost certain that the plane would eventually crash into the water, thus making recovery of evidence and probable cause analysis more difficult, along with the minimized possibility of any inconvenient revelations possibly leaking out to the public. As it turned out, the jet crashed onto the narrow land strip, in a neighborhood in Rockaway Park, (“the Irish Riviera“).
Let us look at the timeline of the week long period between the crash of AA587 and the release of the Israeli agents a few days later. Flight 587 crashed on Veteran’s Day, Monday November 12, 2001. According to reports, the Mossad agents were released after “71 days” in custody. Anyone can easily verify the accuracy of the timeline implied by the headline, which indicates the week long period between the crash and the release of the agents: Assuming that September 11 already counts as a day, that yields 20 days in September, 31 days in October and 20 days in November (the last day presumably not a full day), thus Tuesday, November 20. The decision to release them must have come on the day before, Monday, November 19, in order to make arrangements to fly them back to Israel. On that day the New York Times published a prepared story, pushing the highly questionable notion of composite tail fin stress as the presumptive cause of the accident. This unsupported claim appears to be another case of contrived media misdirection (an endeavor the NYT is proficient in), to distract the public from the issue of sabotage.
It is reasonable to assume, however, that if by then the Government had already concocted and propagated a technically unlikely explanation — one that blamed the manufacturer Airbus for an alleged design flaw in conjunction with pilot over-reaction to vortexes from an airplane ahead — the technically far more plausible cause of the crash, which was consistent with observations from witnesses and physical evidence at the crash site, would have already been apparent to investigators and experts, such as the man whose assessment of sabotage is cited in the story cited above. Those who had the opportunity to examine the left engine could easily have corroborated the sabotage. (This raises the question, if one of the numerous investigators became upset that the matter was being covered up and talked about it with others.)
Based on the timeline, these Israeli operatives would have arrived back in Israel not before November 21. They appeared on the talk show sometime before the end of the month, after a few days of intensive de-briefing.
Thanksgiving Day was on November 22, so that any possible news of their release from custody and arrival back in Israel would have easily been drowned out as Americans were focusing on that major holiday.
By now, after nine years, anyone who has seriously looked into the circumstances surrounding 9/11 has read about the so-called “five dancing Israelis“, who, according to reports, had set up across the Hudson River “to document the event” (in their own words) in Manhattan, even before the crash of the first airplane coming from the north into the World Trade Center tower.
These “dancing Israelis”, as we can all surmise, were Mossad operatives, who were involved in operational aspects of the Zionist attack on lower Manhattan that fateful day, September 11, 2001. Two additional “suspects”, who were surely also part of the same Israeli operational team, were arrested on the approach to the George Washington Bridge, and, as was reported live that evening on the televised News (before this aspect to the story was buried), their van was laden with tons of explosives. (Though media reports may not have explicitly identified the people in the vans with explosives as Israeli, there should be little doubt that they were all part of the same team.)
There are two important aspects in conjunction with the 9/11 event in New York that have been virtually ignored even in the alternative media, which deserve closer scrutiny. One point involves the possible large-scale catastrophe that may have been induced by these operatives with explosives if they had not been apprehended as their van was about to drive onto the George Washington Bridge. The second aspect concerns the suspicious circumstances surrounding the crash of Flight 587, on November 12, 2001, more than nine years ago, in conjunction with the inexplicable release, just a few days later, of the “dancing Israelis” and other agents who had been involved in the 9/11 operation, including those who may have been on their way to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
By stalling the van at the middle of the bridge and getting away in time, a directed high-power explosion at that spot along the side might certainly have done some serious damage to a section of this bridge, given the dual cables per side , each slightly less than 36 inches in diameter. Most likely a truck explosion in itself would not have ripped both cables. But then, perhaps such a truck explosion was merely meant to serve as a low-tech trigger – to provide an explanation to the public, for why both cables on one side could have ripped – which itself would have been achieved by detonating a prepared coat of micro-thermite around the cables, just as the WTC towers were detonated by micro-thermite placed at crucial points along the structure weeks in advance, though the Government unconvincingly blamed structural failure caused by impacting airplanes and resulting fires. In light of what is known about the explosive thermite at the three WTC towers that were imploded into their footprint, it is not implausible, that the George Washington Bridge was also targeted for destruction that day, but this aspect of the operation was completely botched due to the van being intercepted. Just a few months earlier, in May, modifications to the George Washingtom Bridge were completed. Who would have ever noticed if coatings of micro-thermite were being applied during this renovation project ? Below are some quotes from NYRoads:
The project involved the rehabilitation of girders, columns, bridge decks, drainage and electrical systems, and roadway surfaces. New roadway expansion joints, guardrails, crash barriers, signs and lighting were also installed. The $38 million project was completed in May 2001.
Some pertinent questions arise in this context. Might some “follow-up work” of minor scope have been performed after the reported May completion date, shortly before 9/11, under the guise that something had not initially been done properly and thus needed to be corrected? What companies were involved in that multi-million dollar contract, and which companies were involved in the subsequent project, which would have removed any traces of micro-thermite coating that, according to this presumptive scenario, was applied more than nine years ago?
In 2002, the Port Authority began work to repaint the 604-foot-tall towers and the underside of the upper deck. Workers are removing older coats of lead-based paint, and are applying a three-coat paint system that includes a zinc primer, epoxy intermediate coat and a urethane topcoat. The $85 million project was completed in 2006.
