FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Naomi Klein: Disaster Capitalism
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:48 pm    Post subject: Naomi Klein: Disaster Capitalism Reply with quote

Since I posted the short promotional movie for Klein's new book( http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3394 ), I went looking for more detail about what was in the book. Ms. Klein is all over the mainstream left media right now, in a book tour frenzy. She seems like the left's new darling at the moment.

Still without having read the book, I was able to pick up a lot of the content from her many TV interviews on youTube. Her thesis is pretty robust, I must say. She talks about psychological warfare, she talks about the role of the CIA, she talks about MKUltra. She argues cogently that unbridled capitalism has only moved forward in the past 35 years by taking advantage of people when they are in shock, either through accidental or staged crises.

What makes me nervous is how she might be being groomed as a new left wing authority like Michael Moore, another leader being set up to steer the pack. She never mentions any of the top members of the Democratic Party as involved in Disaster Capitialism (not in the TV interviews, at least), which also is a potential red flag. Otherwise, her message seems almost next level, seeping into the mainstream.

I'd like to hear other people's critiques, or any evidence of chicanery on Klein's part. Her general line of thinking is very sound, from what I've heard so far.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
abcar



Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

urbanspaceman wrote:
She never mentions any of the top members of the Democratic Party as involved in Disaster Capitialism (not in the TV interviews, at least), which also is a potential red flag. Otherwise, her message seems almost next level, seeping into the mainstream.


Yeah, i watched all 6 parts to the speech she gave in Feb of this year.. I saw all the cool videos you posted on that other thread, (great graphics!) then clicked on the 1st part of this series..one thing leads to another..

Anyway, it was refreshing to hear someone with an audience talk about the CIA and the coups and how she ties it all together. But until she holds everyone accountable who is, it will dead end..or she'll end up...well, Shocked anyway it's a start? I liked her definition of 'think tanks'.

Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine - Part 1 of 6

Speaking at a benefit event for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a social justice research institute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka3Pb_StJn4

_________________
The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like Klein as far as she goes, and she says all the right things, except the apologetics for Sept 11. It happened --- and they took advantage of it. Kinda Michael Moore-ish.

But I can't forget the Klein's boss is Katrina vanden Heuval. (Katrina ... hmmm)

I also have pointed out that KVH's dad was the assistant to Wild Bill Donovan the 1st CIA director, and KVH did her internship with Averill Harriman, who was Prescott Bush's boss.

William vanden Heuval bought The Nation, and then gave it to his daughter to run.

I say ... limited hang-out ... but what the hell ... better than nothing. A good jumping off point. Hopefully, if she comes to Ohio, I'll go and ask her a few questions.

MAYBE ... The Nation was reading my website. Her argument about planned responses to disasters and leaving ideas laying around pretty neatly negates my Pro-Terrorism thesis that these fuckers planned Sept 11 and wrote down their plans in terms of "wishful thinking" that something "might" occur which would allow them to unleash their plans.

It would be difficult to defend my PoV with her, because of her research and her elite position, because of the necessity to understand the CONTEXT of who these "free marketers" really are, which is that they are outright fascists with ties to outright fascism ... the "lite" variety, unless you happen to live in a country where "lite" is not necessary.
Back to top
abcar



Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:08 am    Post subject: Not so fast Reply with quote

I may have been too easy on Ms. Klein. It's easy to do when one is easy on the eyes, unfortunately. A new media darling? Good candidate.

Now that i see this video you posted spaceman, she mentions the CIA and their torture manuals, but when talking about the coup in Chile, never ties them to it.

She refers to 9-11 and then talks about how the Bush administration used shock on Iraq, which is true, but gives them a pass by not connecting the 2 things.

It's all the free-marketeers doing, as she puts it. And she says that 'deliberately' creating disaster, then taking advantage is not the rule... which means.. it's the exception?

BushCo. deliberately attacked Iraq to create a new market, (followed by more of the same) but who deliberately attacked us on 9-11? Who shocked us?

Seems like a lite version of the brutal truth.

Need to see more videos. Anybody here read the book yet?

_________________
The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some good criticisms. She's one to keep an eye on (and just not because she's cute, which makes her very media friendly, which I'm not going to hold against her. A little sexist to dismiss a intelligent woman because she's attractive Smile ).

She doesn't go all the way. Yes, Gary, to go all the way she'd have to call a spade a spade and call these people fascists. But it's hard to use that word in public discourse, because fascism = mythical monsters / the devil on earth. It's a little strange to say this...it sounds like I'm defending Hitler, but sometimes I think if we could demythologize Hitler, change him from being pure evil, then Americans would be less inclined to think "oh no, that couldn't happen here". You have to be delicate, almost avoid using the word fascism until the end of your argument, because people tune out (like I was saying before, I've told people "Bush's grandfather was Hitler's banker", and people kind of don't believe me at first. I realize now it's like people are hearing me saying "The president has direct connections to Satan". They think I'm in fantasy land.)

