FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Death of the conservatives: GREAT TV!

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
zak247



Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 949

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:14 am    Post subject: Death of the conservatives: GREAT TV! Reply with quote

A rare instance of great tv!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/hardball-shoutfest-matthe_n_102020.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
seeker



Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 5
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the link, very entertaining indeed.

I enjoyed seeing this typical Conservative mudslinger get a smack down.
From now till November, unfortunately, the air waves will be filled with this type of fear mongering. The citizens of this country really need to stand up and say 'enough is enough'. Spreading lies and half-truths, trying to scare people, should be condemned just like screaming 'Fire' in a theater is.

STOP VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS

I'm not a Democrat, and don't necessarily think that group of power brokers are any better, but at least they don't seem to spread fear across the nation trying to get votes.
As long as the Repubs, conservatives, whatever keep getting elected by using these scare tactics - it will never stop.

Peace

_________________
“What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?” - JC

"What we think, we become." B

"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." C
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just found this. This reminds me why I campaigned for John Kerry.

http://raenergy.igc.org/ourworstfears.html
Quote:
I found them in a book called "A History of National Socialism" by a German anti-Nazi whose name we should all know: as he has given the world some of the BEST writings on what we are facing today -- altho he wrote his words some 70 years ago during the rise of Hitler to perhaps the most horrific dictatorship history has ever seen.

His name was Konrad Heiden.

He also wrote the definitive biography and analysis of Hitler entitled "Der Fuhrer".

If you have not read these books, then you are NOT prepared for what is coming under the rule of the Bush family if we are not successful in November.

I must share the words I discovered today which chilled me to the bone (when considered with the full understanding that when these words were spoken there was already an alliance between Americans on Wall Street and Hitler -- which alliances included the Bushes and Walkers -- the "Dubyas").

They occur on pages 126 and 127 of Heiden's book: "A History of National Socialism" (Alfred A. Knopf, NY, 1935)

Hitler is quoted by Heiden as saying:

"... Our task is to undertake an immense organization of the whole world in which each land will produce what it requires most and in which the white race -- the Nordic race -- shall take the leading part in administering and carrying out the vast plan. Believe me, National Socialism would not be worth anything if it were to be confined to Germany and did not secure the rule of the superior race over the whole world for at least one or two thousand years."

"The great masses of workmen want nothing else than bread and amusement; they have no understanding of idealism; and we can never count upon being able to gain any considerable support among them. What we want is a picked number from the new ruling class, who ... are not troubled with humanitarian feelings but who are convinced that they have the right to rule as being a superior race, and who will secure and maintain their rule ruthlessly over the broad masses."


Heiden continues:

" Hitler added that an understanding with England was in the interests of Germany, because it was necessary to establish a Nordic-Germanic hegemony in Europe, and in conjunction with Nordic-Germanic America over the whole world."



At the time these words were spoken (before 1935) the Bushes and Walkers and Harrimans and Dulleses and Morgans and Rockefellers were already busily raising money to buy a piece of Hitler's 1000-2000 year empire.

This book of Heiden's was published in 1935.

The Bushes were still financing Hitler as late as 1942!!!

According to research of John Loftus and John Buchanan and others, the Bushes never stopped their support of Hitler during the war, but in fact merely covered their tracks with investments in Dutch and Swiss banks and other places where Nazi industrial operations could still reap them profits and a toe-hold on Hitler's plan for a "Nordic Germanic American Hegemony over the whole world" using the methodologies of Hitler's "ruthless" terror and fear and untroubled by "humanitarian feelings".


Last edited by dilbert_g on Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 2:13 am    Post subject: Re: Death of the conservatives: GREAT TV! Reply with quote

zak247 wrote:
A rare instance of great tv!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/hardball-shoutfest-matthe_n_102020.html


This is classic. This was not intentional self-immolation, the guy was just a fucking dumbass Republican quote machine.

The local radio host today was ragging on Obama the Appeaser, right after a story about Bush's trip to the Middle East to ASK (BEG??) the Saudis to pump more oil. Of course, the Saudis (who we OWN, militarily, and who work closely in concert with the US/CIA to stay in power) simply REFUSED. My fucking ass they refused.

