← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno

Thread 6197

Thread ID: 6197 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-04-16

Wayback Archive

il ragno [OP]

2003-04-16 20:15 | User Profile

1. A Look At The Latest Spew of The Horowitzim *Laughter In High Style *

4/16/03 2:56:53 PM Discuss this story in the forum Bill White

Commentary -- I've been amused, and I know our readers have as well, by the latest spewing of the Horowitzim. As I once said, what the Jew does, and what they train their Goy to do, is to take something that good and to start spitting at it, and then to wrap in in pile and in little pieces of hair they've torn from their head and little pieces of their teeth that they've gnashed away until the product resembles something like the giant tumor once that appeared on some FOX reality show, and thus becomes so gross that no one would want to touch it. The trouble is that the Jews no longer control all the mediums of communication, though, and thus their strategy of first defining their opponent and then attacking their opponents based on that definition no longer works -- their opponents now have equal opportunity to define themselves. Mr O'Donnell, who was apparently chosen by the Horowitzim for having the least Jewish-sounding name possible, and who likely took the position because, from reading his bio, he appears to be an unemployed writer desperate for exposure in any medium, is so ridiculous in his style, that his writing can only be considered a compliment and an advertisement for this website.

Mr O'Donnell makes numerous errors in his polemics that leaves his writings a greater satire of serious commentary than the writings of fellow Horowitizim Stephen Schwartz. His underlying theme is the duality typical of Jewish hate literature, in which the subject of the polemic is first denigrated as "dying" and "desperate", and then admitted to be all-powerful and dangerous -- as our website is, simultaneously, both the remnant of the dying forces of "Red" and "Brown", while enjoying a larger readership and greater popularity than either the Weekly Standard or Horowitz's own Jew rag.

Among O'Donnell's errors are the repeated internal contradictions of his reasoning; had Horowitz chosen a good Jewish boy trained in the fantastic style of a Talmudic scholar, at least the resultant essay would have been more subtlely inconsistent. It seems that the necessary perogative of a Goy front man backfired for Horowitz once again.

O'Donnell describes this website as fringe, but states that it is more popular than the Weekly Standard (and FrontPageMag, though that is not made explicit). He says that the line of argumentation that we adopt (a line of argumentation that he misrepresents in order to dismiss) is "hollow" and lacks "substantive criticism". This comes from a man writing for a website which regularly publishes the rantings of Stephen Schwartz, and which seriously promotes conspiracy theories accussing Osama bin Laden of meeting with Saddam Hussein. If there is any substance to the accusations brought by the Horowitzim against our technique, than it is that we have out-Jewed the Jew in our ability to publish subtly politically manipulative news and commentary -- and I will take that as a compliment. As we have discussed before, the entirety of Jewish verbal ability consists in their talent for creating so many propaganda jingles that merely by the bulk of production some effective hingles must emerge; in contrast, our ability to create quotable propaganda jingles has a much stronger track record, and the Jews appear jealous.

As to the content of the material we publish, we take things from other publications and give them greater exposure. O'Donnell at once states that the material we publish is not worthy of greater exposure, because it is, he asserts, so evidentally false that no one wants to read it, and then asserts that we are attracting a huge readership to our allegedly false news. Well, publishing false news is not a serious concern of the Jew; in the first week of the Iraqi war we received false story after false story about the surrender of the 51st Mechanized, the repeated "death" of Saddam Hussein, alleged rioting in Basra, et cetera, et cetera -- news which the Horowitzim's allies in the Jewish owned (and thus "mainstream") press faithfully reported. What concerns O'Donnell, and all the Goy, is that this our news service has become a popular alternative to Jewish control of public dialogue, and thus all the Jews so engaged, plus all the Goy who serve them, are endangered by new competition by ideas they had, through monopoly, attempted to drive out of business.

The most ridiculous inconsistency, however, is not a less-widely read publication accussing a more-popular publication of being less "mainstream", nor is it the specter of a Jew servant working for an apparatus of lies accusing another of lying, but the specter of a "pro-war" activist denouncing someone for advocating violence.