But one thing about Klein's book is very positive, the more I think about it. I'm sick to death of people on the left buying in to the co-incidence and incompetence theory, which always ends in "we can't do our jobs as officials until we get more funding!". Even if Klein doesn't go all the way, at least this new terminology (Shock Doctrine, Disaster Capitalism) might get the public out of the fog of "the government is just a bunch of fuck-ups, we can't really blame them". It's a good way to sum up, in a few clever phrases, how that's naive and that there's forethought to what's going on.

I'm aware that there's a tricky PR game to be played. It doesn't matter if you're a big company or a single individual, you have to choose your words carefully, and be aware which words cause knee-jerk reactions. I've noticed many people have taken Klein's critique of radical free-market capitalism to suggest that she wants us to live in Soviet Russia. Perhaps she should use the term "radically deregulated capitalism".

These are small details, I know, but they really do matter. Republicans were very good at steering discourse (very successful at turning liberal into a derogatory term, for example), and unfortunately it sometimes takes counter PR campaigns to turn the tide in the other direction.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
abcar



Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I copied this from Gary's post on the Ron Paul thread.. it's very to the point of this thread.

dilbert_g wrote:
I must say, on second look, I found strong objections to Naomi Klein.

While pointing out some strong stuff that HINTS at a Sept 11 conspiracy, and Katrina conspiracy, she claims that these events were merely parasitic opportunism, whereas Chile and Iraq/Abu Ghraib were deliberate shock attacks, psy warfare on civilians.

Of course there's a huge difference. The two latter examples were attacks on foreign civilians, while the two former examples were American civilians and ... we're exceptional, so they would never actually try to intentionally and maliciously harm us ... ok, she even says that they would intentionally inflict SOME harm and SOME economic shock therapy ... but they wouldn't actually kill Americans with pre-meditation ... well they would pre-meditatively discuss it ... but they would not actually ORCHESTRATE it.

That's taking it to whacko CT land. Because if they did, well, that would be very very wrong, and even treasonous. And we know that they would never commit treason ... well, only lightweight treason, not treason combined with mass murder.

I mean were talking Bush here, not Adolf Hitler, who Bush's grandfather supported.

So when a disaster like Katrina or Sept 11 happens to Americans (or Brits 7/7), it just appears to be a conspiracy, because although these people are really mean and opportunistic evildoers, they really not really outright criminal conspirators ... well, not to that degree, anyhow. I mean, we have to draw the line somewhere, why not there?

Thanks, Naomi.


U.spaceman, I know what you mean about choosing words very carefully. If you're in the mainstream media you either choose carefully or they will provide you with a script.

Her connection to Katrina Vanden Heuval is probably gonna keep a short leash on her. How could she come right out and talk about direct CIA coup orchestrations all over the world?

The CIA doesn't seem to mind the 'mythology' of its own covertness. It's sexy. There are so many movies made about it..or similar secret agencies.. as well as t.v shows geared to that. They'll depict a few rogue elements doing bad stuff to 'innocent' agents (Bourne) or to the nation as a whole (Breach) and on and on.. but they'll never go all the way.
I haven't seen all of them by any means, so if someone can name a alphabet org. type film which rips them to shreds..please post.

I was not being sexist in my observation of Klein's appeal. In show business, looks definitely count. That's the reality. She has everything a media celeb needs. Including brains. I wish she could deliver the 'goods' and stay alive Neutral

_________________
The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

abcar wrote:
I was not being sexist in my observation of Klein's appeal.

Oh yes, I know. I was just saying we shouldn't be quick to yell "CIA fake!" because she is attractive and media friendly.

I agree with everything Gary is saying. But we are talking about a massive paradigm shift for most people, and she wouldn't even get on TV if she talked as directly as Gary. Not that I think she is holding back, perhaps she's not made the big paradigm shift yet herself, and is still stuck in old left vs. right thinking. It's a step towards our point of view, away from the incompetence theories. Maybe it will help other people to connect more dots, and it's a start. She's mentioning MK-Ultra with a straight face...that impresses me.

I've also noticed she is very careful about the word conspiracy. That's another word that's been ruined, it's connotation changed. Conspiracy is now equivalent to insane paranoia. We're almost forced to pick new words.

