History Channel Goes Bushevik Pravda: Amerikan Sovietism Triumphant

[tom_paine]

I first had questions regarding the History Channel after 9/11. They played cosnistent Pravda which rapidly increased over time.

Virtually every post-9/11 "documentary" about Osama, Iraq, etc. literally recited Bushevik Lies and Spin, even if they had already been debunked.

Example: Some time ago I watched a special on post-invasion Iraq which repeatedly asserted the resistors were...you guessed it...leftover Saddam-ites.

Of course that has been shown to have been Lying Pravda long, long ago. Time after time after time, similar misinformation such as that was broadcast on the History Chaneel as historical fact, in conjunction with Bushevik Policies.

So, my suspicion and skepticism rose. This was quite sad because I have always enjoyed the History Channel and it showed many good shows including the Bushevik Attempted Coup of FDR in 1934.

But the War of 1812 special was the final and sickening straw. It was essentially a campaign ad, up to and including the assertion that Madison was a "Republican President", in spite of the fact that the GOP wasn't even founded until the 1850s by Liberal Abolitionists who are undoubtedly spinning in their grave.

http://www.historytoday.com/dt_main_allatonce.asp?gid=30406&g30406=x&g30391=x&g30026=x&g20991=x&g21010=x&g19965=x&g19963=x&amid=30206821

Of course, Madison's Democratic-Republican Party later morphed into the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson which is the same one today.

But since when does truth have ANYTHING to do with Bushevik Pravda or Bush-Occupied Imperial Amerika?

Madison fleeing DC invasion was equated to Bunnypants* after 9/11 (another trenedous misnomer considering we are talking about an invasion force occupying Washington making return completely impossible vs. an aerial attack that had passed with no occupying barrier to return), and there were several other "Bush Campaign Lines" therein.

Finally, as the ads for "Imperial Amerika Under Siege Week" (almost a tailor-made for the Imperial's Fear Slogan which could have just as easy been devised in the bowels of the Imperial Psychomanipulation Department...and maybe was) came on, the next installment was of the "Battle of Tripoli".

Now I have no poblem with the historical fact of the Batlle of Triploi, but again the ad read like a Bushevik Campaign Ad, going something like this, "What could make a President commit to invading a far-off land. See it next on the Battle of Tripoli..."

Orwellian Insanity and I have no doubt the "Battle of Tripoli" will also be a noisy paen to Fearless Fuhrer and of course he will be repeatedly likened to Jefferson, who of course was a great "Republican" President belonging to the same part as Fearless Fuhrer.

I also have no doubt that this swift invasion followed by a peace treay and capitulation will be equally and as falsely identified with Iraq, even though Tripoli declared war on the US first in 1801, I believe.

http://www.worldsfinestnavy.com/KeyEvents.html

But the whole issue here is that the Bushevik Pravda has literally coiled around virtually every area of media.

Which is not surprising as we all have known since Hitler and Stalin defined Totalitarianism both Right and Left as having the desire "to control all aspects of a society social, economic, and political".

Watching the History Channel morph into Bushevik pravda is MUCH more disturbing than watching CNN do the same.

I can now see the faint and outside beginnings of the end for the final battered remnants of Old America. Soon all stations, liek Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and Marcos' Phillipines, will paen with joy towards the Fuhrer, who will naturally be compared closely to all great men of history, even Jefferson and Madison, in spite of the fact that ACTUALLY belonged to the opposing Party and opposing philosphy.

Madness. If the History Channel has Sovietized, can the rest be far behind?

[lectrobyte]

1. sorry to hear that, I am a History Channel fan myself

in spite of some of their more questionable choices, such as that show with the Full Metal Jacket Sgt. Who owns them, anyway?

[Neecy]

2. thank you for bringing this up

I watched the 1812 program last night, and I too was puzzled by the frequent references to the 'pro-war Republicans' of that era, as well as the label of Madison as a 'Republican' president. Note that after the ridiculous 9/11 comparison they showed Madison riding around DC on his horse, becoming a Man of the People with his brave and human response to the sacking of Washington. Subtle? I think not.

