America’s Marxist Media
To think that two and two are four
And neither five nor three
The heart of man has long been sore
And long ‘tis like to be.
– A.E. Houseman, Last Poems, xxv
It has by now become glaringly apparent to all but the most obtuse or thoroughly indoctrinated among us that a majority of the members of the mainstream media (I call them cockroach media, but we’ll come back to that later) are socialists in outlook and practice. As Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote in an article for PJ Media on August 28, 2010, “We now know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our formerly august mainstream media is replete with socialists.”
Well, excuse me. Not at all to diss Kyle-Anne, who does good work, but that information has been around for a long time and has been readily available to anyone who cares to look.
In the interest of clarity, though, let’s not use the word “socialists,” a term that has become somewhat socially acceptable in certain quarters and to that extent masks the radicalism of their ideas. Socialists are Marxists, so let’s call them what they are: Marxists.
How did the mainstream media get to be the way they are? To find the answer, let’s turn to an old source.
Helen MacInnes was a Scottish-born novelist whose writing career spanned nearly four and a half decades. Most of her 21 novels dealt with the struggle against totalitarianism. During World War II, she wrote stirring novels of the fight against Nazi Germany. After the conclusion of that war, while other writers were busily plotting stories of the threat of a reincarnated Nazism, she was among the first to understand that communism, with its subversive hooks already well set in the upper levels of many governments, including ours, represented a far greater threat to human freedom.
In her 1951 book Neither Five nor Three, she uses her writer’s skills masterfully to create a gripping and entertaining story that is at the same time a chilling description of the methods the left used to take almost complete control of a once-noble institution: the American media. By undermining, discrediting, and marginalizing honest reporters, writers, and editors, the left gradually replaced them with people who would oh-so-subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) parrot the Party line.
When did the subversion process begin? It probably began with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 and was certainly well underway in the 1930s. A prime early example of the manipulation of U.S public opinion by the media was America’s sellout of China to the communists in the 1940s. James Perloff writes in The New American that “a plethora of books and news reports perpetuated the myth that Mao’s communists were ‘democratic agrarian reformers.’”
Soviet Prime Minister Vyacheslav Molotov (of Molotov cocktail fame) outlined the strategy: “Who reads the Communist papers? Only a few people who are already Communists. We don’t need to propagandize them [...]. We have to influence non-Communists if we want to make them Communists or if we want to fool them. So, we have to try to infiltrate in the big press.”
Perloff continues: “The most influential U.S. writers fulfilling this were probably Edgar Snow, author of the pro-communist book Red Star Over China, and Owen Lattimore, author of Thunder Out of China, a Book-of-the-Month selection that attacked Chiang Kai-shek. Writing in the Saturday Review, Snow audaciously told readers, ‘There has never been any communism in China.’”
In his book While You Slept, John T. Flynn exposed the media bias toward the Chinese communists. Between 1943 and 1949, 22 pro-communist books appeared in the U.S. press, and only seven pro-Nationalist ones. Reported Flynn:
“Every one of the 22 pro-Communist books [...] received glowing approval in the literary reviews [...] every one of the anti-Communist books was either roundly condemned or ignored.” He also commented that the New York Times reviews were almost indistinguishable from those in the communist Daily Worker.
(While You Slept, no longer in print, is available for download as a PDF file from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.)
It has now been 60 years since the publication of Neither Five nor Three, yet the book is still a good read and the information is as relevant as ever. It’s long out of print, of course, but is readily available in used paperback stores and at many libraries, as well as from amazon.com and abebooks.com.
Why do some conservatives wait and hope for the media to change their tone, to begin to treat the conservative viewpoint with at least some small amount of respect or fairness? We will wait and hope in vain. They cannot even acknowledge that conservatives have a viewpoint that is worthy of consideration because they are Marxists, and to a Marxist truth is whatever advances the cause of Marxism. Whatever does not advance the cause of Marxism is an untruth, not to be refuted but suppressed and stamped out.
This is not new news: in fact, we’ve known this about Marxism for many decades. But normal, reasonable people have difficulty receiving the truth about Marxism, even with multiplied evidence, because Marxist reasoning is so foreign to us that we cannot imagine someone thinking that way.
And what is all this talk about civility? Civility, as they define it, only means that conservatives have to be civil to leftists. Leftists are free to say whatever they want about conservatives, because after all, they are right and we are wrong. To be on the left is to be in the right. Get it?
Beats me how people who reject the very idea of absolutes can be so absolutely sure they’re right.
Why do I call them the cockroach media, you ask? They hide from the light and only come out in darkness to spread corruption and disease. When the lights come on, they scuttle back into their hiding places to wait for another round of darkness.
But as Ed Morrissey wrote on the Hot Air site, “As long as poverty and perceived injustice exists, there will be people who believe that the only way to address it is to spread both over the nation equally through government redistribution, and to address poor personal choices with nanny states designed to prevent every bad outcome by mandating mediocrity across the board.”
In other words, there will always be people who try to put two and two together and make them add up to five or three. Could it be that leftism really is a mental illness?
While I have no doubt that the COMINTERN and ideologically allied forces did all they could to infiltrate the mass media in the West — that was Gramsci’s prescription, after all — there’s another factor at work, whose importance has risen steadily over the century behind us: Occupations select for, and filter, those who go into them on the basis of a fundamental predisposition of mind.
The great Marshall Fritz, founder of the Advocates for Self-Government, put a large amount of effort into analyzing and dramatizing this. He started from a simplified version of the Myers-Briggs personality inventory which classified its subject into one of four groups:
–Green: Idea-oriented, motivated primarily by chains of reasoning.
–Brown: Organization-oriented, strongest inclination is to follow established procedures.
–Red: Action-oriented, wants forever to be in motion, doing something.
–Blue: Emotion-oriented, responds most strongly to appeals to emotion.
It is the last of these, the “blues,” that flow into communications-oriented trades, tend to stay there, and dominate them attitudinally.
More often than not, a “blue” will fail to analyze what he sees. Rather, he’ll act on the emotions the scene evokes. That suggests that “blues” will be prone to very shallow deductions, and to repeating their mistakes. So: Show a “blue” a scene from Lincoln Steffens or Jacob Riis, something with plenty of squalor and pathos, perhaps with lots of children, and he’ll want to help…and suddenly, it’s “good intentions uber alles” time.
We know which highway is paved with good intentions, don’t we?
So even those in the communications / media sector who aren’t left-leaning ideologically will have a strong propensity to accept leftist suggestions for how to “help:” namely, take from Smith to “help” Jones (incidentally giving Commissar Davis his turn to grab a fat slice for his “public service”). A “blue” will be indisposed to analyze the scheme further, to puzzle out its dynamics and fundamental moral premises; all that will matter to him is salving the hurt he sees. Combine that response with the steady penetration of the media by genuine Marxists, and you have the recipe for our present age.
Another perspective one might entertain is that the secular view, which automatically eliminates the spiritual view, refuses to acknowledge the reality of eternal reward or punishment as motivations for good and honest conduct.
This is also true of pseudo-spiritual,ie evangelical postures which, like atheist and agnostic notions, deny that ones conduct affects or disaffects his eternity.
Self-assured that he is nothing but a chance collocation of subatomic particles; or that he is immune to Divine wrath, he who supposes himself more clever than the police has absolutely no deterrent from a criminal lifestyle.
Many parents have asked, “But why did my son rape that nun and kill the priest?” And the right answer is, “Because you never taught him what it would cost him to do so.You chose not to teach him about Heaven and Hell.”
Our media members sneer at the notion that one day they will be held to account for their behavior; with eternal implications. They doubt the existence of a God perfect in both justice and mercy. Evangelical religions have conditioned many of them to wrongly suppose that as long as they “trust” God they are free to disobey Him.This is the very essence of mainstream protestantism and it has destroyed our republic.
On its face, let alone when confronted with myriad scripture to the contrary, the silly notion that a single act of simple trust in a faulty proposition ensures ones eternal happiness is absurd. Yet it is the cornerstone of denominationalism. Scripture says, “For you see that a man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE” and the protestant genre says, “Oh, no! Man is justified by faith alone.” So, who is right? God? Or the denominationalists?
Focus on the “alone”. “Alone” means without anything else. Salvation without love; without repentance, without obedience. No sane person so believes; but millions have been brainwashed,eg, the media, into “feeling” that such is the case. A populace, a media, unafraid of the eternal consequences of their behavior is not deterred from lying as they see fit; as they find suitable to their purposes.
Do we want an honest, loving media and populace. Then teach one and all that their eternal destiny is dependent upon their adherence to scriptural commandments.
Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version)
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Your right and wrong. People shouldn’t feel they have the freedom to sin after they have been saved, but you call God a liar and glorify man when you say that salvation is earned through works.
Rather, the lesson to those people (who were acting like being saved was a get out of hell free card) was that their behavior should reflect their new-born nature.
Wow, I guess this is the worst pseudojournalistic article I have ever read. It reminds me more of a textual version of the “Red Dawn” movie, but without the fun. But it is even worse. The paranoid tone of this article culminates in outright fascistic characterizations of the political enemy by comparing them to vermin (which is done most in antisemitic propaganda of all times) and diagnosing them a mental illness. Your aggressive way of doing this reveals quite clearly the will for extermination which lies right under the surface. Disgusting.
