-Caveat Lector-
http://www.humboldt1.com/~jerem/
Smyrna
____________________________________
NOTHING FANCY, JUST UNUSUAL INFORMATION WITH UNIQUE COMMENTARY
Gordon Ginn, Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
____________________________________________________________________________
_______
Leftists (Marxists) - Democrat Party & Marxism - What Secret Organization
Has Infiltrated Government?
TRUTH - LITERATURE
TV: The Killing Machine - The Establishment Media - Apologize to House
Managers
End Justifies the Means - Eschatology & Israel - Hollywood & hypnosis
____________________________________________________________________________
_______
Smyrna appreciates the Internet where free expression is available, where we
can escape the hierarchical tyranny of television and the elite ownership of
the establishment's print media. We call them the Unreachable, Untouchable
and Unaccountable.
Although the Internet contains an enormous amount of trash, one can at least
find a wide selection of different views. The mass media do not offer such
variety. They continually mold national opinion by conscious and
subconscious impressions, and then use that contrived mind-set in polls to
further convince the public of a national will. No individual among the
targeted masses knows whether or not the polls are correct, but they
routinely believe they are because their information is obtained largely
from TV. With such a system an entire nation can be led collectively as if
it had a ring in its nose. The Internet circumvents that with diversity. It
may be confusing but at least it offers alternatives to Orwellian Newspeak.
TRUTH
There are three conceptions as to what constitutes truth: Agreement of
thought and reality; eventual verification; and consistency of thought with
itself. (Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition.)
THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA
No one has a corner on the market of truth. The mass media do not have a
good track record in the "Department of Truth". Their owners and controllers
generally possess a cultural bent that falls into the liberal-to-left wing
category. For practical purposes we can call them Marxists, although this
term is not precisely suitable for every individual. To illustrate this,
their minions repeatedly refer to the "right wing extremists" as reactionary
and evil. But they seldom mention the left wing. By definition, if a right
wing exists there must be a left wing. Their failure to account for a left
wing exposes their bias, revealing that they constitute the left wing but do
not wish to be known as such.
Left vs. Right
If we were to be taken in by the idea that Marxism is left wing and fascism
is right wing, would there be a center? If so, what would we call it? No one
refers to a center wing; the pseudo- liberals simply use the term
"moderates", which suggests the center. This is misleading. It might be
helpful to visualize the political spectrum as a straight line, with the
left end representing left wingers and the right end the right wingers.
Centrists would, obviously, be at the center of the line. In the liberal
view Marxists would be at the extreme left and fascists at the extreme
right. But since both Marxists and fascists advocate very strong central
governments (tyrannical, if you please), they are similar in nature and must
be allocated the extreme left. The extreme right would be occupied by
anarchists because little or no government would exist. This leaves the
center of the line for those who want government to be bound by the chains
of the Constitution. They want maximum liberty under law. They are not
moderates, centrists nor right wingers. They are Constitutionists.
Both Marxists and fascists are socialists because of their desire for strong
centralized government with lots of "entitlement" programs, with a sort of
popular opinion vote for issues and candidates. They like public opinion
polls and the popular vote, whereas Constitutionists believe in equality
under law. In the recent impeachment proceedings against President Bill
Clinton, it was clearly shown by pseudo-liberals, left wing politicians and
the establishment media that public opinion polls should be the controlling
factor in dealing with Clinton. This is socialist thinking; it comes not
from moderates but from Marxist types. And because they dominate the
establishment media the dumbed-down masses seem to be convinced of the
rightness of the majority. But the media created that ill-fated, so-called
majority. When Smyrna uses the word media, we include entertainment that
originates primarily in Hollywood.
Unfortunately, appealing to the Constitution does not solve the problem.
Why? Because pseudo-liberals and leftists haul out their casuistic big guns
and proceed to totally confuse the uninformed. They argue over the meaning
of words in the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers. This is
what happened in the impeachment trial of Clinton, and a similar strategy
was implemented in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, where defense lawyers,
when faced with facts unfavorable to their case, created a huge diversion
powered by casuistic arguments. They played the "race card". They dressed
the defendant in robes of righteousness and befuddled the jury and much of
the public.
