Are YOUR friends BLACKLISTING Buchanan Nader?
Dick Eastman
The time has come for friends and relatives of
1) the bosses of the American media and information oligopoly,
2) of the Council on Foreign Relations,
3) of all who have traded their own judgment with the
Establishment for a yes-man's seat in top positions of power
--a seat that by the very act of that trade relinquishes
the discretionary use of that power to the rentier-financier
oligarchy, and
4) of the rentier-financier oligarchs themselves;
to urge these men and women, for the sake of blood and
friendship, for your sake, for the sake of a society
in which you both live, for the sake of a human race
you cannot exempt yourselves from--URGE HIM RIGHT NOW
TO STOP BLACKLISTING PATRICK BUCHANAN AND RALPH NADER.
Confront him. Tell him you have watched his hypocrisy in
editorializing on the shameful blacklisting of the McCarthy
days, when never before in American history has
any special interest exercised such near-total blacklisting
power as he and his little network themselves are exercising
this very minute! In the "McCarthy era" there was nothing like
the enforced uniformity of opinion through concentration of
economic and information power in the hands of a small
like-thinking group.In the early 1950's even small towns had
at least two fully independent and locally owned newspapers
being fed by competing news agencies with opposing viewpoints
and truly independent editors and reporters--at least to
a degree, to a degree incomparably greater than obtains today.
Back then, opposition with support as strong as Buchanan's and
Nader's may not have puffed on the front page of Life, Look
and Time, BUT IT COULD BE FOUND on any corner newsstand
if the citizen really wanted to look for it. But not
today, "thanks to you, dear relative who is being a rat," etc.
Try asking him to show real faith in the democratic ideals
he claims to represent. Ask him to open the monopolized door
to public discourse so that Buchanan and Nader can have their
issues, analysis and solutions aired and discussed.
You saw George W. Bush and Al Gore, wearing identical
dark blue suits and solid red ties and you read between
the lines, especially between the missing lines. You saw
that they said nothing about globalization, subservience
to Beijing, NAFTA, immigration, foreign policy, the
crushing of the productive sector by the financial sector,
the ever-increasing power of global crime syndicates,
soaring resource prices, the disintegration of actual
production, and the supreme power of the financial-elites.
On all those issues, as far as the bipartisan-solidarity
duo are concerned consensus already has been established
before they enter the scene, so that on these issues there
is nothing left to discuss, nothing left to look at, nothing
that can be adjusted.
You saw that, as far as Bush and Gore are concerned, the
only topic on the table is whether or not Granny will
get a better deal on her medicine from the Democrat
medical corporatization plan or the GOP medical corporatization
plan, and whether she would be better off with the medicine
bottles that have twist-off caps that might come off and fall
in a river and choke an endangered fish, or the pop-top kind
that is made in China whose business me must encourage so
the Princelings don't H-bomb L.A.
What Bush and Gore wasted oentire debate on were actually
Congressional issues--the kind of problem you call your
Congressman about, not Presidential issues.
Aged voters whose range of knowledge and interest has
contracted to the narrow sphere of medical expenses and
regular bowel movements may think these are Presidential
issues, but you know and your relative know that such
minutiae must never be allowed to crowd out any of the
limited time and energy a President has for the critical
Macro-level and federal-level issues the Presidency was
designed to manage, that only the Presidency can manage.
But your piggish-in-the-public-sphere dear one has
imposed on the American public, more or less deliberately,
a blinder-narrowed information channels that bias and
deceive rather than inform. And you know the voters are
trusting the media and "the system" to tell the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth," don't you?
Remember, the people of this country have traditionally
trusted the institutions of a "free press" to educate them
about all important issues and options. You know that most
potential voters are deeply preoccupied with hurts associated
with economic and cultural deterioration and with a losing
personal struggle to stay even with creditors, that they
are in no position to do in-depth research on candidates
and issues on their own. You know that that situation is
being exploited, that it is even being fostered exactly so
that it can be exploited.
THE BLINDERS HAVE BEEN PUT THERE AS OFTEN AS NOT SO THAT
OUTRIGHT CONFISCATION OF MIDDLE-CLASS WEALTH CAN
PROCEED UNCHALLENGED BY INFORMED CITIZENS.
If you question the premises of these assertions, consider
this:
John Swinton, former Chief Editor of the New York Times,
in a speech at the annual dinner of the Associated Press
in 1914 said the following about the American press:
"There can be no question of an independent press.
Not one of you dares to utter his honest opinion. We
are the instruments and vassals of rich men behind the
scenes. We are puppets. Those men pull the strings and
we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives and our powers
all belong to those men--we are intellectual prostitutes..."
So in what year, as we slogged from the Age of Millionaires to the
Age of Billionaires, did Swinton's statement cease being true? Or
do rich men¹s poodles, the house-trained left and the house-trained
right, still yap querulously from their masters' laps?
I have posted Swinton's words with this question a dozen times and
yet to get a letter suggesting a year in which the media was
freed to serve citizens participating in representative
government of this constitutional republic.