Some investigative scrutiny of this previously neglected topic could certainly help in putting more pieces of the puzzle together, regarding what appears to have been planned as a spectacular and explosive encore on that ‘Demolition Day’, featuring live helicopter video of a major suspension bridge falling into the Hudson River, with only its two towers remaining. If one assumes that these putative Israeli suspects, disguised in Arab clothing, were prevented by their arrest at the on-ramp to the bridge from perpetrating a major crime – this would subsequently have impacted millions of people who commute between New Jersey and Manhattan – one can understand that it would take substantial pressure to get them released from custody. And we know from numerous reports, that they were all released just before Thanksgiving.
But why were these Isareli operatives ever released given their involvement? According to a report written by Christopher Ketcham, the Ha’aretz newspaper claimed that high-level Zionists in America were actively involved in obtaining their release:
Following what ABC News reported were “high-level negotiations between Israeli and U.S. government officials”, a settlement was reached in the case of the five Urban Moving Systems suspects. Intense political pressure apparently had been brought to bear. The reputable Israeli daily Ha’aretz reported that by the last week of October 2001, some six weeks after the men had been detained, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” were lobbying heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News close to the 20/20 report, high-profile criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also stepped in as a negotiator on behalf of the men to smooth out differences with the U.S. government.
These high-level efforts may not have been sufficient, given that these captured agents were certainly involved in more than event documentation or simply driving moving vans. Perhaps a bit more high-level pressure was required to get these people ‘moving’ again. In this context, an interesting aspect that has not been widely reported is the fact that, just a week before their eventual release, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed after takeoff from Kennedy Airport in Queens. Though it was not widely reported – on the contrary, it appears that once again there was a big cover-up in this matter – the likely cause, according to a credible expert, was sabotage:
Expert Marshall Smith opined, “A single point failure, the in-flight actuation of the left engine thrust reverser, can account for all three observed phenomena of the clean breaking off of the tail and the failure of both pylons holding the engines.”
The mechanical engineer, aviation ground school instructor and former NASA adviser painted this scenario: During the night, a terrorist saboteur disguised as a ground crew mechanic reached up in the back of the left jet engine of the American Airlines Airbus and cut the hydraulic line going to the thrust reverser actuator and the control safety sensor lines.
Knowing the conventional path that the airliner would fly upon takeoff from Kennedy Airport on its course to Santo Domingo in the Caribbean Sea, the saboteurs could be almost certain that the plane would eventually crash into the water, thus making recovery of evidence and probable cause analysis more difficult, along with the minimized possibility of any inconvenient revelations possibly leaking out to the public. As it turned out, the jet crashed onto the narrow land strip, in a neighborhood in Rockaway Park, (“the Irish Riviera“).
Let us look at the timeline of the week long period between the crash of AA587 and the release of the Israeli agents a few days later. Flight 587 crashed on Veteran’s Day, Monday November 12, 2001. According to reports, the Mossad agents were released after “71 days” in custody. Anyone can easily verify the accuracy of the timeline implied by the headline, which indicates the week long period between the crash and the release of the agents: Assuming that September 11 already counts as a day, that yields 20 days in September, 31 days in October and 20 days in November (the last day presumably not a full day), thus Tuesday, November 20. The decision to release them must have come on the day before, Monday, November 19, in order to make arrangements to fly them back to Israel. On that day the New York Times published a prepared story, pushing the highly questionable notion of composite tail fin stress as the presumptive cause of the accident. This unsupported claim appears to be another case of contrived media misdirection (an endeavor the NYT is proficient in), to distract the public from the issue of sabotage.
It is reasonable to assume, however, that if by then the Government had already concocted and propagated a technically unlikely explanation — one that blamed the manufacturer Airbus for an alleged design flaw in conjunction with pilot over-reaction to vortexes from an airplane ahead — the technically far more plausible cause of the crash, which was consistent with observations from witnesses and physical evidence at the crash site, would have already been apparent to investigators and experts, such as the man whose assessment of sabotage is cited in the story cited above. Those who had the opportunity to examine the left engine could easily have corroborated the sabotage. (This raises the question, if one of the numerous investigators became upset that the matter was being covered up and talked about it with others.)
Based on the timeline, these Israeli operatives would have arrived back in Israel not before November 21. They appeared on the talk show sometime before the end of the month, after a few days of intensive de-briefing.
Thanksgiving Day was on November 22, so that any possible news of their release from custody and arrival back in Israel would have easily been drowned out as Americans were focusing on that major holiday.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Soros Courts the Neocons
SOURCE
As reported in the Salon, George Soros has paid $150,000 to Randy Scheunemann, a neocon foreign policy figure. Scheunemann was McCain’s foreign policy adviser during the 2008 campaign and is now a top aide of Sarah Palin.
Scheunemann is completely in line on Israel, as is Palin. The Jewish Journal noted that during the campaign, Scheunemann had led the attack on
Obama’s willingness to sit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Scheunemann also led efforts to pitch the Iraq war to the American public prior to the invasion. . . . Scheunemann is also close to the pro-Israel community. Working with [Trent] Lott, he authored the 1995 legislation that would move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; a year later, Scheunemann’s advice led Bob Dole — the Republican presidential candidate that year — to pledge to do so. This year, McCain has picked up that pledge.