The host also offered a theory that after Bush nukes Iran, the Saudis will act upset, but will SECRETLY BE VERY HAPPY ABOUT NUKING IRAN (even though it puts the Nuclear target on Saudis too, politically, by opening that can of worms, and even though Saudis would most likely be harmed directly, by radiation, even IF this was likely given Iran's role in running Iraq.) Now that Iraq is run by Iranians, who they gonna get to OCCUPY IRAQ after nuking Iran? More Al-Qaeda guys?

For that matter, would Bush evacuate ALL THE TROOPS from Iraq before nuking Iran? Or would he just "nuke the troops"? Teheran and Baghdad are only 774 miles apart. Teheran and Basra only 442 miles. Teheran and Dubai, home of Halliburton, 760 miles. Teheran and Riyadh, 816 miles. (I'm not including KM for our European friends, sorry.)
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=246

These guys are so fucking stupid. But you want to know the stupidest part? I asked him WHAT ELSE Bush was doing in Saudi Arabia. I just happened to have NPR on for a few minutes, before the call.


Bush offers Saudis nuclear capacity in exchange for more oil
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984311.html
I'm sure the Israelis are just fucking loving that, considering that while Iranians DO NOT universally hate Jews, and Jews live in Iran, Saudis DO almost universally hate Jews.

read the comments, Israelis and Americans are freaking out

In addition,
Quote:
Fifteen of the 19 airline hijackers were Saudis, and Americans blamed Saudis for allowing the religious extremism that gave rise to them, an accusation that stings here.


WRONG, I think. Even in the govt's version, they had Saudi Passports, but I don't think they were Saudi people. And anyhow, in the LIHOP version, the Saudi-passport people were on the Fast-track visa program (so they could get a visa without showing up in person) and then on top of that, the CIA overruled visa rejections, if you believe Mike Springman. (And even at that, my logic tells me that the planes were on remote control, to absolutely assure success, but these guys' memory hole on their own stories must be bottomless.

Bush Offers Saudis Nuclear Power
Bush fails to win Saudi help on gas prices
Quote:
Saudis see no reason to raise oil production now
"Saudi Arabia does not have customers that are making requests for oil that they are not able to satisfy," Stephen Hadley said on a day when oil prices rose above $127 a barrel, a record high. "What the Saudis wanted to tell us was we're doing everything we can do ... to meet this problem, but it's a complicated problem."

Hadley never mentioned the Saudi's new production in his recap with reporters. He said the Saudis briefed Bush again on their plan to increase their production capacity over time. They also argued that even an increase would be unlikely to bring down the soaring prices, driven more by uncertainty in the market, lack of refining capacity for the type of oil readily available and other complicated dynamics, he said.


In other words, the Bush administration completely deregulated speculation and price manipulation on "paper oil", so now Bush is trying to signal to the public that it's a problem of supply and demand that we just cannot do anything about, because that would violate the sovereignty of the Saudi Royals.

But I already told him, it is NOT a problem of supply and demand. There is NOT supply problem, or not much of one, so upping production would not change anything anyhow. The meeting was just political charades. It's a problem of unchecked and de-regulated speculation, which was pushed through by the administration of George W. Bush, on behalf of his REAL constituents, his base.

And, of course, it's a problem of the Fed bailing out the banks on their mortgage bubble crash.

And, of course, it's a problem of pumping money into the economy to pay for the War.

Can you imagine how difficult it is talking with them about Sept 11? At least the audience gets to listen in.


