Rachel Weisz on why Hollywood prefer blondes

Rachel Weisz on why Hollywood Jews prefer blondes
By Danielle Berrin - jewishjournal.com October 22, 2009

Among studio executives, the name Rachel Weisz is not synonymous with “box office draw,” even though Weisz has appeared in a few blockbusters. She was the leading lady in a little franchise called “The Mummy” and played the voice of Saphira in the movie “Eragon,” based on the bestselling series. In general, Weisz is thought more of an actress than a movie star, but that may be about to change.

An article in today’s Variety declared that Alejandro Amenabar’s Spanish-backed epic “Agora,” starring Weisz, enjoyed an unexpected opening in Spain where it grossed $17 million during its first two weeks. Those numbers are decidedly unimpressive by U.S. standards, but for a film that cost $70 million to make and failed to find distribution after its premiere at Cannes, Variety found the numbers “stunning”.

But I’m more stunned by Weisz, who may be Hollywood’s best kept secret. According to The-Numbers.com, a box office database for movie stars, Weisz’s resume has grossed more than $2 billion worldwide ($860 million in the U.S.) with an average gross of more than $35 million per film. Her average opening weekend clocks in at around $11.2 million which puts her on par with Nicole Kidman, who, according to the same Web site, has an average opening weekend of $11.4 million. If the numbers are correct, that means Weisz is only about $2 million shy of matching Julia Roberts’s average opening weekend ($13.4 million) as well as Jennifer Aniston’s ($13.8 million), both of whom are considered two of the biggest movie stars in the world. In fact, according to The-Numbers.com, Roberts is ranked no. 37 on the list of highest grossing movie stars of all time. (Then there’s Angelina Jolie with an average opening weekend of $15.8 million.)

Weiss still needs $500 million to catch up to Jolie’s domestic gross and more than $1 billion to reach Roberts, but her average opening weekend is well suited to the competition. Not that Weisz cares—she is famously content with her private life and avoids getting caught up in the ills of Hollywood.

“Believe me,” Weisz told Blackbook in April 2009. “I get it. I’m living with a nice man, and I have a nice job and a happy family, blah, blah, blah… ”

Weisz lives in Manhattan’s East Village with her fiancé, director Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler). She was raised in northern London, in the Hampstead Garden Suburb, by parents Edith Ruth and George Weisz. Her mother was a teacher and later became a psychotherapist; her father, an inventor, who was born in Hungary but fled to England to escape the Nazis.

Below, Weisz talks about being Jewish in Hollywood in a 2001 interview with writer Emma Forrest for Index Magazine.

EMMA: When we were at the drugstore you innocently opened up Talk Magazine and I heard a shriek of dismay.

RACHEL: Yeah, I literally saw not only the most disgusting, but the most ridiculous photograph I’ve ever seen of any woman.

EMMA: And who was it of?

RACHEL: It was me. [laughs] It was me photographed by David Bailey, who had some kind of concept that because it was for a Russian film, I would be wearing a Russian hat. But you can’t really see the hat, just fur everywhere. And my nose looks like it’s … just a really outsized nose, you know.

EMMA: But, you see, you’re holding back from saying what you said at the store, which was that you thought you looked too Jewish. Is it limiting as an actress to be perceived as being too ethnic in any way?

RACHEL: Well, I think you and I have always felt the same way — that we’re Jewish but we can get away with just being exotic. We’re kind of Jews in disguise. Those cultural stereotypes about the Jew with the big hooky nose and the fleshy face rub off on you. That’s terrible to admit, isn’t it.

EMMA: Well, it’s that Jackie Mason joke about how no Jewish woman wants to look Jewish: “‘You think I look maybe a little Italian, I look a little Russian, perhaps I can be Spanish?’ … ‘You look Jewish!’”

RACHEL: Hollywood’s run by Jews. I was advised by an American agent when I was about 19 to change my surname. And I said “Why? Jews run Hollywood.” He said “Exactly.” He had a theory that all the executives think acting’s a job for shiksas.

EMMA: Of all the self-loathing Jews in the world, the most self-loathing are the Hollywood Jews. They don’t want to see images of themselves on screen. That’s why Lauren Bacall had to hide her identity, and Winona Ryder changed her name from Horowitz.

RACHEL: In some way acting is prostitution, and Hollywood Jews don’t want their own women to participate. Also, there’s an element of Portnoy’s Complaint — they all fancy Aryan blondes.

If you want to humble an empire

Time Magazine, September 14th, 2001

If you want to humble an empire it makes sense to maim its cathedrals. They are symbols of its faith, and when they crumple and burn, it tells us we are not so powerful and we can't be safe. The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, planted at the base of Manhattan island with the Statue of Liberty as their sentry, and the Pentagon, a squat, concrete fort on the banks of the Potomac, are the sanctuaries of money and power that our enemies may imagine define us. But that assumes our faith rests on what we can buy and build, and that has never been America's true God.

On a normal day, we value heroism because it is uncommon. On Sept. 11, we valued heroism because it was everywhere. The fire fighters kept climbing the stairs of the tallest buildings in town, even as the steel moaned and the cracks spread in zippers through the walls, to get to the people trapped in the sky. We don't know yet how many of them died, but once we know, as Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, "it will be more than we can bear." That sentiment was played out in miniature in the streets, where fleeing victims pulled the wounded to safety, and at every hospital, where the lines to give blood looped round and round the block. At the medical-supply companies, which sent supplies without being asked. At Verizon, where a worker threw on a New York fire department jacket to go save people. And then again and again all across the country, as people checked on those they loved to find out if they were safe and then looked for some way to help.

This was the bloodiest day on American soil since our Civil War, a modern Antietam played out in real time, on fast-forward, and not with soldiers but with secretaries, security guards, lawyers, bankers, janitors. It was strange that a day of war was a day we stood still. We couldn't move--that must have been the whole idea--so we had no choice but to watch. Every city cataloged its targets; residents looked at their skylines, wondering if they would be different in the morning. The Sears Tower in Chicago was evacuated, as were colleges and museums. Disney World shut down, and Major League Baseball canceled its games, and nuclear power plants went to top security status; the Hoover Dam and the Mall of America shut down, and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and Mount Rushmore. It was as though someone had taken a huge brush and painted a bull's-eye around every place Americans gather, every icon we revere, every service we depend on, and vowed to take them out or shut them down, or force us to do it ourselves.

Terror works like a musical composition, so many instruments, all in tune, playing perfectly together to create their desired effect.

The Fraud of Democracy

By Matt Johnson (rusjournal.com)

No one takes "democracy" seriously, and this is because, despite the pompous verbiage, democracy is about the bring to power of one’s favorite media image by any means necessary. Democracy is about manipulating enough people to vote for an image hundreds of times removed from reality. It is a pageant of power, of fund-raising and the manipulation of images. In short, it is alchemy: the manipulation of images to create a counter-reality, and this counter-reality is what is “voted” on. It is this counter-reality, which is filtered through hundreds of "image-makers," campaign staffers, major donors, major media, ad agencies, PR agencies, and dozens of other species of manipulation. It is not a part of reality.

Of course, everything in this fallen world is about power. Universal "ideals," such as “equality” or “liberty,” exist as another form of alchemy, the use of such images disguises the unchanged nature of being: that of force. The use of such mindless slogans are mere symbols for a faction who seeks power at the expense of another.

John "Wetstart" McCain Video, Courtesy of Wayne Madsen

Of course, power is money and money is power. Modernity can be reduced to the alchemical alteration of all actual reality, i.e. Aristotle’s essences, into money. Everything has a monetary value, and this, for the nominalist, is the nature of all things. Hence, just for the McCain candidacy in 2008, here are the top donors to date (all figures from the FEC database):

• Merrill Lynch $284,610
• Citigroup Inc $252,801
• Morgan Stanley $211,821
• Goldman Sachs $198,045
• Blank Rome LLP $171,026
• AT&T Inc $169,613
• JPMorgan Chase & Co $165,275
• Greenberg Traurig LLP $152,687
• Credit Suisse Group $133,125
• UBS AG $127,315
• Bank of America $116,125
• US Government $114,176
• Lehman Brothers $112,700
• PricewaterhouseCoopers $111,070
• Wachovia Corp $111,046
• FedEx Corp $97,753
• Pinnacle West Capital $94,900
• Bear Stearns $90,100
• Blackstone Group $89,500
• Bank of New York Mellon $89,500

The rulers of finance capital control democracy. This make sense because republican forms of state have always existed in areas where big money is the true king: Novgorod, Venice, Florence, America, parliamentary Britain, the Netherlands, etc. Republican states exist solely to manipulate the poor into believing they are "free" (always in some vague sense). In Florence, the Medici clan, the group who began and controlled the "Italian Renaissance" and bankrolled the early "scientific revolution," centered around alchemy, controlled Florence from behind the scenes, while secretly approving all candidates to office. No serious historian today will deny that proposition.