I came across Scheunemann in writing an article on the neocons and Russia, where it emerged that he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of Georgia to use his influence against Russia, a policy that coincided with Soros’ attitudes. Scheunemann was also President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, sponsored by Bill Kristols’ Project for a New American Century.
So Soros is much more than the patron saint of the left. Like AIPAC, it pays to play both sides of the aisle in American politics.
Soros knows full well that Scheunemann has been a reliable partner in promoting Soros’ vision that the former USSR should buy into the suicide cult that has become the Western democracies—a cult that is strongly supported by the organized Jewish community and the Jewish-funded left. (Soros, of course, is a major funder of the left throughout the White world, including, e.g., Moveon.org.) The neocons have a long history of promoting pretty much the entire social agenda of the left, including especially large-scale non-White immigration.
Given the results of the last election, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to see other attempts by Soros and other sources of Jewish money to strengthen neocon forces within the Republican Party in an effort to manage the rising tide of White populist anger.
Finally, the episode illustrates one of the great strengths of Jewish intellectual and political movements: They provide excellent career opportunities, both economically and professionally. Scheunemann is well connected to the neocon foreign policy establishment—doubtless very lucrative, and his firm has Soros’ Open Society Institute as a client. He’s living well, and his non-Jewish background is definitely an asset because it helps deflect public awareness that neoconservatism is a Jewish movement.
As reported in the Salon, George Soros has paid $150,000 to Randy Scheunemann, a neocon foreign policy figure. Scheunemann was McCain’s foreign policy adviser during the 2008 campaign and is now a top aide of Sarah Palin.
Scheunemann is completely in line on Israel, as is Palin. The Jewish Journal noted that during the campaign, Scheunemann had led the attack on
Obama’s willingness to sit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Scheunemann also led efforts to pitch the Iraq war to the American public prior to the invasion. . . . Scheunemann is also close to the pro-Israel community. Working with [Trent] Lott, he authored the 1995 legislation that would move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; a year later, Scheunemann’s advice led Bob Dole — the Republican presidential candidate that year — to pledge to do so. This year, McCain has picked up that pledge.
I came across Scheunemann in writing an article on the neocons and Russia, where it emerged that he was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of Georgia to use his influence against Russia, a policy that coincided with Soros’ attitudes. Scheunemann was also President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, sponsored by Bill Kristols’ Project for a New American Century.
So Soros is much more than the patron saint of the left. Like AIPAC, it pays to play both sides of the aisle in American politics.
Soros knows full well that Scheunemann has been a reliable partner in promoting Soros’ vision that the former USSR should buy into the suicide cult that has become the Western democracies—a cult that is strongly supported by the organized Jewish community and the Jewish-funded left. (Soros, of course, is a major funder of the left throughout the White world, including, e.g., Moveon.org.) The neocons have a long history of promoting pretty much the entire social agenda of the left, including especially large-scale non-White immigration.
Given the results of the last election, it wouldn’t be at all surprising to see other attempts by Soros and other sources of Jewish money to strengthen neocon forces within the Republican Party in an effort to manage the rising tide of White populist anger.
Finally, the episode illustrates one of the great strengths of Jewish intellectual and political movements: They provide excellent career opportunities, both economically and professionally. Scheunemann is well connected to the neocon foreign policy establishment—doubtless very lucrative, and his firm has Soros’ Open Society Institute as a client. He’s living well, and his non-Jewish background is definitely an asset because it helps deflect public awareness that neoconservatism is a Jewish movement.
SPLC Hard At Work Pushing Multiculturalism
Kendall Russo didn’t sit with her friends at lunch yesterday. The Bishop Brady High School junior hadn’t had a falling out with her buddies—she was assigned to sit at a table with a dozen kids she didn’t know. In fact, every student in the school dined with strangers yesterday, in an effort by a senior history class to help the school break social barriers and shake up our tendency to only hang out and talk with the people we know.
It’s called Mix It Up at Lunch Day, and over 5,000 schools across the country participated yesterday. Sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, it’s meant to show students of all grade levels that they may have more in common with the people they don’t talk to than they think.
The day was planned by seniors from Dee Treybig’s history class, “The Holocaust: Facing History and Ourselves,” who have spent the semester learning about the worst possible outcomes of only embracing those you know: exclusion, racism, xenophobia, genocide. They thought Bishop Brady students would jump at the idea of meeting new people. It’s a small school, and because there is little ethnic diversity, there were no racial or cultural divides to overcome.
It was not as easy as they thought to get people to break down the invisible walls that kids—and adults—construct around themselves and the groups they associate with. After students shuffled in and sat at the table with the balloon that matched the color of an X that had been marked on their hand, there were a lot of blank stares, tight smiles and hurried eating.
“People didn’t want to go outside their group, and they didn’t know how,” said senior A.J. Anderson.
“It’s disappointing,” said senior Ali Nemcovich, “you think of your school as open and accepting, but at the end of the day, people are still sitting with people they know.”
Lecia Brooks, the outreach director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that is normal. Even in small schools, with no race or class differences, it’s hard to get over the hurdle of “I don’t know you.”
Treybig said that’s all part of the lesson for her students: Change comes slowly, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth fighting for.
“Today reinforced that change is scary,” said Treybig. “To fight intolerance, we have to understand that.”