We should note that we are not opposed to violence, nor do we object to Jewish calls for violence against Arabs on the grounds that all violence is wrong. We object to violence by proxy conducted by an ethnic group whose members have consistently ducked service in every war fought by this country in the past one hundred years. (Though there are groups for Jewish war veterans, one should look at their numbers relative to the number of soldiers serving, and recognize that Jews have never fought in substantial numbers, or numbers even close to their relative presence in the population, in any of America's wars). The Jews use Americans of all races as proxies to conduct acts of violence and terror against those people they consider as opponents of their interests; they combine this with Kabbalistic nonsense about Purim and Passover and Shakinah. The objection to Jewish violence is not an objection to violence but an objection to Jews.

So for someone demanding war and violence -- in O'Donnell's case through the mechanisms of government that are controlled by the Jews -- to denounce those he would direct violence against for the sin of fighting back, is hypocritical but also typically Jewish. The Jew, and his Goy, believe in their hearts that anything -- any type of terror or massacre or shedding of blood -- is justified in the name of the Jewish race and their peculiar pagan gods, and believes also that any type of lie is justified in cloaking that violence so as to make in palatable to the Goy who are to serve it. Thus the Jew is the master and the initiator of violence, and his Goy, men like O'Donnell, are the historical instruments; a call for violence against the Jew or his Goy is merely a call for self-defense against an ethnic interest bent on genocide. Thus there is as little substance to the pussy pansies of the "pro-war" movement who are willing to call for violence against their enemies, but unwilling to experience it themselves, as their is to any of the other of the specious Jewish arguments advanced by their chosen puppet Goy.

So one cannot, and can never, deal with Jewish argumentation through refutation of their "arguments". Jewish arguments are by definition non- substantial -- they are like the tar baby of Briar Rabbit, which you strike only to find yourself stuck in. They strategy in dealing with them is not to fight them on their terms, but to analyze the motivations and methods utilized in the manufacture of the argument, so as to expose the argument as inherently specious, and thus to negate it at its root, rather than striking meaninglessly at its branches.

In short, those who read the garbage nonsense of the Horowitzim and the whole Jewish cabal are dopes whose child-like understanding of politics and whose credulous ignorance are as deserving of punishment as the hatred and wickedness of their Jewish masters. There are many things that the Jews can complain about legitimately, but all their legitimate complaints boil down to this -- that they are Jewish and anti-American, and that we are American and therefore anti-Jewish. All other complaints about methods and tactics in the war for the soul of the American public are just distractions -- the Jews are brutal and mercilessly in their pursuit of world political and economic domination, and we must be just as brutal and merciless in our resistance.

2. White Zion *The Businessmen Behind David Horowitz and The Libertarian War Front *

4/16/03 12:25:33 PM Discuss this story in the forum Bill White / Pravda

Commentary -- [Bill: PS -- I will be having dinner with the McClendon Study Group at the National Press Club tonight, if anyone is interested in meeting me. Those interested in all my Pravda and Mathaba columns can read them here: [url=http://www.white2002.com/meetBill/pravda.asp]http://www.white2002.com/meetBill/pravda.asp[/url]]

[url=http://www.white2002.com/meetBill/pravda/06whitezion.asp]http://www.white2002.com/meetBill/pravda/0...06whitezion.asp[/url]

White Zion:

The Businessmen Behind David Horowitz And The Libertarian War Front

“I didn’t read him when he was a Stalinist, and I don’t read him now.”

So said Noam Chomsky, responding to a recent smear campaign launched against his anti-war activism by David Horowitz, the radical “conservative” Zionist who runs the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and who publishes the web zine FrontPageMag.com. Since the 9-11 attacks, Horowitz has been a blizzard of hatred directed against anyone he considers to be a “Fifth Columnist”, whether it be a lowly university professor preaching love and peace, or a Congresswoman asking uncomfortable questions about the Bush administration’s new security state. His rhetoric is something that could have been penned in any Jewish-owned publication in the country. In one ranting response to a letter from a reader he shouts:

“Thirty Muslim states, thirty states without a democracy. Until the Muslim world gets past theocracy and learns tolerance, the Jews need to be armed to the teeth and much more ruthless with their enemies than they have been, since when it comes to Jews fear is only kind of respect the Arab world will give them.”