What is even more interesting is the fact that the above list is nearly identical to the list of Obama's top donors:

• Goldman Sachs $627,730
• University of California $523,120
• JPMorgan Chase & Co $398,021
• Citigroup Inc $393,899
• UBS AG $378,400
• Google Inc $373,212
• Harvard University $369,802
• Lehman Brothers $353,922
• National Amusements Inc $352,603
• George Soros $347,463
• Sidley Austin LLP $326,845
• Skadden, Arps et al $304,050
• Time Warner $298,972
• Morgan Stanley $291,388
• Microsoft Corp $276,925
• Jones Day $266,705
• Latham & Watkins $252,845
• University of Chicago $250,685
• Wilmerhale Llp $249,282
• Exelon Corp $239,061

In this case, finance capital still dominates, though with the university establishment and entertainment corporations adding their funds, making Obama a better fund-raiser than McCain. Goldman-Sachs, howeer, controls both campaigns. Even in Hilary's campaign,. Goldman-Sachs was the third largest donor, and the list was almost identical to Obama's and McCain's, with the exception of Harvard, who backed Obama from the beginning.

So far, Obama has raised $176 million dollars, while McCain has raised $105 million. Nearly $300 million dollars to convince Americans to vote for a media image. The reality is that finance capital, no matter what the candidate, party or issue, controls the debate. In overall giving, Finance has given $100 million in contributions to federal candidates this year alone, far outstripping any other sector. They are followed by the legal profession.

Contrary to myth, defense contractors have given to Obama more than McCain, the former with $410,000 to McCain's $393,000. While energy corporations, corporations in direct competition with Russian and Venezuelan capital, have given to McCain in far greater numbers than to anyone else. They have given to him $2.4 million, while to Obama, $1.3 million.

The oil and gas industry specifically, as a subset of energy, has backed McCain exclusively: $1.3 million to Obama's paltry $394,000. This is solely due to McCain's harsh stand on Russia and his continued commitment to Middle East war. It should be noted, however, as has been written elsewhere on this e-journal, that oil firms support domestic interests solely of the leftist variety, while bankrolling the neocons on foreign policy.

True to form, the entertainment industry is nearly a mirror image to oil and gas, giving Obama and Hilary a combined $8 million, while giving to McCain about $300,000, according to the FEC. Labor is irrelevant, as it gives only about 2% of campaign contributions. Big business provides well over 75% of all money to all campaigns nationwide. According to the invaluable site Open Secrets, law firms give almost exclusively to democrat candidates, while the major banks give equally to both. Real estate gives to candidates in a precise 50-50 split.

Of the top 10 donors for all candidates nationwide, and who, ipso facto, control the state, only one gives in any amount to republicans, and that is, AT&T (only 41% to democrats), though have a domestic record of supporting only liberal causes. Goldman-Sachs gives almost exclusively to democrats (with the exception of McCain), as does Citigroup, JP Morgan, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. George Soros, however, blows all other organizations away with $11 million in contributions to liberal candidates only. He functions, as always, through front groups, this time, a group called ActBlue.

Democracy is the alchemy of modernity: the final dissolution of truth into a haze of money, power and backroom deals, almost exclusively done in the interest of liberal/leftist candidates. Refusal to vote, and agitating to delegitimize the Regime, seems to be the only rational response to this System. Parliamentary systems are based on capital, on its victory. What has it been victorious over? The land, the ancient aristocracy, justice (conceived platonically), and natural hierarchy. There is no live without hierarchy, and the systems dedicated to equality normally create the most rigid of hierarchical systems, such as in the USSR. The hierarchy of republics are created by access to money, which, though it mystifies itself as productive and inventive, is in fact resolvable to finance capital: the production of credit, hence, the control of the society.

Monarchies reflect nature, while republics reflect the very images capital creates. Neither system is capable of creating anything, as governments are pale reflectives of society. Monarchy reflects agrarianism and aristocracy, since it is the oldest form of government. Monarchies reflect nature: hierarchy, unity, tradition and love of God, each notion as old as humanity. All of this exists according to natural law, while modern liberalism and nominalism exist as a matter of convention, i.e. power. Parliaments exist according to convention, specifically, the contract created by property owners to protect their interests. Parliaments, the creation of capital (in that there is no republic without a strong financial sector), exist solely for revolution; the continuing alterations of the life of people, continued innovation and debt, always in its train. The capital that places politicians in office is not “democratically elected,” (using the term in its normal, vulgar fashion) in reality, few know the true string pullers. Politicians are a reflection of a reflection: money, the center of all modern life, is a reflection of alchemy, or the constant innovation which transforms life, attitude and opinion, even the human sort itself. Politicians are a reflection of this money, itself a conventional idea that binds elites together. It is a lie which depends on many other lies to make the system operate.

Monarchy exists only because of nature, it is a reflection of the natural order. Man craves stability, not innovation; order, not transformation; nature, not convention. Few farmers are miserable due to the nature of their work. Modernity has created a drug dependent post-industrial class enslaved to the mindless routine of administration. Farmers exist, when financially stable, within a natural sphere which few suburbanites can comprehend. The work differs from day to day, season to season, as a part of the organic development of the natural world, and has thus, its own built-in rewards. Aristocracy is the cultural and religious center of a people, not necessarily its financial center. It is based on love of land, of a self-less fighting for country and the protection of the weak, this is the knights code of long standing. Aristocracy exists because it and it alone, is responsible for the “abstract” nature of political rule and law relative to the royal prerogative. It’s freedom is nearly non-existent, but its responsibilities never exhausted. Aristocracy, in order to truly be such, must maintain the highest standards of decorum, piety and philosophical depth. Modernity has not changed the order of being, but through rhetoric, has altered the nature of attitudes, hence the world of ideas in which the rabble live. Monarchy deals in stability and natural hierarchy, authority over domination. This natural hierarchy imitates the existence of nature: essence, species, genus, God. Reality as a series of spiritual moves leading to the most spiritual, thus, the most real. Capitalism, the creator of republics, deals in revolution, transformation and fraud. Capitalism can only function within a nominalist epistemology, and hence, seeks the transformation of all natural gradations into a single domination of money. Nature is a set of dollar values. Images can never tell of their source, while in monarchy, responsibility is solely due to the crown (not the state, which is another matter). Capitalism depends on constant revolution for the profit of a few. Monarchy is forced to defend the stable order of Plato's hierarchy and natural law (which are one in the same). Justice, love, dependency, stability, sin, devotion: these are things each man is born fully understanding intuitively. The symbol for modernity is alchemy, the symbol for monarchy is nature, of the essences which define created things.

Monarchy believes in a rationally grounded hierarchy. It believes in the agrarian life, and authority over domination. It holds that God can be found in nature, and hence, the spiritual life is the highest, but is never departed from the life of agriculture. They are distinctions of perspective only. The stability of the natural order is paramount, and the realization remains that all revolutionary forces exist to take power from the aristocracy to give it to the oligarchy. Hence, throughout history, and irrespective of race or religion, man has two options: the alchemical revolutionary statism and worship of matter, which traces its roots to ancient Babylon and Tyre, and finds its apogee in modern America and NATO, or the natural rule of Adam and Abel, manifest in Israel and reaching its apogee in Holy Russia. There is no third option.