Examples of Lower Echelon Leftists (Marxists)
Marxists and educated liberals are experts in the art of casuistic argument.
They have very little interest in the kind of truth that promotes justice
based on absolutes, and they adamantly resist truth that sheds light on
their nefarious objectives. With this in mind, let's compose a list of
people in the limelight who are on the left end of the politcal spectrum,
who influence the general public. This list will continue to expand as we
observe the behavior and biases of these personalities. Our readers may
submit their candidates, but don't just pick anyone that you THINK is a
left-wing activist, GIVE REASONS why you think so. E-mail us.
This list would obviously be as long as a football field if we included all
liberals in government and the media, so we will limit it to those who are
frequently in the spotlight, especially on TV.
Geraldo Rivera (alias Jerry Rivers?): Jewish TV talk show host at CNBC.
Owner of small newspaper The Two River Times, Red Bank, NJ. Left-wing
activist for many years, exhibits narrow bias on his programs.
Susan Estrich: U.S.C. Law School instructor, self-proclaimed feminist,
sometime guest on talk shows such as Rivera Live. Rude treatment of others
she dislikes.
Charles Schumer: Jewish politician, former member of the House of
Representatives from New York, now U.S. Senator. Extreme left-wing, often
abrasive. Is he a member of B'nai B'rith's ADL? He will not respond.
Barney Frank: Jewish Congressman (D-MA), self-described homosexual, extreme
left-wing.
Hillary Clinton: Worked temporarily for notorious Communist lawyer Robert
Treuhaft of Oakland, CA in the early 70s when he was defending the Black
Panthers who had invaded the California legislature with guns. Hillary is
probably a Marxist.
William J. Clinton: Obviously a Marxist, since he travelled as a draft
dodger to Russia where he bolstered the legitimacy of the Communists in
Vietnam and demeaned the United States. Others would have been charged with
treason. Powerful people and organizations support Clinton. When he moved
into the White House he surrounded himself with like-minded helpers,
bringing unprecedented security risks into government service. Gary Aldrich,
former FBI security officer in the White House, wrote a book detailing the
problems encountered with those approved by Clinton. His left-wing
administration has done so much damage to the U.S. that we will not know the
consequences for a long time. Many reports (not by establishment media)
detail Clinton's sell-out to Communist China.
Charles Grodin: Jewish movie actor and TV talk show host, tries to be fair,
but has a definite liberal agenda.
Lanny Davis: Jewish former White House aide to Clinton. A lawyer, he often
is a guest on TV talk shows. He is probably a Marxist. At first when Clinton
was charged with sexual harassment, Davis defended him by condemning all who
criticized him. Later as the evidence mounted he softened a bit, but
continued to vigorously defend a fellow Democrat.
Alan Dershowitz: Harvard law professor, was on O.J. Simpson's defense team,
extremely liberal Jewish activist, often abrasive toward those whom he
dislikes. Is he a member of the ADL? He will not respond. He uses his
Harvard assistants on personal projects, possibly violating the Constitution
regarding government funding of Harvard.
Jonathan Alter: Very liberal journalist with Newsweek. Rude to those whom he
dislikes. Dismisses The Clinton Chronicles video as full of lies, but will
not respond to challenge to give informed reasons.
Jerry Spence: Lawyer who defended Randy Weaver. Frequent guest on talk
shows, especially Rivera Live. Turns out he is very liberal in theory of
government, is antagonistic toward prosecutors and the right wing.
Other Truth
If we accept the premise that truth is agreement of thought and reality,
eventual verification and consistency of thought with itself, there are
areas of life other than the media and politics that must be considered if
we are to form a complete and balanced philosophy of life. For Example: Some
say that the universe is a random accident, that God doesn't exist, that the
Bible is myth, and that Jesus was merely a good man. If we are to pursue
truth we must seriously consider these subjects also.
But truth seekers seem to be scarce. One Jewish university professor
recently stated that Christians must give up the idea that Jesus is God and
seek an alliance with Jews, from whom came Christianity in its beginning.