The History Channel is a joke to most professional historians, but that isn't the issue. Since the illegal invasion of Iraq they've done all kinds of warmongering, and not just their standard WWII crap. As you mentioned, they've been pushing all kinds of discredited theories about Afghanistan and Iraq (the Discovery Times channel is also guilty of this in a MAJOR way). They've also glamorized the merchants of death with their focus on military hardware and their complete open-mouthed tongue-hanging specials on how cool the latest heavy weaponry is. They are indeed a propaganda arm of the militarists. They seem to forget that not ALL American history is about war - talk about rewriting the record.

[tom_paine]

4. Yep. Even scarier perhaps than the Death of the Free Press

It indicates that the Busheviks have sufficient control/coercion of the rest of the media to begin sezing control of the rest.

And that is bad news.

Old America is dying, and the History Channel is indeed on of the Thousand Cuts that are killing it.

[Neecy]

7. mmm-hmmm

Although I have to say that I was surprised that they correctly pointed out that the War of 1812 was totally unnecessary, and could have been avoided had there been faster methods of communication.

More amusing, though, was how they treated the anti-war riots in Baltimore. After briefly mentioning their protests against the 'pro-war Republicans', they focused on how these same anti-war forces banded together and fought with the militia when Baltimore was threatened. Well, of COURSE they did. When a professional military is at your door and the enemy fleet is approaching what else do you do? I sensed a bit of satisfaction when they did that bit, as though there was some relevance to the situation today. It's subtle, but it's there.

[MadHound]

3. Glad to see somebody else noticing these things

My wife and I were watching the 1812 piece last night, and discussing the horrendous propaganda machine the History Channel, along with several others, has become. About that time the good little 'Pug mouthpiece came on, mentioning how Madison was a 'Pug, with that little smirk of hers, and I was just screaming at the TV about revisionist history.

Last night was really one of the few times I've tuned into the History channel for a long while, for I thought the 1812 piece might be really good. But sad to say, they had to revise history on that one, all the while inserting little snippets of propaganda in for the Bushgang. They realize that the vast majority of Americans don't know their history, and can thus revise it with near impunity. Even if they get blasted with a million e-mails about the mistake, they will never broadcast a retraction, and thus propoganda becomes fact.

I've just about given up on television altogether. I'll watch some sports, cartoons if any of the classic Warner Bros., MGM, etc are on, perhaps an occaissonal movie, but that's about it. I used to love the History Channel, Discovery, TLC, etc. But they have been watered down to two types of shows, BS reality TV or blatant propaganda. About the only one left that has any decency is the Science channel, and even that is starting to slip. Oh well, reading is more fun, and more accurate.

This is what happens when 90% if the media in our country is controlled by six corporations. Bullshit and propaganda.

[RebelOne]

5. On 9/11 they showed a documentary about Saddem

called Saddem Hussein: The Butcher of Bagdad. And right after that a film about Osama Bin Laden. I blasted them with an e-mail wanting to know why they picked that date to show that film and were they trying to link Saddem and Bin Laden.

Well, needless to say, I have not heard back from them. I guess they didn't have an answer.

[tom_paine]

6. Oh, they have an answer, all right...

They just don't wish to share it with NON-PARTY MEMBERS.

Imperial Amerika is all about THE BUSHEVIK PARTY, and woe to the rest of us Free Americans who refuse to bow before the Lies of Fearless Fuhrer.

[skygazer]

8. Being a history buff

I was enthusiastic when the History Channel first debuted. But I was almost immediately turned off when it became apparent that their view of history was almost entirely war oriented. In addition, it's a very traditional and "safe" interpretation of virtually every event. I've never seen much of anything that has questioned the traditional points of view and that makes it pretty much useless in my opinion. To learn history, you have to look at a story from every possible angle then make a reasonable inference from all the data - doesn't happen there.

[Neecy]

9. well....

In addition, it's a very traditional and "safe" interpretation of virtually every event.

This is generally very true of the History Channel, unless it involves accusing a Democratic president (LBJ) of murdering another Democratic president (JFK), with the accusations coming from a partisan Republican - in fact, the father of the current White House press secretary. It was particularly gracious given that Lady Bird Johnson and his two daughters are still very much alive and were shocked and outraged by the program.