******* A Timeline of McCain's Career From the Rense e-journal.

1982: McCain, recently remarried to Arizona beer heiress Cindy Hensley, moves to Phoenix and wins a seat in the US House. He quickly forges a relationship with the Democratic House eminence from Tucson, Mo Udall, who although a strong progressive, has always welcomed the opportunity to work with Republicans.

1982-88: McCain takes over $100,000 in contributions from our well-remembered buddy from Lincoln S&L, Charles Keating, and his employees. McCain and Keating are very close, with McCain frequently joining Keating on outings to the Bahamas, on Keating's dime. Keating also has what Silverman calls a "business relationship" with Jim Hensley, Cindy Hensley's father, and with Cindy as well.

1986: During McCain's race for the Senate, Arizona Democrats ask the Udall staffers not to allow McCain to cling too closely to Udall, worrying that McCain is using Udall as a campaign tool. Udall aide Bob Neuman later says he tries to be subtle, but when McCain figures out what Neuman wants, he bawls Neuman out using words the aide refuses to repeat. Neuman later says McCain was so extreme in his reaction that, as Silverman writes, he thought "there was something really wrong with the guy." McCain is running for Barry Goldwater's seat, with Goldwater's endorsement. But after the Keating scandal, Goldwater loses much of his respect for McCain, and, Silverman writes, "soon found he had to stop McCain from using his good name."

1986: McCain jokes to an audience from the National League of Cities and Towns, asking if they've heard "the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly, and left to die?" The punch line: "When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, 'Where is that marvelous ape?'" Neuman later says, "John McCain is the Eddie Haskell of politics. You can attribute that to me, and he'll kill me for it."

1987-1988: McCain battles against campaign finance reform, in part on behalf of his pal Keating.

April 12, 1988: Governor Evan Mecham (R-Lunatic) has just been impeached, and Democrat Rose Mofford, the Secretary of State, takes over the position. Mofford, a kindly lady with an astonishing snow-white beehive bouffant, is as non-partisan as one can be and still belong to a political party, gracious and well-liked by just about everyone in the state government. But not by McCain and some of his buds. (Disclaimer: Mrs. Max, who describes herself as either a Goldwater Republican or a Reagan Democrat depending on the day of the week, knows Mofford, and likes her tremendously.) McCain and his pals want to eject Mofford using the same recall process that was launched to yank Mecham. Eight days into her tenure, Mofford goes to DC to take part in what one aide later calls the "perfunctory wet kiss" meeting with the Arizona congressional delegation. The meeting is strictly ceremonial, or so most people think. Mofford is quite conversant with her duties as secretary of state, primarily the elections department. She doesn't know a great deal about the Central Arizona Project (CAP) or the technical details of water provision in that dry state. And in eight days, she hasn't been able to learn a hell of a lot. She speaks before the Senate Energy and Water Subcommittee on Appropriations about CAP. McCain is not a member of that committee, but his Republican buddy from Idaho, James McClure, is. McClure asks Mofford, in Silverman's words,

a series of questions that would leave any water expert's mouth dry. Her staff jumped in to try to answer, but even so, ultimately they had to file an addendum to the testimony.

Sandbagged. The publisher of the Arizona Republic, Pat Murphy, who considers himself a friend of McCain's, is "crushed" by the incident. It is, Silverman writes, "the beginning of the end of his respect for and friendship with McCain." During lunch, a "mischievously glee[ful]" McCain brags about his setup of Mofford. As Murphy recalls, "he had slipped some highly technical questions to [McClure] to ask Mofford--questions she wouldn't be prepared to answer or expected to answer. Flabbergasted, I asked McCain why would he want to sabotage Mofford's testimony, when in fact the CAP was the nonpartisan pet of Republicans and Democrats--such as far-left Udall and far-right Goldwater--since its inception. His reply, as near as I remember, was, 'I'll embarrass a Democrat any time I get the chance.'" Murphy accompanies McCain back to his office, where reporters ask about a rumor that McCain had tried to sabotage Mofford's testimony. Murphy is floored to hear him answer, in classic straight-talk fashion, "I'd never do anything like that." Murphy later learns that McCain had even brought in a private film crew to film the testimony for use in embarrassing Moffatt in the recall election. The Arizona Supreme Court strikes down the recall effort, so McCain's gamesmanship did little except destroy his friendship with Murphy and embitter Mofford. While she doesn't talk much about the McCains, having known Cindy since she was little, she will tell Silverman, the CAP hearing, "hurt me more than anything ... to be set up like that." She also says that McCain is "certainly no Barry Goldwater or Mo Udall."

Late 1980s: McCain hosts an event ostensibly to honor Goldwater, but in reality to raise funds for his Senate campaign. Goldwater initially refuses to participate and tells McCain to give half of the proceeds to the Arizona Republican Party. McCain retools the event to honor Reagan instead. Goldwater does speak at the event, but later writes to McCain, "You will recall during my speech at the dinner for the president in Phoenix, I announced that you were going to give half of the funds you raised to the State Republican Party. I am told by the Party, that you still owe them $35,000, and unless you pay all of it, or most of it, they cannot meet their payroll next Wednesday." McCain will continue to use Goldwater, a legend in Arizona politics, as well as Udall as a campaign touchstone for himself.

1990: Facing criticism over his relationship with Keating and an upcoming re-election battle, McCain flip-flops and becomes a proponent of campaign finance reform and reducing government spending. Silverman calls McCain's efforts "a farce. McCain famously sponsored a law designed to control special interests' grip on Washington, but at the same time, he took money from those interests." She adds details and links that I won't go into here, but her summation of his efforts: "sadly cosmetic." What he has done is take such a shrill stance against certain types of earmarks--pork, in the vernacular--that Arizona has lost out on federal funding for, among other worthy projects, a program at a Scottsdale hospital that trains military medical personnel in trauma care. Some of that training has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan, for those who were lucky enough to receive it before the program lost much of its funding. Silverman notes:

Arizona's political forefathers--Mo Udall, Barry Goldwater, Carl Hayden - pushed through one of the biggest pork barrel projects in the history of the United States Congress: the Central Arizona [Water] Project. If they hadn't, there wouldn't be much of a state to represent. As a native Arizonan, those are the politicians I grew up learning about. McCain just doesn't compare.

1991 and After: When Udall leaves Congress, McCain, who had voted with Udall on some environmental issues, quits supporting those issues, and begins to rack up low marks from environmental groups. One of his most recent is a zero from the League of Conservation Voters. He has refused to oppose efforts to mine uranium from sites perilously near the Grand Canyon, and refuses to support proposed changes to the Mining Act of 1872, oblivious to the fact that Arizona is a testament to the environmental degradation that comes with strip mining and other practices. He is well remembered for threatening the job of a Forest Service official who disagreed with him on the topic of the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel. However, in campaign appearances, McCain regularly invokes the name and environmental passion of Udall. In April 2008, Newsweek writes, "He traces his environmental awareness to the sainted Rep. Mo Udall, an Arizona Democrat who took McCain as a young congressman under his tutelage ... To environmentalists, that's like saying you learned about civil rights by driving around Alabama with Martin Luther King Jr." It's doubtful that Newsweek bothered to find much on the other side of the story.

Spring 1994: Silverman begins hearing rumors of Cindy McCain's addiction to prescription drugs. She learns of Tom Gosinski, who had been fired from his position as director of government and international affairs for Cindy McCain's nonprofit charity, the American Voluntary Medical Team (AVMT), which provides medical relief to poor countries. Gosinski had gone to the DEA and told them that Cindy McCain was using an AVMT doctor to illegally prescribe her drugs in her employees' names. Gosinski was one of those employees, and he was worried that he might be culpable. Cindy McCain had had numerous prescriptions written for her, some with as many as 500 pills on a single refill. Dr. John Max Johnson, her AVMT drug connection, told the DEA that she kept them in her personal luggage. Gosinski had not just ratted her out, but filed a wrongful-termination suit against the charity. That alerted John McCain's lawyer, John Dowd, to the situation. Dowd charged Gosinski with extortion. The extortion investigation produded public records that Silverman finds and uses for her reporting. But the McCains learn of her records request, and try to inoculate themselves against her reports, acknowledging Cindy's prescription drug addictions and blaming it on her back surgeries and the stress from the Keating scandal. They also claim, falsely, that Gosinski is trying to blackmail them. In her September 8, 1994 story, Silverman prints the following excerpt from Gosinski's personal journal, an entry from July 1992: "I have always wondered why John McCain has done nothing to fix the problem. He must either not see that a problem exists or does not choose to do anything about it. It would seem that it would be in everyone's best interest to come to terms with the situation. And do whatever is necessary to fix it. There is so much at risk ... During my short tenure at AVMT, I have been surrounded by what on the surface appears to be the ultimate all-American family. In reality, I am working for a very sad, lonely woman whose marriage of convenience to a U.S. Senator has driven her to: distance herself from friends; cover feelings of despair with drugs; and replace lonely moments with self-indulgences." Cindy avoids criminal charges by going into a drug rehab program.