Horowitz has not been the only openly endorsing Jewish racial totalitarianism and the American war effort in particular. He has been joined, surprisingly, by a number of Libertarian voices. The Cato Institute, an allegedly “Libertarian” think-tank, has published a number of releases that are curious given that Libertarianism is, theoretically, opposed to all aggressive wars and increases in centralization and state power. On the issue of civil liberties, William A Niskanen of the Cato Institute recently told the Washington Post that:

"We ought to be aware of what the Israelis are doing and whether that's the sort of thing we would do,”

While his comrade at the Institute, Ted Galen Carpenter, issued a press statement reading,

“The first order of business must be to determine who is responsible for these terrible acts and to order appropriate retaliation. Terrorist assaults of this magnitude should be treated as an act of war against the United States, not merely as a criminal justice matter. The President should immediately seek the full authorization of Congress to use whatever military force is necessary against the guilty parties. If the perpetrator is a government, the objective of the United States should be nothing less than the removal of that government.”

Many Libertarians viewed that statement as a blank check for war. The Libertarian Party itself was thrown into turmoil. Libertarian commentator Justin Raimondo, writing for Anti-war.com, stated:

“Why, even the Cato Institute, which opposed the Gulf war, has fallen into line, with a statement from Cato foreign policy maven Ted Galen Carpenter solemnly endorsing a US strike at – well, at wherever. Word has it that the Libertarian Party is being torn apart by an internal debate over what position to take on The War – and I have the sinking feeling that, after all these years, the party is about to be stampeded into supporting the biggest US military mobilization since the invasion of Nazi-held Europe during World War II.”

On the face these two facts would seem disparate. What would David Horowitz’s “neo-conservative” advocacy of the war and the terrorism of the Israeli state have to do with the Cato Institute’s advocacy of the war and their rather unclear statements on Israeli security matters? The answer is in the funding. Despite being nominally separate, both David Horowitz’s “neo- conservatism” and the Cato Institute’s “Libertarianism” are bought and paid for by the same three right-wing foundations who, incidentally, happen to control the CIA and a large portion of George Bush’s nor-directly-corporate cabinet. These foundations are the core of White Zionism, and the core of the efforts by white businessmen and the “Spook Lobby” of the CIA to bring Americans under the influence of Bush administration’s war spell. Pull the Horowitz thread, and, as Weezer would say, we unravel their sweater of corruption.

Horowitz And The Contras

David Horowitz’s first recorded mission for the CIA occurred in 1987, when he was sent to Nicaragua to aid the Contra rebels. According to a July 3, 2000 article in the Nation (“David Horowitz’s Long March” by Scott Sherman):

“In the fall of 1987, Horowitz received a phone call from the office of Elliot Abrams, an Assistant Secretary of State. … A few weeks later, Horowitz found himself in Manague, Nicaragua, where, at the expense of US taxpayers, he offered tactical advice to anti-Sandinista labor unions, politicians, and journalists …”

Horowitz claims he was only working for the US Information Agency. What he doesn’t like to mention is the ties that USIA had with the CIA, particularly on the Iran-Contra issue. In 1983, the USIA's director, Charles Z. Wick, held a fundraiser in support of the Iran-Contra activities. The later director, Frank Shakespeare, was a former CIA Propagandist who worked in Eastern Europe under the cover of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, and was to be US Ambassador to the Vatican before going into retirement to sit on the board of the Bradley Foundation, one of the three organizations that would fund Horowitz’s rise.

