“Carefully selected, there are Koranic preachments that are consistent with civilized life. But on Sept. 11 we were looked in the face by a deed done by Muslims who understood themselves to be acting out Muslim ideals. It is all very well for individual Muslim spokesmen to assert the misjudgment of the terrorists, [but] we demand … reputable Muslims … renounce modern Islam. Either restore the proper Allah -- or get ready for a holy war.… “
That was William F Buckley, Jr, the allegedly right-wing advocate of the corporate state and the Semitic racial war against Islam who’s magazine, the National Review, posits itself as the cornerstone of conservative intellectual thought in America. Having been on the winning side of the political battle between paleo- and neo- conservatives that divided the Republican Party in the early and mid 1990s, it has established itself as the publication that defines the parameters of the debate in which the ruling class media organs – the television stations and mainstream newspapers -allow “conservatives” to speak. Despite the fact its articles make little pretense to philosophy, it is permitted to represent itself as leading Republican intellectual journal.
It is a publication that also helps control the limits of acceptable debate by deciding what opposing viewpoints it will recognize. By choosing which opponents to respond to, and which to ignore, it is one of several publications that tell other members of the media – television morning news, radio talk shows, and the like – who is and is not an acceptable “talking head” guest for their program. It is part of the mechanism by which the ruling class regulates the spectrum of acceptable political views.
As one of the main instruments, along with the neo-liberal New Republic and the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, advocating the new American police state and the expansion of dictatorial powers in the hands of America’s security services, it’s writers have advocated torture, deportation to Israel, identity cards, perpetual war for perpetual peace, and all the other trappings of US imperialism and centralized authoritarianism that their “conservative” views allege to repudiate. While its libertarian sparring partners often feign confusion at an “anti-communist” journal advocating an American mimicry of the worst aspects of the early Bolshevik state, the “shock” of its opponents are just another move in the larger game. By buying into the idea that their “conservative” opponents actually represent an ideological principle that can be debated, they legitimize “philosophical” ramblings that are really intellectually dishonest propaganda tracts.
If the neo-conservatives were intellectually honest, one would hardly expect William Buckley, the founder of an organization with the lofty title “Young Americans for Freedom”, to be advocating state socialism in America, but with a skeptical eye and a minimum of probing one can make his true motives clear. After revelations about fellow neo-conservative editor David Horowitz’s stint in the CIA, through a US Information Agency front, teaching the Nicaraguan Contras anti-communist propaganda tactics, it should come as no surprise that another of the conservative movement’s icons also started his career in the Central Intelligence Agency, and has made his magazine a tool for disseminating the CIA-Zionist-Oil-Defense Lobby, aka “ruling class”, propaganda.
William Buckley, Sr, father of William Buckley, Jr, has a long history of involvement with Big Oil, both inside Israel and without. According to the biography of him published with the collection of his papers at the University of Texas:
“In Mexico Buckley served as advisor to U.S. and European oil companies, operated a law firm, and engaged in real estate and leasing of oil lands. In 1914 he founded the Pantepec Oil Company … As founder and president of the American Association of Mexico Buckley worked to remove restrictions on U.S. oil and landed interests in Mexico imposed by the Mexican Constitution of 1917. In 1924 he transferred the Pantepec Oil Co. to Venezuela. He continued as the company's president until 1943 and remained active in international oil exploration and production.”
In 1921, this same William Buckley, Sr. was expelled from Mexico by President Obregon under suspicion of working with American corporate interests to undermine the government. From the period 1914 – 1923 he was actively agitating for American oil interests by publishing articles on Mexican politics from the Oil perspective in American newspapers.
Later in his life, he became involved in Israeli owned oil concerns. According to a summary published in American Free Press writer Michael Collins Piper’s book Final Judgment, Buckley Sr was responsible for the establishment of a business known as the Pan-Israel Oil Company in Jerusalem in the 1960s and a second business, the Israel-Mediterranean Oil Company in Panama, who’s principal address was the same as Pan-Israel Oil. Buckley’s son, former NY Senator turned Federal Judge James Buckley held a vice-presidential position in the business. The voting stockholders of both companies were all Israeli Jews.
The companies also employed two of his sons – James and John Buckley, brother of William Buckley, Jr, who served in various executive and directorship positions. This conglomerate of corporations did oil business in Australia, South America, Canada, Libya, the Spanish Saharas, the Phillipines and Israel.