“…reminds me more of a textual version of the “Red Dawn” movie…”
Great movie. I especially like the parts where the resistance fighters exterminate communists like the vermin they are.
Thank you, Dave Surls, well stated. Mare
If you are concerned about ‘civility’ then you must really be critical of the MSM since they regularly demonize their political opponents and wish them harm. Of course you neglected to mention that in your morally smug comment.
Your response is exactly what we would expect from someone trying to cover the truth with lies or deception.
Smug, condescending and lacking anything of substance to counter a legitimate argument. When people like you open your mouths or write with your fingers, we have learned to believe exactly the opposite of what you say and write.
Roaches don’t like the light.
Run and hide Steve
You identify yourself, Steve.
Good job, Steve. You burned up the track to get right on over to anti-Semitism and the will for extermination. This was ostensibly an article about the tragic influence of Marxists in the media but you were able to tweeze out the real agenda.
#2 Steve:
Is there a fact in there? Have you read any of the published works cited in order to have a factual knowledge of their veracity or lack of veracity? I’ll be reading them.
“…and diagnosing them a mental illness.”
Pretending to have an intelligent opinion unsupported by current or historical facts or real-world common sense IS a mental illness. Self-delusion, avoidance of reality, and insecure fear of the intellect of real-world, successful people. There is such a thing as being so broad-minded you’re flat-headed.
Steve, your meds ran out agin, right? Doctor warned you about that? If you need another electro-shock treatment to jar your memory, we can arrange for it!
Okay, then, Doctor will see you Thursday at threeand you Will be alert, relaxed and very happy to see him! Got it?
Who cares whether there are Communists or Socialists in media as propagandists for Marxism/Communists? Keep in mind that these “cockroaches” have murdered over 200 million of their own citizens, they are by their very nature wannabe killers. The propagandists for communism suppressed the murder of 8 million Ukrainians in the 1930′s and the New York Times reporter Walter Duranty even won a Pulitzer Prize for hiding this Genocide. The Propagandists in the last Presidential Election hid the past of this President we have now and our country is in trouble because of it, we have a Marxist in the White House now because of the propagandists, the JournaLists and Lenin’s useful idiots. Remember communist have murdered over 200 million of their own citizens and our own Media have helped them.
Right on, Ron. Tell like it is! Only those with their head buried in the sand will not recognize the current Marxist. After all WE MUST BE politically correct(tongue in cheek).
Its not just the Lame Stream Enemedia who are propagandising for the left. Tell me have you ever seen one WWII documentary that does not call the Nazis extreme Right Wingers . So the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party is RIGHT WING yeah right of course they are tat Socialism and Workers thing is just a figment of your imagination. The left uses language indoctrination and euphemism to hide and propagandise and this is especially effective with the young which is why moonbats dominate the Teaching profession and are the majority of College Professors . Get them while they are young before they are mature enough to see through the moonbat left wing stupidity is the lefts motto and its working.
Pragmatist has come close to touching upon a major root of media Marxism. The “Progressives” began as early as the 1930s to infiltrate and eventually dominate academia, so-called “higher education” which has become in most cases (Hillsdale and a few others excepted) advanced indoctrination. The Left has gained control of the most prestigious schools of journalism, which naturally influences the nature of the profession into which they graduate. This is part of the greater phenomenon of an educational establishment at all levels becoming totally dominated by big government, one-world socialist, politically correct adherents. “Academic freedom” is a one-way street, highly tolerant of any left-wing, anti-American expression but totally intolerant in exluding the influence of any proponents of free markets, individual freedom and responsibility, and respect for and adherence to the U.S. Constitution. This has been going on for over 50 years. As a college senior in 1957 I was given this friendly advice from a young government studies instructor: “It’s too bad you’re a conservative; otherwise you could have a fine career in academics.”
The Main Stream Media is filled with Marxists? Say it ain’t so! This is news? I think anyone who jumped on the Obama bandwagon in 2008 pretty much understands this now. Problem is, they can’t admit it because, if they do, they will also have to admit what a failure Obama was. Only another reason why NOT to listen to the Main Stream Media anymore (not that I ever did).
Jenkins’ effort was to describe how the so-called media became dominated by Marxists, and I thought he did a good job at it. I’m seventy-three years old and I remember reading news stories that were so slanted toward communism even I saw it when I was ten or eleven years old. It has gotten worse every decade of my life.
Another tactic used by these “spoiled children”, is to say anything that gets attention. Whether true or not, it does get someone to delve deeper into their dialog, only to find out how shallow and false it truly is.
Sensationalism sells. If it didn’t work, you would never see the tabloids at the checkout lane.
And did you notice how miraculously those toys in the cereal boxes performed?
Most of them tore up or fell apart before you even finished you bowl of cereal!
Hooray!
Someone with influence agrees with me. I’ve been muttering the same things for years.
Forget the word “socialism”. If one were to write that “socialists” were responsible for 100 million deaths in the 20th Century that person were to be judged insane. Substitute “marxism” and it makes sense.
In fact it’s too bad the (European!) authors of The Black Book of Communism didn’t call it The Black Book of Marxism.
Hooray as well! I am not alone with my sentiments. It is wonderful to hear others voice what I have been feeling and saying for many years.
I have not watched ABC, NBC, CBS news for a good ten years. They have become as Pravda or Izvestia to me. I don’t know when they are telling the truth and when they are not. I don’t watch MSNBC either but at least they have the courage to say and act who they are.
Same here. Have not listened to or watched those leftist (Marxist) medias for many, many years (15 years+).
Excellent article. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins!
Journalists have since Athens been the members of society who want to create designs for group ethics. Today we call them “social engineers”. Yesterday they were called “Marxists/Socialists”. Why is this so?
Simple. To generalize, the great majority of those who ‘journalize’ are educated in language arts, psychology, politics, etc. The closest they get to science or mathematic education are the “comprehensive” surveys of the soft sciences (biology, psychology, geology, poli-sci, etc.) in an academia controlled by their own genotype.
They are UNDEReducated in the extreme. They lack rigorous mathematical training and any understanding of physics or molecular chemistry. Fractions, if they can do them, is the closest they ever get to ratiocination, and symbolic logic (not Jesuit …) looks to them like witchcraft. Simply stated, journalist are among the great heap of modern mouth-breathing society that can’t THINK. They believe that the behavior of large populations can be beneficially manipulated by tweaking the few variables they are equipped to recognize out of the myriad that are required even to see that its all just best left alone.
But for the noise and the stink, the faculty lounge and the newsroom are the same.
pelaut,
couldn’t have stated it better myself.
I see Marxists and communists as few and far between in this country. To me the real force is the socialization of reality itself that started in the 60s.
Political Correctness in the fuzzy dogma that suffuses every strata of our society. We are still railing against the 1950s and the very history of America itself which is seen as racist, oppressive, bigoted and conformist.
The great leveler in thought and deed has come to the fore that posits all as equal, even when it’s not. Great forces and mechanisms are brought into play to level an already level playing field and correspondingly, great energies and treasure wasted and the demography of old America happily destroyed.
Political Correctness is back-door Marxism – like Marxism, it divides the world into “poor dears” and “evil oppressors” and excuses the poor dears of any responsibility for their own actions.
This is how Marxists have re-introduced class warfare now that the fall of the Soviet Union – and the success of capitalism – make open talk of economic struggle unpalatable to most.
and self imposed censorship
PC was invented by Stalin-era Communists and quickly adopted in America, but American Marxists had to hide their Marxism behind Liberalism. Scratch an American Liberal and you find a Marxist. Thanks to the wonders of government education, many of them don’t even know that’s what they are.
This is THE story of our age and it is usually central to every article written and posted on every conservative website, even if it is not explicitly stated. Put more succinctly:
Conservatives seek to engage in the public debate and expect their political enemies to do the same. Liberals seek to control the public debate, and expect their political enemies to do the same.
The power to control the framework, boundaries and language of the public debate are all critical to the success of the Liberal Enterprise because it is the only way to prevent the truth about the effects of the Liberal Enterprise – as it is implemented in policy and law – from becoming a “reactionary” force which would gut that Liberal Enterprise and stop it dead in its tracks. The Libs know full well that, once their policies become implemented, if they lose the ability to control the majority of the public debate, they will probably be routed and maybe even destroyed politically.
Understanding this is the starting place for the eventual destruction of the Liberal Enterprise, and it points to a roadmap for action. It also serves to expose RINOs as the feckless, self-serving and timorous and contemptable political hacks they are and why they exist at all.
I don’t believe they are marxists,just useful idiots.Speaking of idiots,listen to Katie Couric speak extemporaneously on any political topic,it is mind numbing.
The MSM are the “Useful Idiots” referred to by Lenin. Only, they are too stupid to realize it.
My favorite writer, George Orwell, wrote two books that explain the Marxist strategerie. In “Animal Farm”, the pigs became the farmer (the alleged oppressor), being “more equal than others”. In “1984″, the protagonist Winston Smith learned to love Big Brother, not by being threatened with death but by being convinced in Room 101 that 2 + 2 is whatever Big Brother says it is.
I see so much of those tactics in the Obama regimes’ political strategerie. The latest major speech on the Libyan “crisis” (a crisis for the Libyan rebels, anyway) was replete with confusing rhetoric, contradictions and maudlin platitudes. Note that Obama did not speak from the Oval Office, but in an academic environment.
