Dennis King

Political/media commentary

Will Russia help the GOP once again this November? What can we do about it?

The Democratic lead in the race to control the House has lessened in recent months, and it is unclear if the Dems can mobilize core voters on a level that will compensate for the advantage the GOP has gained from recent gerrymandering and racially targeted voter suppression laws. I have a suspicion that the Christian Right, thanks to Trump's Supreme Court picks, is going to mobilize its base this November in the most spectacular manner ever seen in midterms--the 20 percent asserting its Dominion over the 80 percent while the 1 percent laughs all the way to the bank.

As to the rest of the Trump base: even their idol's appalling performance in Helsinki, operating like Putin's lapdog, is unlikely to have a sobering effect. It is obvious from the performance of the crowds at recent Trump rallies that they will for the most part be unmoved by appeals to the national interest or to patriotism and the importance of the Western Alliance in the wake of Helsinki. For they have replaced national interest in their minds with the white nativist interest, patriotism with white nationalism, and the Western Alliance (insofar as they have any knowledge of the outside world) with the insurgent Putin-financed international movement known as "populism." And most other Republicans stand and will continue to stand with Trump on the basis of an ersatz conservative ideology, desire for higher profits resulting from deregulation, or a cowardly conformism.

The race will probably be close. All Democrats should therefore be concerned that Russian government hackers will find a a way to influence the outcome in swing districts by just enough to maintain Republican House control and even help the GOP increase its majority in the Senate. Already the Russian GRU intelligence agency has attempted to hack the computers of  Sen. Claire McCaskill(D., Mo.), who is one of the chief targets of Trump and the Republicans in their fight to maintain control of the Senate. 

Our intelligence community keeps warning that Russian cyber warfare in this country continues on a massive scale, but no one is doing much about it. The majority of states are expressing little concern over the possibility of new electoral attacks. And in many states there are no paper ballots, so no easy way to challenge suspicious results.

The Russians may do the hacking directly or provide cover for the Mercer family to once again use its own mercenaries with a little outside help. The hacking may eventually be discovered (or may not, as in the case of the suspected ballot machine tampering in the 2000 Presidential election) but before that the Republican candidates who benefited will be safely occupying their seats--and no one will be able to unseat them (or indict those in the United States who were involved) since the Republicans, flush from victory and continuing to control all three branches of our government, will support Trump in firing Mueller and dismantling the Russia investigation, and in dismissing questions about the November results as "fake news" or a deep-state "witch hunt."

The GOP leaders may already anticipate that Putin will bail them out, but they don't frame it as unpatriotic or treasonous to accept Russian support, because they think the Democrats are FAR WORSE than Putin. Same with the Christian Right, which has been allying with Russian Orthodox rightists (backed by Putin-linked oligarchs) for years.; it is more concerned with taking away a woman's right to control her own body and the right of LGBTQ people to marry--issues more important to them than any abstract and relatively trivial (as they see it) national security or integrity of the ballot issues. For both the Republican legislators and the Christian Right fanatics, the enemy of our enemy is our friend and the Constitution is to be interpreted as whatever keeps the Trumpublicans in power.

The federal government under Trump is not going to ride to the rescue on ballot security this November. Nor will Jeff Sessions' Justice Department. Nor will the intelligence community. And certainly not Kirstjen Nielsen's Department of Homeland Security.

The hour is late, but perhaps not too late for the following measures:

1. The Democratic National Committee and/or civil rights groups should file suits in every state without paper ballots, demanding immediate steps to protect the integrity of the computerized elections in those states; and where a state board of elections is not moving in an aggressive manner on this danger, the plaintiffs should ask the court to appoint an outside trustee to manage the election process.

2. The DNC should encourage computer scientists and highly skilled programmers, specially those with expertise in security issues, to join in a volunteer Save the Vote Corps to help any state board of elections in protecting its computer system. (Something similar is already being done to help protect the computers of Democratic congressional candidates.) Microsoft, Google, Facebook and other tech giants should be asked to provide experts for this volunteer corps.

At the least, these measures would help us to accumulate more knowledge of the background of any suspicious results, and thus make it easier to challenge such results in the courts, in the media, and in the streets.

Saturday, July 28, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Most Republicans see nothing wrong with Trump's collaboration with Putin--why?

It would be easy to say that the Republicans are "disloyal" to America, but I think the truth is much more complicated than that. Because the very meaning of loyalty has changed.

I remember back when the movement against the Vietnam war was in full swing, NIxon called on the "silent majority" to strike back and indeed there was a period when the majority did support the war, including some Democrats who later became "Reagan" Democrats. The silent majority regarded themselves as the patriots and many of them regarded the protesters as traitors outside the pale.

What has changed today is that the grassroots Republicans have a new definition of what it means to be an American, and hence of what patriotism, as well as loyalty, involves.

Many whites--not just the white working class but many who are college educated and in middle class jobs, as well as many small business people and farmers--have come to see THEIR America, white America, as under siege by hostile invaders: blacks, Hispanics, other nonwhite people, immigrants either undocumented or documented, the LGBT community, and women who refuse to be dominated and mistreated.

Over the eight years of Obama the lurking bigotry in the minds of Republicans turned hard and cruel--Obama became the symbolic focus of their hate, which was cynically brought to a pitch by skilled racist operatives. Now Trump's Republican followers deeply feel that THEIR America is being taken away from them. This is far more important to them than any cerebral issue of national security, the Atlantic alliance and NATO as defined by the Washington "elite." They want THEIR America back--the America they delude themselves into thinking they once controlled, as if the banks and the billionaires never had, or don't still have, the upper hand.

The Christian Right feels the same way but they have a pop-theological overlay to it: They believe that not only is America being taken away from whites but it is being taken away from them AS Christians. They too want America back, they want THEIR Christian white America back, and many of them want Dominion over believers and nonbelievers alike.

So when they are told by the media "elite" that Trump is collaborating with Putin, that is not a negative thing to them. Trump is giving them what they want. And Putin is helping Trump to do it. Putin is supporting their patriotism (as they define it) by helping Republican candidates win elections. Putin is helping them keep their guns and he's helping them outlaw abortion and gays, and he's helping Trump stay in power. Thus many Republicans will say openly that Putin's a great guy and others will think it privately.

Most of them are not going to change on this point. Supporting Trump and defending Trump's collaboration with Putin is "patriotic" and "Christian." It is the immigrants, the blacks, the gays, and the liberal women who support Planned Parenthood who are the REAL enemies of white America and of the Bible. Not some guy thousands of miles away in Moscow.

The Trump base has upended the traditional meaning of patriotism so that the Democrats and progressives, not Putin, are the true enemies of America.

Expect no help from the Republicans in taking steps to stop Russian interference in the November elections. Trump's base will not allow it; indeed his base will regard doing so as the very OPPOSITE of protecting America.

Dan Rather said after Trump's election that some day there will be better news. He didn't say "soon," he said "some day," like we had entered an extended period of travail. But there is a window of opportunity to lessen that period. All Americans alarmed about the future of our country under Trump and his far right allies need to turn out this November (and make sure their friends and family turn out and get the ID they need not to be turned away at the polls) to help take back Congress. Likewise we should all donate to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and to groups such as the NAACP, Planned Parenthood and the labor movement that are rallying the public in support of the issues and values traditionally defended by the Democrats. And if you know people who are unable to get to the polls, either because of illness or because their boss won't let them take time off to vote, make sure they send in a ballot by mail.

If we take advantage of this brief window of opportunity, we will have a fighting chance to take back at least the House. But this will require a turnout like never before, because the Russians and the Mercer family's newest tech crew will be cherry picking districts for ballot deletion and the Christian Right will be mobilizing on a huge scale to kill Roe v. Wade.

If we do win back the House and make big gains on the state level, the other side will still have the White House, the Supreme Court, the Senate, the millions of assault rifle owners and the money of billionaires such as the Kochs, Mercers and Murdochs. But we'll be able to start limiting Trump's damage, in some policy areas, thanks to the Democrats gaining this toehold of power.

And toeholds, if they are held tenaciously (as in a rather obvious example from 1944), have a tendency to eventually burst the doors wide open.

Friday, July 27, 2018 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tags:

Watch out for provocateurs and keep the peace (insofar as possible) at counter-rallies against the Alt-Right.

In the war for the soul of America, the opponents of the Alt-Right probably won the battle in Charlottesville last weekend. The public rightfully saw the white supremacists as the aggressors and the murder of Heather Heyer and the wounding of 19 as being an extension of the ralliers' message of hate.

In watching videos of the protests, activists from Antifa appeared to be trying to defend the peaceful counter-protesters while the police seemed to not be very effective in controlling the violence. I saw a video of one protester being pounded to the ground and kicked mercilessly and there didn't seem to be any cops in sight.

But things could have ended up very differently. Imagine if one of the Neo-Nazis had been killed rather than Heather Heyer, by an ill-aimed blow from a baseball bat. Trump would hold a press conference to exclusively denounce the "terrorism" of far leftists, lumping the overwhelming majority of peaceful protesters within that category. The Alt-Right would be demonstrating all over the country, picking cities and towns where police departments are known to be especially sympathetic to their cause. The Horst Wessel song (named after a Brown Shirts "martyr" slain in 1930) would be resurrected by Alt-Right torchlight parade marchers. The number of Republicans breaking with Trump's rhetoric would be zero. The mainstream media, lacking any experience in spotting provocateurs, would be paralyzed. Over time, the Alt-Right would start bringing assault rifles to their marches, perhaps unloaded...at first.

Anti-fascist protesters have a right to defend themselves when the police are not nearby or are not doing their job properly or are simply swamped by the other side. However, when self-defense is employed there is always a danger of unintended consequences or of being blamed for the actions of a "lone assassin" type with a personal agenda.

In addition, protest organizers, including those primed for self-defense, must guard carefully against provocateurs. In my opinion, the source of such trickery is most likely to come from (a) far-right elements practicing a violent extension of the ruse by which Planned Parenthood was fooled by infiltrators who then doctored hidden tapes to provide ammunition for the Christian Right; (b) out-of-control local police intelligence squads using their snitches to do the dirty work; or (c) agents of Putin's FSB in this country using local recruits or working through one of the many cults and other fanatical groups that are always ripe for the picking (Putin's security services have inherited from the KGB a lengthy and unparalleled expertise at provocateurship dating back to the Czar's Okhrana). Indeed, Putin, by employing this expertise, would be providing his most powerful help yet to Donald Trump, placing our President even more tightly under Russian control.

This is all serious business, although provocateurship may be a somewhat less probable outcome than a spontaneous accident or the intervention of a disturbed individual. I suggest the following guidelines for the immediate future (these may become outdated, in many respects, if the Neo-Nazis and white supremacists become qualitatively more aggressive).

1. Local organizers should do their best to work closely with the police and accept rules for keeping both sides within their own lines separated by police. Unfortunately, in today's polarized America, the police cannot always be trusted, especially in deeply red states. Keep a detailed record of all dealings with the local authorities. Get written agreements when advisable. Note that there may be situations in which it is advisable to hold your counter-protest at a different time and location as the Alt Right one, but that in other situations it will be best to rally at the same time and same general location as the opposition.

2. Local organizers should keep a careful watch on far left groups that show up with a special and sometimes irresponsible agenda. In the past such groups have on occasion been banned from a demonstration, but then they just set up their own demo and feel free to hijack all the media attention and to initiate violence for which peaceful protesters would inevitably by blamed by the Alt-Right (which would brand ALL the protesters against white supremacy as "communists" and "terrorists" without exception). Antifa could enhance its effectiveness in the battle for America's soul by assigning experienced members to work with local activists in negotiating with problematic groups, using Antifa's prestige on the left to help work out a compromise with such groups that does as little damage as possible to the success of the counter-protest.

3. No throwing bottles at the other side, even in response to the Nazis' own bottle throwing. Demand that the police handle the problem. Perhaps individuals could carry netting and hold it over their heads when bottles begin to fly.

4. No jumping on top of cars or turning cars over or smashing windows and setting fires. This should be obvious, but failure to exercise some restraint about this will probably result in one or more public relations disasters.

5. No profanity or death threats mixed in with the chants (and no personal taunts), no matter how angry you feel. E.g., "stop" the Klan or "crush" the Klan, not "death" to the Klan. This is a battle for the soul of America more than a battle to win street fights or seem "tougher" than the other side. Remember the lesson of the Civil Rights Movement, when the "Oh Freedom" song or a public prayer was often worth more than a thousand militant chants.

6. As little visible "armor" as possible. Put the armor under your shirt. If you think a helmet is necessary for self defense, put a large hat over it.

7. Identification labels for people in a self defense unit should not include symbols that could be misinterpreted as inciting, or boasting of a desire for, mayhem; e.g., no gun or samurai sword depictions.

8. No face masks, bandanas or balaclavas. This always looks bad to the general public and it could trigger a response from the Alt-Right: you make fun of Klansmen for hiding behind hoods, but now when they are no longer behind hoods, you yourselves are donning masks!

9. No rushing the police lines. The only permissible violence should be when the opposition breaks through the police lines (or is allowed through) or breaks through at points where there is no police protection (or no adequate police protection).

10. No guns or knives or lead-weighted bats. Use pepper spray when possible.

11. MOST IMPORTANT: Skilled video camera people should carefully document the event for the counter-demonstrators. You want to be able to prove that the other side started it, that they broke through the police lines, that you had no choice but to fight back. Also that you were behaving in a dignified manner before the attack--you don't want the other side to say they "had to attack" because you were throwing bottles. Such documentation will be extremely important in the battle for America's soul. Many non-liberals and non-leftists are still neutral; you don't want them going to the other side because you failed to show a reasonable degree of restraint. If Antifa members volunteer to provide defense at a rally, they should be required to help provide the camera people who will document Antifa activities throughout the protest event.

Finally, there is the question of public perception of your goals. Most objective people would at this point think that the protestors against white supremacy in Charlottesville behaved in a reasonable manner (or at least, would give them the benefit of the doubt). But future demonstrations and counter-demonstrations may be scrutinized much more closely, by both the mainstream media and by social media. Until the election of Trump, it didn't matter very much that leftists at anti-Klan rallies bore signs like "Fight for communism" or "Revolution now" -- the Klan was just too unpopular for that to matter very much. Today, with white supremacy on the rise and even having a foothold in the White House and Congress, the stakes are too high. Participants in a rally should be politely asked to accept less provocative signs and, more firmly, to agree to rules of non-provocative deportment in other respects and to pledge not to initiate violent clashes. If large numbers of truculent leftists show up, it might be necessary to bar such outsiders from a local march in some towns or cities. I would hope that the far left has learned from last year when the unrestrained sectarianism of Jill Stein and the Green Party helped produce Trump's victory.

Thursday, August 17, 2017 in Political commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)

Neglected dystopian novel sheds light on Trumpism

A review of Wen Wilson by Mattie McClane: Myrtle Hedge Press, Kernersville, NC (2009).

Wen-wilson

By Dennis King

In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory in the Presidential election last November, the reading public turned to dystopian classics such as George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four, Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here, and Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America to figure out what to expect next. The increased sales for these books has endured since Trump’s swearing-in because of his continuing strong signals that he intends to steer the United States in a dystopian direction.

Trump has branded the mainstream media as “enemies of the people.” He has chosen the former CEO of the racist, anti-Semitic and conspiracy-drenched Breitbart News as his chief strategist. He has popularized Orwellian terms such as “fake news” (in reference to the mainstream media) and “alternative facts.” His Attorney General is in the process of halting Justice Department opposition to racist voter suppression laws in Red States. Over a dozen state legislatures, so far, are preparing bills to limit and ultimately suppress the types of mass protest that have become common since the January inauguration.

In this political climate, many readers will find helpful the novel Wen Wilson, published in 2009 when the Tea Party movement—the precursor of Trumpism—was getting started. Wen Wilson is set in a small Midwest town and the surrounding farming community—the type of white-heartland environment that many would assume is “Trump country” today. The book depicts a society controlled through mass conformism and the judicious use of police state violence, and in which the economy appears to have reverted back to a time when U.S. jobs were not threatened by globalization, automation and immigration.

