← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 1401 | Posts: 48 | Started: 2002-06-23
2002-06-23 23:50 | User Profile
The natural flip-side of Ten Best Films, except that I have a feeling these responses will feature more in-depth sidebar commentary.....so, for brevity's sake, four or five will do in place of ten.
"Worst films" can mean the most egregious Hollywood product to have poisoned American sensibilities with leftist/neocon/otherwise-deleterious messages and propaganda; or it can simply mean botched, artless, terrible movies that aim only to entertain and fail miserably. Or any combo thereof.
But I have a feeling we'll see SCHINDLER'S LIST and DO THE RIGHT THING cited more frequently than ROBOT MONSTER or PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. We shall see.
Let 'er rip, gentleman: aqui se habla "hate"! (For the purposes of this thread, anyway.)
2002-06-24 00:13 | User Profile
"Saving Private Ryan" for its revisionist attempt to reinforce the silly notion that WWII was about saving the Jews, too high ratio of Jewish soldiers to non-Jews (one or two in their platoon were Jewish, one was some yid from Brooklyn (who might even volunteer according to the plot) eager to take revenge (yeah, right)). But the most disgusting was showing a military cemetary with extremely high ratio of Stars of David to Christian Crosses: it was something like 1:3 as far as I can remember. At the same time SPR was playing, another ambitious WWII flick was playing too, "The Thin Red Line", which was much better in terms of the story and realism but didn't do nearly as good as SPR at the box office. There was a military cemetary scene in it too, and I don't remember seeing a single Star of David there but only Christian crosses. Similarly, no Holocaustianity reference in the movie.
2002-06-24 00:28 | User Profile
I nominate the current movie, Sum of All Fears. I haven't seen it but I've heard about it.
Tom Clancy's book is about Islamic terrorists (Islam is a religion of violence, read any page in the Koran if you have a bit of doubt). Yet, the movie changes the Islamic terrorists to white racists.
It's okay to bash whites with stuff that has little reflection in reality (white racists didn't topple the WTC), but don't say anything bad about Islamic terrorists.
BTW, if I were to rate every movie I've ever seen on a scale of 1 to 10, none would get a 10 because no movie I've seen has ever had the complete package for a 10 -- a high budget, smart dialogue, and a politically incorrect plot.
2002-06-24 06:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 23 2002, 17:50 **The natural flip-side of Ten Best Films, except that I have a feeling these responses will feature more in-depth sidebar commentary.....so, for brevity's sake, four or five will do in place of ten.
"Worst films" can mean the most egregious Hollywood product to have poisoned American sensibilities with leftist/neocon/otherwise-deleterious messages and propaganda; or it can simply mean botched, artless, terrible movies that aim only to entertain and fail miserably. Or any combo thereof.
But I have a feeling we'll see SCHINDLER'S LIST and DO THE RIGHT THING cited more frequently than ROBOT MONSTER or PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. We shall see.
Let 'er rip, gentleman: aqui se habla "hate"! (For the purposes of this thread, anyway.)**
Tough to beat nearly any film with the involvement of Kevin Costner.
Dances With Wolves- you have to be an absolute IDIOT and historical, moral simpleton to believe that tripe.
Postman- :rolleyes: This film should truly be in a museum. It has every puddinghead liberal cliche ever seen. Oh, and of course, the nascent Adolph was a blue-collar white guy before the bio-Armageddon.
2002-06-24 08:26 | User Profile
God, there have been so many.....so very many.......
In no particular order:
Ghosts of Mississippi (directed by uberjude Rob "Meathead" Reiner). This pile of dung is about the Feds finally sending Byron De La Beckwith to the Graystone Apartments for ventilating uppity jig Medgar Evers. The loathsome hemorrhoid known as "Alec Baldwin" plays Bobby De Laughter, a nigra-lovin' prosecutor who just can't get the "terrible injustice" of Evers' snuffing out of his mind. "Alec" & the actors who play De Laughter's assistants are perfect Hollywood models of the emasculated New South "male": weepy; eager to prove they're Not Racists by going to any lengths to "atone" for the "crimes" of their forefathers - but with just enough of a down-home veneer to reassure Southern viewers that they're "good ol' boys", not Yankee pinkofags. James Woods plays De La Beckwith in the most repugnant way possible: all geeky gesticulations, cheap polyester & fake drawl. Woods is one of the ugliest creeps on the screen. He's got the Map of Jerusalem on his mug, but Jewhoo doesn't list him.
Gentlemen's Agreement. Surely we've all seen this turkey. Gregory Peck plays a crusading jew-snuggler who goes undercover to "expose" anti-Semitism in America. This may mark the beginning of the jews' post-war Big Push to get White Americans to hate themselves enough to commit national suicide: Hitler had just been crushed; the hebes no doubt felt it was time to really flex their muscles. As for Peck, he's a leftist from way back. It's a pity he's also a fine actor who lent a masculine gravitas to any role.
Birdman of Alcatraz (directed by jew John Frankenheimer). Commie jew Burt Lancaster as Robert Stroud, one of the most despicable killers in American history - but not in this fairy tale, oh no. Here this murdering homosexual pedophile is magically transformed into a brilliant, sensitive bird lover, persecuted by a sadistic warden (Karl Malden). But nothing can break the iron will of this natural gentleman! After seeing this pack of lies, thousands of "outraged" lemmings wrote the government demanding Stroud's immediate release. Further proof that the jews' deathgrip on the levers of the propaganda machinery must be broken if we are to survive.
Deliverance. The sheer hatred for "hillbillies" oozes from this thing from beginning to end. Poor Whites (unlike darkies of whatever hue) are not supposed to stir the heartstrings or the "conscience of the nation"; on the contrary, they are to be feared, laughed at & despised. Southerners with traditional views on race have been compared to the repulsive characters in this film ever since its release.
2002-06-24 15:21 | User Profile
To Kill a Mockingbird
I read the book as a 13 year old and loved it because I was basically a moron who didn't know any better. Plus I wanted to hang out with the girl, Scout or whatever her name was, and her brother. I also found the mysterious Bo Radley very intriguing.
The movie has become more and more unbearable with the passage of time. It is ruined by the tritely melodramatic and utterly obligatory way in which Brock Peter's character, the accused negro rapist, is the embodiment of nobility with his stoic demeanor despite his undeserved suffering at the hands of the poor white trash girl and her rat faced, chicken thieving and, it is implied, daughter raping daddy.