So, if one of your relatives or close friends is BLACKLISTING
Buchanan and Nader from media coverage in media he partially
controls through networked monopoly power, THEN TELL HIM YOU DON'T
LIKE IT AND INSIST THAT HE STOP AT ONCE. And if he attempts
to cover himself with the excuse that Nader and Buchanan aren't
popular enough with the masses to warrant the exposure, tell him
he is not fooling anybody, that he is an embarrassment to you,
that he is disgracing the family undermining every ethical and
political principle that you hold dear and from which you
derive social dignity and respectability.
And to make it easier for him, remind him of this:
IT ISN¹T IF YOU WIN OR LOSE, IT¹S HOW YOU
PLAY THE GAME.
It really and truly is.
Dick Eastman
Yakima
U.S.A.
Every man is responsible to every other man.
daft_one
candidates. About three weeks ago, Buchanan was on MSNBC and asked to
have both he and Nader be included in the then-unscheduled presidential
debates. Another interesting item: the media, for the last month, has
made the upcoming election a hot topic and has shown an increase in
Nader and his celebrity supporters. In the interest of fairness, I'll
stump here for Buchanan. At the polls, remember to vote by your
conscience, bring your ID and check your party at the door.
--
daft_one
"I don't want to bring a sour note
Remember this before you vote:
We could all sink or we all float
'Cos we;re all in the same big boat."
- The Police
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dick Eastman
MISREPRESENTING BUCHANAN'S POSITIONS AND SLANDERING
HIS POLITICAL PERSON WITH THE MOST DISTASTEFUL
DISTORTIONS. The Wall Street Journal HAS NO
MORAL GROUND REMAINING FOR ANY CRITICISM OF
CLINTON OR ANYONE.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j111099.html
The business paper that lies to its readership
in this way will not be above manipulating readers
to set them up for fleecing by those they are
prostituting themselves for.
A friend has sent this link which shows that the
Wall Street Journal is as Clintonesque as it has
ever accused Clinton of being --in their editorial
dishonesty, I SAY, ON THEIR EDITORIAL DISHONESTY
regarding Presidential Candidate Patrick Buchanan.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j111099.html
Once I itemized itemized eight serious
problems with Newt Gingrich and why he should not
be continued as Speaker of the House to a Wall Street
editor on the Mary Matilin show (I was a call-in)
he answered all twenty questions with such glib
arbitrariness that it I was convinced that THE OFFICIAL
POSITIONS OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARE MERE WINDOW
DRESSING--THEY DON'T BELIEVE IT THEMSELVES.
Dick Eastman
Dick Eastman
Two letters from one-time Democratic House wonk, my friend,
Shmendrick Mensh (not real name)
> Dick,
>
> I dislike Norman Podhoretz strongly, though I like his excellent
> wife, Midge Decter.
(note: Podhoretz is the Wall Street Journal editorialist who led that
publication's disinformation-propaganda smear campaign that tarred
anti-globalism humanitarian Patrick Buchanan as "anti-Semitic" and
"racist" during the critical temporal "window" when Buchanan had to
gain critical mass for "serious consideration" in the U.S.
presidential campaign. The Wall Street Journal effort was a
complete success, a crime on a par with anything Clinton has
done--and Clinton has done a lot of very bad things. --DE)
>
> You can probably guess my opinion of Horowitz, a lumpen former
> Marxist who is now a lumpen Randite, running around yapping like
> a little poodle trying to get into the Manhattan Club.
Put me down for the opposite opinion, Shmendrick. The neoconservatives
are UNreformed Trotskyites who took over the Wall Street Journal when
New Dealism was thrown out of the "drivers seat" by the populist-libertarian
surge that put Reagan in office in 1980. When programmed Hinkley's bullet
didn't kill Reagan, the "Borgia brain food salted into his jellybeans"
(or however it is done) rendered Reagan controllable by the
establishmentazzi
moles under the cover of the "neoconservative" label.Good libro-populist
Reagan associates like Paul Laxalt, David Stockman, Gov. Connely, the
Goldwaterite and Orange County "old-guard" Reaganites all were sabotaged and
pushed aside by this covert "neoconservative" operation. (The Trotskyite
have links to Beijing, Columbia, the KLA, Castro, and the covert and overt
agitators that incite most of the "irrational" hate acts in the world.
You will note that Saddam, Milosovic, Fujimori and other enemies of the
establishmentazzi debt-slavery servant-economy global plantation,
all have Buchanan-Livingstone-Zapatista-like anti-globalist
(anti-finance-capitalist-exploitation) domestic policies--the real reason
why Madeleine Albright does all in a Secretary of State's power to destroy
them. (You are aware that Madeleine Albright's father was one of Stalin's
commissars (!) which she claims she didn't know until after she became
Secretary of State (!!). And I could have picked almost any of the Clinton
cabinet and staff with similar stories--and will if I live long enough.)
