Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old January 28th, 2013 #41
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

On top of what Boaz the hideous did to our Nation from his nest in Columbia, his brethren had much more to give US.

Once they got our borders opened and took away White freedom they cheated an broke the existing law's in hiring to hurt us and they did and so many ways.
===============================================


Public employee's
One, we will never be able to continue to pay out the graveytrain retirement check's the Pretorian Guard class is getting today. Many Public employee's have been able to retire by 52 with soft hands too.

When Twig first came to office a 43 year old female Congoid was put in to top position at the alphabet academy training center in VA. At the time I read this article this women stated that her first priority was going to be to clean out the good ole boy's in the academy! It was the Washington Post if I remember correctly.


}Distraction was the Vietnam Rostow/LBJ HOT war and Congoid violent riots incited by NYC media, yes.}


Quote from PRC 2002 article posted below.

EEOC bureaucrat, Alfred W. Blumrosen, illegally and unconstitutionally subverted the statutory purpose of the law. Judicial complicity and congressional distraction

Unquote



This article by Paul Craig Roberts is 11 years old.

Does anyone remember what the civil rights movement was about? Not today. Four decades later, it is "controversial" if not "racist" to recall that the civil rights movement was about equal opportunity. People were to be hired on the basis of merit and ability alone--"the best person for the job." No other factor was to play a role. The ink was hardly dry on the 1964 Civil Rights Act before an EEOC bureaucrat, Alfred W. Blumrosen, illegally and unconstitutionally subverted the statutory purpose of the law. Judicial complicity and congressional distraction enabled Blumrosen to redefine discrimination from a purposeful action against an individual to the absence of proportional representation regardless of discriminatory intent. Thus did Blumrosen originate the system of race and gender privileges known as quotas that are thoroughly institutionalized throughout the government, private industry, and universities. Racial quotas are so firmly entrenched that quotas prevail even in states where federal district courts have ruled against them and referendums have made them illegal. The 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced for 37 years. The result is a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women. Now comes an astonishing report from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: "Annual Report to Congress, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, Fiscal Year 2000," released in April 2002. This report to Congress makes brutally clear that despite the "equal opportunity" name of the program, the purpose of the federal program is to make certain there is no equal opportunity for whites in federal employment. The report uses tables and bar charts to make unmistakably clear that federal discrimination against whites goes far beyond merely achieving proportional representation for blacks. In all 22 independent federal agencies and in 16 of 17 federal executive departments, blacks are massively over represented. In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (sic) blacks comprise 46.4 percent of the employees. The "affirmative action" or racial quota target for proportional representation (percent in Relevant Civilian Labor Force) for the EEOC is 6.4 percent black employees. Blacks are thus over represented in EEOC employment by 625 percent! And the EEOC is the federal agency that is supposed to enforce equal employment opportunity. Blacks are over represented in the National Science Foundation by 504.7 %; in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. by 538.7 %; in the Securities and Exchange Commission by 452.1%; in the Smithsonian Institution by 452.1%, in the Federal Communications Commission by 370.1%; in the Social Security Administration by 263.5%; in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by 375%; in the Office of Personnel Management by 286.7%; and so on. In cabinet departments, blacks are over represented in Department of Education employment by 464.7%; in Department of Labor by 254%; in HUD by 383%; in Treasury by 176%; in Department of Justice by 106%; in Department of State by 165%; and so on. The push is now on in the federal government to achieve comparable overrepresentation for Hispanics and females. If these two "minorities" achieve similar overrepresentation, there will be no room for white males in the federal government. Did you know that the federal government pays its managers "superbonuses" for hiring, training, and promoting nonwhites? According to a lawsuit filed against the Secretary of Energy by DOE employees, a DOE boss, Anibal Taboas, staffed the Argonne National Laboratory with minorities, while reassigning white males to dead end jobs where they could be terminated under reduction in force polices. For this achievement, the lawsuit says Mr. Taboas received thousands of dollars in bonuses. Note that no one in the government intervenes in behalf of white males who suffer discrimination, not President Bush, no congressional committee chairman, certainly not the Justice Department or the EEOC. Today in the United States white people have no political representation. Whites have to struggle in the courts against government opposition to claim any resemblance to equal rights. Explicit government policies have made whites second class citizens. Whites are a dispossessed majority in their own country. Why did the white majority allow themselves to be stripped of the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Why do whites remain loyal to the political parties that took away their rights? What is the future for whites in a political system where both political parties pander to third world immigrants and support racial privileges for minorities? Having lost equal protection of law, what will whites lose next?
Paul Craig Roberts is the John M. Olin fellow at the Institute for Political Economy, research fellow at the Independent Institute and senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Copyright © 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp

Last edited by America First; January 28th, 2013 at 11:24 AM.
 
