|
Banned
|
loquitur, the dilemma for the top ten percent wealthiest in the US is that there is no natural, mass constituency for their political goals. They compensate for that in two major ways, they "cage" the vote, we saw this at work with the phony "felon purge list" in the 2000 Florida election, and we see it with the Federalist Sociey "Op" of positioning thousands of lawyers and other "volunteers" as "poliing place obervers", challenging the credentials of voters who are attempting to vote, and we see it with the subversion of the voting rights protection section of the DOJ, the movement for "Voter ID" restrictions, and the Marc "Thor" Hearne led "Op" by republicans against a fictitious "voter fraud" problem, famously and fraudulantly described by our President, himself.
The other method is the use of the news media that these wealthy elite own and control, along with conservative and authoritarian factions in government:
Buckley's life was probably a "deep cover", domestic disniformation "Op". Tiny message, tiny "natural" constituency, successful effort to persuade large numbers to support an entire political philosophy against the best interests of 95 percent of them:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckle...0511011324.asp
November 01, 2005, 1:24 p.m.
Who Did What?
Covert questions.
.....An autobiographical illustration. When in 1951 I was inducted into the CIA as a deep cover agent, the procedures for disguising my affiliation and my work were unsmilingly comprehensive. It was three months before I was formally permitted to inform my wife what the real reason was for going to Mexico City to live. If, a year later, I had been apprehended, dosed with sodium pentothal, and forced to give out the names of everyone I knew in the CIA, I could have come up with exactly one name, that of my immediate boss (E. Howard Hunt, as it happened). In the passage of time one can indulge in idle talk on spook life. In 1980 I found myself seated next to the former president of Mexico at a ski-area restaurant. What, he asked amiably, had I done when I lived in Mexico? "I tried to undermine your regime, Mr. President." He thought this amusing, and that is all that it was, under the aspect of the heavens. ...
|
http://wconger.blogspot.com/2007/09/...cia-front.html
Monday, September 24, 2007
NATIONAL REVIEW: a CIA front?
Was the launch of Bill Buckley’s National Review in the mid-1950s a CIA operation? I first heard Joseph Sobran imply this in 1993 at a Rothbard-Rockwell Report conference in San Mateo, California. I thought the idea was kinda paranoid and kooky at the time. But here’s Murray Rothbard himself suggesting the same thing in The Betrayal of the American Right, written 30 years ago:
“In the light of hindsight, we should now ask whether or not a major objective of National Review from its inception was to transform the right wing from an isolationist to global warmongering anti-Communist movement; and, particularly, whether or not the entire effort was in essence a CIA operation. We now know that Bill Buckley, for the two years prior to establishing National Review, was admittedly a CIA agent in Mexico City, and that the sinister E. Howard Hunt was his control. His sister Priscilla, who became managing editor of National Review, was also in the CIA, and other editors James Burnham and Willmoore Kendall had at least been recipients of CIA largesse in the anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom. In addition, Burnham has been identified by two reliable sources as a consultant for the CIA in the years after World War II. Moreover, Gary Wills relates in his memoirs of the conservative movement that Frank Meyer, to whom he was close at the time, was convinced that the magazine was a CIA operation. With his Leninist-trained nose for intrigue, Meyer must be considered an important witness.
“Furthermore, it was a standard practice in the CIA, at least in those early years, that no one ever resigned from the CIA. A friend of mine who joined the Agency in the early 1950s told me that if, before the age of retirement, he was mentioned as having left the CIA for another job, that I was to disregard it, since it would only be a cover for continuing Agency work. On that testimony, the case for NR being a CIA operation becomes even stronger. Also suggestive is the fact that a character even more sinister than E. Howard Hunt, William J. Casey, appears at key moments of the establishment of the New over the Old Right. It was Casey who, as attorney, presided over the incorporation of National Review and had arranged the details of the ouster of Felix Morley from Human Events.”
Here is William Buckley's nephew, and we got to experience how well his prediction played out in the run up to the invasion of Iraq:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
January 21, 1992
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
...Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."...
http://pseudoconservativewatch.blogs...ous-fight.html
Monday, October 30, 2006
William F. Buckley's Courageous Fight for Principle--NOT
In
edited by Gregory L. Schneider (2003), one of the readings is William F. Buckley's "Statement of Intentions" for his National Review magazine (pp. 195-200). Buckley lists as "Among our convictions" the following: "The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother Government, but by the pressure of monopolies--including union monopolies. What is more some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume--almost instinctively--that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence part of management (sic). Sometimes they are; often they are not. National Weekly will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman's side of the story."...
....Here is Wikipedia's descriptive account of William F. Buckley's childhood:
"Buckley was born in New York City to lawyer and oil baron William Frank Buckley, Sr., of Irish Catholic descent, and Aloise Steiner, a southerner of Swiss-German descent. The sixth of ten children, young Buckley moved with his family to Sharon, Connecticut. He soon moved to Paris where he attended first grade and learned French. By age seven, he had received formal training in English at a day school in London. As a boy, Buckley developed a love for music, sailing, horses, hunting, skiing, and story telling. All of these interests—and his strong Roman Catholic religious faith—would reflect in his later writings. He is also an accomplished amateur harpsichord player. He attended St John's Beaumont in England at age 13 just before World War II."..