This absurd movie is still considered a classic by the integrationists despite the fact it is just as dated and cliche ridden as their despised "Birth of a Nation" . Yet there it is to this day being shown in high schools as part of the brain washing white kids must be subjected to.
Funny thing is, Harper Lee didn't really write the damn thing. Truman Capote ghosted it for her and let her take the credit. Think that little faggot didn't have some issues with the south? Since he had to go all the way to NY city just to get his fudge properly packed? The bus fare must have been more than he could spare cause he sure didn't do his fellow southerners any favors in TKAMB.
Also on the list belongs a movie called "Cast A Giant Shadow" in which crypto jew Kirk Douglas plays an American general (a jew) who out of the goodness of his heart decides to emigrate to Israel and help the brave Irgun, Stern gang et all overcome the beastly Arabs who have the temerity to resist having their land stolen and their wells poisioned. A more pro Israel piece you will never see. And it's based on historical fact.
2002-06-24 17:09 | User Profile
The prior posts seem to have focused on those films most destructive to reality, race and culture. I agree with those measures in awarding demerits in film.
I simply haven't watchced films lately which I can predict are utterly trite and tripe. There are some films I have seen in the past I would like to add. "E.T.", a meisterstueck from the Schlockmeister Spielberg, is a triumph of the maudlin and a celebration of xenophilia. "Exodus" was at least as bad as "Cast A Giant Shadow." Unfortunately, these films had the advantage of tremendous production values, including impressive photography and scoring.
"Dances with Wolves" is another example of talent twisted to evil ends. I am not entirely unsympathetic to aboriginal Americans. I was amazed at being able to find one incident of White brutality that equalled the cruelty of the brave, noble redskin who kept shooting a helpless wounded White man with arrows to increase the agony of his imminent death. A White man's warrior code, such as chivalry, would have demanded the "coup de grace."
The flaws of "Deliverance" are especially tragic given the opportunity of developing the theme of modern man coming to terms with the shedding of his civilized veneer in the presence of the primal. As deracinated as these "men" from modern Atlanta were, they still coped better than would have a gaggle of Seinfelds. They should use those neurotic specimens in remake. It would be one howl of a comedy. :D :D :D
P.S. "Squeal piggies!"
2002-06-24 17:45 | User Profile
I've seen movies which were brutally unfair towards Indians, and flicks which were ridiculously naive about Indians.
About the only one that seemed to get it right is a little-known gem called ULZANA'S RAID. Anybody else see it?
2002-06-24 19:12 | User Profile
James Dickey was a brilliant drunk obsessed with his image. His attempts to be a Hemingway drowned his potential. Dickey's hatred of the South was, while fashionable at the time, simply an attempt to court favor from the New York Times. He was very talented and beneath contempt. Southerners ignore him except to piss on his grave.
I reread To Kill a Mockingbird around the same time I reread Anne Frank, after having them assigned in middle school and being immensely impressed with both. On the second read, I recognized both as obviously fraudulent crap. I'd be interested in reading about documentation that Capote ghosted Mockingbird; I guess I always assumed he helped but had never seen anything that went so far as to say Lee was anything but a savant.
2002-06-24 19:20 | User Profile
"Saving Private Ryan" for its revisionist attempt to reinforce the silly notion that WWII was about saving the Jews, too high ratio of Jewish soldiers to non-Jews (one or two in their platoon were Jewish, one was some yid from Brooklyn (who might even volunteer according to the plot) eager to take revenge (yeah, right)).
More:
Italian-hating Spielberg's decision to cast a mulatto as an Italian-American soldier
German-hating Spielberg's portrayal of the German soldier freed earlier in the movie coming back to kill Americans later in the movie. Utterly gratuitous.
2002-06-24 19:25 | User Profile
"E.T.", a meisterstueck from the Schlockmeister Spielberg, is a triumph of the maudlin and a celebration of xenophilia.
How about statist Spielberg's editing of the re-released version to portray the government agents (cops) without guns?
2002-06-24 19:29 | User Profile
I'll offer up Caddyshack. Though funny, it's a blatant anti-WASP ouevre (Dangerfield vs. Ted Knight), that manages to display the Tribe's true feelings for the shvartzen in the process -- think of that black boater portrayed as the arch-spook.
2002-06-25 01:00 | User Profile
How about the modest-budget white-bashing movie of the year. Every year there's at least one movie about slavery or some such thing to remind us how evil whites are and what victims blacks are.
2002-06-25 04:09 | User Profile
Folks, I would have to add "Dungeons and Dragons" to the list. While some might argue that such a movie is destined to stink ab initio, I disagree; done properly, this flick could have rivaled Fellowship of the Ring, Excalibur, or Braveheart (a Braveheart with dragons, no less). Instead, it stunk out the house in every way imaginable.
And the casting of Marlon Wayans was the icing on a rotten cake.
Now, in a generic fantasy world, I am sure that there could be blacks. Hell, why not?
But a black guy speaking Ebonics?
I suppose that's not too much worse than having the leading character speaking Cali surfer slang.
Now, that's the worst flick I have seen in a while. (Though if you have suffered through "Man in the Moon", you have argue that there's competition).
Ah, hell, it could have been worse. It could have featured Wayans hooking up with some hot looking elven chick with blond hair and blue eyes.
2002-06-25 07:06 | User Profile
Anti Yuppie:
Burton was one of my all-time favorites, too, particularly that magnificent voice of his. He was superb in Wagner - in retrospect, I love the way they pulled no punches about the Maestro's loathing for der Jude. I haven't seen it since it came out.
2002-06-25 11:27 | User Profile
Weisbrot
It is just speculation that Capote wrote the entire thing, nothing more than that.
He always told people he "helped" but the degree to which is unknown.
But the fact that she was pretty much a one book wonder fueled the speculation.
2002-06-25 15:19 | User Profile
Put me down for everybody's favorite one-two punch: SCHINDLER'S LIST & SAVING PRIVATE RYAN.