The media, of course, marches in lockstep with Obama’s game plan. I would estimate that approximately 20% of Americans actually believe that 2 + 2 is whatever Obama says it is and that robbing Peter to pay Paul is the egalitarian utopia “we’ve been looking for”.
As Orwell pointed out in “1984″, “they (the Party of Big Brother) would declare that two and two are five and if he, Winston, questioned it he would probably be a lunatic and ‘in a minority of one’.”
Well let’s be fair to the President since he doesn’t have the option to resort to mass executions if ‘transforming’ America fails.
Obama has until 2016 at the most to transform us into loving his platform by thrusting the specter of bigotry into our faces.
Since he has already convinced me I AM a bigot, I’m not sure how useful this is.
The people with a destructive mental illness are conservatives who have allowed these insane Marxists to become the ruling class. When will we wake up? When will we regain our sanity and throw ALL evil Marxists out of positions of power or influence?
It’s too late; – the Marxist takeover is unstoppable in the US.
The Bolshevik revolution of 1905-1917 was nowhere peaceful and everywhere quickly morphed into bloody civil wars.
In Russia the Whites, in China Chiang Kai Shek,… in Hungary, in Spain people revolted against the attempted Communist dictatorship.
The US is the only country where people willingly voted for Marxism, populated the entire upper social echelon with radical Marxist ideologues of whom the worst of the worst are reveled as intellectuals like Chomsky, Zinn.
The list is endless.
So where are we now?
No revolution can be stopped during its ascending, incipient state when the Utopian demagoguery still has its magnetism and worshipers.
What happened in E. Europe
Marxism – unlike Mardi Gras which is an all American theme – rooted in Europe, hence our observation deserves some credit.
The Marxist revolution must run its full course until nothing left but the scorched earth.
Please visit E. EU- Russia.
Only when they destroy the economy, the social fabric and national culture will people rise up and sweep these monsters away.
No openly Marxist party exists in those countries (E. EU) where Communist once ruled.
The unknown
After the purge of the Bolsheviks E. Europeans still remained culturally and ethnically homogeneous, that is, the same people.
The US – under the Cultural Marxist policy – is in the process of replacing its population with incongruous, hostile warrior-tribes which is praised as “Diversity” and “Multiculturalism”.
From Merkel .de to Cameron and Sarko .fr the “Multikulti” (sic) is dead.
What the White Russians, Spanish Loyalists, Hungarian Freedom Fighters, etc., realized was not that they had to resist Leftism, but that the resistance must take the form of armed struggle, and victory would ensue only when the Leftist leaders and most of their true-believer followers were dead. Like scorpions, cobras, Black Widow spiders, and similar vermin, Leftists cannot be considered safe after they are ‘stopped’ — they have to be removed. After the last 40 years or so, only a fool could not have noticed that the Left never loses. Whether they lose elections or initiatives, they will get into court, use extra-democratic administrative means, or (their patented favorite) marginalize opponents by smear, threats, boycotts, and lies until no decent person is willing to stand up to them. This is why the Sara Palin take-down is so important. Whether or not it bothers Palin, you can bet there are thousands of people watching, and deciding that the price to their families, careers, even life, is not worth trying to stop Leftism — especially when they know that, short of physically eliminating the Left, there is no lasting victory.
Would you then surmise that their meager reaction to media abuse of the first amendment may be rooted in forgiveness and firmly anchored in security of the second? Consider that they too were overwhelmed by the majority party’s gall exhibited with railroaded action in both houses to force implementation of their leaders alien agenda.
When their silence followed the last POTUS fraudulent election and exponential increase in sales of arms and ammo did you not recognize their alarm?
Destructive mental illness has been described by a prominent psychiatrist as the obvious psychosis of today’s politically left drowning in their party’s sewer of empty futile replies to any sane proposals made by others outside of their small circle of command wherein the fear of retirement loss and being forced to consider their cemetery plots is becoming epidemically endemic.
The sad part is that many on the Right don’t, or won’t, see this. They have to be nice, you understand, and avoid inflammatory rhetoric, sort of like cattle waiting to be slaughtered. The people who are attracted to journalism schools, where they learn to write like sixth graders, are already maladjusted. The schools only worsen the condition. Marxism is just another name for human aggression, the maladjusted see it as, God help us, “making a difference”, “causing change”, and, vomit time, “social justice”.
Government can be, usually is now days, an engine for destruction. The unbalanced media types can and does hold two disparate ideas in the puke that is their minds, Progressivism, only central government can do it, and Pain, if you’re not with them you deserve a little punishment.
And you better believe there’s mental disturbance and hate both combined here. Stupidity doesn’t hurt either if you’re a journalist, look at Katie Couric for example, dumb as a frog.
…look at Katie Couric for example, dumb as a frog.
Insult to frogs everywhere
You write true things, including but not limited to…Marxism is just another name for human aggression, the maladjusted see it as, God help us, “making a difference”, “causing change”, and, vomit time, “social justice”.
leftism’s prongs are wielded by the most devious of the mentally ill and its effects target the weakest elements of humanity
as the article mentions, this problem has been around since the late 19th century and really manifested itself in the early 20th century but the notion of pitting man against man while the very few rule over us all has been around since people have
this is the main reason why our battle against statism will take decades if not more of constant attention
luckily, our constituion still has a second amendment— the statist neutralizer— which will need to remain intact whilst we whittle away at the statist infiltration
…a majority of the members of the mainstream media (I call them cockroach media, but we’ll come back to that later) are socialists in outlook and practice.
I’ve grappled with what to call the crowd of dissemblers, apologists, sycophants and downright liars that permeates America’s so called mainstream media. I’ve borrowed adjectives like entrenched, legacy, lapdog & complaisant to characterize the cabal dominating America’s air and print waves.
None of these phrases has really fit the bill.
…a chilling description of the methods the left used to take almost complete control of a once-noble institution: the American media. By undermining, discrediting, and marginalizing honest reporters, writers, and editors, the left gradually replaced them with people who would oh-so-subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) parrot the Party line.
I guess all these so called writers get trained up in the hallowed halls of America’s institutions of so called higher learning.
…exposed the media bias toward the Chinese communists.
Whether it’s Stalin, Mao or today’s radical Islamists, Marxist media sorts never seem to draw a connection between genocide and the perpetrators of genocide.
Idiotlogues writing in the modern American press and filling up the airwaves (Fareed Zakaria might be the poster child) are modern day versions of Walter Duranty. They must think it’s fashionable to think like Hitler or eugenicists George Bernard Shaw and Margaret Sanger.
Or Barack’s science czar, eugenicist John Holdren.
The penchant for redistribution as a function of their perceived redress of “injustice” is their way of imposing order, which inclination (to ideological tidiness) infests the brain of every Marxist.
Why do I call them the cockroach media, you ask? They hide from the light and only come out in darkness to spread corruption and disease. When the lights come on, they scuttle back into their hiding places to wait for another round of darkness.
Cockroach media is good.
Marxist media works, too.
The sentence that I most agree with is,
“But normal, reasonable people have difficulty receiving the truth about Marxism, even with multiplied evidence, because Marxist reasoning is so foreign to us that we cannot imagine someone thinking that way.”
This especially pops up when I contemplate the Cloward-Piven Strategy; it’s so insane that surely no sane person could believe this! Yet it appears that too many in government, along with their voters, have thoroughly internalized the concept.
Oh well, with a little luck I’ll be long dead before Cloward-Piven comes to fruition. Unless, of course, Barack Obama is reelected in ’12.
This article is absolutely right on. I wrote the following this morning after reading a hit piece on Donald Trump in Forbes by a Hack Marxist Writer by the name of Merrill Matthews which clearly illustrates what this article talks about.
I just finished reading a link to a Forbes article written by a hack by the name of Merrill Matthews which somebody put on my FB Cause which I administer called: Donald Trump for President in 2012, which, by the way is growing in numbers and am getting great responses. A lady in my group by the name of Silvina Castillo put the link on my FB Trump For POTUS page, and it inspired this piece as a reply.
Anyway, the Forbes piece was basically a hatchet job on Trump that only laid out part of what Donald has been saying to the media and elsewhere. As usual, it was a piece written intentionally to steer folks away from Donald Trump as a viable candidate in 2012. The media will be doing even more of this as time goes on as will the DNC and RNC hacks as they see Donald Trump as somebody who is going to mess up their playhouse that they have used to Enrich Themselves while Bankrupting the Rest of Us in the USA.
Any way, here is my piece I wrote today in answer to this Hack Merrill Matthews of Forbes Magazine online:
I just finished reading a Forbes piece written by some Novice Writer by the name of Merrill Matthews who laid out just part of the Trump Plan without the other pieces of the Trump Plan which, taken by themselves would make Donald Trump look foolish in his proposals.
Taking just part of a story and using it out of context is how the Leftist Media and others operate. By just giving an un-informed reader Just Part of the Story that Achieves The Writers Objective of Villifying somebody, you can steer people away from making good choices. This is the Tactic that this Merrill Matthews of Forbes just did on an article he did on Donald Trump.
As Paul Harvey used to say, “Here’s the rest of the story.” Mr. Matthews at Forbes only talked of the of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, which is part of the One World Government Operation that the USA has wrongly been involved with, and Mr. Matthews only talked about the Tarriffs to be imposed on Chinese goods imported into the USA without also talking about what Trump had to say about the Over-Regulation and Over-Taxation in the USA which places our manufacturing concerns and our wage concerns at a great disadvantage with China and the rest of the world that we trade with.
