By order of the Ludi Magistor the hand bill flyers that were distributed
during the protests in front of KQED are now placed on public display.
Let the viewer keep in
her consciousness while reviewing these documents that the subject was facing an implacable bureaucracy that not only wrongfully
denied its involvement but then added further injury by repeated suggestions that the subject was deluded or deranged. These document may give the impression of, well, to be generous, and excited state,
however, recall that Soviet political prisoners of the late Twentieth Century often reported that one of the more difficult
aspects of their ordeal, resulted precisely because they were held in insane asylums.
All so of interest in these
documents is the appearance of U. S. Senator John Kerry, and not just because of his recent failed run for the presidency. Was his a chance remark? Scholarship
has yet to arrive at an unambiguous decision. But then there is no hurry. As Alan Watts used to say, ‘Scholar
means, one who has time.’ Our research into the corruption of American
political culture continues.)
Flyer Number One:
Do not criticize the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting
If you do they will invade your privacy also.
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting will not tolerate criticism from anyone.
People like Tony Tiano, chief executive of KQED, will ruthlessly pursue you. He will use his employees to follow you. He will
arrange to have your personal life investigated. He will use his power to interfere with your private contractual relations.
He will have his employees publish rumors about you.
Be ware. What has been done to me can be done to you.
Flyer Number TWO:
Will KQED admit what it has done'?
Not likely. Two representatives
of KQED, a Mr. Edwards and Holly Krassner, Manager, Community & Government Relations, stated that they did not know what
the demonstration of Friday, 4‑24‑92, in font of KQED, was about. Mr. Edwards asked who "Thompson," (the name
on one of the placards), was. Mr. Edwards said, `there is no "Thompson" associated with "KQED's West Coast Weekend". '
These are not the words
of a man acting in good faith. Mr.
Edwards does know a Sedge Thomson, III, the host of West Coast Weekend. But Mr. Edwards asked, "Who is Thompson?"
If Mr. Edwards is willing
to dissemble about the letter "p" then what else is he willing to falsely express ignorance about? What else will he lie about?
Was he acting on instructions from Tony Tiano? Were his instructions, `deny everything?'
The attitude of KQED seems
to be `catch us if you can. We will admit to nothing.' Yet does not KQED claim to be a purveyor of truth? Will KQED now cover
up its wrong doing? Will KQED "stone wall" as long as it can maintain, in Sedge Thomson's words, "plausible deniability?"
"There are a lot of little
quips going on around here to night."
United States Senator
So Mr. Edwards and Holly
Krassner have claimed in front of a witness that they did not know anything about West Coast Weekend's invasion of privacy.
They claim KQED does not know of KQED's intentional interference with contractual relations or the publishing of rumors about
a private citizen, etc. Have they spoken to Sedge Thomson? Has he made a statement to them?
The problem with living
a lie Is that one lie leads to the next.
Sedge Thomson, and others
at KQED, invaded the privacy of a man with whose writings they disagreed. He, and others at KQED, contrived to subvert a private
contractual relation between this man and his Mill Valley `personal and business counselor.' By this means Sedge Thomson arranged
to have this man brought to the radio studio used by KQED for the production of its show, West Coast Weekend. During this
show Mr. Thomson, along with others, made statements that implied their disapproval of this man's opinions.
In following weeks Mr.
Thomson and others planted similar comments in their broadcasts. The `counselor' encouraged the man to listen to these broadcasts.
The `art' of their contrivance was to skillfully `suggest' but never directly state their references to this man's writings.
The `counselor' became a covert means of communication.
When this man told the
`counselor' that he thought Mr. Thomson and others were making these references the `counselor' attempted to explain away
the facts. In addition the `counselor' conveyed the statements of this man, her client, to whom she had promised confidentiality,
back to Mr. Thomson and others on the broadcast. This relationship deteriorated
"Its only been in the
last few days that I have learned what happens to someone when they write about these things . . . . you know, we fund these
corporations . . . and . . . "
United States Senator
United States Senate April
This was, of course, Mr.
Thomson's goal. He wanted to destroy the relationship : "to embarrass and humiliate." We like to think that one honorable
man can support the use of force in January and another, equally honorable man, can oppose the use of force. One can prefer one formulation of a Bill and another support a different construction.
But in civil war, Senator
Kerry, the goal is not to argue, to persuade, but to destroy your fellow citizens. The "bourgeois" notions of rhetoric and
"rational" discourse are swept away. The desire is to disgrace. One hopes to psychologically destroy, possibly even to have
ones opponent commit suicide.
"If you believe that ‑‑‑
we have counseling available out side the door."
Former U. S. Senator Tsongas
Democratic Candidate's Debate
Bad faith is just this
covert method, "the big lie." Bad faith is the violation of an obligation to another by means of misrepresentation. [Tell
them, "it's only a shower."] What did Sedge Thomson use to induce the `counselor' to breach her obligations?
Was it something as banal
as an exchange of money? Or did he promise or only suggest that KQED would extend a contract to her for `organizational consulting?'
Or did he light a marijuana cigarette for her and wait for the glow of KQED , that bright sparkling symbol, to fill her head,
aaahhh The Media , ooouuu The Power. [Probably they were not thinking clearly.] There would be a bond between them. There
would be the prospect of a closer relationship in the future. New clients, in The Media.
A chance to expand her
`network' to the inner circle of KQED.
Yes bring him to our studio.
Tell him, it is a "field trip."
Interrogatories and depositions
will be taken. Business and home phone records will be subpoenaed. Possibly witnesses will voluntarily come forward?
And what of the reputations
of KQED and The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Tony Tiano, chief executive of KQED? Who will be willing to perjure
themselves and who will not?
It is a sad case. The
`counselor' was possibly the daughter of immigrants from Europe who arrived in America in the late 1940s. [ I say "possibly"
because once a pattern of lies has
been established it is
difficult to say what was true and what 3
was not.] She possibly
had to learn a new language. Her parents had to "deal with a lot of self esteem issues" she had said. (Sarcastically?)
Still she graduated from
Yale. She was then so close to the seat of American power, and yet still so far. She was a foreigner, a Jew, a woman, with
a bone structure not favored by Cosmo Magazine or WASP society. Her "friends" at KQED would have been thought a way back into
The Power. Their `network' was, after all, really a Network. She said that day that being at their studio was "like being
back at college, you know, like the Art Department." What did these "friends" say to her? How did they advise her? Her "friends"
would have encouraged her.
"He must have known that
if he sent a letter to all the Washington think tanks it was going to ‑ become public."
In the end KQED's inducement
may have been just this "friendship" of the powerful Mr. Sedge Thomson the third, the Media, the revolving sparkling symbol
Come join us we are so
happy here, so liberal, so right on. And what of the violation of an obligation? So what? What is that when compared to our
dyed red hair cool Marin County radicalism? We will do a number on this "bug," this Hayward boob. You know, a real San Francisco‑New
York radical "mind game."
So the civil war continues.
Sister turned against brother. Child against parent. This is why civil wars are so much more pitiless than other wars. To
kill the outsider is one thing but to kill your brother you must really steel yourself. Psychologically you must prepare yourself
against any doubts, any sympathy.
Are you a woman? Then
you must use this to prepare yourself. You have whole millenniums of sexism working for you. Are you Black? You have Slavery
working for you. A Jew? Then baby you got the Holocaust working for you. You can justify anything with that. One must be cruel,
cruel as only a victim can be cruel. In civil war there are no rules.
Show no mercy. This KQED,
is truly An American Tragedy.
The Last Letter
The New Ruskin College
We make what all the world wants:
the ultimate source of all power:
The Math Project: 1989-1991
minting knowledge –
the new coin of the realm,
to illume the minds of men.
May 20, 1992
the White House
Washington, D. C.
[Deletion] East Ave.
"I believe there
is Good and Bad in the world, and . . .,
well I know there are some philosophers who would
think that this is a little over simplified,’
but that's what I believe !"
Dear Mr. President;
Sir, you do the philosophers a great injustice.
The philosophers do not think you have "over simplified." Far from it. You have stated the situation, our situation, just
as it is.
If you did not hold the good to be good and the
bad as bad then there would be no good or bad. It is just because, as you said, "I believe," there can be good and bad. It
all depends on you, Mr. President.
This is what Sartre meant when he said, "When
a man decides for himself he decides for all mankind." If a man chooses murder, for example, then murder is chosen for all
". . . some paranoids do have enemies . . . .all
this talk about innovation in the schools . . . we need preparation. . . preparation
. . . in those northern ghettos. . . "
Senator Hollings, U.S. Senate 1‑24‑92
And if you are thinking, but sir, .you are now
discussing murder (!), this is not some `personal' subjective standard, then think again. For what is murder? The radical
Marxists will tell you that the social sanction against murder is nothing but a device
by which the lawyers
and judges of the exploiters seek to deny the dispossessed of their only direct means of affecting a change in the unjust
social situation of their domination.
But one need not
be a radical Marxist to see the subjective nature of murder, one may be a lawyer. What is the difference between a murderer
and someone acting in self defense? A man approaches you with a knife, raised to kill. You fear for your life, (or great bodily
harm), and you squeeze the trigger of your revolver killing the assailant. Self defense.
