You are here
Home > Posts tagged "Censorship" (Page 2)

Original Anti-Zionist jokes in Monty Python’s LIFE OF BRIAN remain cut out of Criterion special edition

Think you know the saga of the deleted scenes from Monty Python's LIFE OF BRIAN? Not if you trust Wikipedia. The 1979 comedy didn't just take the mickey out of Jesus and the feuding Palestinian Liberation fronts, it poked fun at Zionists, as goose-stepping racists led by Eric Idle's OTTO the NAZIRENE determined to promote Jewish racial purity, carve a Lebensraum from the "traditional Jewish areas of Samaria," displace the Samaritans into internment camps, and plan an Anschluss of Jordan to "create a great Jewish state that will last a thousand years." My, my, my. But the defamed parties had the last laugh. They acquired the studio with the rights to the film, obliterated the offending celluloid, reedited the video release, and have rewritten cinematic history. Maybe you don't care what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians. Did you know someone is messing with the oeuvre of Monty Python? We had the comedy sketches memorized in college. Who could have imagined the originals would be vulnerable to tampering? I'm not sure this is an overreaction. Monty Python is not Shakespeare, what is? But it's not Nicholas Sparks either. For a populist phenom I say Python rivals Swift. This is book burning, is what it is -- a sinister effacing of creative work. In a recent British poll, Life of Brian was in contention for England's greatest film comedy. But for your consideration, instead of a director's cut, we've got a censor's cut. Here's the lowdown in brief: three integral scenes of the theatrical release were removed from the video version. The third scene was recut to make up for the absence of the first two. And a key character was stricken from the credits. When Criterion later released a collector's edition, the missing sequences were included in the extras as "deleted scenes." But these scenes were represented by mangled outtakes of the originals, from which key lines remain excised. Then an official narrative was fabricated to recount how the sequences had been removed from the original version to improve the flow, the crude outtakes testifying to why they didn't make the cut. But that's all bullocks --and the niggling weak spot to this digital book burning is, ironically enough, that BOOKS were published in 1979 to accompany the film's release: a mass-market paperback of the screenplay, and an oversized Monty Python Scrapbook. The rewrite runs afoul too of anyone who remembers seeing the film in its first release. Not My Tribe has suffered its own internal dissension over comparing Israel to the Nazis. Apparently it's SO not done, not even Monty Python can get away with it. You may have revisited the video many times, now the DVD, maybe you read about the scandals about the film's release, maybe you memorized some of the Biggus Dickus dialog; are you curious that you missed the bits about Samaria, Jordan and purified Jewish blood? When the Catholic church objects to a movie, it declares a boycott. Zionists take a more effective strategy. When pulling funding

Gore says 2009 is Turning Point in Environment Battle- Isn’t that a bunch of complete nonsense?

The DP liberals over at the Common Dreams website are out there pushing Al Gore dope off on us once again. To the liberal 'Peace'crat voter, somehow they have remade in their own minds Al Gore out to be the MAX 'Green', who is then made to stand alongside that MAX 'Peacenic', Jimmy 'Peanut Butter' Carter, always the two out under the spotlight as neo Democratic Party Saints! Here it is then... Gore: 2009 Turning Point in Environment Battle ...WTF? Not hardly, Al. Not even by a long shot! What a dope! And what a Democratic Party hack! If you're not on CD's no fly shun list feel free to write them about pee GREEN Al. I did, and my comment is listed at #5 on the list of comments. I wonder if it will be removed? (I'm hoping that CD has gotten away from that sort of thing though???) Just in case, here below are my remarks about Al Gore there. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gore, wasn't he the 'environmentalist' who administered 8 years of economic war against the children of Iraq? YES! Now I remember him! He also began the fencing off and militarization of The Border between the US and Mexico, too. He is some sort of Green for sure! He and his Administration friends, Silvestre Reyes and Madelyn Albright. Wait, something about oil in Colombia, too? And here's Al in March this year... 'I'm not a reflexive opponent of nuclear. I used to be enthusiastic about it, but I'm now sceptical about it.' Well, YES, Al! My you've changed! Or have you really? 'Yes, there is [more appetite for nuclear power now]. And because of the carbon crisis there will be more nuclear plants built and some of those being retired will be replaced by others. I think it will play a somewhat larger role, but it will not be the main option chosen.' YES, such scepticism! '. People have said for years that there are now completely different [nuclear] technologies. OK, but if you have a team of scientists that can build a reactor, and you're a dictator, you can make them work at night to build a nuclear weapon. That's what's happened in North Korea and Iran. And in Libya before they gave it up. So the idea of, say, Chad, Burma, and Sudan having lots of nuclear reactors is insane and it's not going to happen.' Let's go to war, Gore! It's the 'green' thing to do and now I see what a great environmentalist you are! You're against nuclear power in Iran and Chad and Burma! Of course, but here it will be an option, but just maybe not 'the major option'? (Remarks taken from a Leo Hickman interview with Gore for the UK Guardian) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ And a final comment about Al Gore not put on CD just yet from The Tennessee Center for policy Research a comment titled Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth” Gore’s