..... he is mainly concerned with "union monopolies"--and this in a country where it took unions until 1938, just 16 years before Buckley was writing, to gain adequate power to organize and fight for working interests. On the other hand, business corporations were given huge aids to their development for decades prior to 1938. The courts, government and police were biased against labor unions throughout most of the period while corporate collectivism was feeding gluttonously.
|
[/quote]
Consider this "proud" chapter in our nation's politcal history:
Quote:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003695457
When 'Mad Men' In Media Took Control of Political Campaigns
Upton Sinclair is back, thanks to 'There Will Be Blood' movie ties. But in 1934 his race for governor gave birth to the modern media-based political campaign.
By Greg Mitchell
January 11, 2008) -- It's good to see Upton Sinclair back in the news again amid the raves (which I don't quite share) for the new film "There Will Be Blood," very loosely based on his 1927 novel "Oil!" Even though Sinclair earned a nod in many of the articles and reviews of the film, which stars Daniel Day-Lewis, few have commented on the original source material..
..On Aug. 28, 1934, Sinclair swept the Democratic primary for governor and all hell broke loose across the state, then across the continent. On the day after, the Los Angeles Times, under Harry Chandler, denounced Sinclair's "maggot-like horde" of supporters, and the Hearst press was no kinder. The movie studios threatened to move back east if Sinclair took office.
Sinclair, author of "The Jungle" and dozens of other muckraking books, led a grassroots movement called EPIC (End Poverty in California). His friend H.L. Mencken explained in a column, "Upton Sinclair has been swallowing quack cures for all the sorrows of mankind since the turn of the century, is at it again in California, and on such a scale that the whole country is attracted by the spectacle."..
The prospect of a socialist governing the nation's most volatile state sparked nothing less than a revolution in American politics. With an assist from Hollywood -- and leading newspapers -- Sinclair's opponents virtually invented the modern media campaign. It marked a stunning advance in the art of public relations, "in which advertising men now believed they could sell or destroy political candidates as they sold one brand of soap and defamed its competitor," Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. later observed.
The 1934 governor's race, in short, showed the candidates the way from the smoke-filled room to Madison Avenue, from the party boss to the "spin doctor." Media experts, making unprecedented use of film, radio, newspapers, direct mail, opinion polls, and national fundraising, devised the most astonishing smear campaign ever. "Many American campaigns have been distinguished by dirty tactics," columnist Heywood Broun commented, "but I can think of none in which willful fraud has been so brazenly practiced." (See link at bottom for video on the campaign.)
The political innovation that produced the strongest impact was the manipulation of moving pictures. MGM's Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg produced fake newsreels, using Hollywood actors. W.R. Hearst helped distribute them. For the first time, the screen was used to demolish a candidate, a precursor of political attack ads on television.
No institution dishonored itself quite like the California press. One anecdote that illustrates this: In October that year, The New York Times' star reporter Turner Catledge (later top editor of the paper) came to California. Naturally, he hooked up with the Los Angeles Times' political editor Kyle Palmer, who pretty much selected the state's chief executive every four years -- hence his nickname, "The Little Governor."
Decades before the press combed through Barack Obama's books and Mike Huckabee's old sermons, the L.A. Times printed out-of-context excerpts from Sinclair's many books on its front page every single day. Palmer was also advising and even writing speeches for Sinclair's opponent. Over dinner, Catledge asked Palmer why the paper refused to be fair and balanced. "Turner, forget it," Palmer replied. "We don't go in for that kind of crap that you have back in New York, of being obliged to print both sides. We're going to beat this son of a bitch Sinclair any way we can. We're going to kill him."
.Sinclair's huge lead evaporated -- especially after those fake newsreels hit the screen -- and Gov. Frank Merriam won re-election. Kyle Palmer continued to rule California politics for decades. And today, "media politics" still dominates most elections.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...8chandler.html
Ex-publisher boosted L.A. Times' stature
By Jonathan Kandell
February 28, 2006
Otis Chandler, who inherited the Los Angeles Times from his parents and then, as its publisher, transformed it into one of the most respected, widely read and profitable newspapers in the United States, died yesterday at his Ventura County home in Ojai. He was 78.
..Almost immediately he angered family members and local Republicans by shifting the paper from its inbred right-wing bias to a more centrist outlook.
Under his leadership, the newspaper hired talented journalists, opened dozens of bureaus throughout the world and won numerous awards, including nine Pulitzer Prizes. Chandler also distinguished himself as an empire builder, expanding the Times Mirror Co., the parent corporation of the Los Angeles Times, by purchasing Newsday, The Baltimore Sun, The Hartford Courant, several broadcast and cable television stations and two highly regarded book publishers, New American Library and Harry Abrams Publishing.
However, Chandler was never able to rid himself of the suspicion he wasn't taken seriously enough by his peers at The New York Times, The Washington Post and other members of the Eastern news media establishment..
.. Soon after taking over as publisher, Otis Chandler vowed to raise the stature of the paper.
The daily's new course was evident in the 1960 presidential election. While the editorial page, as expected, backed Nixon, who was then vice president, news articles gave balanced coverage to his opponent, Sen. John F. Kennedy.
Two years later, the paper again demonstrated impartiality while covering Nixon's losing gubernatorial campaign against Pat Brown. It was a reporter from the Times who was the chief target of Nixon's sour post-election statement in which he declared: “You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”
Under the next two decades of Chandler's stewardship, the Times Mirror Co. and its flagship newspaper scored one success after another. Reversing decades of indifference to Los Angeles' black community, the Times won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the Watts riots in 1965..
|
Last edited by host; 02-27-2008 at 12:04 PM..
|