Last edited by dilbert_g on Sat May 17, 2008 4:29 am; edited 7 times in total
Back to top
Don Smith



Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 248
Location: Erehwon

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember a book in the very late sixties or early seventies which had"A.T.&T." and empire or some such.
The owners of various weapons patents were paid through third party systems, When a B-17 or a Focke-Wulf fighter was produced, the various payments for license were paid.
It was win-win no matter who has the lead in the war.
In The secret war Against The Jews, a rather detailed account of Rockefeller selling oil to the Nazis by using neutral bottoms is given.
The punch line here being that Israel blackmailed Rockefeller by threatening to expose these dealings, so Nelson strong armed the Latin American votes into supporting partition and statehood for Israel.
This smells like week old fish for a number of reasons, though it might have some fact hidden in the bs.
There can be no doubt that the "Best People" in the U.S. and Britain were all rah-rah for Adolph. The Nazis had destroyed labor power in Germany and were aiming to destroy the Soviet Union.
Who could ask for anything more?

_________________
"A bayonet is a tool with a worker on both ends."- V.I.Lenin
Patriotism is a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don Smith wrote:

It was win-win no matter who has the lead in the war.
In The secret war Against The Jews, a rather detailed account of Rockefeller selling oil to the Nazis by using neutral bottoms is given.
The punch line here being that Israel blackmailed Rockefeller by threatening to expose these dealings, so Nelson strong armed the Latin American votes into supporting partition and statehood for Israel.

I have this book, only on Chap 2. I don't buy that story either, but it does have SOME facts, like the birth of Saudi Arabia.
I wish I knew the title of the AT&T book.
Don Smith wrote:

The Nazis had destroyed labor power in Germany and were aiming to destroy the Soviet Union.
Who could ask for anything more?

Greatest thing in the world. Insecure workers. Slave labor camps. Profits up. Slaves just need to have the right stock portfolios.
Back to top
Fernando_the_First



Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Saudis use "Terrorists" and "Oil" to control Bush, et al. Bush is ordered to remove the U.S. stooge Hussein from Iraq. Saudis are now "in charge." Efforts to make Iran into the new Iraq (i.e. The Evil One) are aimed at Saudi Arabia. U.S. is not going to war with Iran (unless a U.S. stooge can be put in control of Iran--very unlikely--to create a "sham" war like the first Gulf War). The current attempt to use Iran as a "substitute" Iraq is not going well (for obvious reasons--in Iraq they had a dictator who worked for the U.S.A.).

(Sheesh. Admit it. You guys are not reading my posts, are you? Go ahead--'fess up.)

There is no substitute for Iraq. That was a beauty plan. Now that Hussein is gone the U.S. is going to have to go back to working for a living, and that is that.

_________________
"All major crime is an inside job."

Livestock detective Henry Beige (Slim Pickens) in the movie "Rancho Deluxe."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don Smith wrote:
In The secret war Against The Jews, a rather detailed account of Rockefeller selling oil to the Nazis by using neutral bottoms is given.

Except that one shouldn't overlook the fact that the Rockefeller Center in New York set up the British Security Coordination office from which British intelligence operated on the task of bringing the USA into the war. Despite some dirty dealings all around, there can be no doubt that the Rockefeller estate was committed to the defeat of Germany and Japan. The position of world supremacy gained by the USA after 1945 was directly a result of US victory in WWII. But we're supposed to believe that this was all a reluctant gain. Not very realistic.

Don Smith wrote:
The punch line here being that Israel blackmailed Rockefeller by threatening to expose these dealings, so Nelson strong armed the Latin American votes into supporting partition and statehood for Israel.
This smells like week old fish for a number of reasons, though it might have some fact hidden in the bs.

The version given in Loftus & Aarons is probably incomplete, but it sounds quite realistic overall. The propaganda churned up over WWII was not something which could be easily turned off like water from a faucet by Nelson Rockefeller. The staged show-trials held after the war were filled with nonsense which nobody even tries to defend as accurate any longer:

http://cwporter.com/partone.htm

Gradually the old story has wittled down to now being one of 6 camps which allegedly possessed gas chambers, and people like Germar Rudolf are huddled off to prison to protect that scam today:

http://germarrudolf.com/

It should be interesting to watch for what, if anything much, is eventually produced by the current conference meant to shore older gaps:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4933

This conference is an attempt to refurbish the much-debunked book of Kogon and Langbein from 25 years ago. What was interesting about that Kogon/Langbein book was that in many places the authors simply had to admit that actual documents only speak of delousing chambers for disinfesting clothes and evacuation of Jews to the east, but nothing much to suggest the existence of exterminationist gas chambers. Instead, Kogon/Langbein tried to insert the silly notion that all German documents operated with a code language which only a few skilled interpreters could properly understand, so that they were able to attach meanings to documents which clearly did not show through in the ordinary text. This new attempt to patch the old story together while Germar Rudolf is stuck in prison is like putting Humpt-Dumpty back together again.

