Remembering History In The Not So Distant Past

[Annie]

http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2006/07/when-history-bites-back.html

Once, there was a small nation created by international consensus from the ashes of a world war. It included two main nationalities and it was the only free nation in the region, surrounded by larger neighbors who resented it and coveted its land, which they felt rightfully belonged to them. In spite of that, it was a prosperous and free republic, and its citizens enjoyed one of the highest living standards in that part of the world.

As a result of the hostile attitude of its neighbor countries, this tiny country had developed a well trained and superbly equipped military, with advanced weapons and its own arms industry. It was also allied with the Western democracies both by its values and by strategic and practical necessity.

One of this small country`s warlike neighbors had a number of its former natives in a part of the tiny nation and began orchestrating riots and other terrorist activity among them in an effort to subvert and conquer their neighbor. When the government of the small country attempted to restore order, the larger nation accused it of violating its former nationals' human rights and committing an "occupation."

A propaganda campaign was begun, claiming that the small country had committed "war crimes" and violated international law. Huge, violent demonstrations were organized by leaders of the larger nation to agitate for the "independence" of their former countrymen.

The larger nation claimed that it could not control the popular anger in the "street" and that it would be forced to go to war and plunge the region into chaos. The case was frequently made that the small country was "racist" and should never have been created at all.


A quartet of nations, including the Western democracies the small nation was allied with, came together to find a solution and a peace plan was created -- without the input or agreement of anyone from the small country.

The peace plan involved a trade of land for peace, with the former nationals of the larger nation to have an independent state on a large part of the small country`s land.

No one in the Quartet would have considered repatriating the natives of the larger nation back to their original home country, or giving them some of the larger nation`s territory to live on.

When the leaders and diplomats of the small nation protested at this one-sided settlement, they were bullied into acceptance with threats of withdrawal of all aid and military assistance by the very western allies they had counted on for support in preserving their freedom. Instead, they were offered guarantees for the security of their remaining territory.

They were likewise abandoned by the international body that had brought them into existence in the first place. They reluctantly accepted the Quartet`s diktat, counting on the guarantees they were given for their security and territorial integrity. Certain politicians in the small country were even happy at the settlement, since the "occupation" was ended and peace preserved. And the international community congratulated them on making sacrifices and bold moves for peace.

After Munich, Czechoslovakia was forced to withdraw to indefensible borders, leaving a large part of its superb defenses and arms works in the hands of "Slovakia," a German satellite.

Less than a year later Slovakia became Germany`s bridge for invasion, and the tiny country was crushed between Hitler`s Germany and Pilsudski`s Poland. The international community did nothing to honor its guarantees, nothing whatever...and alone, without a single voice being raised in protest, the Czechs were crushed.

When the Western democracies threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves they eliminated Hitler`s worry about a strong adversary on his eastern border, paved the way for the Comintern Pact with Russia and virtually guaranteed World War Two. Had the West stood by Czechoslovakia, Hitler would never have dared to move.

Those who favor bullying Israel into a so-called peace settlement would do well to remember the last time the West betrayed a strong ally to preserve "peace in our time." They might want to consider what a victory of this kind for the forces of Islamic fascism might mean to the West and preserving its freedom.

And the Israelis would do well to remember that all the security guarantees in the world are no substitute for defensible borders and a strong military. And that `security' is not something that can be left to others.

History bites back, especially to those who forget its lessons.



posted by Freedom Fighter

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The WW I, II era is a also a lesson in jewish treachery. America was brought into wwI at a point when Britain was ready to accept a cease-fire and go back to pre war conditions. The jews of europe said, "No stay in, we can get the U.S. to come back in your side, and in exchange, we want palestine." The germans and jews lived very peaceably prior to this, with jews occupying very high positions in german society. After this backstab, however, things changed. The jews wanted to accept no consequences for their sellout of their host nation, germany. And When germany refused to let them to continue to manipulate society, the jews orchestrated massive retaliations against germany, including embargos. This set the stage for wwII.

 

[5stringJeff]

The WW I, II era is a also a lesson in jewish treachery. America was brought into wwI at a point when Britain was ready to accept a cease-fire and go back to pre war conditions. The jews of europe said, "No stay in, we can get the U.S. to come back in your side, and in exchange, we want palestine." The germans and jews lived very peaceably prior to this, with jews occupying very high positions in german society. After this backstab, however, things changed. The jews wanted to accept no consequences for their sellout of their host nation, germany. And When germany refused to let them to continue to manipulate society, the jews orchestrated massive retaliations against germany, including embargos. This set the stage for wwII.