1997: McCain is a frequent and steady visitor to Mo Udall, who is slowly dying of Parkinson's disease. Neuman is pleased with McCain's loyalty, but he is stunned when McCain brings reporter Michael Lewis with him to Udall's hospital bedside. (McCain is unable to wake Udall during the visit. Udall will die in 1998.) Neuman later recalls, "That was devastating to me, that he brought in a reporter. I thought that was crossing the line, and it destroyed me." Silverman writes, "I'm sure I would have accepted the offer to go the hospital, as well. I can't blame Lewis, but maybe the sight of the legendary Mo Udall in his final, sad days wasn't McCain's to share."

2000: As the presidential primaries heat up, Silverman flies to Washington to be interviewed by 20/20's Sam Donaldson on McCain. After the interview, Donaldson decides he doesn't want to report anything negative about McCain, and cans the interview. The same thing happens when she helps put together background research for 60 Minutes, when Mike Wallace decides he wants to do a positive story on McCain.

Whee doggies. And there's plenty more in the article: this is just the highlights. Even better, there are links to other New Times stories on McCain. So get to reading, and share the wealth.

The Media's Attack on Masculinity

By S. T. Karnick

The tendency of the nation’s schools to suppress boys’ natural way of seeing and doing things, brilliantly documented by Christina Hoff-Sommers in her 2001 book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, is becoming increasingly evident in the culture.

According to Hoff-Sommers, programs in America’s public schools are set up to obliterate all that is masculine and establish femininity as the human norm:

This book tells the story of how it has become fashionable to attribute pathology to millions of healthy male children. It is a story of how we are turning against boys and forgetting a simple truth: that the energy, competitiveness, and corporal daring of normal, decent males is responsible for much of what is right in the world. No one denies that boys’ aggressive tendencies must be checked and channeled in constructive ways. Boys need discipline, respect, and moral guidance. Boys need love and tolerant understanding. They do not need to be pathologized.

Hoff-Sommers goes on to note that "it’s a bad time to be a boy in America. . . . Routinely regarded as protosexists, potential harassers and perpetuators of gender inequity, boys live under a cloud of censure.” The school curricula, she observes, are skewed toward girls’ strengths and away from those of boys. That’s why classes emphasize word problems in math class and writing essays in science class, for example.

Boys mistreated by our educational system must advance into society and try to become men, having been taught to disrespect masculinity and suppress it in themselves. One obvious coping mechanism is for males to act more sensitively, making a determined effort to "share their feelings” and be less aggressive and competitive.

Hence a recent Associated Press story describing how TV’s new primetime schedule "puts the softer side of men on display”:

In a number of broadcast ensembles premiering this fall, men are opening up about issues beyond sports, money, power and sexual conquests. They’re expressing their feelings—often to other men—on fatherhood, intimacy and love.

The AP story goes on to quote Nicole Vecchiarelli, entertainment director of the men’s lifestyle magazine Details, as saying of today’s men, "now it seems they can, on the inside, feel a little bit more like girls and that’s still OK.”

The central characters of the new ABC show Big Shots exemplify this elevation of emotions over achievements. These men are the heads of four big corporations, and the hook is that although their businesses are doing well, their personal lives are a mess. One is enormously henpecked, another is divorced and has a young-adult daughter who openly hates him (or seems to), another is distressed by the close friendship between his wife and his mistress, and the other’s wife has been cheating on him with his boss.

Get the irony? At work they’re Masters of the Universe, but in the social realm they’re ineffectual schlubs. Women can do whatever they want to them, and the men can’t find a way to get control over their personal lives. They spend much of the program discussing their feelings about the terrible things that are happening to them.

These otherwise powerful men show that no man is safe from the myriad humiliations women and life in general are apt to heap upon them. A Salon.com article summarized the depiction of men in the current TV season as follows:

There are guys whose wives cheat on them, whose girlfriends get promoted over them, whose mates make more money than they do; guys who get left out of baby-making, who date women with penises and at least one who gets anally raped by a monkey.

That last instance occurs in the ABC comedy Carpoolers. Similarly, in the pilot episode of the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory, two brilliant scientists are "pantsed” by their attractive neighbor’s angry ex-boyfriend and spend the next couple minutes of screen time walking around in their briefs. When attempting to gain entry into a locked apartment building, they are outsmarted by two 8-year-old girls. In the pilot episode of Big Shots, the divorced man (Dylan McDermott) explicitly ties the men’s sense of powerlessness to a social trend toward the feminization of males: "Men—we’re the new women.”

Naturally, if men are the new women in today’s culture, "Women are the new men on TV,” as the aforementioned Salon.com essay noted:

When you turn on your television this fall, you’ll be watching more women kick more ass than you can possibly imagine—physically, economically and sexually. Hard-bodied and smart, rich and aggressive, confident and independent, the chicks who populate the prime-time lineup are being cast in roles that once belonged almost exclusively to men. These broads are cops and lawyers and masters of the business universe. . . . Julianna Margulies will star as a nasty Nancy Grace knockoff, Angie Harmon as a police lieutenant, Lucy Liu as a publishing executive, and Patricia Heaton as a news anchor; there’s a new Bionic Woman and a whole show about the world’s leading incubator of the future, The Terminator’s Sarah Connor. The flinty Cagneys, Laceys, Murphys and Buffys of yore aren’t the exceptions in the new TV season; they rule.

The same trend is evident at the movies. We have the vigilante killer played by Jodie Foster in The Brave One, the ferocious female zombie-killer played by Milla Jovovich in the Resident Evil films, the werewolf hunter played by Kate Beckinsale in the two Underworld movies, countless machinegun-toting female police officers of extraordinary fierceness in all sorts of action movies, and the increasingly common occurrence of female characters punching men in the face, especially in comedies. As these cultural products indicate, and as Hoff-Sommers notes, masculine behavior is acceptable as long as the person engaging in it is not actually male.

Of course, something as natural as masculinity cannot be completely eradicated except by exterminating every man in the world, and thus many young men rebel against their indoctrination, consciously or otherwise. The culture is thus also replete with both real and fictional males who take masculinity to decidedly unattractive and even dangerous extremes.

Consider, for example, the brutish ex-boyfriend in the pilot episode of The Big Bang Theory, the Russian thugs at the center of the film Eastern Promises, the foul-tempered chef Gordon Ramsay on FOX’s Hell’s Kitchen and Kitchen Nightmares, and the misogyny and glorification of violence in current hip-hop music. Real-life sports heroes are increasingly being arrested for drunken driving, drug possession, physical assaults, and in the case of former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, running a dog-fighting ring.

Even roughnecks such as these, however, are subject to cultural education into the joys of femininity. The hero of the movie The Game Plan, an NFL quarterback played by hyper-muscular Duane "The Rock” Johnson, is narcissistic, arrogant, egotistical, and selfish—both on the field and off. Only after dancing in a ballet and being reeducated by his 8-year-old daughter, his sister-in-law, and the daughter’s dance teacher does he finally win a Super Bowl ring. In today’s culture, women even make the best football coaches.

Other men respond to the cultural denigration of masculinity by simply trying not to grow up at all. This, too, is evident in pop culture. Writing in National Review Online, Justin Shubow notes that "porn-addicted, video-game-playing man-children are the subject of so many recent comedies like Knocked Up; The 40-Year-Old -Virgin; You, Me, and Dupree; and Failure to Launch. Not having been effectively socialized into masculinity, adult males have become less manly but more boyish.”