This was so over the pale, even for the pro-Bush HC, that they had to put together a panel of REAL historians on-air to debunk it.

[tom_paine]

10. That would be consistent with Orwellian Imperial Amerika

Glad I didn't see it.

But of course, anyone opposing the Fuhrer, alive or dead, is a target for unsubstantiated smears.

Equally "true" is that NO allegation, howveer demonstrable, agaist Fearless Fuhrer Tiberius Bunnypants* shall be given "historical credence".

My dear God in Heaven, not only has it begun, it is well advanced...the cancer that is eating up American Liberty.

[Neecy]

11. I saw it, and was LIVID

Scott McClellan's father claims that a lawyer for LBJ confessed the successful plot to him - no witnesses, of course, just the word of a partisan Republican against the dead and defenseless Lyndon Johnson (and the dead and defenseless lawyer who supposedly told him this). A very dramatic piece of footage followed, showing the window of an office building in Texas where the supposed 'evidence' of LBJ's murderous plot once existed. No evidence now, of course, just a big zoom-in of a window. Uh-huh.

Then a huge whopper about how one of Johnson's many mistresses (gotta get that smear in, you know) claimed there was big meeting the night before the assassination in Dallas with Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, and Texas oil cronies, with the inference that they gave the go-ahead at this dinner or whatever it was. Great, except it can be proven without a doubt that neither Johnson or Hoover was in Dallas that night. Blah, blah, blah....the whole thing was about as repulsive a smear job as I've ever seen broadcast.

I wondered why the conservative History Channel would broadcast such a huge array of Kennedy conspiracy theories - many of them so wild and bizarre, like the LBJ one, that you'd consider everyone who questioned the Warren Commission a complete nutter. When you think about it, if you want to deflect any attention from the real criminals, perhaps GHW Bush's Texas cronies, you'd do such a scattershot approach where everyone from LBJ to the French mafia is equally capable or guilty of killing JFK. It really makes you wonder about their motives - this just isn't the kind of stuff they'd normally air.

[tom_paine]

12. I no longer wonder about their motives

They are an Arm of Imperial Propaganda and thus EVERYTHING they say in untrustworthy.

[Ms. Clio]

17. They used to have really good stuff when it first started

I especially liked their use of older miniseries, like "I, Claudius" and another good one about women in a Japanese POW camp (I can't recall the title).

But it's degenerated into total crap, since then.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Madison was a " Republican" as the term was used at the time.

As opposed to the conservative Federalists. Thomas Jefferson was known as a "Republican" in the press. Thomas Jefferson was also known as a Republican by the press of the time. The term "Republican" rather than "Democratic Republican" was often used perjoritively, as a reference to "Republican" France. John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and other Federalists, in their letters and speeches, warned and fretted over the "Republican" threat to the country should Jefferson, Burr, or Madison win. As for Madison fleeing the capitol in the face of the British being compared to Bush running away, it was a pretty long stretch, but I didn't see anything favorable to Bush in the comparison.

Methinks your history studies need a bit of refreshing and your fretting over the History Channel is a bit overblown.

[tom_paine]

16. I understand the lingo of the time, but considering the historic inacuracy

of attributing a pResident (without qualification that the party of Jefferson and Madison became the Democratic Party...not even a disclaimer) to a Party that didn't even exist until 1854, COMBINED with the constant comparisons of Madison to Bush (my God what an odious and Orwellian comparison...the two men could NOT have been more OPPOSITE) reinforcing the revisionism, well, let's just say I feel that given what this nation is becoming, that your reaction to my reaction is head-in-the-sand-ism.

And if you can sit and watch History Channel pro-Bushevik Pravda dayafter day and not see the RNC spin points (incuding the Iraq Resistors were all ex-Saddamists, which i saw with my own eyes repeatedly), then there is no help for youi.

Just ease back and watch the chains slither up your and arms. Enjoy the cool feel of the steel and your enslavement.

Nothing to see here, move along.

A relevant quote from Milton Meyer's "They Thought They Were Free" detailing the Rise of Nazi Germany

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, "everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to you colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, "It's not so bad" or "You're seeing things" or "You're an alarmist."