SCHINDLER is the perfect history lesson for dummies, a mural drawn in black Magic Marker on crepe paper. The Jews are all kindly, simple, chai-clutching blameless victims; shopkeepers and violinists to a man. The Nazis are portrayed as demons who high-five each other after shooting children and crippled old men. (I was honestly waiting for them to all sprout fur and fangs during full-moon scenes...and Liam Neeson to subdue one or two with a silver-handled cane.) You know what you're in for when the very first words spoken by the main villain - Ralph Fiennes' Goeth - are a foul-mouthed variation of Colonel Klink-speak..."Ja, vhy ist der top down? I'm fuink freezink." I literally rolled my eyes! My mind flashed back to THE LONGEST DAY which at least respected its audience's intelligence enough to assume it possessed sufficient IQ to hack subtitles for the non-English-speaking participants. (For an all- European cast of characters like this film, that would be a hardship, but the other solution...lose the comical accents and speak in unaccented English, was never an option, apparently. Except for Neeson, the Only Good Aryan, who mysteriously is allowed to stride about talking like Roger Moore.) I can brush aside the deliberate historical sleight-of-hand employed but I cannot ignore the pernicious emotional manipulation here. Anyone who could auteur up a scene like the one where the young Nazi calmly murders a Jew and, seconds later, kitchy-kitchy-koos a little baby is absolutely certain that audiences are cattle.
What makes SCHINDLER still more repellant is the role the US government and its institutions played in putting it over: forcing kids to watch this in school - as 'history' - is as obscene as German schoolkids reading Der Sturmer as 'social studies'. (Thankfully, kids have a tendency to instinctively debunk & deride such forced solemnity, as they do with entreaties to eat their green vegetables because 'children are starving in China'.) The final slap in the face was NBC running this TWICE without commercial interruption, as if it were holy writ. (Note they have no compunction about interrupting JESUS OF NAZARETH screenings every ten minutes to hawk Dodge trucks and Klondike bars.)
PRIVATE RYAN -while less offensive - is just as jerry-rigged with propaganda Claymores. (On any level except high-tech gore, it's not a patch on Kubrick's PATHS OF GLORY.) In fact, once the SCHINDLER/RYAN one-two punch effectively rewrote history (WW2 has now become WW Jew)...THEN and ONLY then did the Powers That Be decide the time was 'long past due' to honor The Greatest Generation, ie, when Johnny O'Reilly-Rodriguez-Romano-Jones dropped everyone and everything to selflessly serve the Highest Cause Of All......saving the Chosen.
Isn't it a pitiful, criminal shame that the true Greatest Generation....those Americans who bore the full crippling brunt of the Depression without turning Red or losing their core decency...the ones whom FDR had to rig up Pearl Harbor to force back into fatigues....the WW1 vets on soup-kitchen lines, the forgotten families made homeless nomads by the Dust Bowl, the desperate men who hopped freights and dodged the billy-clubs of railroad-dicks to get to where the work was.....THAT generation is treated, to this day, like the gum on your shoe. Killing Germans for greater Judea conferred honor upon them; weathering their own country's tribulations earned them a slammed door-in-the-face from the sensitive geniuses at Amblin Productions. Don't you feel a little sick knowing that? You should; we all should, a little.
2002-06-25 15:58 | User Profile
Then there's the neat little trick Spielberg pulls in misquoting the Talmud in Schindler's List.
[url=http://www.hoffman-info.com/revisionist5.html]http://www.hoffman-info.com/revisionist5.html[/url]
**Of course Spielberg, being a cunning and deceptive propagandist, cannot reveal the fact of the Talmud's racism to his audience. Instead, he portrays it as a sort of manual for universal love. Hence, toward the end of the film in a key tear-jerking scene, Schindler's Jews present Schindler with a ring upon which is inscribed a quotation attributed to the Talmud, "He who saves a single life, saves the entire world."
This quotation also appears on posters advertising Schindler's List in video stores and schools, apparently having been selected as the film's motto, by its promoters.
However, the actual Talmud verse referred to in the movie says no such thing. Here is what the Talmud really says, "Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete world" (Tractate Sanhedrin 37a).**
2002-06-25 16:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Jun 25 2002, 15:58 Then there's the neat little trick Spielberg pulls in misquoting the Talmud in Schindler's List.
[url=http://www.hoffman-info.com/revisionist5.html]http://www.hoffman-info.com/revisionist5.html[/url]
**Of course Spielberg, being a cunning and deceptive propagandist, cannot reveal the fact of the Talmud's racism to his audience. Instead, he portrays it as a sort of manual for universal love. Hence, toward the end of the film in a key tear-jerking scene, Schindler's Jews present Schindler with a ring upon which is inscribed a quotation attributed to the Talmud, "He who saves a single life, saves the entire world."
This quotation also appears on posters advertising Schindler's List in video stores and schools, apparently having been selected as the film's motto, by its promoters.
However, the actual Talmud verse referred to in the movie says no such thing. Here is what the Talmud really says, "Whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved a complete world" (Tractate Sanhedrin 37a).** **
The verse used in the movie is actually Koranic. Heinlein quotes it in his *Starship Troopers*
2002-06-25 17:10 | User Profile
Or his other Neat Trick.......of selectively altering the record so that the audience has no idea that the real Amon Goeth - who was indeed a cruel man, and quite possibly insane - was arrested and tried by the Nazis in 1944 for embezzling and brutality to prisoners.
That might be More Than They Need To Know...eh, Steve?
2002-06-25 19:30 | User Profile
No, it's from the Talmud, all right -- the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5.
2002-06-25 19:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Jun 25 2002, 19:30 No, it's from the Talmud, all right -- the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5.
No, no, I mean the verse used in the movie. That's the Koranic formulation.
Best, P
2002-06-25 20:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 25 2002, 10:19 **The final slap in the face was NBC running this TWICE without commercial interruption, as if it were holy writ. (Note they have no compunction about interrupting JESUS OF NAZARETH screenings every ten minutes to hawk Dodge trucks and Klondike bars.) **
This is a striking observation and excellent point, il ragno, that really made me think.
2002-06-25 20:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Jun 25 2002, 20:18 > Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 25 2002, 10:19 The final slap in the face was NBC running this TWICE without commercial interruption, as if it were holy writ. (Note they have no compunction about interrupting JESUS OF NAZARETH screenings every ten minutes to hawk Dodge trucks and Klondike bars.) **
This is a striking observation and excellent point, il ragno, that really made me think.**
I believe the air time was paid for. Ford Motor Co. kicked over the cash and was allowed a commercial at the beginning and the end.
Oh, the irony.
Best, P
2002-06-25 21:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Jun 25 2002, 15:26 I believe the air time was paid for. Ford Motor Co. kicked over the cash and was allowed a commercial at the beginning and the end.
What a surprise. I imagine the folks that spend the big money at Ford go to the same cocktail parties as the folks who decide the programming at NBC.
I highly doubt you'd see any of 'em down at Bubba's Ice House in Deer Park.