During the 1950s, William Buckley Sr also set up the Cuban-Venezuelan Oil Voting Trust Company, which was alleged to have ties to the American-Jewish mafia, dominated then by Meyer Lansky, who served as an official American government representative to Cuba during the Batista dictatorship. It is said that his son, William Buckley Jr, became involved at this time with the CIA attempts to overthrow Castro, working as a CIA contact and informer during the period 1950 – 1954. Some have speculated Buckley, Jr, worked with the Cuban-Jewish exile community (5/6ths of the island’s Jewish population had been expelled by Castro in his wars against religion, drugs, gambling and prostitution), the American-Jewish mob, and Howard Hunt to arm and equip the anti-Castro resistance – an operation which culminated in the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Former Senator James Buckley from New York, William F Buckley’s brother, has also developed a series of suspicious connections. Over his life he developed ties to internationalist groups like the Bilderbergers and the Yale Skull and Bones society. Though denying those ties, stating in 1974 that:
“I don't subscribe to the theory that there exists an organization of international bankers called the Bilderbergers."
At the same time his brother William was on the invitation list to their annual meeting.
Perhaps most significant about James Buckley was the role he played in 1981-1982 as Undersecretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology. In that position he was in charge of managing the distribution of US aid to foreign nations – including the all important disbursement of US aid to Israel. He also used that position to justify acts he had taken as a Congressman against the democratically elected governments of countries like Chile In a well known statement from that period, when asked about the CIA-backed coup that brought Pinochet to power, Buckley justified his role by stating:
"It was only by virtue of covert help by the United States that [Pinochet and CIA-backed factions] were able to survive in the face of increasingly repressive measures by the Allende regime."
And of course in the Buckley family world what followed, the extermination of tens of thousands of left-wing organizers and dissidents, was not “repressive” at all.
James Buckley also played a role in arranging the assassination of the Chilean Ambassador to the United States, Orlando Leteiler, in 1976. A week before the killing, he met with CIA-backed Chilean secret police assassins Michael Townley and Guillermo Novo in his New York office. When CIA agent David Atlee Phillips was implicated in this murder of this foreign diplomat on US soil, James Buckley sat on the Board of Directors for his defense fund.
With this family background, it should be no surprise the number of secret-police linked agents pushing propaganda through Buckley’s publication. Though we have discussed some of them before [See Israeli Lobby Scrambling For New Approach To Crisis” ] a rehash might be useful.
Faces of Death
The most blatantly CIA-Zionist linked National Review intellectual is Michael Ledeen, a “contributing editor” to the publication.
Ledeen made his career in American and Israeli intelligence as a “counter-terrorism expert” and analyst for US forces during the 1983 invasion of Grenada. In 1984, he published a propaganda pamphlet for the Department of Defense entitled “Grenada Documents” which, in the words of Richard Gibson, a self-described Marxist professor in the College of Education at San Diego University:
“so poison[ed] the selection with commentary, for example declaring that the Port Salines airport was unquestionably for military use, against the grain of all critique post-invasion, that his selection of documents [was] in question.”
Ledeen came to prominence in 1985 for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, where he was the key contact between CIA and Mossad agents who were coordinating arms transfers to Iran. Ledeen’s known involvement in Israeli-US intelligence operations didn’t end there. In 1988 he helped place convicted Israeli spy Johnathan Pollard in the US Department of the Navy, pulling strings to get Pollard his job. And though he was retired as National Security Advisor to the President in 1986, in 2001 he was reappointed by George Bush to the US-China Commission.
Ledeen is not the only shady character on the National Review staff. National Review on-line editor Jonah Goldberg, though he presents himself as pudgy comic relief for the publication, is married to Jessica Gavora – John Ashcroft’s senior policy adviser who, not surprisingly, has also been published in magazines like the National Review, the Weekly Standard, and David Horowitz’s print magazine Heterodoxy. Described as a “speechwriter and consultant” (she wrote material for former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander’s presidential run), prior to becoming a columnist and politico, she was employed by the CIA/Zionist linked Bradley Foundation’s New Citizenship Project – the same Bradley Foundation profiled in the November 23rd Pravda article “White Zion”)
So its not surprisingly when Goldberg, in his light-hearted fashion, came forward advocating the most brutal policies proposed by the Ashcroft-FBI regime. In Goldberg’s own words,
“Torture needs to be against the written law, but — like police brutality — it is recognized by the hidden law as a sometimes necessary tool for protecting society. … I think it would be unpleasant, but hardly morally impermissible, to take a cheese grater to [a terrorist’s] face.”
