Saturday, June 24, 2017
In response to an article in History News Network entitled “Where’s Edward R. Murrow When We Need Him?” by Bruce W. Dearstyne (http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/166009#comment-3383824311) I engaged in a discussion with David Harscheid. This exchange follows:
JohnWDietrich • 12 days ago Bruce, You might try reading some history. You could start with M. Stanton Evans’ Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies. Could you survive a “carefully edited and organized series of clips?” Murrow’s “dramatic visual message (that) exposed McCarthy as a phony and bully” was an early example of fake news. We are living in the age of the internet. People on all sides of an issue have to be more careful today. My book on the Morgenthau Plan has been successfully “blacklisted.” Wikipedia called it unreliable although it has over 800 footnotes. The age of the “blacklist” is coming to an end.
Peter B Hrycenko • 10 days ago Time for a frank talk about decency and witch hunts. Your history and mine. The real Joe McCarthy hasn’t yet been recognized by most of our generation. McCarthy was well liked by many, including the Kennedys, and harmed no innocent people. His communist cases were already known for years by federal investigators. See the best word on the subject from M. Stanton Evans "Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies. " McCarthy burst upon the scene with his 1950 Wheeling WV speech on 57 red subversives that indeed were active in the State Department. One has to understand that while the progressives had the upper hand in DC, Truman and his bunch failed to squelch what Americans were discovering. Eisenhower had avoided confronting the Wisconsin dynamo precisely because there weren’t grounds to do the Left’s dirty work. By 1954 a fickle media joined establishment darling Eisenhower and a vast liberal network to isolate and entomb one of America’s greatest and most misreported patriots. Columnist Jack Anderson marveled in his memoir “Confessions of a Muckraker” that “we had used up almost our entire bag of tricks against McCarthy, without marked effect. We could comfort ourselves that all the blows we landed were bound to take their toll in the late rounds, but, Lord, three years had passed since Wheeling, and he was still coming on stronger. ” What was in that bag of tricks? Outright slander, creative editing, attempted linking to scandals, misreporting on spy cases, trivializing Russian infiltration of our government – repeated often on air and in print. Famed attorney Edward Bennett Williams demolished the absurd Senate kangaroo court charges against McCarthy but the silencers prevailed. At least President Trump today has the internet lifeline to the heartland. No, the attorney for the Army, Joe Welch, didn't sink McCarthy. And yes, the US government was heavily infiltrated by the Soviets. Communist subversion of American officials particularly in the White House and US State Department drained our wealth while giving away Eastern Europe to Stalin and China to Mao. They enabled the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Financed the Russian sweep into Manchuria. Paved the way for the Reds to kill 37,000 young Americans in Korea in a war we weren’t supposed to be seen as winners. You thought Truman was just soft on communism? For one, it was Joe Welch who had no decency. (Weeping Welch later went on to Hollywood as his reward.) Joe McCarthy was responding in kind on June 9, 1954 to Welch who was gay-baiting Roy Cohn for hours. McCarthy spoke: "... may I say that Mr. Welch talks about this being cruel and reckless. He was just baiting -- He has been baiting Mr. Cohn here for hours, requesting that Mr. Cohn, before sundown, get out of any department of the government anyone who is serving the Communist cause...." Welch had earlier been talking about pixies and fairies in clever questions. Establishment media conveniently shows the extracted have-you-no-decency sound-bite without the rest of the story. Don't anyone ask about that. Joe Welch had already outed his own associate Fred Fisher, “the lad,” in the NY Times April 15, 1954!
David Harscheid • 8 days ago We have an Ed Murrow - Lawrence O'Donnell!
David Harscheid JohnWDietrich • 4 days ago ...and you are no Ed Murrow, but secretly, I bet you wanna be.
JohnWDietrich David Harscheid • 4 days ago Dave, What does “...and you are no Ed Murrow, but secretly, I bet you wanna be” mean? You are no Tinkerbell but secretly, I bet you wanna be. Please provide a name for one innocent suicide. I can provide thousands of names of the 100 million killed by the Communists. The media destroyed McCarthy and there was a time when they lionized Joseph Stalin. Progressives are accomplices and apologists for this mass murder.
David Harscheid Peter B Hrycenko • 4 days ago "...harmed no innocent people." ?? Tell that to the several families of the (later proved innocent) men who committed suicide because McCarthy wrongly outed them and ruined their careers! True history! You would do well to READ IMPARTIAL FACTUAL POLITICAL HISTORY - it exists you know.
Of course you won't, because I'm guessing you'll never change your mind. Too old to change?