:angry:
2002-06-26 08:56 | User Profile
What a surprise. I imagine the folks that spend the big money at Ford go to the same cocktail parties as the folks who decide the programming at NBC.
The head Ford honcho at that time was an "Englishman" named Alex Troutman. The sound you hear is Ol' Henry a-spinnin' in his grave at 3,000 RPM....
Another "subtle" trick zhid Spielberg played was having a Star of David headstone right next to the cross on the grave that an old Ryan was paying his respects to at the end of Saving Ryan's Privates.
2002-06-28 17:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 23 2002, 15:50 **The natural flip-side of Ten Best Films, except that I have a feeling these responses will feature more in-depth sidebar commentary.....so, for brevity's sake, four or five will do in place of ten.
"Worst films" can mean the most egregious Hollywood product to have poisoned American sensibilities with leftist/neocon/otherwise-deleterious messages and propaganda; or it can simply mean botched, artless, terrible movies that aim only to entertain and fail miserably. Or any combo thereof.
But I have a feeling we'll see SCHINDLER'S LIST and DO THE RIGHT THING cited more frequently than ROBOT MONSTER or PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE. We shall see.
Let 'er rip, gentleman: aqui se habla "hate"! (For the purposes of this thread, anyway.)**
One of the biggest cinematic chunderfests was that loathsome 2001 flick "Behind Enemy Lines"--Gene Hackman should have been embarrassed to have even considered appearing in this swamp of fatuous bilge featuring typically cartoonish villians--the Serbs were portrayed as clownish, bloothirsty monsters (anti-Slavic bigotry in Hollywood remains alive and well.)
The film is loosely based on the 1995 shootdown of USAF pilot Scott O'Grady in Bosnia by Serb forces and our nation's "much ado about nothing"--the media ridiculously calling O'Grady a "hero" and giving him first class red-carpet treatment for merely losing his plane (a la Mad Johnny McCain.) Contrast O'Grady's "walk in the park" in Bosnia with say, AF Capt. Lance Sijan (ironically, of Serb descent) who was downed in N. Vietnam in 1967 and died in captivity after being brutally tortured as punishment for attempting a near-successful escape. Sijan was the first USAF Academy grad to win the MoH (posthumously.)
As far as Richard Burton goes, one of the strangest roles he played was that of Yugoslav Partisan leader Marshal Tito during WWII in the 1973 Yugoslav film "Sutejska" (also titled "The Fifth Offensive") the screenplay written by Orson Welles.
2002-06-28 19:18 | User Profile
Always thought Burton was one of our most hilarious OVERactors myself. In THE LONGEST DAY, just Burton enunciating "Ack ack" is enough to convulse me. EQUUS I find unwatchable, and his EXORCIST 2 turn is unintentional comedy at its finest.
Louise Fletcher: Father?....what are we up against here? Burton: (long dramatic pause) Eeeeeee-villll!
But my favorite is his BLUEBEARD. Nonstop gorgeous naked chicks, Raquel Welch as a nun, full frontal Joey Heatherton and Burton looking pained when he's not murdering his dialogue with his, umm, 'intensity'. Does it get any better?
2002-06-28 19:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 28 2002, 19:18 **Always thought Burton was one of our most hilarious OVERactors myself. In THE LONGEST DAY, just Burton enunciating "Ack ack" is enough to convulse me. EQUUS I find unwatchable, and his EXORCIST 2 turn is unintentional comedy at its finest. **
He played a good version of Petrucchio in "The Taming of the Shrew." I guess it helps to have a role that corresponds to personality.
Best, P
2002-07-03 15:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Jun 23 2002, 16:28 **Tom Clancy's book is about Islamic terrorists (Islam is a religion of violence, read any page in the Koran if you have a bit of doubt). Yet, the movie changes the Islamic terrorists to white racists.
**
I've long had my doubts about Tom Clancy's "novels." What is puzzling is this--Clancy, a longtime insurance salesman, who, before his first novel "Hunt For Red October," had written or published nothing except for a short newspaper op-ed piece on the MX ICBM, suddenly hits it big with a major, extremely well-written and edited novel, HFRO in the early 1980s, and each book he's turned out has never been a dud. Ever. Granted, a good editor can and does often turn sh*t into sunshine and save a so-so book, but not all the time.
Even the best novelists throughout have had their ups and downs, Clancy never really has. Moreover, it seems each of Clancy's formulaic (but well-ornamented) plots and characterizations somehow "anticipate" or "popularize" pending US foreign policy decisions or events in various ways. I can't help but get the impression Tom has long been a US government asset--one who has been "fed" his ideas and plotlines to help build and shape public opinion for US policies that have already been decided upon, but not yet publicized or implemented. I have no idea if this is indeed the case with Clancy, but this practice itself is nothing new. The CIA has done this sort of thing for decades.
Watergate burglar and former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt in his biography "Undercover" discussed the use of novels and popular books for CIA propaganda purposes. He discussed at length how novels, biographies and "exposes" were for years deliberately funded if not written and published and marketed by the CIA itself as propaganda or disinformation tools--"The Penkovsky Papers" is but one example, another being the first (1954) book by dissident Yugoslav Communist Milovan Djilas, entitled "The New Class," one highly critical of Marshal Tito's policies. With CIA infiltration in the mainstream news media so well known under Operation Mockingbird, it's not much of a stretch that the Agency has novelists like Clancy and others on the hook as well. Heck, look at all the famed novelists, screenwriters, playwrights and poets were part of the Federal Writers' Project under the New Deal.
2002-07-03 15:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 28 2002, 11:50 I didn't feel like wasting the money to see dreck like Behind Enemy Lines, but according to a review I read, the movie portrayed Serbs the same way that B-movies portray Nazi villains. Meanwhile, the movie depicted Bosnian and Albanian Muslims as noble, "westernized" admirers of MTV and rap music. Was this the case?
Yes it was and cartoonishly so.
2002-07-12 04:08 | User Profile
Originally posted by MikeKr1@Jul 3 2002, 15:37 > Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Jun 23 2002, 16:28 Tom Clancy's book is about Islamic terrorists (Islam is a religion of violence, read any page in the Koran if you have a bit of doubt). Yet, the movie changes the Islamic terrorists to white racists.
**
I've long had my doubts about Tom Clancy's "novels."......