Suppose that for
a moment, however, you saw a movement in the man's eye, a change in an eyebrow perhaps, the movement of the knife wavers for
a moment. You think that his assault will cease, then you pull the trigger and kill. Now you are a murderer in the first degree.
You have premeditated. This is what the judges mean when they say premeditation can take place in an instant.
Holmes said we do
not expect "calm deliberation ~ at the point of a knife," and yet premeditation can take place in an instant. How are we to
decide? The lawyers will object that these are two very different "fact" situations. For them there is this legal fiction:
Outside the lawyer's
mind, unfortunately (?), the facts are never "stipulated." The jury must decide. The jury will attribute to the former the
good faith exercise of his right of self defense; in the latter case, bad faith, and hanging. [Can you hear the lawyers caviling?
"Mens Rea," (guilty mind) they are shouting, "just like a layman to mix up civil and criminal law !" , But since neither you
nor I are lawyers, Mr. President, we carp ignore them.]
Some, no doubt,'
will be dismayed at the subjective nature of even the most fundamental social constructions.
because they are screwed up."
‑‑‑ Michael Kinsley
Yet, as you correctly
pointed out, Mr. President, at bottom the world rests on "I believe." One attributes or one does not attribute good faith
to the actor, and he is free or hanged as a result. In court as well as out one is utterly dependent on such attributions
by ones fellow citizens for ones survival. We are all citizens of Weimar.
If one citizen shares
the views of another they form a club.
If several join together they may call themselves
a "community." The geographical area they share comes to be associated with their values.
For example, if you drive your car in the city
of Berkeley you would be amazed by the number of pedestrians at the intersections who walk out in front of your moving car
even though you have a green light and they a red "don't walk" sign. This is because this particular geographic area has over
the years attracted large numbers of citizens who feel that pedestrians should have preference over autos. There is a shared
sense of moral superiority that is attributed to the pedestrian.
This is a simple example yet other geographic
areas have developed similar associations with other values:
"‑ Can I have the cash register key, she
doesn't have enough money !"
"‑ . . It's not such a big deal I just
brought the wrong purse . . ."
"‑ I know Robert from the Rotary and I don't think he would appreciate you being so rude to this lady."
"‑ 1 don't think I was being rude to her
"‑ Then you must be from New York city."
[ An insulted face of shock and indignation.]
Terms of Endearment
The elasticity of the human mind, its ability
to accommodate itself to its circumstances, creates a difficulty with perspective. If one holds certain things to be good
how does one know if they are good in any real sense, and not simply self delusion ? Because standards vary from place to
place, the situation is further complicated due to 'the distortion that may be caused by the "community." If those in ones
immediate surroundings say that one is "right" does this serve as an "objective" reference? If "friends?" If "family?"
"It is easy to say no to your enemy. It is harder to say no to your friends.
States Senator Robert Kerry
Democratic Candidate's Debate
Come with me Mr. President, I will take you into
a craftsman's cottage in north Berkeley. As we enter the living room you note the red velveteen over stuffed chair, the bent
rocker from another
decade, and the upright piano. Note the sheet music, the Beatles' song `This Boy, That Boy.' On top of the sheet music are
several post cards from Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Cuba. I pick up the post card from Cuba and show you the back. It says
in part, "harvest going well, lots of sugar cane, . . . see you when we get back to The Coast." Signed: "Love, Laura, Rachel,
Amanda and Mary."
1 set the post card
back on the piano and next pick up a petition from the top of the piano. There are some 35 signatures on it. I show it to
you. It calls for a ban on further development of multi story buildings and a prohibition against building on a lot some three
blocks away. It mentions "congestion" and "traffic problems" and demands "further study of the environmental impact of multi
story buildings." I set the petition back on the piano and next show you some Green Peace literature that is sitting next
to the petition. Among the literature is a brochure condemning "urban sprawl" and mentioning the threat to wild life habitat
caused by "suburbanization."
"This has been the
sound of one Senator speaking."
a U. S. Senator
At first you may
think this a contradiction. Yet in this house and in thousands of other homes around this area no contradiction is seen at
all. Mr. President, you see, as you said, "They Believe." Their rule is: `maintain a pleasant environment.' Both multi story
buildings and suburbanization are seen as a `threat' to this householder's `life style.'
Of all the markets
in your country, Mr. President, the real estate market is the most over regulated. Restrictive zoning regulations restrict
the supply of housing by government decree. Even after the Great Earthquake of 1989 no attempt was made to free the building
market despite the loss of thousands of homes.
politicians decry the "lack of affordable housing" and yet seek to assure their constituents of the eternal stability of "homeowner's
equity," happily oblivious to the economic contradiction. This is why you are repeatedly beseeched for "Federal Dollars."
What is wanted is not `housing' but "new money" i.e. "Federal Money" in other words, someone else's money.
Any of these cities
could have an abundance of new construction of additional housing simply by assisting
entrepreneurs, by taking "affirmative action"
to promote construction, instead of restricting the supply. Housing is not "affordable" precisely because these local politicians
do not want to increase supply. They do not want the market to work. And yet it would be wrong to think this community irrational.
These contradictions are invisible to them.
The acceptance of the subjective nature of our
reality leads to just this result. The rules these people live by may appear to us as contradictions but to them there is
a seamless continuity. It is a question of whose's rules.
think you girls were a little rough out there last night."
[ "Really ?"
‑‑‑Andrea Mitchell (the next morning after the broadcast.)]
"Yes, I do. I really and truly do. I saw you,
(and what you are really thinking is fu, fu, fu . . . ), I saw you elbow that other girl and knock her down to the floor."
"Really? Well mother, basket ball is a contact
The Lake Wobegon Girl's Basketball Team.
play by the rules, but if the other guy uses his elbow, then you have to elbow him right back."
United States Senator Bradley]
Personally, Mr. President, I hope Senator Bradley
will spare us the sordid stories of his vagabond existence on the road as a professional `ball player.' Someone should tell
him that we do not play the game that way. It just isn't done.
At the California Youth Authority they banned
basketball due to the number of injuries. The injuries were most often inflicted on a player by his own team members. The
ball would be passed, the shot would miss the basket, and the player who passed the ball would then beat up the one who missed.
He let down the team!
Note that even the Lake Wobegon Girls Basket
Ball Team, even with their stepping on insteps, elbows and knee ferocity, would still think it unsporting if the opposing
team used black jacks. Note, also, that the pedestrians of Berkeley violate the motor code in the cross walks. Even they frown
Senator Bradley advocates the elbow only in retaliation. Why?
There are rules even
for the lawless. The radical Marxists are always the most surprised when, after the revolution, the "guardians of the Revolution"
come to take them to the "reeducation" camps. The French revolutionaries no doubt considered this irony as they listened
to the blade slide down the rails to the back of their necks.
The radical Berkeleians,
for all their economic creativity still, at the time of the Exxon spill limited their blame to the old white men in suits
at the Exxon headquarters in Texas, or wherever it is. Why do they except this bourgeois legal notion? The law limiting liability
to the corporate entity is a capitalist trick, another legal fiction of the exploiters. Why not take the homes of the shareholders?
Indeed the moral philosophers can see no good reason why the customers of Exxon, the people who supplied Exxon with money
over the years, should not be made to answer.
The radical feminists
who have found so many new ways to blame men have shown a curious lack of interest in following their line of thought to its
logical conclusion. Has not wealth in our society been handed down on a sexist basis? Why not reopen the wills of the last
several generations and trace back the fortunes to the dispossessed women, and their heirs, cheated out of their (dare we
!f these lines of
thought are simply a way of threatening society with worse demands if the present ones now pending are not satisfied, we could
at least respect the shrewdness of the negotiators. But these inconsistencies are not the result of cleverness but its opposite.
For example, Senator
Cohen, rose on the floor of the Senate to deliver himself of the news that 8% of the supplementary payments of Social Security
are not other wise explainable and therefore presumed to be "racially" biased. Senator Cohen thought this a staggering revelation
of institutional racism.
Yet the payments
of the Social Security System are based on the income of the "contributor." What do we know about the income distribution
twenty years, thirty years, forty years ago? It was skewed by race, gender, ethnicity, etc. Senator Cohen decries the 8% of
the smaller fraction while by far the greater take from the pay checks of the people is transferred into the accounts of those
who have most conspicuously benefited from decades of discrimination.
If the pay out schedule
of Social Security is not institutionalized racism then what is it?
We are each of us selecting out of reality a discrete set of "goods" and "bads" according
to our "rules." Even the most radical `rule breakers' for all their vanity of individuality, are as much caught as any conservative,
in the same web ‑ of "acceptance," of unconsciously adhering to the old rules even in their attempts to break them.
At least with the
conservatives we do not have to suffer the affectations of the self deluded creative.
"Me Lord, Plaintiff
calls to the stand, Messrs Click and Clack the Tappet brothers."
"Click and what?"
"Click and Clack
Tappet, Me Lord, they are radio mechanics."
"You mean radio engineers."
"No, Me Lord, they
are automobile mechanics who . . . repair automobiles . . . over . . . the . . . radio?"
"Over the radio?
What is it, short wave to some remote village?"
"No, Me Lord, they
are on FM radio in the United States."