The central characters of the new TV programs Chuck and Reaper are afflicted with just such a Peter-Pan syndrome. Chuck Bartowsky (Zachary Levi) is a young man of positively stunning ordinariness who works at a Buy-More store, fixing computers and cell phones and being bullied by a jerk coworker who has the inside track on the open assistant-manager job. The two main characters of the new CW series Reaper are college-age (though not college-attending) males who work at their local big-box retail store. Although one is definitely intelligent enough to go to college, he has low self-esteem and little ambition and so decided not to. He spends his time hanging out with his friends and wishes he had the nerve to make a date with an attractive female coworker.

Thus, the war against boys seems to have created three main character patterns for the adult male of our time: sensitive guys who want to please women; weenies and dorks who want only to be left alone to drink beer and play video games with their dork buddies; and thugs who, in rebellion against their unnatural education, are perpetually concerned with proving their toughness through increasingly loutish behavior. There are, of course, examples of decent, positively masculine males in the culture, but they are becoming increasingly overwhelmed by the products of educational and cultural feminization.

The fact is that people learn what you teach them. And the consequences of the war against boys—and the broader social war against masculinity in general—are increasingly evident in both the culture and the world at large. We should hardly be surprised that the results are anything but pretty.

From Salvo 4 (Winter 2008)

Feminization Of The White Man

By Dr. William Pierce

I always have been very fond of women -- perhaps too much sometimes. I always have enjoyed their company greatly. I have really worshipped feminine beauty. I have admired and respected women when they have served their purpose in the life of our people, as much as I have admired and respected men who have served their purpose.

Having said this I must tell you now that I believe that a great part of the present pathology of our society can be ascribed properly to its feminization over the past century or two, to its loss of its former masculine spirit and masculine character.

This came to mind most recently when I saw and heard the reaction to Timothy McVeigh's statement to the court on August 14, at the time he was sentenced to die. What McVeigh said was very relevant, very pertinent. He said that the government teaches its citizens by its example. When the government breaks the law, then its citizens will not respect the law.

But the spectators almost uniformly were disappointed by this statement. They complained that they wanted to hear him say that he was sorry for what he had done, that he was sorry for the innocent victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. They weren't even interested in hearing about the much larger issue of government lawlessness that Mr. McVeigh raised. They only wanted an apology for the suffering of individual victims. This is a feminine attitude, this focusing on personal and individual feelings rather than on the larger, impersonal context. It is a feminine attitude, despite the fact that it was expressed by grown men.

Many other people besides me have come to similar conclusions, although not all of them have wanted to come right and out and say so, because that would be the height of Political Incorrectness, the height of "insensitivity." As far back as the 1960s some perceptive commentators were remarking on the generally unmasculine character of the young men they encountered in our universities. Male university students even then tended to be too timid; too soft; too lacking in boldness, pride, and independence; too whiny in adversity; insufficiently willing to endure hardship or to challenge obstacles.

We have always had both soft, dependent men and hard, proud men in our society, but the commentators were comparing the relative numbers of masculine and non-masculine men they saw in our universities in the 1960s with what they had seen in the 1930s and 1940s. The 1960s, of course, were a time when the whinier men were making extraordinary efforts to remain in the universities in order to avoid military service, while many of the more masculine men were off in Vietnam, but this isn't enough to account for the change these commentators noticed.

Something written by the American historian Henry Adams back in 1913 was recently called to my attention. Adams wrote "Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women." Now, Henry Adams was a man who had much more than a passing interest in such matters -- he was a lifelong student of these things and also was a professor of history at Harvard back in the days when the professors at that university were expected to know what they were talking about -- so we ought to pay some attention to his observation of the state of affairs in America in 1913. Incidentally, he was a member of one of America's most distinguished families. He was a great grandson of the founding father and second President of the country, John Adams, and a grandson of the sixth President, John Quincy Adams.

Henry's brother, Brooks Adams, had written a book 18 years earlier, in 1895, on the subject commented on by Henry. It was The Law of Civilization and Decay, and in it Brooks made an even more general observation than that stated later by Henry. Brooks saw two types of man: the type he described as spiritual man, typified by the farmer-warrior-poet-priest; and the type he called economic man, typified by the merchant and the bureaucrat. I believe that Brooks must have known a different breed of priests than those I am familiar with. He was thinking of Martin Luther and Giordano Bruno, not Billy Graham and John Paul II.

He saw spiritual man as having the leading role in the building of a civilization, with the economic men coming out of the woodwork and assuming the dominant role after the civilization had peaked and was in the process of decay. Spiritual men are those with vision and daring and a close connection to their roots, their spiritual sources. Economic men are those who know how to calculate the odds and evaluate an opportunity, but who have cut themselves loose from their spiritual roots and become cosmopolitans, to the extent that that offers an economic advantage. The spirit of adventure and the current of idealism run strong in spiritual men; economic men, on the other hand, are materialists. And Brooks was referring only to European men, to White men. He was not even considering the Jews or Chinese.

Most of us are a mixture of the two types, and it's difficult to find examples of purely spiritual or purely economic men. Michelangelo and Charles Lindbergh tended toward the type of spiritual man. Pick almost any prominent politician today -- Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, say -- and you have a good example of economic man. Which is not to say that all economic men are politicians, by any means: just that, since they are not likely to be distinguished in the arts, scholarship, or exploration, politics is where economic men are most likely to find fame.

So what does this have to do with the feminization of our society and the preponderance of whiny young men at our universities today? Actually, these things are very closely interrelated. They also are related to the things which caught the attention of Henry Adams: the loss of our aesthetic sense, our warrior spirit, and our feeling for what is divine, along with our masculinity.

When I say "loss," I am using this word only in its relative sense. Our society still has masculine elements, masculine characteristics; it's just that they are weaker now than they were 200 years ago. And 200 years ago there were some effeminate tendencies to be found; tendencies which today have become much more pronounced. It would be an error, I believe, to attribute this shift in balance solely to the machinations of feminists, homosexuals, or even Jews. They are responsible for the condition of our society today primarily in the sense that the pus in a ripe boil is to be blamed for the boil. The feminists, homosexuals and Jews characterize our society in large part today -- they are symptoms of the pathology afflicting our society -- but we must look deeper for the cause of our decay.

Let me repeat Henry Adams' observation. He wrote: "Our age has lost much of its ear for poetry, as it has its eye for color and line and its taste for war and worship, wine and women."

If he were writing today, he might note that the immortal lyrics of his contemporary, Tennyson, have given way in favor to the pretentious drivel of Maya Angelou; that the Western tradition in art, which had culminated in the 19th century in the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich and John Constable, has been shoved aside in the 20th century by the trash-art of Picasso, Chagall, and Pollock; that the profession of arms, which was still a more or less honorable profession in the 19th century, a profession in which gentlemen and even scholars still could be found, has become at the end of the 20th century a vocation for bureaucrats and lickspittles, for men without honor or spirit; that worship, once taken seriously even by many intelligent and sophisticated men, is now the business of Christian democrats, with their egalitarian social gospel, and of vulgarians of the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker stripe, with their television congregations of superstitious, amen-shouting dimwits.

Can we properly describe this change noted by Henry Adams as the feminization of our society? Or should it be thought of as the replacement of aristocratic values by democratic values, a general vulgarization of standards and tastes? Actually, these two ways of looking at the change are related. But let me take Brooks Adams' position now and say that the change can be attributed most fundamentally to the growing materialism in our society, to the replacement of spiritual values by economic values. What does that have to do with feminism or with democracy?

Actually, a great deal. In a very broad sense, aristocratic values are masculine values, and democratic values -- egalitarian values -- are feminine values. It is also true that, in a very broad sense, materialism is a feminine way of looking at the world. It is a way which puts emphasis on safety, security, and comfort, and on tangible things at the expense of intangibles. It is not concerned with concepts such as honor, and very little with beauty, tradition, and roots. It is a way with a limited horizon, with the home and hearth very much in sight, but not distant frontiers. Reverence and awe for Nature's majesty are unknown to the materialist.