North Carolina writer and poet Mattie McClane (Kristine A. Kaiser) places many of her fictional works in the Midwest (she grew up in what would become a rust-belt strip in Illinois near the Iowa border).

I became aware of McClane’s work about ten years ago when I happened upon a copy of her unusual dream-fantasy novel, Night Ship (2003), which portrays the personalities of six women characters both in their waking world and in their dream personas (or are they alters of a single dreamer?) who roam the 15th century Caribbean in their own sailing ship. Unlike in popular fantasy, no attempt is made to present the fantasy world as real; i.e., the plot and the settings are kept within the framework of a dream logic. McClane manages, however, to portray the rivalries of her characters in a realistic manner. I regard Night Ship, which ends on a note of reconciliation, as a work of true literary distinction.

McClane is also the author of Unbuttoning Light, a collection of short stories of which the first half is composed of a brilliant cycle about a young Iowa woman and sometime Democratic Party activist named Laura. The second half is composed of earlier stories, including “Graven Image,” which appears to be an attempt to conceptualize how a Christian Dominionist type of dystopia might emerge in the U.S.

The authoritarian America of Wen Wilson, however, is not primarily based on religion, just as Trumpism in the real world is not religion-based although certainly allied with the Christian right.

I think that McClane, herself a woman of faith, was wise to avoid a religious dictatorship scenario, since Robert Heinlein and Margaret Atwood have already been there and done that pretty thoroughly. Wen Wilson, with its secular emphasis, has ended up being more relevant to the threat we actually face: the possible erosion of U.S. democracy into nothing more than a shell—for decades to come—as a result of the new alliance of “white nationalism” and a clique of billionaire greed-heads.

Several elements of the novel’s plot need further clarification (for instance, the destination of the fleeing dissidents is changed without explanation from Canada to Switzerland). Also, the character of Wen could use some fleshing out. However, the book includes much, much fine writing and the heroine, Ruth Uppers, an elderly widow who runs a cattle farm, is a memorable creation. Furthermore, on a political level, Wen Wilson is worth reading not only because its author had the benefit of observing first hand the recent polarization in American society but also because she focuses on how an authoritarian or fascist state might work on the local level in precisely the type of community that ended up supporting Trump’s rise.

The story begins when Wen, a nonviolent resistance figure who is being hounded by the authorities, appears at Ruth’s farm bearing a letter from his mother asking Ruth (an old friend of hers) to give Wen refuge.

The unusual request takes place at a time when America appears to be on the edge of a transition from authoritarianism to some kind of totalitarian regime. Overt repression is still aimed mostly at active dissidents; nonpolitical people are subjected to social conformist pressures and various annoying rules, but not yet to anything worse unless they are intellectuals and/or possess private libraries, in which case they are automatic targets of official curiosity.

Ruth, whose own idealistic tendencies from her youth are now overlain by pragmatic caution, reluctantly agrees to accept the rather alarming Wen into the life of her farm. She cuts his hair, dresses him in farm clothes, and tells him to mimic the farm hands: “He would speak like a common man, a man with no college in his background.”

Step by step the author reveals the nasty details of the new order. Public libraries have been closed and university libraries are very difficult to access. In a fine satiric passage, McClane’s hero describes how law books have been seized from attorneys’ offices and placed under lock and key at local police stations where they can only be examined by special permission, with the police keeping a record of which book the lawyer consults. The legal profession is thus relegated, Wen says, to only handling wills and estates. Dissidents are in hiding and occasionally become the target of assassination (as in Putin’s Russia today) if they try to speak at rallies.

McClane wisely decided to remain silent about who is really in charge of the United States. Commands or strong suggestions come down through shadowy channels from unnamed individuals and entities. “Government agents,” apparently from a national secret police, show up without announcement.

This deliberate vagueness enables the author not only to evoke the fear of questioning things that is always present in an authoritarian society, but also to concentrate on the methods of social and political control in small-town America, and the varying degrees of conformism, cowardice, toadyism, and sadism—and, from time to time, of good will or even flashes of a real moral courage—shown by local officials, ministers, lawyers, Ruth’s neighbors, the hired hands on her farm, and others.

Of course, the authorities are one step ahead of both Ruth and Wen. When Ruth orders stone from a quarry to rebuild a historically significant Civil War wall on her property, the government agents suddenly show up to demand inspection of each stone, and to give Ruth “papers” that she must submit before proceeding. It is obvious this is one of the regime’s low-key methods of pressure—they want her to kick Wen off the farm.

When Ruth goes to a local lawyer for help, he tells her: “We all have families. I don’t think my wife would let me become involved in this.” The lawyer then asks Ruth if she’s romantically involved with Wen (she isn’t, and Wen ends up marrying a young woman from the community). The lawyer then confronts the dissident and says:

“You’re trouble, Wilson…You can’t adapt to the new establishment. You question too much and are a smart man. But you’re not smart enough to know when to keep your mouth shut; you’re not smart enough to avoid dragging everyone down with you.”

Meanwhile Wen continues to argue with Ruth about the new order:

“Thinkers are being silenced, oh not in well-publicized bans but in quiet erasure. Certain books just disappear like they never existed. Authors’ names are wiped from databases. The news is purged.”

After Wen is beaten by one of the cattle hands, a local builder tells Ruth: “I’ve got a crew of men who feel exactly like [Wen’s attacker] … Cities are better for bookish men.”

Ruth’s minister is also present at the end of the beating. His response?

The minister picked up Wen’s mangled wire-rimmed glasses and handed them to Ruth. The broken item signaled peril; there were a thousand brutes to every thinking man. The minister witnessed Wen’s vulnerability. His religious beliefs wouldn’t approve of a beating. Ruth directed her uncertainty squarely to the minister. “Can I count on you to be with us on Sunday?” The minister appeared confused. “Mr. Wilson and his family will join our congregation,” Ruth said. “I trust that you’ll make sure that he’s welcomed in a Christian way.”

“The talk,” the minister said.

“The talk is talk, Phil, and you shouldn’t let it bother you in the slightest,” Ruth said.

Ruth fires the employee who attacked Wen; the employee throws his farm keys on her table, saying:

“He’ll be in town some day, and he just won’t come back … The town will cheer for me; they’ll make me out as a hero … He’s a sissy-assed poet, and he writes bad things about the country.”

If I’d read this before the rise of Trump, I might have said there was a certain elitism in how the distinction is drawn between educated and uneducated, but after viewing on TV the behavior of the yahoos at numerous Trump rallies, including his “victory rallies,” I’d say McClane was being realistic about certain thuggish tendencies.

Also, her fictional America is one that has evolved far beyond Trumpism, which currently has only a shaky hold on power and is often on the defensive. In McClane’s America the media has been successfully suppressed, the Bill of Rights set aside, repression institutionalized right down to the local level, and education debased. The new order’s strategic attack on law and language is nearing completion.

In comparison to the timidity of Ruth’s friends and neighbors, the opponents of authoritarianism in our own 2017 world are resisting by the millions in both Blue and Red states, even showing a surprising boldness in the small cities and towns where Trump achieved a substantial majority of the votes. But this doesn’t mean that McClane’s view of such communities in a dystopian context is wrong-headed. The community in which Ruth and Wen live is one in which most avenues of effective Resistance (and of accurate information) have been closed. Wen Wilson, like most dystopias, is a cautionary tale.

Ironically, there is no mention of a computer in Ruth’s house, although any cattle farm on her scale in our world surely would be computerized. There is a reference to electronic books but it’s in the section about moving to Switzerland. There is also a mention of names being purged from American “databases” (a term common even before the mass computerization of our society).

The novel’s lack of emphasis on computer technology is quite plausible if one posits economic and technological decline as going hand in hand with extreme cultural and intellectual repression, resulting in a return of society to the idealized 1950s for which the Tea Party yearned and Trump’s working class and lower middle class supporters now also yearn.

There are no undocumented immigrants and/or Muslims, blacks, or Hispanics in this novel. Their invisibility appears to be part and parcel of McClane’s decision to withhold any details about the nameless regime that rules America, how this regime came to power, and how it enforced its national will before establishing long-range institutions of control in small town and rural white America. Have all minorities been deported? Are they in labor camps? Or has the regime merely set up barriers to easy communication between various elements of society, keeping them isolated from one another?

Near the end of the book, Ruth, who is a widow, falls in love with an elderly judge who is an important resistance leader. Wen and his new family, as well Ruth, the judge and several others, decide to leave the country and continue their struggle from overseas. As described, their plan for exiting the country by way of a New York airport seems dubious of success, although McClane is too good a writer to make this explicit. She ends the book with a dinner on the farm the day before they begin their journey—whether to freedom or to capture and imprisonment—and with Ruth still torn between pragmatic everyday life and Wen’s idealism:

[T]he dessert [at dinner] seemed as significant as anything she imagined about [political and literary] texts. She would never be able to erase the many mundane aspects of a farmer woman’s life. She loved to feed people. The babies bawled. Wen sang Van Morrison, revealing both a singer’s name and a talent. Alex tapped his foot. Mix giggled. The babies bawled. Hugh hugged Connie Mae. Tomorrow, the room would be busy in a different way, but tonight was a blessing from wise, sensible angels.

[end]

Wednesday, May 31, 2017 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Huh? LaRouche press release is Google News' top link re the UK's Duggan inquest decision

The U.K. Attorney General's "fiat" for a new inquest re the 2003 death in Germany of a young British Jew is an important news story and has been covered by many newspapers and other media outlets in Britain. Responsible newspapers with substantial circulations, and also the BBC. But what comes first on Google News as of 10:30 PM, Jan. 28--if you type in "Jeremiah Duggan"--is a  scurrilous press release by Lyndon LaRouche, whose cult will almost certainly be scrutinized at the new inquest for its possible role in Jeremiah's death. 

In his usual elliptical fashion, Der Abscheulicher (the "Abominable One," as he calls himself) says that the "British circles" urging an investigation of the "alleged non-suicide of Jeremiah Duggan...have failed to disclose crucially relevant facts respecting the subject's...relevant mental health history since childhood until his suicide in the vicinity of Wiesbaden, Germany."

LaRouche says that these "British circles" (meaning the politicians and financiers who supposedly are using the Duggan family as their pawns) have "curiously failed to take into account statements reportedly made by Jeremiah himself shortly before his suicide, to the effect that he was having difficulty in securing some medication essential to his mental stability." LaRouche asks for a probe of "such relevant facts as [Jeremiah's] reported statements regarding past emotional disturbances dating from his childhood, and indicating a role of the London Tavistock Clinic at some point in this case."

LaRouche's Tavistock Clinic theory is actually part of the cover story that his wife Helga and other leaders of the German LaRouche movement concocted at their headquarters in Wiesbaden within hours of Jeremiah's death (that he was a British/Tavistock agent). And the allegation that he was on drugs comes from cult members who were part of the coverup (note how LaRouche refers to their "reported statements" as "relevant facts").

In the seven years since then, the LaRouche org, which runs a private political intelligence operation worldwide on a multimillion dollar budget, has been unable to come up with any real evidence that Jeremiah was suffering from mental illness or was on drugs or had any ongoing relationship to the Tavistock clinic (he did go there with his parents for family counseling when he was a young child).

Ever since the middle 1970s, followers of LaRouche have maintained that Tavistock, a respected research and mental health facility in London, is an evil British intelligence brainwashing center that incessantly plots against their leader. When Jeremiah revealed to his LaRouchian "recruiters"--during a discussion in which their views on Tavistock came up--that he he'd gone there, and that it was not the sinister place they fancied it to be, he may have triggered the cult's paranoia and sealed his own fate.

When I read LaRouche's cynical statements demeaning the memory of Jeremiah Duggan (in order to evade responsibility for the 22-year-old Jewish university student's death), I wonder: Does LaRouche have any sense of shame? And I wonder whether the people who run Google News are capable of feeling any shame over how--for years--they've treated LaRouche as a legitimate journalist and publisher, thus collaborating, in effect, in the lies and bigotry of this small-time Hitler, and facilitating his ability to recruit naive young people into his cult.

Friday, January 29, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Why does Google News treat LaRouche's Jew-hating propaganda rag as a legitimate news outlet?

JAN. 25, 2010 - When I decided to check yesterday on how the media was covering the British Attorney General's decision re a new inquest into Jeremiah Duggan's death, I went first to Google News and typed in "Jeremiah Duggan," then "Jeremiah Duggan + LaRouche."

In both cases, the second item on the list was this Jan. 22 article from LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review signed by the Great Loon's security chief Jeff Steinberg.

Steinberg (known for his Prince Philip killed Princess Diana theory that once had a brief run in the supermarket tabloids) says that there's a conspiracy to blame LaRouche for Jeremiah Duggan's suicide, and that the plot emanates from Dick Cheney, Tony Blair and a vast network of subconspirators:

"While no longer operating out of 10 Downing Street, the Blair crew has continued to spread lies against LaRouche, pressuring German officials, according to U.S. intelligence sources, to reopen the Duggan suicide investigation, despite the fact that the original investigation, and subsequent reviews, concluded that Duggan had taken his own life."

The reference to "subsequent reviews" is a fabrication--the Duggan family has in fact been fighting for almost seven years to persuade Germany's who-gives-a-damn-about-a-dead-Jew criminal justice system to conduct a review (i.e., a real investigation), but the Germans have flatly rejected the idea.

The only real scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding Jeremiah's death has been in the U.K., where the 2003 coroner's report found that Jeremiah had not committed suicide (see BBC News), and where proceedings before the High Court have now culminated in the Attorney General's decision, based on detailed forensic evidence, that there is an unanswered question as to whether Jeremiah really died from being struck by cars on a Wiesbaden motorway.

As to the "U.S. intelligence sources" that Steinberg cites to buttress his conspiracy theory, this is almost certainly a reference to one of the fantasy-prone con men around the LaRouche organization who pretend to be CIA spooks and thus receive big dollars from LaRouche's security staff to tell LaRouche what he wants to hear--that he's a world figure of such importance that Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Queen Elizabeth and George Soros sit around all night dreaming up plots to foil his growing influence.

Steinberg's article is basically so stupid that one can't say Google is doing LaRouche any favor by ranking it so high. But the question remains: Why is EIR--a rag that doesn't even conform to the most minimal journalistic standards, and that is the propaganda mouthpiece of a Jew-hating fascist cult--accepted as worthy of listing in Google News? Why isn't it restricted to the regular Google listings along with other axe-grinding websites and blogs? Why is Google bestowing on EIR a legitimacy that it warrants no more than, say, David Duke's blog--or an online newsletter devoted to proving the Earth is flat?

To show how absurd this situation is, here's a typical rant by LaRouche himself (the  equivalent, in his mind, of an "editorial") that was posted by his organization as a press release on or about Sept. 25, 2008 in response to the nation's financial meltdown, which LaRouche believes was basically a British-George Soros-Felix Rohatyn (i.e., Jewish) plot:

"This is not a democratic situation; this is a time where democracy is the worst factor you can get. You've got a democracy in the streets now, they want to kill these guys. That's the democracy I want to hear from. I don't want to hear from these so-called Democrats; I want to hear from the killers!"

THIS is legitimate news commentary?? It would appear that Google is now in the same bag as Wikipedia and the American Civil Liberties Union, bending over backwards to be "fair" to neo-Nazis, Klansmen, Islamic terrorists and LaRouchian hate-mongerers--and in the process, bestowing on such elements special privileges that no one else enjoys.

Flat-earthers and flying saucer abductees of the Web, unite and seize the hour! Don't let the likes of LaRouche and David Duke hog all the attention. You have a God-given right to equal treatment...on the Fair and Balanced Google News!

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

The above is not my first stab at Google's LaRouche policy. In a previous posting (Sept. 3, 2009), I wrote:

For years, the world's premier search engine has spidered EIR for its "Google News"--as if LaRouche's magazine were a legitimate online news source. This should end. EIR should be treated for what it really is--a propaganda website producing wildly unreliable reports that mirror the mind of a paranoid anti-Semite.