You obviously read too many conspiracy websites during your ban. Read some real history about how the US entered WWI, which had to do with German submarine warfare and the German proposal to Mexico to ally with them and regain the southwest US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerman_Telegraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Entry_of_the_United_States

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You obviously read too many conspiracy websites during your ban. Read some real history about how the US entered WWI, which had to do with German submarine warfare and the German proposal to Mexico to ally with them and regain the southwest US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerman_Telegraph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Entry_of_the_United_States

Those were the publicly stated reasons. I think YOU really need to get educated.

 

[5stringJeff]

Those were the publicly stated reasons. I think YOU really need to get educated.

You're right. My military history major at the world's premier military academy didn't give me enough education about war.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The smoking gun.

The Balfour Declaration

Y'all be the judge.

 

[Annie]

You're right. My military history major at the world's premeir military academy didn't give me enough education about war.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

And now, the point of this thread was not 'Jewish conspiracies' which has many other threads. Rather the treachery of 'international bodies,' whether the League of Nations or the UN.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're right. My military history major at the world's premier military academy didn't give me enough education about war.

Elitism -- check

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Read it and weep, ring knocker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917
By the standards of international diplomacy, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 is an amazing document, succinctly summarized by Arthur Koestler who wrote that the declaration amounted to "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." Beyond the textual content of the Balfour Declaration - it was made up of just three sentences and some 125 words in total - its significance lies in how it came to pass and what impact it had both on the course of World War I and subsequent events culminating in the formation of Israel.

Perhaps the Balfour Declaration can best be appreciated as part of the increasing escalation, both military and political, between the Allies and Central Powers over the course of late-1916 and 1917. By late 1916, the Central Powers, especially Germany, were suffering mightily from the deprivations caused by the Allied blockade. In February of 1917, Germany - in response to this blockade - initiated its own counter-blockade of Britain and attempted to enforce it by a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare.

A month later, Tsar Nicholas II abdicated signaling the eventual withdrawal of Russia as an effective adversary to Germany and Austria-Hungary. From the perspective of the Triple Entente, the potential consequences unfolding in Russia were grave. Beyond the loss of a powerful counterforce on Germany’s eastern flank, a defeated or neutral Russia offered the Central Powers the possibility of evading the Allied blockade by importing foodstuffs and war material directly from Russia.

Although the United States had voted to enter the war in April of 1917, it was not projected to deliver troops in numbers on the continent until Summer of the following year. Additionally the effects on Britain of U-boat sinkings were significant and growing, ramping up to an average of over 500,000 tons per month during the Summer of 1917. After three years of continuous slaughter and with the specter of German troops, freed from assignments in Russia, soon arriving on the Western Front, Britain found herself in a somewhat desperate situation by the Autumn of 1917. A very real question at this time for the Entente leadership was whether the arrival of the Americans would be in time to stave off an Allied defeat.

The war, in a grisly and virtual stalemate at this point in time, found both Germany and Britain actively making overtures to the Zionist Movement in order to enlist the resources of this group in assisting their cause. Both sides were well aware of the significant Zionist influence within Bolshevik Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany and the United States. Further, Britain recognized that the natural sentiment of many European Jews was, in fact, with Germany and Austria-Hungary. Following the logic that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” European Jews tended to view the Central Powers favorably given their role in defeating the overtly anti-Semitic Tsarist government in Russia. Well aware of this sentiment, Imperial Germany during this same period was actively courting the Zionist movement, both domestically and internationally, but was circumscribed in this effort by the fact that Palestine was then a component of the Ottoman Empire – a key ally of Germany within the Central Powers.

By the Summer of 1917, the world had been at war for three years. All major belligerents were facing the common issues of unbelievable casualty levels, the deprivations of an increasingly effective blockade, dwindling financial resources and the unthinkable specter of actually losing this war. No tactic or strategy was beyond consideration if it offered a reasonable chance to gain advantage over the other side.

At the same time the Zionist movement was very active in all forms of negotiations to convince one or more of the major powers to support the goals of the Zionist movement - namely support for Jewish migration to Palestine. Active negotiations were going on in Constantinople, Berlin, Paris, London, New York and Washington. As events turned out, Zionist efforts first proved successful in London.