This is an example of arrogance that fails to consider the feelings and
rights of others. If Christians in like manner demanded that Jews give up
their Talmud, their Cabala and their claim of being God's chosen people,
Jewish leaders would brand such an act as anti-Semitic. What term should be
used to describe the prejudices of the Jewish professor?
TELEVISION: THE KILLING MACHINE
The greatest need in our society today is to hear truth, no matter where the
chips may fall. But one will seldom arrive at the gate of truth by watching
television, which seems to be the national pastime.
There has never been a killing machine as efficient as television. It is the
medium of choice when public opinion needs to be formed. Opinion polls are a
case in point. When a hot issue hits the fan all the newscasters and talk
shows go on red alert and mount an attack or defense, whichever is needed,
to sway the masses so that polls will be pretty much what is desired. This
is a very neat operation. Take, for example, the Clinton sex scandal. When
central strategists solidified their plans on any given issue, experts on TV
began their innuendoes, suggestions, speculations and fabrications.
Often, the use of a single word will convey images to audiences. After a
while the audiences are so saturated with the biases exuding from the boob
tube that carefully worded polls crank out statistics favorable to whatever
the powerful spin doctors desire. After a couple of polls are taken the
spinners can then say with statistical certitude that such and such is true.
For example, President Clinton's popularity was up and Kenneth Starr's was
down. That's because the liberals in the media mounted a seething attack on
Starr and convinced the people that Clinton's sex life is no big deal. They
shifted the focus from Clinton to Starr. Clinton became the victim, Starr
became the culprit. This, by the way, is a perfected tactic of Marxist
dialectics, and it is used routinely by the spinmeisters.
Hollywood and its many-faceted entertainment outlets, from movies to
sitcoms, is the prime source of liberal propaganda. Woven into the scripts
of most of these productions are tidbits that assail the subconscious mind
so that automatic biases are formed. This is especially dangerous to
children and young people. It continues 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
365 days a year. Is it any wonder that our culture has been trashed and the
public dumbed down?
Polls are unscientific. They may change at any given moment, and they are
essentially created by the liberal media (no informed person disputes the
liberal credentials of the mass media). TV personnel repeatedly cite the
latest polls to bolster their treatment of the news. They use polls as if
they are absolute truth. In February of 1999 Jamie Rangel of NBC interviewed
Linda Tripp, the woman who taped Monica Lewinsky. Rangel referred to polls
and asked Tripp how she felt about having only a 3% approval rating among
the American people. The question itself was devoid of compassion and truth,
yet it was used as a club to demean Tripp. Again, this is a Marxist tactic.
Information has been leaked from time to time that the pollsters sample only
those areas in the country that will reflect a liberal mind-set. If all
levels of society were polled, the results would undoubtedly be quite
different. If this is true, then the pollsters are dishonest, and the
liberal media pundits are not to be trusted. However, it should not come as
a surprise that "scientific socialism" operates on the belief that the ends
justify the means. Its leaders are arrogant enough to believe that they know
what's best for everyone else. No greater self-righteousness can be found.
If a poll among the leaders of the Pharisees had been taken in the final
days of Jesus, the result would have been lower than the 3% attributed to
Linda Tripp. Such a poll would not have diminished the truth spoken by
Jesus. How often must truth seekers remind us that it doesn't matter if 99%
of the world is against them; God doesn't operate on the basis of polls. In
fact, when the final judgment is in session, we will learn that popular
culture has almost always been in error and only a remnant will survive. Who
cares about polls? Only the connivers!
WHAT SECRET ORGANIZATION WORKS WITH GOVERNMENT TO FOOL US?
"ADL teams with government to fight hate."
What's wrong with the ADL teaming up with government? First of all, if
you're going to fight hate, you must be free of hate yourself. The
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith has proclaimed itself a knight
in shining armor, an organization of high virtue. Those are pretty big shoes
to fill. It's like saying you wrote the book on humility. Is the ADL
qualified to write the book on humility or wage war on hate?