"Ah! Yes, of course,
the United States, it sounds absurd."
"As your Lordship
pleases. Now, Click, Clack, is it not true that you dislike representatives of insurance companies?"
"Me Lord, Plaintiff
wishes to establish prejudice."
"Objection over ruled.
The mechanics will answer the question put them."
"Sonja Henie's tutu."
"Me Lord, Plaintiff
wishes the witnesses held in contempt."
The issue then is
the selection process itself: What to select out of reality, to be called a fact, "good" or "bad," and which rules to select,
to explain the process of that selection? As it is unlikely that you or I will, on our own, create a new calculus one hopeful
solution is to accept what has been given us. This is the great insight of conservatism. History itself as a selection process
that has strained out the best from experience. Thus aided by the experience of those who came before we preserve.
Senator Cohen therefore
can claim that the Social Security System, institutionalized racism it may be, is none the less what has been handed down
to us. Who are we to change what
greater hands have made? We preserve because
we attribute good faith to the founders of the Social Security System. Yet, Mr. President, is this not just what the Berkeleians
are doing? Preserving their neighborhoods? Do they not see the preservation of single homes a good faith effort? The educators
who have blocked technology for thirty years do so not thinking they are acting in bad faith. They see themselves as
preserving high standards.
Clearly there is
a limit to conservatism. Is there to be no change? Has the selection process of history stopped?
We hope that in a
democracy we can with others in the market place of ideas derive the solution to this problem. It has been said that democracy
is a meta-ideology in that it can contain all other ideologies. It has been said that within democracy all political discussion
becomes "purely technical" in that the only issues left open for discussion are those that deal with which "means" are to
be used to achieve the goals politically, democratically, decided upon.
"Whatever gets you
through the night." ‑‑‑ Michael Kinsley
However, if we do
rely on our friends, on our "community," adopting consensus as a criterion for selection, we are still faced with the issue:
What i f our friends are wrong?
1 have been dismayed
at the rejection of my thesis of the "conspiracy of friends." I tried to point out that simply because one is in consensus,
just because ones "friends" all agree, does not mean that one .is right. The "conspiracy" may be no less a conspiracy simply
because one has a warm rosy feeling.
This was, after all,
the original idea of Affirmative Action. One wanted government agencies and private interests to take action not because one
thought them corrupt, venial, and racist, but rather because one thought them basically good and decent. If one did not think
so, one would have to impose rules and quotas, precisely because they, were not to be trusted. In that case it would not have
been "action," that which happens independently, but Affirmative Imposition.
Blacks were excluded,
the theory went, not because of the venality of Whites but because the social ties, the networks of friends and associations,
that make up the "community" had been separated, i.e. segregated. What was needed was for these "conspirators" to be formally
introduced. You can think of it as
"match making" on
a grand scale.
It was just because
one attributed good faith to these people that one could rely on them to do what was needed. Special efforts were needed to
break out of the old patters of selection, new friendships established. Yes, of course, any change implies a criticism of
the way things had been, but in good faith it was thought that this was simply an enlargement, a growth, of the good, not
an annihilation of evil.
The radicals who
define America as racist and sexist due so, Mr. President, just because they do not attribute good faith to her. Your affirmation,
"I believe," Mr. President, is no less true for them.
They "believe" that
racism lurks in your citizenry like a cancer. For them what has been handed down is not the product of great hands working
in good faith but is rather the result of greed and corruption, which permeates our present reality.
The Marxist idea
of "false consciousness" and the Freudian of the "subconscious" are equally examples of the attempt to explain the poisoning
of the social animal, man, by forces about which, by definition, he is unconscious, and is therefore unable to act, in good
faith. Whites are unconsciously racist, men unconsciously sexist.
In such a social
context democracy is irrelevant because no good faith can be implied. Any good faith social action is impossible. Not only
can the condemned not be executed, for the murderer is only a hapless product of his corrupt society, but the child can not
be educated as there is no basis upon which to select the curriculum. In such a context selection itself is suspect. Society
itself is seen as a lie.
(This phrase came
and went quickly, did it not?)
It is not coincidence
that the Soviet Union resorted to the internment of political prisoners in mental hospitals; a kind of "cure" for "false consciousness."
The psychoanalysis of those with whom one disagrees has become a pastime here as well. One hears otherwise thoughtful leaders
dismiss their opponent's ideas as "insane" or the result of "arrested development."
is fundamentally anti‑intellectual. That there has been so much ink spent attacking "rationality" is also no coincidence. As von Mises pointed out ratiocination requires
that one dispute the statements made. It is not rational to refute an argument by reference
to the "sanity" of the speaker. The sanity or insanity of the speaker is not at issue only whether the arguments can be refuted.
To say that statements are wrong because the speaker is insane, is no better a rebuttal than to refute them by pointing out
that the speaker is a Jew, or a woman, or, as is more often done today, a "white male."
was once thought to be a way out of the dilemma you suggested with your affirmation: "1 Believe." It was thought that though
there may be various systems of thought, ideologies, with their separate value structures, at least if these systems did not
generate "internal" contradictions, lies, they could be regarded as "rational." However, as we have seen there is a certain
elasticity to human thought that allows one, if one attributes good faith, to fill in what others might regard as a contradiction,
or even a lie.
The distinction between
internal and external contradictions, lies, was illusory. In either case the attribution of good faith will be sufficient
to turn the lie back into a contradiction and then seal up the contradiction itself: a perfectly closed system.
The desire for high
"home owner equity" and "affordable housing," one requiring a limitation on supply and the other an expansion in the supply
of housing, are not seen as contradictions but as the attempt to maximize a point between two variables. The politicians who
shamelessly argue these points to their constituents and beseech the Federal Government for "aid" are not seen as liars but
as statesmen fighting for "economic justice"‑‑if one attributes good faith.
When Hitler ordered
the invasion of Poland he told the world that Poland had attacked Germany, and photos of a damaged radio station were displayed.
This was a lie. When Saddam Hussein ordered his troops into Kuwait he told them they were going on maneuvers. This was a lie.
The fact that they had to lie, "internally" at least may be thought to be an "objective" sign of bad faith. However, Mr. President,
when the Allies planned to invade Normandy they told the Germans they planned to invade at Calais. This was . . . ?
"Remember, a miss
is as good as a mile"
"And don't be a cry
“No, no, grandfather.”
"Can you keep a secret?" "Yes."
We are told that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a "surprise." Yet for over a decade the movements and
attacks of the Japanese Navy were well known and widely reported. We are told that despite the breaking of the Naval codes,
despite the telegram sent by Churchill to F.D.R., despite all of this, we were surprised. It was just our good fortune that
the aircraft carrier squadrons were "on maneuvers" out "at sea" on the day of the attack. Possibly divine intervention?
Later these same aircraft carriers would engage the Japanese Navy near the island of Midway and crush its air arm.
More good fortune for the Republic.
Among the books left me by my grandfather was a 1938 edition of Mein Kampf. Numerous paragraphs relating to Hitler's
views on the use of military force have been underlined; as well as his views on his fellow human beings. This book was translated
into many languages and distributed around the world. Hitler gave speech after speech, many of which were broadcast on the
radio, stating clearly his views. The Japanese announced in proclamation after proclamation their claims to empire. And yet
we are told that we were surprised.
Yet even if there are more revelations about the events leading up to December 7, will we, must we, conclude that
F.D.R. acted in bad faith? Did the Senate act in bad faith in failing to join the ‑League of Nations? Did Congress in
failing to prepare for war, and their dismissal of those who sought to prepare for war, act in bad faith? In one memorable
case a senior Naval officer resigned after a "political" controversy over certain aircraft clocks. He was recalled after December
7. No doubt, after December 7, many young Naval aviators appreciated these highly accurate clocks when attempting to navigate
around the world. Do you agree Mr. President?
The attribution of "I believe," of good faith, need not be total agreement on every detail. For example one may accept
ones present circumstance as resulting from good faith efforts by others, without necessarily liking it. For instance many
Ivy League graduates were assigned to the most difficult duty in the Pacific Theater. For example, Mr. President, torpedo
because the torpedoes of that day required that they be delivered in close
proximity to the enemy vessel and at a certain trajectory, were regarded as high
risk duty. Did you know this?
These squadrons, whether aircraft or boats designed specifically for this delivery procedure, designated P.T. Boats,
suffered severe losses and many injuries. ~ No doubt some assigned to this duty reflected on the Navy's populist spirit in
these assignments without necessarily regarding these assignments as having been made in bad faith.
Of course, both you and your fellow officer President Kennedy volunteered for this duty; on this the Naval record
is clear. Yet the fact remains that both my grandfathers were right, about the world situation, and the majority of the American
people were wrong, including some who would later volunteer. But were they acting in bad faith?
"Michael, Senators and Presidents don't have people killed."