 

[5stringJeff]

Read it and weep, ring knocker.

Your original assertion is still incorrect. Here's what you said in post #1: "America was brought into wwI at a point when Britain was ready to accept a cease-fire and go back to pre war conditions. The jews of europe said, "No stay in, we can get the U.S. to come back in your side, and in exchange, we want palestine.""

The Americans came in to WWI in April of 1917, without any Jewish/Zionist pressure (the Germans dug their own grave). The Balfour declaration, signed eight months later, had nothing to do with American entry into the war, as you assert; it had to do with international politics and financing the war. Therefore, your conclusion, that the Jews got America into WWI in exchange for a homeland in Palestine, is false.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your original assertion is still incorrect. Here's what you said in post #1: "America was brought into wwI at a point when Britain was ready to accept a cease-fire and go back to pre war conditions. The jews of europe said, "No stay in, we can get the U.S. to come back in your side, and in exchange, we want palestine.""

The Americans came in to WWI in April of 1917, without any Jewish/Zionist pressure (the Germans dug their own grave). The Balfour declaration, signed eight months later, had nothing to do with American entry into the war, as you assert; it had to do with international politics and financing the war. Therefore, your conclusion, that the Jews got America into WWI in exchange for a homeland in Palestine, is false.

No. The balfour declaration is the jew reward for using their influence in the media to convince america to be against germany. You are incorrect, sir.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The point is this. Jews, not having a nation of their own, have played all sides in the conflicts of others, manipulating events to their advantage. Now that they have their own nation, we see their instinct to defend their homeland, and maintan their culture is just as strong as any other "filthy populist". Let's take them off their pedestal, shall we?

 

[5stringJeff]

No. The balfour declaration is the jew reward for using their influence in the media to convince america to be against germany. You are incorrect, sir.

Jewish influence in the media, eh? Of course, Zimmerman's own confession that his telegraph was real had nothing to do with it, I'm sure, nor would anti-German and anti-Mexican sentiment at the time have had anything to do with it either.

Don't worry, though... the month of JEW-ly will be over on Tuesday, so you'll be free of Zionist calendar oppression.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Jewish influence in the media, eh? Of course, Zimmerman's own confession that his telegraph was real had nothing to do with it, I'm sure, nor would anti-German and anti-Mexican sentiment at the time have had anything to do with it either.

Don't worry, though... the month of JEW-ly will be over on Tuesday, so you'll be free of Zionist calendar oppression.

That's right, jews have no influence in media. I'm just a lunatic. Thanks for setting things straight, jeff! :rotflmao:

The Nile is just a river in egypt.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Check it out.

How long are you neocons going to keep lying? Nobody's advocating a roundup or anything. Let's just be freakin' honest.

http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/jewsconfirmbigmedia.html
Jewish control of the media is a taboo topic. In Congress, among evangelicals and mainline conservative talk radio, it is never mentioned. It is discussed only in snatches on far Right alternative talk radio.

This is astonishing, considering that almost every substantial library in America contains a number of books confirming such Jewish control. These include Neil Gabler’s An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood and Hoberman and Shandler’s Entertaining America: Jews, Movies, and Broadcasting.

These encyclopedic histories of Jewish control of the American media outdo any efforts by so-called “anti-Semites” to document an astonishing, frightening fact: The majority of media news and information to the American public comes from Jews.

An authoritative Jewish website, “Judaism Online,” (www.simpletoremember.com) in its article, “Jewish Success in the American Media,” documents Jewish media preeminence. It does so not from motives of anti-Semitism, but from Jewish pride. Its 2002 list of many Jewish superstars in the media today is printed, in part, below.

Of course, there are more Gentiles than Jews in the America media, as in America at large. But notice how many Jews are in control of media giants. This helps explain why the Jewish media is so relentlessly anti-Christian, constantly pushing immorality and the liberal, Zionist political agenda.

Why are Christians always marginalized in films and TV? Why is the Palestinian perspective not included in the news? Face the forbidden truth: the media speaks with a Jewish voice.

Television Networks:

CBS:

Sumner Redstone - chairman of board and CEO of CBS and Viacom, "world's biggest media giant" (Economist, 11-23-02). Viacom owns Viacom Cable, CBS, and MTV all over the world, Blockbuster Video Rentals, and Black Entertainment TV

Mel Karmazin - CBS corporation president and CEO

Leslie Moonves (great-nephew of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion) - president of CBS Television

David Poltrack - executive vice-president, Research and Planning

Jeff Fager - executive director of “60 Minutes II.”