Thank you for once again confirming the repeatability of history and the inability of human beings to learn from it.

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Take a deep breath.

I seldom watch the History Channel because most of their programming is aimed at "Gee-Whiz" viewers and the folks interested in which gun or sword was more efficient.

I tuned in for the 1812 show because I happen to be reading "John Adams" by David McCullogh and it ties in. I didn't see all that much comparison between Madison and Bush, save for the bit about fleeing Washington, - which I don't think did bush any favors.

As to the "Democratic-Republican" party vs the "Republican" party trivia, I doubt that most viewers ascribe much importance to it.

Besides that, the parties have switched roles a number of times. In the mid to late 19th century, the Republicans were the progressives and the Democrats the conservatives - at least as far as race was concerned. McClellan and Andrew Johnson, for instance, were Democrats while the "radicals" like Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens were Republicans.

All of which makes me damned happy to be a socialist (tho' a registered Democrat since 1966) who can attack both of the capitalist parties.

[tom_paine]

20. I disagree with you (and no amount of deep breaths are going to help stem

the tide of nascent Totalitarianism)

Considering the entire "War of 1812" special had the subplot, not so subtle most times, that Burning of Washington = 9/11 and Madison = Bush, in THAT context that seemingly small historical quibble is magnified. If the Republican thing had been the ONLY issue, I wouldn't bother with it.

In the context of the rest of the eisode and the increasing amount of Bushevik propaganda emanating from the History Channel, it is more significant, in my opinion.

I understand that in addition to Madison and Jefferson, the Lincoln would be a Democrat today, excoriated for being a big-government Liberal. I understand the Dixiecrats.

But that has NOTHING to do with rveisionist history, or with using the war of 1812 and the Battle of Tripoli as Imperial Propaganda.

The parties are what they are now. The Pravda is what it is now. And whatever the lingo at the time, for the Republicans to claim Jefferson and Midson is Orwellianism of the highest order. Click on the GOP presidents link I had at the top of the thread.

Even the BUSHEVIKS don't yet have the balls to revise history THAT much.

Yet.

I wouldn't want to make a bet after all of us who were raised in Free America die off, though.

I wouldn't give a bucket of warm spit for the poor bastards alive in Imperial Amerika 2050.

Maybe it won't happen, it certainly is trending that way.

I suppose we shall have to agree to disagree.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Bothered Me, Too, Tom

Also, on the 9/11 special, they mentioned several times that the Clinton administration chose not to attack al Qaeda. Each time, they mentioned, however, in the preceding statement that the Clinton's felt that it would be AGAINST THE LAW to militarily attack, asassinate, or kidnap, per the recommendations.

They didn't refuse to do anything. They CHOSE to uphold the law! Yet, over and over, the implication that the Clinton's ignored the danger was clear, or they flat out stated that the government didn't "understand the magnitude of the danger". They didn't understand the danger, even though the bin Laden taskforce was appointed by Clinton. Obviously, they DID understand the danger. The only thing they DIDN'T do was act on the recommendations to take ILLEGAL action.

It was really ticking me off as that special was on.

So, now we have 2 examples in one week.
The Professor

[blindpig]

15. tom, blow up the tv

you know better than to expect anything but lies & tripe from that goddamned idiot box. I havn't watched any for years except when the SO dragoons me into watching Bill Maher or Ali G and I'm marginally sane for it. Thank the gods for the library and the internet!

[progdonkey]

18. "America Under Siege Week"

That's actually what they're calling it.

The "Battle of Tripoli" trailer is especially disgusting; the voice-over says something like "Muslim/Arab raiders conduct surprise attacks, and America is called to war."

I'd be interested to know if they mention that the treaty that ended the battle specifically states that the US "is not a Christian nation," since it kind of kills the whole Republican "America was founded as a Christian nation" BS (of course, so does the Constitution) .

I only watch the History Channel for the "Decisive Battles" show (which is only because they use the technology for "Rome: Total War," and it tides me over until the game's release next week :-) ), and "Hands on History," which is almost pro-Union in its celebration of American industry and workers.

[tom_paine]

21. Exactly. All Pravda serves THE PARTY.

My God what have we become?

What are we BECOMING???