I am not suggesting that Google should withhold the contents of EIR from the public. I'm merely saying that EIR should be removed from the index of news sites that are accessed via Google News. LaRouche's publication should be treated like an ordinary website the search engine listings of which are not given any special imprimatur of reliability and topicality.

I also noted that there's a precedent for this: In 2005, Google News removed certain neo-Fascist publishers in the U.S. and Germany from its news index (article here).

 


Monday, January 25, 2010 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Widow of Ken Kronberg targets LaRouche's weekly "news" magazine

EIR-cover1 

Molly Kronberg, who filed suit last month in federal court against Lyndon LaRouche, his political action committee, and one of his top aides, has now added the EIR News Service, putative publisher of LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review, as a defendant in the case.

In her amended complaint filed in federal court in Alexandria, VA on Sept. 2 (go to http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/kronberg-complaint2.pdf), Mrs. Kronberg cited passages from EIR earlier this year that mirror those in the LaRouchePAC press releases and LaRouche "morning briefings" which she had already presented as evidence of "harassment of a federal witness and libel." For instance, according to the amended complaint:

The March 6, 2009 issue of EIR published an article on page 79, which asserted that the federal government's 1988 "railroad" conviction of Lyndon LaRouche "relied exclusively on perjured testimony from one crucial witness, Molly Kronberg, whose false statements under oath were the basis for the illegal conviction of LaRouche on false allegations of tax fraud conspiracy. LaRouche was sentenced to 15 years in Federal prison on the fabricated charges, and colleagues were sentenced to 3-5 years, all on the basis of the fraudulent Kronberg testimony, which centered on her own criminal uttering of a false check."

It is widely known that EIR is, in spite of its attractive appearance, a scurrilous propaganda rag that has accused the targets of LaRouche's wrath (ex-followers, Jewish bankers, environmentalists, investigative journalists, leftwing activists, neoconservative pundits, European aristocrats, members of the British royal family, etc.) of a wide variety of unsubstantiated motives and actions involving drug trafficking, terrorism, child abuse, Satanic rituals--and plots to assassinate or otherwise harm LaRouche.

The chief allegation about Mrs. Kronberg cited in the amended complaint--that she committed perjury at LaRouche's trial as a part of a government conspiracy to destroy him--is especially ridiculous because Mrs. Kronberg remained on the National Committee of LaRouche's organization for 19 years following the trial without LaRouche or any other member of the org ever once accusing her of the alleged treachery that is now being outlined for the first time. LaRouche was present in court when she appeared as a witness under duress (and, as only one of many government witnesses), and he personally heard the prosecutor's questions and her answers. Why didn't he complain about her testimony then? Why did this notoriously paranoid man continue to trust her in a responsible position in his org for almost two decades thereafter?

It would appear that LaRouche is raising these allegations in an attempt to divert his followers' attention--and that of the general public--away from Mrs. Kronberg's recent public statements in which she has characterized LaRouche as an abusive cult leader who drove her husband to suicide in April 2007.

Whenever LaRouche has come under attack over the years for criminal activity, anti-Semitic hate speech, or mistreatment of followers, he has always added a new twist, or a new circle of villains, to his conspiracy theory, using this tactic to turn the reality of his self-created problems inside out in the minds of his loyalists.

In the current instance, LaRouche says that Molly Kronberg was and is involved in an ongoing plot emanating from high places, that Ken knew about it and was torn between his loyalty to Molly and his loyalty to LaRouche, that Ken ultimately saw no way out of his divided loyalties except via suicide, and that the Episcopalian "witch" Molly is responsible for Ken's suicide.

In this manner, LaRouche manages to pose as the defender of Ken's good name and, ultimately, as Ken's wrathful avenger. Such breathtakingly cynical cognitive reframings--mirroring those in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four--have been a key feature of life inside the LaRouche cult for decades. Unfortunately, many of his high-IQ boomers just can't see through (or don't want to see through) what is ultimately a child-like logic rooted in LaRouche's malignant narcissism.

EIR has been a vehicle for the Orwellian nonsense of LaRouche ever since its founding in the mid-1970s. Now that Mrs. Kronberg has drawn much-needed attention to the magazine's true nature, I'd like to follow up with an overdue question about its relationship to Google.

For years, the world's premier search engine has spidered EIR for its "Google News"--as if LaRouche's magazine were a legitimate online news source. This should end. EIR should be treated for what it really is--a propaganda website producing wildly unreliable reports that mirror the mind of a paranoid anti-Semite.

I am not suggesting that Google should withhold the contents of EIR from the public. I'm merely saying that EIR should be removed from the index of news sites that are accessed via Google News. LaRouche's publication should be treated like an ordinary website the search engine listings of which are not given any special imprimatur of reliability and topicality.

This is not an unprecedented idea. In 2005, Google News removed neo-Fascist publishers in the U.S. and Germany from its news index (article at http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3492361 ).  In the case of LaRouche, persuading Google to do the right thing would require that Jewish communal leaders show some backbone, which in turn would require them to repudiate the double standard that long has protected LaRouche simply because he, unlike David Duke and Louis Farrakhan, is cunning enought to wrap his hate in code language and recruit anti-Semitic Jews to serve as his smokescreen.

And it might help if more individuals from the ex-LaRouchian community would decide it's time to stop prevaricating, and come forward with public testimony as to the sinister ideas and sentiments that in fact permeate the LaRouche movement.

Thursday, September 03, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Tags: anti-Semitism, Executive Intelligence Review, Federal Court, George Orwell, Google News, hate speech, Jewish bankers, Ken Kronberg, lawsuit, Lyndon LaRouche, Molly Kronberg, suicide

Lyndon LaRouche's worst nightmare: the "witch" strikes back!

Loopy-larouche 
Marielle (Molly) Kronberg, widow of northern Virginia businessman Kenneth Kronberg, filed a lawsuit last Friday in U.S. Federal Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against cult leader Lyndon LaRouche and his political action committee, claiming they have defamed and libeled her and have "conspired to injure her" because she once provided testimony against LaRouche in a federal criminal trial. Her complaint has been posted on the web at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/kronberg-complaint.pdf

Mrs. Kronberg's suit (Case No. 09cv947) comes after three years of public statements by Mr. LaRouche trying to blame her for the death of her husband, who had been the cult's printer and, along with his wife, a member of the LaRouche organization for decades. Mr. Kronberg committed suicide on April 11, 2007, only hours after Mr. LaRouche--who had subjected Mr. Kronberg to incessant verbal abuse for several years--suggested in a daily briefing to the cult's membership that Mr. Kronberg should consider killing himself.

Mr. Kronberg's suicide caused consternation among Mr. LaRouche's followers as well as attention from the media, thus apparently prompting Mr. LaRouche's efforts to shift the blame. Here's a sample (April 26, 2009) of the rhetoric his daily briefings have used against Mrs. Kronberg, as cited in her court papers:

"Now, you've got a situation, where he kills himself, because he was living with that witch: Who's been evil all along! Her behavior had never been good. She's never been honest. And then, he commits suicide, and these bums try to blame me for it! He was driven--there was no reason for the suicide, there was no excuse for it. But there's an understanding of the oppression that he felt by being married to that bitch. Because he was a moral person. He made a lot of mistakes. But it was on the question of divided loyalty, divided pressures. And she was evil. And she still is."

Mr. LaRouche laid himself open to a federal court suit when he also alleged that Mrs. Kronberg had perjured herself during Mr. LaRouche's widely publicized 1988 federal criminal trial in which prosecutors said he'd swindled millions of dollars from senior citizens across the country. Mrs. Kronberg testified under subpoena by the prosecution, and says that although she was a LaRouche follower at the time, she had attempted to answer all questions truthfully. Mr. LaRouche is now suddenly claiming--19 years later--that she testified falsely in order to destroy him. Mr. LaRouche was convicted in the 1988 trial of mail  fraud and conspiracy charges, after the jury heard testimony from many of the victims of his scams. He received a sentence of five to 15 years in federal prison, and ended up serving five years (1989-1994).

Mrs. Kronberg is represented by co-counsel John Bond of Fairfax, VA and John Markham of Boston, MA. Mr. Markham is the former Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Mr. LaRouche in the 1988 trial, which took place in the same Eastern District of Virginia court in which Mrs. Kronberg has now filed suit. Mr. LaRouche lives near Purcellville, Virginia, and his cult's national offices are in Leesburg.

The E.D. Virginia was also the venue for a 1984 civil suit Mr. LaRouche filed against NBC that likewise resulted in a high-profile trial. Mr. LaRouche accused NBC of libelling him in a TV news magazine segment which reported that Mr. LaRouche had once discussed killing President Jimmy Carter with a remote-controlled bomb, and which included an interview with an Anti-Defamation League official who called Mr. LaRouche a "small-time Hitler."

After hearing rambling and abuse-laden testimony from plaintiff LaRouche, the jury found that NBC had not libelled him--and awarded the broadcasting giant $3 million in punitive damages on a counterclaim (later reduced by the judge to $200,000).

Dennis King, an expert on cults and the author of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (1989), stated regarding Mrs. Kronberg's suit: "No outsider has a better grasp of the inner workings of the LaRouche cult than John Markham. And no former insider understands it better than Molly Kronberg. If this case ever goes to trial, I predict that LaRouche will lose big--especially after yet another Virginia jury has listened to his bombast on the witness stand day after day."

Readers with information they believe might be helpful to Mrs. Kronberg's case should contact:

John J.E. Markham, II
MARKHAM & READ
One Commercial Wharf West
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
Tel: (617) 523-6329
Fax: (617) 742-8604
E-mail:
jmarkham@markhamread.com

Those who wish to donate towards the expenses of Mrs. Kronberg's lawsuit should send their checks to Mr. Markham at the above address. All checks should be payable to: Markham & Read Client Trust Account (with notation: "For Molly Kronberg v. LaRouche Legal Fees and Expenses"). All donations will be recorded and an accounting of all expenditures will be kept on a monthly basis.

Further information on the death of Ken Kronberg and the harassment of Mrs. Kronberg can be found at:

http://kennethkronberg.com

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/Kronberg.html

http://www.lyndonlarouche.org/ken-kronberg-all-articles.htm

Monday, August 24, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Chuck Hagel should think twice about joining a Bloomberg ticket

"It's a great country to think about--a New York boy and a Nebraska boy to be teamed up leading this nation," Republican Senator Chuck Hagel told CBS' s "Face the Nation" somewhat incoherently back in mid-May, after having dinner with Michael Bloomberg to discuss a joint independent run for the Presidency and Vice Presidency.

Media speculation on such a partnership soon waned--until Bloomberg's June 19 announcement that he was quitting the Republican Party, an obvious first step for meeting the legal requirements to get on the ballot as an independent in all fifty states. The National Journal noted that Hagel had been smart to start courting Bloomberg early on, while Nebraska's North Platte Bulletin suggested a Bloomberg-Hagel deal is a strong possibility. Other news articles as well as blogs are keeping the idea of the so-called dream ticket alive. (On the Colbert Report, comedian Jon Stewart quipped: "Bloomberg-Hagel? That doesn't sound like a dream ticket. That sounds like a rare genetic disorder.")

If the Mayor and the Senator run together, there's no doubt who would head the ticket. Bloomberg is one of the wealthiest men in America, and has let it be known that if he enters the race he will spend up to one billion dollars of his personal fortune to become President.

Hagel, a two-time Purple Heart winner in Vietnam and a staunch Republican on most issues except the Iraq war, should examine closely the downside of linking his career to Bloomberg's. The New York mayor and founder of Bloomberg LP is known as a generous boss, but does Hagel really want to be the campaign water boy who has to answer not only for Bloomberg's stance on gun control and family values but for whatever strange scandals might be lurking in the background of this odd fish?

One such scandal may underlie the mayor's creepy ongoing relationship (for at least the past seven years) with Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani of the secretive International Workers Party, a spinoff cult from the Lyndon LaRouche mothership that has used patronage and personal support from the mayor to bolster its programs for children and teens. These programs utilize "social therapy"--a therapeutic modality invented by Mr. Newman and emphasizing revolutionary indoctrination, a collectivist lifestyle, and "friendosexuality" between therapists and patients.

What will Hagel say when media in the Midwest and the South break the wall of silence that Mayor Bloomberg, with the help of the New York press barons, has constructed around this relationship? How will the Senator answer questions from newspapers in his own state about why Bloomberg has given millions of dollars in city financing (and hundreds of thousands, at least, from his own pocket) to a self-styled Marxist outfit that encouraged Col. Gadhafi's violence against Americans in the late 1980s--and which then reaffirmed its unconditional support for the Libyan dictator after he blew up Pan Am Flight 103? What will the senator's response be when faith-based organizations ask why Bloomberg has helped to promote a charity run by the Newman-Fulani cult to work with children as young as five, even though Bloomberg knows all about the cult's long history of defending NAMBLA and other child molesters and of openly promoting Newman's "friendosexualism" among teens?

I suggest that Senator Hagel look into this matter, and that he not accept at face value the excuses of Bloomberg's flunkies such as Kevin Sheekey and Ester Fuchs. The truth is not hidden but right out in the open. The Senator can go to http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=200&aid=54773 and see the award winning six-part series on Bloomberg's favorite cult that appeared on the independent cable news channel NY1 in late 2005. His staff can then find abundant backup material (including a cover article from The New Republic) at http://ex-iwp.org, http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/devloan.htm and http://publiceye.org/newman/napmain.html. Also, there are many former victims of the Mayor's favorite cult who would be happy to share their experiences with the Senator's staff.

I suspect that Senator Hagel, who is the father of two teenagers, will have some serious questions to pose to the mayor after learning about the Newman cult's record of teen exploitation. On the other hand, the Senator may really believe that joining a Bloomberg ticket is the best way to reach the public with his critique of the Iraq disaster.  But he should insist, as a condition of his participation, that Bloomberg (a) publicly break all ties with Newman, Fulani and their phony youth charities and therapy clinics, and (b) unequivocally denounce social therapy and all its works.

From Bloomberg's response, Chuck Hagel will learn not only whether he can safely join a Bloomberg ticket without becoming a hostage to eccentricity, but also whether New York's mayor really has the minimal character and judgement to occupy the Oval Office.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Bloomberg and the New York Sun a political odd couple

Eric Alterman in The Nation (June 18) notes that the New York Sun, a daily that costs its wealthy neoconservative sponsors millions of dollars a year, has a paid circulation of less than 15,000 and apparently exists only as an exercise in vanity. But Alterman wastes too much of his energy on attacking the paper's support for Israel, and thus misses the real story: how the Sun has become the chief drumbeater for a Presidential run by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in spite of the fact that the Sun's and the mayor's politics have very little in common.

The op-ed rich and advertising poor daily previously had wanted Dick Cheney to run in 2008. Now it's locked into boosting a candidate (if he is a candidate) who vehemently disagrees with conservatives on family values, gun control, and global warming; wants to pass out payments to welfare families for attending PTA meetings; is so lukewarm about Israel that during last year's war on the Lebanese border he made a point of visiting...Ireland; and responds to the stubborn anti-Semitism of his allies Lenora Fulani and Fred Newman by stuffing their pockets with ever more money.

Almost every day for months, the Sun has been pushing the mayor to run-run-run, while praising his achievements and talents to a degree that would be regarded as unseemly by any normal politician (or any normal newspaper) this side of North Korea.

Sun publisher Seth Lipsky and his backers may be trying to massage the mayor's ego so he'll hopefully serve as the Ralph Nader-style spoiler against the Democratic candidate in 2008. On the other hand, they may simply be out for Bloomberg donations (and lots and lots of campaign ads) to keep their paper afloat. I note how Lipsky apparently also has an eye to ongoing support from Conrad Black, as suggested by those incessant Mark Steyn dispatches from Chicago re Black's trial. (Steyn is entertaining and persuasive, but there's little doubt he's basically a mouthpiece for the defense.)

Whatever the truth about the Sun's relationship to Bloomberg--and I urge Alterman to pursue this angle in a future column--the grovelling of LIpsky's neocon clique before our billionaire mayor can only confirm the suspicions of many that the so-called neoconservative movement is basically fueled by old-fashioned opportunism.