Old January 29th, 2013 #42
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,544
littlefieldjohn
Default Media Drumbeat: The West Is Evil

Quote:
A major theme at TOO has been Jewish influence on the media and that the media reflects the attitudes of the wider Jewish community hostile to the traditional people and culture of the West (e.g., Media images of Whites; Media bias). (Relatedly, Frank Salter exhaustively shows that the media in Australia is hostile to the traditional people and culture of Australia.)

It’s a pervasive phenomenon. The first paragraphs of Andrew Joyce’s recent TOO article emphasize the many reviews in the elite media of Anthony Julius’s Trials of the Diaspora. While there are some make minor criticisms, the book is taken seriously, and the general conclusion — that the English have had a pathological hatred toward Jews for nearly a millennium — is not challenged. The reviews typically lavish praise on an execrable book—execrable at least partly because it ignores data that fail to confirm its thesis. The main function of the book and the reviews is to add to the constant condemnatory chorus from the media: the traditional people and culture of the West are evil.

Jewish readers are confirmed in their sense of innocent victimhood; they are once again assured that hostility toward to the people and culture of traditional English society and the West generally is entirely justified.

Non-Jews are reinforced in the attitude that the entire history of England from 1066 (when William I imported Jews along with his conquering armies) to the present day is simply a story of irrational hatred toward Jews, culminating in attitudes that Israel is anything less than a moral paragon and light unto the nations. People with such attitudes are helpless or complicit in the current onslaught against the people and culture of the West.

One of the reviews highlighted by Joyce is ”The living lie,” by Jonathan Freedland in The New Republic. Joyce notes that Freedland “also writes for The Guardian and The Jewish Chronicle. Freedland also publishes fiction under the name Sam Bourne, in which his plots invariably revolve around Nazi sympathizers and eugenicists.”

So we are immediately alerted to the fact that, like Julius as discussed in Joyce’s review, Freedland is a Jewish activist with access to the mainstream media.

Freedland labels Trials “magisterial and definitive,” “a meticulous taxonomy of prejudice.”

Constantly evolving, adapting to the times, anti-Semitism appears to be one of England’s most resilient cultural and social constants. Stick an arbitrary pin at any point in a timeline of English history and hatred of the Jews will be there. … Almost no one is exempt in this account. Julius has evidence to damn nearly every public figure or faction from every epoch. … Julius wades through all this muck doggedly. He says that writing the book was “like swimming long-distance through a sewer.”

It goes without saying that this propaganda never attempts to seek rational explanations for anti-Jewish attitudes, such as conflicts of interest between competing groups (see Joyce’s review). Or that negative attitudes toward outgroups are a normal part of human psychology, and much more likely to occur among minorities than among majorities, especially under conditions of competition and threat. Presenting the history of anti-Semitism in this manner does absolutely nothing to encourage sober self-relection by Jews, but strongly reinforces aggressive hostility toward the people and culture of the West.

Examples like this are legion. Here I mention two very recent examples that I came across simply by perusing the LA Times during the last week:

Philip Glass has written an opera about Walt Disney, The Perfect American. As with Anthony Julius, the history of America, at least in the 20th century until the rise of the Jewish elite in the 1960s, is nothing more than a history of racism and anti-Semitism.
Disney goes to Anaheim late at night to help repair the animatronic Disneyland Lincoln, which has been malfunctioning and attacking members of the audience. Disney gets in an argument with the robot about blacks, and Lincoln goes crazy again and whacks Walt. … He makes racist or anti-Semitic remarks sound not like tirades but like attitudes that were all too common at the time, especially around Los Angeles. One of the points of “The Perfect American” is to show us how much times have changed.

