Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 24th, 2005 #1
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default Weekly Standard

The Weekly Standard’s War: Murdoch’s mag stands athwart history yelling, “Attack!”
Quote:
November 21, 2005 Issue -- As the Weekly Standard celebrates its 10th birthday, it may be time to ask whether America has ever seen a more successful political magazine. Many have been more widely read, profitable, amusing, or brilliant. But in terms of actually changing the world and shaping the course of history, what contemporary magazine rivals the Standard? Even if you believe that the change has been much for the worse, the Standard’s record of success in its own terms is formidable.

At the time of the Standard’s founding in 1995, there was considerable speculation among neoconservatives over whether the movement had run its course. In “Neoconservatism: A Eulogy,” Norman Podhoretz [jew alert] argued that neoconservatism had effectively put itself out of business by winning on its two major battle fronts: over communism and the residue of the 1960s counterculture. In the process, it had injected itself into the main body of American conservatism to such a degree that it was no longer particularly distinct from it. The eulogy was not a lamentation, more an appreciation of a job well done.

But while there was something to the Podhoretz argument, the American Right in 1995 did not have a neoconnish feel. Newt Gingrich and the new Congress were the center of gravity; Rush Limbaugh was a far more important figure than Bill Kristol; the issues that most agitated the Right, gays in the military and Whitewater, were either the province of religious and social conservatives or committed Republican partisans.

On other national issues, neocons were either uncertain or not on the cutting edge. Charles Murray’s 1994 bestseller The Bell Curve, which argued that IQ was hereditarily based and was increasingly and ineluctably correlated with career success and life outcomes, was the most discussed and controversial book on the Right, but neocons were split over whether to distance themselves from it or quietly embrace at least some of its analyses. Immigration, already an issue of intense popular concern in California, was a key cause for National Review, the oldest and most popular magazine on the Right. But most neoconservatives deplored the immigration-reform impulse, with many claiming to see in it an echo of the restrictionists of the 1920s, whose legislation had the (obviously unintended) result of closing America’s door to Jewish refugees a decade later.

Foreign policy, which had been a prime unifier of the Right during the Cold War, was on the back burner. Norman Podhoretz’s Commentary had been waging a lonely battle against the Oslo peace process (a track leading to a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank), but its position was very much in the minority among both foreign-affairs experts and American Jews. In the quarterlies, foreign-policy specialists debated America’s role in the post-Cold War world, but it was hard for most newspaper readers to keep up with obscure struggles on the Balkans or complicated debate about NATO expansion. America, it seemed, had no real enemies. Thus in 1995, it could be rightly claimed that the original neoconservative movement had spawned a successor generation, even two. But it was not clear what that generation’s role would be, if any.

Enter the Weekly Standard—edited principally by William Kristol, [jew alert] a genial and sharp son of an eminent neoconservative family—which arrived on the scene thanks to a $3 million annual subsidy from Rupert Murdoch. It is not always understood beyond the world of journalism that political opinion magazines almost invariably lose money—sometimes a lot of it. The deficits are usually made up by their owners and subscribers’ contributions, some quite substantial. Commentary was supported for most of its life by the American Jewish Committee and now has a publication committee of formidably wealthy people. William F. Buckley’s National Review always had angels; Buckley once answered a query about when his magazine would be profitable by saying, “You don’t expect the Church to make a profit, do you?” The venerable Nation, at the time of the Standard’s founding, had an annual deficit of roughly $500,000, made up by owner Arthur Carter. The prestigious Atlantic Monthly reportedly loses between $4 and $8 million a year.

That said, while the Standard’s reported subsidy was gigantic for a small ideological niche magazine, if Rupert Murdoch’s purpose was to make things happen in Washington and in the world, he could not have leveraged it better. One could spend 10 times that much on political action committees without achieving anything comparable.