"Oh ? Now who is being naive ?" The Godfather II
At this point you may be getting annoyed and are thinking, "Don't give me this bilge water you glib little . . . clearly
Hitler acted in bad faith in invading Poland, and the United States did not
II invite an attack at Pearl !" Yes, Sir, this I also "believe," yet
let ups take the most difficult case first. ii
The Nazis and Japanese said they were only taking empire as many others had done before them. Many anti‑imperialists,
unwittingly but implicitly concede the logic of this fascist argument, for they in fact think that their "anti‑imperialism"
immunizes them against just this argument. Because they are against all imperialism they can not be accused of any
"contradictions" in their system of thought. Yet these Manhattan air heads do not have the slightest intention of
giving back one inch of land to Mexico, Spain, or Britain, much less the native peoples.
Moses after one victory ordered that all males over age 12, and all women who had "known man," of the enemy, be put
to death Ancient Greece is the cradle of Western Civilization, as every few years P.B.S. informs us from the steps of the
Parthenon, yet do we wish to identify with slavery, human sacrifice, homosexuality, wars of aggression and empire? Are we
not Christian? What are we to think of Paganism and orgies?
Roman law, and civil engineering are much admired yet have we forgotten the torture in the Colosseum where tickets
were sold, or a certain public execution? Do we study and praise the civilization that killed our Savior?
The founders of the new State of Israel caused the death of hundreds and forced tens of thousands from land on which
their ancestors had lived for generations. Yet before it is said I am attacking Jews, again, let us quickly add that the founders
of these United States, owned slaves and fathered "illegitimate" children by them. These United States acquired lands by trick
and force of arms and drove the former inhabitants on "death marches" exposed to the elements, and then gave the survivors
blankets intentionally infected with small pox. Not satisfied with simply reneging on lawful treaties, shall I say, we, Mr.
President (?), ordered United States Cavalry units to kill all, not just those over 12 or who had "known man."
"I don't think we need to be encouraged to rise above our principles, we have quite enough of that around here already."
‑‑‑ Senator Helms
Sir, Mr. President, what is happening in all these cases is that you are discretely attributing good faith. To the
founders of the new State of Israel no less than to President Jefferson, that owner of slaves and father of, to put it discreetly,
"illegitimate" children of "color." Though we find the actions of the United States Cavalry abhorrent, today, we still attribute
good faith to the United States, today, and even to those men and women of that former time, not withstanding the fact that
some of what they did may have been wrong. That Roman poets may have owned slaves and enjoyed gladiatorial events does not
cause us to attribute to their noble sentiments bad faith.
This is the difference between us and the radicals. They do not attribute good faith to what has been handed down
to us, they impute bad faith.
"But damn it sir, Hitler was a fascist ! There is an objective difference between him and these other cases. It is
not a question of "attributing" any subjective notion. Are we to forgive him in time?" Though we are both Christian Mr. President,
we are not divines. It is true that I only take on hard cases but even I must refuse this. But let us look now at Fascism.
Fascism in Daily Life
Fascism is not a philosophy of governance but
a method of acquiring power. The fascist, in bad faith, manipulates symbols in order to persuade others, the masses, solely
to place himself and his party in control of the state. The rise of the mass media (e.g. radio) is thus closely associated
with the rise of fascism.
The fascist's manipulation of symbols is not different
in fact from any other symbol manipulation performed by others, save that the fascist's manipulations are exclusively contrived
to win for himself and his party political, state, control. This exclusive preoccupation with his and his party's success
is why we attribute bad faith to the fascist's manipulations.
This attribution of bad faith is a function of
Every journalist knows that there is no such thing
as an "un-slanted" story. A verb and a noun must be selected to describe the first thing to be reported in the first sentence
of the lead paragraph. To the extent the reporter's selection is based on the calculation of the benefit to his party views
in winning power he is to that extent a fascist. At the time of the selection the reporter may not believe he has slanted
the story for this purpose and yet will none the less be thought to have acted in bad faith.
The fascist does not say, "here, see, I now manipulate
in bad faith." To the contrary, the fascist selects just those symbols that will be most convincing to his audience. He seeks
to have good faith attributed to him. Fascism may be regarded as an opportunistic virus in the body politic, taking advantage
of the hopes, dreams, and most especially the beliefs of the polity.
["Blow your cover" ‑‑‑ John
"I don't want to blow anyone's cover."‑‑‑George
"We choose our covers very carefully." Jenna Leachman
West Coast Weekend
No clearer statement by a fascist artist could
be given. The word cover implies concealment, a lie. (To have ones "cover blown," in spy novel jargon, is to have the lie
exposed.) Yet the artist may in good faith believe her `art' is for a just cause, just as the journalist may believe he is
telling "the truth." As noted above even a lie can, if good faith is imputed, be justified. It is
only the observer who, imputing bad faith, can
see fascism as fascism.
To those who think fascists wear brown shirts
and trousers with side stripes and substantial black boots it is no doubt a surprise to find a fascist dressed in tie dyed
blouse and tapered pants with delicate soft shoes. But this is just the sense in which Tony Brown talks of "Black fascists"
and others talk of feminist Nazis. Most people, (M r. L of the M & L Newshour for example?), think fascism is lurking
in some Bavarian forest. [One hears talk of Bavarian `painters.'] It is inconceivable to them that someone they know and like,
their "friends," might be fascists.
Indeed instantly upon the attribution of good
faith fascism disappears, and may become invisible to the fascist herself. This fear of unconscious infection by this virus
causes many to avoid symbol manipulations altogether. Hermits. Others manipulate symbols first one way then another in a vain
attempt not to become part of a recognizable pattern. American journalists who one day speak of the "homeless victim" and
the next deridingly refer to the suspect as a "transient," are an example of this strategy. Another strategy is to select
symbols specifically because they are not accepted, at least by the masses, thus avoiding any chance that one will be believed
or be successful.
At first this might seem a promising solution.
The teacher is an example of this type. The teacher introduces his audience to new ideas which because they are not yet believed
can not be manipulated by the fascist. Unfortunately, as soon as these new symbols are generally accepted their manipulation,
on a mass scale for purposes of acquiring power, becomes possible. For example to the extent communists tried to introduce
new ideas of economic administration they were to that extent distinguishable from fascists.
The fact that communism was divergent from the
way people actually live and therefore could never be generally accepted, only protected communists all the more from fascism.
But again, as with the teacher, as soon as communism was successful in acquiring state power, the new teaching became the
object of fascistic manipulation. This explains why the revolutionary Lenin is thought of differently than Stalin. And even
Stalin who killed more people than did Hitler is still distinguished from the fascists. However, after the newness of communism
faded, the subsequent leaders of the Soviet
Union became, with the passage of time,
with the passage of good faith, to be seen as coldly manipulating the state approved symbols, though they also may have still thought of
themselves as acting in good faith.
The American journalist's strategy unfortunately
is no more successful. First, even a random selection of symbols will on occasion match a fascist's manipulations. Then too,
who can say they can always separate their own party interests from all analysis? The reliance on the consensus of the "journalistic
family" for guidance in how to manipulate the symbols has the obvious defect that the fascist seeks out just these generally
Finally the American journalist's strategy is
most self defeating in avoiding fascism because the very kaleidoscopic view it presents so tears up the intellectual landscape
that the confusion and distortions in the mass understanding of events is fertile ground for fascistic manipulation. The American
media plows the field for the fascist. The bewildered population that one day is told government is spending too much and
the next too little, often by the same journalist, turns from one leader to the next in intellectual disarray, happily accepting
the simplest answers. The fact that the new leader has no philosophy doesn't matter to them as long as he can manipulate the
If it is said, "But if this theory is true, then
the theory predicts that there are more fascists in America
than we have identified." I say: that is right. You must not assume that because you do not attribute bad faith to the actor
that the actor is therefore not a fascist. Consider the mass media's acceptance of Pat Buchanan for example. The fact that
Perot has no complicated philosophy of government does not make symbol manipulation harder for him but much easier.
"A populist conservative ‑‑‑
that is what a fascist is." Guest on Crossfire (What depth of understanding!)
Others may say, ok we see that fascism is a subjective
evaluation and that we may share their ideas and be unaware of the fascism, let us accept that. We understand the idea relating
mass media symbol manipulation with the fascist's taking advantage of popular ideas, for the purpose of gaining power, by
lying. But if this is all true your theory still can not stand because if fails to explain why fascism is almost exclusively
phenomena of the right. You have said that the communists are distinguishable from fascists at least in their early years when
they were trying to bring their ideas into power. But symbol manipulation can be done by anyone, why is it that the right
is always where we find fascists?
I see by this question that you still see fascism
as a historical phenomena associated with a certain "Bavarian painter," not as the process of selection itself.
If it is true that the fascist selects symbols
for their "instrumental" value, because of their hold over the popular imagination, then which symbols would you select if
you wanted to be a successful fascist? Just those symbols that were already accepted. And where are those symbols located?
On the right?
In the popular imagination the "maintenance of
order," the "preservation of traditional values," the "military," the "family," the "mother and father," particularly the
"father," the "church," the "hearth and home," and especially the "nation and State," all are, in every country, associated
with the right wing party in that country.
But to the fascist this is mere happenstance.
Hitler was not interested in the preservation of "values" in terms of the integration of Jews into German society that had
been achieved over the previous century. The "value" of academic freedom was not to be preserved. The "family" was to be subordinated
to the party and then upon ascendancy, to the State, with the new leader as the National Father. There was no room left in
his conception of society for loyalty to "family."