A play titled Ganesh versus the Third Reich is
a captivating tale of the Indian deity with the elephant head who, to prevent his father from destroying the earth, descends from the heavens to reclaim “the ancient Sanskrit symbol” of the swastika from the corrupting clutches of the Nazis. But enfolded in this epic adventure is the story of a company of actors with disabilities rehearsing a play that’s set in a period when those marked as different or defective were being exterminated in concentration camps. [Two characters] are initially cast as Jews on the run from the Nazis. [One of them later becomes Dr. Josef Mengele.] … [I]t nonetheless achieves moments of great profundity …. What does it mean to oppress? By what authority does one group get to impose its will on another? What responsibility do people have to one another? Is there any wisdom surpassing compassion? Ganesh versus the Third Reich is wowing“

I also just became aware of a series of articles in The Jerusalem Post by another Jewish activist, David Turner, described as “the first director of the organization Justice for the Pollards; he created Jews United to Defend the Auschwitz Cemetery (JUDAC) in 1988; and served in the past as the [Jewish National Fund] Regional Director.” The series has includes titles like the following, showing that Turner is quite on page with Anthony Julius:

The Road to Holocaust: Emancipation and Reaction: “Hating the Jew was too much an integral part of western culture and tradition and was not to be exorcised.”

Reminiscent of the situation in Australia described by Frank Salter in its lack of concern for the rights of the majority, Turner’s most recent article, “Foundations of Holocaust: 1924, Congress decides No More Jews” considers the legitimate attitudes and rights of the majority as evil because they conflict with Jewish interests. The article begins with quotations from American leaders of the 1920s asserting their right to secure their ethnic interests by retaining the ethnic status quo:

“I think we now have sufficient population in our country for us to shut the door and to breed up a pure, unadulterated American citizenship,” Senator Ellison DuRant Smith in support of the Quota Act of 1921.

“Upon signing the [1924 Immigration Restriction] Act, President Calvin Coolidge commented, ‘America must remain American.’

Or consider the following, from two Congressmen whose statements during the debate over the 1924 law are quoted in Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique:
The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. (Representative Leavitt)

Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the “Nordic” race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. … What we do claim is that the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But that is the full statement of the case. They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it. We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves. (Representative Vaile)

But such declarations of legitimate interests are seen as nothing more than pure evil. Turner begins:

If Germany’s 1932 election of National Socialism threatened a “final solution” to the West’s pathological preoccupation with its Jewish Problem, America’s Congress ensured its near-success. The 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was the last in a decade’s long series of racist Congressional efforts to limit immigration of “undesirables” to the United States, to encourage immigration of “desired” North European Aryan “racial stock.”

Suffice it to say here that this “analysis” fails to mention legitimate ethnic interests in limiting immigration from outsiders–an interest that Israel is quite adept at enforcing. Nor is there any mention of the radicalism of so many of the Jewish immigrants during a period when radical political attitudes and behavior were entirely mainstream in Jewish communities in Europe and America (see here and here). Indeed, the long-term effects of Jewish radicalism of the 1920s and ’30s are still being felt today with the rise of the hostile elite dedicated to leftist internationalism and multiculturalism, completely divorced from the interests of the traditional peoples of the West—the conclusion of The Culture of Critique

But in the eyes of these activists, Jewish behavior is always irrelevant to anti-Jewish attitudes, and Western culture is simply a tale of one egregious evil after another. The constant drumbeat of these attitudes in the elite media and in elite intellectual circles pathologizes the West. Historically this constant drumbeat of hostility resulted in a loss of confidence among Western intellectuals inclined to defend their people and culture. At the same time, the drumbeat of hostility reinforces Jewish antipathy toward the people and culture of the West.

All this wouldn’t matter, except that Jews are a critical, even dominant component of the new elites in the West intent on transforming Western cultures via immigration and multiculturalism in opposition to the legitimate interests of the traditional peoples and cultures of the West.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...-west-is-evil/
 
Old August 13th, 2013 #43
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

[more proof that media are not driven by profits - most cable channels are unprofitable]

Analyst: End of Bundled Cable Will Kill Over 80 Channels

by John Nolte
12 Aug 2013

With streaming television becoming more and more popular, and providers like Aereo making an end-run around cable and satellite providers, a lot of attention is being paid to the future of bundled cable. In a world of growing choices and a weak, jobless economy, how long can something last that charges customers a ton of money for dozens of channels they never watch?