This piece was penned only days after a Washington Post report that the FBI was considering advocating the deportation of “terrorism” suspects – a term so broad it includes everyone from radical environmentalists to anti-abortion advocates – to Israel where “torture” wasn’t barred by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.
And the National Review-police state-foreign subversives links don’t stop with those three. There is hardly a National Review columnist that has not spent their life as part of the incestuous “conservative” family run by the Bradley and Scaife foundations, given voice by David Horowitz, William Buckley, William Kristol, the Washington Times, and a handful of other media properties. Byron York, their White House correspondent, played a role in the Ron Brown coverup (see “Faces of Death”, and is also one of the major advocates of extra-judicial legal abuses in the US press, writing in National Review that:
“These days a number of experts are discussing a case from World War II in which eight Germans were captured after entering the United States with plans to commit terrorist acts. They were tried by a special military commission set up by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and six of them were executed in short order. The president still has such extensive, if vaguely defined, powers to hold and try suspects for national security reasons.”
Roger Clegg, another contributing editor and Yale Skull and Bones’-er, once told the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, the subcommittee responsible for deciding issues like who gets to vote in elections, that:
“We do not want people voting who are not trustworthy and loyal to our republic.”
Contributing editor Frank Gaffney is another example -- a former Assistant Secretary of Defense with ties to the military industrial-complex who’s current main lobbying project has been the institution of missile defense. Not surprisingly, Gaffney is also a regular columnist for “alternative” Christian-Zionist publication WorldNetDaily.
And it just goes on and on. There are no writers for National Review who are not heavily indebted and in bed with either the US CIA, the Israeli lobby, the oil industry, or defense contractors, which begs a series of questions: Is the “conservative” movement a real ideological movement? Does it have any principled core at all? Or are all its “intellectual” arguments exactly what they appear to be – phony cover stories to justify policies whose only intent is to make money and gain power for wealthy interests?
To examine this analysis, we should next look at the nature of National Review's principled opposition – and how by recognizing or not recognizing opposition writers the interests behind National Review serve to control and limit public debate.
Anti-War And Others
One of the traits associated with the intelligence-lobby aligned, Zionist-dominated element of the mainstream American press is the limitation of debate through the selective recognition or non-recognition of their opponents. Groups like the ADL, for instance, set down lines, stating that commentators like Willis Carto, whose Spotlight newspapers once held a circulation of over 300,000 weekly, and still has approximately as many subscribers as the Washington Times, is outside of the pale for debate because of his hostility to “official” Jewish interests, while equally if not more racist commentators like David Horowitz and his crew are allowed into newspapers because their racism runs parallel with the promotion of Zionism.
It is interesting then to witness the dynamic that occurs when men like Horowitz, or the various staffers of National Review, or the other paid pawns of the CIA-Israel-Oil-Defense lobby, choose to attack and critique writers like Noam Chomsky or Susan Sonntag, but generally exclude independent writers and thinkers who are not either Jewish or employed by Jewish owned publications.
One of the groups that Horowitz and others fought a bloody political war with a decade go have begun reorganizing themselves on the internet for another round. Gathering around the banner of the Center for Libertarian Studies and its related organs – Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com, these websites have been notable for being a major voice of libertarian and “market anarchist” critiques of conservative imperialism. Their renewed uprising represents the latest stage in the decades old battle between the “paleo-“ and “neo-“ wings of the Republican Party.
But recently questions have been raised as to how well this circle of writers represents the real populist impulse behind the “paleo-“ critique of the “neo-”conservative argument. Dedicated to the study of “Libertarian” ideas derived from Jewish objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, the Center is produced by Jewish publisher Burt Blumert, a former aid to Texas Congresman Ron Paul, and runs organizations like LewRockwell.com, dedicated in large part to the ideas of Jewish libertarian thinker Murray Rothbard, and the noted Von Mises Institute, dedicated to promoting the ideas of Jewish capitalist economist Ludwig Von Mises and the “Austrian school.” These facts alone have left many of the Center’s White readers, who are generally supportive of the groups flagship issues – an end to war and a reduction of the hopelessly corrupt US Federal government – feeling alienated from much of the group’s writing.