Watergate burglar and former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt in his biography "Undercover" discussed the use of novels and popular books for CIA propaganda purposes. He discussed at length how novels, biographies and "exposes" were for years deliberately funded if not written and published and marketed by the CIA itself as propaganda or disinformation tools--"The Penkovsky Papers" is but one example, another being the first (1954) book by dissident Yugoslav Communist Milovan Djilas, entitled "The New Class," one highly critical of Marshal Tito's policies. With CIA infiltration in the mainstream news media so well known under Operation Mockingbird, it's not much of a stretch that the Agency has novelists like Clancy and others on the hook as well. Heck, look at all the famed novelists, screenwriters, playwrights and poets were part of the Federal Writers' Project under the New Deal.**
Well I'm not sure though about "Sum of All Things" although I have no doubt that the friendliness of Clancy's novels to the military-industrial complex played a big role in their success in some way, however big or direct a role the top players really played. The fact that Clancy is from Washington D.C. though makes what you're saying quite likely in my opinion.
I'd have to add though on Happy Hackers comments about the powers that be changing the book. Seeing the movie it was amazing how much the real history of 1979 had been updated to current events. I haven't read the book or reviews, but watching the movie it had inserted a great many things, like Chechyna, completely unknown in 1979. And of course the Neo-Nazi's were responsible. It was rather obvious that the whole movie wa written from a very neo-con agenda.
A few places in the movie actually gave me slight creeps. These were neo-cons very concerned about the enemy, of America, world peace, and humanity, and we all know who that is. <_<
2002-07-12 04:31 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@Jul 11 2002, 20:08 > Originally posted by MikeKr1@Jul 3 2002, 15:37 > Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Jun 23 2002, 16:28 **Tom Clancy's book is about Islamic terrorists (Islam is a religion of violence, read any page in the Koran if you have a bit of doubt). ÃÂ Yet, the movie changes the Islamic terrorists to white racists.
**
I've long had my doubts about Tom Clancy's "novels."......
Watergate burglar and former CIA officer E. Howard Hunt in his biography "Undercover" discussed the use of novels and popular books for CIA propaganda purposes. He discussed at length how novels, biographies and "exposes" were for years deliberately funded if not written and published and marketed by the CIA itself as propaganda or disinformation tools--"The Penkovsky Papers" is but one example, another being the first (1954) book by dissident Yugoslav Communist Milovan Djilas, entitled "The New Class," one highly critical of Marshal Tito's policies. With CIA infiltration in the mainstream news media so well known under Operation Mockingbird, it's not much of a stretch that the Agency has novelists like Clancy and others on the hook as well. Heck, look at all the famed novelists, screenwriters, playwrights and poets were part of the Federal Writers' Project under the New Deal.**
Well I'm not sure though about "Sum of All Things" although I have no doubt that the friendliness of Clancy's novels to the military-industrial complex played a big role in their success in some way, however big or direct a role the top players really played. The fact that Clancy is from Washington D.C. though makes what you're saying quite likely in my opinion.
I'd have to add though on Happy Hackers comments about the powers that be changing the book. Seeing the movie it was amazing how much the real history of 1979 had been updated to current events. I haven't read the book or reviews, but watching the movie it had inserted a great many things, like Chechyna, completely unknown in 1979. And of course the Neo-Nazi's were responsible. It was rather obvious that the whole movie wa written from a very neo-con agenda.
A few places in the movie actually gave me slight creeps. These were neo-cons very concerned about the enemy, of America, world peace, and humanity, and we all know who that is. <_<**
The fact that Clancy's Arab villians in his novel The Sum of All Fears were transformed into White separatists for the film version should give all objective Americans a moment to reflect...
It's a good sign that the Tribe feels so pathologically compelled to demonize us...even more so than their genuine Arab enemies. The score shall soon be settled for centuries to come. Isabella; Titus and whats-his-name will seem contemptible whimps before we settle accounts with the Talmudic mafia.
;) ;) ;)
2002-07-12 04:42 | User Profile
**I haven't read the book or reviews, but watching the movie it had inserted a great many things, like Chechyna, completely unknown in 1979. And of course the Neo-Nazi's were responsible. It was rather obvious that the whole movie wa written from a very neo-con agenda. **
In the book Clancy made one of the terrorists who works with the Muslims a German, but Clancy portrayed him as an embittered ex-member of the Communist secret police not a Nazi. Clancy also made one of the terrorists, of all things, a racist American Indian! Naturally both characters were cut from the film to make room for the white Nazis, as were the Muslims.
Another particularly offensive and brazen deviation from the book occured in the scene when the Jack Ryan figure learns that the Mossad stole nuclear weapons technology from the United States. In the film, the implication is that the US gave Israel this technology. In the book, Clancy writes that Mossad stole it.
2002-07-12 06:34 | User Profile
Originally posted by Valley Forge@Jul 12 2002, 04:42 > I haven't read the book or reviews, but watching the movie it had inserted a great many things, like Chechyna, completely unknown in 1979. And of course the Neo-Nazi's were responsible. It was rather obvious that the whole movie wa written from a very neo-con agenda. **
In the book Clancy made one of the terrorists who works with the Muslims a German, but Clancy portrayed him as an embittered ex-member of the Communist secret police not a Nazi. Clancy also made one of the terrorists, of all things, a racist American Indian! Naturally both characters were cut from the film to make room for the white Nazis, as were the Muslims.
Another particularly offensive and brazen deviation from the book occured in the scene when the Jack Ryan figure learns that the Mossad stole nuclear weapons technology from the United States. In the film, the implication is that the US gave Israel this tecI suspect hnology. In the book, Clancy writes that Mossad stole it.**
Well the little details are interesting, but as I saw the movie, the broader hints of what was going on seemed much more compelling. Chechyna, disgruntled ex-Soviet Generals, using the lack of control within the former Soviet Union, with a premier rather transparently like Putin afraid of appearing weak and losing control, combining with Neo-Nazi's working together all over the world to take advantage of the situation - the movie had nothing to do with the 1979 situation, and everything to do with todays situation. Clancey himself seemed always to have a fairly clear and somewhat anti-communist geo-political world view, relating everything to the east-west conflict. If you look at "the Sum of All Things" the enemy has changed into the wizened powers of the world establishment defending the world against a group of right-wing rogues, all over the world, working together for the first time against them. The world is saved, and the plotters are unceremoniusly tracked down and shot.
Propaganda films like this quite often as s noted are supported by someone powerful with an agenda. Pre-9/11 when the emphasis (not without some difficulty) shifted reluctantly to the Arab world, is there any doubt in your minds what this was about? I suspect the inner establishment already had some suspicion of terrorist activity, and a tentative plan to exploit it, before the timing and dynamics of 9/11 threw them off a bit. No doubt it will come back with wrinkles - probably when they get a reliable allie to implement it (President Hillary is one possibility).