Letter #2:
>Dick,
>
>I don't use the word "fascist" as an insult: there have been many good and
>decent fascists. President Franco of Spain, for instance, and President
>Salazar of Portugal, both set their countries up for entry into the modern
>world, and saved hundreds of thousands of Jews from the Hitlerian madness
>during their administrations.
Shmendrick, there are movements, there are men, and there are systems
of thought.
Fascist MOVEMENTS are mafias.
Fascist MEN are thugs that the people fall behind because they are
too cowardly to stand up and fight powerful self-aggrandizing movements
(like the rentier-financier-druglord establishmentazzi) on their own.
Courageous and good people are always populists and friends of liberty.
Fascist POLITICAL THEORY is the assumption that "common people"*
among other things, are unfit to rule themselves in the way the
United States of America was designed that they should rule themselves.
> I am not a fascist: I find that I almost always differ with them on the
> policy issues; still I respect the position of those who are not out to kill
> me because I'm a Jew. (Menachem Begin, the good Prime Minister of Israel,
> was a fascist during his youth. Factoid for you: the officer corps of Italy
> under Mussolini was 19% Jewish.)
>
> Pat Buchanan's father was a fascist
So was your mother. (Just kidding.) I don't believe you know what
a fascist is, Shmendrick.
> and the woman he first wanted as his Vice Presidential candidate,
> Lenore Fulani, is a fascist so extreme in her
> positions that Leni Reifenstahl would turn away
> from her in embarrassment.
A fascist like Noam Chomsky? Lenore Fulani is a socialist and
she differs from most establishmentazzi-captured socialists only
in that she includes global investment banking in her list of
enemies of the people along with the usual corporations.
And who is this infallible litmus whose mere turning of the neck
measures someone's extremity and how far it goes beyond the pale?
Do you realize how intolerant and narrow-minded and bigoted the
very concept of "EXTREMISM" is? Extremism was a crime behind
the Iron Curtain under Stalin. Think about it.
There is logical and illogical? Good thinking detects and
rejects the illogical.
There is accurate and inaccurate observations and reporting.
Good thinking detects and rejects the inaccurate.
There is practicable and impractical (does and doesn't.) Good
thinking detects and rejects the impractical.
And there is the beneficial and the harmful. Good
thinking detects and rejects the harmful.
But what about "the tolerable and the extreme?" The mind
has nothing to latch on to here. This is all subjective.
This is "what I like" and "what I don't like," with no
common objective criteria of evaluation. It is merely
the ideographic behavioral result of arbitrary conditioning.
It is not scientific. Scientific has to do only with
"good thinking" as I have outlined it above.
Use of the epistemological category: "extremism" indicates
to me that
1) "there is no good thinking here;
2) there is pretension of wisdom (intellectual
superiority and authority) here, totally spurious;
3) here is a bigoted, fascist, totalitarian, "politically
correct" (and therefore not "good-thinkingly correct)
fascist here.
I only hope, my friend, that these remarks will not be
taken as egotistical verbal one-upmanship, but rather
as a key.
Dick Eastman
Yakima
U.S.A.
Every man is responsible to every other man.
* Common people: Another fascist usage, related to Clinton's
usage "ordinary people" as when he distinguishes between ruling
elitists like himself and you, Schmendrick, on one hand, and
Blockbuster clerks and others like me, on the other; i.e.,
between "shearer" and "sheep" on the global plantation.
Your sincerely,
Dick (Shmegegge) Eastman
Yakima
U.S.A.
Every man is responsible to every other man.
Definition of Yiddish terms used above:
shmegegge: an unlikable petty whiner
schmendrick: cluless guy, but things he knows it all
mensh: Pat Buchanan is a mensh
Kev
Buchanan, you should include the other Reform/Natural Law Presidential
candidate. And all the others. How about the KKK party candidate? The
Communist Party candidate?
Or are you going to be responsible and set a realistic limit on who can
debate?
"Dick Eastman" <eas...@wolfenet.com> wrote in message
news:P%3D5.1516$r6.9...@den-news1.rmi.net...
do rich men零 poodles, the house-trained left and the house-trained
right, still yap querulously from their masters' laps?
I have posted Swinton's words with this question a dozen times and
yet to get a letter suggesting a year in which the media was
freed to serve citizens participating in representative
government of this constitutional republic.
So, if one of your relatives or close friends is BLACKLISTING
Buchanan and Nader from media coverage in media he partially
controls through networked monopoly power, THEN TELL HIM YOU DON'T
LIKE IT AND INSIST THAT HE STOP AT ONCE. And if he attempts
to cover himself with the excuse that Nader and Buchanan aren't
popular enough with the masses to warrant the exposure, tell him
he is not fooling anybody, that he is an embarrassment to you,
that he is disgracing the family undermining every ethical and
political principle that you hold dear and from which you
derive social dignity and respectability.
And to make it easier for him, remind him of this:
IT ISN酪 IF YOU WIN OR LOSE, IT酬 HOW YOU