As spiritual man gives way to economic man, when one historical era merges into another -- as idealism gives way to materialism -- society gives a freer play to the feminine spirit while it restricts the masculine spirit. Words gain over deeds; action gives way to talk. Quantity is valued over quality. All of God's children are loved equally. Pickaninnies are considered "cute" or even "adorable." The role of the government shifts from that of a father, who maintains an orderly and lawful environment in which men are free to strive for success as little or as much as suits them, to that of a mother, who wants to insure that all of her children will be supplied with whatever they need.

It is not just society which changes, not just government, not just public policy; individual attitudes and behavior also change. The way in which children are raised changes. Girls no longer are raised to be mothers and homemakers but rather to be self-indulgent careerists. Boys no longer are raised to be strong-willed, independent, and resourceful. That requires hardness and self-denial; it requires masculine rule during the formative years. A disciplined environment gives way to a permissive one, and so the child does not learn self-discipline. Spanking becomes a criminal offense. The child is not punished for disobedience, nor is he given the opportunity to fail and to learn from this the penalties that the real world holds for those who are not strong enough to succeed. And so boys grow up to be whiny and ineffective young men, who believe that a plausible excuse is an acceptable substitute for performance and who never can understand why the gratification they seek eludes them.

The move from masculine idealism to feminine materialism leads inevitably to hedonism, egoism, and eventually narcissism. Henry Adams also claimed that we have lost our taste for wine and women. Well, certainly not in the sense that we have become less interested in alcohol or sex. What he meant is that we have lost the keen edge of our appreciation for civilization's refinements, for the finest and most subtle things in life: that our appetites have become grosser as they have become less disciplined. Our interest now is in alcohol for its ability to give us a momentary buzz, not in fine wine for its inherent artistry.

A similar consideration applies to the way in which our taste for women has changed. And is this not to be expected? It is the masculine spirit which appreciates woman, which appreciates feminine qualities, and as this spirit declines, our taste for women loses its edge and becomes coarser. We move from an age in which women were not only appreciated but also treasured and protected into an age in which homosexuality is open, tolerated, and increasingly common; Madonna is a celebrated symbol of American womanhood; and feminine beauty is a mere commodity, like soybeans or crude oil: an age in which parents dump their daughters into the multiracial cesspool that America's schools and cities have become to let them fend for themselves. In an age in which materialism and feminism are ascendant, this is the only way it can be. To attempt to make it otherwise -- to attempt to decommercialize sex, for example -- would be a blow against the economy, against the materialist spirit. And to elevate women again to the protected status they had in a more masculine era would be fought tooth and nail by the feminists as a limitation on women's freedom.

This subject is a little fuzzy, and I've been speaking qualitatively rather than quantitatively. For almost everything I've said, an opponent could produce a counterexample. And that's because I'm talking about very large-scale phenomena, involving many people, many institutions, and many types of interactions. Even during periods of history which I would characterize as masculine or as dominated by the masculine spirit, one can find examples of feminine tendencies and of institutions with a feminine spirit, just as one can find masculine tendencies in our society today. For example, while I claim that our society is becoming more effeminate today, someone can attempt to counter that by noting that masculinized women are more prominent today -- female lawyers, female executives, female military officers -- and one can attribute that to masculine influences in our society. I would counter that by saying that when men become less masculine, women become less feminine.

Likewise, when I relate materialism and feminism, or when I say that the rise of the economic spirit is associated with a decline in masculinity, someone else can find plenty of men with no shortage of testosterone -- strong, aggressive capitalists -- who are epitomes of what Brooks Adams called "economic man."

What it really amounts to is that the masculine character, like the feminine character, has many components. The component I have emphasized today is the spiritual component -- and there are other components. It is a complex subject. But I still believe that we can meaningfully describe what has happened to our society and our civilization during the past couple of centuries as a decline in masculinity. I believe that such a description sheds a useful light on one aspect of what has happened to us. And I believe that Henry Adams' comment on our society's loss of its artistic sense and of its sense of reverence, along with its warrior spirit, is a generally true statement which has value in helping us to understand our predicament. Adams, to be sure, was a scholar of considerable depth, and he wrote a great deal of carefully reasoned material to support the one-sentence summary which I quoted.

By the way, one subject with which Henry Adams -- and his brother Brooks too -- were familiar in this regard was the role of the Jew in undermining civilization. Henry made a number of comments about the destructive role of the Jews in the economic and cultural aspects of European civilization. His observations on this subject are perhaps best summed up by something he wrote in a letter to a friend in 1896: "The Jew," he wrote, "has got into the soul . . . and wherever he . . . [that is, the Jew] goes, there must remain a taint in the blood forever." How much worse that taint has become during the century since Henry Adams made that observation!

I apologize for being so abstract in my own comments today. But I believe that it's useful to back off every now and then and try to see the big picture, to try to develop an intuitive sort of understanding of our situation, even if it means talking about things which are by their nature somewhat fuzzy.

Download Audio Version Of This Speech

Media Whores & Quislings

"They put out the eyes of the people, and then reproach them of their blindness." - John Milton (17th c. English poet)

"The man who never looked into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with half-truths and errors." - Thomas Jefferson (American Founding Father & President)

"One tames a people as one tames lions; by masturbation." - The brothers Goncourt (19th c. French historians and art critics)

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we think they ought to have." - Richard Salant (former president of CBS News)

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for world government if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during these years ..." - CFR and Trilateral Commission honcho, David Rockefeller, speaking at a Bilderberg meeting in Germany, 5 June 1991



Media Whores & Quislings Update (1 - 2003)

Understanding the News

by Dennis Behreandt

In a free society, the news media performs a useful and essential function. As no individual can examine all events firsthand, the media plays the role of surrogate, transmitting the knowledge of those events to all citizens so they can make informed decisions. This is the function to which Jack Fuller, president of the Tribune Publishing Company, referred in responding to a survey on the media in 1997. "The central purpose of journalism," stated Fuller, "is to tell the truth so that people will have the information that they need to be sovereign."

When news organizations do not tell the truth, they can change perceptions, sometimes in dangerous ways. In his study of Nazi Germany, liberal historian William L. Shirer described the effect of the Nazi controlled press, not only on the thinking of the German people, but on his own thinking:

I myself was to experience how easily one is taken in by a lying and censored

press and radio in a totalitarian state. Though unlike most Germans I had

daily access to foreign newspapers, especially those of London, Paris, and

Zurich ... my job necessitated the spending of many hours a day in combing

the German press. ... It was surprising and sometimes consternating to find

that notwithstanding the opportunities I had to learn the facts and despite one's

inherent distrust of what one learned from Nazi sources, a steady diet over years

of falsifications and distortions made a certain impression on one's mind and

often misled it. ... Often in a German home or office or sometimes in a casual

conversation with a stranger ... I would meet with the most outlandish assertions

from seemingly intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some

piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Some-

times one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with

such a state of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the

Almighty, that one realizes how useless it was even to try to make contact with a

mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what

Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for the truth, said they were.

The United States is not Nazi Germany. The press is not [yet] a department of the government. Yet the press is not what it once was. As authors Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel write in their recent book, The Elements of Journalism, "The real meaning of the First Amendment -- that a free press is an independent institution -- is threatened for the first time in our history even without government meddling."

The CFR Imprint on the News

One if the most important journalists in the last century was Walter Lippmann. Born in 1899, Lippmann received the best education money, and America, could provide: private schools and then Harvard. By 1917, he had found his way into the Wilson administration. He had already been a member of the semi-secret American Round Table group which, according to the late Georgetown University historian Carroll Quigley, The Rhodes Trust had financed. In Quigley's words, the several Round Table groups, including the one in America, were "to seek to federate the English-speaking world along lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes (1853 - 1902) and William T. Stead (1849 - 1912)." With his impeccable socialist and internationalist credentials well established, Lippmann was appointed to lead the effort to draft Wilson's 14 Points and, according to Quigley, became official interpreter of those points to the British government. Lippmann later became a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]. ..

As early as 1922, in his book Public Opinion, Lippmann asserted that "News and the truth are not the same thing. ..." The point of the news, according to Lippmann, is to point out certain facts, or bring to the public attention some event. In this view, news reporting is highly selective. And, because the news media has been nearly completely shot through by those who, like Lippmann, favor a left-wing, internationalist policy, the news is often selected and reported so that those positions are supported and contrary positions undermined.