2003-07-05 10:01 | User Profile
The "worst" movie (over all) I have ever seen is "Life Is Beautiful."
2003-07-05 22:01 | User Profile
Starship Troopers was the worst ever because it twisted what it promised into a kind of Alien movie. Would enjoy Larry Niven's Man-Kzinti wars on film, with the human hating giant housecats from Alpha Centauri hammering at the orbit of Neptune for fifty years while billions back on earth pretend everything is fine.
2003-07-06 01:32 | User Profile
**I didn't feel like wasting the money to see dreck like Behind Enemy Lines, but according to a review I read, the movie portrayed Serbs the same way that B-movies portray Nazi villains. Meanwhile, the movie depicted Bosnian and Albanian Muslims as noble, "westernized" admirers of MTV and rap music. Was this the case? **
Yes. A better film is "Savior" with Denis Quaid.
Also "Sniper 2" protrays Serbs in a negative light as well. But thats only the least of it. First, you got some bad-ass :afro: who actually knows Serbian (they claim its Serbian but they actually speak Hungarian in the film). After shooting a Serbian general/politician, the black guy walks around with his hand on his pistol right in the middle of a city and nobody seems to find that strange(least of all the police). I'm sorry but I don't buy that, unless Serbia has a problem with Black immigrants lately.
"Sum of all Fears" was nonesense. The CIA's more busy finding out who Jack Ryan(played terribly by Ben Afflec) is sleeping with than finding terrorists. This is somewhat true in real life, but destroys the tough-guy CIA image in the film. Then when Morgan Freeman explains some situation and Afflec saids "that doesn't add up." To which Freeman replies "yes it does, you just don't like what it adds up to". I'm thinking "no, what you just said made no sense whatsoever." Why the hell would Russian officers help people who want to blow their country to :dung: ?
How can you hide a nuclear bomb in a vending machine? Why use a nuke just to kill the President? A little over kill.
Worse yet, many political commentators tried to use the film to justify Bush's claims against Iraq. Even military analyst David Hackworth(who I used to have some respect for) used the film to justify Bush's plans for war. You'd almost think Bush commissioned the film to help build popular support for his case against Iraq.
As one movie critic rightfully said, "Even blowing up the world couldn't save this film."
2003-07-06 02:59 | User Profile
Hollywood makes Comedy about the Rape and abuse of Women. This film is evil!
**A Foreign Affair (1948)
Product Details
* Starring: Jean Arthur, Marlene Dietrich, See more * Director: Billy Wilder * Encoding: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. This DVD will probably NOT be viewable in other countries. Read more about DVD formats.) * Format: Black & White, Closed-captioned, NTSC * Rated: NR * Studio: Universal Studios * DVD Release Date: September 29, 1998 * From IMDb: Quotes & Trivia * ASIN: 0783217471 * Average Customer Review: 4.7 out of 5 stars Based on 6 reviews. Write a review. * Amazon.com Sales Rank (VHS): 7,283
over-looked gem!, March 25, 2002
Reviewer: ctolley (see more about me) from hampton, tn United States Billy Wilder was such a genius in film-making,it's astounding. What really set him apart, I think, was his knack for knowing who to cast in what role. What really gives this film its kick, is Marlene Dietrich in a role that proved once and for all that yes, she can act! Set in Berlin right after the end of World War Two, and at the beginning of the American occupation of their sector of Berlin, the film is really a dialogue on the human trait of survival through the worst. The main charactors are bent on surviving their individual circumstances, as each interacts with the others in the story. Dietrich portrays a former Nazi lounge singer, keeping an American officer sugar-daddy so she can stay alive and well in Berlin, John Lund plays her American officer on a leash, and Jean Arthur is the upright(and uptight) US congresswoman from Iowa who throws a wrench into everybodys life by arriving to check on troop morale. This film has many truly wicked one-liners, and puts one to mind of Dietrich's days with Von Sternberg, what with all the shadows and over-head lights. Certainly, Dietrich definately benefited from this, she never looked at all her 47 years. Jean Arthur, I've heard, wasn't pleased with the pains Dietrich took with the lighting, but mainly she wasn't too thrilled with her part. She needn't have worried. She portrays the straight-laced congresswoman perfectly, the right foil to Dietrich's sultry singer. Each actor is just right in their role, and one also wonders why John Lund sort of disappeared after this, he was very good in this film. The cast and script are just perfect, and the lighting and photography are top-notch. This film was a sucess, but due to its subject matter and time frame(at a time when most americans still thought of Germany as the enemy), it wasn't a huge hit. However, it did rejuvenate Dietrich's career yet again, for perhaps the hundredth time. Well worth having in your collection!
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0783217471/]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...l/-/0783217471/[/url] **
2003-07-06 09:20 | User Profile
*Originally posted by il ragno@Jun 24 2002, 17:45 * ** I've seen movies which were brutally unfair towards Indians, and flicks which were ridiculously naive about Indians.
About the only one that seemed to get it right is a little-known gem called ULZANA'S RAID. Anybody else see it? **
I suspect that "Black Robe" came closest to reflecting the reality of the Indians. They were portrayed as cruel, proud, viciously loyal to their own, utterly benighted and given to superstition, yet possessing their own sort of nobility and beauty.
I grew up near two reservations, and attended school with lots of kids from both, and if you can imagine them without the alcohol (not an easy thing to do) then the picture makes sense to me.
Good film, well worth a look.
Walter
2003-07-06 09:24 | User Profile
Gotta add one I endured only a few weeks ago....so vile, so deliberately phony, so brainwarping & malignant it really deserves its own thread: AMERICAN HISTORY X.
2003-07-07 06:21 | User Profile
*Originally posted by il ragno@Jul 6 2003, 09:24 * ** Gotta add one I endured only a few weeks ago....so vile, so deliberately phony, so brainwarping & malignant it really deserves its own thread: AMERICAN HISTORY X. **
I only saw the first half of that one. I did like the way Norton let that sad puppy zhid Elliot Gould have it at the dinner table, but that was about it.
How'd you like White Supremacist Mastermind Stacy Keach's rotten front tooth? We all know that poor dental health is one of the surest indicators that a man is No Damn Good - at least if he's poor & White. Right, Hyman?
2003-07-07 08:18 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Jul 6 2003, 04:20 * ** I suspect that "Black Robe" came closest to reflecting the reality of the Indians. **
Walter,
Black Robe is outstanding and one of my top five all-time favorites.