As much as Gary criticisms are totally valid, let's try and keep a perspective here: the discourse on the left is being steered, is being kept in boxes, but it could be a million times worse. Check out those propaganda films from the Soviet Union I posted ( http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3394 ). No public decent, no criticism of Mother Russia was even allowed. The truth is being slowed and held back, but it's not being crushed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

urbanspaceman wrote:
It's a little strange to say this...it sounds like I'm defending Hitler, but sometimes I think if we could demythologize Hitler, change him from being pure evil, then Americans would be less inclined to think "oh no, that couldn't happen here".


Confronting the legal persecutions of historical revisionists and chemists like Germar Rudolf is the necessary step towards that:

http://germarrudolf.com/

If people can accept that a man can be kidnapped and imprisoned because his test samples taken at Auschwitz did not turn up a politically correct conclusion then they have no choice but to go on with the "Hitler was pure evil" mantra. It's not reasonable to expect people to be objective when they've accepted the imprisonment of objective people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Urban,
It's a canned knee-jerk denunciation that if you criticize the shibboleth of Neo-Liberalism you must want to bring back the Soviet Union under Stalin, along with Stalin's violence. That's a logical fallacy that works, but it should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.

As I mentioned before, I think this approach is fairly simple for discussing Bush. I take some baby steps to explain it, guaging the reaction of my audience so I don't get too boring.

1. Naturally, German industry and German banking came to support Hitler and the Nazi Party since Hitler was "pro-business" and "pro-corporate".

(This also means Hitler was anti-Labor, but he did not share that view with the mass public. The ordinary people who supported Hitler did so because he offered things like patriotism, mythology, and jobs. He was a feel-good-about-Germany leader at a time when Germany was feeling bad about itself as a nation and it's future prospects, but even that alone did not bring Hitler wider mass acceptance without an awful lot of New York and German money to make it stick. And, most importantly, Hitler created an outside enemy for the common people to hate, just like Bush has done.)

(Actually, this means Hitler was NOT THE #1 mythological monster they say he was, per se. Evil, but how evil? Even IF Hitler (alone?) was responsible for the deaths of 6M Jews and 20M Russians, etc., if the USA is responsible for the deaths of 4M Vietnamese and other Asians (per fmr Sec Def McNamara) and a million Iraqis and many other small "proxy-wars" for anti-communism, it's a matter one monster calling another monster monstrous. I think that even Patrick would agree that Himmler and others spoke and wrote about extermination and elimination of Jews, in the manner that Reagan spoke about helping Argentine fascists "eliminate the terrorist element", so at least a plan to do so was operational, the whole Human Ecology thing, which began in Britain and America.)

2. Naturally, a lot of American business and finance invested in Germany business and finance, and shared some corporate interlocks, like multi-national corporations do today. Plus, these financial elites liked this "pro-business" dictatorship thing an awful lot more than democracy which catered to the Vulgar Many, as Straussians and other Machiavellians and Platonists think of us.

Anyone who's aware of anything in the world today can grasp this. Jobs going to China, multi-national corporations, etc.

3. So A LOT of top-name US businesses had some kind of partnership relations with German business, some maybe strictly for profits, but some because they LIKED the ideology of 'corporate fascism'. Famous corporate and family names like DuPont, Rockefeller, Standard Oil, Chase Bank, National City Bank, ALCOA, GM, GE, Ford, IBM, etc. traded with or were interlocked with companies that supported the Nazi War Machine, some even during the war and even after the war.

Many people already know something about US businesses investing in Nazi Germany, at least before the War, so you can sometimes breeze through this whole part.

4. Auschwitz for one example, was located in the area of Poland next to a coal mine which was run by a primarily German company. But corporate relations being what they were, Prescott Sheldon Bush was American managing director of this operation at Auschwitz, and he was managing director of other industrial, finance, and banking (money-laundering) operations, corporate shell games, hiding profits and paper trails, etc.

Prescott Bush and his father in law George Walker were a high-level 2nd tier "CEO's" or similar working for and with the NEXUS of American businessmen, lawyers, and political class who most avidly supported the Nazis and Nazi War Criminals, both before the war, and the secretly during and after World War 2.

Now that's just true, it's in the US national archives and the FBI and Justice Department convicted Bush of this, on a lesser charge of "Trading with the Enemy" instead of Treason.

It's not simply interesting Geneology, however, because it didn't end then or go away.

This NEXUS then helped form the CIA, and headed the State Dept, and helped with Nazi flight capital, and rescued Nazi War Criminals by bringing them to the US and elsewhere, and put some of them back in power in Germany, and created groups like the WACL to "fight communism" with the Nazis and other fascists immediately after WW2 ended.