Lippmann himself pointed to such selective and contrived reporting as indispensable in swaying public opinion to support Allied war aims in both World Wars. In his 1955 book, The Public Philosophy, he wrote:

When the world wars came, the people of the liberal democracies could not be

aroused to the exertions and the sacrifices of the struggle until they had been

frightened by the opening disasters, had been incited to passionate hatred, and

had become intoxicated with unlimited hope. To overcome this inertia, the enemy

had to be portrayed as evil incarnate, as absolute and congenital wickedness. The

people wanted to be told that. ...[t]his crusade would make the whole world safe

for democracy.

As a result of this impassioned nonsense public opinion became so envenomed that

the people would not countenance a workable peace; they were against any public

man who showed "any tenderness for the Hun. ..."

Once inflamed, the people proved willing to support all manner of barbarity. The era of total war, with its indiscriminate bombing of civilians, was entirely acceptable.

To his credit, Lippmann was uneasy with this outcome. But the point was made. Once suitably prepared, cajoled, persuaded, and "educated" by the propagandistic press, the people could be made to agree to any internationalist idea. Indeed, at the end of WWII, the people were persuaded that only a world federated under the United Nations would be free from future war.

The news outlets still play their role in the ongoing attempt to create a new internationalist order, and do so in much the same way they always have. In this effort to slant the news, these outlets use a number of techniques. First, and most obviously, there is the outright lie. For instance, the constant mantra that the United States is a democracy is a lie, even though nearly everyone believes it. Of course, this lie serves the interests of left-wing internationalists by confusing Americans about the true nature of their government. (Democracy is majority rule. On the other hand, a republic is governed by the rule of law, affording everyone, including minorities, protection under the law.)

Errors of commission of this sort, though, are far less common than errors of omission. In other words, rather than giving a true accounting of significant events as they occur, news providers more commonly try to ignore stories that undermine their agenda, while exploiting stories that further their agenda. The "War on Terror" has provided innumerable examples. For instance, on 30 April 2002, during a speech in San Jose, California, President Bush warned the nations of the world, "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Clearly three nations "with the terrorists" are those identified by President Bush as forming the "Axis of Evil." These include Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Among those nations who have been "with us" in the war against terror are Russia and China. Interestingly, a recent CIA report to Congress on arms proliferation notes, according to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, that "Russia and China have been supplying Tehran with nuclear-related equipment that will boost Iran's capability to build nuclear weapons." In addition, the CIA report notes that "firms in China have provided dual-use missile -related items, raw materials and-or assistance to several countries of proliferation concern -- such as Iran, North Korea, and Libya." Obviously, Russia and China are in bed with the terrorists.

The press, however, has shied away from drawing this conclusion. In this case, they have chosen not to connect the dots. Why? Simply this: Connecting the dots would make it abundantly clear that Russia and China are not acting as allies would act. This would damage the internationalist cause which has long worked to include Russia and China in the developing global order.

Failing to connect all the dots that matter is just one method by which the media selectively reports only those things that support its leftist and internationalist agenda. Another technique often used is the ad hominem argument. This technique was used in 1999 in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial about gun control. In the wake of shooting as Columbine and Atlanta, the Journal-Constitution opined: "Some will argue, even in the wake of this tragedy, that guns are not the problem, that instead they offer a means for protecting ourselves from the madmen. That argument is itself a form of criminal lunacy that can no longer be treated as credible." By calling the natural right to self-defense a form of "criminal lunacy," this editorial deceitfully dehumanizes those who favor gun rights. this, of course, also furthers the leftist, internationalist cause seeking to restrict the use of force to national and then internationalist governing bodies.

Yet another common technique of deception is the argument ad nauseam. William L. Shirer referred to it when he noted that the constant repetition of Nazi propaganda makes "a certain impression on one's mind." This technique is commonly employed, for instance, in the abortion debate when news headlines repeat the chant that abortion is a woman's right. Repeating such phraseology over and over does not alchemically transform the statement from falsehood to fact. It does, however, constantly keep the refrain in the minds of the citizens and is likely, over time, to make a "certain impression." The frame of reference will change. Rather than thinking of abortion in terms of murdering a child, people begin to think of it in more abstract terms such as "reproductive rights."

Surviving the News

With the media cartel employing so many techniques of distortion and deception, just how is the average citizen to gather the basic knowledge needed to form sound opinions from which to make useful judgments? First, always keep in mind the essential nature of media bias, namely its advocacy of a leftist, internationalist world order. Awareness of this bent makes it much easier to read between the lines, be the subject the war on terrorism or gun control.

Second, consider the source. Does the source have a track record of obvious bias? Has the source made statements or predictions that have proven false? Does the report depend heavily on other, unnamed sources? if so, do not accept reports from this source at face value. Verify the report, if possible, with reports on the same subject from other independent sources.

Next, find a reliable source and keep it at hand for cross referencing. If news reports published elsewhere seem a little suspect, check the facts against reports on the same or similar topics in the source that has proven reliable. And, in many cases, it may make sense t check previous reporting to see how and why a story might have changed over time.

These efforts will not always be easy, but they are important. The media cartel is not interested in providing unbiased information to support the civic duties of the citizenry. The responsibility for remaining informed of the truth has now fallen squarely on the shoulders of each individuals

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Media Whores & Quislings Update (2 - 2003)


The Sexualization of the Culture, The Sexualization of the Clergy

by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.

"Then never think, my friend, that you are free while your belly rules you and the part below the belly, since you will then have masters who can furnish you with pleasures or deprive you of them." - Julian the Apostate

"At 4:30 p.m. on 30 March 2002, Israeli military forces took over Palestinian TV stations when they occupied Ramallah in the West Bank, immediately shutting them down. What followed was a little more unusual. Shortly after occupying the Al-Watan TV station, the Israeli forces began broadcasting pornography over its transmitter. Eventually, according to a report from The Advertiser, an Australian newspaper, the Israelis expanded their cultural offensive against the Palestinian people by broadcasting pornography over two other Palestinian stations, the Ammwaj and Al-Sharaq channels. ...

"[The Israelis] knew that a blind opponent is no opponent at all, and because they knew -- as the ancient Greeks knew -- that lust makes a man blind ... Israel's use of pornography in their battle against the Palestinians isn't so inexplicable." - E. Michel Jones (Editor, Culture Wars magazine)


In his book on Shakespeare, the Rev. Peter Milward, SJ claims that The Merchant of Venice is really an attack on Puritans and not Jews. There were no Jews in England in Shakespeare's time, but there were plenty of Puritans who gave their children not only Jewish names but shared an essentially Jewish Messianic view of politicals, spawning political movements of the sort which would triumph in England in the middle of the 17th century and in America for a long time after. Milward's claim leads us to a larger point: that there has been a close affinity between the revolutionary Protestant and the revolutionary Jew ever since Rabbi Menassah Ben Israel met with Cromwell in 1656 and persuaded that worthy to let the Jews back into England (1). What both groups share is a deep-seated hatred of the Catholic Church of the sort that got transmuted into Freemasonry. As Leo XIII's indictment makes clear, Freemasonry by the late 19th century had become associated with a particular kind of cultural warfare, one which was associated with the corruption of morals in general and the sexualization of culture in particular as a form of social control.

In America cultural warfare over obscenity began in earnest during the 1920s, when the motion picture began to have more and more impact on American cultural mores. The first to take up the cry against Hollywood were the Protestant nativists in general and cultural icons like Henry Ford in particular. Ford saw the issue in ethnic terms. Hollywood, he claimed in his book, The International Jew, "was a Jewish enterprise from the start." Ford went on to say that "the moral side of the movies' influence" had become "a world problem" because of the "Jewish manipulation of the public mind." Anyone "who has an active moral sense," according to Ford, was convinced that the motion picture industry "frankly brutalizes taste and morals and should not be permitted to be a law unto itself."