It’s called Mix It Up at Lunch Day, and over 5,000 schools across the country participated yesterday. Sponsored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, it’s meant to show students of all grade levels that they may have more in common with the people they don’t talk to than they think.
The day was planned by seniors from Dee Treybig’s history class, “The Holocaust: Facing History and Ourselves,” who have spent the semester learning about the worst possible outcomes of only embracing those you know: exclusion, racism, xenophobia, genocide. They thought Bishop Brady students would jump at the idea of meeting new people. It’s a small school, and because there is little ethnic diversity, there were no racial or cultural divides to overcome.
It was not as easy as they thought to get people to break down the invisible walls that kids—and adults—construct around themselves and the groups they associate with. After students shuffled in and sat at the table with the balloon that matched the color of an X that had been marked on their hand, there were a lot of blank stares, tight smiles and hurried eating.
“People didn’t want to go outside their group, and they didn’t know how,” said senior A.J. Anderson.
“It’s disappointing,” said senior Ali Nemcovich, “you think of your school as open and accepting, but at the end of the day, people are still sitting with people they know.”
Lecia Brooks, the outreach director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that is normal. Even in small schools, with no race or class differences, it’s hard to get over the hurdle of “I don’t know you.”
Treybig said that’s all part of the lesson for her students: Change comes slowly, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth fighting for.
“Today reinforced that change is scary,” said Treybig. “To fight intolerance, we have to understand that.”
41 Facts About The History Of Central Banks In The United States That Our Children Are No Longer Taught In School
SOURCE
*The original version of this article contained a few minor inaccuracies. I apologize for this. I am not a historian, and several of the facts that I made originally are hotly disputed among historians. I have attempted to revise the article in such a way as to reflect the historical consensus more accurately. However, the central points of the original article are not in dispute. Central banking has always been a huge issue throughout U.S. history and central banking remains a tremendous threat to our financial system in 2010. Everyone makes mistakes, and I am sure I will make many more. However, the main point of the article is to detail how corrosive central banking and the financial elite have been throughout U.S. history, and hopefully most everyone can see that very clearly. There will always be historical debate about certain points, but the overall themes are unmistakable when you step back to take a look at the bigger picture.
----Beginning of the original article----
Today, most American students don't even understand what a central bank is, much less that the battle over central banks is one of the most important themes in U.S. history. The truth is that our nation was birthed in the midst of a conflict over taxation and the control of our money. Central banking has played a key role in nearly all of the wars that America has fought. Presidents that resisted the central bankers were shot, while others shamefully caved in to their demands. Our current central bank is called the Federal Reserve and it is about as "federal" as Federal Express is. The truth is that it is a privately-owned financial institution that is designed to ensnare the U.S. government in an endlessly expanding spiral of debt from which there is no escape. The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression and the Federal Reserve is at the core of our current economic crisis. None of these things is taught to students in America's schools today.
In 2010, young Americans are taught a sanitized version of American history that doesn't even make any sense. As with so many things, if you want to know what really happened just follow the money.
The following are 41 facts about the history of central banks in the United States that every American should know....
#1 As a result of the Seven Years War with France, King George III of England was deeply in debt to the central bankers of England.
#2 In an attempt to raise revenue, King George tried to heavily tax the colonies in America.
#3 ---Correction--- The following quote, supposedly from Benjamin Franklin in 1763, was quoted in Money and Men by Robert McCann Rice in 1941 but it has not been found in any previous source to this point. So is it really from Franklin? In any event, it does accurately describe the conditions of the day....
"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
#4 The Currency Act of 1764 ordered the American Colonists to stop issuing legal tender. Colonial script (the money the colonists were using at the time) was to be exchanged at a two-to-one ratio for "notes" from the Bank of England.
#5 ---Correction--- There is debate over whether or not Benjamin Franklin was the original source of the following quote....
"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."
#6 ---Correction--- When asked why the American colonies had lost respect for Parliament, Benjamin Franklin responded with the following quote....
"To a concurrence of causes: the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions."
#7 Gouverneur Morris, one of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, solemnly warned us in 1787 that we must not allow the bankers to enslave us....
"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres."
#8 Unfortunately, those warning us about the dangers of a central bank did not prevail. After an aborted attempt to establish a central bank in the 1780s, the First Bank of the United States was established in 1791. Alexander Hamilton (who had close ties to the Rothschild banking family) cut a deal under which he would support the move of the nation's capital to Washington D.C. in exchange for southern support for the establishment of a central bank.
#9 George Washington signed the bill creating the First Bank of the United States on April 25, 1791. It was given a 20 year charter.
#10 In the first five years of the First Bank of the United States, the U.S. government borrowed 8.2 million dollars and prices rose by 72 percent.
#11 The opponents of central banking were not pleased. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said the following....
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."
#12 In 1811, the charter of the First Bank of the United States was not renewed.
#13 One year later, the War of 1812 erupted. The British and the Americans were at war once again.
#14 In 1814, the British captured and burned Washington D.C., but the Americans subsequently experienced key victories at New York and at New Orleans.
#15 The Treaty of Ghent, officially ending the war, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on February 16th, 1815 and was ratified by the British on February 18th, 1815.
#16 In 1816, another central bank was created. The Second Bank of the United States was established and was given a 20 year charter.
#17 Andrew Jackson, who became president in 1828, was determined to end the power of the central bankers over the United States.