David Harscheid JohnWDietrich • 3 days ago JWDietrich: Have you actually deeply studied the McCarthy era and the FACTS that are easily accessible? I think not. Cherry picking is easy. In-depth study is hard. Please read more U.S. political history (I do - which I also taught). It's easy to see the truth of McCarthy's damage to the democratic process. You are in a minority of radical, right-wing believers. Once again, cherry-picking what you need to defend your opinions is not kosher. Please read writers (George Orwell, Howard Zinn to name a couple) that you have obviously avoided. Afraid? A mistake many make is they think what they have learned is it. No more studying because it might jar their opinions. The truth is right in front of you if you'll only open your eyes, friend. (Note: did you know McCarty was a raging alcoholic?)
JohnWDietrich David Harscheid • 3 days ago David, I have studied the subject and even published a book about it. Facts are not always easily accessible. Many facts are still classified or wound up in Sandy Berger’s socks. Have you published? You taught or did you pass on your ignorance? Yes, I am in a minority
You did not answer my question. Provide me just one name. The subject is awash in ignorance like Bill O’Reily saying Senator McCarthy worked on HUAC. This is also in a textbook by some professor. So much for education.
JohnWDietrich David Harscheid • 2 days ago From The Morgenthau Plan:
Some of White's defenders have abandoned reality all together. Professor Jeffrey K. Olick of the University of Virginia is teaching his students and the readers of his book, In the House of the Hangman, that, "Harry Dexter White, was accused in 1948 by Joseph McCarthy's House Un-American Affairs Committee [HUAC] of being a Soviet agent." 1 This absurd allegation has received wide circulation, having been repeated by a prominent news commentator.2 Fortunately, he was corrected by his guest. She pointed out that Joseph McCarthy was elected to the United States Senate and Senators do not control committees in the House of Representative.
David Harscheid Peter B Hrycenko • 29 minutes ago the stink of Roy Cohn won't ever wash off, period. A hypocrite of the highest order.
David Harscheid JohnWDietrich • 23 minutes ago As soon as I hear lines like, "I'm published - are you? I quit. I can't abide a lot of ego in a discussion, so I'm finished here. (By the way, I know Sandy Berger, and it was "pants," not "socks." At least get history right. And yes, I'm published, as if that matters - but you managed to get it in, didn't you?) I'm out. (drop mic!)
JohnWDietrich David Harscheid • 3 minutes ago Dave, I am devastated. I have never received such a put down in my life. I obviously cannot compete with such a mature intellect. Hope you didn’t damage your mike. I was misinformed about Sandy’s apparel. Sorry I gave you an opportunity to pick a nit. You know Sandy? Tell him I said hello. Most of his associates knew him since he is no longer with us. I checked Amazon books for your work but came up empty.
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Jeff Zucker Bangs His Spoon on His Highchair
CNN chief Jeff Zucker has criticized President Trump’s attacks on the press, calling them “unconscionable and dangerous.” There are two ways of describing Zucker’s remarks a day after a congressman was shot: they are an example of incredible chutzpah or they are so inappropriate that they border on the pathological. Zucker claims, “the level of threats faced by his journalists is more serious than people realize.” He gives as an example recently elected Montana congressman Greg Gianforte body-slamming a newspaper reporter. ABC News explained that the reporter simply asked the candidate a question and was attacked in response.
Zucker explained, “this is what happens when you try to delegitimize an institution that is trying to do its job.” He complained, “it is shameful on the part of the administration and other politicians to cause a frenzy against something that is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States.” In Zucker’s view the media is simply doing its job this is protected by the Constitution. However, the media’s critics are complaining that the media is not doing their job. They are propagandizing.
CNN’s right to propagandize is protected by the Constitution. The people’s right to criticize fraudulent news is also protected by the Constitution. Has criticism of the media created a dangerous climate for journalists? Or has the establishment media’s constant attacks on the Trump administration created a dangerous climate for his supporters? The fact that establishment media is the source of “fake news” is a long known and well established fact. The New York Times still has a portrait of Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Duranty on its wall. Duranty is famous for successfully concealing the murder of 6 million Ukrainians from the American public. Numerous “journalists” have been exposed as liers. These include Pulitzer Prize winner Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Brian Williams and Dan Rather.
Perhaps the most damning evidence of media distortions was provided by one of Jeff Zucker’s predecessors. In 2003 CNN head Eason Jordan admitted in a New York Times op-ed piece entitled “The News We Kept to Ourselves” that CNN distorts the news. Jordan explained that this was done in order to maintain access to sources. Without access a news organization cannot function. But what price are they willing to pay? This may be behind CNN’s Jim Acosta complaint about his seating arrangement during Trump’s joint press conference with Romania’s president. He described it as being “in the equivalent of Siberia.” CNN is accustomed to being seated in the front row.