It has never been obvious, however, what Murdoch’s ideological and political ambitions were. A brilliant businessman, he was generally right-wing—though his newspapers and networks hardly humored socially conservative sensibilities. His papers tended to endorse conservative candidates who had a good chance of winning. More than anything else, he seemed to relish his triumph over the British press unions. He was not an immigration restrictionist but didn’t share the neocon antipathy to them. In 1993, it took considerable effort by New York Post editorial-page editor Eric Breindel to persuade Murdoch that Rudy Giuliani was vastly superior to the incumbent David Dinkins as a candidate for mayor of New York. In one conversation I had with him (during my own brief tenure as Post editorial-page editor) about the paper’s foreign-policy positions, he told me, when the discussion had veered to Israel and the Middle East, “Well, it might not have been a good idea to create it [Israel], but now that it’s there, it has to be supported.” A splendidly ambiguous statement—perfectly consistent with a strong pro-Israel position, but not the sort of thing an American neoconservative would ever say.

The subsidy Murdoch accorded the Standard assured the new venture would be highly visible by the standards of start-up political magazines. It could afford a wide newsstand presence: it is costly for any new magazine to print issues that will in most cases not be sold. The Standard not only passed out thousands of complimentary issues around Washington, it had them personally delivered to Beltway influentials as soon as they were printed. Above all, the new journal provided employment for a small coterie of neoconservative essayists and a ready place to publish for dozens of apparatchiks who held posts at the American Enterprise Institute and other neocon-friendly think tanks.

With the fledgling Fox News network, the Standard soon emerged as the key leg in a synergistic triangle of neoconservative argumentation: you could write a piece for the magazine, talk about your ideas on Fox, pick up a paycheck from Kristol or from AEI. It was not a way to get rich, but it sustained a network of careers that might otherwise have shriveled or been diverted elsewhere. Indeed, it did more than sustain them, it gave neocons an aura of being “happening” inside the Beltway that no other conservative (or liberal) faction could match. Murdoch had refuted the otherwise plausible arguments in Norman Podhoretz’s eulogy.

But what was the Standard’s type of neoconservatism? To some degree the new magazine echoed the most popular GOP obsessions, exhibiting for example a limitless enthusiasm for Kenneth Starr’s inquisition into Bill Clinton’s sex life. It warned Republican lawmakers against supporting a 1996 immigration reform that would have reduced the numbers of legal and illegal immigrants. (Asians and Hispanics had “increasingly Republican partisan inclinations” the magazine claimed, without evidence.) It had a moment—one issue, precisely—of Great Fear when it seemed possible that Pat Buchanan would capture the 1996 Republican presidential nomination and devoted a three-article cover spread to bemoaning the possibility. (One piece was a smear, one a reasoned look at Buchanan’s protectionist economic views, and one contained the interesting assertion that Buchanan’s views on issues were not particularly extreme—and in fact shared by tens of millions of Americans—but his way of presenting them was, and therein lay the problem.) It published Robert Kagan’s [jew alert] attack on Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” under the charming neo-McCarthyesque title “Harvard Hates America.” But except for its foreign-policy stances, the Standard seemed a bit themeless throughout its early life.

Nor does the recently released The Weekly Standard: A Reader 1995-2005 pinpoint the editorial heart of the publication. The volume (as does the magazine itself) contains several excellent pieces, exuding an urbane and sophisticated moderate conservatism. Worthy of note is what may be the finest appreciation in print of the Columbia literary critic and neoconservative precursor Lionel Trilling, [jew alert] written by Gertrude Himmelfarb [jew alert] (Bill Kristol’s mother). The collection also contains essays by Christopher Caldwell, Joseph Epstein, [jew alert] and Andrew Ferguson that any editor would be proud to publish. The magazine’s hawkishness is not exactly swept under the bed; Kristol and Robert Kagan’s “Saddam Must Go” editorial of November 1997 is reprinted: “We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable.” Charles Krauthammer’s [jew alert] “At Last, Zion” (May 1998) is a powerful and moving explanation of why Israel is at the center of his (and much neoconservative) consciousness. In “The Holocaust Shrug” (April 2004), David Gelernter [jew alert] wheels out the tried and tested appeasement analogy in support of the Iraq War. Saddam is no Hitler, Gelernter acknowledges, but “the world’s indifference to Saddam resembles its indifference to Hitler.”