NBC:

Jeff Zucker - president of NBC Entertainment

Neil Shapiro - president of NBC News

Jeff Gaspin - executive vice-president, programming NBC

Max Mutchnik and David Kohan - co-exec. producers of NBC’s “Good Morning, Miami”

Lloyd Braun - chair of NBC Entertainment.

ABC:

Michael Eisner - major owner of Walt Disney, Capital Cities, and ABC

David Westin - president of ABC News.

FOX:

Rupert Murdoch (Jewish mother, hence legally Jewish) - owner of FOX TV, New York Post, London Times, and News of the World

Sandy Grushow - chair, FOX Entertainment

Peter Chernin - second in command at Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp., owner of FOX TV

Gail Berman - president of FOX Entertainment.

CNN:

Wolf Blitzer - host of CNN’s Late Edition.

Hollywood Movie Studios:

Ted Pike's comment: The prestigious Encyclopedia Judaica, in its article “Motion Pictures,” pg. 449, says: “Thus all the large Hollywood companies, with the exception of United Artists...were founded and controlled by Jews.”

Sony Corporation of America: Howard Stringer - chief

-Columbia Pictures: Amy Pascal - chair

Warner Bros.: Barry Meyer - chair; Jordan Levin - pres. of Warner Bros. Entertainment.

Miramax Films: Harvey Weinstein - CEO

Paramount: Sherry Lansing - president of Paramount Communications and chair of Paramount Pictures’ Motion Picture Group.

DreamWorks: Stephen Spielberg, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg (owners)

MTV Entertainment: Brian Graden - president

Turner Entertainment: Brad Siegal - president

Radio:

Clear Channel Communications: Robert Sillerman - founder

PBS: Ben Wattenberg - moderator, PBS ThinkTank

Publishers:

Ted Pike comments: The Encyclopedia Judaica, in its article “Publishing,” lists the following publishing houses, as of 1971, owned or controlled by Jews: Viking, Knopf, Random House, Modern Library, Simon and Schuster, Harcourt, Brace & Co., Greenberg Publishers, Ziff-Davis, Crown Publishers, Dial Press and Dryden Press. Publishing houses either founded by or with a Jew as editor-in-chief include: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, Abelard-Schumann, Basic Books, Grosset & Dunlap, Federal Writers Project, Gaer Associates, Macmillan & Co., Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Citadel Press, Chanticleer Press, Arthur Frommer, Inc., Hart Publishing Co., Lantern Press, Oceanea Publications, Twayne Publishers, Arco Publishing Co., Grossman Publishers, and Stein & Day.

Publishing houses involved in book clubs, reprints, or children’s literature either founded by or controlled by Jews include the Literary Guild, Book of the Month Club, Limited Editions Club, Heritage Club, Junior Heritage Club, Readers Club, Jewish Book Guild, Military Science Book Club, Natural History Book Club, Book Collector’s Society, Art Book Guild, Science Book Club, Beech Hurst Press, A. S. Barnes & Co., Sagamore Press, Thomas Yoseloff Inc., The Modern Library, World Publishing Co., Little Blue Books, Pocket Books Inc., Avon Publications, Popular Library, Schocken Books, Golden Books, and Golden Press.

In its article on New York City, the Judaica adds to the list of publishing houses owned by Jews, Liveright & Boni, and Anchor Books.

Today Random House, Doubleday, and Anchor Books, while Jewish owned and controlled, participate in the world’s largest publishing consortium, Bertelsmann A.G., benefiting from its staggering distribution advantages. End of Ted Pike’s comments.

Bertelsmann’s American operations are headed by Joel Klein, chair and CEO.

David Manaker is executive director for HarperCollins.

Newspapers:

Samuel Newhouse Jr. and Donald Newhouse own Newhouse Publications, which includes 26 newspapers in 22 cities. The Conde Nast Magazine Group includes the New Yorker, Parade, the Sunday newspaper supplements, American City Business Journal, business newspapers published in more than 30 major cities in America, and interests in cable television programming and cable systems serving one million homes.

Wall Street Journal: Peter R. Kahn, CEO

New York Times, Boston Globe, and other publications: published by Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.