Also, this Matthews Hack Writer even invoked Smoot-Hawley and Linked That To The Great Depression, and implied that what Trump was suggesting was another Smoot-Hawley Act that would lead us to another Great Depression.
This Forbes Piece by This Hatchet Man Matthews, was nothing but Propaganda and Trash being written to Mis-Inform the American Voters or Would Be Voters by Giving you Part of a Story and out of context, and did not tell you the Rest of The Story of Trump’s Plans to Restore American Manufacturing and to Restore America’s Rightful Standing in the World when we will once again be Respected By The Rest of the World, and stop the USA from being the laughing stock of the world which we are right now with this Stooge Obama at the Helm as POTUS.
So, here is the Rest of My Reply to Mr. Merrill Matthews at Forbes and other Hatchet Men and Women of the Lame Stream Media and of the DNC and From the RINOs as well.
Thanks Silvina for posting this. And, this is the kind of Reporting you will begin to see as the RINOs, DEMs, Socialists, Communists and other Anti-Truth groups begin to try and stop Trump, West, Palin, Bachmann or anybody else who threatens to break up the Scam that we currenlty call Bi-Partisan Politics being played out by DEMS and RINOS. What this Merrill Matthews piece does not point out are other things that Trump is talking about doing to bring back our manufacturing base in this country. He is also talking about getting rid of a whole lot of the Needless and Senseless Reglations that are now placed on our own Manufacturing Companies that cost U.S. businesses billions and billions annually in costs that do not make for a better product, a safer product or to do anything to protect workers or the environment. but only make for more and more bureuacrats and higher prices on goods and services and lower wages for workers. In short, most manufacturing concerns in the USA have to spend billions annually to Produce Nothing But Paperwork to Satisfy a U.S. Government Bureaucracy, State Bureaucracies that Mimic the Feds and Local Bureaucracies that get in on the game at any level they can. Cutting out Un-Necessary Regualtions and Restritctions would put billions into businesses and then businesses would grow, earn more profits and produce cheaper products and pay workers better. And, the other side of the Trump Program, is to lower Corporate Taxes. We already have higher Corporate Taxes than anyother country in the world, even the communist nations of the world. The reason that our corporations left the country to manufacture goods elsewhere is because we have allowed a congress and numerous presidents to Regulate and Tax Our Companies Out of Business and have Driven Them Out of The Country. So who cares about the World Trade Organization, which is but one more Nefarious Group that the USA should Resign From It has been through the WTO that we have wound up with such lousy Trade Deals to begin With as the WTO has developed schemes to make the USA re-distribute our wealth to Developing Nations such as China, India, et. Al. So, Silvina and others, expect Hatchet Jobs such as this Forbes piece to continue to try and Trump Mr. Trump’s chances before he has a chance. We, the People cannot let that happen.
The subversion happened so long ago that in today’s modern Make Believe Media, the “journalists” believe they are patriotic Americans. I doubt more than a handful would admit to even being socialist, no matter marxist.
These people are three or more generations removed from the communist architects who captured the media, even before Cronkite was king. To them, they aren’t even ideological, they simply are objective Americans who are much more compassionate than us hopeless rubes. Marxism isn’t in their blood. Marxism IS their blood. They aren’t even hypocrites, they are brainwashed drones. The brainwashing is long removed from needing encouragement or direction. It is now something that every journalist must accept to even be considered for a job in the MBM.
I think you are pretty much correct. But Marxists are not defined by the label they apply to themselves; they are defined by the principles they believe and practice.
Agreed. Marxist ideologues by principles and practice,
Great article David! But you didn’t take the next step in your logic. Obama became President ENTIRELY because of support from the cockroach media. Two years before the last presidential election no one had heard of this obscure Senator from Illinois. His name recognition was probably in the low teens. He had achieved absolutely nothing in his life. And as a “community organizer” he had to appeal to Marxists as one of their own. Now, is there any possibility that the media will allow him to be defeated in 2012? Of course not!
Civilizations fail when their institutions become weak and shatter. Rome’s military self-destructed and purchased barbarians to defend the Empire. Hitler co-opted the educational, military and business elites before destroying the continent of Europe in just a few years. What about the “American civilization” today?
Begin with the educational institution. It has been dumbed down to the point that we celebrate the fact that children graduating from high school can’t read and count! The university campuses have more anthropologists and sociologists then scientists and engineers. The entertainment elite is reflected by the drug-sodden Charlie Sheen. These have become heros in our culture and set the fashion for new generations.
Barrack Obama will be re-elected in 2012. He will be supported by 100% of the Black voters, 70% of Hispanics and over 80% of the youth voters. The media will make sure of this, without a doubt.
And there is no way to stop the implications of this event. The end of America as we know it! Pity!
I am not so sure. But Americans who love our Nation and believe in OUR Constitution MUST stand up and be counted in the vote to preserve the Union that our Founding Fathers visioned. I live in a black community and I hear much disgruntling among the blacks re: the policies of The ‘O’. Some blacks may still vote for him but not all. ‘O’ has been politicing since he got into office, subverting the Constitution by executive orders and CZARS, destroying the economy with his Marxist ideologies. This is what must be shown to Latinos and Blacks – destruction of our freedoms and consequently our HOPES and DREAMS of ‘making’ it.
Not disputing anything you’ve written, but the Marxist infiltration of the media (as well as other institutions of society) goes way back. Read Zeman & Scharlau, The Merchant of Revolution, the life of Alexander Israel Helphand (Parvus), out of print but available in some libraries; Warren Lerner, Karl Radek, the Last Revolutionist, also oop I believe; or Sean McMeekin, The Red Millionaire, a biography of Willi Muenzenberg; or Steven Koch Double Lives.
The genius of Lenin and other revolutionists is that while they aspired to violent overthrow of the established order, they realized that their aims (power)could eventually be attained by infiltration and subversion of the established order — focusing on intellectuals and the media.
The Left is getting so bold that Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC openly stated that he is a Socialist. Marxist propositions are asserted by Democrats to justify their legislation, particularly ObamaCare. I would also recommend Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarians and Orwell’s 1984. We will see that today’s Democrats/Liberals/Progressives and indeed the new Totalitarians.
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/01/democrats-are-totalitarians-control-is-their-solution-to-loughner.html
You left a lot up in the air, Mr. Jenkins.
This subject really is far more complex than can be covered in a blog-posting, because you would have to cover the infiltration of ComIntern agents into academia…they did so in the UK with the Cambridge and Oxford spy rings, why would they not have run parallel operations here?
You would have to cover their interest in the US civil rights movement, (fishing troubled waters), their support for feminism and “Gay Rights”, their promotion of ecology as a fetish, (co-opting the broad mass appeal of what was once called “conservation”), and their betrayal of the American proletariat by turning unions into state-subsidized organs for political advancement of Marxist goals.
If you seek to capsule this thing, all you really need to do is point out that all that Senator Joseph McCarthy was doing in his heyday was pointing out that people who had overt or covert pro-Soviet or pro-Chinese Communist leanings should not be employed by the Federal government.
That’s all that he did…an administrative personnel exercise…and look what the MSM has done to him for DECADES because of it.
The propaganda around the term “McCarthyism” has come to mean something akin to witch-burning, or the Spanish Inquisition, instead of merely causing Federal bureaucrats with demontsrated disloyalty to the nation to lose their jobs.
“Blacklisted by History”, a book by M. Stanton Evans, chronicles McCarthy’s sisyphian attempt to reveal the extent to which Soviet and ComIntern agents infiltrated the US Dept. of State and other federal agencies.
There were democrat-socialists in the US Congress who did everything they could to shut McCarthy up, as did Truman (who was not the anti-communist the American left prortrays him as).
McCarthy was literally destroyed by the American leftist/Marxists. If the American right would just wake up and see the danger that a socialist in the White House presents to America, we’d be much better off. The RINOs are just as bad as the socialists.
Great comments by you and Bilgeman.
I think Ike was a little squirrely where McCarthy was concerned, though I couldn’t give you the particulars just now.
Joe Sobran once observed that “McCarthyism” at one point meant falsely accusing someone of being a communist but now it means describing someone as a communist who actually is a communist.
Marxist Social Justice and Taxation, a short primer:
1. The reckless must receive assets from the careful.
2. The dumb must receive assets from the smart.
3. The addicted or drunk must receive assets from the sober.
4. The unlucky must receive assets from the lucky.
5. The gambler must receive assets from the investor.
6. The lazy must receive assets from the energetic.
7. The weak must receive assets from the strong.
8. The spender must receive assets from the saver.
9. The lecher must receive assets from the chaste.
10. The sick must receive assets from the well.
11. Etc.
The operative word is MUST. The government is a pseudocharity. The successful and the virtuous MUST pay.
Speaking as one who has labored in the belly of the beast, I can say that while a few mainstream journalists may well be Marxists, the vast majority are not. They are, however, a class of people with relatively high IQs and relatively low emotional IQs. In other words, they’re glib and even articulate in some cases, but have no judgment. They “think” with their emotions, and in most cases they know almost nothing about the “real” world of economics, markets, payrolls. They’re not actual Marxists, but their nature and ignorance predispose them to side with those who claim to be acting and speaking for “the people.” Most would scoff at the idea, and rightly so, that they would favor a Stalin-style or Castro-style government. But most favor the “social democracy” of Europe because they think that “social justice” is a good idea. What they totally fail to understand is that the farther you go toward “social justice,” the farther down the road you get toward Stalinville. Many of these illuminati will be among the most shocked and disappointed if and when they find themselves living in the “utopia” they helped bring about.