Saturday, June 23, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Foxman's double standard undermines fight against Farrakhan

  • AUGUST 6, 2005

(Part Six on ADL director Foxman and the Bloomberg-Independence Party alliance)

If one goes to the ADL home page, one will find (as of Aug. 10) a prominently displayed link with the title "African-American Leaders Urged to Reconsider Support for the 'Millions More Movement.''' Click on this priority item and one can read the ADL's May 2 press release on Louis Farrakhan's planned 10th anniversary commemoration of the Million Man March, to be held Oct.14-16 in Washington DC.

The statement begins: "Saddened and disheartened by their possible involvement in the 'Millions More Movement', the Anti-Defamation League is urging prominent African-American leaders to reconsider their support for the march and its anti-Semitic organizers, Minister Louis Farrakhan and Malik Zulu Shabazz."

The press release says that the ADL had sent letters to over 30 prominent black leaders, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, Rev. Floyd Flake and U.S. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, expressing the watchdog agency's concern that the involvement of Farrakhan and Shabazz would "taint the proceeding with the baggage of anti-Semitism and hate."

ADL national director Abe Foxman is quoted as saying, "We cannot understand why good people continue to tolerate this outrage of anti-Semitic views and behavior. It seems there is a line of denial--indeed a blind spot among many--within the African-American community when it comes to anti-Semitism."

All this is accurate enough and needed to be said. But if one searches the ADL home page and indeed the entire ADL website, one finds no press release indicating that a similar letter has been sent to prominent white political leaders, either Jewish or gentile, who are involved with the Independence Party led by Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani.

Pardon me, but is there a racial double standard here? Newman and Fulani may not be able to draw the types of crowds that Farrakhan does. But they have built a powerful political machine in New York that has made them extremely influential, and they have friends in high places to a degree that Farrakhan will never have.

It is high time that the ADL supplement its public appeal to African-American leaders regarding the Farrakhan rally with an equally public appeal, re Newman and Fulani, to:

* Hungarian-American leader George Pataki (Governor of New York);

* Italian-American leader Joe Bruno (New York State Senate Majority leader);

* Lebanese-American leader Jeanine Ferris Pirro (Westchester County District Attorney); and

* Jewish-American leaders Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York), Chuck Schumer (senior U.S. Senator from New York) and Eliot Spitzer (New York State Attorney General).

The ADL has challenged Black leaders by name to distance themselves from the Farrakhan rally, but has issued no public criticism of white leaders who appear at public functions of the Newman-Fulani cult to praise its goals--and who steer millions of dollars in public and private funds to its political and charitable fronts. It would appear that if the ADL raises this issue at all, it is through unctuous private communications like Foxman's April 20 letter to Bloomberg that carefully avoid giving offense on any level. (You can read Foxman's letter at http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org/pdf/foxman.pdf.)

And why, especially, are Bloomberg, Schumer and Spitzer let off the hook? Is the ADL going to justify itself with the old chestnut that it doesn't believe in criticizing "co-religionists"? Don't even try it, Abe. It's too well known in the Jewish community that you have a double standard towards your fellow Jews, attacking those you want to attack (including those who criticized your role as the pardon pimp for Marc Rich) and showering compliments on those you hope to get big donations from.

As to public criticism of Jewish individuals by the ADL as an organization, the watchdog group's website contains strong (and to my mind, fully justified) attacks on leftwing Israel-bashers Noam Chomsky and Adam Shapiro. This type of criticism has long been ADL policy. For instance, the ADL's 1995 report on the Newman-Fulani group ("A Cult By Any Other Name") points out that Newman is Jewish yet blasts him for his anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements and for functioning as a power-hungry cult leader. As late as January 2004, an ADL press release criticized Newman's play "Crown Heights" as anti-Semitic for its portrayal of a scenario in which Jews are blamed for starting the 1991 pogrom.

So, why not criticize Michael Bloomberg? He doesn't make anti-Semitic statements or write anti-Semitic plays but he arranged for Newman and Fulani, whom he knows damn well are hate-mongers, to get an $8.7 million municipal bond to purchase and renovate the theater where they produced their infamous play--and he even gave them $50,000 out of his pocket via the Carnegie Foundation for their theater arts program. Then, when he found out that his and the city's resources had been used to insult and smear his co-religionists, he not only failed to pull the plug on Newman and Fulani's operation but also gave them an additional $250,000 for their so-called Independence Party (and lied about it to the Jewish community and the general public by calling the IP a "centrist" force).

If Newman is the anti-Semite, both as agitator and playwright, Mayor Bloomberg is his enabler--and deserves harsh, public, and unremitting criticism on this point (as indeed he has received from the New York Post and others while Foxman remains silent).

The first line of defense of the American Jewish community since World War Two has been its ability to appeal to the large majority of the American people who believe that overt expressions of anti-Semitism are morally wrong. But to retain and extend that majority, especially among segments of the population where anti-Semitic sentiments linger to a larger than average extent, it is important that the ADL--the best-known of all the major Jewish organizations--maintain a consistent moral position. It is not enough to condemn anti-Semitism at one end of the political spectrum while letting those at the other end off the hook. It is not enough to call on black leaders to repudiate a Jew-hater in their midst but to remain silent about white leaders who cozy up to the likes of Newman and Fulani.

Foxman's double standard regarding our billionaire mayor's pet bigots can only end up furnishing black leaders with an excuse (of sorts) to ignore his plea regarding the "Millions More Movement." Fortunately the ADL leader does not speak for the Jewish community as a whole. Certain other Jewish organizations have maintained a somewhat more consistent moral standard over the years. But any recipient of Foxman's May 2 letter who is still musing over how much support they should give to the Millions More Movement are not likely to see this larger picture--it is the ADL, not the other major Jewish organizations, that threw the stone from inside its glass house.

Mr. Foxman, if you want Jesse Jackson and other black leaders to do the right thing and boycott or at least downgrade their role in Farrakhan's rally, it is incumbent on you to do everything in your power to get Michael Bloomberg, George Pataki and other white politicians in New York to also do the right thing--by severing their ties with Newman and Fulani's Independence Party.

Saturday, August 06, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Marc Rich to Mike Bloomberg: Foxman's addiction to billionaires

AUGUST 5, 2005

(Part Five on ADL director Foxman and the Bloomberg-Independence Party alliance)

The ADL's role in running political interference for the Bloomberg-Independence Party alliance is best understood as reflecting Abe Foxman's longstanding focus on opportunistic fund-raising rather than any kind of principled fight against anti-Semitism. In this context, Foxman's artful effort on behalf of New York's billionaire Republican mayor, Michael Bloomberg, bears comparison with his role in winning a presidential pardon for billionaire tax cheat Marc Rich in 2001. The pardon, which was signed by Bill Clinton on his last day in office at the request of Foxman, triggered a storm of Congressional and media protest.

Advocates for convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, who is serving a life sentence while spies for America's enemies have usually received much lighter sentences, charged that Foxman had sold out Pollard (by presenting the Rich pardon to Clinton as an easy choice that would be a favor to the ADL and would enable the President to avoid making a decision on the much more controversial Pollard case). Rich, a fugitive living in Switzerland, paid back Foxman by making donations totalling $250,000 to the ADL.

Some in the Jewish community called for Foxman to be fired, but there was no one to do the deed--he had already purged his critics from the ADL regional directorships and the ADL national commission.

After the initial public outrage over his role in the pardon had died down, Foxman said of the incident to Forward reporter Rachel Donadio,"I'm not 100% sure that it's so terrible as it's made out to be." Donadio wrote that when she asked Foxman if the ADL would accept money from Rich in the future, he refused to comment.

Meanwhile Mr. Rich, a sociopathic swindler with no loyalty to the United States or Israel, went on to help the Saddam Hussein regime manipulate the UN's oil-for-food program, generating cash that U.S. investigators believe was used in part to reward the families of intifada suicide bombers. He is now, again, under federal investigation.

Next there was the ADL dinner Foxman organized for Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian media billionaire turned prime minister, at Manhattan's Plaza Hotel in September 2003. Three weeks before the dinner, Berlusconi indiscreetly praised fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Hitler's closest ally in World War Two, saying that "Mussolini never killed anyone. Mussolini sent people away on vacation, in internal exile."

When challenged on this, Berlusconi (whose 1994 government had been the first since Mussolini's day to include former fascists, and whose current government has included them on its highest levels since 2001) said that he had merely meant to say that Il Duce was not in the same league with Saddam Hussein.

This excuse was absurd on the face of it: If you add up all the people Mussolini's regime slaughtered in Libya during two decades of colonial genocide; Ethiopia, where his pilots used poison gas Chemical Ali-style during the infamous invasion of 1935-36; Spain, where his troops fought for Franco; Russia, where Italian divisions participated in the 1941 Nazi invasion; Albania, which Italy grabbed in 1939; and Greece, invaded in 1940--plus all the Italians who died during the Allied invasion and later at the hands of German occupiers--Mussolini was without a doubt a Hussein-class murderer if not quite in Hitler or Stalin's Superbowl category.

The Italian Jewish community was especially appalled by Berlusconi's statement because of the 7,000 Italian Jews deported as a result of Il Duce's policies to "vacations" in Hitler's death camps. The Forward (Sept. 26, 2003) quoted Tullia Zevi, past president of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities: "I suggested that he [Foxman] postpone it [the dinner]. To celebrate a man who has said such things is insulting the memory of these people who suffered under these times."

Foxman not only went ahead with the dinner (having induced not-quite-billionaire Leonard Riggio of Barnes & Noble to chair it) but also rewarded Berlusconi with the ADL's "Distinguished Statesman" award. The ADL director justified this by saying Berlusconi was more friendly to Israel than were other European leaders. (Note: Abe Foxman is not the foreign minister of Israel; he is the director of an American nonprofit with the purported mission of combating extremists--including hate groups and Holocaust deniers who doubtless applauded Berlusconi's remarks. Foxman had no business organizing the Berlusconi dinner in the first place, and once the Italian leader's offensive remarks were made public, the ADL should have canceled the event because of the conflict of interest it created with the ADL's primary mission.)

A fitting footnote to Berlusconi's receipt of the ADL distinguished statesman award was his appointment of Gianfranco Fini, leader of the former fascist National Alliance, as his foreign minister in 2004. This is the same Fini who claimed in 1994 that Mussolini was "the greatest statesman of the 20th century."

Now we see a replay of the Rich scandal and the Berlusconi embarrassment in Foxman's attempts to be useful to Mayor Bloomberg.  To suggest what may be motivating Foxman, we quote from a New York Post article ("Sweet Charity: Mayor Mike plans to offload media empire," Jan. 11, 2005):

Mayor Michael Bloomberg may be getting ready to sell his financial information giant to fund a mammoth philanthropic effort after he quits public office.

Bloomberg L.P.--the media and financial information company that is the source of much of his wealth--will be sold to finance the charitable binge, he said recently....

Bloomberg said he views the charitable giving of Microsoft founder Bill Gates and wife Melinda as a model he'd like to emulate.

"I've watched the Gateses. Some of my priorities aren't exactly the same as theirs, but they've really gotten involved in philanthropy on a scale the world has never seen before."

Is it any surprise that Foxman wrote to Bloomberg in April to tell him he was the "best of the best" and to offer, in effect, to go to bat for the mayor at a moment when the latter was under attack for his close involvement with the anti-Semitic Newman-Fulani organization? In the months since then, the ADL has avoided any criticism of the mayor's Independence Party ties whatsoever, either direct or indirect, and has fallen into line with the mayor's campaign spin doctors to suggest that Fulani is only one person in a party of basically good people.

The ADL has thus become complicit in the Bloomberg-IP alliance--a sordid deal that has bestowed great political influence on Newman and Fulani as well as providing them with the financial resources to indoctrinate New York's kids on a significant scale (Newman and Fulani leveraged their $8.7 million All Stars loan from the Bloomberg administration into tens of millions of dollars in private donations).

The loan to All Stars could have been easily stopped in 2002 if the ADL leadership had been on its toes and Foxman had himself gone to public hearings of the city's Industrial Development Agency to denounce the proposal. But Foxman, whose organization receives roughly $40 million a year from Jews who expect it to handle this type of problem, ignored the All Stars bond proposal even after the media warned of its provisional (first stage) approval in December 2001.

Although it is true than no other major Jewish organization stepped into the breach at that time, some of these groups are now trying to force the mayor to sever his ties to the Independence Party, All Stars and the entire Newman-Fulani network.

The ADL, however, is playing no visible role in such efforts. Clearly it needs a new national director who will reorder its priorities away from begging money from billionaires and back to its original mission of waging a principled fight against bigotry and extremism.

Thursday, August 04, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

Others speak out strongly--why doesn't the ADL?

AUGUST 4, 2005

(Part Four on ADL director Foxman and the Bloomberg-Independence Party alliance)

The ADL's opportunistic role in the public controversy over Mayor Bloomberg's alliance with the Newman-Fulani cult is very different from that of certain other major Jewish organizations and of most of the media. For instance, contrast Foxman's servile (and at the time, private) letter to the mayor on April 20 (http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/pdf/foxman.pdf) with the strong public statement the American Jewish Committee (AJC) issued on April 14, the day after Fulani's appearance on NY1 News.

The American Jewish Committee today called on Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to denounce anti-Semitic remarks made by Lenora Fulani; to refrain from raising more funds for her enterprises; and to reject association with the Independence Party.... (emphasis added)

Also contrast Foxman's letter with the American Jewish Congress (AJCongress) press release issued on April 20:

The Metropolitan region of the American Jewish Congress called upon public officers of all political parties to do more than merely distance themselves from statements made by...Lenora Fulani, but to demand her resignation or withdraw their own affiliations with the party. (emphasis added)

This press release went on to quote Jeff Wiesenfeld, co-President of the AJ Congress Met Region:

Fulani and her cohort Fred Newman ought to be thrown out of the party and not given a home, especially one where mainstream public leaders like Governor George Pataki, Senator Charles Schumer, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer or Mayor Michael Bloomberg lend them any bit of credibility. (emphasis added)

There is no talk here of the mayor's "principled position," but rather a clear understanding that the Mayor and other politicians are part of the problem--and that Bloomberg, Pataki, Spitzer & Co. should not just denounce Fulani's statements but break with the Independence Party that she and Newman control. (The AJC, which has been tracking the problem more closely, added that the politicians should "refrain from raising more funds" for Newman and Fulani's "enterprises"--a reference to their highly politicized youth charity, the All Stars Project.)

The ADL's position also stands in sharp contrast to what most of the New York media has been saying about the mayor's relationship with Fulani and the Independence Party. Indeed, in the wake of Fulani's now infamous remarks on NY1 News on April 13, virtually the entire media rejected the mayor's pro forma criticism of Fulani as inadequate and self-serving.

A New York Sun editorial ("Bloomberg's Soul," April 15, 2005) noted the confused and weak statements that the Mayor and his aides made on the day after Fulani's NY1 interview and pointed out that Fulani's sentiments "are not the sort of thing the mayor, or any mayoral candidate, can dodge without people starting to mutter about what price he has paid, beyond the millions he has already spent, to get the mayoralty he has wanted so much."

The New York Post in a April 16 editorial scornfully entitled "Profiles in Cowardice," stated: "It's time for New York's political establishment--led by Mayor Bloomberg--to sever all ties to the anti-Semitic hatemonger Lenora Fulani." The Post went on to criticize the state's top politicians for their unwillingness to break "all ties to her and her party." (emphasis added) It then zeroed in on the mayor with deadly effect: "Yesterday, having had 24 hours to think about it, the mayor decided Fulani's remarks were 'phenomenally offensive.' But offensive enough to repudiate her support--as he'd threatened after 9/11 (but never followed through on)? Not yet."

And a New York Times editorial (April 17) pointed out that "a lot of politicians who should know better--Senator Charles Schumer, Gov. George Pataki, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Mayor Michael Bloomberg--kowtow to groups like Dr. Fulani's so that they can have their names on the party's ballot line." The Times noted that "although he [Mayor Bloomberg] calls Dr. Fulani's remarks on Israel 'phenomenally offensive,' he plans to ask for her party's support in this year's mayoral race." The editorial ends by advising New York politicians to "stop bowing and scraping to the likes of Dr. Fulani."