Common Dreams? Or is it censorship in common with the corporate media?

The biggest liberal website out there online, Common Dreams, informs us with its headline today that 'OBAMA'S PROGRESSIVES: HOLDING, PUSHING, TUGGING'. Common Dreams has become a major resource for the US Left and liberal community in the last couple of years through its posting of many important commentaries by Leftists and liberals plus its convenient links that many of us use quite often. Unfortunately there is a big weakness of the site, and that is their censorship of commentaries, writers, and readers who are not completely 100% on board with their 'support the lesser of two evils', pro-Democratic Party point of view. As a result, when I go to read their headline, I today get the message that THE WEBSITE DECLINED TO SHOW THIS WEBPAGE (to me) HTTP 403 FORBIDDEN. What is Common Dreams scared of from me? The exact post I made to one of their commentaries that got me blacklisted from their site was made on election night and was linked the following day to a commentary at Common Dreams, from the one I made here on Not My Tribe titled Sadly, Barack Obama will probably get us OUT of Iraq by getting us INTO Iran. Many people who read Common Dreams material link to other commentaries that back up their opinions and beliefs, and I merely did the same. But this belief that Obama's election will lead to yet more war ran counter to their cheeleading for the Democratic Party, and earned me their shunning. And you know what? I still think it is most probable that attacking Iran is a most possible final result, post national arrival of Obama into the White House. How will the Common Dreams' censor feel if this actually happens? Will he/ she remember the decision to put me permanentl offline from their site, for simply making this observation? Probably not. I certainly do not feel all alone at all in being treated so shabbily by the Common Dreams Democratic Party cheerleading censor on their site. The site shuns many others, too, including the Libertarian site ANTIWAR.COM that it has never chosen to link to and acts as if the site does not exist. ANTIWAR.COM, you see, is a major resource for those who oppose what they call one of the War Parties, the Democrats? Can't do that per play book of Common Dreams censorship. Not at all if you want publication there. Also of note, is that Common Dreams likes anarchists somewhat, linking to the giant academician anarchist site, Znet, but has no links to overt Marxist links. Major antiwar activists (and presidential candidates) like Gloria La Riva will never see any comment of theirs allowed the Common Dreams site. CENSORED by the CD group-ling of 'OBAMA'S PROGRESSIVES:HOLDING, PUSHING, TUGGING'.

Targeting the reporters

The police in the US are targeting reporters. At the Democratic Party Convention they went after the ABC reporter, and now in Minnesota at the Republican Party Convention, they have gone after the news team from Democracy Now. It is getting just plain dangerous for any citizen to hold a camera in their hand these days, especially while exercising your Right to Free Speech and filming the police as they go about their daily duty of terrorizing people. In Iraq, the Pentagon went after al jazeera's reporters, as they had done previously in Yugoslavia when they bombed the Yugoslav television station during that war. In the West Bank, Israel targets those who do the reporting there about the Jewish abuse of Palestinians. Israeli army targets family over brutality film Isn't it always the same with dictatorships? In Mexico, they do the same, also, as in Colombia and all the other US Empire's stooge states. Is there any real difference between the US government and the Chinese government in how political dissidence is targeted by the police for elimination? Especially when there is a camera in hand alongside a pen.

Common Dreams website lames itself to aid the limping Democrats!