When Horowitz returned to the United States in 1988, he was hired as a speech writer by Bob Dole. In 1989, as a pay-off for his good works on the Spook Lobby’s behalf, he published a book, “Destructive Generation: Second thoughts about the sixties” and launched his Center for the Study of Popular Culture. He was given $85,000 in start-up cash for the project by three organizations. The Olin Foundation contributed $20,000, the Scaife Foundation contributed $25,000, and the Bradley Foundation contributed $40,000. Over the next ten years, the contributions from these three organizations would grow to nearly two-thirds of Horowitz’s annual budget, and by the beginning of 2000 he would receive over $9 million dollars -- $4.1 million from Scaife, $3.6 million from Bradley, and $1.4 million from Olin -- in exchange for wrapping his words around these organization’s views.

Horowitz came out of retirement as a leftist because someone bought him out. Now, everything that comes out of his mouth, and the mouth of his columnists, is someone else’s views. Who are these people, and who else do they own?

Buying A Movement – The Cato Institute and Reason Magazine

When most people ask who owns the Cato Institute, they think the Koch Foundation. Koch Industries, a major “energy”(read: “oil”) company, has provided more than 50% of the Cato Institute’s budget in some years, and its founder, Fred Koch, is a former founding member of the John Birch Society. Organizations it has spawned include Reason Magazine and the National Center for Policy Analysis. It has been involved in the Roundtable organizations – descendents of the Roundtable group founded by Cecil Rhodes for the purpose of re-establishing the British Empire – and it is involved in the Federalist Society group that includes John Ashcroft and which has been accused by liberals of being involved in supporting many of the recent security state measures proposed by the Bush administration. But Koch doesn’t back Horowitz, and so another connection needs to be found – and it can be – against the Spook Lobby triumvirate of the Bradly, Olin, and Scaife Foundations.

As of January 1st, 2000, the Spook Lobby had given approximately $12 million to the Cato Institute since 1985 (the Cato Institute was founded in 1977). $7.5 million of that had been given since 1990. $2.2 million had been given since 1998. The Cato Institute is said to run an annual budget of about $3.5 million per year, meaning that the Spooks provided approximately one- fifth of the Institute’s funding in the 1990s, growing to as much as a third in the latter part of the decade.

Similarly, the Reason Foundation, publishers of Reason magazine, a publication trying to establish itself as the central commentary publication and “National Review” of the Libertarian movement, received $3.4 million from the Spook Lobby between 1985 and 1999, $2.1 million of that since 1990, and $1 million of it since 1997. It is Spook money that keeps Reason magazine, allegedly a magazine of the “independent” and “third party” Libertarian movement, afloat.

These foundations have literally bought the “mainstream” of the Libertarian Party.

And like David Horowitz, that’s not all they own. But before we list their other properties, let’s consider exactly who these groups are, and what exact role the CIA and the Bush administration play in them. History, again, is instructive.

The Spook Lobby And The Rich White Men Who Own The CIA

The Bradley Foundation is a “philanthropic” organization based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and founded by John Birch Society member Harry Bradley and is owned by the Allen-Bradley Company, a manufacturer of electrical and radio equipment. It was also an early supporter of both William Buckley’s National Review and the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade. It’s politics remained mostly local and limited to the Wisconsin area until 1985, when the Allen-Bradley Company was bought by Rockwell International, a major aerospace and defense company who pumped more than $250 million into the foundation in its first year of ownership.

The key player in the Bradley Foundation, until recently, when he resigned early this year to take a position in the current Bush Administration, was Michael Joyce. Joyce became “big time” in 1978 when he joined neo-conservative Irving Kristol and former Nizon-Ford Treasury Secretary William Simon at the Institute for Educational Affairs. In 1979 he took control of the Olin Foundation, which was founded by Olin family’s chemical and munitions manufacturing business, and which, along with Bradley and Scaife, the other two members of the Spook Lobby, fund the Heritage Foundation, the Manhatten Institute, and the Hoover Institute. During the 1980s, Joyce served as an aide to Ronald Reagan, a mentor to William Bennett, whom Joyce put into Reagan’s cabinet as Secretary of Education, and a major supporter of the rise of Bennet, Jack Kemp, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Lamar Alexander in Republican circles.