Michael Goodwin wrote in the Daily News on April 17: "By refusing to sever his ties with Fulani, a classic anti-Semite wrapped in the guise of an activist, Bloomberg has put his reelection bid ahead of all else. You can't get any more political than that." And: "Bloomberg likes to say he doesn't need the job, that he would rather lose than compromise principle. Apparently what he means is that he can't be bought because he's rich. But Fulani seems to have found his price."

New York Sun columnist Andrew Wolf wrote on April 19:

The headlines and editorials will not and should not stop until our political elite realizes that the price of supporting Ms. Fulani and her party is greater than the benefit. It is not just Mr. Bloomberg who needs to re-evaluate his involvement with this crew. Governor Pataki, Senator Schumer, and Attorney General Spitzer have also been similarly compromised. It is time for them to just say no.

New York Post columnist Eric Fettmann wrote on April 21:

Sure, there were pro forma denunciations of her statement [Fulani's "mass murderers" quip]...by Mayor Bloomberg, Gov. Pataki, Sen. Chuck Schumer--the politicians who for years have enthusiastically courted her support. But not one of those top officials washed his hands of her--or of the Independence Party, which she controls. This despite the fact that Fulani--and her mentor, Fred Newman--have a record of such hate-filled rhetoric going back decades.

Pointing out how both Schumer and Bloomberg had spoken at annual fundraisers of Fulani's All Stars, Fettmann concluded that "all this just boggles the mind."

And how about when Bloomberg accepted the endorsement of Fulani's party the following month? While Foxman remained silent, the media did not. For instance, a Post editorial on May 28 called the mayor's excuse that Fulani is only one out of 90,000 IP members "utterly cynical nonsense." And: "Sure, he [the mayor] denounces her [Fulani's] odious remarks, though only after giving the matter some careful thought. But then he cuddles up to her just the same."

If you go to the ADL web site (as of August 1) and type in the name Fulani on the search line, the only thing that pops up is an ADL press release regarding the 2004 All Stars play that blamed the Crown Heights pogrom on the Jews (a press release that conveniently forgets to mention that the theater had been built with city money provided by Mayor Bloomberg and that the theater arts program had been given $50,000 out of the mayor's own pocket). On the controversy over Fulani's NY1 appearance in April when she reaffirmed her belief that Jews are "mass murderers of people of color"--nothing. On the controversy over the mayor accepting her party's endorsement in late May--nothing.

An anti-Semitic cult has become one of the most powerful forces in New York politics--courted by the mayor, the governor, the state attorney general, the state senate majority leader, the state's senior U.S. senator, several members of the state's congressional delegation, and dozens of state and local legislators. The center of the cult's power is in New York City, which has the largest concentration of Jews anywhere in the world outside of Israel. The cult has infiltrated children's charities, high school counseling programs, and now the city's after-school programs. It has a systematic plan to recruit New York's young people through its "social therapy" and to indoctrinate them with its bigotry and its totalitarian ideology.

And where is Abe Foxman? Scheming how to get a fat check for his fundraising drive from the mayor responsible for this mess....

Next: Foxman's fascination with billionaires.

Thursday, August 04, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nonsense from Foxman aide re the Bloomberg-Independence Party alliance

AUGUST 3, 2005

(Part Three on ADL director Foxman and the Bloomberg-Independence Party alliance)

One could argue that Foxman's April 20 letter to Mayor Bloomberg--written over a month before the mayor accepted the endorsement of an unrepentant Independence Party--was a misguided attempt to entice the mayor away from the IP with honey. But this interpretation of the letter is refuted not only by Foxman's silence over Bloomberg's post-April actions, but also by remarks of the ADL's New York regional director, Joel Levy, as quoted in the July 11, 2005 New York Observer.

"I think that the Independence Party needs to itself reject the unacceptable views of Lenora Fulani," Levy said. "People in any political party have a responsibility to be sure that its leaders stand for views that they support. And I believe that the Independence Party membership doesn't support anti-Semitism."

Here we see the same false distinction between Fulani and the rest of the IP--the same preposterous assumption that the hundreds of Newmanite cadre members in the IP are a mere cipher--that has become the mantra of the Bloomberg reelection campaign.

Fulani herself appeared to give the lie to Levy's version of the mantra by telling the Observer that (in the Observer reporter's words) "none of her Independence Party colleagues have pressed her to withdraw her inflammatory comments, despite the potential for collateral damage to the party."

Is Fulani telling the truth on this? The Observer talked to her almost three months after her remarks on NY1 News, a period during which one would think that any nominal independents on the IP state committee or county committees--i.e., those who are "useful idiots" of the Newman cult rather than actual members--would have had ample time to search their consciences and rachet up a little courage. The fact that no visible signs of outrage have come from anywhere in the IP except from tiny bands of dissidents with no capacity to influence party decisions, suggests that this is a deeply tainted organization--not the "voice of the growing centrist movement in New York politics" that Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey called it last April, and not the benign, non-bigoted agglomeration implied by the ADL's Levy in July.

One could argue that Levy, in referring to the "responsibility" of IP members to reign in their leaders, was referring not so much to the active IP membership as to the mass of IP enrolled voters. But this would make his comments even more dishonest: The party's enrolled voters (320,000 statewide) are not responsible for the present mess; the political leaders of our city and state--who allowed themselves to be seduced by the Newman-Fulani controlled IP ballot line--are the people who created the Frankenstein monster and have the duty to slay it. It was money from Governor Pataki in 2002 and from the mayor over the past four years that financed the deceptive voter registration efforts resulting in the IP's current bloated voter rolls. And both the governor and the mayor directly participated in the deception by portraying the IP as a moderate or "centrist" political organization.

And even assuming the hapless IP enrollees would listen to Levy's lecture about their "responsibility," what could they do? They have no relationship to the party organization and no practical means of expressing their disagreement except through changing their party registration. I suggested in my open letter to Mayor Bloomberg last month ("Mr. Mayor, Tear Down That Wall!") that he put resources into mailings to the IP voter rolls to inform them of the true nature of the party leadership and to urge them to vote for him on another line (http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/wall.htm). I detect no evidence that the mayor took this advice. Likewise, I see no indications that the mayor, the ADL or anyone else with clout who purports to be phenomenally offended by Ms. Fulani's April 13 remarks is beating down the doors of the tiny network of principled IP dissidents around Michael Zumbluskas to provide them with resources to wage a meaningful fight.

Given these considerations, Levy's suggestion that IP enrolled voters have the prime "responsibility" for fighting the IP leadership's bigotry is merely an attempt to avoid, at all costs, offending the real guilty parties, and especially Mayor Bloomberg.

As to the real problem inside the IP, the ADL knows full well that it's not only Fulani as an individual, but also the Independence Party cadre organization, or cult, led by Fred Newman which has moved step by step since the 1990s to gain dominance over the so-called independent political movement in New York.

How do I know that the ADL knows this? Just read the watchdog group's 1995 report on Newman and Fulani, "A Cult By Any Other Name: The New Alliance Party Dismantled and Reincarnated." (As of August 1, 2005, the ADL did not provide access to this report from its home page or its search button--possibly as a favor to the mayor--but you can find it at http://www.adl.org/special_reports/nap.asp.)

In the report's Executive Summary, the ADL clearly defines the cadre organization that now runs the Independence Party as a "vehicle used by its behind-the-scenes leader, Dr. Fred Newman, to achieve power." Not Fulani, but Newman. Not a conglomeration of non-bigoted individuals waiting for the ADL to tell them to repudiate Fulani, but a vehicle--indeed, a political "cult"--headed by a man who, along with his acolyte Fulani, has peppered his writings and speeches with "Jew-baiting remarks."

The 29-page report describes in detail how Newman and his followers had disbanded their previous electoral front, the openly pro-revolution New Alliance Party, and were operating as a disciplined force using "deceptive tactics" in an attempt to gain control of the independent political movement inspired by H. Ross Perot. The report speaks of the Newman group's success in infiltrating Perot's Patriot Party nationally at a time when the Newmanites were already playing an important role in the New York Independence Party, the vehicle for Patriot Party style activities in our state. The report is replete with terms like "co-opt," "hijack" and "power-hungry group," and it asks: "Will it [the Newman group] succeed in dominating the Patriot Party, and does it have even larger targets in mind...?" [emphasis added}

The copyright on the report is 2001, which indicates that the ADL believed the Newman group had not changed its conspiratorial and anti-Semitic nature between 1995 and 2001. By the latter year, Newman and Fulani had in fact gained dominance over the IP and were deeply involved in supporting Michael Bloomberg's initial run for mayor.

Consider the contrast between this report and what Levy told the Observer. Are we expected to believe that the Newman "cult" (as the ADL called it in the 2001-copyrighted report) has magically changed in only four years and is now like a family of nice, sincere, tolerant people saddled with a single bigoted relative? Let's see...

* Has Fred Newman (he who once called the "Jews as a people" the worldwide "stormtroopers of decadent capitalism against people of color") changed? In 2004, his All Stars theater put on a play he wrote blaming the Crown Heights pogrom on the Jews.

* Has Jacqueline Salit (head of the IP's think tank and a frequent spokesperson for the IP itself) changed? In 2003 she sent a letter to the Forward (after the Jewish weekly published an article that quoted Fulani's 1989 "mass murderers" statement as an example of the Newman group's extremism). In her letter Salit said almost exactly what Fulani would say on NY1 in 2005--that it's not anti-Semitic to call Jews "mass murderers of people of color." And last April, a New York Times article described Salit as saying, re Fulani's NY1 performance, "that Dr. Fulani is not anti-Semitic and that those who are trying to exploit what she has said are doing so for political gain."

*  Has Cathy Stewart, the chairperson of the IP's powerful New York County organization, changed? On April 17, 2005 she sent a letter to the Times (in reply to an editorial that had criticized Fulani's April 13 remarks) asking: "What are we to make of the Times' histrionics about both the Independence Party and Lenora Fulani? That New York should be content to have only two political parties and only one political position on the Middle East?"

If the Newman cult has changed, so that Fulani now only speaks as an individual, wouldn't cult members and leaders have announced it to the world? Wouldn't they have hastened to tell Fulani to zip up her mouth instead of making excuses for her? And when has any cult or extremist group turned around and renounced the fundamental principles of its own leader (which renouncing Newman's anti-Semitism would certainly amount to) unless it first engaged in a dramatic internal struggle that the media would surely hear about?

As to Levy and Foxman, is it possible that they haven't even read their own organization's report on the Newmanites? How can these ADL leaders, who solicit millions of dollars a year from the Jewish community promising to keep it safe from anti-Semitism, justify their failure to speak out forcefully and truthfully (with no political "spin") against Mayor Bloomberg's alliance with a group that the ADL's own fact-finding department defines as a power-hungry anti-Semitic cult?

Thursday, August 04, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

Deconstructing the Foxman letter

AUGUST 2, 2005

(Part Two on ADL director Foxman and the Bloomberg-Independence Party alliance)

ADL national director Abraham H. Foxman's April 20, 2005 letter giving the mayor a clean bill of health regarding his alliance with Lenora Fulani's Independence Party can only be described as a travesty of the ADL's fight against anti-Semitism. A page-image of the letter can be found on my website at http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org/pdf/foxman.pdf. Here is an annotated version, sentence by sentence:

"Dear Mayor Bloomberg: Time Magazine may think there are five "best" mayors, but we know that, through your creative leadership, you have shown you are the "best of the best." You and your NYC2012 Olympic team certainly showed that creativity in Berlin. It would be great for the City to host the Olympic Games. I hope the IOC will see it your way."

COMMENT: Foxman shows how eager he is to help Mayor Bloomberg get reelected, while avoiding the kind of direct endorsement that would place the ADL in clear violation of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. This suck-up paragraph contrasts sharply with Foxman's response to pleas in past years that the ADL speak out strongly against anti-Semitic electoral candidates such as David Duke and Patrick Buchanan. When defense of Jews is needed, 501(c)(3) is the ADL director's great excuse to do nothing. When an opportunity presents itself to gain a fund-raising advantage with a billionaire politician, 501(c)(3) is out the window.

"I also want to share with you a brief observation about your principled position on the anti-Semitic statements of Lenora Fulani."

COMMENT: What "principled position"? Bloomberg has a four-year history of pretending to criticize Fulani's statements and then throwing more money at the self-styled "postmodern Bolshevik" and her guru Fred Newman. As noted in our last posting, he blasted her in 2001 for blaming the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S. government, but failed to end his alliance with her Independence Party and then compensated her and Newman by approving an $8.7 million city bond so their All Stars charity could launch a "youth development center" to indoctrinate New York's kids with the "Newmanite" ideology.

Fulani and Newman then showed their utter contempt for the mayor's appeasement by putting on as their first play at the new center in January 2004 a production (written by Newman) that blamed the 1991 Crown Heights pogrom on the mayor's fellow Jews. A Bloomberg aide expressed disapproval of the play, but the city's Parks Department bought tickets to send after-school program children to see it. The mayor then rewarded Fulani and Newman with more money--this time, $250,000 from his own pocket for Independence Party activities--and by appearing on the stage with Fulani to help raise funds for the same All Stars center that had produced the Crown Heights play.

The mayor once again ran his con on New Yorkers in April 2005 after Fulani affirmed on NY1 News that she thinks Jews are "mass murderers of people of color." He called her statements "phenomenally offensive" on his WABC radio show, but said in the same breath: "I'm happy to have their [the IP's] endorsement, and I think a lot of the things they stand for I stand for as well." (The latter statement was not reported as widely in the media as the former one.)

Obtaining his letter from Foxman with which to cool out at least part of the Jewish community, the mayor went on to accept the endorsement of Newman and Fulani's party in late May. And once again the Phenomenally Offensive One and her guru received their reward: The city's Department of Youth and Community Development announced in June that their All Stars Project had been found eligible for a $216,000 grant to run an after-school program.

Where is the "principled position" here? There is none--only a four-year record of opportunism and appeasement.

"The ADL firmly believes that everyone, politicians, civic leaders, the general public, must resist giving in to political expediency whenever anyone in our City engages in divisive hateful rhetoric."

COMMENT: By praising the mayor's non-existent "principled position," Foxman himself has done the opposite of what he professes to call for. This self-appointed leader of the Jewish community has given his stamp of approval to one of the most glaring cases of "political expediency" in recent New York politics.

"Lenora Fulani's anti-Semitic statements are no exception and we sincerely hope many others will join your call to the members of the Independence Party to stand up and say no to hate, to say no to anti-Semitism."

COMMENT: The only significant organized force inside the New York City IP is the secretive Newman-Fulani cult, which provides most of the campaign workers, raises and controls the money, runs the party's think tank, furnishes the party's lawyers (who themselves are cult members), and receives the city patronage. The rest of the membership is mostly just people who have no relationship to the party machine--former Perotistas driven out of active involvement by the Newman-Fulani cult, people who simply registered with the IP thinking they were registering as "independent" voters, and several thousand members of the hospital workers union and certain civil service unions who were pressured by union leaders to register with the IP in 2002 simply to vote for Governor Pataki in that year's IP gubernatorial primary. Thus a call for IP members to say no to hate is a nonsense statement--it implies that the Newman-Fulani cult will rise up against the Newman-Fulani cult.

By ignoring the existence of the IP's cult-machine and posing the issue in terms simply of Fulani as an individual versus an amorphous mass of well-meaning party members, the ADL is basically chanting the same mantra as Bloomberg adviser Bill Cunningham--that Fulani is only one of 90,000 members in a party that magically exists without any kind of organization.

More to come on how the ADL is running interference for Mayor Bloomberg's Independence Party alliance....

Thursday, August 04, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

Foxman letter misled Brooklyn rabbis re Bloomberg's Independence Party ties

AUGUST 1, 2005

(Part One on ADL director Abe Foxman and the Bloomberg-Independence Party alliance)

When the Orthodox rabbinical board (Vaad Harabbanim) of Flatbush endorsed Mayor Bloomberg for reelection at its June 22 annual meeting, there was a gadfly in the ointment. Rabbi David B. Hollander stood up and asked the mayor about his alliance with Lenora Fulani, the Independence Party leader who defended on NY1 News in April her 1989 statement that Jews are "mass murderers of people of color." According to Hollander, the mayor's response was to claim that Fulani is only one out of 90,000 members in the Independence Party. Hollander recalls snapping back that Fulani is in fact the leader of the party, but since no one in the audience backed him up, the mayor was able to go on to other questions as if an adequate answer had been given.

