Topic: Anti-Nazi Disney WWII Cartoon

[shemps#1]

[youtube=425,350]GXhD3988UbI[/youtube]

[jrvass]

I see little difference between this and the Islamic Madrassas.

James

[Pilsner Panther]

I see little difference between this and the Islamic Madrassas.

James

That's a very astute observation, James, so let me expand on it a bit. Hitler once said, "Give me a child before the age of ten, and I have him for life." The late author William S. Burroughs called these people "control addicts," and they come in both religious and secular varieties.

What's going on between the West and the Islamic sector right now is certainly, in part, a religious war. Basically, this component of it is a centuries-old struggle between two groups of control addicts over "who's working which side of the street," just like a territory battle between the Dutch Schultz Mob and the Legs Diamond Mob, during Prohibition.

I was given a very heavy Christian education (i.e., indoctrination) between the ages of five and fifteen. Luckily for me, I have a strong constitution and an even stronger sense of self-respect, so it didn't "take." Even by my early teens, I was revolted by the idea of groveling on my knees, and I promised myself that I'd get away from the whole disgusting, degrading business as soon as possible— which I did.

The real purpose of organized religion is to keep an idle, freeloading clerical class living off the money that their "sheep" have been brainwashed into dropping in the collection plate every week, and 'twas ever thus. This is so obvious, that I've never understood why more people don't see it. It's true, I swear it on the Pope's Armani shoes!

I've never been a huge Walt Disney fan, but after watching his anti-Nazi cartoons, I have a new respect for the man. Powerful stuff, and it proves that ol' Unca Walt had a harder edge— he was more than just flowers and trees and dancing mushrooms, when the occasion called for it.

Adolf Hitler cetainly knew fellow professionals in the same racket when he saw them; look how happy they all are to greet one another...

"Hiya, friend, welcome brother,
I'm a rogue and you're another!"

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Dunrobin]

That's a very astute observation, James, so let me expand on it a bit. Hitler once said, "Give me a child before the age of ten, and I have him for life." The late author William S. Burroughs called these people "control addicts," and they come in both religious and secular varieties.

Exactly why the big-government statists took control over education first in this country.  Government run "schools" produce obedient-to-government sheep.

I have an mpeg if this cartoon in my collection, along with a few other WWII cartoons.  I'll have to see if any of them are on Youtube, and add them if they aren't.

[jrvass]

That'd be cool. I'd enjoy seeing them.

James

[Pilsner Panther]

Government run "schools" produce obedient-to-government sheep.

True, but church-run schools produce church-obedient sheep; you're likely to wind up with some Bible-thumping twit like our old friend Danl57, and for the life of me, I can't see how either alternative is better than the other.

I suppose that if you want to raise your children to be independent thinkers, the only viable option is to home-school them. However, not every family is in a position to do this, especially nowadays when both parents usually have to work. Personally, I'm very happy with my decision not to have kids; for a number of reasons, I wouldn't want them to have to live in this world the way it is now.

Besides, the planet is already overpopulated, and there's no need for me to contribute to that.

[Dunrobin]

True, but church-run schools produce church-obedient sheep; you're likely to wind up with some Bible-thumping twit like our old friend Danl57, and for the life of me, I can't see how either alternative is better than the other.

I have to agree with that, Pils.  I not in favor of "organized religion" either, but sending your kids to a church-run school is a personal choice, not a mandated one.  The church doesn't send guys with guns to your home if you have the audacity to take your children away from their control.

I suppose that if you want to raise your children to be independent thinkers, the only viable option is to home-school them. However, not every family is in a position to do this, especially nowadays when both parents usually have to work. Personally, I'm very happy with my decision not to have kids; for a number of reasons, I wouldn't want them to have to live in this world the way it is now.

In many - if not most - cases both parents are working out of selfishness and greed.  "Things" are more important to them than their children, and God forbid that they have to make any sacrifices themselves in order to do right by their children.  It's much easier to just pack the kiddies off to the government propaganda camps without any consideration as to what they are actually being "taught."

When my niece was in school, they did every they could to discourage her attempts to read "above her grade level," and as a consequence she lost all interest in learning anything.  Her attitude has completely changed with home-schooling, and now she's is always reading.  She's even worse about it than I am (and that's saying something - I keep encyclopedias in the bathroom!)   

It hasn't been easy for us.  We have to pinch pennies to make ends meet, and I'm still driving my 17-year old rustbucket, but I'd rather see the kids grow up to be intelligent free-thinkers than sheep.

Besides, the planet is already overpopulated, and there's no need for me to contribute to that.

LOL!  I've been hearing that "over-populated" b.s. for thirty years now.  According to the "experts" back in the 70's, we were all supposed to be experiencing mass starvation throughout the planet by the year 2000, too.   

[Pilsner Panther]

LOL!  I've been hearing that "over-populated" b.s. for thirty years now.  According to the "experts" back in the 70's, we were all supposed to be experiencing mass starvation throughout the planet by the year 2000, too.   

I was originally going to say amply populated, but I always keep in mind that I'm writing for the Pit as well as for the Gallery here, so I try to keep my vocabulary relatively simple.

Besides, this little ball of rock definitely seems overpopulated if you live in a large city, and I don't mean failing Detroit— with GM fried, dyed, and laid to the side, and now Ford looking very shaky, too, and unlikely to survive without a government bailout (i.e., corporate welfare) like Chrysler got in the late 1970's.

San Francisco is such a desirable place to live that there's a pitched battle going on between landlords and tenants over who will be able to afford even the smallest apartments here, in the long run. I know every single detail of it, as I've written newspaper articles and given speeches and interviews about the situation, and now I'm confronting yet another piratical developer who's flying the Jolly Roger, and, "everyone else can be damned," basically, says this realty company, "no matter how long they've lived in their apartments and faithfully paid the rent."

In some cases, that's twenty, thirty, forty years... or more.

I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea.

Throwing Grandma and Grandpa out in the street in order to please your shareholders is never acceptable, morally.

Shame on these greedy bastards!

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/17/BAG48KK4361.DTL&hw=landlord&sn=002&sc=801