#18 In fact, in 1832, Andrew Jackson's re-election slogan was "JACKSON and NO BANK!"
#19 On July 10th, 1832 President Jackson said the following about the danger of a central bank....
"It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners... is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? ... Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy."
#20 In 1835, President Jackson completely paid off the U.S. national debt. He is the only U.S. president that has ever been able to accomplish this.
#21 President Jackson vetoed the attempt to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836.
#22 Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot Andrew Jackson, but he survived. It is alleged that Lawrence said that "wealthy people in Europe" had put him up to it.
#23 The Civil War was another opportunity for the central bankers of Europe to get their hooks into America. In fact, it is claimed that Abraham Lincoln actually contacted Rothschild banking interests in Europe in an attempt to finance the war effort. Reportedly, the Rothschilds were demanding very high interest rates and Lincoln balked at paying them.
#24 Instead, Lincoln pushed through the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Under that act, the U.S. government issued $449,338,902 of debt-free money.
#25 This debt-free money was known as "Greenbacks" because of the green ink that was used.
#26 ---Correction--- The following quote is claimed to have appeared in the London Times in 1865, but many historians dispute whether it is actually real or not....
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
#27 Abraham Lincoln was shot dead by John Wilkes Booth on April 14th, 1865.
#28 After the Civil War, all money in the United States was created by bankers buying U.S. government bonds in exchange for bank notes.
#29 ---Correction--- How President James A. Garfield really felt about the international bankers is a matter of legitimate historical debate. The quote from the original article has not been fully documented.
#30 President Garfield was shot about two weeks later by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2nd, 1881. He died from medical complications on September 19th, 1881.
#31 In 1906, the U.S. stock market was setting all kinds of records. However, in March 1907 the U.S. stock market absolutely crashed. It is alleged that elite New York bankers were responsible.
#32 In addition, in 1907 J.P. Morgan circulated rumors that a major New York bank had gone bankrupt. This caused a massive run on the banks. In turn, the banks started recalling all of their loans. The panic of 1907 resulted in a congressional investigation that ended up concluding that a central bank was "necessary" so that these kinds of panics would never happen again.
#33 It took a few years, but the international bankers finally got their central bank in 1913.
#34 ---Correction--- The U.S. House of Representatives voted on the Federal Reserve Act on December 22nd, 1913 and the U.S. Senate voted on the Federal Reserve Act the following day on December 23rd, 1913.
#35 A significant portion of Congress was either sleeping at the time or was already at home with their families celebrating the holidays.
#36 ---Correction--- The correct version of the quote about our system of credit from President Woodrow Wilson is posted below....
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men.
There is debate about whether or not Woodrow Wilson ever truly regretted allowing the Federal Reserve to be created, but hopefully most of us can agree that he should have regretted it.
#37 Between 1921 and 1929 the Federal Reserve increased the U.S. money supply by 62 percent. This was the time known as "The Roaring 20s".
#38 In addition, highly leveraged "margin loans" became very common during this time period.
#39 In October 1929, the New York bankers started calling in these margin loans on a massive scale. This created the initial crash that launched the Great Depression.
#40 Rather than expand the money supply in response to this crisis, the Federal Reserve really tightened it up.
#41 In fact, it was reported the the U.S. money supply contracted by eight billion dollars between 1929 and 1933. That was an extraordinary amount of money in those days. Over one-third of all U.S. banks went bankrupt. The New York bankers were able to buy up other banks and all kinds of other assets for pennies on the dollar.
But are American students being taught any of this today?
Of course not.
In fact, it is a rare student that can even adequately explain what a central bank is.
We have lost so much of what is important about our history.
And you know what they say - those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
It is absolutely critical that we educate as many Americans as possible about what is really going on in our financial system and about why we need to make some truly fundamental changes.
*The original version of this article contained a few minor inaccuracies. I apologize for this. I am not a historian, and several of the facts that I made originally are hotly disputed among historians. I have attempted to revise the article in such a way as to reflect the historical consensus more accurately. However, the central points of the original article are not in dispute. Central banking has always been a huge issue throughout U.S. history and central banking remains a tremendous threat to our financial system in 2010. Everyone makes mistakes, and I am sure I will make many more. However, the main point of the article is to detail how corrosive central banking and the financial elite have been throughout U.S. history, and hopefully most everyone can see that very clearly. There will always be historical debate about certain points, but the overall themes are unmistakable when you step back to take a look at the bigger picture.
----Beginning of the original article----
Today, most American students don't even understand what a central bank is, much less that the battle over central banks is one of the most important themes in U.S. history. The truth is that our nation was birthed in the midst of a conflict over taxation and the control of our money. Central banking has played a key role in nearly all of the wars that America has fought. Presidents that resisted the central bankers were shot, while others shamefully caved in to their demands. Our current central bank is called the Federal Reserve and it is about as "federal" as Federal Express is. The truth is that it is a privately-owned financial institution that is designed to ensnare the U.S. government in an endlessly expanding spiral of debt from which there is no escape. The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression and the Federal Reserve is at the core of our current economic crisis. None of these things is taught to students in America's schools today.
In 2010, young Americans are taught a sanitized version of American history that doesn't even make any sense. As with so many things, if you want to know what really happened just follow the money.
The following are 41 facts about the history of central banks in the United States that every American should know....
