SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (68650)10/24/2005 11:52:16 AM
From: RichnorthRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
911 - The Movie
Exclusive to Rense.com
By Douglas Herman
10-24-5

Having been a Hollywood scriptwriter for several years, penning cinematic masterpieces that have yet to see the light of day (normal for scriptwriters), I often wonder what makes a great movie. Acting? Directing? Special effects? As a writer, I'm convinced the story and how it develops character is the most important element.

When Hollywood finally makes "911-The Movie," will the story ooze patriotic excess, or will it tell the true account of massive government complicity? Will viewers see the criminal confederacy of dunces portrayed as a band of incompetents and accessories to a crime, or will the film focus solely on acts of heroism, of which there were many?

Not long ago, Michael Savage accused Hollywood of an "anti-Christian" bias. "Why hasn't liberal Hollywood made a movie about 9/11?" he rasped.

Four years later, you have to wonder. Are the big Hollywood producers and directors--Jerry Bruckheimer, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Michael Bay, Ridley Scott--closely inspecting the scripts for just the right blend of action, suspense and individual acts of heroism, while deleting altogether the details of complicity between government agencies, the dereliction of duty between high officials, the suspicious actions of Israeli "allies," the curious aspect of building collapses, and the inconvenient aspect of Muslim hijackers who never appeared on passenger lists?

Yes, emphatically.

Could Hollywood make a true account of the events of 911? Could anyone in Hollywood, even Mel Gibson, make a movie close to the truth?

Call me cynical, but I very much doubt it. Too many obstacles in the way. You see, Hollywood would have few qualms of toppling the Trade Towers again. The film would be an enormous box office success. Indeed, "911-The Movie" would be the biggest blockbuster to come out of Hollywood since the Titanic. That movie cost in excess of $200 million to make and grossed $900 million worldwide.

When Hollywood finally makes this movie"only a matter of time"how much will the American viewer be permitted to see? Will we see Minnesota FBI agent, Coleen Rowley, a more efficient version of fictional FBI agent Scully, inform her superiors in Washington of suspicious flight school students? Will we hear Rowley's remark: "Minnesota agents became so frustrated by roadblocks erected by terrorism supervisors in Washington that they began to joke that FBI headquarters was becoming an unwitting accomplice to Osama bin Laden's efforts to attack the United States?" Will we see Rowley at all?

Not likely.

Will we see our president informed of the probability of attacks from the sky, by Condi Rice at the ranch in Crawford, one month before it happened? Not likely.

Will we see the curious, unexplicable collapse of WTC-7? Not likely.

Will we see a 757 smacking into the Pentagon and disappearing completely? Not likely.

Will we see swarthy hijackers being checked and verified for pre-boarding, their names and ID cards matched to reservations? Not likely.

Will we see dancing Israelis celebrating in Liberty State Park; will we see them stopped and arrested by police? Not likely.

Will we see swarthy skyjackers planning the horrific crime? Yes, of course. Will we see them at strip clubs, spouting fanatical slogans and harassing strippers? Yes, of course. Will we watch them pack those box cutters with care? Yes, definitely.

If Tom Clancy were to write the script--after all Clancy has already written TWO books about pilots crashing fuel-laden planes into government buildings and killing the president"and James Cameron were to direct this blockbuster, it couldn,t fail. Of course, the 19 hijackers in this movie will be as two-dimensional as those cardboard villains in Cameron,s, "True Lies," a movie glorifying the destructive power of smashing a fighter plane into a tall building.

Not long after the attack on 9/11, Hollywood scriptwriters were asked to suggest worst-case scenarios regarding possible future attacks. Anybody with a little imagination could have predicted the WTC attack well before it happened. Indeed the whole scenario was predicted in detail in The Lone Gunmen's "Pilot" Episode six month's before the towers allegedly collapsed.

Pascal wrote: "diversion amuses us, and leads us unconsciously to death." The Hollywood movie version of the 911 attack will avoid all the uncomfortable discrepancies that knowledgeable people on the Internet know so well. Instead, the three-hour movie would focus on the firefighters, those heroic but betrayed rescuers. The movie will focus on those four doomed fellows that fought to regain control of Flight 93. But instead of showing that plane shot out of the sky, according to witnesses, "911-The Movie" will show the plane exploding in a fireball on the ground moments after Todd Beamer yells, "Let's roll!"

While New Yorkers live in denial of the actual events of 911, the movie will do nothing to clarify the truth. The actual images of buildings collapsing, spewing dust clouds toward the viewer, will only serve to further cloud the truth of what happened that day. This tremendously profitable but duplicitous movie cannot help but be government propaganda.

The truth will set us free, but it's scary as hell sometimes. Instead, special effects serve in place of moral lessons. And doomed heroes who sacrifice themselves serve the government interests. No sign of those NORAD fighter jets but many images of American flags will appear in the movie.