Most of the Center’s staff and commentators are also Jewish. Webmaster Eric Garris, assistant webmaster Sam Koritz and assistant Jeremy Sapienza are among the men behind the scenes that have full or partially ethnic-Jewish backgrounds.
And while the mainstream CIA-Zionist-Oil-Defense element of the Jewish community initially reacted to the paleo/libertarians re-emergence in the Center with hostility – Stephen Schwartz, for instance, had his lawyer threaten to sue the Center if it published links to any of his articles – recently the National Review-FrontPageMag neo-con axis has again decided that this is a battle they can profit by joining. David Horowitz recently wrote a response to Ran HaCohen, a Center columnist, and Myles Kantor, another “libertarian” columnist in the neo-con camp, published a response to Justin Raimondo, an Antiwar.com commentator, after the September 11 bombing. National Review's Jonah Goldberg also engaged in an exchange now famous with libertarian intellectuals over Goldberg’s demand that the United States invade Africa and re-colonize the dark continent. And while Goldberg accused Raimondo of anti-Semitism in the incident, one could hardly believe anyone took that accusation more seriously than the ADL’s insistence that Norman Finkelstein is a self-hating Jew. Raimondo, who is himself one-quarter Jewish, often bends over backwards to avoid even the appearance of self-hate or anti-Semitism, stating in one recent piece:
“Anti-Semitism in the West, as ‘hate crime’ statistics and other research has shown in recent years, is practically nonexistent. … [R]eal anti-Semitism … today, … is not only illegal but socially and politically unacceptable: anyone deemed an anti-Semite in this, the original sense, is in effect a pariah, and rightly so.”
Fortunately and unfortunately, the Center distinguishes itself as a Jewish think tank opposed to both Israeli and US imperialism. Its writers make eloquent rebuttals of the welfare-warfare state. But the question still remains if the reason the Jewish neo-conservatives allow it to have a voice in political discourse is because of the Jewish ethnicity of its founders, and whether its growing acceptance into political debate is part of a larger process by which the neo-conservatives hope to exclude non-Semitic White commentators from debate. Writing about the difficulties, as a Jew, in trying to extend debate without limiting it to Jewish-ness or Jewish issues, Blumert wrote in a recent column:
“Yes, there are plenty of Jewish bad guys who by their actions or worldview threaten our American heritage and way of life. And they are powerful. But, there are also Jews, religious or not, who are passionate about what America stands for, Jews who weep at the erosion of American values and struggle to stem that erosion. I'm sort of tired being judged by some folks on only one aspect of what I am. ‘Blumert's a Jew.’ Sorry, that single word standing alone is not a true indicator as to whether or not I am a threat to your liberty.”
Other Center for Libertarian Studies commentators have had similar difficulties. Lew Rockwell, head of the Von Mises Institute, recently wrote:
“I have received many ominous emails, some even threatening death. Every angry correspondent seems to believe that he has discovered my special interest, which includes all the above plus a few more, like being in the pay of drug merchants, stumping for Ultramontanists, and ‘providing cover for the Jews.’”
This distaste for discussion of “the Jewish issue” is a common underlying factor for many of the paleo- writers. Karen DeCoster, in an email to a critic, wrote that:
“I am not into this maniacal ‘Jewish issue’ stuff. … I especially have NO interest in the zealous Jewish stuff. … [T]his is not an issue that I would care to answer each and every challenge on. There are others that press LRC writers on this issue. … [Lew Rockwell is] another intellectual GIANT attacked because he doesn't hate Jews enough to please the Jew-haters.”
All of which indicates that there is something missing from their coverage which a significant portion of their readers are both desiring and complaining about. What is it? Things like a lack of analysis of how Semitic cultural factors play into the limitations of media debate, of “conspiracy theory” type exposes of the role of ruling class factions in public policy making, and of frank discourse differentiating Western culture from the ruling class “Judaeo-Christian” construct, as well as frank discussion on racial and ethnic issues.
And it may be something as basic as the pervasive bias against non-Semitic cultures which defines much of modern Judaism and its Judaeo-Christian offshoot. Jim Peron, writing in his book Objectivism Unmasked, described Murray Rothbard, one of the Center’s namesakes, in a way that makes him sound very much like other radical Jewish thinkers of the past century. In Peron’s words Rothbard held:
“to a Stalinist interpretation of political strategy and believed that a ‘vanguard’ of radicals would lead an anarchist revolution. Rothbard saw himself as the intellectual center of the vanguard. For this purpose he helped form a radical group entitled the Radical Caucus which published a newsletter Libertarian Vanguard. … One of the favourite phrases of RC members was ‘smash’. They always wanted to smash something.”