This is an acute diagnosis and, in my limited experience with American academia, I tend to agree with it. However it is worth pointing out that the “Europe” that American “liberals” have in mind is very different from the real thing. In the real Europe, there is:
* no Keynesian nonsense about the stimulus;
* comparatively few unregistered immigrants, and those who are here do not get social benefits (afaik);
* abortion policies decided democratically at the state level, rather than by the European Court of Justice for the whole continent;
* photo IDs required to vote.
This is all what comes to mind at the moment.
That is NOT to say that there are no problems with social democracy: all what I am saying is that social democracy would be a much worse disaster with Keynesian policies and open borders.
“Many of these illuminati will be among the most shocked and disappointed if and when they find themselves living in the “utopia” they helped bring about.”
Nah, not really. Most of them will just blame a useful foil. Socialism would have worked if only XXX hadn’t done XXX. Jean-Francois Revel dwells on this topic in great detail in his English-translated book ‘Last Exit to Utopia’, where he contemplates the French Left’s stubborn refusal to disparage communism even 20 years after its European implosion.
It’s a faith-based religion without an agreed on house of worship or codified dogma.
It rejects empiricism in favor of spiritual cultures that dodge disease ridden cow pies on the way to bathe next to dead bodies in a holy river.
phantomorphan:
“Many of these illuminati will be among the most shocked and disappointed if and when they find themselves living in the “utopia” they helped bring about.”
Indeed. “Social Justice” is supposed to be gained at OTHER PEOPLE’S expense.
Enjoy:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/08/health-care-speechwriter-for-edwards-obama-and-clinton-doesnt/
Prior to the chanting of “Barack Hussein Obama, mmm mmm mmm”, children in Italy were taught to chant “Mussolini, la la la”. You can hear a recording of “Mussolini, la la la” by obtaining a copy of A&E’s Biography DVD, “Mussolini: Italy’s Nightmare”.
In addition to the soundtrack of “Mussolini, la la la”, you might also be interested in the biography’s description of Mussolini’s emotional need to copy his father’s Communist beliefs. If you compare what we know about Obama’s childhood with Mussolini’s childhood, it is obvious that there is a parallel.
In the documentary, “The Weather Underground”, that is also available on DVD, you will learn that the women of the Weather Underground were expected to provide free sex to their fellow Communists regardless of their preference for any particular participant of the Weather Underground. During the time period that Ms. Dunham conceived Barry, that sexual “duty” was considered to be what good revolutionary women were supposed to do.
Mussolini’s father married Mussolini’s mother but was notorious for his numerous lovers. Mussolini never received the fatherly love that he needed. Is Barry Obama biologically an Obama? I doubt it. I don’t believe that Barry’s Communist mother knew who the biological father of Barry was. However, just like Mussolini, Barry was raise on the Communist dreams from his “fathers”.
Mussolini became a Communist journalist as a young man but was converted by members of the Establishment into being a Fascist. George Soros is a Transnational Fascist. We are still living in the Age of Fascism. We have arrived at the transnational phase of fascism. Obama is the first elected Fascist to make it clear that his loyalty is to the world and not to his country.
I think more importantly, much of the Media have become embedded in the political structure of the Democratic Party and the Western Left. They are not the “Main Stream Media” since they fall out of the mainstream politically and culturally. They are really the Establishment Media and work to support the Democrat/Left media — call them that, or perhaps “DEM” — Democrat Establishment Media.” As such they work as the free propaganda arm of the Dem/Left, and there is a media-government revolving door between DEM and Democratic power interests. Many “spokespersons” in the Obama, Admin, for example, come from DEM and others who started off in the Obama Admin end up in the Establishment Media. They are thoroughly corrupt and can see their primary mission as supporting and advancing their side, not reporting the news to us all.
How I thought this article was going to give some actual history! Alas it was not to be.
First of all Socialists are not Marxists, Norman Thomas six times the Socialist candidate for President made that clear many times. The Communist party in America was the left wing split from the Socialist party in 1919. The left wing was more willing to use violence. That Communist party supported Russia and the Revolution, and while some socialist did also, in the end they did not.
You could have pointed out that Karl Marx was the European correspondent for the New York Tribune, and whose editor was an avid reformer on left wing lines, who used his paper as a cudgel, and who founded the Liberal Republican party and he was quite taken with Fourierism, a Utopian movement out of France. You could have mentioned Herbert Croly and his parents and The New Republic, named specifially because Croly was looking for a new republic, a deliberate moving away from the old.Or you could have noted Walter Duranty who deliberately covered up the Ukraine starvation and genocide by the Soviets, who then got a Pulitzer for his reporting. Something the Times has refused to humbly give back and repent for.
There is so much good historical information that could have been drawn on, and wasn’t. You could have drawn the difference between socialism and Marxism, but you didn’t. Americans are likely to embrace Marxism, but we’ve been going down the path of socialism for over a hundred years now, since about the time of the social gospel, and that could have also been noted. Alas none of it was done. Instead this is an indescribably bad article with no real information.
Too bad.
If you really want the history of what this article addresses, you might want to read one of the books that examined the USSR’s files on the Communist Party in the U.S. which was made public after the Soviet Union collapsed. One recent book is “Dupes”, which also combines the documents with FBI files of the era and other documents (copies of documents in the back of the book), with a narrative that covers the period from 1917 to the present, since the players are still with us.
The USSR died, but the push for a Marxist Utopia on a world-wide scale is very much alive in such movements as Environmentalism, and the need to destroy a culture continues apace via the Communist organization ACLU and other well-funded nihilist organizations. An objective media would have exposed all of this instead of covering for the destroyers.
Combatting the old media and gaining ground are FOX News/Fox Business News and internet-based investigative journalists, all three non-existent until the late 1990′s. We also read foreign newspapers and see the massive failure of the socialist model of economics. FOX ratings and Drudge Report’s monthly ‘hits’ speak for themselves; Americans are finally able to see the truth. Breitbart’s new book is a great primer on taking back the media from the Marxists and their Dupes.
Sorry you didn’t like it, Mr. Citizen. The topics you describe would take many articles. You seem very knowledgeable, so why don’t you write and submit them? I’m sure the editors at Pajamas Media would be receptive. Meanwhile, I said what I meant to say with the 1200 or so words at my disposal. If I have triggered thoughtful responses such as yours, I have succeeded.
Socialists are Marxists, so let’s call them what they are: Marxists.
I almost stopped reading after this simplistic remark. (Which would have been a pity, because by reading further, I found a link to a publication of the John Birch Society, which I guess explains everything.)
Mr. Jenkins, have you ever talked to a self-defined Marxist? I suppose not, because if you did, you’d have noticed that they think differently from American “liberals”, and also very differently from British self-defined socialists.
Mind you, compared to me, most Republicans are socialist; but still, I have more respect for the self-declared Marxists I met before the fall of the USSR, than I have for “liberals”. Why? well, for one thing, most of the Marxists have taken note of the failure of the Soviet model and have stopped calling themselves Marxists. Contrast that with “liberals” still stuck in the failed policies of the past.
But Mr. Jenkins, too, seems stuck in the past, still trying to fight the last war, and trying to explain a concept Americans understand, “liberalism”, by reference to a concept few of them understand, Marxism.
So what if “liberals” supported communism? (which, incidentally, is not quite the same as Marxism.) Now they support Islamism: does that mean that they are Islamists?
From afar it’s almost humorous to read an American interpretation of Marxism.
From kindergarten to old age we (E.Europeans) were obligated to learn Marxism and all its variants like Trotskysm, Leninism, Mao-ism, Engels, Hegel, Bukharin, Stalin etc….with each new leaders the same ideology was “re-interpreted”.
Example: Fidel and Raul’s “re-interpretation” of the same Communism.
We could teach the whole US Leftist Media about the foundations of “Dialectical Materialism” which sounds Greek for the N.Y. Times’ pundits.
Juggling with labels
As the Red Terror and the economical devastation became public knowledge, all the yesterday’s Communists suddenly shed their erstwhile affiliation and its symbols and took up innocuous, benign sounding monikers like
democrats, social-democrat, “humanist” greens, liberals etc.
Only Western people would swallow these bs. because they never saw the inside of the True Hell a.k.a. Marxism.
“In a letter to C. Schmidt on 5 August 1890, Marx’s fellow-author Friedrich Engels wrote: “As Karl Marx used to say about the French “Marxists” in the 1870s, ‘All I know is that I am not a Marxist.’”
From afar it’s almost humorous to read an American interpretation of Marxism.
Yes, that is what I thought too. I am European and I live in Eastern Europe, you see…
We could teach the whole US Leftist Media about the foundations of “Dialectical Materialism” which sounds Greek for the N.Y. Times’ pundits.
Exactly, and that is why American “liberals” are not Marxists.
Even British socialists are not Marxists: try to explain historical materialism to one of them, and see how he reacts.
As the Red Terror and the economical devastation became public knowledge, all the yesterday’s Communists suddenly shed their erstwhile affiliation and its symbols and took up innocuous, benign sounding monikers like
democrats, social-democrat, “humanist” greens, liberals etc.