Prescott Bush was elected Senator. (Osama Bin Laden was part of WACL.)

George HW Bush was an adult getting into his first jobs around politics and investment, right out of college. He, like his father's Nazi-loving friends, was a businessman with his family's money who interfaced with the CIA and became CIA Director. When he ran for President, he was busted by the media for having Euro Nazis on his election committee.

-----------------------------------
Patrick,
I agree with you -- and I imagine that most others here do too -- that neither Germar Rudolf nor others should be in prison. Not unless someone was REALLY trying to start a movement to "finish the job", then maybe it would be best for all to stop that before it gets off the ground, but for that matter, Bush and Cheney and their nexus are dangerous criminals who should be in prison first. (For that matter, American right wing TV esp Fox News is actively laying the ideological groundwork for a genocide of other minorities, most especially Arabs now, but also blacks.)

Germar Rudolf does not deny the entire substance of the H-caust, and I respect him for that. He refutes the stories about efficient industrialized mass extermination by the described methods which are officially accepted, and does so based on a scientific dispute over the plausibility and even possibility of those methods being realistically capable of accomplishing what they were said to accomplish.

I have not yet studied Rudolf's work, but I am pretty sure Rudolf does not say that not a single Jew or other person was ever gassed by any method. Nor do I think Rudolf denies that Jews and others were rounded up for camps where they were subjected to forced labor in inhumane conditions, nor does he deny that Jews and others were shot en masse in certain places and thrown into pits, nor that Jews and others were forced to dig the pits, nor do I think he denies inhumane medical experiments which have been repeated by the Japanese and by Israel, and supported by the USA. He pretty much sticks to arguments specifically about to the Gas Chambers and the Crema, and the resulting discrepancy in the numbers, as far as I know from what I've read of him so far.

I don't even have to agree with Rudolf to agree that he deserves the right to argue those distinctions and to make his case, publicly.

I also agree that it's hard to even DISCUSS this with many people because it's impossible to finish the paragraph of qualifications without interruption.


(The other problem that the National Security State has with H-caust shall we say Reductionism rather than Denialism, is it "dangerously" cuts back on the yardstick of "acceptable Genocide" for a lot of situations that the United States and some Allies approve of, engage in, and support by proxy, partly on the basis that it's "not as bad as Hitler" and therefore it's "hysterical" or "disingenuous" to make comparisons to Hitler (or to Stalin) if an American president only murders 10,000 or 100,000 or 1, 2, or even 4 million "terrorist" vermin or "commies".)

Nor should Finkelstein be blackballed from Education -- like the Red Scare -- for arguing with Dershowitz about how the H-caust -- which even many revisionists do not dispute did occur to SOME extent -- how the suffering of Finkelstein's parents and how the deaths of many others has been hijacked and politicized by Zionism and by the USA for political and financial reasons, like a carte blanche on Israeli atrocities and to extort money from Switzerland and Germany, but money that went to wealthy committees and projects, NOT to actual survivors of the roundups and camps.

We can cite many others who are also unjustly imprisoned, like the West Memphis Three who are imprisoned on death row for a fictional "Satanic Murder" which was probably done by the paranoid "Christian" father of one of the victims. Also Mumia Abu Jamal, imprisoned for a crime he almost certainly did not commit, and of which the courts absolutely LIED about to convict him.

(Discussing these issues leads me to the feeling that our standards of humanity have not changed that much from the Middle Ages or the Inquisition, but I know that for many people they have, and our expectations about what is acceptable have changed, otherwise we'd not be discussing these things. Not excluding ex-Muslims arguments about violence inherent in Islam either.)

There are political aspects to these cases, but I agree that a LOT of American and Global Foreign Policy in the Middle East uses the whole mythology of the H-Caust as a touchstone, so it's a bigger political issue than the other unfortunate cases.

On the other hand, we've talked about this on many other threads. It's probably not appropriate that EVERY thread touch on this, once it's been discussed at length.

(I think this is the first time here I've seen the "yardstick of Genocide" argument I raised expressed in simple terms, maybe not, but I'm sure others have raised it in various ways. I think even Chomsky has described this from another angle, without discussing discrepancies in the H-caust numbers. Chomsky also got burned badly in the media for saying some of the same things I'm saying here, albeit probably in part due to his defending himself in indecipherable Chomsky-talk.)
Back to top
abcar



Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
So A LOT of top-name US businesses had some kind of partnership relations with German business, some maybe strictly for profits, but some because they LIKED the ideology of 'corporate fascism'. Famous corporate and family names like DuPont, Rockefeller, Standard Oil, Chase Bank, National City Bank, ALCOA, GM, GE, Ford, IBM, etc. traded with or were interlocked with companies that supported the Nazi War Machine, some even during the war and even after the war.