While the Bradley Foundation’s links to the CIA and the Bush administration are clear – the aforementioned Frank Shakespeare, for example, served on its board – even more interesting are the connections of Joyce’s former employers at the Olin Foundation. William Casey, who later to become CIA Director under Reagan, was placed by the Olin Foundation at the head of their Manhattan Institute. The Manhattan Institute then went on to promote the candidacy of Linda Chavez, now a syndicated columnist published in places like the Washington Times and the Jewish World Review, to the position of Labor Secretary under Bush the Second Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham is a product of the joint forces of the Bradley Foundation, the Olin Foundation, and the Mellon oil-banking industry’s Scaife Foundation.

About the Scaife Foundation connections to the CIA, the National Reporter wrote in 1995 that it was one of “the two foundations most active in recent years in publicly promoting the need for a strong CIA.” Until 1975, the Scaife Foundation ran Forum World Features, a new wire service that was shut down that year after it was exposed as a front organization disseminating disinformation and psychological warfare pieces for the CIA.

And it was this Spook Lobby which led the assault on Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. The Olin/Bradley Foundation’s Michael Joyce gave American Spectator writer David Brock $11,850 to publish his hit- piece article “The Real Anita Hill.”

Zionism And “Judaeo-Western” Civilization

That this lobby is both Zionist and pro-War there can be no doubt. Ignoring that the companies that fund it all have extensive holdings in the defense and munitions industries, and that all it’s paid writers, like Horowitz and Cato, are unquestionably pro-war and pro-Zionist, it’s actual board members have kept no secret of their belief, derived from their silly “Judaeo-Christian” misunderstanding of the Bible, that Israel is a pillar of Western civilization and that Jews have a God-given right to murder the Palestinian people.

Michael Joyce, in an October 30, 1994 interview with the Milwaukee Journal- Sentinel, discussed a concept he calls “Judaeo-Western nationalism” -- a belief he creates from the proposition that modern American culture is a blend of the culture of “ancient Israel and ancient Greece circa 1950 BC”.

These attitudes came out clearly in a CBS news documentary, “Jihad in America”, that ran April 11, 1999. Funded by the Bradley Foundation and the Carthage Foundation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Scaife Foundation, the documentary was one of the early attempts at the militant anti-Islamic reporting that the Spook Lobby would push full force after September 11. Vague in details and quoting unnamed federal sources, the report made comments like:

“FBI officials have confirmed the existence of several command centres and communications posts. - like this Texas hamburger stand."

and

"Our investigation has uncovered more that 30 groups that fund radical Islamic activities and operate under tax exempt status."

Without providing any of the specifics necessary to verify or refute the claims.

A press release by the Council on Islamic-American Relations entitled “Who Steve Emerson [the producer of the documentary] Is” quotes Weekly Planet newspaper editor John Sugg as saying

"It should be noted that Jihad in America was largely funded by the Carthage Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, widely referred to as right-wing think tanks."

"Emerson constantly attributes allegations of widespread Muslim conspiracies to unnamed intelligence sources. And, as has been reported in numerous articles...Emerson has been dead wrong on many of his most sensational stories."

Sugg is also quoted as saying that the Bradley and Scaife foundations worked with Israeli intelligence in manufacturing the piece. While discussing Emerson’s four main sources, Sugg states:

"There's a fourth [source for the video] -- Yigal Carmon. A ranking member of Israel's intelligence and military establishment, he is considered to the right of even the current Likud government. As The Nation has reported (and never disputed by Emerson), Carmon was part of the 'gang of three' that spent much time lobbying Congress to derail the Middle East peace process -- and Carmon even stayed at Emerson's home on his visits to the United States. (The Nation, August 28/September 4, 1995 and May 15, 1995)”

Emerson was also reported by the Jerusalem Post as having “close ties to Israeli intelligence." Sept. 17, 1994

Conclusions

So what do we have? We have groups closely tied to the CIA – in fact, groups providing the actual personell that run the CIA, and managing the CIA’s corporate covers for them – working with Israel intelligence to fund anti- Muslim videos in the US press, anti-Muslim websites, pro-War libertarian thinkers, and placing its members in George Bush’s cabinet – an act which would be one of subversion if they did not own George Bush too.