The ADL was created in 1913 as an arm of B'nai B'rith, an exclusively Jewish
fraternity. Some believe that Freemasonry and B'nai B'rith are closely
related. Until recently B'nai B'rith was composed of males only. We're told
that it was organized in 1843. It is a secret order. It has a world-wide
membership, making it a powerful international influence. Powerful people
belong to B'nai B'rith without fear of being exposed. Its unseen hand is
felt in every quarter of human affairs, even though the public never
suspects it. As an arm of B'nai B'rith, the ADL specializes in intelligence
gathering, using the information to intimidate and frighten people and
organizations from doing that which the ADL doesn't like, such as publishing
books or making public statements contrary to Jewish interests. It
arbitrarily labels whomever it pleases as racists, anti-Semites or
hate-mongers. Even U.S. presidents are not safe from its enormous pressure.
We hear a lot about separation of church and state. It is a doctrine created
by pseudo-liberals and Marxist-types to obfuscate the real intent of the
First Amendment. Nevertheless, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander; if religion must be totally separated from government, why are
federal, state and local governments teaming up with the ADL? Since it is an
exclusively Jewish organization, how can it be free of religion? Normally,
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would bring legal action against
it for violating the First Amendment, but the ACLU itself is mostly Jewish,
according to Ron Landau in his work, The Book of Jewish Lists. Because the
two are ideological sisters (or brothers), and because their hidden power
extends to the mass media (the octopus which creates public opinion), most
will not oppose it. Many people think it is a good thing that the ADL is
fighting hate, even though in many instances it creates hate.
Enormous Influence in Christian Circles
One of the saddest consequences to emerge from international Jewish
(Talmudic) influence is the eschatological doctrine known as
dispensationalism. Basically a Jewish idea, it revolves around the
"regathering" of Israel to the "holy land" in the final days of this world.
"Armageddonism" is very prominent in this concept and the present state of
the Israelis is fully supported at the cost of all others. Well-known
Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham and virtually all of
the preachers on television are avid and vociferous supporters of "Israel".
Jewish activists and their Christian Zionist supporters in America have
succeeded in completely alienating the Arab world, to the shame of
Christianity.
We ask again, is the ADL qualified to help government fight hate? Let us
quote from a Jewish author who in turn allegedly quoted from the famous
Jewish poet Judah Halevi:
"The Jewish people, Rabbi Judah Halevy [sic] (the famous medieval poet and
philosopher) explains in his 'Kuzari', constitutes a separate entity, a
species unique in Creation, differing from nations in the same manner as man
differs from the beast or the beast from the plant...although Jews are
physically similar to all other men, yet they are endowned [sic] with a
'second soul' that renders them a separate species." (Ariel Zimmer,
Torah-Judaism and the State of Israel.)
Recently when this quotation was transmitted to a Jewish activist, he denied
that Halevi had ever written such a thing. But if one reads Halevi's Kuzari,
it is clear that he expressed the above attitude throughout. It is the most
racist, bigoted statement we have ever seen. The ADL and the entire Jewish
community should publicly reject it. Until the ADL does, it certainly is not
qualified to fight hate. We call upon governments, whether federal, state or
local, to refuse all proffers and information coming from the ADL.
AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF SNOOPING THE ADL MIGHT DO, LOOK AT THE
FOLLOWING:
Remember when Newt Gingrich hired Christina Jeffrey in January of 1995 as
House historian and then promptly fired her shortly thereafter? She later
announced her desire to run against Gingrich for his seat in the 6th
Congressional District in Georgia, but said she would have to seek an
injunction against Kennesaw State University where she teaches Political
Science, to set aside its rule that doesn't allow faculty and staff to
campaign for, or hold public office. The story behind this demonstrates the
power held by Jewish activists and their comrades in Washington. She was
fired within a week after being hired because someone uncovered a statement
made by her as far back as 1986, to the effect that a course proposed by the
U.S. Department of Education on the Holocaust lacked balance or objectivity.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle of Jan. 11, 1995 she wrote: " 'The
program gives no evidence of balance or objectivity. The Nazi point of view,
however unpopular, is still a point of view and is not presented, nor is
that of the Ku Klux Klan.' "
When he fired her, Gingrich wrote: " '...I do not feel that it would be
prudent nor beneficial for you or your family nor for the House of
Representatives to continue your employment at this time.' " On its face
this is an abrogation of human rights. It obviously was triggered by Jewish
polemicists or those in concert with them. Those liberal-leftist Jews who
obviously keep records on certain citizens have succeeded in mentally
traumatizing Americans so that scholarly endeavors are difficult. Gingrich's
use of the phrase "prudent nor beneficial" was apparently a veiled way of
saying that Dr. Jeffrey's safety and well-being would be threatened if she
were kept on as House historian. Smyrna learned on May 1, 1998 that Jeffrey
was unsuccessful in her bid to set aside the university's rule regarding
political candidates. We wonder if acute pressure behind the scenes was
brought to bear to prevent her from succeeding.