But these foreign-policy essays, making up perhaps a fifth of the volume, don’t do justice to the central role the Iraq War played in establishing the Standard’s identity. For despite the publication’s subsidy and visibility, before 9/11 it seemed to be floundering. It was unable to push George W. Bush in a direction it wanted. Most of the editors had supported John McCain in the Republican primaries; no neoconservatives received cabinet-level posts in the administration. The varied balloons Kristol and company hoisted to give a focus to their politics (“national greatness conservatism” was one, with an emphasis on an assertive foreign policy and constructing patriotic monuments) never gained much altitude. In 2001, Kristol mentioned to some that he was considering closing down the magazine. The Standard’s last cover story before 9/11 was a long meditation by David Brooks [jew alert] on the TV show “Gilligan’s Island” and what the evolution of pop culture said about globalization.

One day a novel must be written that conveys the sense of purpose and energy that surged through the Standard’s offices—and that of the whole Washington neoconservative network—in the days after September 11, 2001. No more esoteric musings about Gilligan and the Skipper. The Project for a New American Century—a Bill Kristol-founded pressure group that specialized in gathering the signatures of the obscure and moderately famous in support of a more militarized foreign policy—would be ignored no longer. At long last, there would be an audience.

Inside the administration were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and their staffs, heavy with signatories of the original 1998 PNAC Saddam-must-be-removed letter. They set out to neutralize the skeptical CIA and Colin Powell’s more cautious State Department and rush the White House into a war in Iraq. Their story has been told in several book-length accounts and administration memoirs. Outside, with the vital task of shaping public opinion, the Standard emerged as the nerve center, a focal point to concentrate and diffuse the message of the Beltway neocons. For these bookish men, it was a Churchillian moment, an occasion to use words to rally a nation and shape history.

Their job was to divert America’s wrath away from those who perpetrated the attack and turn it against those who did not. It was, on the face of it, quite a stretch. The day before 9/11, the idea of a ground invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was as “unthinkable” as it had been when Kristol and Kagan had first broached it four years earlier. But the country was confused—in shock and primed for vengeance. Suddenly there was a large national audience for foreign-policy discussion on the TV networks and talk-radio programs. The whole conservative movement was looking for guidance. If repetition could somehow insert into the national consciousness and thereby render plausible an idea that would otherwise have occurred to very few, the Standard would be up to the task. Again and again the refrain would be pounded out, “Saddam Must Go!” and would be picked up by commentators further down the ideological food chain.

In the first issue the magazine published after 9/11, Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly, two employees of Kristol’s PNAC, clarified what ought to be the country’s war aims. Their rhetoric—which laid down a line from which the magazine would not waver over the next 18 months—was to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to join them at the hip in the minds of readers, and then to lay out a strategy that actually gave attacking Saddam priority over eliminating al-Qaeda. The first piece was illustrated with a caricature of Saddam, not bin Laden, and the proposed operational plan against bin Laden was astonishingly soft. “While it is probably not necessary to go to war with Afghanistan, a broad approach will be required, ” they wrote. Taliban failure to help root out bin Laden ought to be “rewarded by aid to its Afghan opposition.” Presumably Ramsey Clark was tendering advice more dovish than this, but it could not have been by much.

Against Saddam, by contrast, no such caution was contemplated. “To be sure,” the PNAC duo intoned, “Usama bin Laden and his organization should be a prime target in this campaign. ... But the larger campaign must also go after Saddam Hussein. He might well be implicated in this week’s attacks … or he might not. But as with bin Laden, we have long known that Saddam is our enemy, and that he would strike us as hard as he could. ...The only reasonable course when faced with such foes is to preempt and to strike first.” “Eliminating Saddam,” they concluded, “is the key to restoring our regional dominance.”

If by week two the Standard had laid out a grand strategy (focus on the Saddam end of the fanciful “Saddam-bin Laden axis”), by week three it had found an iconic cover photo to reinforce the message. Max Boot’s [jew alert] “The Case for an American Empire” was illustrated with two Navy enlisted men in bright white uniforms, one black, one white, raising (or perhaps lowering) the stars and stripes, the sea stretching before them. This imperialism, the photo said, would be based on racial harmony. It evoked the “France of 100 million” posters that recruited soldiers from the empire to fight the Huns in World War I. “Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen,” Boot wrote.

