The History Channel has become the Bush Channel

[tom_paine]

So swiftly, it simply amazes. But then, what hasn't been swift about this last five years of Trotskyite Perpetual Revolution the Busheviks have unleashed?

It is also possible that it was going on before and I just missed it. After all, both pre and post Old American Republic the History Channel NEVER ran shows regarding labor movements and ALWAYS ran military shows

(which is fine by me, if the % is at least 70-30 military shows...and I say that because military shows are damned popular, you can't deny that)

But the point is, in the last 5 years they have upped the ante so high I no longer trust their shows as I once did. Bushevik lies are regularly laundered there now, and even worse, most shows are now framed with a pro-Bushevik slant using Freeper Speak (which currently only break through rarely) and with Busheviks now appearing as guests giving commentary).

Just saw a special on the History (Bushevik Hostory, that is) Channel that informed me that the toppling of the Saddam statue was quite legtimate and a "Berlin Wall" event (a staged event which was exposed in the foreign press with overhead shots of the sealed square).

Phaugh! It smells of Soviet fucking Pravda in here.

The History Channel also informed me...

Andrew Jackson made a "preemptive strike" in Florida in 1818
Ulysees S. Grant waged a "War on Terror"
The KKK was the "Terrorist Wing of the Democratic Party".
James Madison was just like Bush, the War on 1812 was just like Iraq, opposed by "anti-war Democrats" (except the party was still the Democratic-Republican Party, and the stretch on this particular fact is pretty far compared to the others, which are also fabrications, but less audacious Orwellian Twisting of the words)
The War on Tripoli was also just like Iraq (except we didn't occupy for long periods of time and we didn't strike first for no provocation and...)

The definition of Totalitarianism is that it wishes to control EVERY aspect of life and make itself felt there. Like the Bushviks are doing, have done.

Has anyone else noticed this? Agree? Disagree? Flame?

[NJCher]

1. we don't call it the History Channel at our house

We call it The War Channel. They're always showing battles of some sort, it seems.

And we are not interested.




Cher

[tom_paine]

3. Well, in the pre-Bush days you missed some good stuff

Believe it or not, it was there in 2000 that they put on a very credible and interesting program regarding the 1934 attempted coup of FDR by Dupont, Morgan, and another coalition of Bushevik-wealthy types.

You may know the rest of the story, they tried to make marine General Smedley Butler the Dictator and Roosevelt would "retire" to Warm Springs a la Gorbachev in '92.

Butler was too much of a Patriot, and he turned them in. Roosevelt broke up their cabal, but did not imprison them, fearing the return of the worst parts of the Depression if he disrupted life that much and jailed the country's richest guys.

And he suppressed knowledge of the attempt, which never made it to the actual move, "for the good of the Country".

Google Smedley Butler coup Roosevelt 1934 to learn more.

My point is...pre-2000 the good shows with normal historical perpective were plentiful, even if the selection was a bit lopsided.

Now, it is just the War and the Framing all history so it's JUST LIKE BUSH! Channel.

[fasttense]

10. We call it the WWII channel. We rarely watch it.

[TheDebbieDee]

2. I only watch the ancient history documentaries.....

on the History Channel now.....I figure it's WAY too late to re-write the history of the ancient Egyptians, Phoenicians, Romans, Greeks, Hebrews, Mayans and Incans.

BTW, isn't The History Channel owned by ABC, ABC owned by Disney and a big chunk of Disney owned by the Saudis? And aren't the Saudis great friends of the pathetic Bush family? If this is so, it would explain the recent slant of their modern propaganda

[NobleCynic]

4. That's unfortunate

I used to like the history channel, especially some of the battle histories, but I'm a WWII buff. Comparing anything to current events is dangerous ground for historians as there is usually still disagreement on the facts.

[tom_paine]

7. First off, what an excellent signature. Second, I agree.

The History Channel used to do (and still does, sometimes) a great job of Cvil War documentaries.

But my God, is it getting bad over there! The examples I listed are only partial.

And if we think that they do some damage with their One-Party media, how much more pernicious is the damage done here, when they rewrite history for people's subconsciouses like that.

I imagine specials about 9-11 (I haven't the stomach to watch) retells the heroic tale of the pretzeldent scampering about the country all day becuase he was worried that he was being targeted by a fifth rouge plane.

Which, of course was solidly debunked as a lie and Ari Fleischer himself was forecd to 'fess up it was bull.

But hey, in the New America (TM), history is rewritten every morning to suit THE PARTY.

[pinniped]

5. I only watch those archaelogical shows like Digging for the Truth....

and stuff like that. Modern Marvels is also a decent show.

History Channel does seem to prop up the regime every now and then.

[bluestateguy]

6. They do too many war documentaries

And wars are not the only events in history that are important. They have done some very good shows, but I think all the war shows is just the channel serving it's main viewer demographic: middle aged to elderly white men.

[gimama]

8. so did discovery-time channel

and the science channel sometimes pulls dis-info on viewers; both have had shows "questioning" 9/11 events, and 'disproving conspiracy theories'. And we get to pay EXTRA for that! ;}

[tom_paine]

9. I don't mind that so much, as I do the constant reframing

which is Orwellian and pervasive AND persuasive.

It goes straight to the unconscious. You really had to wonder how long it was before someone took all of the research on psychology, advertising, public relations and mold it into a really efficient and scary mind-crushing machine.

Within the context that what t he Busheviks have constructed isn't quite to that level yet, it is damned close.

Poor Coretta Scott King. Poor ANYONE who gets in their way, who dares to die and to have someone speak about the things that were relevant in their life.

Basically the trick is, to flog the media and lash it with nosie, spray octopus ink all over with the swhrieking and false outrage that all discussion is vortexed up.