Taking a proper view of the context, the story about Rockefeller being blackmailed by David Ben-Gurion is not so outlandish. There probably are some key details which Loftus & Aarons have deliberately left, but much of what they say on this matches consistently with the known facts.

Don Smith wrote:
There can be no doubt that the "Best People" in the U.S. and Britain were all rah-rah for Adolph. The Nazis had destroyed labor power in Germany and were aiming to destroy the Soviet Union.

That isn't really altogether true. You can make a fair case that there was some degree of a political split within the US upper ruling class over whether to treat the Third Reich or the Soviet Union as the main rival, but the winning faction which included people like J.P. Morgan favored the emphasis on treating Germany as the main immediate enemy. Joseph Kennedy would have preferred backing Germany against Russia. But some very important people were more concerned about Germany as an industrial rival than they were about the Soviet Union, at least in the immediate sense. What came to be called The American Century was only made possible because Germany and Japan were, for a time, broken as industrial rivals. That outcome was not some accident where the whole US ruling class trips and falls by mistake into a war which makes them the global economic leader. Harry Truman is known for commenting at the time when Operation Barbarossa began that the US should aid whichever side appeared to be losing, without letting either win. That would really have been the optimal policy for most of the US ruling class, except that in reality such a balance was impossible. If Germany had consolidated its domain then that would have been an economic region which the USA would have been locked out of, in contrast to what followed after WWII. No more than a fraction of the US elite would have accepted such an outcome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fernando_the_First wrote:
Saudis use "Terrorists" and "Oil" to control Bush, et al. Bush is ordered to remove the U.S. stooge Hussein from Iraq. Saudis are now "in charge."

There is no substitute for Iraq. That was a beauty plan. Now that Hussein is gone the U.S. is going to have to go back to working for a living, and that is that.


I'm so sure Bush is totally being FOOLED by the Saudis. He should check with his Dad and his Dad's Saudi investors. Maybe they can clue him in.

Ditto for terrorism. If Al-Qaeda has been and is currently being financed via Saudi and Pakistani business and intelligence --- and no one disagrees with that, even the CFR --- and those Intell groups clearly worked for the CIA -- it's not likely that Bushco "doesn't know" about Saudi involvement with terrorism since HIS father (and previous administrations) backed it and funded it.
Back to top
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I looked at the CWporter link. SOME of these things, Americans have been accused of learning and collaborating in, from Japanese and German sources, such as experiments with the efficacy of various torture techniques, weapons, and the like. Human trials of toxic chemicals. None of that would be surprising, on a captive population.

Beat people to death. How unusual is that. Nor doing official autopsies after beatings. NYC cops and state officials have done that. The real question is whether these things were done en masse.

Making stuff out of human skin. I don't know, I think there probably was some instances of this kind of macabre fun, not saying it was an industry. I think there were a few found examples. The Thule Society and associated groups and their beliefs were pretty damn weird. I found one story here with a lot of detail, though some of the story gets bizarre.
http://punchdrunkpolitics.tribe.net/thread/53943ef9-bd79-4daa-bcb2-a995bc751981
Again, this does not argue how widespread certain activities were, but the occult philosophy was certainly supportive of some nasty stuff.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the larger Holocaust story as being largely fabricated, the points you make. You've said before, it does not seem to be a 100% all or nothing issue. All armies engaging in brutal occupations engage in "excesses", some approved by commanders, regardless of official policy. Even in Israel today, some would not approve of wanton violence against Palestinians, some would not revel in that, but some would, both individual instances of "rogue IDF soldiers" and the top command. Splits exist, even in Israel, though the psyops have mostly everyone supporting violent "retribution", from what I hear, even if it's ultimately risks being extremely UN-beneficial to Israeli Jews.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:

Except that one shouldn't overlook the fact that the Rockefeller Center in New York set up the British Security Coordination office from which British intelligence operated on the task of bringing the USA into the war. Despite some dirty dealings all around, there can be no doubt that the Rockefeller estate was committed to the defeat of Germany and Japan. The position of world supremacy gained by the USA after 1945 was directly a result of US victory in WWII. But we're supposed to believe that this was all a reluctant gain. Not very realistic.