Bundled cable is, in my opinion, one of the greatest hustles ever perpetuated against the American people. The worst part is how it works as a kind of affirmative-action program for left-wing programming that likely wouldn’t survive in a world where we weren't forced to pay for channels we never watch. Chief among them, CNN, and MSNBC.

As this discussion heats up, analysts and experts are fessing up that in a world without bundled cable, only 20 television networks would survive (that means that around 80 would not). Presumably, the survivors would be the twenty most-watched channels throughout the cable world. This would be terrible news for CNN, MSNBC, and HLN -- networks that usually rank in the thirties and forties.

Fox News is usually in the top 5.

Network executives -- whose bottom lines are boosted by as much as 50% from cable subscriber fees that have little to do with merit and everything to do with being able to muscle a cable provider into carrying a low-rated channel -- are, for obvious reasons, opposed to the idea of unbundling bundled cable. Some even claim that the profit loss would hurt the viewer the most because there would be less money to conduct the experimentation that produces the television shows we love so much.

Nobody is really buying that.

What really terrifies the big media conglomerates is how the end of bundled cable would financially devastate their companies and along with it the cultural stranglehold they enjoy that is propagated through artificial means. The end of bundled cable means the end of tens of billions of dollars per year earned only by forcing consumers to pay for something they don't use, and the end of dozens of channels -- like MSNBC, CNN, MTV, etc. -- that affect our culture and politics in the worst ways.

When you remove merit from television, what we are seeing now is what we get -- cultural, left-wing rot.

Something CNN and MSNBC might want to consider as the existential threat of cord-cutting looms over them (people who cancel cable television) is that one reason this might be happening is Obama's failed economy -- you know, the economy they keep telling us is acceptable--the one created by the president and the policies he champions…

If the economy actually was something close to acceptable, people wouldn't care about the size of their cable bills, which means we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...er-80-channels

434 comments
 
Old November 29th, 2013 #44
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

Alec Baldwin blames gay activists for US show being pulled

Actor, who reportedly called photographer a 'cocksucking fag', acknowledged he had to take some responsibility

Rory Carroll in Los Angeles

theguardian.com, Tuesday 26 November 2013 20.45 EST
Jump to comments (254)


Alec Baldwin: 'They killed my show. And I have to take some responsibility for that myself.'

The actor Alec Baldwin has blamed "the fundamentalist wing of gay advocacy" for the decision by MSNBC, the US cable news channel, to cancel his weekly show after he used offensive language to a photographer.

Baldwin, who was caught on camera apparently calling the photographer a "cocksucking fag", acknowledged he had to take "some responsibility" for his actions but blamed activists for the network's decision on Tuesday to pull the plug on his six-week-old talk show, Up Late with Alec Baldwin.

"You've got the fundamentalist wing of gay advocacy – Rich Ferraro and Andrew Sullivan – they're out there, they've got you," he told the news site Gothamist. Ferraro is a spokesman for the mainstream campaign group Glaad, and Sullivan is a popular blogger whose views are not widely regarded as extremist.

"Rich Ferraro, this is probably one of his greatest triumphs," Baldwin said. "They killed my show. And I have to take some responsibility for that myself."

MSNBC suspended the show two weeks ago after Baldwin was caught on camera apparently calling a photographer a "cocksucking fag". He disputed using the second word, apologised for the first and promised to be more careful in the future but amid continued outcry the network announced his show would not resume.

"We are jointly confirming that 'Up Late' will not continue on MSNBC," the network and Matthew Hiltzik, a representative for Baldwin said in a statement. The network added: "This is a mutual parting and we wish Alec all the best."

The 30 Rock star, currently in Hawaii filming a Cameron Crown film, told Gothamist the audio of his outburst was unclear. "Faggot' is not the word that came out of my mouth."

He also denied a New York Post report that he aggressively took over a makeup room used by a woman with cancer who was sensitive to hairspray.