What we see emerges from following just a few strings is a whole false reality, manufactured by a handful of rather nutty religious zealots who use their wealth and power to buy words for other’s mouths, and who then send those others out among us, disguised as regular citizens, to subvert and alter our ways of thinking about the world. Almost single-handedly, these people have taken the conservative movement and transformed it into a branch of Israeli Likus, supporting, as Joyce put it in one interview, the “conservative welfare state.”

These “conservative” leaders are both dangerous and anti-American, because they take the ordinary people in this country who have normal, healthy, organic cultural leaning, and use sophisticated propaganda to make them instruments of their personal religious and imperial policies. This is not just class collaboration, this is class conspiracy, actively conducted against the American people’s interests, actively destroying America for the benefits of a wealthy few.

The American people can’t revolt against something they can’t see, and there is no question that every effort is made to conceal this plot from the eyes of the average person. How can one explain to the man on the street that the opinion column he reads in the newspaper was published by the CIA – and how can one guarantee a free press if agencies like the CIA are free to hide their budget under corporate front groups in order to disguise the fact that the US government is buying media and running complex psychological warfare operations against its own people?

But nothing can be hidden forever, and the cloak of darkness over these operations are slowly being pulled back. The only question is whether American will learn in time to revolt and change things, or whether the security state will so totally suppress all speech that Americans will never learn.

I would like to acknowledge and thank the MediaTransparency website, [url=http://www.mediatransparency.org]http://www.mediatransparency.org[/url], from which I gathered much of the information for this report.

Javelin

2003-04-16 21:34 | User Profile

**They strategy in dealing with them is not to fight them on their terms, but to analyze the motivations and methods utilized in the manufacture of the argument, so as to expose the argument as inherently specious, and thus to negate it at its root, rather than striking meaninglessly at its branches. **

Perfect. Everything that comes out of a Jew mouth should be considered a lie until proven otherwise and we have no duty to bother to prove otherwise. We're entering or are already in the post-ideological age. Communism, capitalism, bolshevism ,neo-conservatism, objectivism, Boazian anthropology etc. ad nauseum... have been revealed to be mere variations on the one Jew principle- "is it good for the Jews?" The only thing the Jew has left is laughable attacks such as this on Bill White and then force and intimidation.

The lesson of evolutionary psychology and neuroscience is that we have all the tools for a clean, healthy, decent society built into our genetic code and our brains. The Jew as parasite can only offer up distortion of what is our birthright. Everthing a Jew says should be mocked and laughed at.

As Goethe said, "This crafty race has but one great principle; as long as order prevails, there is nothing to be gained".

:taz:

Roger Bannister

2003-04-17 02:13 | User Profile

Everything jews say, the media says, etc. should be looked at from one context; How does it benefit the jews? Then one can consider how whatever it is that is being analyzed also benefits the traitorous members of the white elite, like our pals in DC, and in certain areas of business. But always first ask, HOW it benefits the jew? Soon you'll be able to see through almost every ploy and story and understand the reasoning behind them in seconds.

Javelin

2003-04-17 16:25 | User Profile

The important point, I think, is that no one really believes in "ideology" any longer. It's getting easier all the time for average people to see that a liberal Jew is promoting Jews and a neo-conservative Jew is promoting Jews also, but from a different strategy. Shabbos Goyim are being seen as cheap whores who will tell any lie for hard cash. Horowitz' hit piece is like a desperate attempt to try to recover the old conservative -vs- liberal scam with "outcasts" like Bill White, Cockburn and Chompsky ignored as irrelivent. Thanks to the internet, the "outcasts" can now fight back.

edward gibbon

2003-04-17 19:00 | User Profile

Bill White wrote:> We should note that we are not opposed to violence, nor do we object to Jewish calls for violence against Arabs on the grounds that all violence is wrong. [color=blue]We object to violence by proxy conducted by an ethnic group whose members have consistently ducked service in every war fought by this country in the past one hundred years. (Though there are groups for Jewish war veterans, one should look at their numbers relative to the number of soldiers serving, and recognize that Jews have never fought in substantial numbers, or numbers even close to their relative presence in the population, in any of America's wars). [/color]The Jews use Americans of all races as proxies to conduct acts of violence and terror against those people they consider as opponents of their interests.