New York Daily News: Mortimer Zuckerman, owner

Village Voice, New Times and network of alternative weeklies: Owned by David Schneiderman

Washington Post: Donald Graham, chair and CEO, son of Katharine Graham Meyer, former owner of Washington Post

San Francisco Chronicle: Ron Rosenthal, managing editor; Phil Bronstein, exec. editor

AOL-Time Warner Book Group: Laurence Kirshbaum, editor

Magazines:

US News & World Report: Mortimer Zuckerman, owner and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish-American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups

New Republic: Marty Peretz, owner and publisher (NR openly identifies itself as pro-Israel.)

Barron’s: Peter R. Kahn, CEO

National Review: Michael Ledeen, editor

Business Week: Bruce Nussbaum, editorial page editor

Newsweek: Donald Graham, chair and CEO, and Howard Fineman, chief political columnist

Weekly Standard: William Kristol, editor, also executive director, Project for a New American Century, (PNAC)

The New Yorker: David Reznik, editor; Nicholas Lehman, writer; Henrick Hertzberg, “Talk of the Town” editor

Miscellaneous:

Ivan Seidenberg - CEO of Verizon Communications, Comcast-ATT Cable TV, with Ralph and Brian Roberts as owners.

Norman Ornstein, American Enterprise Institute - regular columnist for USA Today, news analyst for CBS and co-chair with Leslie Moonves of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers, appointed by Clinton.

Dennis Lebowitz - head of Act II Partners, a media hedge fund.

Barry Diller - chair of USA Interactive, former owner of USA Entertainment.

Kenneth Roth - executive director of Human Rights Watch.

Richard Leibner - head of N. S. Bienstock talent agency, which represents 600 news personalities such as Dan Rather, Dianne Sawyer, and Bill O’Reilly.

Ari Fleischer - Bush’s former press secretary

Stephen Emerson - every media outlet’s first choice as an expert on domestic terrorism.

Terry Semel - CEO of Yahoo!, former chair, Warner Bros.

Mark Golin - VP and creative director for AOL.

Warren Lieberford - president of Warner Bros. Home Video Division of AOL-Time Warner.

Ted Pike comments: Judaism Online’s list presents only the most outstanding, well-recognized Jews in the American media. I could name hundreds more from the top ranks of Jewish media leadership. Such names are readily available from corporate directories such as Standard and Poor's and Lexis Nexus.

Yes, some of the Jewish superstars listed above are political conservatives. Yet studies of top-level Jewish media executives prove they are overwhelming liberal. The famous Lichter-Rothman poll in the early 1980s found that top media executives were radically out of step with the moral values of the American public.

97% affirm a woman's right to an abortion if she pleases. 80% disagree that homosexuality is wrong. 86% believe homosexuals have the right to be schoolteachers. 51% believe adultery is permissible. Of 104 top executives polled, 59% were "raised in the Jewish religion."

Does it matter who dominates the media? It does! The media shapes not only our children's values and actions but our own. The Jewish media has normalized sexual degeneracy, profanity and all kinds of sin. It also leads us into war to make the Mid-East safe for Israel. This happened in Afghanistan, Iraq and, tomorrow, Iran.

If an anti-Christian agenda were being advanced by Moonies or Scientologists, dominating the most powerful positions of media leadership in America, there would be a howl of protest. Americans would demand Congressional hearings and investigations. But because the Jewish media has forbidden identification of itself as Jewish, vilifying such as anti-Semitism, a deafening silence prevails. Meanwhile, relentless evil continues to control the spigot of information from which America drinks.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Check it out.

How long are you neocons going to keep lying? Nobody's advocating a roundup or anything. Let's just be freakin' honest.

If the media is controlled by the zionist jews as claimed, then why is the liberal media today basically rooting for Hizbollah, not Israel?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If the media is controlled by the zionist jews as claimed, then why is the liberal media today basically rooting for Hizbollah, not Israel?

To give the appearance of non control by jews. They still don't delve into the blatant hypocrisy of the establishment of israel. "We get this land because god and The europeans said so". Land always has to be fought for, and they're doing it now. It's to be expected.

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm sure that in 1917, all the TV networks, movie studios, radio stations, and cable conglomerates were preaching nothing but Zionist propaganda!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm sure that in 1917, all the TV networks, movie studios, radio stations, and cable conglomerates were preaching nothing but Zionist propaganda!

It was mostly scrawlings on cave walls and stuff, but they controlled it, no doubt.

 

[theHawk]

interesting articles RWA...