4 April, 2014

The Iron Curtain? No, the NATO Curtain

Posted by Socrates in Bolsheviks, communism, communism-as-Jewish, Eastern Europe, global government, globalization, international Jewry, internationalism, Iron Curtain, Leo Pasvolsky, Marxism, NATO, New World Order, NWO, Russia, Russophobia, Socrates, UN, UN Charter at 1:34 pm | Permanent Link

Putin should be nervous: NATO is aggressively moving into Eastern Europe. NATO has added 12 eastern countries to its club since 1990: Albania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. One world under Bolshevism? That didn’t work. But one world under NATO? That’s workable! (Newbies, both Bolshevism/communism and international government are Jewish creations).


  • 3 Responses to “The Iron Curtain? No, the NATO Curtain”

    1. Tim McGreen Says:

      NATO is nothing but an extension of US imperialist aggression. Death to NATO, death to ZOG.

    2. Howdy Doody Says:

      Will never forget till I die the day after Belgrade a Western Christian Nation was attacked with its bridges, plastic plant’s fabricating special industrial product’s, and its entire sewer treatment plants for the city’s population was repeatedly bombed till it was ruble/gravel

      I walked in a business and went to supply area, and the men there for previous 8 years had pisssed and moaned about what Clitooon and what they would do to him if they could get their hands on him. I had never said anything to them when I would hear their tirades either. So it was raining and they greeted me, then I said it was a shame about what we had done to Belgrade our people White people. They screamed that Clitooon was stopping genocide!

      So here beer gutted TV fools who viewed mudslims behind wire and believed the lies as the flag waved.

      This was before the crime in NYC of course to come two years in to future.

      These men are now in their mid 60’s age range.

      This regime has dumbed US down to point we are well done and likely to see some severe suffering that will usher in the neo USSR of the 1920’s only worse, but I hope to be wrong.


      Chickamauga (1962)
      Nick Palmer Nick Palmer·28 videos
      Subscribe 163
      Like 44 Dislike 1
      I like thisLike I dislike this About Share Add to Statistics Report
      Published on Mar 6, 2012
      This is the first part of Robert Enrico’s trilogy of short films, based on the Civil War stories of Ambrose Bierce. While the second installment, An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, is easily the most famous, all three films are stunning, filled with unforgettable images, and great use of sound.

      To my knowledge, the trilogy isn’t available commercially. I’ve had a VHS copy that I recorded off the 16mm prints at my college over a decade ago, and when I couldn’t find it anywhere else I figured I’d throw it up on YouTube so other people could enjoy it.

      For more information on the trilogy: http://houseofmirthandmovies.wordpres

      “Though the most famous, La rivière du hibou, is actually the middle story in the trilogy. The first is Chickamauga, named after a battle from the American civil war which marked a very significant Union defeat. It is also remarkable for the imagery it inspired, notably in inspiring the unofficial naming of the Chickmauga river, as “the bloody pond” due to the fact it apparently ran with the blood of the over 35,000 soldiers who died during the two day battle. This particular film is told from the perspective of a deaf and mute child, who wanders off the day of the battle. When he eventually stumbles upon the aftermath of the fight, it is presented as a surreal dream.

      The boy’s disability hinders his ability to truly understand death, which is why he can wander through it so freely. He never hears the sounds of battle, or the cries of the dying, and apparently did not face death before this moment. He is aware of a change in his environment however, because the once sunny landscape is now obscured by thick smoke. His curiosity is what draws him to the source, and he is met by a man dragging himself along the ground in the distance. The boy is not disturbed by this and. imagines the man as both a large pig and a bear from the circus, being dragged along on a leash.

      The child’s emotional detachment from the unfolding events becomes increasingly difficult to swallow, as the casualties and injuries mount. The full scale of these atrocities are explored through continual use of tracking shots that pan across the forest, revealing that the ground has been effectively “flouded” with an innumerable amount of human bodies, both alive and dead. The child manoeuvres his way around and over these bodies, occasionally interacting with them, but only as if they are a game. The extended scene is without any sounds of death, as the young boy being deaf, probably cannot fathom what suffering sounds like. Instead, the scene is scored with patriotic music, and an eerie original score that would be fitting in any horror film.

      The child’s imagings suggest a complete lack of understanding of war and death, but his actions demonstrate a knowledge or awareness of violence and soldiering. Throughout the entire film he carries a wooden sword that he uses in imaginary fights against imaginary enemies. Though he never uses it against any of the soldiers, during his interactions with them, he wields it as a weapon, and seems to perceive himself as some kind of military leader. It is unclear as to whether he misinterprets this dying army as the “real” version of an attacking army, or simply sees them as subservient due to their childlike nature.

      When he finally tires of this scene, he finally returns home. The once peaceful southern cottage is in flames, but the boy still remains unaware or unreceptive to the meaning of this. It is only when he discovers his mother, lying dead, that he seems to realize what true meaning of death.

      Returning to the film’s opening, there is a montage of art depicting the war between the American forces and the Indians, along with a song sung about the child. The repeated phrase is “boy, war is your heritage”. The sheer power and strength of the film’s imagery allows it to stand-alone as a work in aesthetics, but its power as a document and instrument of change is also remarkable. The fact that the boy’s identity is tied to war, and he cannot hear or speak, makes for something of an easy analysis, but that does not necessarily underscore the power of its execution or implications within the text. Also worth noting, is that in the final moments when the boy becomes aware of what death is, he had just discarded his sword into the fire. I think this is meant to convey how we must construct false realities in order to justify war, and to cope with individual involvement as soldiers.” – Justine Smith
      Film & Animation

    3. Howdy Doody Says:


      Ambrose Bierce’s short story, filmed in France. Starring Roger Jacquet, it is a thought-provoking fantasy, often shown in high school and college English courses. Peyton Farquhar manufactures for himself one last taste of love before he goes to the great gates of Hell after being hung at Owl Creek Bridge. The nearly silent film is accompanied by music of Henri LaNoe, a song called “The Living Man” plus snare drum rhythms as Farqhuar makes his way through a never-ending woods, there is a visceral earthiness to it, all the while propelled by an immense urgency of Farquhar to return home to his devoted wife. He almost arrives in time.