Social democrats existed long before Leninism, and social democrats, even French socialists, have been pretty consistently anti-communist.
But I did give the impression that Marxists have changed label only. That is not true. The Italian “left” in the last 20 years have made most of the free-market reforms, Berlusconi has been an obstacle to reform.
And I bet that the Tea Party would be pretty happy with the way the Spanish Socialist government is dealing with the crisis (and I mean it seriously).
C’mon, Snori, you’re obfuscating by making distinctions without differences. Marx himself, the father of it all, said that socialism is only an intermediate stage along the road to communism. And Whitaker Chambers, who was certainly in a position to know, said that liberalism is “communism lite.”
you’re obfuscating by making distinctions without differences.
It takes some chutzpah to claim that I am the one guilty of obfuscating.
You have not answered the question: have you ever talked to a real Marxist? but actually you do not need to answer: if you cannot tell the difference wrt a “liberal”, then you have not talked to Marxists long enough.
Marx himself, the father of it all, said that socialism is only an intermediate stage along the road to communism.
It seems to me that you are confusing socialism and communism as ideologies, with socialism and communism as systems of government. Here is a hint: the “communist” countries were communist in ideology, but by their own admission they were socialist systems of government.
FYI socialism as an ideology was born in France long before the Communist Manifesto.
And Whitaker Chambers, who was certainly in a position to know, said that liberalism is “communism lite.”
That might have been true at the time. Today, to say that “liberalism” is socialism, is to UNDER-estimate the problem.
Mr. Godhi, I am by profession a documentary photojournalist. I spent time in Eastern Europe in the spring of 1990, beginning just three months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, interviewing people and making photographs for a documentary about the reasons for the collapse of the Wall and the opening of Eastern Europe. I visited East Germany, Yugoslavia (before its division), Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and Russia. A highlight of the trip was attending an actual meeting of the Underground Church in Moscow.
I first read Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law” in 1964, and have since read on the subject of his life and times. I am certainly aware of the socialism extant in his day. So please don’t presume my ignorance.
My article was a 1200-word blog post, not a book explaining in fine detail the various permutations of collectivist philosophy. I am sure you could write an article, or possibly a series of articles on this subject, and I expect the PJM editors would welcome the opportunity to publish such an article or series.
My intention was to demonstrate as succinctly as possible that this collectivist philosophy, and especially its communist manifestation, was actively trying to seize control of the American media many years ago, that this attempt was known to many at the time (but widely disregarded), and that it has been largely successful.
There have been many other factors in play, as various commenters have ably set forth. I do think, though, that any comment which seeks to underestimate or understate the fact of a conscious conspiracy (Oh no! The C-word!) by the left to take over the American media is naive, at best.
In any case, none of those comments (many worthy of being an article of their own) diminishes the facts or the force of my article.
Oh I see.
The problem isn’t marxism. The problem is Americans’ naeve interpretations of the brilliant dogma.
Some people will happily allow themselves to be killed as long as they can feel intellectually and morally superior to their executioners.
this is exactly the problem when you use terms like socialist, marxist, stalinist, communist, et al…
it gives the smoke screeners fuel to muddle everything up
we need to simplify the language— less government versus more government–
the specific mumbo jumbo that differentiates all these lefty operations is what the elitists circle jerk to in their cocktail parties and faculty lounges
statism very neatly throws all these central planners in the same bucket (where they all belong) and derails attempts to discredit by ignoring the arbitrary specifics between
you believe that the government should be in place to plan and organize from the top down?———>STATIST
Yes! statism vs anti-statism, that is a fundamental dichotomy in politics.
Some would say it is THE fundamental dichotomy, but I think there is one even more important: realism vs utopianism. The trouble with “liberals” is that they are even more utopian than true Marxists (even if they are no more statist, and probably less). Bismarck was a realist statist: that is why his welfare system survived 2 world wars and is still working. Lenin was more statist than Bismarck, but enough of a realist to found an empire that lasted 7 decades. The 3rd Reich was much shorter lived.
Reagan was a realist anti-statist (and so am I, though I am not going to have the same impact as Reagan). Too many libertarians today are utopian.
But you have to make a clear distinction between the dichotomies that you use to understand what is going on; and the dichotomies created for propaganda purposes, to prevent you from understanding what is going on, eg “left” vs “right”.
We are living within a continuation of the Age of Mussolini. Obama is merely the new figurehead for the Transnational Phase of the Age of Mussolini. During Mussolini’s time, large corporations still had national loyalties (even if they were invested in more than one nation). General Electric was a loyal American company in 1926. In 2011, GE and Obama are loyal “Citizens of the World”.
Corporative State: An “economic system inaugurated by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy. It was adapted in modified form under other European dictatorships, among them Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist regime in Germany and the Spanish regime of Francisco Franco. Although the Italian system was based upon unlimited government control of economic life, it still preserved the framework of capitalism. Legislation of 1926 and later years set up 22 guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy. These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes, and they served to combat socialism and syndicalism by absorbing the trade union movement. The Italian corporative state aimed in general at reduced consumption in the interest of militarization.”
Please see: [www.answers.com]
Frederick by Leo Lionni: a prime example of the corruption of the arts for little people. Give me the child until he is seven…
The little mice gather their winter food, all except Frederick, who lazes about “gathering” stores for the eyes. You know, round brown nuts and sun-glowed wheat and rosy plump berries aglow on the vine – all the many-colored feasts his mental cupboards can hold.
Come winter, the mice have enough just enough food for every mouse to survive the frozen dark, except that there really isn’t just enough, because there is Frederick Jean-Jacques Rousseau to be fed and he didn’t gather the kind of food that can fill an empty stomach. Just pretty pictures to delude all the empty-bellied mice who have been culture-vultured into allowing their very own parasite To Get Away With It.
The author stops the story there; it would be upsetting to small children to show all the wee dear mousies disintegrating into bones and frozen fur.
Including the layabout himself, I hope.
In the New York Pravda (aka NYT), the Washington Izvestyia (aka WaPost), the New TASS’s (aka AP/Reuters), as well as all the other commie “press” (like the Commie News Network – CNN, MSLSD, and all three letter dirty networks) one can only read stories which advanced the commies’ cause; and they’re written in such a way as to inflict maximum damage to the non-commie enemy.
Welcome to the New World, the new Post-American form of ‘democrassy’ run by the neo-fascistas/communistas/obamistas of ACORN/SEIU. Enjoy it Americanos, they say you voted for it (‘the fundamental transformation’ of America that is).
@Steve:
You are so smart! I just love to read your comments. You must be in a leadership position somewhere.
He’s our leader at ACORN Democrassy Inc., and vice admiral of its yellow submarine fleet.
Molotov cocktails was a name given to the device by the Finns in 1940.The reason is obvious.
I agree that the goals of the mainstream media amount to a type of socialism but I see it as being far less formal in its genesis than others; it is not an organized dogma in the traditional sense and in fact in many ways is very fuzzy and unfocused.
Without the general idea among baby boomers that their parents were basically conformist and racist morons there is no counter-culture, cultural revolution or socialist ideas based on inequalities against minorities, women, etc.
A style of commercial illustration didn’t die out in the mid-1960s because of communism. Marvel Comics didn’t overtake DC Comics by introducing verisimilitude in the 60s because Stan Lee was a Red. In the 50s and early 60s American TV was divorced from the real world in small ways that are lost in time today; paper money was noticeably fake in scenes, music on a transistor radio was never actual pop songs, real news outlets were never portrayed but made up ones, towns on TV favored fake names. The conformist skeleton in the closet had to be destroyed and outsiders who couldn’t get in by posing as those who didn’t want to like Ginsberg, Burroughs and Frank did their work.
What does that mean? It means that the new culture wanted one overarching thing: it wanted a ‘real’ story to come into our lives, not a glossy, manufactured one. All things previously ignored or prohibited were to come to the fore. By the late 60s film, TV and music in America had changed dramatically. Inclusiveness became the watchword in terms of blacks, gays, cursing, police brutality and the whole nine yards and what happened behind the curtain became not only a new view of reality but one that would come to dominate American culture as anything out in the open was considered a shill and success a front for corrupt and racist values.
It is largely forgotten now that one of the things that so startled people when “American Graffiti” came out in 1973 was the simple fact that it was saturated with real, actual songs; it wasn’t so much what those songs were but that they were recognizable as part real American life.
“The French Connection” (1971) made such a splash at the time because of its gritty ‘real’ depiction of police undercover work replete with corruption and racism – it was style over substance but quite a nice style at the time. Today that style is unseen because it is taken for granted by young people and they are left only with the story which they find not all that interesting and the style perhaps even quaint.
“The Night Stalker” (1972) became one of the most popular made-for-TV movies ever because of little things like showing police behave as they might really behave. Attention to detail became a big seller and “Star Wars” (1977) cashed in on that big time.
“All In the Family” made a huge impact on TV by purposefully addressing all that had not been addressed before and attacking barriers; its subject matter was an irrelevance in a sense, meant only to convey a new sheriff in town. All these things existed, not as their own point of view, but as a reaction against another point of view.
In this very real sense, the popularity of mass media became divorced from its subject matter and verisimilitude became a co-star. TV shows like “Our Miss Brooks”, “Leave It To Beaver” and “Gunsmoke” were strangled victims of this new zeitgeist, never to be re-visited – even the most family oriented shows in the future would have to have the token episode about abortion or wife beating. What had been ignored became important, not because of what it was but simply because it HAD been ignored by the preceding generation, swept under a rug or sanitized. Reality itself is what became socialized and dogma had nothing to do with it.