Once Afghanistan has been dealt with, America should “turn its attention to Iraq.” “Who cares if Saddam was involved” in the 9/11 attacks? Boot did not. Saddam “has already earned himself a death sentence a thousand times over. ... He is currently working to acquire weapons of mass destruction that he or his confederates will unleash against America. ... Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul. With American seriousness and credibility thus restored, we will enjoy fruitful cooperation from the region’s many opportunists …”

Standard writers would repeat these arguments for the next 17 months. “If two or three years from now Saddam is still in power, the war on terrorism will have failed,” wrote Gary Schmitt some weeks later. Several weeks after that, it was Reuel Marc Gerecht’s turn: “Unless Saddam Hussein is removed, the war on terror will fail.” The line derived from the letter of menace Kristol and PNAC had addressed to George W. Bush on September 20, 2001. Failure to attack Iraq, they told the president, would “constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender” in the War on Terror.

A magazine communicates through its covers as well. Most telling was one of George W. Bush, gesticulating before an audience of troops, arm extended in a Caesarian pose. “The Liberator,” the Standard headline proclaimed. Flatter the leader who will do your bidding. It was February 2003, and the editors knew by then that war was almost certain.

Bush and his team have since fallen out of favor in Standard land. The magazine has begun blaming the bungled prosecution of the war on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and has called for his resignation. As Bush sinks in the polls, the journal will surely look to other politicians to carry out its aspirations. If David Brooks, now a New York Times columnist, is an indicator, that figure is likely to be a centrist or a “progressive” in the Joe Lieberman [jew alert] mode—conservatism as a vehicle for neoconservative foreign-policy goals having been pretty much run into the ground.

During the second week of the Iraq invasion, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz interviewed several intellectual supporters of the war. The New York TimesThomas Friedman [jew alert] (who backed the war despite being haunted by its similarities to Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, which he saw firsthand) suggested that this was very much an intellectuals’ war. “It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. … I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.” Then Friedman paused, clarifying, “It’s not some fantasy the neoconservatives invented. It’s not that 25 people hijacked America. You don’t take such a great nation into such a great adventure with Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard and another five or six influential columnists. In the final analysis what fomented the war is America’s over-reaction to September 11. ... It is not only the neoconservatives that led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris.”

That kind of ambiguous conclusion about the Standard’s and the neocons’ role in starting the war is what the undisputed and public evidence will sustain. The Standard was important. It amplified the views of “the 25” the way luncheon seminars at the American Enterprise Institute and other neocon think tanks never could have.

Its role can be likened to the Yellow Press, the Hearst papers and Pulitzer’s [jew alert] New York World, which did everything they could to instigate a war against Spain over Cuba in the 1890s and boosted their circulation mightily in the process. In the wake of 9/11, the Standard didn’t have to create the martial atmosphere artificially, just divert it from Osama to Saddam.

Without the Weekly Standard, would the invasion of Iraq taken place? It’s impossible to know. Without the Standard, other voices—including those of the realist foreign-policy establishment, which had been dominant in the first Bush administration and which opposed a precipitous campaign against Saddam—would have been on a more level playing field with the neocons. That would have made a difference.

So in a sense the Iraq War is Bill Kristol’s War as much as it is George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s, and the Standard is the vehicle that made it possible. It should go down in history as Rupert Murdoch’s War as well, and thus becomes by far the most significant historical event ever to be shaped by the Murdoch media.

How ironic it would be if it were not, in the end, a war Rupert Murdoch particularly wanted.
I do not know, but some of you may know, whether Reuel Marc Gerecht, Gary Schmitt or Andrew Ferguson are jews.
__________________

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)
 
Old November 24th, 2005 #2
Cowan Huberty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 435
Cowan Huberty
Default

The Weekly Standard,Fox News and the radio program "The John Batchelor Show"(WABC-New York) are the unholy trinity in Neo-con agenda pushing. The Batchelor show has been pushing for a war with Syria and Iran relentlessly every night
__________________

White Power!