#1 As a result of the Seven Years War with France, King George III of England was deeply in debt to the central bankers of England.
#2 In an attempt to raise revenue, King George tried to heavily tax the colonies in America.
#3 ---Correction--- The following quote, supposedly from Benjamin Franklin in 1763, was quoted in Money and Men by Robert McCann Rice in 1941 but it has not been found in any previous source to this point. So is it really from Franklin? In any event, it does accurately describe the conditions of the day....
"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."
#4 The Currency Act of 1764 ordered the American Colonists to stop issuing legal tender. Colonial script (the money the colonists were using at the time) was to be exchanged at a two-to-one ratio for "notes" from the Bank of England.
#5 ---Correction--- There is debate over whether or not Benjamin Franklin was the original source of the following quote....
"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."
#6 ---Correction--- When asked why the American colonies had lost respect for Parliament, Benjamin Franklin responded with the following quote....
"To a concurrence of causes: the restraints lately laid on their trade, by which the bringing of foreign gold and silver into the Colonies was prevented; the prohibition of making paper money among themselves, and then demanding a new and heavy tax by stamps; taking away, at the same time, trials by juries, and refusing to receive and hear their humble petitions."
#7 Gouverneur Morris, one of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, solemnly warned us in 1787 that we must not allow the bankers to enslave us....
"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will... They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres."
#8 Unfortunately, those warning us about the dangers of a central bank did not prevail. After an aborted attempt to establish a central bank in the 1780s, the First Bank of the United States was established in 1791. Alexander Hamilton (who had close ties to the Rothschild banking family) cut a deal under which he would support the move of the nation's capital to Washington D.C. in exchange for southern support for the establishment of a central bank.
#9 George Washington signed the bill creating the First Bank of the United States on April 25, 1791. It was given a 20 year charter.
#10 In the first five years of the First Bank of the United States, the U.S. government borrowed 8.2 million dollars and prices rose by 72 percent.
#11 The opponents of central banking were not pleased. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said the following....
"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution - taking from the federal government their power of borrowing."
#12 In 1811, the charter of the First Bank of the United States was not renewed.
#13 One year later, the War of 1812 erupted. The British and the Americans were at war once again.
#14 In 1814, the British captured and burned Washington D.C., but the Americans subsequently experienced key victories at New York and at New Orleans.
#15 The Treaty of Ghent, officially ending the war, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on February 16th, 1815 and was ratified by the British on February 18th, 1815.
#16 In 1816, another central bank was created. The Second Bank of the United States was established and was given a 20 year charter.
#17 Andrew Jackson, who became president in 1828, was determined to end the power of the central bankers over the United States.
#18 In fact, in 1832, Andrew Jackson's re-election slogan was "JACKSON and NO BANK!"
#19 On July 10th, 1832 President Jackson said the following about the danger of a central bank....
"It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners... is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? ... Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence... would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy."
#20 In 1835, President Jackson completely paid off the U.S. national debt. He is the only U.S. president that has ever been able to accomplish this.
#21 President Jackson vetoed the attempt to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836.
#22 Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot Andrew Jackson, but he survived. It is alleged that Lawrence said that "wealthy people in Europe" had put him up to it.
#23 The Civil War was another opportunity for the central bankers of Europe to get their hooks into America. In fact, it is claimed that Abraham Lincoln actually contacted Rothschild banking interests in Europe in an attempt to finance the war effort. Reportedly, the Rothschilds were demanding very high interest rates and Lincoln balked at paying them.
#24 Instead, Lincoln pushed through the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Under that act, the U.S. government issued $449,338,902 of debt-free money.
#25 This debt-free money was known as "Greenbacks" because of the green ink that was used.
#26 ---Correction--- The following quote is claimed to have appeared in the London Times in 1865, but many historians dispute whether it is actually real or not....
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
#27 Abraham Lincoln was shot dead by John Wilkes Booth on April 14th, 1865.
#28 After the Civil War, all money in the United States was created by bankers buying U.S. government bonds in exchange for bank notes.
#29 ---Correction--- How President James A. Garfield really felt about the international bankers is a matter of legitimate historical debate. The quote from the original article has not been fully documented.
#30 President Garfield was shot about two weeks later by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2nd, 1881. He died from medical complications on September 19th, 1881.
#31 In 1906, the U.S. stock market was setting all kinds of records. However, in March 1907 the U.S. stock market absolutely crashed. It is alleged that elite New York bankers were responsible.
#32 In addition, in 1907 J.P. Morgan circulated rumors that a major New York bank had gone bankrupt. This caused a massive run on the banks. In turn, the banks started recalling all of their loans. The panic of 1907 resulted in a congressional investigation that ended up concluding that a central bank was "necessary" so that these kinds of panics would never happen again.
#33 It took a few years, but the international bankers finally got their central bank in 1913.
#34 ---Correction--- The U.S. House of Representatives voted on the Federal Reserve Act on December 22nd, 1913 and the U.S. Senate voted on the Federal Reserve Act the following day on December 23rd, 1913.
#35 A significant portion of Congress was either sleeping at the time or was already at home with their families celebrating the holidays.
#36 ---Correction--- The correct version of the quote about our system of credit from President Woodrow Wilson is posted below....
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men.
There is debate about whether or not Woodrow Wilson ever truly regretted allowing the Federal Reserve to be created, but hopefully most of us can agree that he should have regretted it.