Zucker’s remarks are part of an effort to blame Republicans for the recent assassination attempt on Republican congressmen. Former Vice President Biden added to this at a Californian fundraiser stating, "This past election cycle churned up some of the ugliest, ugliest realities that persist in our country. Civilized discourse and real debate gave way to the coarsest rhetoric, stoking some of the darkest emotions in this nation." Former executive editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson claimed, “both President Trump and the congressional leadership on the Republican side are extremely divisive and that they are really benefiting from a kind of rage machine that operates in this country.”
The Times attempted to buttress this argument by referring to the shooting U.S. Rep Gabby Giffords and attributing this to actions of the Sarah Palin campaign. The Times followed this with a retraction. Their editorial stated, “An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.” The media is pursuing this argument even though it is obvious the major portion of hostile rhetoric originates on the left.
Some of these attacks are obviously over the line. David Simon, the creator of “The Wire,” a television show wrote, “If Donald Trump fires Robert Mueller and is allowed to do so, pick up a goddamn brick. That's all that's left to you.” Professor John Griffin from the Art Institute of Washington wrote on Facebook Republicans “should be lined up and shot” for their votes and “Republicans are a f***ing joke and their voting block runs the gamit [sic] from monstrous to ignorant.” Shalom Auslander wrote in the Washington Post, “Don’t compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. It belittles Hitler.” President Obama can remark, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” and this is considered totally innocent.
On 16 June two days after the shooting in Washington D.C. possible 2020 presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren, stated, “Donald, you ain't seen nasty yet." She stated this after CNN’s Kathy Griffin’s photo of a depiction of his severed head, CNN’s was in a photo, Reza Aslan referred to him as a “piece of shit,” his assassination was simulated in a Shakespeare in the Park performance, and the assassination attempt on a number of congressmen. How much more nasty can thing get?
Tuesday, June 13, 2017
The New York Times has published an article on Venezuela entitled “Dying Infants and No Medicine: Inside Venezuela’s Failing Hospitals.” It reads like an apocalyptic horror story and begins, “By morning, three newborns were already dead.” The author provides an explanation for this tragedy: “This nation has the largest oil reserves in the world, yet the government saved little money for hard times when oil prices were high. Now that prices have collapsed — they are around a third what they were in 2014 — the consequences are casting a destructive shadow across the country.” No other explanation is offered. Perhaps we will be receiving report of massive starvation in Saudi Arabia soon.
This article is a far cry from the glowing reports that greeted the assumption of power by Hugo Chavez. When Chavez was elected Venezuela’s people were the wealthiest in Latin America. Celebrities flocked to Caracas to pay homage to the new socialist leader. Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Danny Glover, and Harry Belafonte are just a few of the entertainers who have visited. Oliver Stone has made a film, Mi Amigo Hugo, about the Venezuelan leader. Now Venezuela appears to be suffering a food shortage. A survey by three universities found 75 percent of Venezuelans lost an average 19 pounds this year.
Have the Venezuelan revolution’s early supporters admitted they were wrong? Are they at all embarrassed? According to John Stossel they believe they were right to praise Venezuela’s move to socialism. Stossel corresponded with college professor Noam Chomsky. Chomsky’s reply to Stossel’s question about his support for Chavez was, “I was right." Chomsky blamed Venezuela’s problems on capitalists: “Capitalists were free to undermine the economy in all sorts of ways, like massive export of capital." Stossel quotes Marian Tupy, editor of HumanProgress.org. who said, “More countries will refuse to learn from history and give socialism 'a go.' 'Useful idiots,' to use Lenin's words ... will sing socialism's praises until the last light goes out."
Socialism has failed repeatedly. How can apparently well-educated intelligent people maintain their faith in a failed system? The answer is that in spite of their claims of being based on science, socialism is a religion. It is the official religion taught in many public schools in the U.S. It is a form of Christianity without Christ. Millions of adherents will swear a vow of poverty to further their programs. The socialist elite, however, is another matter. This brings us to Maria Gabriela Chavez, Hugo’s daughter. According to Diario las Americas she has $4.2 billion in American and Andorran banks. The socialist elite does very well for itself. They apparently see no contradiction in living well as others starve. Communist defector Victor Kravchenko described this phenomenon when he was a member of the Soviet elite: “I found myself among men who could eat ample and dainty food in full view of starving people not only with a clear conscience but with a feeling of righteousness, as if they were performing a duty to history.”