Pity the poor Democratic Party liberals. They just cannot tolerate dissent to their so-called 'lesser of two evils' politics of constant tail-ending submission to the big business political party called The Democrats. In a sorry spectacle, their main go-to web site, Common Dreams, deliberately crashed itself to shut off discussion from its readers during the Democratic Party Convention! The reason they did that is that so many of their readers are so critical and angry at the Democratic Party that the pro-Democratic Party liberals running the site just could not tolerate that comment section anymore, and especially not during the Democratic Party Convention weak. As a result, there will be no angry comments about Joe Bidden and Barrack Obama on Common Dreams. They are having 'technical problems'. What a pitiful thing to hide their censorship behind though. The 'technical difficulties' were self-imposed by the web site owners and almost all their readers can see quite easily just what was behind this ruse. Common Dreams had a quite well done commentary section until they deliberately crashed it by changing (for no reason at all) the format just days before the Convention! Through the many years, Left of The Democrats critics of their Republican collaborationist politics have seen no end to the dirty tricks of liberals aligned with their sick, sick political party. Nothing surprises most of us about DP-voting liberals any more and all the lengths they will go to stifle condemnation of the Democratic Party from other Americans more radical than themselves. Shame on you, Common Dreams! You closed down conversation about your sorry-ass backing of the Democrats right when it was getting hot! SORRY! We are experiencing temporary technical problems. Our tech team is at work. Please stay tuned. Go to Common Dreams, and you will see a picture of tied-by-ball-and-chain-to-the-DP Norman Solomon right below this message. Funny if it wasn't so sad and pathetic. Norman's stupid smile next to the message of 'technical difficulties' was just perfect!

Hooded captive not suitable for kids

This promotional one-sheet for Taxi to the Dark Side, Alex Gibney's documentary about US torture practices, was rejected by the Motion Picture Association of America. The sight of a hooded prisoner was deemed to be too disturbing to children, unlike Freddy Krueger, chainsaws and severed limbs.   Part of the original image is from photographer Shaun Schwartz, whose camera memory was erased by military censors to eliminate this objectionable photo. Schwartz recovered it from his hard drive.

Janet Jackson’s boob

What exactly happened at this year's superbowl haltime show? Pop sub-luminaries Nelly and Kid Rock lead the extravaganza. Then a fading Janet Jackson closes with a decade old number, and bares her breast, creating a furor over the uncontrolable nature of live TV.   Now the networks got a reason to put a time delay on two upcoming events, the Grammies and the Oscars: the two forums at which left-leaning Hollywood types might have wanted to speak their minds about the war and the state of the nation. Now anything untoward can be bleeped. And knowing they would be bleeped, celebrities can ease their consciences that there wouldn't have been a point to even try. Would it be conspiratorial to wonder if someone approached Janet Jackson with the idea? Jump start her lagging career with an idiotic stunt, handing the yellow press an excuse to silence Hollywood in this year of Vietnam Revisited and a president moron trying to stay in office?

Did Oscar really boo Michael Moore

At Michael Moore's Oscar Night speech, WERE THE OSCAR BOOS FAKED? Say you were programming the Oscars. Say you were able to intimidate all of the celebrities from speaking out against the war. Say you knew Michael Moore was going to win an Oscar for Best Documentary for BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. You anticipated Moore would violate the network ban on showing dissent about the war. How could you plan to undermine Moore's speech? Could you pre-record an audience response? Could you prepare booing and heckling to drown out what Moore would try to say? Could you orchestrate something to suggest that Michael Moore was a loose canon with whom not even Hollywood agreed? What if the cameras pulled back to reveal an audience neither booing nor jeering? Too afraid to be seen clapping. Too afraid to be seen having any opinion. But smiling. Everyone and their cousin knew what Moore was going to say. Everyone knew Moore would be the only person who could get away with speaking against the war. In fact the audience knew Moore couldn't back down if he wanted. Ironically the showdown had been promoted in advance to boost the ratings. When Michael Moore was announced as winner, the entire hall gave him a standing ovation. Did the same audience immediately boo him? Who booed? According to In These Times, it turns out that a handful of stagehands standing close to the microphones were responsible for the booes. But the networks reported that Moore was widely booed by his peers. Crisis managed?

Top