Hollander dealt with the incident in his "Sedra of the Week" column in The Jewish Press (July 8). He wrote that he had been "reluctant to ask for the floor, hoping that one of the regulars would say something." But when it became clear that no one else was going to raise the Fulani issue, "I thought of our sages' teaching, that where there are no men, you should strive to be a man." (Not surprisingly, Hollander entitled his column "Of Mice and Men.")

Hollander later told me that he was not exactly thrilled when, after the meeting, some rabbis had expressed support for his position "privately yes, but publicly no."

"We are giving encouragement to anti-Semitism," he said. "Decent goyim who are against anti-Semitism can't understand this."

But there's another twist to the story. Rabbi Herbert W. Bomzer, president of the rabbinical board, told me that the reason he and other leaders didn't make an issue of the mayor's alliance with Fulani was that mayoral aides had produced a letter from Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, hailing the mayor's "principled position" on Fulani's anti-Semitism (this apparently was a reference to an April 15 statement in which the mayor said he found Fulani's remarks on NY1 to be "phenomenally offensive"). Bomzer said the board had been "satisfied" by the ADL director's letter and had decided that the mayor's Fulani connection didn't "pose a problem."

It would appear, however, that the mayor's campaign staff snookered the rabbis. For the Foxman letter (which you can read at http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org/pdf/foxman.pdf) is dated April 20--over a month before the mayor accepted the endorsement of the Fulani-led Independence Party and almost two months before the city's Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) declared the All Stars Project, a youth charity run by Fulani and her Marxist guru Fred Newman, eligible for a $216,000 grant to run an after-school program for children and teens. (Rabbi Bomzer told me he had been unaware of either of these developments, the latter of which was announced by the DYCD only one week before the mayor appeared at the Vaad Harabbanim meeting.)

In addition, Foxman's claim that the mayor had taken a "principled position" on Fulani's anti-Semitism was a misstatement of the facts even on April 20. The mayor had been giving money and patronage to Fulani and Newman for over four years in exchange for their political support. Far from being unaware of Fulani's bigotry, he had rebuked her in 2001 after she issued an open letter blaming the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S. government's "aggression and arrogance" (as well as on its support for Israel). But the mayor did not break with Fulani's party even though she defiantly continued to display her letter on the website of the party's think tank. Indeed the mayor went on to approve an $8.7 million municipal bond for All Stars in 2002 and to give the Independence Party $250,000 from his own pocket in 2004. (For more on the mayor's lavishing of money and political support on the IP and All Stars, see part two of this series.)

As to the mayor's April 15 statement criticizing Fulani's NY1 News remarks, the degree of courage and principle involved was minuscule at best. The mayor at first waffled on the issue and only criticized Fulani when his failure to do so appeared to be triggering a media firestorm. This motivation was clearly understood by the daily newspapers, and a New York Post editorial on April 16 pilloried the mayor:

First, he said he didn't "know what she is referring to." Then he tried to suggest Fulani doesn't represent the Independence Party--which is utter nonsense.

Yesterday, having had 24 hours to think about it, the mayor decided Fulani's remarks were "phenomenally offensive."

But offensive enough for Bloomberg to repudiate her support--as he'd threatened after 9/11 (but never followed through on)?

Not yet.

In light of events since April, one would think Abe Foxman would have withdrawn his unctuous praise of the mayor's "principled position." Yet the ADL remained silent when the mayor accepted the endorsement of Fulani's party on May 28. And the ADL likewise ignored the city's announcement of All Stars' eligibility for an after-school grant, even though the Jewish watchdog group had reported in years past on how the Newman-Fulani cult was spreading anti-Semitism through its youth work and through a theater program that has since merged with All Stars (go to http://www.adl.org/special_reports/nap.asp).

Rabbi Bomzer told me that although he was planning to print Foxman's letter in the Vaad Harabbanim newsletter, he would reconsider his organization's stance of non-criticism regarding the Mayor's alliance with Fulani if presented with appropriate documentation. That documentation was promptly sent. And that same week, The Jewish Press published a blistering attack by Councilman Lew Fidler on the Bloomberg-Fulani alliance, calling the mayor's financial support for Fulani and the Independence Party "repulsive" (http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=5191).

Will the Flatbush Vaad Harabbanim now do the right thing and publicly demand that the mayor break with the Independence Party and the All Stars Project once and for all?

Wednesday, August 03, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

Podhoretz Continues "War of the Worlds" Bashing

JULY 31, 2005

John Podhoretz, he of that most famous of neocon dynasties, just can't get the alleged subversive subtext of Spielberg's "War of the World" out of his mind. Now he's zeroed in (New York Post, July 27) on David Koepp, the co-writer of the screenplay. Podhoretz quotes from an interview on the film that Koepp gave to the Chicago Sun-Times: "Certainly there are a lot of political undertones and overtones. In the '50s, 'War of the Worlds,' was, 'My God, the commies are coming to get us.' Now its about fear of terrorism. In other parts of the world, the new movie will be fear of American invasion. It will be clearly about the Iraq war for them." Podhoretz interprets this statement as saying that the aliens in the Spielberg film "are intended to symbolize the U.S. military."

But the quote from Koepp doesn't say this. It says that different people in different countries will read into the "War of the Worlds" what they want to read into it, as have people in past decades and places. Naturally today's Americans will project fear of terrorism into it on some level. And of course Iraqis (whether anti-U.S. or pro-U.S.) will associate the Martian invasion with the shock and awe show over Baghdad and the ensuing events when they view videos or DVDs obtained from the copyright pirates in China. In an interview with IGN FilmForce, Koepp is crystal clear about this: "I think the movie will be seen as a prism that will reflect whatever people already believe" (emphasis added).

Koepp is silly, however, to say that the film will play overseas to fears of a U.S. invasion. The French love to bash America but I doubt there's a single Sorbonne intellectual who really believes the U.S. military is planning to drop daisy-cutters to take out the Left Bank. Probably the only people with a sincerely held fear of a U.S. invasion post-Iraq by America's depleted army of National Guardsmen are the North Korean crazies--and they are unlikely to let anyone in their country see this or any other Hollywood movie.

Koepp in other interviews not quoted by Podhoretz has admitted that he himself identifies the Martians with the U.S. military. But just because a screenwriter has ultraliberal personal views doesn't mean those views find their way into his or her script (these guys are professionals when all is said and done), or are retained by producers or directors even if they do appear in an early draft. Certainly there is no hidden subversive subtext in "Spider-Man," "Jurassic Park" and "Mission Impossible," all of which Koepp worked on (unless the message "Don't Clone Dinosaurs" is some kind of attack on multinational biotech companies). And does Podhoretz really think Spielberg would have risked the public hue and cry that comparing the U.S. Marines (even in a coded form) to Hitler-style mass-murdering aliens would have triggered?

It is widely known that screenwriters have very little artistic control over their scripts (just read F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Pat Hobby" stories). It is the directors and producers who make the final decision, and their decision in this case clearly was to make a summer blockbuster, not a magnet for demonstrations and boycotts. There is nothing of any significance in the final script or in the movie as a totality that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it is propaganda aimed at the U.S. military or the U.S. government. I mean, the bad guys invade the United States, not Iraq. They destroy the government in Washington, not Baghdad. They have no sympathizers or allies among the American people. And the U.S. military fights back heroically against them. 

I also stated in my previous posting on this subject that there is nothing to lead one to believe the Martians are intended by Spielberg to symbolize Islamic terrorism--they are armed with death rays, not box cutters; and their aim is to exterminate the human race, not forcibly convert it. If they bring down tall buildings, well so have dozens of s-f and disaster films going back to "Godzilla"--and no, that famous monster wasn't a symbol of the Soviet Red Army, it was just a lizard.

Well's "War of the Worlds" is one of the great archetypal tales of modern popular literature, working on the preconscious mind and (in Freudian theory, at least) on the unconscious. As such it is a magnet not only for the political obsessions of individuals but for all kinds of projections of their personal "stuff" (the latter often assumes a political form without the person being aware fully or at all about what he or she is really expressing). The same thing can be said of the artistic creator: H.G. Wells the novelist, Orson Welles the radio dramatist, and the successive screenwriters, directors and producers of film versions have all expressed their own personal conflicts as well as society's "group fantasies" in this story. The kind of one-sided ideological interpretations in which political pundits excel tends to miss this forest for the trees (as when Bill O'Reilly seized on a single statement of the hero's teenager son about wanting to kill the aliens and ignored the many previous scenes depicting the boy's rage at his father).

And by the way, if there is any clear reference to contemporary events in "War of the Worlds" it is to the breakup of the Tom Cruise-Nicole Kidman marriage and the issue of whether the kids will be raised as Scientologists or Catholics. This situation may account for the unusual power and depth of Cruise's acting this time around.

Podhoretz's latest remarks on "War of the Worlds" are contained in a column with the headline "Hollywood Hell: Stars are out to bash U.S." I grant that columnists don't always have control over the dumb headlines that the tabloids attach to their writings, but this particular column appears to predict the worst based on the strange assumption that Hollywood moguls are so ideologically driven that they no longer care about the profits that result from appealing to the broadest possible audience. Although Podhoretz does make some legitimate points about Hollywood individuals who have a history of making foolish remarks, the people in question are mostly not the ones who make the final decisions about important films. However, I fully concur with his concern over how the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre (and Mossad's subsequent tracking down of the terrorists) will be handled in Spielberg's next film, because of the director's past record of naivete about the Palestinian cause.

But Podhoretz, like so many neocons, overstates his case by a galactic parsec. We even get a weird replay of Red Channels type McCarthyism. Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal, we are informed, is the daughter of Naomi Foner who in turn is the sister of historian Eric Foner (and of course, although Podhoretz doesn't say it, Eric and Naomi's uncle was the labor historian and Communist party member Philip Foner).

What's the point here? Should we do DNA testing on everyone in Hollywood to see who is or isn't related to some dead white male Stalinist or ex-Stalinist? But then, to be fair, we'd also have to test all the conservative pundits in New York and Washington to see who's related to dead or elderly white male ex-Trotskyists....

Political incorrectness on the Sci-Fi Channel? In the most recent episode of "Battlestar Galactica," soldiers from Commander Adama's fugitive human fleet are trapped on a planet where the Cylons have set up missile defenses. The Cylons of course are the robot life-form ("there are many copies...") who almost wiped out humanity in a sneak attack and are now pursuing them through the galaxy. The trapped soldiers have to take out the Cylons missiles so that the shuttle from the Mothership can rescue them. So the surviving officer says to his little band, "Let's go jump some toasters." Toasters?  This was a new one on me, although folks tell me the term has been used on this series since the beginning. Maybe the young techno-geeks at MIT and Stanford who're working on real robotics should start a movement to protest this dangerous precedent of hate speech against robots and their kitchen-appliance ancestors. 

Credit where credit's due. In my July 6 posting I mentioned that Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" embodies, among other things, a parental rescue fantasy. This concept comes from the ongoing film research of Geraldine Pauling, a member of the International Psychohistorical Association (IPA).

Sunday, July 31, 2005 in Political commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)

Brooklyn Councilman Blasts Bloomberg-Fulani Alliance

JULY 27, 2005

The Jewish Press, voice of New York City's politically powerful Orthodox community, has published a strongly worded attack on Mayor Bloomberg's alliance with Lenora Fulani and the Independence Party.

The op-ed article is the work of Councilman Lew Fidler (D.), who represents Brooklyn's 46th District on the City Council. Fidler is the first council member to speak out against the deals that Mayor Bloomberg and other top politicians have made with New York's party of hate.

"People in government have a responsibility to stand up to all kinds of bigotry when they see it...," Fidler writes. "That can't be done by seeking the endorsement of the party she [Fulani] obviously controls. It can only be done by making her a pariah in the political mainstream."

Stating that he believes it "unlikely" the Independence Party "will choose to purge itself of bigots," Fidler says the party is like a "drug dealer," continuing to sell "so long as there are people buying." The example he gives is the mayor's donation in 2004 of "a quarter of a million dollars to the party's coffers in seeking their ballot line in November."

Fidler argues that the disease is "not limited to Mayor Bloomberg. Sure, he is the most recent example, and his use of his big bankroll to solicit Ms. Fulani's ballot line is particularly repulsive. It's important that all people seeking office turn down the Independence Party ballot line."

The councilman appeals to his readers: "What if--like moths attracted to a flame--politicians continue to seek the party's endorsement? Then, as always, the power lies with you, the citizen. Don't vote for any candidate who appears on the Independence Party line, no matter what other line he or she might be running on. Make a statement that says we cannot ignore hate, bigotry and anti-Semitism and there is no place for it in the political mainstream of our city."

It is rare for a politician in our city to speak out with such passion and in such incisive language. (For the full text, go to http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=5191.) Fidler's article should be reprinted in The Jewish Week or the Forward to reach the non-Orthodox Jewish community. And The New York Times should ask him to write a version for its own op-ed page (which is the least the Times could do to atone for the whitewash of Fulani's cult that it published on May 28--the very day the mayor accepted the nomination of the Independence Party).

Fidler's article is an important step in the battle to destroy the growing power of the Independence Party and the anti-Semitic cult that dominates it. But everything hinges on more people in New York's political class speaking up loud and clear, and on both the politicians and the media going beyond the issue of the cult's anti-Semitism and dealing with the fact that it has used city funds (and is about to get more city funds) to run programs aimed at indoctrinating New York's children and teens with its noxious beliefs.

Question One: Will City Council Speaker and Democratic primary mayoral candidate Gifford Miller take up Fidler's call to quarantine the IP, and make this a defining issue between himself and the mayor between now and primary day?  And win or lose in the primary, will Miller use his power as Speaker to bring Fidler's resolution condemning Fulani (which has been languishing without a hearing for almost three months) to the floor?

Question Two: Will Democratic primary front-runner Freddy Ferrer be willing to speak out with even a fraction of Fidler's passion on this issue, or will he continue to "play it safe" into political oblivion?

Question Three: Will Fidler himself, who is chairman of the City Council's Youth Services Committee, move quickly to block the mayor's provisionally approved grant of $216,000 in Department of Youth and Community Development funds to Fulani for a three-year after-school program? Will Gifford Miller also lend a hand? I'm hopeful on this, but the Council can't put this off until after August. The DYCD responsibility determination on Fulani's All Stars Project will be taking place within days, and the program is scheduled to begin operation on Sept. 1.

Will the Mayor finally realize that Fulani's cult is more trouble than it's worth, and announce that he's repudiating the IP ballot line? I must say I'm extremely pessimistic about this. The mayor is so stubborn in his support for Fulani and her psychotherapy guru Fred Newman (the eminence grise behind the IP) that one must wonder if there's something much deeper involved than the desire for the IP's ballot line. Fulani and Newman have humiliated the mayor again and again with their anti-Semitic antics, yet his response is always the same--issue a superficial denunciation of their bigotry and then throw more money at them from his own pockets and from the city's coffers.

When Fulani blamed 9/11 on the "aggression and arrogance" of the U.S. government in a Sept. 15, 2001 letter published on the Internet, Bloomberg made a great show of criticizing her, yet did not break with her party. After the election, he rewarded her with an $8.7 million city bond to finance a "youth development center" for her and Newman's All Stars charity. When the center opened in 2004, the first play it produced was the anti-Semitic "Crown Heights," which blamed the 1991 pogrom on the Jews. A Bloomberg aide responded to this clear slap in the face to the mayor (who had also donated $50,000 from his own pocket for the All Stars theater program) with a mild denunciation of the play, but not of Fulani or Newman. As in the wake of the previous incident, the poisonous duo were rewarded soon after with $250,000 from the mayor for Independence Party activities. In April 2005, the Mayor appeared on the stage with Fulani at a Lincoln Center fundraiser for All Stars; two days later, she again slapped him in the face by telling Dominic Carter in a NY1 News interview that she didn't think her statement in 1989 that Jews are "mass murderers of people of color" was anti-Semitic and that, on the contrary, it raised issues that need to be addressed. The mayor called her remarks "phenomenally offensive" but went ahead and accepted the Independence Party's nomination for mayor the following month, and, for the third time in a row, rewarded Fulani's rantings with cash--this time, the $216,000 DYCD grant.