Reuters has published an article describing the role played by social media in the opposition to the government. Activists are posting details of the lifestyles of government officials and their families. They expose them as thriving from corruption while the “common man” is starving. One estimate suggests that $350 billion dollars have been misappropriated by Venezuelan officials. The Atlantic reported on a blog, “Relojes del Chavismo” that lists the brands and prices of watches worn by the Venezuelan elite. Vladimir Lopes, the Minister of Defense sports a $11,900 Rolex while the President of a state TV channel wears a $12,600 watch. Still these officials may be considered frugal compared to our own champions of the downtrodden. Former member of the House of Representatives, Jesse Jackson Jr., reportedly had a $43,000 Rolex.
The success of socialism seems to depend upon having the “right people” running the government. Are our advocates of wealth redistribution setting a good example for their followers. Do Bernie Sanders, Mark Zuckerberg, and the hundreds of entertainers and academic who advocate for socialism, wear hair shirts. Or do they live lives of incredible opulence maintaining several residences that remain vacant in their absence?
Saturday, June 3, 2017
Every society produces a number of what might be called damaged individuals. One such individual was Sergei Nechaev a nineteenth century nihilist and revolutionary. Nechaev described the role of the revolutionary:
He despises and hates the present public morality in all its forms. For him only that is moral which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. All that obstructs this is immoral and criminal. Day and night he should have but one thought, one purpose - merciless destruction. With the purpose of merciless destruction the revolutionary may and often must live in society, pretending to be something he is not. The revolutionary must penetrate everywhere: into the highest and the middle classes; into the merchant’s store; into the church; into the mansions of the aristocrat; into the worlds of bureaucracy, the military and literature. Our task is terrible, complete, universal and merciless destruction.
Nechaev and his disciple are not a problem as long as they remain on the fringes of a society. However if they attain positions on power they can become a serious problem. We are experiencing this now.
A nihilistic elite has gradually gained control of the commanding heights of the West. This has been pointed out by several Western commentators. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger remarked, "There is a self-hatred in the West that can be considered only as something pathological. The West . . . no longer loves itself; it now only sees what is despicable and destructive in its own history.” Judge Robert Bork claimed, “Some of our elites - professors, journalists, makers of motion pictures and television entertainment, et al. – delight in nihilism and destruction as much as do the random killers in our cities. Their weapons are just different.” This claim has been repeated by Irving Kristol, Eric Hoffer, Herman Kahn and many others.
Hostility towards Western civilization takes many forms and varies in intensity. Some of this hostility stems from total ignorance of Western culture. Mona Sahlin, a Swedish politician, “I cannot figure out what Swedish culture is. I think that is what makes many Swedes so envious of immigrant groups. You have a culture, an identity, a history, something that binds you together.” Some of it is the result of indoctrination by the schools and entertainment industry. South African playwright and singer David Kramer told People magazine in 1988, “I’ve seen whites come out of my plays crying hysterically. They come up to me after the show and say, ‘You have made me ashamed to be white.’ That is what I wanted.” Kramer has been pretty successful. People like actor Donald Sutherland stated he is “ashamed” of being a “white male.” Lena Dunham has called for the extinction of white men.
Some critics have been very blunt in their condemnation of the West. Susan Sontag asserted, “The white race is the cancer of human history.” German politician Gregor Gysi remarked, “Every year more native Germans die than there are born. That is very fortunate. It’s because the Nazis are not very good at having offspring.” Professor Noel Ignatiev at Massachusetts College suggests that “If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites!”
Politicians have to be more moderate in their criticism. Perhaps Hillary Clinton went too far when she claimed, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Barack Obama may have lost votes when he remarked, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest . . .they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
One of the weapons used by the elite is third world immigration. A criminal class has been imported for supposedly humanitarian reasons. These mostly male refugees have abandoned the wives, daughters and mothers. They do not appear to be showing gratitude for being accepted. Former UK Prime Minister David Cameron commented, “I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.” Not everyone views Muslim behavior as admirable. A professor at the University of Oslo explained that one reason Muslims are disproportionately responsible for rape was that in their native lands "rape is scarcely punished" because it is generally believed that "it is women who are responsible for rape.”
Reporting on criminal activity by “refugees” is routinely suppressed. Punishment is frequently little more than a slap on the wrist. Examples:
Muslim Rapes Child in Sweden, Gets Two Months, Not Deported.
Muslim Appeals 40 Hours Community Service for Raping Child and Filming Assault
Somalian migrant who murdered asylum worker has been sentenced to psychiatric care in a Swedish court for manslaughter.
Migrant who repeatedly raped runaway schoolgirl and threatened to kill her spared jail.
African migrants Rape Swedish Teen, leave male friend with brain damage
given three and two-and-a-half years sentences. The government will try to deport only one of them, temporarily.