"No one ever ever ever said to me that somebody had cancer, and I never said 'I don't give a fuck'."

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013...activists-show
 
Old November 29th, 2013 #45
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Quote:
MSNBC suspended the show two weeks ago after Baldwin was caught on camera apparently calling a photographer a "cocksucking fag".
What is it the fags are trying to say here? That they don't suck cock? That's what fags do, isn't it? Suck cock. Am I missing something? I don't get it.
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old December 1st, 2013 #46
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,696
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
What is it the fags are trying to say here? That they don't suck cock? That's what fags do, isn't it? Suck cock. Am I missing something? I don't get it.
They don't like being called that for the same reason a Jew doesn't like being called a Jew by a non-conformist.
 
Old December 1st, 2013 #47
confederate
Senior Member
 
confederate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: knee deep and surrounded
Posts: 1,755
confederate
Default

he's a wack-a-doo in his own rite, anyway.
__________________
"OY,VEY ALREADY!!"

Dr. William Pierce
 
Old December 2nd, 2013 #48
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by confederate View Post
he's a wack-a-doo in his own rite, anyway.
He's a good actor, regardless of his political views. Watch him when he was young, in Miami Blues, a movie from 80s.
 
Old December 21st, 2013 #49
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

[article by indian female comedy writer on diversity hires in tv writing in hollywood]

In Hollywood, the old saw goes, success is very much predicated on who you know. While hard work and talent are needed to take you far, getting your foot in the door is much easier when you know people who have walked through it previously. Jewish summer camps are often joked about in this industry as the best film school a Hollywood hopeful can attend, but is that joke really that far from the truth?

http://defamer.gawker.com/in-the-whi...[email protected]

SourPinaUBeejoli Shah21L U
A few years ago I attended some seminars that were being held in conjunction with the city's annual film festival. One of the sessions was about screenwriting, led by someone who worked on "Entourage" and several other TV shows and movies.

The speaker said that unless you're gay or Jewish, one has no chance of making it in the business as a writer. The audience was horrified and shocked by his response, but I got the sense he wasn't kidding. I'll never forget that. Yesterday 4:28pm

Last edited by Alex Linder; December 21st, 2013 at 04:36 AM.
 
Old December 24th, 2013 #50
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

 
Old March 19th, 2014 #51
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

[writer response in comments below his article remembering Joe Sobran]

R.S. says:
February 8, 2013 at 11:49 am
“One can legitimately be critical of the nonsense of rabbinical Judaism without becoming nazified. ”

Not really. If you’re a political commentator or journalist in the U.S. and you critique Judaism in the same way Christianity and Islam are routinely dissected, you will go nowhere in your career. For example, if you’re a commentator you can condemn Mormonism’s legacy of racism and the priesthood ban on minorities in the LDS church. Try tackling anti-gentile prejudice in Judaism. You will not get published, period.

It’s the mass media’s and establishment’s rabid response to such criticism that puts some men over the edge.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ms-mozart-099/
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #52
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

What was especially noteworthy about him, however, was his penchant for intellectual honesty. Joe Sobran sought to pursue truth, even when it would lead to the destruction of his brilliant career and ultimately contribute to his early death. Specifically, it was his violation of the taboo pertaining to Jewish power and the U.S. Israelocentric foreign policy that led to his fall. In the 1980s, Sobran was the rising senior editor at William Buckley's National Review, and he seemed to be destined for a brilliant future. But owing to pressure from powerful pro-Zionist Jews such as Norman Podhoretz, that future never materialized, and Buckley ultimately fired Sobran in October 1993. Despite Buckley's close relationship with Sobran, who had served 21 years with National Review — 18 as senior editor — Buckley caved in to pro-Zionist Jewish pressure.

It was apparent that Buckley did not want to fire Sobran and, in fact, was pressured for a number of years before doing so. As Sobran wrote in "How I Was Fired by Bill Buckley":

Quote:
Bill and I had been good friends for most of the 21 years I'd worked for him. But the friendship was strained in 1986, when he took the side of my attackers in a row over Israel. When Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter accused me of "anti-Semitism," Bill wrote a weird public disavowal of my columns on Israel, saying in effect that I wasn't anti-Semitic, but deserved to be called anti-Semitic. What made it so bad was that I knew he didn't even believe what he was saying. It was a failure of nerve. That was clear even from the disavowal itself, which included a sweaty digression on Jewish retaliatory power.