The invocations to God were not professions of
faith but the use of another popular and therefore exploitable symbol. Upon ascendancy Hitler sought to replace the various
denominations with his own church. The "State" was only a symbol that was highly regarded in that country with its history
of central authoritarian rule over the previous century. There was no conservative philosophy of the limited democratic government.
the labor movement was powerful, and socialist ideas had gained much popular support. The fascists were more than willing
to take advantage of this symbol as well. The Nazis were after all "socialist workers." Juan Peron was a creature of the labor
movement that was powerful and popular. Franco was "anti‑communist" but not at all interested in a market economy or
a democratic government. His attempts to associate himself with the popular church did not prevent him from arresting and
Fascists select the most powerful symbols to persuade.
However, the liberal American press and academics
also select those things that they wish to identify as fascistic. The popular imagination is thus directed to the most superficial
evaluations. Many assume that if they are on the left, by definition they can not be fascistic. But any of the above symbols
can be manipulated by anyone.
The fact that one identifies more fascists on
the right than on the left may say more about ones prejudices than about the facts. It tells us to whom the journalists and
academics attribute good faith and to whom they attribute bad faith.
It is a mistake to see the fascists as only evil
hateful people in black boots. Or perhaps this is done to distance oneself from the discomfort of recognizing the similarities
between oneself and ones "friends" and ones "network family" and the fascists? Is that it? Fear of recognition? Much more
comfortable to distance oneself.
We have come to the last refuge, the last hope
of those trying to inoculate themselves against fascism. This last strategy is that one does not hate but loves. One has many
"friends" and is deeply attached to ones home, and values; god? We are happy we can't be fascists.
The fascists used symbols to play on these feelings
as well. After the war thousands of Germans stated they had been misled by Hitler. They testified that, at least in the beginning,
they had not seem the coming catastrophe. Repeated references were made to the movies, and what they had read in the newspapers,
and heard over the radio. Strength Through Joy! Many described their understanding
as a dream like state, as an hallucination.
But they were not believed. The victors regarded
this testimony as face saving lies. Bad faith was attributed to them. A moments reflection on history, however, will reveal
that any society has belief patters which are wildly different over time. But normally, centuries separate these systems,
they are never suddenly juxtaposed but gradually merged over generations. Popular beliefs are separated by time as well as
by geography. Imagine yourself in Germany: A clear sunny day
and many beautiful women showering down flowers on the big Mercedes Benz as it passes slowly. Many smiling faces. The youth
picnic. Jobs for every one! New highways and homes ! The community. "Good feelings." Love. Another powerful symbol.
“I am again calling the Bay of
Biscay . . . Leningrad . . . the Caucasus front,
the U‑boat sailors in the Atlantic." And the stations identified themselves and replied
We ask you, comrades, to sing once more the lovely
old Christmas carol Silent Night. . .
All stations will now join us with this spontaneous
greeting by comrades deep in the south, on the Black Sea.
Now they are already singing in the Arctic
Ocean off Finland, and now we are switching in
all the other stations, Leningrad, Stalingrad. And now France . . . Catane . . . Africa.
And now they are all singing together: Sleep in heavenly peace. Sleep in heavenly peace.”
Wehrmacht Radio, Christmas Eve, 1942
Saul Friedlander, Reflections of Nazism
Friedlander comments that the song the Nazis chose for this occasion was "Not 'Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles,' Not `Heute
gehort uns Deutschland,' not the 'Horst Wessel Lied,' but the song of nostalgia, of home, of piety: `Silent Night, Holy Night.' The universe of purity fuses with that religious imagery, with the mythic
candor that marks the beginnings of the world.
"By definition, for Nazism looks backward, back
to the lost premodern world, the archaic universe of before the deluge. Unlike Marxism, which reaches out to the society of
tomorrow. Liberalism, too, turns toward the future . . . For Nazism, however, the model of future society is only a reflection
of the past."
Yes, the past with all its familiar symbols and
So what are you saying? There is no immunization
Yes, now we understand. I think we can dispense
with fascism as a noun, for it is a process.
Fascism is taking place now, as you read this
sentence. It is not located in a geographical place, Bavaria, or lurking in a "basement" (R.R.‑M&L) but can be felt
in the muscles of your eyes as they are drawn across this page. It occurs as you select out what is meaningful and evaluate
it, even as you are reading this.
Your choice to be satisfied with the way this
sentence ends, or your choice to feel that is not quite right. How and why you
make these choices, the answer to these questions, is where you will find fascism. Of course, everyone invariably attributes
good faith to themselves, and their "friends." Do you see the problem?
Of the journalists I ask:
Do the words " social control" appear before you?
What is your reaction? Do you attribute bad faith to the writer who put those words, " social control," in front of you, do
you call him fascist? This choice, this process of selection and attribution, is fascism as process.
Do you arrange the public humiliation of this
writer my means of symbol manipulation on the mass media? (Radio?) Do you know those who did? Do you attribute good faith
to them because they are your "friends," because they are your "network family?" Do the symbols of job, career, friendship,
love merge into a good faith attribution?
Mr. President, you see the problem, Sir, they
too "believe." For them social control and human freedom are two separate disconnected ideas. They are two wholly self contained
seamless systems of thought: SYMBOLS. But real ideas are not so perfect. The habit of many peoples around the world to intentionally
place an imperfection in their work, a "mistake," to allow the evil spirit to escape may have more truth than we know. The
recognition of an imperfection in ones system of thought, a contradiction is a window, it allows one to look out into other
systems of thought, into the unknown, to question, to doubt.
These journalists are like chimpanzees playing
with a coin. On one side of the coin is human freedom and on the other social control. One of the dominant males picks up
the coin and tosses it up into the air. It comes down: human freedom. The chimpanzees are happy, they let out a long chimpanzee
laugh, "He, He, He, He, He." They hug each other and pick lice out of each other's coats. They strut around their heads way
back looking into the sky, "He, He, He, He, He," hands dragging on the ground.
Then a dominant female slips forward and tosses
the coin into the air: social control. There is panic. Lips are drawn back from the teeth. Males push each other away and
the females gather together, forearms drawn over the eyes. Loud cries of anger and aggression. Fascism !!! What happened to
human freedom? For them it simply disappeared.
"Doctor Wilson, when will you men
stop being so aggressive and violent?"
"Just as soon madam as you women
stop selecting the most aggressive and violent males to mate with."
Mr. President, I don't think they
quite have got it yet. They want to understand but can't quite get the point, "But what is the source then, of this `process'
fascism, where does it come from?" they are asking.
They don't understand that it is
sitting across from them at the highly polished cherry wood table as its manicured hand adjusts the pearl necklace and picks
up the sterling silver salad fork.
Its gold cufflinks brush against
the edge of that same table, and later glisten in the lights from the cars on the road as it holds the steering wheel confidently.
It exists in the feel of the satin
skin of the inner thigh, and the touch of lips.
And if they would just close one
eye they could see the tip of it.
“But when you go talking about
how to raise our babies. That's too personal, um‑hun,
don't be messing with our families,
not our babies, that's just too personal. Em‑hun.”
There is this fundamental inarticulateness
in the media and government, Mr. President. There is an inability to engage in a discussion, to use rhetoric. But this defect
is not the result of illiteracy or a lack of "education" but is the result of a fundamental inability to reflect on human
existence even at the most basic level. They live in an utterly fragmented and abstracted world of symbols.
After the riots, on Sunday Morning,
C.K. is talking to a reporter in Los
Angeles. How far have race relations come in America?
The reporter holds up his hand and with the index finger next his thumb says, "about this far." It is a visual thing. You
see? Dumbly he looks into the camera forlornly and then at his thumb and index finger, "about this far." Billions in technology,
years of experience, an education the best in the world and we have this, just this mute, looking at his thumb in the air,
with this forlorn expression.
Magister Ludi as a warning. He was warning the followers of the Way, the people of Der Steppenwolf, the people of the magic
theater, against leaving their country to live with the lotus eaters in the land of perfect symbols, (the glass beads).
Anita Hill before the Judiciary Committee,
for example, is described in terms of the visual image of this "Black Woman" and those "Old White Men." The symbol of the
domination of women by men, of Blacks by Whites. That the witness, this law school graduate, this former attorney with the
E. E. O. C., this law school professor, testified specifically that she was not claiming she was a victim of sexual harassment
is an inconvenient fact.
The symbol becomes the bumper sticker,
"I believe you Anita." You see, Mr. President, your affirmation again. Just what do they believe? That the witness repeatedly
asked the man to stop making lewd remarks? For no claim was made of physical force, or the use of the power of the employer,
e.g. pay, work load, assignment, promotion, in order to compel or "induce." The witness followed the man on to other employment.
What is believed? That sexual harassment
is wrong? But this was not claimed. That lewd talk is wrong? But how will this social problem be stopped if we do not take
action? She says she stood up to him, repeatedly, and the talk stopped. But she is not satisfied. Why did she not do more
at the time? She said she wanted "tenure." What now is the meaning of the symbol? That women will place jobs before honor?
That she is a careerist?
We are told we should understand
and be sensitive to her situation. What if it was your daughter, sister, mother? I would say, `do as she did,' stand up to
him. File a complaint. Arrange to have a witness overhear. I would try and think `what would Bobby have done?' Wear a wire?