Is the political-social climate so controlled that school authorities and
the courts automatically comply with unwritten taboos? If yesteryear's Klan
appeared in white sheets to frighten its targets, today's "midnight riders"
of the left need not leave the plush comfort of their easy chairs to achieve
a similar response. The silent expediency has been posted on the lintels of
public minds: "Step out of line and we'll see that your life is never again
the same." How did someone learn of the comment made by Dr. Jeffrey many
years ago regarding the Holocaust? For a possible answer, read again our
article above on the ADL. It keeps files on organizations and individuals to
use against them if needed. Another case comes to mind:
Enter Alan Dershowitz
In recent months Alan Dershowitz, Jewish law professor at Harvard, revealed
an obscure phrase in an obscure speech by Jerry Falwell in 1997 to an
obscure organization in New York, a phrase about a politically incorrect
issue. How did Dershowitz learn about that speech and about Falwell's short
comment made so long ago? He learned it from someone who keeps track of
Falwell's activities. That's pretty frightening. More recently, several
Republican members of the House of Representatives were criticized by the
revelation that their past lives contained sexual activities heretofore
unrevealed. They were called hypocrites. Who dug up that information? Is it
accurate? Who keeps tabs on so many people? It is obvious that there are
those who keep such records, or they know exactly where to search for dirt.
The Republicans, among whom were Henry Hyde, Bob Barr and Bob Livingston,
probably don't know how their past lives were uncovered. Television news
merely stated that individuals came forward to writers or news organizations
and accused the above. And because reporters are protected under the First
Amendment against revealing their sources, the accused is unable to face his
accusers unless something goes to trial. This is a dastardly practice. If my
memory serves me, Mayer Amschel (who took the name Rothschild), who was the
Jewish genesis of Europe's banking monopoly, used to keep secret records on
people whom he thought he might blackmail or in some way threaten if he ever
needed to. This may be standard practice for leaders who want to possess
useful information when needed.
Barbara Walters' Interview of Monica Lewinsky March 3, 1999
Although it is impossible to accurately assess someone's personality based
upon a TV interview, one can get a pretty good feel for the motives behind
their behavior patterns dealing with the subject at hand. In the case of
Monica Lewinsky, her responses and demeanor during this interview were quite
telling. She is a product of the "Dr. Spock age". In other words, a spoiled
brat.
For those who are too young to remember Dr. Benjamin Spock, he was a
pediatrician and psychiatrist, and author of the immensely popular parenting
book Baby and Child Care (originally named The Common Sense Book of Baby and
Child Care which was first released in 1946. He lived from 1903-1998. "His
beliefs have become such a part of parenting philosophy that his passing is
almost like a death in the family. His book can still be found on most
parents' shelves--more than 50 million copies in more than 40 translations
have sold worldwide, making it second only to the Bible as the most popular
nonfiction title." (cite source--websites)
One of his quotations sums up the basis for his philosophy of parenting:
"The more people have studied different methods of bringing up children the
more they have come to the conclusion that what good mothers and fathers
instinctively feel like doing for their babies is the best after all."
So-called natural instincts should never be the guiding light for child
rearing. We are in the middle of the second generation of Americans raised
by natural instincts and television, both of which come from a depraved
nature. Thus we can understand why Monica Lewinsky (who at two years of age
placed her hands on her hips and told her mother that she was not her boss),
possessed no moral values that prohibited her from "instinctively" being
intimate with another woman's husband--the President of the United States.