Earlier that year, he'd taken me to dinner to warn me of the dangers of being "perceived," as they say, as an anti-Semite. His book [In Search of Anti-Semitism] makes it sound like a long campaign to set me straight, but it wasn't like that at all. Bill didn't suggest I'd done anything wrong or that he disagreed with anything I'd written. But Norman Podhoretz was mad at me. That was enough.... I continued in my wicked ways, criticizing Israel as an albatross for the U.S. In May [1993] the Zionist apparat went public in its smear against me, throwing the National Review into a total panic. There was hysteria in Bill's apartment the night he and the other senior editors discussed it: the disavowal had been prepared behind my back. This was the first I'd heard of it. Bill's statement didn't even mention the Podhoretzes by name, as if he was protecting their anonymity. Every other published account of the incident, on both sides, spoke freely of the Podhoretzes' role; but for some reason, National Review tried to pretend they had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, all responses from the magazine's readers — who were overwhelmingly on my side — were suppressed.... [Most establishment obituaries leave out the Podhoretz factor in Buckley's decision to remove Sobran.]

... With Bill's statement, National Review became, by default, a neoconservative magazine. It had virtually announced that its avowed principles didn't apply to Israel, and that its conservatism had no real separate existence from that of Commentary or The Public Interest.
National Review would champion the neocon Israelocentric war policy in the Middle East. It would have as regular writers such neocon stalwarts as Michael Ledeen. And some of the gentiles at National Review would outdo even the Jewish neocons in their extreme opinions about Muslims, as was the case when senior editor Rich Lowry would propose "nuking" Mecca in 2002 as retaliation for a terrorist attack. As an indication of the exceedingly taboo question of Jewish power, it should be noted that Lowry remained as senior editor of National Review even though he proposed the mass murder of innocent Muslims, while Sobran was removed for maintaining that pro-Israel Jews were influential in shaping U.S. Middle East policy, an obvious truth known to all people with a knowledge of American politics.



[...]

Being removed from National Review was only part of Sobran's punishment, which I think illustrates that there was nothing uniquely craven about Buckley's actions. Buckley acted the way successful people in the United States believe they must act if they are to remain successful. Sobran would also lose his position as commentator on the CBS Radio program "Spectrum," where he had been featured for 21 years, and most newspaper outlets would cancel his syndicated column. And he would be blacklisted not only by other mainstream venues but even by many alternative ones, to the extent that he could not earn a living and would spend his later years in poverty, supported by a few friends but abandoned by the powerful. It should be added that even the self-proclaimed conservative opposition to the neoconservatives, the much ballyhooed magazine The American Conservative, would exclude him from its pages. Chronicles, too, would suspend him for a period of time.

http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_sobran.htm
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #53
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. Talking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism. (Sobran 1996a, 3)

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ran-1946-2010/
 
Old March 19th, 2014 #54
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

http://www.sobran.com/issuetexts/2002-05.htm

THE OBSESSION

Now and then I get letters and e-mail messages asking why I am so “obsessed” with Jews and Israel. The question amuses me. It would be one thing if I often wrote about Mali, or Honduras, or Borneo, or any other nation or country most people remember only as a name from geography class.

I should think it’s obvious that I’m *responding* to an obsession — an obsession of contemporary culture, politics, the media, the arts. We have been getting 24/7 coverage of Jews, the Holocaust, and Israel for years now. The front pages, the evening news, the magazine covers devote so much attention to Israel — a country the size of New Jersey on the other side of the world — that you could get the impression that it spans several time zones and includes much of the world’s population (plus a few gentiles). Many columnists write about it more often than I do: Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, Cal Thomas, Paul Greenberg! , Mona Charen, and George Will, to name a few. Of course they write uncritically about Israel, so they aren’t considered obsessed; Eric Alterman of THE NATON has compiled a list of more than 60 well-known pundits who “reflexively” support Israel, while finding only 6 who are frequently critical.
 