You know, f‑‑‑ `m. This would be my message. But what is the message that was sent? That women are victims
of circumstance? No, not even that, just the symbol, "Black Woman" and the "Old White Men."
Is this what is believed? But whatever
the facts of these issues, what concerns us here is the symbol manipulation, the visual of the "Black Women" and the "Old
White Men." That the difficulty women face in society and employment should be the subject of public discussion is doubted
by no one that I know, or have ever met. It is pure affectation for the radicals to claim
that only they in good
faith care about these issues. It is their attribution of good faith to themselves
that allows them to trump up a few incidents of bad manners into a constitutional question.
Such is the power of self attributed “good faith” to induce hallucinations.
It is a kind of drug.
But the Senate chose not to be the forum for this discussion. The Senators concluded that the business of the Senate
would not be changed by this discussion. As the nominee was confirmed in any case this judgment was also confirmed. Many may
argue that the "Old White Men" were wrong. One may argue with them if one wishes, but this is not what was done.
Anita Hill did not go to the steps of the Capitol and speak or hand out her notice. She did not nail a proclamation
to the door. The Senators were not engaged in a debate; rhetoric, and "rational" discourse were not employed. Rather a social
situation was engineered. The "Black Woman" was placed before the "Old White Men." A symbol was created.
By trick and device the Senate was used. The Constitutional rights and prerogatives of the United States Senate were
stolen. The Senate was brought into disrepute. Disrepute not caused by the weight of superior argument but because of the
use of a symbol. The Senator's arguments for not holding public hearings were not examined, nor their decision challenged
with just argument. You see the power of the symbol (?), it crushes with its uncomprehending irrational weight. Fascism?
The witness since July of 1991, when first contacted by the press, had chosen not to come forward with her claims.
She chose not to issue a proclamation. If she had the Senate may well have chosen to yield to her arguments for why she should
be heard. In order to engineer the symbol it was necessary to create the story in the mass media. That the witness was widely
regarded as a liar did not matter for the symbol manipulators, only the symbol was important. If one attributes good faith
even lies can be justified.
Any of us may select out any number of facts, and in good faith call them good or bad, as we "believe." But the process
of fascistic selection always is based on the calculation of mass manipulation of symbols, not the rational discussion of
ideas. The mass media chose not to cover the story, that they had known about since July. There was not "news" there. For
one thing the witness declined to talk to them, but there were others who were willing.
Someone in the Senate chose over the expressed wishes of his constitutional peers, to over ride their decision. This
person made this decision based on the calculation that he and his party would receive some benefit. This individual could
have chosen to
statements stating the contentions of lewd talk. He could have done this and still protected the confidentiality
of the witness who had declined to come forward. He could have published pamphlets, quoted witnesses, used rhetoric, started
a debate. But debate was not what was wanted. The symbol was what was wanted.
This Senator chose to lie, chose to violate the
rules of the Senate. This violation alone was sufficient to attract the attention of the media. Now these reporters had a
"cover" to justify their participation in mass media symbol manipulation, about a story they admit they knew about since July.
Imagine the supreme self confidence of that Senator.
We could draw up a psychological profile of that individual. His sense of moral superiority over his constitutional peers
may have resulted from his success in life. For example he might be so highly placed in society that he could make, say, $50,000
in a single deal over the telephone. However, his sense of moral superiority might well come from his self identification
as a "VICTIM." In psychological terms "VICTIMS" are indistinguishable from supreme egoists. Both feel that the rules ought
not to apply to them.
For example the Nazis saw themselves as "VICTIMS"
and their constant talk of "super men" can easily be seen as the "VICTIM'S" attempt to compensate for his sense of inadequacy.
"Success" in life is not at all contradictory with self identification as a "VICTIM." Indeed the "VICTIM" may well try harder
to succeed in life just because of this self identification. The "VICTIM" may become a successful businessman, and run for
the Senate, may graduate from Yale and become a successful Marin County "personal and business counselor," become a law school
professor with "tenure," and yet still see themselves as the "VICTIM."
And if it is said, "But now look at who is psychoanalyzing
! You said this was wrong." I argue on the contrary, I am not saying his acts are questioned because of this psychological
profile, not at all. His acts are wrong because he violated Senate rules. Why he violated the rules is not at issue. He is
not being criticized because he is a supreme egoist or because of his self identification as a "VICTIM," the two are indistinguishable,
but because he violated Senate rules. He leaked a confidential document, to one boy reporter and to one girl reporter. That
was a nice touch.
Now we have these elements Mr. President: 1, the symbol designed to appeal
to some simple mass understanding, 2, its manipulation in the mass media, 3, a calculation of party advantage in that particular
manipulation for control of the state, 4, the absence of any interest in creating doubt about either the symbol or the popular
notions that the symbol satisfies in the public mind.
We have then, Mr. President, all the elements necessary to satisfy the
proposed definition of fascism, save, the last: bad faith. This element must be attributed to the actor by the observer.
When I advised the Senate of my opinions on your Constitutional powers
as Commander in Chief, when I warned the Senate that the powers of the Executive would be expanded, that the Senate would
lose a Constitutional privilege, (immunity from Treason for giving aid and comfort in time of war, along with every other
citizen), upon a Declaration of War, I was widely labeled a fascist. 1 did not threaten the Senate, much less defraud it in
the mass media, I warned it. 1 averred then and now that the Senate had the power to confine the army to base, to abolish
it entirely if it wished; but not the Navy, which must be maintained. I said it could and can establish any rules it likes
for the Regulation and Government of the military.
that time the symbol was "the power" of Congress and the manipulation in the media was exclusively devoted to "the vote."
The media was used for partisan gain, to exploit the popular misconceptions of the Constitution.
Now here we have a case where truly all the elements of the definition
seem to have been met, yet, because the liberal journalists are friends of the boy and girl reporters, and the various activists
who defrauded the Senate, and of that Senator who is a liar, because they attribute good faith to their symbol manipulation,
no charge, or even thought of fascism exists.
The King Affair
shock of recognition may cause discomfort in some. The brighter ones may be thinking, `are we little Hitlers?' Others, may
feel, `the argument fails for its absurdity.'
of course you are not Hitlers. You do not want to engage in global war or exterminate the "inferior races." You are still
thing historically not in terms
of process. Peron did not seek
adventures outside of his country, nor did Franco. Neither of them sought to exterminate races. After consolidation Franco
sought to "eliminate" his opposition as did Peron and his successors (over 10,000 in the `70s and `80s), but these policies
have been seen before in history.
The question is not are you "Hitters" but whether your selection process and use of symbols
in the mass media is fascistic?
Fascism can be traced back to Roman times where the word originated. But what distinguishes
fascism in our century is the mass manipulation of symbols for state control. Military conquest is not an exclusive characteristic,
nor is genocide unique to fascism. Stalin, the Turks, Pol Pot, all have killed millions. Buddhists were exterminated in India,
and millions have been murdered by the Chinese in Tibet. Hitler's industrial system of genocide was as new, as it was monstrous,
but Mussolini, Peron, Franco are no less fascists.
The manipulation of symbols is unavoidable. It is true that, for example, auto manufacturers
may manipulate mass media symbols in order to take advantage of the public's gullibility and convince them to purchase the
advertised products. The fact that they do not want to raise any doubts in their audience doesn't make their symbol manipulation
fascistic. These advertisers are not seeking state control.
The ‑rise of fascism in our century is a technique, a means, for gaining state control,
it is not a set of policies or crimes.
The repeated broadcast of "the beating" tape, (for that is what the mass media called it
from the first), was never once interrupted with a frame by frame analysis. Repeated assertions were made that other "police
officers" had viewed the tape and were unanimous that the "four White police officers" were unprofessional. But these alleged
experts were never presented on the mass media. Not until the fires were burning did anyone interview the defense or defense
experts for the other side.
No graphics of the hour long chase were ever presented. No interviews with the other motorists
and pedestrians whose lives had been put at risk were reported. There was no discussion of the problem of drunk drivers or
the rules relating to the ramming of a fleeing suspect's car. No officers were interviewed about how it feels to chase a drunk
driver for an hour and the risk to the officers involved. What goes through your head? Does the adrenaline affect your judgment?
No officers or legal experts were interviewed to discuss if 26
there is a difference in law between an "unprofessional" and a "criminal" use of the night
stick. There is. Indeed none of those who now decry the verdict or who before the trial had already found the "four White
police officers" guilty of a crime has yet told us which of the "56" uses of the night stick, in "81" seconds, were lawful,
unprofessional, subject to a civil suit, or criminal.
But all of these examples are either too small, too big, too complicated,
for the simple symbol manipulation of the mass media: hence the association of the mass media with fascism. For it is in the
simple symbol manipulation of the mass media that fascism finds its home.
Just making these points exposes one to the charge that one does not
understand the "real" issues.
Its like a child who has been starved for so long . . . like you see in the photos of a
famine. The ribs sticking out. And then this child is placed at a buffet and there is all this food. A whole table of different
foods. But he doesn't know what to eat. It has been so long, you see. So he thinks should I eat the red foods, then the green
ones, you know, should he choose by color? Or by smell? Texture? He doesn't know.