A correspondent wrote that Bill White has been reading my book.

hqz

2003-04-17 22:01 | User Profile

It appears that White and his friends may have successfully baited Horowitz into attacking Overthrow.com by posting honest, ie, unflattering, reviews of frontpagmag.com on Alexa:

FrontPage "Windbags" Dot Com., 4/4/03 Reviewer: Archonis

This website is a confused, dishonest cavalcade of neo-Trostskyist state-fascist "prole-speak;" by a group of neo-con-artists that are doing nothing more than promoting domestic totalitarianism and foreign imperialism, under the guise of Patriotism and pro-Americanism. This would be forgivable, if it were not for the fact that the writing is hysterical and shoddy, big on PMS tirades but short on facts, as well as reasonable theoretical underpinnings. Horowitz is so fixated on Noam Chomsky in the most oedipal, almost incestuous way, that perhaps he should ask him out on a date. This gallery of windbags is good for a laugh, and that is about it. And if they are going to yank pics off "Overthrow.com," they should at least credit the source.

Discredited Moronic Ramblings, 4/2/03 Reviewer: Bill White -- Editor -- Overthrow.com

David Horowitz utterly discredits himself by retaining known liars and blowhards like Stephen Schwartz. Goebbels once said that the Jew can tell ten lies in the time it takes to refute one, but it seems like Horowitz's site is trying to push the world record closer to a 100:1 ratio. Today's bit praising the murderer of Rachel Corrie takes the cake -- and from my perspective, its time that we dumped the hate Jews overboard -- preferably with heavy rocks around their ankles -- and moved on to better pastures and to a new and higher level of political writing and thought.

A Sinkhole of Bad Writing and Vitriol, 3/22/03 Reviewer: Ted Mickva

I just happened to come upon this site the other day; hateful rhetoric employed aainst Muslims, propagandistic and stilted writing by one Stephen Schwartz that talked about the glories of unions and Trotskyism (!), and the baleful howlings of "reformed" leftist David Horowitz, who seems interested in two things; self- promotion, and money. Oh, wait,make that three things, the third being hating and "getting" his enemies. With volleys of silliness and simplistic rhetoric, Horowitz has only only superficially changed his ideological spots: it's the same hectoring political correctness, only this time a "right-wing" version that seems just as militantly mindless as the "left" variety.

[url=http://www.alexa.com/data/details/reviews?q=frontpage%20magazine&url=http://www.frontpagemag.com/]http://www.alexa.com/data/details/reviews?...ontpagemag.com/[/url]

While the Alexa 3 month change for Overthrow.com is 113% versus 73% for frontpagmag.com, overthrow traffic is still well below frontpagmag. In a site traffic comparison on Alexa, their graphs intersect on only one day, probably the day when Horowitz published the attack:

[url=http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=379&h=216&r=6m&u=frontpagemag.com/&u=overthrow.com]http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?w=379&h=216...u=overthrow.com[/url]

edward gibbon

2003-04-17 23:33 | User Profile

hqz:> While the Alexa 3 month change for Overthrow.com is 113% versus 73% for frontpagmag.com, overthrow traffic is still well below frontpagmag. In a site traffic comparison on Alexa, their graphs intersect on only one day, probably the day when Horowitz published the attack:

Unless I am reading this graph incorrectly, the vertical axis of this graph is in inverse log to the standard y-axis. The lower the point on the y-axis the greater the number, not the lower the number. Overthrow has had a much higher readership.