Old March 20th, 2014 #55
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

[from procopius: good example how jews manipulate the public through the media, this in relation to Ukraine in 2014]

New report reveals how ‘American neocons’ stage attacks against alternative media
http://rt.com/usa/neocons-stage-atta...ive-media-965/

Quote:
The recent on-air resignation by former RT news anchor Liz Wahl was just the latest stunt orchestrated by a neo-conservative think tank, according to a new investigative report shedding light on the group’s role in an ongoing Cold War revival campaign.

An extensive account of the days and minutes leading up to Wahl’s remarks and public denunciation of “propaganda” tactics during her news segment on March 5 by authors Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek via truthdig has revealed connections with the little known neoconservative think-tank Foreign Policy Initiative.

FPI was founded in 2009 by a group of high-profile neo-conservative figures, including Robert Kagan and William Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard, who themselves were cofounders of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) -- an organization that played a key role in advocating for the US invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration following the 9/11 terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda.

According to the authors, as well as evidence readily available online via the group’s Twitter feed, FPI was privy to what would take place at RT on-air that day.

The ensuing tweet-storm linking to RT’s live web feed read like a countdown to a very well coordinated event which culminated in Wahl's much publicized on-air resignation.
Quote:
It turns out that the husband of Victoria Nuland, the top US diplomat for Europe, is none other than Robert Kagan. Kagan not only serves on the FPI Board of Directors, but was also John McCain's foreign policy advisor during the Arizona senator's failed 2008 presidential bid. McCain, known for his harsh anti-Russian rhetoric, appeared alongside Ukrainian opposition leaders in December, including far right nationalist Oleh Tyahnybog.
As suspected, it was a stunt organized by the neo-cons, and directly connected to Victoria Nuland, who runs the Western Ukrainian government from her office in DC.

http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=171704&page=57
 
Old March 21st, 2014 #56
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

How Cold War-Hungry Neocons Stage Managed RT Anchor Liz Wahl’s Resignation

Posted on Mar 19, 2014

The “Freedom selfie” from James Kirchick’s Twitter feed.

By Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek

For her public act of protest against Russia Today’s coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory and supposedly advancing the agenda of Vladimir Putin in Washington, D.C., previously unknown news anchor Liz Wahl has suddenly become one of the most famous unemployed people in America. After her on-air resignation from the cable news channel, Wahl appeared on the three major American cable news outlets—CNN, Fox News, MSNBC—to denounce the heavy-handed editorial line she claims her bosses imposed on her and other staffers.

“What’s clear is what’s happening right now amid this crisis is that RT is not about the truth,” she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. “It’s about promoting a Putinist agenda. And I can tell you firsthand, it’s also about bashing America.”

Wahl’s act of defiance eventually earned her invitations from “The View” and “The Colbert Report,” offering her the opportunity to introduce millions of Americans to a Russian government-funded network whose Nielsen ratings have been too low to measure, but which commands a massive following on YouTube. Wahl was the toast of Washington, winning plaudits from a variety of prime-time pundits, from MSNBC’s Chris Hayes (“remarkably badass”) to the conservative Amanda Carpenter (“Liz Wahl is proud to be an American and in the last five minutes I think she made everyone else proud to be one, too.”)


The celebration of Wahl fed directly into a BuzzFeed expose on “How The Truth Is Made at Russia Today,” with writer Rosie Gray painting a portrait of an “atmosphere of censorship and pressure” on American staffers toiling in RT’s D.C. offices. RT had long been the subject of criticism and ridicule for its promotion of Zeitgeist-style trutherism and libertarian paranoia, but Wahl now placed RT under unprecedented scrutiny, with mainstream U.S. media sounding the alarm about a bulwark of soft Russian power situated just blocks from the White House.