( She makes me so irritated. )
OK, you tell me, what are the "real" issues?
"THE BLACK VICTIM" and the "four White police officers." This visual
became the symbol. This symbol was placed, literally placed, next to the symbol of civil rights demonstrators being beaten
thirty years ago. These are totally closed systems not subject to doubt, (symbols), and the mass media manipulators had no
interest in creating any doubt about this symbol.
That Mr. King was not a civil rights demonstrator but a drunken motorist
who was resisting arrest, had done so for over an hour, was still doing so even after repeated blows, did not in any way change
this symbol. A symbol is a symbol precisely because it is not challenged. Does anyone claim that all of the "56" blows in
"81" seconds were criminal? The mass media manipulators never tell us. Were 20 criminal, 20 unprofessional and giving rise
to civil action, 10 unprofessional but lawful, and 6 lawful, or is it just the opposite ?
There is no exclusionary rule for the
use of the night stick. A 27
reasonable juror need not be a "racist" to find that the first 20 blows
were lawful. Reasonable jurors might well disagree whether the next 10 were unprofessional or even criminal. When the suspect
gets up again the use of the night stick becomes lawful, once again, even if the prior ten were found to be criminal.
For example, the officers may well not have realized that one or more
of their number had delivered criminal blows, but their right to have their repeated orders, "stay down," obeyed, can not
be doubted. If one is hit illegally by an officer does one have a right to take law into ones own hands and as Senator Bradley
has advised "elbow them right back?" [We will return to this.] This social policy might lead to a more disciplined police
force, but more likely it will lead to anarchy. Which is what we got.
The suspect's new legal status as a victim of a crime did not relieve
him of his duty and obligation to obey the prior given lawful order of the police, "stay down." The jurors were not asked
to give an opinion if the blows were unprofessional, only if they were criminal. One officer had already been fired as the
union contract permitted this. The other three "White police officers" had been suspended without pay. The jurors could well
have thought that the officers had acted badly, but not with evil intent, which is what is required in criminal law.
The lawyers no doubt will object, and say that intent is implied by
the reasonable and predictable consequences of ones acts. Officers flailing away with their night sticks will in law be presumed
to have intended the criminal act. Yet this is why before the trial, indeed for hundreds of years, citizens have arranged
their courts so as not to be judged by lawyers. The citizens do not trust the "legal mind" for justice. It's too cold.
The average layman, for example, if he shows up late at his place of
employment may be reprimanded, his pay may be docked, he may even be fired. But a lawyer who shows up late may be held in
contempt of court and sent to jail. The average layman does not hold to so tight a use of the criminal law. An officer who
"looses his cool" may make the juror angry but the juror may well overlook one, five, even twenty extra strokes of the night
sticks, if he finds the officers were "provoked."
In the end they did not continue to hit the suspect. They stopped, eventually.
They did not use deadly force but rather the night stick their employer, the people, had given them presumably for just this
purpose. They did not connect electrical wires to his 28
genitals as is done in some countries, run him over with their cars, take him in hand cuffs
to be beaten further. The defense made a plausible connection between the use of the night sticks and the facts of the situation,
Officers who were present but not charged, testified that the "four
White police officers" had used too much force. Yet these officers did not come forward at the time. Is this because they
also were fearful of the suspect who was resisting arrest?
The media reported after the verdict that the defense had been "allowed"
to show the tape frame by frame. Were these reporters implying that the defense should not have been "allowed" access to all
the physical evidence? If so they should have said so before the verdict, in fact before the "crime." The truth is that these
media light weights do not have any theory about how trials should be conducted.
This is what is wrong with American journalism. They enjoy a good living,
the comforts of their society, but decline to take responsibility for it. "The defense was allowed to show the tape
frame by frame." Those shysters! Not, "The defense showed the tape frame by frame." The
media manipulators did not want to show the tape frame by frame and identify the criminal blows, because for them it was a
symbol, not evidence. As soon as a verdict comes down with which they disagree they run for cover and attribute bad faith
to the jury, the courts, society, not withstanding the fact that we, and the media, are presumed to have accepted the rules.
In a democracy we are the sovereign. If the police are poorly trained
or regulated it is as much the fault of the journalists as anyone. If the court failed to follow the rules of evidence and
criminal procedure the journalists should have told us so. The journalist do no one any favors by taking the position that
they owe no loyalty to anything. They too are members of this society and have the same obligation to foster understanding
of the complexities of our law as any judge.
The journalist reported the testimony of the officer who testified against
the other three in the most disparaging terms. This officer stated he had not "kicked" the suspect, as charged, but had "stomped"
on him. The young reporters thought this comical. Yet a review of the tape clearly show this officer putting the sole of his
shoe on the suspect, who was then prone for the third time. The officer said he wanted to make sure the suspect stayed down
this time, the third time, and did not try to
The officers use of the non genteel "stomped" was meant to communicate to
the jury that he had done more than just "stepped" on the suspect. He had wanted to convey to the suspect in as urgent a fashion
as he could, that the suspect should not again, as he had done twice before, get up, but should "stay down!" Far from being
comical this officer's testimony was supported by the tape for next he testified that he stepped over the suspect and blocked
the night stick of another officer who was preparing to strike yet again.
The jury may well have assumed that if even this officer was to be charged with the others
then clearly these men were charged with a crime due to a very close reading of the law indeed. This officer's testimony that
he thought too many blows had been struck may not have inclined the jury to think the others criminal so much as to believe
that if this defendant was charged then they should be skeptical of the other charges as well.
What ever the "truth" of the facts in the trial of the "four White police officers" may
be what is of interest to us here is the manipulation of symbols in the mass media. The mass media did not present both sides
of "the beating" because it was not subject to analysis. For the manipulators it was a symbol.
Don't Blame the Victim
The very fact that to engage in this discussion is suspect explains the inarticulateness
of our society. The symbol is a symbol just because it is unexamined. And it is no good to say that we haven't had "tiiiime"
or enough space. These limitations argue for greater care in ones symbol selection and manipulation not less care. There was
time to repeatedly broadcast "the beating" tape. Is the manipulation done to cause the reader or viewer to question, to search
for deeper meanings, or to confirm the manipulator's own party views?
Whether one has three minutes or thirty minutes the issue is the same. To show the weeping
face of the "mother" whose children have been taken away form her for one and a half minutes, then to show the social worker's
supervisor for another one and a half minutes may be fair but the time spent on each isn't going to be the criterion. That
story exists in a whole social context, the least of which is not the popular understanding and reaction.
The simplistic approach taken by the media is the main
reason that the public discussion is so limited. For the media to say it has no obligation
to support a public policy that requires the children of drug addicts be taken away is to simply fragment the social consensus.
For liberal reporters to say that there should be more drug treatment programs, or that government should do a better job
of keeping drugs out of society, in no way supports the anarchic intellectual environment it has created.
media is communicating with a largely illiterate population that has been turned out by our schools. For the media to claim
that it is not a "propaganda" tool of the state misses the point that the media is shaping the society. It has no choice.
It has multiple obligations the first of which is to recognize that the symbols it uses are not of equal kind. A complex social
situation with mountains of sociological research and volumes of political and philosophical arguments, all of which are unknown
to their mass audience, are not proportional to the anguished face of the grief stricken mother.
how the social policy regarding Medicare was changed due to the symbol of a Congressman being rocked in his car by a group,
a small group, of protesters. It is very easy for the manipulators to claim that the politicians should "stand up" to their
symbol manipulation, it is more difficult for them to bring balance and perspective to their own use of symbols, especially
when they all agree with each other in their "objective" happy "network family." The manipulation of these various symbols
before the mass audience, taking into account these reactions to these very different symbols, is what communication is all
about. Know your audience.
assertion of the media that its audience is "smarter than that," or "smarter than they are given credit for," etc. far from
giving one confidence merely confirms what has been suspected. The media manipulators put less weight on the reaction of the
audience to its symbols than they should: Oh, they will figure it out. A kind of absent minded approach the results of which
we see in the smoke over Los Angeles. I am reminded of the flew Yorker cartoon of the owner saying to her dog, "Ralph, you
are such a good boy. Do you want to go to the park? I'll get your leash, Ralph." And what the dog hears is "Ralph, bla bla
bla, park, bla bla bla, Ralph."
of Los Angeles have been shown crying out for "justice" including the Mayor at the beginning of the riots. Justice is a symbol
whose meaning can be fixed as in the phrase, "Blacks get no justice," or there is not "justice in California 31
courts, anyway not Semi Valley
courts." But is it justice when a mother uses crack? That, to use Gilder's arresting phrase, "fatherless boys with knives"
should hang out around liqueur stores? Or that they should be fatherless? That children arrive at school not knowing the shape
circle or the color purple? Are the mothers and fathers of these children just? Justice does not exist in courts but in the
ethos of the society. Laws are not "justice," but one, and only one, attempt by society to secure justice, in society. Justice
has a broader, and far more profound meaning than the media manipulators allow. Why are they so narrow? Why do they apply
their scrutiny so selectively? Party prejudice?
the greater injustice, that once down and in substantial compliance the suspect continues to be hit with night sticks, or
that over forty people are killed, and a billion dollars in property is destroyed? Will the symbol manipulators spend the
same amount of time examining the rioters and their "injustice" as they spent examining the injustice of "the beating?"
pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,
pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,
pow, pow, pow, pow, pow, pow,
United States Senator Bradley
United States Senate
the fires were still burning. At a time of crisis we
to our leaders. We hope for words of guidance.)