 
Old January 25th, 2006 #3
Harry Flash
Sexist Bastard
 
Harry Flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,123
Harry Flash
Default Rupert The Jew

Murdoch was educated at a Geelong private school in Australia and then studied at Oxford. Murdoch's father, Keith married the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, Elisabeth Joy Greene. Keith was promoted from mere reporter to chairman of the newspaper where he worked. He bought two newspapers in Adelaide.

In England Murdoch was introduced through Lord Beaverbrook to a number of rich Jews such as Canadian liquor magnate, Edgar Bronfman and the chairman of the Anglo-American De Beer's diamond and gold cartel, Harry Oppenheimer. These were but a few of Murdoch's backers who supported him in his bid to build a global media empire.

Rupert was brought up by his mother as a good Jew and he has always ensured that his papers exhibit a pro-Israel bias which can be readily confirmed by a detailed study of papers. Rupert earned the sobriquet "Red Rupert" from his university days as a pro-Marxist radical.

In 1965 Rupert bought a Perth Sunday newspaper for $286,000 but soon the millions of dollars began to be spent as he bought a string of daily papers in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, as well as radio and TV stations. In 1968 Murdoch launched a national newspaper The Australian with a red map of Australia on the left of the masthead. It is an appropriate symbol for the most politically correct newspaper in Australia, which daily champions the cause of globalism, Asianisation, multiculturalism and mass coloured immigration.

During his student days at Oxford Murdoch recognised that there is no real ideological difference between Capitalism and Communism "except that [Capitalism] should be more controlled and centralised. The two are complementary." That, in a nutshell, is Murdoch's philosophy today, as he continues to carve out a multi-billion dollar communication empire, supported by the international financiers.

Murdoch's papers are full of stories that level everything down to the lowest common denominator of vulgarity, as his British tabloids well illustrate.

A British psychologist, reflecting upon why people buy such rubbish concluded: "Murdoch is Moloch. Each day people are sacrificed on the press altar and people get their bread and circuses."

Thank God for the Internet and sites such as this one. It is our sacred duty to support the alternative press with all our energies. It is our chance for freedom.
 
Old January 26th, 2006 #4
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default Proof of Rupert Murdoch's jewishness: anybody have proof?

Um, excuse me, but I'd like to see some definitive proof of Murdoch's jewishness. Last I heard it came down to the provenance of his mother, whose ethnic origin had yet to be determined by genuine research. We all know the pro-kikeness of Rupert, but he probably would have been outed as a jew long ago if his mother were really jewish. Natsocnet, can you share with us your source?
__________________

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)
 
Old January 26th, 2006 #5
Harry Flash
Sexist Bastard
 
Harry Flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,123
Harry Flash
Default

For iron-clad proof of Rupert's Jewishness, I'll get back to you on this one, Laurence.
 
Old January 26th, 2006 #6
New Order
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert Murdoch's Jewish Roots

David Irving on Murdoch
Quote:
"I shall quote exactly what Candour [a rightwing British journal edited by A K Chesterton] said in its June 1984 issue (vol. XXXV, no. 6):

"BIOGRAPHICAL details of [Rupert] Murdoch's past are sketchy and often contradictory. One reads that his grandfather was an impoverished Presbyterian minister who migrated to Australia from England, that his father was a low-paid reporter for a British newspaper in Australia, and yet, young Rupert divided his time between his family's suburban home near Melbourne and the family's sheep ranch in the country. He was educated first at the fashionable Geelong private school, and went on to the elitist and aristocratic Oxford University in England.

"Rupert's father Sir Keith Murdoch [see below] attained his prominent position in Australian society through a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, née Elisabeth Joy Greene. Through his wife's connections, Keith Murdoch was subsequently promoted from reporter to chairman of the British-owned newspaper where he worked. There was enough money to buy himself a knighthood of the British realm, two newspapers in Adelaide, South Australia, and a radio station in a faraway mining town. For some reason, Murdoch has always tried to hide the fact that his pious mother brought him up as a Jew..."

And that, as I am sure you know, makes him a Jew according to the law of the Talmud, and indeed according to the present laws of Israel.
 
Old February 4th, 2006 #7
Abzug Hoffman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,483
Abzug Hoffman
Default

There used to be a picture of his mother on the internet. She looked like a little troll/jewish peasant.