Behind the coverage of Wahl’s dramatic protest, a cadre of neoconservatives was celebrating a public relations coup. Desperate to revive the Cold War, head off further cuts to the defense budget and restore the legitimacy they lost in the ruins of Iraq, the tightknit group of neoconservative writers and stewards had opened up a new PR front through Wahl’s resignation. And they succeeded with no shortage of help from an ossified media establishment struggling to maintain credibility in an increasingly anarchic online news environment. With isolated skeptics branded as useful idiots for Putin, the scene has been kept clean of neoconservative fingerprints, obscuring their interest in Wahl’s resignation and the broader push to deepen tensions with Russia.
Through interviews with six current RT employees—all Americans with no particular affection for Russian President Vladimir Putin or his policies—and an investigation into the political forces managing the spectacle, a story has emerged that stands in stark contrast to the one advanced by Wahl, her supporters and the mainstream American press.

It is the story, according to former colleagues, of an apolitical, deeply disgruntled employee seeking an exit strategy from a job where, sources say, she was disciplined for unprofessional behavior and had been demoted. Wahl did not return several voice and text messages sent to her cellphone.

At the center of the intrigue is a young neoconservative writer and activist who helped craft Wahl’s strategy and exploit her resignation to propel the agenda of a powerful pro-war lobby in Washington.

The story began at 5:07 p.m. Eastern time on March 5.

PR From PNAC 2.0

It was a full 19 minutes before Wahl resigned. Inside the offices of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative think tank in Washington D.C., a staffer logged on to the group’s Twitter account to announce the following:

“#WordOnTheStreet says that something big might happen on RT in about 20-25 minutes.”

Then, at 5:16, exactly 10 minutes before Wahl would quit on air, FPI tweeted:

“#WordOnTheStreet says you’re really going to want to tune in to RT: http://rt.com/on-air/rt-america-air/ #SomethinBigMayBeGoingDown”

Up until two minutes before Wahl’s resignation, FPI took to Twitter again to urge its followers to tune in to RT.

And finally, at 5:26 p.m., at the very moment Wahl quit, FPI’s Twitter account broke the news: “RT Anchor RESIGNS ON AIR. She ‘cannot be part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin.’ ”

The tweets from FPI suggested a direct level of coordination between Wahl and the neoconservative think tank. Several calls to FPI for this story were not answered.

Just over an hour later, an exclusive interview with Wahl appeared at The Daily Beast. It was authored by James Kirchick, a 31-year-old writer whose work has appeared in publications from the neoconservative Commentary to the liberal Israeli paper Haaretz.

Kirchick acknowledged having been in contact with Wahl since August, but cast himself as a passive bystander to the spectacle, claiming that they merely “stayed in touch periodically over the past 6 months, and I always encouraged her to follow her conscience in making a decision about her professional future.”

Kirchick wrote that by quitting, Wahl paid “the price real reporters—not Russian-government funded propagandists—have to pay if they are concerned with quaint notions like objectivity and the truth.”

Later that evening, Kirchick tweeted a photo of himself with Wahl, calling it a “Freedom selfie.” The two had apparently gathered to celebrate.

On March 7, Kirchick and a camera person stationed themselves outside the office building on D.C.’s G Street housing RT America’s headquarters. On a self-proclaimed mission “to find out more about RT,” he badgered dozens of random passers-by with questions like the following: “What is a more appropriate punishment for the women of Pussy Riot: two years in a Siberian labor camp or public whipping by Cossacks?”

Kirchick says RT staffers called the D.C. police department to remove him from the premises. However, several RT staffers told us that a security guard notified the police because Kirchick had mistaken employees at two adjacent law firms for employees of RT—“the wannabe thugs at 1325 G St,” he called them—and began harassing them. (An update inserted at the bottom of The Daily Beast summary of the incident noted that it was building security and not RT staffers who called the D.C. police.)

So who was Kirchick, and what sort of commitment did he maintain to “objectivity and the truth?”


[this is exactly the type of people dc is filled with - right or left]

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ation_20140319
 
Old February 21st, 2017 #58
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,544
littlefieldjohn
Default

Teaches much about the jew way of thinking - an unremitting problem, the reality of which Whites must begin to grasp.
 
Old March 19th, 2017 #59
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

dershowitz affirms jews control media and should
http://www.dailystormer.com/jew-alan...rol-the-media/
 
Old April 25th, 2017 #60
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,477
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

media bubble: media don't realize they are all of the same view and not the actual majority

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/04/t...e-is-real.html
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 PM.
Page generated in 0.19577 seconds.