I can believe that loyalties and agendas shifted over time too, just like over Iran/Iraq. There might have been an underlying agenda, but factionalism within US ruling circles probably also played a role. I believe people in Neo-Con circles DO want to nuke Iran (impossible, politically, for a number of reasons, including proximity to US troops and important cities in the region), while other factions are wholly against that, and want to boost Iran. (For that matter, as Fintan says, all this anti-Iran rhetoric may have simply been for show, or for show plus economic blackmail. The Iranians have dumped the Dollar as an "unstable currency", and I'm sure some US leaders would like to use the military to get them to change their minds.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
Gradually the old story has wittled down to now being one of 6 camps which allegedly possessed gas chambers, and people like Germar Rudolf are huddled off to prison to protect that scam today:


I'm all for Germar Rudolf and others setting the facts straight. There's evidence that the whole Manson Family thing was not only deliberately exaggerated (beyond the murders, the first of which was apparently a drug deal gone bad), and mostly the role of the govt and media characterizing Manson as a "hippie" when he was a product of State prison, and defaming "hippies" as violent and bloodthirsty stoners. Even if there's some truth to the general Holocaust story -- it's certainly been hyped for some serious social control and geo-political reasons. (Now seeing splits arising, like that clip that Kathy posted on Hardball asking "what is so special about Israel" and confronting the Israel nut. Also the UN talking about the "Nakba" and Israel complaining. Much more.)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
Taking a proper view of the context, the story about Rockefeller being blackmailed by David Ben-Gurion is not so outlandish. There probably are some key details which Loftus & Aarons have deliberately left, but much of what they say on this matches consistently with the known facts.


Really? I would not have thought that David Ben-Gurion could have that much POWER over the political and media systems, compared to the Rockefeller family. Unless it was due to support of Christian-Zionists like Lloyd George and Balfour and the like, and the new Armageddon and Rapture philosophies being developed in the 1800s, requiring the return of all living Jews to Zion and Jerusalem. Then it would be a lot like today. I just heard a talk on this by an Evangelical who does NOT believe in The Rapture, for a variety of reasons, including Biblical ones, and a return to Mosaic Era thinking by Christians who are supposed to know better.

Don Smith wrote:
There can be no doubt that the "Best People" in the U.S. and Britain were all rah-rah for Adolph. The Nazis had destroyed labor power in Germany and were aiming to destroy the Soviet Union.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
That isn't really altogether true. You can make a fair case that there was some degree of a political split within the US upper ruling class over whether to treat the Third Reich or the Soviet Union as the main rival, but the winning faction which included people like J.P. Morgan favored the emphasis on treating Germany as the main immediate enemy. Joseph Kennedy would have preferred backing Germany against Russia.


Ahh, so in the end, Kennedy was more fascist than Morgan. At least for the economic reasons, if not the Master Race reasons.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
But some very important people were more concerned about Germany as an industrial rival than they were about the Soviet Union, at least in the immediate sense.


That makes sense.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
What came to be called The American Century was only made possible because Germany and Japan were, for a time, broken as industrial rivals. That outcome was not some accident where the whole US ruling class trips and falls by mistake into a war which makes them the global economic leader.


Obviously, if the events were not "engineered" they were at least structured to favor US interests.

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
Harry Truman is known for commenting at the time when Operation Barbarossa began that the US should aid whichever side appeared to be losing, without letting either win. That would really have been the optimal policy for most of the US ruling class, except that in reality such a balance was impossible. If Germany had consolidated its domain then that would have been an economic region which the USA would have been locked out of, in contrast to what followed after WWII. No more than a fraction of the US elite would have accepted such an outcome.