Her behavior typifies our careless, lawless age, the age of Freud's "id".
But Lewinsky's id wasn't alone. Bill Clinton's id was very much in high
gear. Even though he is twice Monica's age, he is a product of Dr. Spock's
destructive hypotheses (it is no surprise that Spock was an ultra-leftwing
activist) and the sacred boob tube, managed by a combination of secular and
religious Talmudists.
MARXISM
This generation doesn't know much, if anything, about Marxism and Marxists.
Of course, Marxists are those who subscribe to Marxism. But where did it all
begin?
Karl Marx was born in 1818 and is described as a German political
philosopher and revolutionist, cofounder with Friedrich Engels of scientific
socialism (modern communism). He was born into a well-to-do Jewish family
(his father was a lawyer). Although Jewish Bolshevism in Russia was not
exactly a mirror of Marx's ideas, it was, nevertheless, communism out of
which the Communist Party exported its international agenda. The leaders of
the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in the early 1900s, finalized in 1917,
were 80% Jewish. See our booklet Strong Delusion for names.
Why is it that Americans are generally ecstatic about having won the Cold
War against socialism (communism) in Russia, but simultaneously promote it
in the U.S.? Examine the Democrat Party platform, compare it to the
Communist Party platform, and you will see that the Democrats out-socialize
the socialists. In other words, Marxists have captured the Democrat Party.
Realistic Blurb
If you like Bolsheviki-type Marxism, you should love Bill, Hillary and most
Democrat politicians, especially Senator Charles Schumer, who is a good
representative for arrogant, Marxist ideology. Remember the bumper sticker
FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN? Well, how about this -- LIKE
MARXISM? VOTE DEMOCRAT! Put that on your bumper!
BRIEF ASIDE: [Many Democrats such as Tom Harkin of Iowa and Charles Schumer
of New York ridiculed the House Managers who prosecuted the case against
President Clinton before the Senate. But those House Managers have now been
vindicated since Federal Judge Susan Weber Wright ruled that Clinton did in
fact commit perjury and obstruct justice. Therefore, I have asked my two
U.S. Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to sponsor a resolution
apologizing to the House Managers for demeaning them. This is the least that
should be done, for they were constitutionally and morally correct in what
they did. I urge readers to ask their own representatives to do the same.]
[Continue...] But Marxism isn't confined to Democrats' evangelism. The
entire country has been socialized to a great degree at every level. The
masses clamor for more socialism because it promises far more than it can
deliver. The contradiction is that the masses want socialism here but don't
want it in Russia. That simply proves how successful the Socialist
propaganda has been here at home. Some would argue that we really didn't win
the Cold War against socialism. Its roots are deeper and broader than most
people realize.
The point to be made here, however, is that socialism was fathered by Jewish
Karl Marx, but he didn't just dream it up. Ultimately, in concept it comes
from the Jewish Talmud. Please read our booklet Strong Delusion for a
cursory view of a Jewish utopia envisioned by their
religious-political-social ideas.
LITERATURE
Strong
Delusion............................................................$5
The Lion Out of Judah..................................................$2
Abraham's Children......................................................$5
The Late Great Road to Holocaust.............................$5
The Political Suppression of Religious Expression.....$2
"Pop" Prophecy............................................................$4
Not To Israel Only....................................................... $3
"The End Justifies the Means," the Philosophy of Liberals
Toward the end of June 1999, Lanny Davis and Charles Grodin were exchanging
views on the latter's TV show. Davis is a Jewish lawyer who was formerly in
Clinton's White House. Grodin is a Jewish movie actor turned talk show host.
Grodin asked Davis if he approved of Clinton's actions with NATO in the
bombing of Yugoslavia. Davis replied that he had reservations at the
beginning, but now that it has turned out the way it has, he believes
Clinton was right.
This is an example of the philosophy that the end justifies the means, which
is always morally wrong. What Lanny Davis is saying is that it's OK to
attack a sovereign nation and reduce it to rubble, and kill innocent people
in the process, if it turns out the way you wanted it to.