Today in America we are living every day with the effects of that revolution which has yet to be reacted against in any real way. It is taken for granted that anything that was ignored or hidden in the 1950s was something to that was hated and oppressed and so needed to be brought out into the open and nurtured, loved and given a set of crutches so it could never happen again. There were certainly good that came of this but the lack of discriminating between what was good and bad wrecked the whole thing right at the start as everything was either included or thrown out by association rather than by what it was.
Those unwanted are now the stars in our society and it little matters if they are criminals or morons and the imagined stereotype of who it was who did the hiding are the most chided and taken to task and that is the white American male, who is seen to be the source of all sins and inequality in America’s past and so America’s story has come to be rejected as one with virtually no redeeming social value, no past history that can be learned from other than to not do it if our parents did.
Even a person born in 1985 is suffused with this value system because it has gone unchallenged since it happened. Anyone who challenged it at the time became the ignored and careers destroyed, forms of art an endangered species. What I am talking about coalesced into political correctness which is an entity that is a monstrous form of politeness and reality itself a giant cocktail party where nothing untoward about people is allowed to be expressed or even thought about no matter how obvious.
Everything negative is relegated to the realm of racism, bigotry or misogyny and still squarely laid at the feet of white men as if they have a culture that is endemic to them – only by demonstrably divorcing oneself from these stereotypes can a man have any credibility in American media and it is no coincidence that the most cherished vision of a male on such a thing as the Oprah Winfrey show is basically a woman with a penis.
In the end, this has led, not to a great awakening of truth and reality, but a hiding of those things and a rearrangement of reality that is delusional. We in America today do the equivalent of calling each other ‘comrade’ and show our loyalty to our party by subtle and not so subtle signs that shows that we are firmly against any backslide into the 1950s which is something it is odd to rail against 50 years after the fact. A new conformity has taken hold that is worse than the old because the old had a lot of common sense based in real observations while the new is based almost entirely on faith that all is equal.
Double standards abound: it is taken for granted that black kids MUST be allowed to study with white kids because that is where success resides and so must be shared and lawsuits have affirmed this ‘idea’. One would assume using the exact same reasoning that there must be something wrong in the NFL and NBA if they are dominated by blacks and so the mechanism by which this happens must be studied, measured and taken apart by law to level the playing field; needless to say it is not even considered. Don’t look for suburban white kids to be bussed to black playgrounds so they can have a better chance of getting a college basketball scholarship any time soon; the idea that white people, mostly men, can in any way be discriminated against is considered laughable.
Although it is 2011, we in America are still dismantling structures or giving out crutches according to 1960 standards. The socialization of reality goes far beyond dogma but is now endemic in virtually every strata of society and the 1950s still being punished and spat upon as is the very history of America itself. Little wonder that those most responsible for America’s success are now the most philosophically marginalized or that success itself now has a taint to it and failure an air of morality.
This would not be so if the evil of the 1950s was true but incompetence will always result in failure and that is why failure continues to have such moral traction in our new reality which destroys perception ranging from the Palestinian Arabs to black and Latino value systems to confused transvestites or any entity that uses oppression as an excuse for the failure implicit in the way that entity actually behaves.
The ‘racist hunters’ of America like Soledad O’Brien, Ward Churchill, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and so many others will never run out of prey because they don’t need reality; in their minds it will always be 1957 and this fascist dictatorship of the proletariat will destroy America in order to make it fully realize itself as a nation of social justice.
Today we still strive to make a country that is the exact opposite of the people who inhabited “Our Miss Brooks” which is to say stupid and racist white people. Our new TV shows, fully tokenized with every member of the United Nations combined with the Rainbow Coalition, are what we want our country to be like, no matter how much we have to engineer, mold, shape or ignore reality. American socialism is a culture, one wherein we steal from those with rich and successful value systems and give to those with poor and debauched value systems because it is implicit in this new reality that if people are not equal then there MUST be a reason behind it not to say a white European.
To me the great failure in all this is to assume that movies, TV and music in the 1950s were a reflection of reality. Yes they were sanitized but not because our parents were morons but because they had enough of ‘reality’ in the ‘real’ world and there were plenty of expressions of racism, vulgarity and hatred and World War II and the Great Depression were much closer in time to them the they are today to us.
Certainly there were a lot of problems with that society as Jim Crow and the Vietnam War demonstrate but there was no reason to throw the whole thing over. The secretive conformity that we are still so terrified of has been replaced by an even worse conformity that is demographically and legally reducing America to ashes. Even Miss Brooks didn’t do that.
The Bible says that evil spirits of demons coming out of the mouths of the devil, the beast and the false prophet are like ‘frogs’ (noisy hypocrite) which gather the rulers of the world to war against the God’s people. (Revelation 16)
Leftist media exists owing to its need in the masses:Western welfare state pays farmers,scientists,office employees.Leftists are the majority of artists,unskilled workers and non-white minorities.There are big bysinesses that are interested in this state and there are oligarchs like Soros and all that public need this media as the fish fresh water.Marxism is still respectable in social sciences(together with Eurocentrism).America (before Obama) was the unique state where the gainfully employed population oppose the socialist propaganda.
Dave: please call me Snorri. I use a nom de plume, and Godhi is not a family name. (You can find the original Snorri Godhi in Eyrbyggja Saga and other sagas of Icelanders.)
I apologize for my tone, but this is just my style. If I implied your ignorance, that was about a very specific topic, namely the relationship between “liberalism”, Marxism, and socialism. I am willing to stipulate that the latter is a superset including “liberalism” and Marxism, but not all sets in a superset are identical. (That is the fallacy of the undistributed middle, I believe.) Yet you have explicitly identified socialism with Marxism. Incidentally, even if true, that would not help, unless you also identify the specific aspects of Marxism which are useful to understand “liberalism”.
But that is just friendly criticism, as friendly as my caustic style allows. As for the Soviet attempt to infiltrate the Western media: I have heard the allegation before, and am strongly inclined to believe it: they would, wouldn’t they?
But linking to an article (on a JBS site!) that claims that Pearl Harbor was itself a conspiracy involving the FDR administration, is, to put it mildly, not the best way to support this claim.
And anyway, as I said in a previous comment, it would actually be better if the US media had been infiltrated by real Marxists: like their fellow travelers in the Italian and French communist parties, they’d have taken note of the collapse of the Soviet model, and moved on. Instead, the infiltrators seem to be as deranged as ever.
Thank you for letting me know that PJM considers unsolicited contributions, maybe I’ll try my hand at this.
Snorri, I don’t use a nom-de-plume. For those who deeply disagree with my ideas, my home is defended by Mssr. Smith and Wesson.
There is a good deal of evidence, and not just from the Birchers, that Roosevelt was indeed aware of the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor but I don’t care to debate that here.
Likewise, I don’t care to debate the fine shades and labels of collectivist mentalities and activities. You are apparently an expert on those matters and you write well, so you should write about them.
My son (a better writer than I) submitted an unsolicited article which was accepted by PJM a few years ago, so I decided to try my hand as well and have now had three pieces published on this site. He doesn’t write here any longer, as they don’t pay the rates he is used to receiving.
Other than that, as we say in America, “Come on in! The water’s fine!”
Dave, while it has never been corroborated that Roosevelt knew Pearl would be attacked, and while I also doubt it, I think he desired and expected an attack somewhere, and soon. If not, there certainly is precedent for one U.S. President engineering an attack. Abe Lincoln engineered circumstances so that the Confederate States fired on the Federal States at Fort Sumter. That’s a well documented matter of the victors failing to conceal the truth, as they usually do.
You could call them Marxists, but to be thorough one should go back to Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’, and the Jacobins of the First Republic. Have another look at ‘Social Contract’, the scope of JJ’s ‘general will’. That was 1760, K. Marx was born 1818. The First Republic was fermenting in Marx brain, and Blanqui’s at the Second Republic and the Paris Commune. Lenin carried a red banner from the Commune into Moscow in 1917. Without the ‘sturm und drang’, ‘don’t think, feel’, movement of Rousseau, Marxists couldn’t have abandoned the hegemony of reason in their counter-enlightenment movement. Re-visiting ‘Emile’ is useful for understanding the domination of academia by these ‘Jacobins’ as well.
Mike1 – NBC,CBS,ABC “I don’t know when they are telling the truth and when they are not”. If their lips are moving they are lying. Comment | Reply
Dave! You undestand nothing.Your conspiracy theories are wrong! You westerners understand nothing in Marxism, otherwice you wouldn`t have Obama.
You Americans,considerable part of you(see my previous comment)are leftist by their living position and the Media help them!
Upon mutually concluding in 1877 that anyone that did not agree with their communist dogma was “politically incorrect,” Karl Marx and Fridrich Engels launched their self-serving political agenda. It lives today!
Unable to browbeat the masses with their “political correctness” current Marx-Engels adherents have become far more insidious. Recognizing that Americans are not interested in communism, they decided in the early 1920s to use our courts to impose their ideology on America. It was at this time (early 1920s) that the Communist Party of America formed the ACLU (American Civil Liberty Union).
A modern day example of communism at work is the public unions attempt to replace the judge that supports the Governor of Wisconsin.