Death goes better with....

Coca Cola at War (on BOTH sides)

When the US Army landed in North Africa, among the equipment brought ashore were 3 complete Coca Cola bottling plants.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-food/coca_cola.htm

Coca Cola in a Nazi Uniform

Coca Cola (GmbH) were the German bottlers for Coke under the leadership of the CEO Max Keith (pronounced Kite). Coke sponsored the 1936 Nazi Olympics where Hitler showcased his Aryan vision to the world, while hiding the "Don't shop at Jewish shops" posters.
Coca Cola GmbH sought to be associated with the Nazis, it became a bit of a joke that if Hitler or a high ranking Nazi was on the front cover of a magazine Coke would advertise on the back. Coke advertised on billboards that were by the Berlin stadiums, so people attending Goebbel's rallies had to walk past them.

Coke financially supported the Nazis by advertising within Nazi newspapers, in one instance Coke published responses to accusations from rival bottlers that they were a Jewish company. These denunciations were placed in Nazi rags.

Coke advertised in the Nazi Army paper shortly after the invasion of Sudetenland, the ad was a picture of a hand holding a bottle of coke over a map of the world, the slogan was "Yes we have got an international reputation."

Coke opened up a bottling plant in Sudetenland shortly after the invasion.

Mark Prendergrast's book For God, Country and Coca Cola: "Later in the war, Keith used Chinese labor and "people who would come from anywhere in Europe-the war brought them from everywhere." For Keith to say blandly that "the war brought them" implies that they were willing refugees, which is somewhat misleading. In fact, the wartime railroads not only carried Jews, Gypsies and others to concentration camps, but some 9 million Fremdarbeiter, or forced foreign labor, who accounted for a fifth of the German labor force by 1944." Coke nearly certainly used forced labor.

* Coca Cola in the US have paid into a fund for the compensation of people who were forced to work for the Nazis.

As Max Keith's supplies of Coke dwindled in 1941 he gave his last batches to Nazi soldiers.

After the US entered the war in 1941 Max Keith couldn't get Coca Cola syrup from America to make Coke so he invented a new drink out of the ingredients he had available to him and made it specifically for the Nazi market and the Third Reich.

* The drink was called Fanta.


Fanta came by its name thanks to Keith's instructions to employees during the contest to christen the beverage he told them to let their Fantasie [Geman for fantasy] run wild. Upon hearing that, veteran salesman Joe Knipp immediately blurted out Fanta.
This new soda was often made from the leavings of other food industries. (Remember, Germany did have a bit of an import problem at that time.) Whey (a cheese by-product) and apple fiber from cider presses found their way into the drink. As for which fruits were used in the formulation, it all depended on what was available at the time. In its earliest incarnations, the drink was sweetened with saccharin, but by 1941 its concocters were permitted to use 3.5 percent beet sugar.

Brand Overview: A favorite in Europe since the 1940s, Fanta was acquired by The Coca-Cola Company in 1960. Fanta Orange is the core flavor, representing about 70% of sales, but other citrus and fruit flavors have their own solid fan base. Fanta sells best in Brazil, Germany, Spain, Japan, Italy and Argentina. Fanta is still a Coca-Cola product, and today it comes in seventy different flavors (though some are only available within the country of manufacture, one of 188 countries it is sold in).

_________________
The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
On the other hand, we've talked about this on many other threads. It's probably not appropriate that EVERY thread touch on this, once it's been discussed at length.


With regards to matters such as

urbanspaceman wrote:
It's a little strange to say this...it sounds like I'm defending Hitler, but sometimes I think if we could demythologize Hitler, change him from being pure evil, then Americans would be less inclined to think "oh no, that couldn't happen here".


I don't see any other rational way of responding than to note that legal persecution is applied to people in Europe, and soon perhaps here as well, who attempt to introduce some rationality into the historical discussion. That's hardly a matter of claiming that "EVERY thread" should have such and such. But it is a lot more honest and consistent to argue that Blowback is a good enough case against the Iraq war (it should be) without worrying about LIHOP or MIHOP than to suggest that one could dymythologize the claims made about the Third Reich without actively junking the censorship laws which cover most of Europe today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
urbanspaceman



Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Awesome posts, guys. A Nazi connection to Coca Cola? Can things get any stranger? Amazing.

Gary, the information you've brought to the forum about the attempted US coup is still the most explosive to me, personally. A vital part of history that needs to be preserved.

Have you ever lectured, or thought about lecturing?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.