A 9-year-old Swedish girl was repeatedly beaten, sexually assaulted, and emotionally tormented by a group of migrant children at her school. Instead of reporting it to the authorities, the school decided to cover up the abuse.
A Somalian refugee who raped two women and sexually assaulted two others will remain in the country following a decision by Scottish judges.
A teenager in Australia pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting 9 women and girls but was not sentenced to prison. Instead, he was put on two-years’ probation. The judge reasoned that, as a Muslim who had immigrated from Afghanistan, “seeing girls in bikinis is different to the environment in which he grew up.”
Hamburg gang rape teenagers' suspended sentences spark anger
A “17 year-old” Muslim youth named Mohammed raped a 13 year-old Swedish girl. He was given two months in prison.
“A 14-year-old Swedish girl who was sexually assaulted in her school by two boys. One of them, a 16-year-old, suffers from an “impaired ability to understand what is right and wrong.” the verdict stated. He was therefore punished mildly and was sentenced to 100 hours of youth service plus 24 meetings with a social worker “in order to learn to make better decisions,” while the 15-year-old is considered by Swedish law to be too young to be held criminally responsible and has thus been set free.
Perhaps the most outrageous example is the Rotherham sex abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited by Asian gangs while authorities turned a blind eye.
The incident involving the 9-year-old in Eskilstuna, Sweden illustrates the authorities’ attitude toward these incidents. Instead of reporting it to the police, the school decided to cover up the abuse. The principal in the incident involving the 14-year-old Swedish girl wished to remain anonymous. He stated, “All three youths involved were our students here and all three are, in a way, victims in this case. The boy who was convicted has gotten a pretty harsh punishment, which turns him into a victim as well.” 100 hours of “youth service” will be an ineffective deterrent. An additional factor in these assault cases is the age disparity. Adult “refugees” are often placed in classes with children. In Sweden they can be listed as “children” if they don’t look over 40. This was the case in the Rockville High School, Maryland incident. A 14-year-old student was violently raped by two of her fellow freshman students, ages 17 and 18. The governor of Maryland was seeking information about the incident. He remarked, "My biggest concern is the Montgomery County School System and their lack of cooperation and the lack of information they've been providing.” The school superintendent appears to be primarily concerned with the public’s “xenophobic” reaction to the incident.
This situation has confused Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin remarked, “In a European country, a child is raped by a migrant, and the court releases him. It doesn’t fit into my head what on earth they’re thinking over there. I can’t even explain the rationale – is it a sense of guilt before the migrants? What’s going on? It’s not clear….A society that cannot defend its children has no future.” He made these comments in response to a case where an Iraqi refugee raped a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in a “sexual emergency.” His conviction was overturned because the Austrian court “didn't prove he realized the boy was saying no.”
Once it is understood that the people in authority sympathize with the criminal everything becomes clear. Theodore Dalrymple commented, “The laxisme of the French criminal justice system is now notorious. Judges often make remarks indicating their sympathy for the criminals they are trying (based upon the usual generalizations about how society, not the criminal, is to blame.” Alice Vachss a former Assistant District Attorney in Queens County, N.Y., stated, “There is a large, more or less hidden population of what I later came to call collaborators within the criminal justice system. There seems to be a residuum of empathy for sexual predators that crosses all gender, class and professional barriers.”
The criminal justice can be severe when necessary. Michael Wolfe was arrested and charged with criminal mischief of a religious building, a third-degree felony. Prosecutors added a hate crime charge because they believe Wolfe left a slab of bacon at the mosque, which is offensive to Muslims. The charge carries a possible life sentence. Thomas Salbey who stood up to the Munich shooter after he killed nine people is facing being charges by a prosecutor for insulting the killer. A British Man Jailed for leaving a bacon sandwich outside a mosque was found dead in prison.
There is a solution for people who disagree with their government’s immigration policies. It was provided by Walter Lübcke, the district president of Kassel. Lübcke announced that citizens who disagree with the government’s open-door immigration policy are “free to leave Germany.”
We’re not afraid of Hillary Clinton. She’s a bully we’ve dealt with older white women trying to keep us down.
We have mined in war zones. She is trying to ruin our lives forever, forever. The death threats that we are getting are constant and they are detailed and they are serious and specific. Today it’s us and tomorrow it could be you.
She broke us. She broke us. She broke us. And then we were like this is not right. We apologized because this was the right thing to do and we meant it. Our impression is that she mobilized her armies or bots or whatever to attack us.
She is using us as a shiny object. We all know what’s going on here She’s using us as a shiny object so that no-one is talking about her email investigation.