And didn't he marry a jew and raise his first batch of kids jewish?

And he owns or owned the Zondervan Christian Evangelical publishing company, putting out Zionist power-elite swill for the minions.

Yet, he is the infamous "non-jew" they love to whip out and wave any time anyone says the media is owned by the jews.

Last edited by Abzug Hoffman; February 4th, 2006 at 08:03 AM.
 
Old February 4th, 2006 #8
Fritz Kuhn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 708
Fritz Kuhn
Default

Look at this photo of Max Boot - tell me if he looks like a jew:

http://www.cfr.org/bios/5641/max_boot.html

As for Murdoch's jewish ancestors, why not have someone in Australia snap a photo of the grave of one of his grandparents or great-grandparents - jews are buried in jewish cemeteries with jewish symbols of their gravestones. That will end the argument in a hurry.
 
Old February 4th, 2006 #9
Chain
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,365
Default

VDARE on Max Boot:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=11

Ummm, that would have been around the Nixon/Ford/Jimmy Carter Russian jew lift wave? Same one Volokh came in on?
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&cd=6
Quote:
To top it off, it turns out Boot isn't even a native-born American, having emigrated here from Russia with his family in 1976. Pardon my "xenophobia," but isn't it a little, uh, pushy for immigrants to start wishing for more American casualties in foreign wars?
Here, Max Boot complains that "neocon" is code for "jewish conservative".
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&cd=6

Last edited by Chain; February 4th, 2006 at 09:47 AM.
 
Old February 5th, 2006 #10
Abzug Hoffman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,483
Abzug Hoffman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fritz Kuhn
Look at this photo of Max Boot - tell me if he looks like a jew:

http://www.cfr.org/bios/5641/max_boot.html

As for Murdoch's jewish ancestors, why not have someone in Australia snap a photo of the grave of one of his grandparents or great-grandparents - jews are buried in jewish cemeteries with jewish symbols of their gravestones. That will end the argument in a hurry.
Gee, I should set up my own website - "Ask Abzug".

This is like showing me a picture of a poodle and asking "Does this look like a bulldog?"

This fellow looks European. Obviously. Put him in the Middle East, or on any other continent, he is going to look like a European. What is "Boot", a Dutch name? He doesn't look like my idea of Dutch. One photo is not enough to go on, but I don't see any tell tale signs in this one. Looks kind of sneaky to me though. If he was working the drive thru window at Taco Bell, I would count my change.

But he is not working at Taco Bell, he is in a jewy profession with a jewy name like Max. Therefore, I would put him on possible jew alert right there. (My daughter always jokes she is going to name my future grandchildren "Max" and "Lucy" to piss me off. )
But if he is Dutch, maybe Max is a normal name there, I don't know.

To conclude my dissertation - everyone you see in the public eye is going to be jewish, married to a jew or working for the jews. It hardly makes a difference! But if he is a jew, as he probably is, Max Boot's got enough white blood on both sides to cancel it out in his own physical appearance.

Last edited by Abzug Hoffman; February 5th, 2006 at 07:10 AM.
 
Old February 18th, 2006 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
I do not know, but some of you may know, whether Reuel Marc Gerecht, Gary Schmitt or Andrew Ferguson are jews.
Ferguson was at TAS when I was there. He's no jew. Gerecht is a jew, 95% sure. Schmitt, don't know. German name, but in the opping business, assume jew until proven otherwise. If Boot's not a jew, I'd be surprised. He has that too-smart quick-n-clever cockroachy sophomoric stupidity about him. Excessively bright-eyed Feith delinquent feel.

I spent a night years ago googling that E. Joy Greene, as I recall, all roads lead back to that one claim. I vaguely recall from some outside contacts that people familiar with her family laughed at the idea she was a jew, and that the Murdochs had married into money. These were not people accustomed to thinking in WN terms - with an eye for the hidden hebe. I think it was left that her family may well be/have been jews, but were not loaded the way that quote says. The Murdochs made the money, not the Greenes.
 