We are witnessing the birth of a new and monstrous form of Totalitarianism. Where it will end, no one can be sure. We hope not with concentration camps and millions of dead, but of course Halliburton just got the contracts for domestic detention facilities.

[rudy23]

11. To those waiting for "history" to condemn this regime

this should be a good sneak preview into the future. They are just going to control "history", too.

[Captain Hilts]

12. I wish they'd go back to fighting WWII. I watched those shows! nt

[izzie]

13. I like a few things I have watched.

Some thing do not always go along with my history books but then who wrote those?

[rodeodance]

14. "History"--has always been about "great men, events"--some has

changed since the 1970's--to include 'social histories"--inclusivenes--women, gender, etc--but all in all, the big H is History is still evident. The 'events' that changed the world are the History--great conquests--the military (and the great battles).


.....It is also possible that it was going on before and I just missed it. After all, both pre and post Old American Republic the History Channel NEVER ran shows regarding labor movements and ALWAYS ran military shows

(which is fine by me, if the % is at least 70-30 military shows...and I say that because military shows are damned popular, you can't deny that)

[rodeodance]

15. speaking of social histories--there is a movement by some to bring

back the big History book-the traditonal book, great men (now add women), dates, events, conquests. The charge is that too much 'social' is in History--exp. the textbooks. There was a segment on Book TV (c-span) a few weeks ago about this. They interviewed an author of a new History textbook of this type.

[Tesla]

16. If they had a Herstory book

There wouldn't be all these wars,

We'd just call them a Bitch and pull their hair out.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Yep. And speaking of Military, the organization of the propagandists...

must be disciplined and hierarchal..

[Ganja Ninja]

18. Although I tend to watch it quite a bit I always turn the chanel

when it comes to shows on recent events.

Have you noticed how many shows (and reruns of shows) they have on the first gulf war and the current war? Heck I've even seen them do shows on the Panama and Grenada invasions.

Have they ever had any shows on the conflict in Kosovo? Mmmm... I wonder why they tend to overlook that war?

[BiggJawn]

19. You mean "The WAR Channel"?

Just LOOK at all that NEAT shit you get to play with when you enlist in the 100-Year's War!

[KharmaTrain]

20. When The Japanese Bombed Gettysburg, I Knew Something Was Wrong

I almost only watch History Channel International these days...they feature a lot of British television history shows (far superior to the pablum produced here) and some of the older, less facist stuff.

My fave is good old R. Lee Ermey...Staff Sargent Hartman...and his weekly advertisement for the military/industrial complex. One week, I'd like to see Gomer Pyle come out and finish the job...

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Um...wow.

Of those examples:

Andrew Jackson made a "preemptive strike" in Florida in 1818

No, he didn't; he was leading an army in pursuit of Seminole Indians, and never mind that it was into Spanish territory...Manifest Destiny and all that, you know (or, to put its right name to it, American imperialism in its infancy).

Ulysees S. Grant waged a "War on Terror"

No, he didn't; as President he authorised military force (as adjunct to the already existing occupation of the conquered South under the aegis of Reconstruction) in response to the worst excesses of the nascent Ku Klux Klan.

The KKK was the "Terrorist Wing of the Democratic Party".

The KKK was nothing of the sort; it was an association of Southerners resentful first of the civil rights granted to formerly enslaved Southern blacks and second to the military occupation of the South during Reconstruction. And Northern Democrats of the time for the most part had nothing to do with it; it's just that after the Civil War, patriotism and the Republican Party became synonymous, for a time, thanks to Lincoln and the fact that most of the leaders of the Confederate government HAD been Democrats before the war.

James Madison was just like Bush, the War on 1812 was just like Iraq, opposed by "anti-war Democrats" (except the party was still the Democratic-Republican Party, and the stretch on this particular fact is pretty far compared to the others, which are also fabrications, but less audacious Orwellian Twisting of the words)

The War of 1812 was NOTHING like Iraq; I don't seem to recall the Iraqis kidnappingm Americans and forcing them to serve in their armed forces, for one thing, or violating treaty obligations, for another; however, the hawks in 1812 had strategic reasons for war with Britain that included expansion of US territorial control over British areas of the continent (in part because of the lucrative trade in Canadian furs--which isn't that different from establishing "democracy" in Iraq to ensure preferential access to oil, come to think of it).

They must not be hiring any actual historians these days.

[DemonFighterLives]

22. Yes, I was thinking the same thing

I liked the History channel and Discovery channel, but the Re-history channel can go to hell. How many shows have propped up the Warren Commission, 911 attacks lies, Iraq I and II as though they were good. None of the alternative theories or truths are ever reported.

I'm not falling for it, but am fearful that many will. If I see one more heroic pilot Poppy with someone swooning over him, I will just :puke: What about the story that he didn't need to eject from his plane and kill his crew?

:argh:

[philosophie_en_rose]

23. Because "Hitler's dog's chew toys" was pushing it.

:shrug: I don't watch the history channel, because every show I see seems to be about Hitler. And also soap-opera-ish.

There are only so many ways to discuss Hitler, so they've moved on a modern parallel.

Next up: "George W. Bush's underwear drawer: why tighty whities are destroying America"

[gulfcoastliberal]

24. History Channel is now mostly worthless. History International is better.

I mostly watch the National Geographic channel and Science Channel these days. (When the Daily Show and Colbert Report aren't on)

[Broke In Jersey]

25. The channel is a mixed bag of information

There are some shows & documentaries thats on that blow my mind on how much I didn't know from the past. But of course there are a lot of shows that I just have to roll my eyes at. But if you think about it, isn't that true with most channels? I watch the show that I am interested in, and watch something else when there is some propagnada on.

[Connie_Corleone]

26. History channel, A&E, Biography Channel

They all suck now. Murder She Wrote on the Biography Channel??