Visually stunning, the movie will garner many Oscar nominations. With the profitable release of "911-The Movie," the rest of the world can watch our doomed heroes--Matt Damon or Ben Affleck or George Clooney--perform heroically. They can relive how America was insidiously attacked that day; they can acknowledge the justification of all our wars against "terror" in the Middle East.

And the movie will be a great lie. A splendid, spectacular lie.
Indeed, I fully expect the movie to garner many Oscars, win many
individual awards, but fully obscure the truth.

Amateur historian and USAF veteran, Douglas Herman writes regularly for Rense and is the author of The Guns of Dallas. Contact him at douglasherman7@yahoo.com






To: ChinuSFO who wrote (68650)10/24/2005 1:01:12 PM
From: lorneRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
chinu. When this president's terms end who will you direct you hate against next...if there is another Republican president will you auto hate him/her? If is a democrat who will you find to hate with the same zest that you hate Bush with? Where did you learn to hate like you do?
Can you survive without someone to hate?
Were you taught to hate this way?



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (68650)10/24/2005 3:26:53 PM
From: lorneRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 81568
 
Flirting with fascism
October 24, 2005
Vox Day

"Fascism," David Ramsey Steele writes:

... was an attempt to pluck the material fruits of liberal economics while abolishing liberal culture. The attempt was entirely quixotic: There is no such thing as economic development without free-market capitalism and there is no such thing as free-market capitalism without the recognition of individual rights.

One of the great imponderables is the question of which is more ironic: the American left's feverish denial of its ideological kinship with the historical Fascist and National Socialist parties, or the Republican Party's continued leftward drift toward what both Benito Mussolini and Tony Blair described as the third way between capitalism and socialism.

Since the term "fascism" is so often misunderstood thanks to five decades of European academics desperately trying to scrub the history books clean, let us put it aside for the nonce. Perhaps a more useful term capable of accommodating honest individuals on both sides of the political spectrum is "corporatism," which refers to a political ideology which gives primacy to the marriage of state and big business.

Even this term is imperfect, as it is not uncommon to confuse corporatism for capitalism. But this can hardly be the case, as the modern concept of the corporation as an artificial person with legal standing only dates back to 1886, a scant two years before Karl Marx was scientifically predicting capitalism's certain demise. And while the marriage of corporation and state is indubitably more civilized and less lethally inclined than socialism – after all, someone has to buy those products that generate the profits that are the lifeblood of the corporation – it is nevertheless inimical to human liberty.

There are four obvious dangers of the corporatist Third Way:

Corporations have no loyalties. A government that is beholden to corporations is one that will not defend its citizens' rights or its own national sovereignty.

Corporatism represents a constant and growing government interference with the capitalist operation of the free market, usually at the behest of the established players. This produces the same sort of wealth-inhibiting technological and entrepreneurial sclerosis that plagues socialist systems, albeit to a lesser extent.

Corporations perpetuate the continuation of government power without limitation, because they can so easily become direct extensions of it should the government choose to acquire them.

Because they are artificial persons, they have no direct stake in individual freedom and have no inherent reason to oppose intrusions upon it.

For example, the Electronic Freedom Foundation has discovered that the Brother, Canon, Dell, Epson, Hewlett Packard, Konica, Kyocera, Lanier, Lexmark, Ricoh, Savin and Xerox corporations all appear to have quietly added secret codes to the output of the color laser printers in order to facilitate the federal government's ability to track printed material. This is nominally conceived to interfere with monetary counterfeiting operations, but could easily be used for a whole host of liberty-reducing actions.

Now, there is nothing illegal about the government requesting such codes, nor is there anything inherently wrong with the corporations acceding to the government's request. But, by the same token, consumers have a right to know what they are buying, so that if they would prefer to instead buy a printer that allows them to print an anonymous document, they have the ability to do so. This is only one of many ways in which corporatism sacrifices the interests of individuals for the benefit of both corporations and the government.

While the Third Way may look somewhat reasonable to both liberals and conservatives, it is actually in the interests of no one but the professional bureaucratic class that runs both sides of the corporatist equation. Liberals who oppose big business need to recognize that it is big government which enables and protects the very big business policies that they despise, and conservatives who prioritize economic growth must likewise understand that big business does not provide it, but instead are feeding and growing fatter upon the small businesses that actually provide the impetus for such growth.

Despite themselves, the wild-eyed liberal lunatics are not entirely incorrect. The Bush administration does harbor an identifiably fascist ideological strain, but the salient fact that liberals fail to recognize is that the Democratic Party happens to share it. A Rodham administration in 2008 will not represent an ideological change from the present domestic regime, but rather a continuation of the Third Way openly declared by President Clinton in 1992.