#37 Between 1921 and 1929 the Federal Reserve increased the U.S. money supply by 62 percent. This was the time known as "The Roaring 20s".
#38 In addition, highly leveraged "margin loans" became very common during this time period.
#39 In October 1929, the New York bankers started calling in these margin loans on a massive scale. This created the initial crash that launched the Great Depression.
#40 Rather than expand the money supply in response to this crisis, the Federal Reserve really tightened it up.
#41 In fact, it was reported the the U.S. money supply contracted by eight billion dollars between 1929 and 1933. That was an extraordinary amount of money in those days. Over one-third of all U.S. banks went bankrupt. The New York bankers were able to buy up other banks and all kinds of other assets for pennies on the dollar.
But are American students being taught any of this today?
Of course not.
In fact, it is a rare student that can even adequately explain what a central bank is.
We have lost so much of what is important about our history.
And you know what they say - those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
It is absolutely critical that we educate as many Americans as possible about what is really going on in our financial system and about why we need to make some truly fundamental changes.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Quantititive Easing Works
Just not how they tell you it will.
Things are rarely ever as they seem, or as they are sold to you. Continually I read articles and listen to podcasts where seemingly intelligent people are distraught over how "QE 2" will just exacerbate our severe economic woes. They say things like "doesn't this moron Ben Shalom Bernanke know this is going to cause high if not hyper inflation?"
The Fed's actions seem to bewilder most people, the Austrians say that Bernanke is just following the Keynesian playbook and that Keynesians "just don't understand economics" but at the same time they realize the Fed policy makers are highly educated men. Now I certainly am the last person to place any importance at all on paper, be it fiat currency or prestigious degrees but my point is that the international jewish bankers who control the world's monetary policy are NOT dumb. So for the austrians to contend that they are is quite naive. You don't just waltz in and gain 100% control over the money supply of the most powerful nation the earth has ever seen, you have to be greedy, evil, seditious and smart. These bankers are these things.
The Austrians have it partially right, that Quantitative Easing AKA printing money with reckless abandon does not help an economy, does not lower unemployment, raise GDP or lower prices. In fact it does the opposite raises private sector unemployment lowers real GDP (not counting QE spending) and drastically raises prices for everyone in the country.
So maybe you are asking yourself
"what the hell? This guy just said the QE works now he says it doesn't?"
QE does work, but it doesn't help an economy. What it does is what it's intended to do, not what they tell you it's supposed to do.
Pay attention here because this is crucial that you understand and study for yourself. As I have pointed out at every oppurtunity Marxism, Communism is a jewish invention and a jewish controlled instutition from day one. Nobody on the planet besides jews themselves deny that jews 100% dominate the banking industry, they control the world's central banks and by default the world's currencies.
As the above link shows, communism is the endgame for the jews. This is their dream and their weapon to carry it out is unlimited amounts of money because they control the worlds banks. So understanding how jewish communsim and jewish banking go hand in hand is absolutely step one to putting the puzzle together. They want a system where the jews and perhaps some token shabbos goy will reign over the slaves, the mere worker bees of whose lives have no importance. A workers paradise where everyone is equal except those running the show.
Now ponder this quote by Russian jewish communist leader Vladmir Lenin
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
The communist game has remained unchanged in over 100 years, the tactics are not different. YOU are being screwed in a system where the bankers print money at your expense and divvy it up amongst themselves, part of the check arrives immediately through inflation and the other part shows up shortly after in the form of extreme taxation (50% in the US in most cases) because someone has to pay for the enormous deficits.
You. You pay for it, nobody else. THEY spend it, YOU pay for it. That is the system, so while they are living large sailing the world on yachts and buying private islands you are busting your ass to pay your bills, all the while trying to keep your nose clean because big brother grips you tighter by the day.
This is communism, welcome to Amerika.
The first step to fighting it is realistically assessing the situation. So don't expect these communist jews to jump before Congress and say,
"Well yes sir Dr. Paul QE will bring on much higher inflation and the public's savings is eroded away every year and the prices they pay go up because of this money printing"
I honestly think this is what people expect Bernanke to say before Congress and it blows my mind.
Instead they say,
"We are in the midst of the longest and deepest economic downturns in modern history, something that we have never faced before and it requires new and creative ways to deal with the problem, Quantitative Easing will allow banks to lend and businesses to borrow thus creating jobs"
Wake up and don't expect them to tell the Truth, all these bastards do is lie.
This will be a two part post. In the second part I will explain why it is necessary for you to be poor.
Things are rarely ever as they seem, or as they are sold to you. Continually I read articles and listen to podcasts where seemingly intelligent people are distraught over how "QE 2" will just exacerbate our severe economic woes. They say things like "doesn't this moron Ben Shalom Bernanke know this is going to cause high if not hyper inflation?"
The Fed's actions seem to bewilder most people, the Austrians say that Bernanke is just following the Keynesian playbook and that Keynesians "just don't understand economics" but at the same time they realize the Fed policy makers are highly educated men. Now I certainly am the last person to place any importance at all on paper, be it fiat currency or prestigious degrees but my point is that the international jewish bankers who control the world's monetary policy are NOT dumb. So for the austrians to contend that they are is quite naive. You don't just waltz in and gain 100% control over the money supply of the most powerful nation the earth has ever seen, you have to be greedy, evil, seditious and smart. These bankers are these things.