2003-07-07 13:41 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident+Jul 7 2003, 08:18 -->
QUOTE* (Texas Dissident @ Jul 7 2003, 08:18 ) <!--QuoteBegin-Walter Yannis@Jul 6 2003, 04:20 * ** I suspect that "Black Robe" came closest to reflecting the reality of the Indians. ** Walter,
Black Robe is outstanding and one of my top five all-time favorites. **
Yeah, it was a beautiful film.
It really captured the astonishing natural beauty of my neck of the woods.
It attempted to portray the French Jesuits and the Huron Indians without condescending stereotypes. I think that it succeeded pretty well.
The French Jesuits were men of towering intellect, character, and committment, which is pretty right on considering their astonishing exploits in the 17th century.
The Indians were what they were: savage, cruel, benighted, and terribly beautiful. The two sides talked passed each other - neither one understood a thing the other side was saying, even though some of the Indians spoke French pretty well. They were just too different - ne'er the twain shall meet.
What did you think of "The Mission?"
Walter
xmetalhead
2003-07-07 15:48 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Karl Wilhelm@Jul 5 2003, 05:01 * ** The "worst" movie (over all) I have ever seen is "Life Is Beautiful." **
Herr Wilhelm, I agree, LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, or in Italian, LA VIDA E BELLA is a disgraceful, deceitful piece of jewish propaganda :dung:, sadly, consumed and devoured by the American Sheep.
One of the worst feminist man-hating pieces of :dung: I've ever seen was ERIN BROCKIVICH. EVERY male in the movie was portrayed as an effete demasculated puppet, or a complete bumbling moron, or a dirty ol man who's bent on rape, all the while this ghastly, moronic, uneducated, foul-mouthed wrench prances around in mini-skirts up to her crotch, curses at everyone, and suddenly is given jurisdiction over a multi-million dollar lawsuit without an ounce of experience in anything. How? If it walks like a whore, dresses like a whore and smells like a whore, well, by golly, it is a whore! Not too mention the jewish adoration Oscar shower upon Julia Horsemouth Roberts and Director Sodenburgh.
Also, I started watching that abomination BEHIND ENEMY LINES and I couldn't finish watching it, although I did see the other half at a different time. What a sick, propagandized history lesson for the American cattle to feed upon and believe.
THE SOUND OF MUSIC is another demented jewish creation of a most insidious nature. If so much praise for one movie is evident, you know it contains a fierce serving of anti-White vitriol in sheep's clothing. STAY AWAY!
EDUMAKATEDMOFO
2003-07-07 16:07 | User Profile
"Tears of the Sun" sucked my ass so hard it lifted it off the couch and threw it clear across the living room. Just another case of prepping the herd for the neo-con military humanitarian crusade du jour...
Break out the kleenex fer this one... be ready for the strong tug it'll give to your emotion-filled heartstrings. <_<
edward gibbon
2003-07-07 17:50 | User Profile
Previously I attempted to persuade my fellows of the insidious influences of certain American movies that have deeply penetrated the American psyche. I must try again.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=1898&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...wtopic=1898&hl=[/url] edward gibbon (Posted: Jun 27 2002, 20:08)> ** As one who seldom sees movies, I still felt I should have some say in compiling lists of movies awful and insidious. I could only think of one that almost brings me to convulsions. That movie is the propaganda film, Casablanca. From my book:
QUOTE The movie industry was entering a period, which many industry chroniclers with no sense of irony referred to as its glory years, when it was of greatest and most noble service to the nation. There has been no movie which has embedded itself into American folklore as being so spiritually uplifting and as being so necessary for inspiring morale as Casablanca. The cult of Casablanca started at Harvard in 1957 where the picture started to catch on, and audiences started to chant the lines. It came to be almost a religious ritual. A professor of sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, Todd Gitlin, related the importance of the film in his life even though he had been born in 1943, the year of the film. For the four years he attended Harvard he went to that movie two to four times each year. The ritual of watching and chanting dialogue became his own personal rite of passage, and he began to understand Casablanca as his own "personal melodrama". [Aljean Harmetz, Round Up the Usual Suspects: The Making of Casablanca, pp343-4, (Hyperion, 1992)] He would cheer the fighting of fascists in Spain all the while forgetting that Franco was attacking a government which supported the butchery of the Ukrainian peasants. Professor Gitlin with no irony thought that Casablanca had a message specially coded for him and his cohorts in the peace groups. As a protestor of the war in Vietnam, Professor Gitlin was one who believed virtue was solely on his side. For the war in the Persian Gulf Gitlin explained that Jews were not taking part in protests because the safety of Israel was a major factor. Gitlin affirmed that not only generals fight the last war, but "antiwar people fight the last war too". [Commentary, Jan, 1991 p17] To show his vehemence and his devotion for the bombing of Iraqis the ex-SDS leader, Professor Gitlin, summoned TV cameras to record his donation of blood in support of the war. [New Statesman and Society, p15, Feb 22, 1991 (column by Alexander Cockburn)] To this day Professor Gitlin is exhilarated by seeing lines outside a Palo Alto movie house for Casablanca. The sight of the line brought hope to him as he regarded the kids of today as being too cynical, and Casablanca required belief.
A British reviewer writing in the Times Literary Supplement told of watching Casablanca during World War II and deriving no special messages from the film. In fact the reviewer was slightly astonished that college students in America could be so unlike those in Britain where they would chant the lines while mocking the smarmy patriotism. [E.S. Turner, Times Literary Supplement, p16, Feb 26, 1993] In sharp contrast American historian, William O'Neill, called Casablanca the outstanding propaganda film of the war which succeeded then and would still succeed because it was not overtly political. Mr. O'Neill wrote a paean to American democracy during World War II which revealed a naive belief bordering on giddiness about American idealism and how it inspired the populace. [William O'Neill, Democracy at War: America's Fight at Home and Abroad During World War II, p257, (Free Press, 1993)] An absolutely incredulous aspect of that movie was the scene where Frenchmen jump up and sing the "Marseillaise" in the presence of German officials. No person who lived under German occupation anywhere could imagine such a gesture other than in an American movie. This moronic gesture mattered much to Jews who control the content of American films as it showed an enraged citizenry yearning to be free. The gruesome fact was that resistance to German rule in Europe was minuscule. Few citizens of those occupied countries endangered themselves to aid Jews. Americans who think they would have behaved any differently have suffered from the national affliction of infantile megalomania. One wondered if so many of the Jewish refugees who appeared in Casablanca might have made more substantial contributions to the allied war effort if they shouldered rifles or were trained as observers and sent back as spies.