Sean
Sean, I wonder whether what the unions are doing in Wisconsin is more an example of generic socialism. I wonder because a lot of the fools I see ranting and raving and threatening on television, as well as the ones in the judiciary, seem more like a mix of Communists and Fascists (admittedly, that’s a distinction without much difference).
Norman Thomas, after running for President as a Socialist five or six times, said publically that he no longer needed to run. Americans would accept socialism bit by bit under the label Liberalism. He was right. The leader of the Communist Party in America, Gus Hall, was a cartoon figure for people to laugh at while other dedicated Marxists and Fascists in the media and government carried the water.
Think more expansively in your history. Roger Baldwin formed the ACLU, though not under that original name, in opposition to the policies of Woodrow Wilson during WWI. Many who were leftist at that time supported Wilson until he didn’t toe the Marxist line, instead the more socialist line. Including incredibly harsh and non-constitutional means to silence critics. If one learns early socialism and where it comes from, and then take it to it’s logical conclusion one comes directly to Fascism, Mussolini style. The Germans tweeked to fit their particular ideology.
The struggles of American leftists among each other during the early 20th century mirrors the struggle between Fascism and Marxism in Europe, the great difference is that in America it did not result, for the most part, in armed combat. The early struggles between Fascists and Marxists, particularly in German are quite close to open Civil War, and of course in Spain it was.
Roger Baldwin was a Marxist Communist, and the forming of the ACLU was in large part, if not the largest part, formed to be in opposition to the more Fascist elements within the left itself, particularly Woodrow Wilson’s administration. By doing this it was much easier for Baldwin and others that supported his aims, to then gather up “liberals” who supported Wilson’s corporatism but not his heavy handed tactics against anti-war protesters. Wilson’s actions pushed those people into the Marxist camp, where they became fellow travelers. Then then declared themselves Liberals.
I say stop quibbling over semantics and just call it Left-wing. It’s part of the Marxist (in the generic sense) strategy to create a bewildering forest of arcane terms and definitions, false or misleading names for various front groups and a host of peculiar “isms” – all in an attempt to cloak their activities and facilitate shifts in focus. This confusion helps create the “darkness” in which the cockroaches hide.
But whatever term you choose to describe them, we all know what their agenda is and should not allow them to confuse the issue by initiating pointless arguments over which came first or socialism as economy vs. socialism as political theory, blah blah blah…
The key issue in this article is the Left-wing bias in our so-called “mainstream” media and how it came to be that way. It’s a corollary to the issue of Left-wing bias in academia and how that occurred.
Moira, thanks very much for your comment. You are exactly right. For a more detailed analysis of the terminology problem, see my earlier Pajamas Media article “Why Do We Call Them Liberal When They’re Anything But?” http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-call-them-liberal-when-theyre-anything-but/
Cool! Thanks Dave!
The marxist/fascist media is just one more nail in America’s coffin.
“In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend… The proletariat [lazy, tax-eating, non-disabled under-achievers] will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital [property] from the bourgeoisie [laboring, tax-paying middle class and entrepreneurs], to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state [Marxist Government]… Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property… You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible… And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois [middle class] individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.” Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
As George Orwell observed, Marxists are metaphorically the Pigs of Animal Farm – individuals who consider themselves “more equal than others.” The Marxist Pigs are enthralled with the idea of government (themselves) owning the fruit of the laboring “little animals” where all the eggs, apples, corn, etc. is placed into a commune – a communal pot under their exclusive control. The Marxist Pigs control communal property – they are the commune-ists. The Marxist Pigs, after gorging themselves with a lion’s share of communal food, require all the “little animals” to approach their communal pot, tails wagging, in order to receive their leftover rations; and they must lick the hand that feeds them. Pig (Marxist) government encourages the lazy proletariat animals to relax in the barn while the others work in the fields; with this they can set up a perverted form of “democracy.” The Pigs control all the property in the communal pot, so they are in a position to in effect steal property from the laboring animals (“from each according to his abilities”) and give to the lazy (“to each according to his needs”) in return for votes. The lazy animals have unlimited needs, so the laboring animals may be taxed without limit. The Marxist Pigs are the managers of this struggle between the working and lazy classes, and through vote-purchasing (votes purchased with stolen property) establish a self-perpetuating perversion of “democracy” which keeps them in power.
Karl Marx understood that a prosperous democracy can be perverted into serfdom under totalitarian government – no doubt Marx understood it would be much more difficult to subvert a Constitutional Republic – where there might be limits on government collectivization – limits on taxation. Subversion of a democracy occurs when enough of a population goes over to the proletariat class – with outstretched hands – voting for the Party which will rob the laboring middle class on their behalf. Eventually under Marxism the middle class is worn down – exhausted and demoralized by what amounts to slave labor. When the middle class finally succumbs there will be a dramatic fall off in production of food and other goods and services – anarchy ensues – and who “comes to the rescue” but the Marxist Ruling Class who robbed the workers to buy the votes of the lazy in the first place. Envision a cruise ship where more and more passengers run over to the left side looking for “free stuff” from government – of course the “free stuff” is the fruit of other men’s labor – the laboring men still slogging it out on the right side. Eventually there will not be enough laborers and entrepreneurs on the right side of the ship to prevent it from capsizing. Voila: Social Justice ends in poverty and a “dictatorship of the proletariat” – code for dictatorship of the Marxist ruling class. Karl Marx termed victory of the Marxist ruling class over the laboring middle class as “winning the battle of democracy.”
“We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the [non] working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.” Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Marxism is also a huge self-serving Orwellian lie because – through excessive and unequal taxation – individual property is concentrated into the greedy collectivist hands of the Marxists.
“It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” [Communist Manifesto] meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before… In the years following the Revolution it [The Socialist Party of Oceania] was able to step into this commanding position almost un-opposed because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization… It had always been assumed that if the Capitalist Class were expropriated Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the Capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport, everything had been taken away from them; and since these things were no longer private property it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc [Socialist Principles of Oceania], which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program with the result; foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.” George Orwell – 1984
“The usual understanding of “equality,” when applied to people, entails equality of rights and sometimes equality of opportunity. But what is meant in all these [Socialist] cases is the equalization of external conditions [social and economic outcome] which do not touch the individuality of man. In socialist ideology, however, the understanding of equality is akin to that used in mathematics, i.e., this is in fact identity, the abolition of differences in behavior as well as in the inner world of the individuals constituting society. From this point of view, a puzzling and at first sight contradictory property of socialist doctrines becomes apparent. They proclaim the greatest possible equality, the destruction of hierarchy in society and at the same time a strict regimentation of all of life, which would be impossible without absolute control and an all-powerful bureaucracy which would engender an incomparably greater inequality.” Igor Shafarevich
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
Marxist “economic equality” is an Orwellian contradiction – the defining Contradiction of Marxism – because economic equality requires an excessive and therefore unnatural use of force. Excessive force requires a superior class of not-to-be-equalized equalizers – a class superior in rights – superior before law – and superior themselves in social and economic (property) outcome. The equal right of every man and woman to the fruit of their own labor leads to economic inequality – which is natural and un-forced. Marxism, in Orwellian fashion, leads to even greater economic inequality – which is unnatural since it requires great force via gun-clinging government agents, courts and prisons. The only government regulation required to ensure truly free enterprise is just that amount of force needed to ensure equality of rights to life, liberty and the fruit of labor – a minimum of force.
“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” Thomas Jefferson
In 1788-9, most of the newspapers supported the statist Federalists. Just saying for the 20th time that the complaints heard here echo in a close to spooky fashion, the fears of the anti-Federalists at that time. Back then the media and the establishment tended strongly toward statism, Madison and Hamilton being Exhibits A and B.
Is the real distinction here that one group says that reality is defined by the “fact” that if you screw up, you will and should go to hell, either here, or in the hereafter? Do I mistake myself, or do I hear a sense of outrage that hell is not considered a fruitful concept by the lefties?
They purports to believe in universal salvation. From the time when the Unitarians outflanked the Congregationalists in New England (at about the time we were figuring out in Massachusetts that a state religion was getting too unwieldy) the Universalists have been on the march. They have dominated the educational establishment, first in New England, and eventually everywhere. The media tend to reflect those views.
Jesus also bears some responsibility here as his anti-materialistic message can easily be spun toward socialism. He seemed to think that sinners could be saved rather than put to the sword, a very risky concept, wouldn’t you say?
Federalism was in response to a number of economic problems (Shay’s Rebellion) resulting from not enough federal power, the right to mint specie for one.
That’s only because the anti-Federalists were right.
I am startled by stubborn incomprehesion by commentators of natural roots of attractiveness of the “welfare state” by wide circles of Western (and American) people.This ” welfare state” is areal Trojan horse for leftists activists of all kindes.The fact that many of “liberal Media’ owners aren`t liberal themselves proofs the claim of this business.
The distructiveness of left propaganda is not obligatory deseption but “mainstream ” ignorance that makes it no less dangerouse.
Mr. Jenkins, good article, but incomplete. You need to discuss the use of unions to bludgeon into submission those news agencies that could not be infiltrated and corrupted from within.
Take a look at the timing of major union actions against news organs, and the current headlines.
And take a good look at which news organs had big labor problems, and which had only minor skirmishes, then compare this data to editorial stances.
Mark, you raise a good point, but I was only writing a blog article, not a book. There’s no way I can tell a complete story in 1200 words. Commenters like you help fill in the gaps.