The Austrians have it partially right, that Quantitative Easing AKA printing money with reckless abandon does not help an economy, does not lower unemployment, raise GDP or lower prices. In fact it does the opposite raises private sector unemployment lowers real GDP (not counting QE spending) and drastically raises prices for everyone in the country.
So maybe you are asking yourself
"what the hell? This guy just said the QE works now he says it doesn't?"
QE does work, but it doesn't help an economy. What it does is what it's intended to do, not what they tell you it's supposed to do.
Pay attention here because this is crucial that you understand and study for yourself. As I have pointed out at every oppurtunity Marxism, Communism is a jewish invention and a jewish controlled instutition from day one. Nobody on the planet besides jews themselves deny that jews 100% dominate the banking industry, they control the world's central banks and by default the world's currencies.
As the above link shows, communism is the endgame for the jews. This is their dream and their weapon to carry it out is unlimited amounts of money because they control the worlds banks. So understanding how jewish communsim and jewish banking go hand in hand is absolutely step one to putting the puzzle together. They want a system where the jews and perhaps some token shabbos goy will reign over the slaves, the mere worker bees of whose lives have no importance. A workers paradise where everyone is equal except those running the show.
Now ponder this quote by Russian jewish communist leader Vladmir Lenin
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
The communist game has remained unchanged in over 100 years, the tactics are not different. YOU are being screwed in a system where the bankers print money at your expense and divvy it up amongst themselves, part of the check arrives immediately through inflation and the other part shows up shortly after in the form of extreme taxation (50% in the US in most cases) because someone has to pay for the enormous deficits.
You. You pay for it, nobody else. THEY spend it, YOU pay for it. That is the system, so while they are living large sailing the world on yachts and buying private islands you are busting your ass to pay your bills, all the while trying to keep your nose clean because big brother grips you tighter by the day.
This is communism, welcome to Amerika.
The first step to fighting it is realistically assessing the situation. So don't expect these communist jews to jump before Congress and say,
"Well yes sir Dr. Paul QE will bring on much higher inflation and the public's savings is eroded away every year and the prices they pay go up because of this money printing"
I honestly think this is what people expect Bernanke to say before Congress and it blows my mind.
Instead they say,
"We are in the midst of the longest and deepest economic downturns in modern history, something that we have never faced before and it requires new and creative ways to deal with the problem, Quantitative Easing will allow banks to lend and businesses to borrow thus creating jobs"
Wake up and don't expect them to tell the Truth, all these bastards do is lie.
This will be a two part post. In the second part I will explain why it is necessary for you to be poor.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Open Letter To Jew Tim Wise And The Rest Of The Hook Nosed Rats
I have one question for you Tim, how many niggers, spics, chinks or kikes do you see in the above picture?
5?
10?
Nope, the answer is zero. What is shown in the picture of the signing of the Declaration Of Independence is White Christian Men, the Founders of this once great Republic.
So I have news for you, you sniveling hook nosed kike, this IS our country not yours and it IS ours for the taking. For 100 years now your satanic brethren have had control of our money, and our political process, but here is the kicker, people are waking up every day.
People are waking up to the jewish fleecing of Western Society from fractional reserve usurious banking, to promoting all manners of degeneracy in movies, TV, magazines and books.
It's just starting and it will be awhile so you have plenty of time to enjoy the next few years, but if you are smart you would start planning your exit strategy because when it goes down this time, now that our world communication is interconnected, you hook nosed rats won't be able to go to the next country and play the "poor jew persecution card"
24Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
I live my life for that day.
Tom And Jerry Meet The President Of Hollywood
They are certainly becoming more blatant about their total control over hollywood. It reminded me of this
"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer...and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much alive." - Harold Rosenthal assistant to Sen. Javits
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The Chosen: Jewish members in the 112th U.S. Congress
NEW YORK (JTA) -- The following is a list of the 39 Jewish members -- 12 senators and 27 representatives -- who are expected to serve in the 112th U.S. Congress, which is set to convene in January:
U.S. SENATE
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)*
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)**
Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)
Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.)
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)**
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)**
(Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who is projected to win his re-election bid, does not identify a religion, but notes that his mother is Jewish and a Holocaust survivor.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
David Cicilline (D-R.I.)*
Stephen Cohen (D-Tenn.)
Susan Davis (D-Calif.)
Ted Deutch (D-Fla.)
Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)
Bob Filner (D-Calif.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
Sander Levin (D-Mich.)
Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Jared Polis (D-Colo.)
Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.)
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)
Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)
* Elected to House or Senate for the first time in 2010 midterms
** Senators who were re-elected in 2010 midterms
U.S. SENATE
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)*
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)**
Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)
Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.)
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)**
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)**
(Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), who is projected to win his re-election bid, does not identify a religion, but notes that his mother is Jewish and a Holocaust survivor.)
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
David Cicilline (D-R.I.)*
Stephen Cohen (D-Tenn.)
Susan Davis (D-Calif.)
Ted Deutch (D-Fla.)
Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)
Bob Filner (D-Calif.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.)
Jane Harman (D-Calif.)
Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)
Sander Levin (D-Mich.)
Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Jared Polis (D-Colo.)
Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)
Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.)
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.)
Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)
Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)
John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)
* Elected to House or Senate for the first time in 2010 midterms
** Senators who were re-elected in 2010 midterms
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)