Old February 21st, 2006 #12
Uncle John
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 79
Uncle John
Default

Murdoch and the Neo-Cons have served our cause well in the last ten years. Makes me think that somewhere there is a Higher Power with a sense of humor.
 
Old July 30th, 2009 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Substandard: The End of an Illusion

by Thomas Fleming
July 29th, 2009

The sale of The Weekly Standard should put paid to any lingering illusion that the neoconservative empire was anything but a Potemkin Village. Whatever happens from this point on, the news of Rupert Murdoch’s repudiation of his ugliest stepchild is as refreshing a pick-me-up as the morning’s second Bloody Mary I am enjoying, anchored off Spetzai on the Bushido with Chronicles’ incomparably hospitable columnist, Taki. The only thing needed to make my happiness complete would be for the boys of National Review to take the hint and sell out for oh, maybe $2 million.

Allegedly, Murdoch sold the magazine for $1 million to Phillip Anschutz, the billionaire owner of The Clarity Media Group. I say allegedly because the price is either much too high or much too low. Too high, because only a fool would pay so much money for a property that does nothing but lose money without adding a glimmer of insight to political discussion in America. Too low, because if The Weekly Standard actually did enjoy the influence that its editors have been so loudly and insistently claiming, $50 million would not be nearly enough.

Murdoch sunk untold millions of his ill-gotten gains into TWS. I suppose that is the proper shorthand, since the “The Standard” properly means the Evening Standard–it’s funny that for all its supposed influence, the magazine does not have a well-known acronym or nickname. Not long ago they were claiming a “growing circulation” of 60,000, and that may well be the case—though no one should ever accept anything an editor says about circulation. I won’t embarrass the editors of certain of our competitors who have made wildly inflated claims that were punctured as soon as we began negotiating for their mailing lists. In typical editorial bull-speak, the Standard misleads would-be advertisers with this classic canard: “More than 65,000 politically active Americans nationwide receive the magazine each week.” Receive. That is like the Hillsdale newsletter Imprimis which claims I don’t know how many hundreds of thousands of “readers.” I don’t think I have ever met anyone who actually read Imprimis. The hard part actually, if you have ever been anyone in the conservative “movement,” is not receiving it. I’d ask them to take my name out of their computer, but that would be like unsubscribing to spam: It only makes your name a more valuable commodity to be included on the list of refuseniks who don’t want this propaganda defiling their mailbox.

When TWS was around 40,000, I heard from a well-placed and reliable source that Murdoch told them he would pull the plug, if they failed to reach 100,000. If the editors had sacrificed some small part of their salary and benefits, they might have had enough money to build up the circulation to a level acceptable to their master. If they had just cut down on some of the face paint they slathered on for their Fox News appearances, they could have paid for an additional 5000 subscribers at least. (Joke supplied by Taki—don’t blame me.) But The Weekly Standard was never about anything else but the income and ego-gratification of its editors, and this is the result. That slow sucking sound you hear all the way from New York is the credibility of Kristol and co. going down the drain.

Chronicles has never enjoyed the support of a billionaire publisher, and our annual losses must be miniscule in comparison with the Murdoch money Kristol has wasted, but even our piddling operation loses about $600,000 every year, and that money has to be made up with our semi-annual begging appeals. Nobody would offer us more than the token single dollar for Chronicles, but, if we had to sell, a fair price for our assets would be about $7 million. (Any wealthy donor or potential donor who wants to dispute the price is free to call me and discuss the fat pledge he is about to make. As they say in poker, you have to pay to see.) For Anschutz, a million is the equivalent of the buck it takes to seal a contract. It’s a rich man’s walking around money, in other words chump change. If you listen to Frum, Kristol, and Barnes, though, TWS has been the brains of the American Empire, but it went on the block for a lousy million. Some brains! Some empire!

I once told Pat Buchanan that Bill Kristol had declared him politically dead in the pages of TWS. “That guy,” Pat snorted, “he never gets anything right.” Unlike the stopped clock that is correct twice a day, the Standard’s editors have never got anything right, from weapons of mass destruction to the presidential aspirations of Steve Forbes to “John McCain’s Moment” that Bill Kristol was proclaiming last September. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that the few times I met Bill, I found him polite and friendly, and he is reported to have saved me from a dressing down in Congress. As Tessio tells Tom Hagen in The Godfather, this is nothing personal, just business. And in this business we have chosen, TWS has never contributed anything to American political commentary. When they are right, it is because they are saying what everyone else has been saying, and, when they are original or distinctive, they are wrong.