Longtime Nation Editor Victor Navasky wrote of his being invigorated by seeing Frenchmen jumping up and interrupting Germans singing Deutschland Uber Alles, though I thought the Germans were singing Wacht am Rhein. The above mentioned Oââ¬â¢Neill observed as below: QUOTE Another American academician, Professor William O'Neill of Rutgers, wrote a sterling celebration of the United States in World War II. O'Neill accused the Royal Air Force and more specifically Harris' Bomber Command of the two worst crimes of the European air war, the bombing of Hamburg in 1943, and of Dresden in 1945. Then he added the American Air Force deliberately made serious efforts to bomb precisely and killed far fewer German civilians. Then he noted Americans probably killed fewer German civilians than the British because they used smaller bombloads. This entitled America to a touch of "moral superiority" over the British, but not enough to celebrate. O'Neill thought the air war not only a crime, but a blunder. He believed strategic bombing to have been morally wrong, and the very best course would have been not to have sent heavy bombers against German targets at all. Sending bombers against German targets was "inhumane", since existing targeting technology did not permit bombers at high altitudes to discriminate between factories, strategic targets and residences. According to O'Neill, American Air Forces in Europe did take 73,000 casualties with 29,000 of them fatal. O'Neill wrote that if the resources devoted by America to the bombing groups in Europe had been allocated instead to ground troops, Eisenhower would have had the equivalent of another army in France. What the Germans would have done with their people engaged in air defense did not concern him. A great hindrance to facing war in a mature, honest manner by Americans has been that much of it is written by people such as O'Neill, who meaning to laud the soldier of World War II, stated he fought well in spite of not having any abstract motivation.
There was someone else who had an entirely different interpretation on the effectiveness of allied bombing. His thoughts as below: QUOTE (Speer, Spandau: The Secret Diaries, p339-40, MacMillan, 1976) on effectiveness of allied bombing. Commenting on a book smuggled into his cell, Albert Speer judged the semiofficial history, The Army Air Forces in World War II by Craven and Gates with collaboration by George Ball, to have missed the decisive point. It placed undue emphasis on war production lost by Germany. The losses were not so serious although in 1943 Speer estimated losses in production of 10,000 heavy guns of more than 7.5 centimeters caliber and approximately 6000 medium-heavy and heavy tanks.
The real importance of the air war was opening a second front long before American and British forces invaded Europe. The unpredictability of the attacks made the front gigantic. Defense against air attacks demanded production of thousands of anti-aircraft guns and storage of massive quantities of ammunition over all areas of Germany. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were inactive, often for months at a time.
Speer deemed this the greatest lost battle on the German side. Losses from the retreats in Russia and from the surrender at Stalingrad were "considerably" less. The 20,000 anti-aircraft guns could have been deployed far more effectively on the eastern front as anti-tank guns. In Germany they only provided a fireworks display for the civilian populace as the shells reached the bombers at high altitude too slowly to be effective.
I mentioned all the above because I am positive most Americans get their sense of history from movies or reading books written by academic frauds such as O'Neill. Casablanca will remain the movie of choice for those who determine what is good and noble in American society. **
Once a Jew> ** With the sanctioning of Schindler's List by winning a movie Oscar as quasi-official American history the half-century avoidance of facing the highly repugnant fact that the most zealous, most efficient, and most skillful helpers of the Nazis were the leaders of continental European Jewry has been continued. Hollywood has persisted in the fiction of noble suffering by Jews. The wife of Schindler denied there ever was such a list made by her husband. "It was made by a man called Goldman. This man took money to put a name on the list - no money, no place on the list. I was told this by a Dr. Schwartz in Vienna; he had paid in diamonds to save his wife."
The movie was made in memorial to Steve Ross, who headed the Time-Life entertainment conglomerate. Born Steven Jay Rechnitz in Brooklyn in 1927, the future Steve Ross told friends he enlisted in 1945 at age 15 for "adventure" and service to his country. Reality was that he enlisted at age 18 to get his choice of service. After six months of training, young Rechnitz boarded the USS Hopping, a high speed transport. Later Mr. Ross would tell friends that his ship supported the Marines in their landings in the Pacific. Mr. Ross attributed his being hard of hearing to the firing of his ship's guns. In fact his ship had been in Norfolk, Virginia, when he was assigned, and he had spent all of seven days at sea during his military service. After leaving the navy Mr. Ross entered Paul Smith Junior College near Lake Placid, New York. While preparing for life's adventures, he built a reputation for being an accomplished touch football player. He played so hard and aggressively that he broke his arm. This injury was so severe that it was featured in the school newspaper. In later years Mr. Ross would tell his friends that he had broken his arm, not playing at Paul Smith, but while playing end with the Cleveland Browns, the great powerhouse of post-World War II professional football. His children would have their bedrooms decorated with banners and other memorabilia of the Cleveland Browns. Yet when his career was recounted in the New York Times, a Mr. Cohen, an economic correspondent of that paper, dismissed his gift for lying about his past as of being of no significance. Mr. Ross's [color=red]imperative dishonesty [/color]about two of the most recognized symbols of American masculinity should have caused some comment, but people like Mr. Ross had always received lenient understanding from the New York Times. [color=red]Time-Warner conglomerate among its cultural and business triumphs merchandised the song, Cop Killers, by black rappers. The song celebrated the killing of police and had the refrain: "Die, die, die, pig, die". As a promotion gimmick Time-Warner had sent copies of Cop Killers to disc jockeys with the record wrapped in a black vinyl body bag. Mr. Ross was addicted to money. In the fall of 1990 when the build-up for war against Iraq was accelerating, Time had as a cover story "What to Do With Your Money" if and when war came. Not much concern was shown for those without money or for American soldiers. For the affluent, who had no connection with the military, war had become theoretical, except for the area of personal finances. The rich talked about profiting from war with no concern how cruel it must seem for those with sons and daughters in Saudi Arabia. Henry Luce at his worst would never have stooped to such sleaze. But Mr. Rechnitz and his kind now dominate the American media. The triumph of ***Shindler's List ***and its acceptance as truth is the necessary proof.[/color]**I am fully prepared to post the same again in another 6 months.
Eendracht Maakt Mag
2003-07-22 15:24 | User Profile
Swindler's List, without a doubt; all who went to see it got swindled out of their money in the typical Chosenite fashion.