What is really behind the mayor's strange masochistic behavior--behavior so totally at odds with the public interest and his own political self-interest?  Can any journalist in this city cite to me a single instance in which Mayors Lindsay, Beame, Koch, or Giuliani allowed political allies to repeatedly double-cross them and humiliate them without taking steps to cut the offenders off at the knees? Would Bloomberg himself have ever tolerated such behavior from an employee of Bloomberg LP? Would he tolerate such behavior from a non-Newmanite City Hall staffer or campaign aide?

I can only advise the few reporters in this city who still practice investigative journalism to heed the immortal words of Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Thursday, July 28, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

A Log Cabin LaRouchian?

JULY 24, 2005

Ex-members of the neo-fascist Lyndon LaRouche cult are so disgusted by its complicity in the death of Jeremiah Duggan (a Jewish youth from the U.K. who was struck and killed by a car on an autobahn in Wiesbaden, Germany, in March 2003 while fleeing in apparent terror from a LaRouche brainwashing program) that they are beginning to break their silence and come forward with fresh information about the cult's history and practices. Much of this material can be found at the website http://justiceforjeremiah.com. Some is also being sent to this blog site.

An email we received last week from a former longtime LaRouche follower whose information has proven reliable in the past, gives some new details regarding a murky sexual incident surrounding the LaRouche organization's smear campaign against Michael Dukakis during the 1988 Presidential race. Political news junkies from that era will recall how LaRouche's weekly newsmagazine, Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), concocted a story that the Democratic candidate was a former mental patient. The allegation was picked up by the Republicans at a point when their candidate, Vice-President George H. W. Bush, was behind in the polls--and President Reagan proved willing to play along with the charade. Asked about the mental patient charge by EIR reporter Nick Benton at a White House press conference two weeks before the Republican convention, Reagan quipped, "Look I'm not going to pick on an invalid."

Our informant writes: "One of the briefs I am sending you is the EIR special report on the mental history of Michael Dukakis. I also have the EIR issue with a lot of Dukakis material we used to screw him royally. There is also an issue where the headline blares that an EIR reporter who exposed Dukakis was attacked [near the Republican Party's convention at the New Orleans Superdome] as part of an operation against LaRouche. The truth, as I found out, was different.

"We were told that EIR Reporter X was attacked by a professional team of thugs who attacked him for exposing Dukakis. Within the same week, I was told by a very close friend who was very close to security [LaRouche's armed and superfanatical security staff] that what happened in New Orleans was quite different. It seems that EIR Reporter X meandered off by himself and was rolled by some robbers after finding a hooker. What my friend told me a week later was that it is even more embarrassing as he was seeing a male for a sexual liaison. EIR Reporter X was rumored to be Gay, but since we were crazy about gays and AIDS was in the news, who the hell would admit that? My friend said that Lyn and security decided the best thing to do was to blame it on the same plot that is targeting Lyn.

"I do not know if this was known at first, or if EIR Reporter X admitted it later, or what else was going on. But it is a good example of [the LaRouche cult's] type of chicanery."

One wonders how the purported gay EIR staffer must have felt in 1986 when LaRouche launched his campaign to "spread Panic, not AIDS" by sponsoring a ballot proposition in California aimed at quarantining AIDS victims. (The LaRouchians collected over 700,000 signatures for this sinister proposal, which almost certainly was inspired by Hitler's call in Mein Kampf to quarantine victims of syphilis. It was defeated at the polls, but over two million Californians voted for it.) One also wonders what went through the EIR staffer's mind in 1987 when LaRouche issued his infamous call for skinhead violence against gays (including Turner Diaries-style lynchings) to save Western civilization from a New Dark Age.

But the purportedly gay LaRouchian would not have been the only political schizophrenic in the cult. Jewish members had for years tolerated (and some had even taken the lead in promoting) LaRouche's claims that "only" 1.5 million Jews were killed in World War Two (and none of them in gas chambers), that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a "factual" document, that wealthy Jews run the international narcotics traffic, that Nazi war criminals such as Kurt Waldheim are really patriotic anti-communists, and that Simon Wiesenthal and other Nazi hunters are subhuman beasts and KGB agents.

The LaRouchian recruitment and indoctrination regimen twists the individual's thinking inside out so that Jews become defined as Nazis, and Nazis become defined as anti-fascists (as in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which war is peace and freedom is slavery). This "newspeak" partially explains how young people--and people not so young--end up joining LaRouche and turning against their own families, religion, etc., but it should not be regarded as an excuse for what is ultimately a personal decision to embrace the dark side. A moral person can always say "no" to the intellectual seduction of someone like LaRouche (as even some Germans said "no" to Hitler--and he, unlike LaRouche, had a Gestapo with the authority of the state behind it).

Jeremiah Duggan was a moral person and strongly resisted the LaRouchian indoctrination, as is known from eyewitnesses to the events he attended in and near Wiesbaden, the notes he took at various sessions, and his communciations with his mother and his girl friend in the hours before his death (he called both of them and said he was getting the hell out of there).

I conclude with a moral (if not "logical") syllogism which I suspect will not be popular with those shrinks and exit counselors who regard ex-members (even ex-leading members) of political cults as pure and simple "victims" who should be encouraged to get on with their lives by going back to graduate school and forgetting about the people they victimized during their years in the cult.

1. Jeremiah Duggan told the LaRouchians to shove it.

2. Jeremiah Duggan ended up dead.

3.  All those individuals who, unlike Jeremiah Duggan, failed to resist LaRouche's blandishments and even once they left the cult (after years or even decades of participation in criminal activity and hate-mongering) remained silent, should now come forward and atone for their actions by helping the Duggan family win justice and closure.

Hey, and maybe EIR Reporter X, if he's no longer in the cult, should finally say "I'm sorry" to Michael Dukakis and even issue a public apology to the gay community for collaborating in LaRouche's 30-year campaign of hate against gays and lesbians. 

Monday, July 25, 2005 in LaRouche | Permalink | Comments (0)

The All Stars grant: It's not over 'til it's over

JULY 15, 2005

Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani's All Stars Project still has some hurdles to leap (or evade) before it receives final approval of its $216,000 city grant to run a three-year after-school program under the Department of Youth and Community Development's OST (Out-of-School Time) program.

Wrote DYCD Chief of Staff Michael Ognibene in a July 14 e-mail to this blog journalist: "Prior to contracting with a service provider, the City conducts a responsibility determination. This review process includes an examination of the fiscal health of the organization as well as any pending investigations. This phase of the contracting process has not been concluded for The All Stars Project or any other proposed vendor in connection with the OST initiative."

Well, we know that All Stars is under investigation by State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in regard to charges by Molly Hardy, a former employee of an All Stars-linked charity in Los Angeles, that she witnessed teens being emotionally abused by Lenora Fulani at an All Stars facility in New York. We also know that Spitzer's office has described Hardy as a "credible" witness (since this adjective was used before Spitzer's office had ever spoken to her, it must have come from conversations with federal and/or state law enforcement agencies in California that have been following up for over six months on her charges about the finances of the St. John's Well Child and Family Center, an East Los Angeles charity run by an All Stars board member who allegedly engaged in questionable money transfers between his agency, All Stars and social therapy clinics controlled by Fulani and her guru Fred Newman).

We also know that Spitzer's office finally contacted Hardy last week--over six months after her complaint to Spitzer had been "lost"--and conducted an extensive telephone interview with her.

But this is not enough to automatically halt the DYCD grant to a charity which Mayor Michael Bloomberg has shown a remarkable devotion to over the past four years. The following question thus must be posed:

* Where is Councilman Lew Fidler, chairperson of the City Council's Youth Services Committee?

* Where is Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz, chairperson of the City Council's Education Committee?

* Where is Council Speaker (and Democratic primary mayoral candidate) Gifford Miller?

* Where are Democratic primary mayoral candidates Anthony Weiner, Freddy Ferrer, and C. Virginia Fields?

* Where is Republican primary mayoral candidate Tom Ognibene (no relation to Michael Ognibene)?

* Where are Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton? (The DYCD is the designated New York City Community Action Agency of the federal Department of Health and Human Services' Community Services Block Grant Program, and thus falls within the range of concern of our state's federal lawmakers.)

* Where are the Mayor's daughters, sister and other family members?  Isn't it time for a family intervention at the East Side townhouse to get hizzoner away from the Newman cult?

Friday, July 15, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

Details on the All Stars grant

JULY 14, 2005

A statement issued by Michael Ognibene, Chief of Staff of the NYC Dept. of Youth and Community Development, clarifies the DYCH's June 13 determination that the All Stars Project, a charity controlled by Independence Party leaders Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani, is eligible for a $216,000 grant to run an afterschool program for city youth of "mixed" grade levels (high school, middle school, and primary school).

"All Stars Project, Inc., " Ognibene writes, "submitted a proposal under the Out-of-School Time (OST) RFP in Service Option II, the OST Public/Private Match Programs." Translation: "RFP" means Request for Proposals. As to Service Option II, this is a type of program where proposers must provide cash matches of at least 30 percent from private corporations, foundations and individuals (we'll be reporting soon on which "useful idiots" provided the matching funds for self-styled "Marxist-Leninist revolutionary" Fred and self-professed "post-modern Bolshevik" Leninora).

Ognibene tells us that All Stars did not participate in the competitive proposal process that resulted in determinations of eligibility for 114 out of 200 proposals. Instead its proposal was one of an additional 113 that DYCD deemed eligible because they fit into the agency's plans to achieve a balanced distribution of services by geographic area and grade levels, and for other reasons. All proposals were "reviewed and rated by a 21-member Reader Evaluation Committee." 

The DYCD determined that All Stars was eligible for a a three-year grant: $72,000 a year from Sept. 1, 2005 to August 31, 2008. Let's factor this in with the entirely of mayor-to-cult largesse since 2001:  the $8.7 million IDA bond for All Stars in 2002, the $7.5 million the mayor spent in 2003 to back the Independence Party's unsuccessful crusade to ban party primaries in New York City, the $50,000 to the Castillo Center to boost Fred Newman's career as a playwright, the $30,000 to the Independence Party to back Bloomberg's 2001 campaign, the $250,000 to the IP in 2004 for party building, and the $1 million raised by All Stars at its annual Lincoln Center gala this year (since the mayor appeared on the stage with Fulani to provide credibility, we can attribute this final amount to him in lieu of all the probable donations from his pocket that are NOT on the public record). Thus, we come up with a grand total of $17,746,000. How much more will the Newman-Fulani operation cadge from the mayor before we finally succeed in deprogramming the poor fellow?

The boiler plate on the DYCB's web site makes for amusing reading in light of the impending All Stars grant. We are told that the city is aiming to "expand quality OST services to support young people and their families." Support young people? In the Newman cult it's the other way around--the young people support Newman by raising money on the street and by serving as poster kids in rap performances before audiences sprinkled with wealthy white liberal donors; then, if they are so unlucky as to deemed worthy of recruitment, they may end up supporting Newman as full-time members of his "development community"--living on stipends and turning the rest of their earnings over to the stone-faced "cadre" who enforce Newman's will.

Supporting their families? Isn't the grantee in the instant case the same cult that declared in the 1980s that the "bourgeois family" was as bad as apartheid and nuclear war, and should be destroyed? And isn't this the same group that exerts itself through social therapy to recruit both kids and parents into Newman's "friendosexual" community--the institution that supposedly will replace the family? (If you think I'lm exaggerating their beliefs and aims, just read social therapist Christine LaCerva's poisonous little chapter in Sexuality and the Curriculum: The Politics and Practices of Sexuality Education, ed. John T. Sears, New York: Teachers College Press, 1992, in which she describes just how the process worked at the cult's now defunct Barbara Taylor School in the 1980s and 1990s.)

Also according to the DYCD web site, the city's OST programs aim at providing "free, safe programs in a supportive environment." (In the case of All Stars one might say the environment is free, until the cult starts making demands on you; safe, if you happen to be genetically immune to cultic recruitment tactics; and supportive...if you get with the program.) Another aim of the city's OST programs is to provide "trained staff, familiar with the strengths and needs of young people." Yes, All Stars has a "staff"--all of it trained by Fred Newman and other social therapists in principles regarded as beyond the pale by legitimate psychologists (for instance, the Newmanite principle that sex between patient and therapist and the recrutiment of the patient into Newman's revolutionary underground organization are part of the growth process). And yes, Newmanite recruiters know a lot from experience about the strengths and "needs" (read: weaknesses) of teenagers, which helps them in determining which teens to recruit and what buttons to push duiring the process. (Read Newman's "Women I Live With" in Practice, Winter 1990, in which he describes how, in the early 1970s, he used his knowledge of the strengths and "needs" of a 16-year-old runaway girl--who had come to his psychotherapy clinic for help--to turn her into a full-time political follower of his revolutionary genius-ego. Then read her response in the same issue of the Newmanite magazine (after being in the cult for 18 years) in which she gives the ritual phrases of worship towards Fred and his number-one harem woman: "Fred and Rie: Thank you--for leading us in this difficult, passionate, sexy process of learning how to touch you and be touched, want you and be wanted, want the revolution and be wanted by it.")

Anyone who wants to complain to the city directly about the All Stars grant can e-mail the mayor at http://www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html. But don't be too hard on hizzoner; he's just following orders...from Fred Newman.

Monday, July 11, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mayor Bloomberg Gives Tax Dollars to Newman-Fulani Cult to Work with New York's Kids

JULY 9, 2005

[For an in-depth account of the Newman-Fulani cult's work with kids, see my unsolicited 2006 report to the City]

Jessica Bruder must have a puckish sense of humor, for she buried in the ninth paragraph of her hard-hitting analysis of the role of Lenora Fulani and the Independence Party in New York politics (The New York Observer, July 11), a fact that may prove to be the delayed-fuse fertilizer bomb of this year's mayoral race.

"Two week ago," Bruder casually noted, "the All Stars Project--a nonprofit youth organization run by Ms. Fulani that has ties to the Independence Party--was awarded a $215,000 grant from the city's Department of Youth and Community Development to start a new after-school program for high-school kids."

What? Does the mayor know how outrageous this decision is? The time-line suggests he does know, and that he's thumbing his nose at his critics, daring them to call him on this one.

Six weeks ago, the text of the Molly Hardy complaint regarding abuse of kids and all-round bizarro behavior at All Stars was already circulating on the Internet (although it took until last week for State Attorney General and Fulani ally Eliot Spitzer to concede, after being confronted with the timestamp on the electronic complaint form, that his office had indeed received the complaint but had somehow lost it). Also six weeks ago, detailed allegations became available on the Internet about the educational philosophy and practices of the cult (led by Fulani and her "social therapist" guru Fred Newman) which controls both All Stars and the Independence Party. These allegations ranged over the cult's 35-year history of mistreatment of kids in a succession of sleazy programs; its record of support over a 15-year period for a string of notorious child molesters (beginning with the North American Man-Boy Love Association defendants in 1983); and its attempts to recruit kids, parents, and youth-program volunteers into its "friendosexual" collective controlled by secretive Marxist cadre.

Four weeks ago, the Village Voice published a piece on how Fulani was seeking, with the help of lobbyist James Capalino, to obtain taxpayer funds to run programs in the New York public schools, and had met with a wide range of officials from Schools Chancellor Joel Klein on down the food chain.

Three weeks ago, it was widely known around City Hall that several reporters were looking into the Hardy complaint and other allegations about All Stars.

Over two weeks ago, the Hardy complaint was reported on, and Hardy was quoted at length, in the Village Voice, causing the AG's office to concede that she was a "credible" witness.