Elsewhere in his book, Peron also comments on Ayn Rand’s hatred of non-Jewish/atheist religion, discussing Rothbard’s accusations that Rand tried to force him to divorce his non-Jewish wife. Peron quotes Rothbard as saying:
“I knew from the very beginning that the Randians were fanatically antireligious, that Rand hated God far more than she ever hated the State. … I came to realize that … the Randian attitude was [that] I was not supposed to divorce [my wife] because she was a Christian; I was supposed to spend several months hectoring the poor girl to convert her to atheism; if that failed I was supposed to divorce her.”
One has to wonder if these ideas haven’t trickled down and make themselves manifest in subtle ways in the ideologies of Rothbards’ and Rands’ modern heirs – and that this undercurrent is serving to just as subtly alienate and give an undefined feeling of unease to the Center’s non-Semitic Libertarian readers. And is it this undercurrent that has allowed the Center’s ideas to slowly achieve mainstream “opposition” acceptability among the National Review-publishing elite?
It must be noted on this point that Lew Rockwell, in a May 28, 1990 National Review article entitled “Ayn Rand is dead”, did forcefully rejected Rand’s religious bigotry and asserted a new ideal he called “libertarian-Christianity”. However, it is unclear if this was any more than an intellectual justification for the Rand-Rothbard sectarian fighting, given Rothbard’s above account of his own split from Rand on the same issue, rather than an actual rejection of the Judaeo-Christian/Semitic paradigm. When asked to respond to this point, unlike Blumert and Garris and other Center figures, Rockwell declined.
The National Review, like Horowitz’s FrontPageMag.com, is a fraud imposed on the American public by a national media empire that is able, through total domination of the means of cultural production, to skew public discourse and to hide the true motives underlying the words and deeds of prominent individuals. One often wonders, reading its pages, if it has any intellectually honest opposition at all, since for years it has been trying to focus debate exclusively on the “left-wing” of the same bourgeois police state apparatus that it serves.
The National Review 's opponents in the Libertarian-conservative “paleo-”right are playing a necessary function by countering the most unreasonable excesses of the neo-conservatives. Their battle for the Republican Party attracted men like Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran to their ranks. But there is still a large and disenfranchised portion of the public that sees in their legitimization by the neo-conservative sect within the ruling class a continuing effort to disenfranchise those who do not buy into Judaism or anti-Western “Judaeo-Christianity”.
America is going through a process of change, where majority groups that have been systematically excluded from political discourse through an incremental disenfranchisement by the ruling minority are beginning to re-establish their voice and demand that the structure of the American government be returned to the one that their forefathers established two centuries ago. To counter this trend, the ruling class is searching for ways to build bridges to what is now considered “the fringe”, while still retaining essential control over the limits of political discourse that “fringe” is allowed to participate in. It is clearly a belief in ruling class circles that legitimizing Jewish/”Judaeo-Christian”-led segments of the opposition de-legitimizes and keeps marginalized non-Jewish/”Judaeo-Christian”-led segments of the opposition, while simultaneously limiting debate to the parameters of acceptable discourse in the Jewish community – a different set of parameters than the limits of debate in other ethnic communities in America.
National Review rose to power as an arm of the American-Zionist security apparatus and the internationalism it represented. Alternative forms of Semitic doctrine -- libertarianism, for instance -- have risen in the latter part of the imperial period to challenge this. What may become revealing about the intentions of this newly legitimized opposition is whether it continues to focus its debate inwards, against the ruling class defined “mainstream”, or whether it reaches out to engage intellectual opposition elements even further outside of the ruling class spectrum than it itself is.
The hope for a future free discourse lies in society turning its back on the phony intellectuals – men who don’t “debate” but merely spout pre-written material for their financial backers – and turning towards those elements and movements that derive naturally from America’s original culture. The alternative, where the increasingly accepted opposition buys into the idea of “mainstream”-ism and allows itself to be lured into debate within the prescribed parameters of current ruling class politics, can only lead in the long term to the rejection of that opposition by the popular base from which it desire to draw support.
The remarks from the Pope came as "a very strong step towards degradation," "given the rather massive nature of homosexuality" among the Catholic clergy.