|
June 6th, 2011 | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
|
|
June 7th, 2011 | #22 |
drinking tea
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
|
You'd have enjoyed that thread. (I think it was before you joined.) It was a doozy - he completely refused to accept the whole Bernays/March for Freedom caper which is a documented fact of history and then had a painting of a smoking Dietrich commissioned in order to somehow win the argument. His position was that Bernays didn't break the taboo of women smoking - women would have smoked in public anyway and I was personalising the argument because I was a smoker, therefore I automatically lost.
|
June 7th, 2011 | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: london
Posts: 12,865
|
Fuck me the peters and lee of the ultra right
__________________
The above post is as always my opinion Chase them into the swamps |
June 7th, 2011 | #24 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 904
|
Andy probably likes her for her rendition of this:
|
June 7th, 2011 | #25 | |
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
|
Quote:
The Beeb wouldn't cover that and nor would 'The Tube'. Instead they'd cover the drunk European people at Victoria tube station after the last train had gone being told by a kindly negro that this was the case. Image is everything, reality is negotiable.
__________________
|
|
June 7th, 2011 | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,964
|
This Commie Jew, Abraham Polonsky, wrote an anti-Nazi film for Dietrich in 1947. It was called Golden Earring, and she played a Hungarian gypo fighting 'Nazis.
Polonsky was once described as 'the most dangerous man in America' and in the interview below @11 min he tells how when he asked Marlene Dietrich for a kiss, she put him on his back and forced her tongue right down his Jewish throat. What a classy Ayran, eh |
October 13th, 2011 | #27 | |
drinking tea
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: England
Posts: 38,898
|
Quote:
If a partner can sue the other one for perpetrating this sort of psychological warfare on them, why can't we sue the <in this case the BBC> the relevant body for doing it to us? Probably a rhetorical question, I know. Could you get a court to agree that you had been pyschologically damaged by this type of enforced acceptance of culture? Not in Britain. I just want to get this down before it disappears, so it's a bit of a "stream of consciousness" post, not really organised or formulated in my mind, as of yet. We don't have to enter into a contract with the BBC. We can kick the TV into touch and not buy a licence - I mean, if Asda contionually provided you with manky food, you'd soon say "sod this" and stop going there - the same applies to the BBC. But does it? If you want to watch, say, just sporting or educational channels on Sky, you still need a licence for the Beeb, even if you never watch the Beeb. So you can just say to yourself - w"ell, I'm not watching Eastenders, but I do like Watchdog, and the news, or other BBC programmes" - then you're only using half of what you pay for. Is that right? Or is it comparable to buying a bag of Revels and throwing the coffee one away (and the orange one, if you spot it in time)? And, to tie in with the last post, why are we constantly reminded of the attitudes of the stars? It's somehow considered a virtue of Dietrich's that she was a rabid anti-nazi. Who can forget the hilarity surrounding Mel Gibson's comment about jews and wars and the subsequent failure of his career - one minute he was pictured and photographed as a heart-throb and the next minute you never saw a picture of him where you didn't first-glance mistake him for a scruffy Saddam. Beckham and his media-described stylish and meaningful tattoos. Galliano and his terrible, terrible comments. Influencing the way we think by using the people we "know".
__________________
Above post is my opinion unless it's a quote. |
|
Tags |
critical theory pdf, television |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|