But there's nothing more arrogant than a billionaire mayor who buys his way into public office and then cruises towards a second term by outspending any possible opponents ten to one. So Michael Bloomberg-- who just can't let go of his alliance with Newman and Fulani even thought he doesn't really need their smoke-and-mirrors Independence Party to win reelection--defied the growing wave of scandal surrounding the All Stars Project and Fulani, and tossed them yet another $215,000 in taxpayer money on top of the $8.7 million bond he granted them in 2002 and the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars he has given them out of his own pocket.

Does this man know what harm he may be doing to the youth of New York City by turning them over to cult recruiters? Does he care? Is he so removed from the lives and values of ordinary New Yorkers that he cannot see that bringing together public-school kids with these NAMBLA-defending "friendosexuals" is really beyond the pale?

And what power does the cult have over our mayor that he has again and again tolerated from them disloyal behavior that would result in instant dismissal for any employee of Bloomberg LP or any member of the mayor's staff?  He provides the cult with funding for a youth performance center near Times Square--and the first play they produce at the new facility blames the Crown Heights riots on his fellow Jews. He gives the Independence Party a quarter million dollars from his pocket for party building last year, then appears on the stage with Fulani at the annual All Stars fundraiser at Lincoln Center this April to help her cult squeeze the max from Wall Street donors. Two days later, Fulani repays him by going on NY1 News and reaffirming a statement she made in 1989 describing Jews as "mass murderers of people of color."

The moral weakness of this mayor--and his utter lack of self-respect in dealing with the anti-Semitism of the Newmanites, even though he himself has obviously become a target of Newman's apostatic compulsion to humiliate Jewish men--becomes an issue of urgency in light of the horror in London Thursday morning, when Al Qaeda struck in a coordinated series of bombings, killing at least 50 and wounding over 700.

New York City is still in the cross-hairs of Arab terrorism, just like London. It is therefore intolerable that our mayor should be giving taxpayer support and political legitimacy on the highest level--in the middle of the war on terror--to a cult with a history of indoctrinating kids with pro-terrorist as well as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel ideological principles. It is intolerable that taxpayer money or even the mayor's own money should be going to a woman who urged Libya's Gadhafi, in a Nov. 1987 speech, to continue to be "not nonviolent" towards America (this only one year before Gadhafi blew up Pan Am Flight 103, killing 270 people). It is intolerable that our city should now be paying this woman and her cult to run after-school programs in spite of the innumerable incidents in which they've crossed the line (as when they bused kids from their now blessedly defunct Barbara Taylor School--a private elementary school in Manhattan--to Washington DC in the late 1980s to demonstrate in support of Gadhafi).

What sort of message is Bloomberg sending to today's terrorists via his highly visible appeasement of Newman and Fulani, who humiliate him seemingly at will, over and over?  One can easily imagine Al Qaeda leaders drawing the conclusion that the citizens of New York are also weak (otherwise why would they have elected such a mayor?) and thus are ripe for another round of intimidation. And even if Al Qaeda never makes this connection, the mayor's alliance with Newman and Fulani has nevertheless become morally indefensible in the light of the London attacks (as if it wasn't already indefensible as of 8:46 AM September 11, 2001).

It will be interesting to see if the political class in New York is capable of taking any meaningful action in response to the Observer's revelation regarding the All Stars grant for after-school programs and the mayor's continued obtuseness.

Will City Council Speaker and Democratic primary mayoral candidate Gifford Miller speak out and demand a halt to the All Stars after-school contract?  Miller did make a low-key remark last week (as reported in The Jewish Week, July 8) that he would not favor city aid to the Fulani youth theater project that had received the 2002 bond (which is rather like a sleepy henhouse guard saying he would not favor any more free food for foxes after they've already gobbled up all the hens). But was Miller also asleep at the wheel regarding Fulani's three-year lobbying campaign to win city funding of her after-school programs? Is he willing to wake up, throw some cold water on his face, and really fight the mayor on behalf of the New York kids who otherwise will become victims of the Newman-Fulani cult?

Will Councilman Lew Fidler, head of the Youth Services committee, launch an investigation of the All Stars after-school contract and not just restrict himself to a resolution condemning Fulani's anti-Semitic remarks? (I sent Fidler a registered letter on May 25 asking for an investigation of city support for All Stars--he never bothered to reply.)

Will Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz, head of the Education committee, investigate? I sent her a similar letter last month, and received a one sentence reply that she would read the material I enclosed. When I encountered her on the street petitioning, she said she was too busy with the "budget" to take up the issue of possible child abuse in a city funded program. When I pointed out that with every passing month, more kids might be drawn into the Newman cult's web of exploitation, she just snorted and walked away. (This is the same councilwoman who announced "with great sadness" last May that she couldn't accept the IP endorsement this year because of Fulani's remarks on NY1 News, but who couched her statement in buttery phrases that read like advertising copy for the Newmanites, even implying that Newman was the new Norman Thomas.)

Will Abe Foxman of the ADL, whose spokespersons have recently restricted themselves to condemning Fulani as an individual while giving the Independence Party a pass (thus echoing the mayor's aides and essentially running interference for the Bloomberg-IP alliance), finally show he's more than an opportunistic fundraiser by calling on the mayor to sever all ties with the Independence Party, which even the New York Times concedes is dominated by Newman and Fulani? Will Foxman personally speak out strongly and unequivocally against the city after-school program to be run by All Stars--an organization which has already proven over and over that its aim is to indoctrinate minority youth with the politics of hate (and Jewish youth with a philosophy of self-hate)? Will Foxman finally criticize the mayor directly by name (since City Hall will just ignore anything less)?

Will Freddy Ferrer (the heroic Freddy, who recently nixed a plan to support principled IP dissidents in a primary race against Bloomberg and Fulani) demand a halt to the latest city giveaway to All Stars?

Will C. Virginia Fields, the sole politician to speak out about the Hardy complaint, see this as something more than a sound-bite gimmick and reach out to her Baptist base to put a halt to Fulani and Newman's attempt to recruit the best and the brightest in the minority community into the exploitative, abusive, and downright weird cult of polymorphous friendosexualism?

Will Congressman Anthony Weiner, who according to the New York Times has cast himself as the "peerless champion of Israel" in the mayoral race, take on the difficult job of challenging bigots right here in the power structure of New York City--bigots who aim at indoctrinating and corrupting (with the help of taxpayer funds) the kids of Weiner's own constituents? 

Will the New York Times do the right thing for our city's vulnerable kids by finally, finally publishing what it has known for months (but suppressed in its ever-so-respectful May 28 profile of "Dr." Newman and "Dr." Fulani) about the sinister nature of the All Stars program?

Will AG Eliot Spitzer atone for his office's failure to report Molly Hardy's abuse complaint to Child Protective Services last January? (His office was mandated to do so under state law, but they have apparently rendered themselves immune to any noncompliance sanctions by concocting a childish story that they "lost" the complaint.) Will Spitzer finally take the problem of All Stars in hand and conduct the thorough probe that his office promised but failed to deliver in 2002 when he was courting the Independence Party?  Will his aides sit down and pool information with the federal and California state authorities investigating the St. John's Well Child and Family Center, an All Stars and social therapy linked charity in Los Angeles run by a member of the All Stars board of directors who allegedly transferred money illegally to Newmanite enterprises and therapists in New York? Will the AG's office examine the systematically misleading information provided by All Stars to wealthy donors in order to obtain money under false pretenses? Will it seek the help of the AG in New Jersey, where All Stars has also been bamboozling wealthy donors on a grand scale? Will Spitzer finally renounce the support of the New York State Independence Party in his upcoming gubernatorial race so he can devote himself without any conflict of interest to investigating the All Stars cult racket? Or failing that, will he call for the appointment of a special prosecutor?

Will State Senate Majority leader Joe Bruno stop throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Newmanites, as he did during the Olga Mendez campaign last year?

Will U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer, whose own alliance of convenience with the Newmanites is one of the major reason that most Democrats tread cautiously on the issue of Mayor Bloomberg's strange affinity for the cult, finally recognize the consequences of becoming beholden to Newman and Fulani? Will he acknowledge that allowing a major role in the state and city power structure to people who have never apologized for their support of Gadhafi's attacks on Americans (support that continued even after the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103), sends absolutely the wrong signal to terrorists overseas? Will Schumer sever his ties with Fulani and Newman's Independence Party lock, stock and barrel--and demand that other elected Democrats do likewise?

Will the City Hall press corp finally develop some backbone and ask Mayor Bloomberg the one question that will totally confound his spin doctors, i.e., why, after calling Fulani's remarks about Jews on NY1 News "phenomenally offensive" and then saying she was only one person with bad ideas in a party of good people, did he turn around and give $215,000 not to the supposed good people but to a charity controlled by the phenomenally offensive one?

This weblog will be watching closely all of the above folks in the weeks ahead, but it's only fair to point out that not everyone has been asleep at the wheel. I close with a quote from a press release issued by the American Jewish Committee on Feb. 25, 2004:

"Mayor Bloomberg should publicly address growing concerns that the All Stars Project is recruiting children from our public schools into the Newman-Fulani cult of anti-Semitism and exploitative 'therapy.'"

It's not too late to heed this advice, Mr. Mayor.

Thursday, July 07, 2005 in Newman and Fulani | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Pundits and "War of the Worlds"

JULY 6, 2005

With Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" emerging as the blockbuster of the summer, conservative pundits feel torn--on the one hand, they admire the technical virtuosity and artistic power of the film; on the other hand, it comes from Hollywood, so the pundits feel they must engage in a bit of ritualistic bashing.

John Podhoretz, writing in the July 1 New York Post, says he has detected a "profound and troubling" difference between the fictitious reaction of Americans to an alien attack and their real-life reaction to 9/11 (in the film scenario, some Americans turn on their neighbors savagely; in the historical event, we united with firm resolve for a few months). The implication is that Hollywood liberals are so cynical that they cannot begin to comprehend the depths of patriotism residing in the breasts of the hard-working citizens of Grover's Mill, N.J.

Podhoretz has it all wrong. Spielberg's film is not about 9/11--it's about an invasion from outer space based on the  one depicted in H. G. Wells' late Victorian (1898) novel. In Wells' book, the attackers (unlike the 9/11 terrorists with their box cutters) have total technological superiority over those they are attacking. Wells depicts a hopeless battle by human civilization that it cannot possibly win on its own. The panicky response of civilians under those circumstances (as shown in Spielberg's film) is faithful to the letter of Wells' book, in which mass panic of civilian refugees is also portrayed. More important, Spielberg's mass hysteria scene is faithful to the spirit and artistic integrity of Wells' book--the insertion of an "Independence Day" style story line would have undermined the necessary sense of horror and hopelessness. (However, the depiction of the American response is not entirely negative--soldiers and airmen fight heroically, if futilely, as did the British troops in Wells' book.)

Bill O'Reilly goes to the opposite extreme, and professes to see a growing Red State tendency in the mind of Spielberg. "A rather populist political subtext takes shape that is somewhat surprising coming from a Hollywood insider," writes O'Reilly (who apparently has forgotten "Independence Day") in the July 2 New York Post. O'Reilly paraphrases Morgan Freeman's opening narration: "forces with 'envious' eyes have targeted earthlings for destruction...No one is safe, no target off-limits." O'Reilly sees this as a reference to Osama bin Laden. In fact, Freeman's lines are a direct quotation from Wells, clearly referring to Martians, not Arabs.

O'Reilly goes on to state: "The actual first wave alien attack comes from the sky, just as 9/11 did." Yes, well the "actual" Martians in the original text came down from the sky also, although in Spielberg's film the Martian fighting force comes from underground, having been activated by signals from outer space. (One might as well argue at this point that Spielberg was inspired by the FIRST attempt to destroy the World Trade Center--the one involving a bomb planted in an underground garage.) But sticking to O'Reilly's inaccurate description of an initial "attack" from the sky, one could easily compare such an onslaught to any of dozens of famous military events since Wells' time: the German invasion of Poland in 1939, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, D-Day, the U.S. attack on Hiroshima, the Inchon landing, the first Gulf War. Indeed, Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" bears the strongest resemblance to the 2003 invasion of Iraq (the shock-and-awe light show over Baghdad). So is this film a slyly concealed form of MoveOn.org propaganda? Not at all--it's simply that aliens, if they want to attack Earth, have to travel through space, and then down through the air, to get here, just as in Wells' book and countless pulp imitations over the years. (And if they want to kill us humanoid cockroaches as efficiently as possible, they will go first, as in "Independence Day," to where we congregate in the largest numbers--big cities with tall buildings.)

O'Reilly thinks the film is in tune with Red State sentiment, because the hero's teenage son "desperately wants to confront the aliens and kill them. The boy seethes with anger throughout the film because of the alien barbarity." Again, O'Reilly has it wrong. The kid seethes with anger at his father for breaking up with his mother--and runs off to get a close-up look at the shock and awe, thus forcing his father to run after him and leave the little sister in the lurch. When father and daughter subsequently hole up with a gun nut who wants to launch a suicide attack on the aliens, the father kills this individual rather than letting him place them in jeopardy.  So is Spielberg advocating some kind of leftwing Hollywood treason against the Minute Men? No--the father does what any common sense National Rifle Association parent would have done to survive under the particular circumstances.

"In the end," O'Reilly states, "the aliens are actually confronted by God, if you can believe it." This supposedly shows that the film "reflects the view of everyday Americans rather than a few Beverly Hills pinheads." Again, O'Reilly, you are wrong. Spielberg's aliens are confronted and defeated (as in Wells' book) by germs, not God. In fact, the book is an exercise in taking Darwinian survival of the fittest to its extreme in a Godless universe of biological determinism. Wells shows his genius in the final ironic twist--the seemingly all-powerful aliens in their giant war machines are conquered by microscopic life forms that are equally remorseless in their struggle for survival.

Oh, and lest the Christian right start fulminating that the book or film is propaganda for the theory of evolution, H. G. Wells was too intelligent to be a mere propagandist. The book is, among other things, a satire on evolutionary theory and a cautionary tale about human hubris (the latter aspect could easily be cited to good effect in any Sunday morning sermon).

It is true that American science-fiction, both in print and film, has a long history of expressing or satirizing political views. But often there is NO discernable political message. In the case of Spielberg's "War of the Worlds," the intent seems to have been to mix contemporary family issues (the effect of divorce on children), parental rescue fantasies and violent special effects for sheer entertainment while remaining faithful to the artistic vision of H. G. Wells. If there is greatness in this film it comes from Wells' masterpiece and Spielberg's fidelity to it, not from any contemporary political message.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005 in Film, Political commentary | Permalink | Comments (1)

About

Recent Posts

  • Will Russia help the GOP once again this November? What can we do about it?
  • Most Republicans see nothing wrong with Trump's collaboration with Putin--why?
  • Watch out for provocateurs and keep the peace (insofar as possible) at counter-rallies against the Alt-Right.
  • Neglected dystopian novel sheds light on Trumpism
  • Huh? LaRouche press release is Google News' top link re the UK's Duggan inquest decision
  • Why does Google News treat LaRouche's Jew-hating propaganda rag as a legitimate news outlet?
  • Widow of Ken Kronberg targets LaRouche's weekly "news" magazine
  • Lyndon LaRouche's worst nightmare: the "witch" strikes back!
  • Chuck Hagel should think twice about joining a Bloomberg ticket
  • Bloomberg and the New York Sun a political odd couple
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Blog powered by Typepad

about the Newmanites

  • Political Research Associates (Chip Berlet)
  • Lenora Fulani Watch (Fred Newman Watch)
  • Ex-IWP Home Page

About LaRouche

  • Dennis King's LaRouche Watch
  • Political Research Associates (Chip Berlet)
  • Justice for Jeremiah

weblogs left and right

  • Doug Ireland
  • Daniel Pipes
  • Daily Kos
  • Kausfiles
  • David Corn
  • New York Observer
  • Andrew Sullivan
  • Huffington Post
  • Cult News (Rick Ross)
  • Steve Plaut
  • UNDERNEWS (Sam Smith)
  • Joshua Micah Marshall
  • Warren Kinsella
  • Max Sawicky
  • Jesse Walker
  • Third Party Watch
  • Political Strategy