But, as the Frum declared in an interview, The Standard has influence. Do they really? Is it influence to run after a parade, shouting, “Me too, me too” and then claim not only to lead the parade but to have started it? It would not be so bad if their platitudinous conventional wisdom were at least some form of knee-jerk conservatism or capitalist greed, but it is neither. Bill’s father Irving (popularly known as “the godfather”), was famous for giving “two cheers for capitalism.” (They can’t even be clever without imitating someone, in this case E.M. Forster). But Irving’s politics have only evolved from his original Trotskyism to a cross between Swedish socialism and Taiwan’s state capitalism. The amiable dimwit Fred Barnes spilled the beans, as he so often does, when he called for big government conservatism. Fred was not quite bright enough to realize that he was uttering a contradiction in terms, and The Weekly Standard’s ideology is, at best, New Republic lite—an insipid brew that neither cheers nor inebriates.

TWS’s not-so-secret weapon was neither its ideology nor its “writers,” but Murdoch himself. It’s like the old Henny Youngman joke about the man who crossed a lion with a parrot.

“What does he say?”

“I don’t know, but when he talks I listen.”

Murdoch is not only a very powerful man, whose whims have to be catered to, but he also owns major newspapers and two television networks. Who would listen to Kristol’s platitudes—as poorly expressed as they are predictable—if he and his editors were not trotted out to tell their lies on Fox News?

The Weekly Standard did only two things. On the positive side, it provided a living for writers who cannot write and political intellectuals without intellect, but it also contributed to the senile dementia that has afflicted the conservative mind since the election of Ronald Reagan. Bill Kristol did not destroy conservatism all by himself. His father was a much more destructive force, but it would be a grave mistake to attribute too much blame to the Kristols and Podhoretzes. They were welcomed with open arms by the unprincipled leadership of the conservative movement. Parasites do not generally destroy a healthy organism. Of course, there were still good people working for Heritage, in the 1980’s, and writing for National Review, but the lightning success of the neoconservative Putsch was as revealing as Hitler’s Anschluss (the annexation of Austria that met with so little resistance.)

No one knows, exactly, what Philip Anschutz (#89 on Forbes’ list of the richest people in the universe) will decide to do with The Weekly Standard. His Examiner newspapers are roughly neocon, though somewhat to the left of TWS. Despite the denatured versions of the Narnia books he produced, Anschutz is said to be some kind of Christian conservative. If that were true, it ought to be bad news for the anti-Christian Israel-firsters at TWS. Unfortunately, conservative Evangelicals are the most loyal Likudniks who have ever goose-stepped behind Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu. Kill off all the Middle Eastern Christians, who have survived Arabi and Israeli terrorism, and they would not utter a peep, but just hint at something less than 110% support for Israel, and they’ll call you an anti-Semite. It was shortly after Anschutz started the Washington Examiner that someone called Dave Mastio slurred Sam Francis in its pages. For the time being, he may be perfectly comfortable with Kristol—until he notices how much money he is losing and gives TWS the same treatment he gave the Baltimore Examiner, which he shut down.

Whatever happens, Anschutz has already done us a big favor in revealing the low low price of the emperor’s new clothes. Ever since Obama’s election, the conservative chatter has been all about new ideas and new strategies, but the very fact that they are saying this shows how bankrupt the conservatives really are. With this set of rookies heading for the showers, perhaps a few remaining veterans might come out of hiding and show us some of the stuff they had when they won the pennant in 1980. Perhaps, but probably not. Still, this is no time to stifle our joy. As Horace wrote after Octavian’s victory at Actium, where he defeated those paragons of greed and ambition, Antony and Cleopatra, “Nunc est bibendum, nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus,” lines which an American poet of my generation translated as “I’ll just stay here and drink.”

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/in...f-an-illusion/
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 PM.
Page generated in 0.20530 seconds.