Just like in previous US wars, MARKETS were the main objective, MARKETS, LABOR, and RESOURCE EXTRACTION. Global domination of markets. US leaders even today approve of shared hegemony if they NEED to. Brzezinski seems to even be arguing in FAVOR of that, both for economic gain of their class and to prevent the some of the capital destruction that happens in great power wars. They'll make a buck off those too, but -- if you take them at their word -- they prefer stable economic relations and development, so long as THEY win money, power, and position on the Chess Board. They WANT a global "war on terror" (opponents of globalization) but they say they DON'T want war with China or Russia, only economic blackmail and leveraging. Part of it is them not wanting to risk getting beaten at their own game. It's not like the Russians or Chinese, however many of them want peace, are exactly DUMB enough to just lay down and be ruled by Washington and Wall Street, if they can otherwise compete and win.
Back to top
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
Beat people to death. How unusual is that. Nor doing official autopsies after beatings. NYC cops and state officials have done that. The real question is whether these things were done en masse.

NYC cops may carry out an official autopsy in a context where the beating itself is nominally illegal. There may also have been some cases of officials in the Third Reich being officially disciplined for prisoner abuse such as in the cases of Karl and Ilse Koch who were arrested by the Gestapo in 1943 on charges of embezzlement and abuse of inmates. But the sensationalistic style of the Nuremberg proceedings obfuscates such questions.

dilbert_g wrote:
Making stuff out of human skin. I don't know, I think there probably was some instances of this kind of macabre fun, not saying it was an industry.

At one time the lampshades-made-from-human-skin was a senationalistic story in circulation. Since then it's rather fizzled down to the point that we're sometimes told that there may have been a few cases, but it's not generally maintained.

I especially get a kick out of this one though:

http://cwporter.com/pg85.htm

We're told that it was possible to simply open the doors to a gas chamber "When the air could be breathed again" without any mention of a need for gas masks and then bodies could be "burned in the open air without the use of fuel." Preposterous.

dilbert_g wrote:
All armies engaging in brutal occupations engage in "excesses", some approved by commanders, regardless of official policy. Even in Israel today, some would not approve of wanton violence against Palestinians, some would not revel in that, but some would, both individual instances of "rogue IDF soldiers" and the top command. Splits exist, even in Israel, though the psyops have mostly everyone supporting violent "retribution", from what I hear, even if it's ultimately risks being extremely UN-beneficial to Israeli Jews.

No doubt.

dilbert_g wrote:
I would not have thought that David Ben-Gurion could have that much POWER over the political and media systems, compared to the Rockefeller family.

Well I wouldn't formulate such a matter on the basis of purely personal power of either Ben-Gurion or Rockefeller individually. By the war's end in 1945, the whole of the wartime propaganda machine had stirred up an environment which couldn't be easily turned off by either Ben-Gurion or Rockefeller, at least not all at once. Under such circumstances it's a false dichotomy to compare the power of two individuals with the assumption that whichever has the greater power will automatically gain their way on all important issues. Under certain circumstances, the individual who is in a better position to place their actions in line with the environment created by propaganda may be in a stronger position on a specifically narrow issue. To say that Nelson Rockefeller could have freely ignored Ben-Gurion's demand that the Latin American votes be rigged up in favor of endorsing Israel means not only that Rockefeller's power overall, in the big picture, was larger than Ben-Gurion's. It really implies that no substantive costs could be threatened to Nelson Rockefeller to a point where it would be better for him to go along. That's quite an assumption. Media liberals land gossipers with a pro-Israel tilt like Walter Winchell and Drew Pearson were certainly capable of advancing Zionist interests on occasion. Whether or not one thinks that such would have benefited Ben-Gurion over the long run is a different issue, but it's not unusual in such circumstances for a big business figure to simply relent upon a single issue while taking care of their interests in other respects (which is how Loftus & Aarons portray Rockefeller as acting, they don't present him as a mere puppet on Ben-Gurions strings).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
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.