Another example of the present moral vacuum is the response received from
the office of my Congressman, a Democrat from California. When I called
about the Kosovo tragedy and expressed my view that NATO had violated is
charter and the U.S. had led an offensive act of aggression against another
nation, the lady answering the telephone said, "But aren't you glad it's
over?" That response says it all about the amorality of our culture. It
exuded a complete void regarding the central question. She may as well have
referred to the Columbine school massacre in the same vein. "Aren't you glad
it's over?"
It is this writer's observation that Democrat politicians possess about an
80% greater chance of committing crimes and immoral acts than Republicans.
This is not an endorsement of the Republican Party; it is a probability
statement. In the first place, one would have to be a Marxist (unconsciously
or deliberately) in order to accept the Democrat Party Platform, because it
"out-Marxes" the Communist Party Platform. If you don't believe this, get a
copy of both and place them side-by-side. Compare them closely. This is why
Democrats in general are less likely to cringe at behavior that is
unacceptable to conservative Americans.
Recently, Chris Matthews, another TV talk show host (appearing on Laura
Ingraham's WATCH IT! program), said that he is an intellectual liberal but a
gut conservative. I think that's an oxymoron. Liberals are the ones who
don't think through the consequences of long term behavior patterns, but
instead practice the gut response of a "feel-good" attitude. Matthews, a
former cop, supports stringent gun controls and abortion because he thinks
that the 2nd Amendment and a ban on abortions are unworkable in our society.
That tells me that his "intellectualism" didn't extend his detailed thinking
far enough into the future. Rather, his gut reaction favors the immediate
culture, which, by the way, was created by the liberals in the first place.
Such liberal "intellectualism" is why the Democrats felt (felt!) it was
wrong to make a big issue out of Clinton's immoral behavior. It's OK with
them (relatively) to bomb civilians in Yugoslavia, and it's OK for the
President of the U.S. to do as he pleases in OUR Oval Office. Theirs is the
logical result of a relativistic age which they helped to create!
What about Hollywood? Do the producers, directors and actors help to shape
the morals of the country? It's interesting that Edgar Bronfman, whiskey
baron and president of the Jewish World Congress, quipped that Hollywood is
too easy a target for blame in our violence-ridden society. That's pretty
much the spin put out by the defenders of Hollywood. One of their number,
however, was more honest about it. George Lucas, creator of Star Wars, in an
interview with Bill Moyers in late June 1999, said that anyone who has a
megaphone is actively teaching the audiences who watch films. He was
referring, of course, to directors. He's right. All of Hollywood is guilty
of contributing to our present lawless culture.
If you understand the principle behind hypnosis, you'll know how the
brainwashing works. When the mind is relaxed (its logical, critical
faculties subdued), and emotional involvement is present, the subconscious
mind drinks in the presented material as suggestions. The subject will be
influenced over a period of time, without suspecting the effects. This is
especially true of children and older youths. As the masses sit before the
tube god hour after hour, day after day, month after month, their minds are
bombarded with information and impressions, much of which cannot and will
not be rejected.
Actors are superb, professional hypnotists in principle, whether or not they
intend to be. Their highest desire is to give performances that move their
audiences. They are deeply dedicated to their "art form". That dedication
has been responsible for the bulk of the ruination of contemporary culture.
Astute, spiritually minded people can detect innumerable themes, plots,
statements and rehearsed attitudes in movies and on the tube that are
sometimes openly hostile and at other times very subtle in their opposition
to Christianity and traditional morality. Even actors who should know
better, contribute to this cultural destruction because they want to work
(their greed triumphs or they covet a part that will enhance their careers).
These elements, along with the frontal attacks by Marxist-type activists and
their lawyers in the socialized courts, have brought about the triumphs of
abortion on demand, homosexuality, women's liberation, extreme
environmentalism, and unconstitutional gun restrictions. They are presently
working feverishly to outlaw statements of any kind against homosexuality
and the Jewish community. The criterion for criminality in these cases is
the highly subjective perception of the "offended". In short, they have
advanced totalitarianism in the name of liberty.
Keep tuned to Smyrna. We change its contents periodically.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