In addition to the obvious issue of increasing nudity and sexual innuendo on the screen during the precode 1920s, Hollywood subjected "Christian clergymen ... to all sorts of misrepresentation, from the comic to the criminal." The purpose of this misrepresentation, which Ford saw as "distinctly Jewish," was "to break down as far as possible all respectful or considerate thought about the clergy." Interestingly, especially in light of later developments, it was the Catholic clergy, who, according to Ford, "very soon made themselves felt in opposition to this abuse of their priestly dignity." As a result, Ford writes, "the Jew climbed down" and "you now never see a priest made light of on the screen. But the Protestant clergyman is still the elongated, sniveling, bilious hypocrite of anti-Christian caricatures."

Grassroots protest against Hollywood's sexualization of the culture increased throughout the 1920s to the point where numerous state legislatures were preparing to take legal action, establishing their own censorship boards. The Catholics in many ways prevented that from happening by establishing the national Legion of Decency and effectively bringing Hollywood to bay through the threat of economic boycott. Eventually, Joseph I. Breen was appointed the Catholic censor to Hollywood. Breen was no nativist. The fact that he held his job for 20 years and was given an award by the people he censored when he retired showed, as Mark Viera points out in his book on precode Hollywood, that he was no anti-Semite. But Breen saw the battle over the sexualization of American culture issue in essentially ethnic terms as well. "Ninety-five percent of these folks," he wrote describing the Hollywood moguls of the 1930s, "are Jews of an Eastern European lineage. They are, probably, the scum of the earth. ... These Jews seem to think of nothing but money making and sexual indulgence. The vilest kind of sin is a common indulgence hereabouts, and the men and the women who engage in this sort of business are the men and women who decide what the film fare of the nation is supposed to be" (Viera, Sin in Soft Focus, p.79).

Breen saw the sexualization issue in ethnic terms because that is how everyone else saw it too, including the Jews. Leo Pfeffer, lawyer for the American Jewish Committee and strategist for a number of key Supreme Court decisions, from Schempp v. Abington School Board to Lemon v. Kurtzman, decisions which effectively defined the cultural revolution of the '60s, noted the same ethnic divide over the sexualization of the culture in one of his memoirs. "After World War I," he wrote, "Irish-oriented American Catholicism began taking over leadership in anti-obscenity militancy. Catholic organizations such as the National Office for Decent Literature and the national Legion of Decency ... became the nations' most militant and effective defender of morals and censorship." As a result, America's Catholics came into cultural conflict with the Jews who promoted the sexualization of American culture. "American Jewry," according to Pfeffer, supported that sexualization "because many Jews, far more proportionately than the other faiths, are commercially and professionally involved in the cinema and publishing." As a result, Jews have "been overwhelmingly antipathetic to the crusade for morality and censorship in the arts and literature." Jay Gertzman in his book on the trade in obscenity during the same period makes the same point:

The ethnic flavor of prewar erotica distribution is still with us, although, except

for extreme right-wing hate groups, critics of sexual explicitness do not overtly

exploit the fact [that] many distributors of erotica are Jewish ...(Bootleggers and

Smuthounds, p.289). ...

[Gertzman's] father and uncle were arrested for selling obscene materials from their store on Market Street in Philadelphia during the 50s.

The thirty-year battle over the sexualization of the culture ended in 1965 when the Legion of Decency ran up the white flag and Hollywood broke the code. Once the Catholics lost their nerve in the war over the sexualization of culture, once they backed away from holding Hollywood to the basic rudiments of sexual decency, it was inevitable that the instruments of culture they failed to control would get used against them in all out cultural warfare. The Sexualization of the Catholic clergy dates from this period, as the Los Angeles Times survey [conducted between June and October of 2002] makes clear.

There are no truces in cultural warfare. The law of cultural life is either occupy your cultural territory or have it occupied by alien forces (2).

"The truth of the matter was that I did not like the Catholic Church," Pfeffer admitted in his memoirs. The truth of the matter goes beyond that as well. Leo Pfeffer was not just talking about personal animus; he was talking about an animus which was shared by his employer, the American Jewish Committee, as well as by Hollywood's motion picture and television industries. The latter group was described by Stephen Steinlight [former Director for National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee] recently as "the Jewish industry, par excellence." Even toward the end of his life, after proclaiming the triumph of secular humanism over the Catholic Church in 1976, Pfeffer was concerned about Catholic activism on the abortion issue because "the partial success which it has so far achieved may encourage further Catholic intervention in the political arena and bring back the days when the Roman Catholic Church was a powerful force in the American political system."

The sexualization of the priesthood followed inexorably from the sexualization of American culture, which happened when the Catholics tired of holding the Jews in Hollywood to minimal standards of sexual decency. Once the culture got sexualized, scandals in the priesthood might have happened anyway just because of the general loosening of sexual morals, even if Catholic religious hadn't been targeted specifically. But the fact of the matter is that Catholic religious were targeted specifically by the same group of [previously mentioned] Judeo-Puritan revolutionaries. ...

The simple fact of the matter is that the use of sexual deviance as a form of psychological warfare had been part of the intellectual lingua franca since the early '30s when Wilhelm Reich published his book Die Massenpsychologie des Fascismus. That book was translated into English in the late '40s, and by 1970, when Reich appeared on the cover of the New York Times magazine, it was recognized as the bible of the sexual revolutionary, sexual revolution being a term coined by Reich himself. ... Reich's strategy was to combine sexual deviance with "a mass phenomena" of the sort that could be promoted to unheard of levels of subversion with the technological breakthroughs which allowed the development of motion pictures, television and recorded music. ... The target Reich mentions in The Mass Psychology of Fascism is the Catholic seminarian. By involving him in sexual deviance, Reich brings about what he could not bring about by debating the existence of God or the tenth thesis of the fourth international, namely, the fact that the idea of God simply evaporates from the mind of the seminarian involved in deviant sexual activity.

By 1970 Reich had become a Jewish role model. Like Nina Hartley, Richard Pacheco is a porn star who sees a connection between pornography and being Jewish. When he showed up at an audition for an X-rated film he did so quite consciously as a cultural revolutionary, "with my hair down to my ass, a copy of Wilhelm Reich's Sexual Revolution under my arm and yelling about work, love and sex, which were Reich's three principles." Wilhelm Reich was, of course, a secular Jew just like Hartley and Pacheco; he, more than anyone else, made explicit in his writing how sex could be used as a weapon, probably the most effective weapon, in revolutionary struggle. The fact that Pacheco needed Reich under his arm to justify his participation in pornography shows how influential Reich had become in revolutionary circles, but it also showed that Reich had become as well a role model for the secular Jew who saw himself as a cultural revolutionary. Reich's thought on how to corrupt Catholic seminarians had become part of the lingua franca of cultural bolshevism (3).

Paul Likoudis [in his book Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals, and the Homosexual Agenda, 2002] paints a convincing picture of the ravages which sexual deviance have wrought within the Catholic Church. But the simple fact of the matter remains: deviance is only newsworthy if Catholics are involved. The incidence of sexual deviance [is] no different in other denominations. The deviance among Catholic clergy makes the news because the pedophile priest scandal is part of the almost century-long battle over the sexualization of American Culture. If that deviance were simply an intra-Catholic phenomenon, in other words, if it were not part of that struggle, it would merit about the same amount of column inches that deviance among rabbis and ministers now merits. It would merit about the same amount of press that the now forgotten Michael Jackson pedophile scandal merited. Did the Boston Globe call for the resignation of Sony because of what Michael Jackson did? Did it call for sweeping changes in the music industry? Are we to believe that the Catholic clergy is more sexually degenerate than the music industry?

The current crisis over deviance within the Church cannot be understood if it is viewed as an intra-Catholic struggle; it can only be understood in the light of the battle over the sexualization of culture which preceded it. That battle against the Church has been waged by two groups of revolutionaries -- the [WASP] puritans and the [Zionist] Bolsheviks -- whose only common denominator, aside from their predilection for revolution and subversion through the manipulation of passion, is hatred of the Catholic Church. The pedophile priest scandal currently making the news is just another chapter in that book. The Catholic Quislings and useful idiots who have caused so much damage could never have achieved what they have achieved without the help of the people who have staged the sexualization of our culture from the beginning.