Who are the
political, religious, social leaders of south central L.A.? Will they be held to the same scrutiny as the society that employed
the "four White police officers?" Or, if not, will the manipulators depict these "community leaders" in a sympathetic light?
One may choose any symbols and manipulate them as one likes, but the issue is why did the media show only one side to "the
beating" and the verdict, and the police, and the courts? Why not show the police in a sympathetic light? Will the media ask
if the "community" of south central L.A. is just? Perhaps the verdict was unjust but then perhaps the "community" of south
central L.A. is unjust. If one wishes to take up a critical perspective why apply it only to the institutions of the society
but never apply this critical gaze to the "communities" that make
up this society?
have symbols within symbols. Let us take this letter as an example Mr. President. The first symbol was your affirmation, "1
believe," which was initially praised for its insightfulness. In subsequent pages the original symbol was fragmented with
a bewildering array of examples. (Yes, this is too long, but then, you have to read it don't you. If you want to stay in the
know.) It has been argued that a symbol is a closed system not subject to challenge. That as soon as it is it no longer is
a symbol. Yet we must use symbols to create doubt, to cause the reader to look more deeply. Contradiction?
words in this sentence each have definitions. To establish a meaning these definitions must be fixed, the words become symbols.
But the context of the words is important. A sentence can be construed first one way then another. As these new meanings are
applied the symbol is changed, it no longer is closed.
the Mayor of Los Angeles to decry the lack of "justice" he must fix the meaning of the word and it becomes a symbol. As soon
as he is challenged the symbol breaks down into the various possible meanings. To the extent we allow only one meaning to
attach we have a symbol. The world is infinitely more complex than can be captured in any sentence, save possibly the sentence,
1 love you.
the extent that we narrow our world down to just one meaning we miss out on the possibility of greater truth. For example
the rule of symbol selection, "don't blame the victim," fails to capture the fact that the status of victim should not exempt
one from all criticism. What would you do if you saw red police lights in your rear view mirror? What to think about a professor
who puts pubic hairs in returned 92)
is being said when we say the death penalty is wrong? We are saying to the friends and family of the murdered that their desire
for vengeance is wrong. It is a criticism of them. We are not "blaming" them for being victims but we are saying that their
rage goes too far. We can not say in any final sense that they are unjust, only that, just or unjust as it may be, we do not
"believe" that the state should kill those whom we can imprison. There are multiple meanings and obligations. The Mayor of
L.A. was not interested in discussing the varied meanings of justice on the night of the riot, only one.
For example, your use of the Horton controversy in the campaign was said to have been 1, a symbol, "The Black
Criminal," 2, in the mass media,
3, for political gain, 4, exclusively, with no intention to convey the complexity of the symbol. In your case bad faith was
applied to you. You were accused of "playing the race card." Which is itself a symbol which I do not fully understand but
which I note is only applied to conservatives, for liberals can shamelessly refer to race, as in "the four White police officers,"
with no "race card" symbol attached. For example, that Senator Gore also thought the Horton controversy significant is an
inconvenient fact for the liberals.
Democrats and Republicans in the State Legislature of the State of Massachusetts alike denounced the Governor's decision to
support the strange bureaucratic logic of the Bureau of Prisons, i.e. "in order to control the prisoners, we have to let them
out," is another inconvenient fact.
Mr. Horton was Black was for me a detail. That he was a convicted murderer on a life sentence, out on furlough, committing
a new series of crimes, including kidnapping, torture, battery, assault, burglary, and rape, because of a policy designed
to help the Massachusetts Prison bureaucrats make their job of controlling their inmate population easier, was for me symbolic
of the failure of our liberal society to screw itself up to face that difficult issue of: Social Control.
we all manipulate symbols. And if we are running for president we must use the mass media, hopefully for our party's gain.
However, as to the fourth element, the duty to take these symbols and manipulate them so as to show their varied meaning,
to cause the audience to ponder, new meanings, it is clear your campaign failed to do this.
was seen so many times before in the Reagan presidency your campaign advisers steered away from an elaboration of the issues
raised. The "professional" campaign advisers will at this point complain that a campaign is not an educational institution.
This is typical of the anti intellectual environment of America. Presumably the symbol was selected because it showed the
candidate's competitive advantages in the best light. As it is no more difficult to place a multidimensional symbol before
the public than a unidimensional symbol the rotation of the multidimensional shows the candidate's additional advantages.
Far from being
less competitive, the use and rotation of multidimensional symbols not only shows the public additional meanings, which is
"educational," but the work that went into creating the symbol in the mass media yields higher returns. A compounding breakthrough
is achieved as each new rotation in the
light of the mass media, shows
additional strengths, the audience's opinions are changed. The complaint by some politicians that the other side has "stolen"
an issue is ludicrous. Their idea has not been "stolen" but accepted. This is the point of democracy.
do not attribute bad faith to your campaign dropping the other implications raised by the criticism of the faulty logic, "in
order to control the prisoners, we have to let them out." Far from it. You were forced to give up the possibility of exploiting
the other issues and their implications for other policies in schools, workfare, ect. The liberal media environment would
not allow this discussion.
I would not want what has happened
to one local scribbler to happen to you, Mr. President. This scribbler who wrote a few letters suggesting there ought to be
a more thoughtful discussion of the social view of control, was labeled a fascist, his privacy was invaded, the champions
of free speech at KQED set him upon. KQED subjected him to what amounts to psychological torture.
"Who was that conservative essayist . . .? You know the one who wrote that
essay about that Republican woman? His name began with a ‘C or a K,' a `C' or a`K?' . . . . what was his name?" "Fake
West Coast Weekend
this poisonous environment your campaign did well to move on to other issues. It is a pity Mr. Horton wasn't White. For I
suspect that the media manipulators used his "blackness" as a "cover" in order to prevent a public discussion of the symbolic
policy, "in order to control the prisoners, we have to let them out." There was no possibility of discussing social control.
If society will not tolerate this discussion about a convicted murderer is it likely you would have been permitted to discuss
issues of control in schools, housing projects, streets, etc.?
is the great disadvantage the Republicans face. The mass media manipulators in the movies, TV, the radio, and print
are for the most part, liberals.
The conservatives in general have failed to cultivate relations with these manipulators: the artists, writers, actors, directors,
singers, as well as journalists. The boorish Republicans fail to recognize their power and the importance of engaging them
riots did start because of the Mayor's condemnation of the verdict and his use of the symbol justice, our path to the riot
had been started long before. The media's symbolic manipulation of "the beating" tape also was not the main cause. The verdict
itself was not the primary cause.
are waves of meaning which echo out from each, of these, but the social ethos does not result from any one of them. The riots
started with the inability of this society to examine itself, because the symbol manipulators use the mass media to limit
the public discussion. They do so thinking they are acting in good faith.
will seem unfair that DPM, who was wrongly criticized for the last word in this phrase, for nearly two decades, will now be
criticized for the first, but at least now the criticism will be accurate.
Moynihan was wrongly accused of "neglect" because there has not been a more tireless supporter and advocate for government
aid to our less well off citizens. The Senator did not mean we should be neglectful in any material way. What he was referring
to was the condition of race relations. The government had by then corrected the legal defects in our society that had blocked
the movement of Black Americans into the larger society. He had foreseen the creation of the Black middle class, the success
of those talented Black Americans who had for so long been frustrated by our vexatious society.
he had also foreseen the difficulties faced by those who for non legal reasons were to be frustrated by the demands of an
advanced industrial society. In the sixties, for example, there was a new wave of immigration from the South and those most
recently arrived would, like all new immigrants have to learn a new life. This would take time. Then too there was the poverty
of those whom American society had kept out for so long. Their work to develop a new life also would take time.
as noted earlier, even a teacher's best efforts to bring into being new ideas can be turned into simple symbols for manipulation
by the mass media. And this is what happened to Senator Moynihan's Benign Neglect. Like all good things it was taken too far.
Neglect became "don't blame the victim."
of anyone the media and society had officially approved
as a victim was forbidden.
Mr. Hooks, of the N.A.A.C.P., states that a decision was made long ago in the civil rights movement not to balance criticism,
but to focus on White Society. The symbol of injustice to Black Americans was not to be rotated in the mass media to show
the varied meaning of injustice, and especially not to show Black American's injustices. It was an "instrumental" decision.
(We will forgo our analysis.) But the result is clear for all to see:
"Blacks don't hate anyone."
U. S. Representative Waters
Waters is lost in a day dream, she is out of touch, though she too thinks she is acting in good faith. The rioters were not
listening to Senator Bradley or the Mayor of L. A. There are spheres of, knowledge. In their circle of friends for a generation
attitudes and understandings have been formed. There are waves of meaning that come from many sources. The absence of critical
perspective in the mass media is both a cause and a reflection of deeper social attitudes.
Mr. President, to put it into the vernacular is , "Let's leave these people alone for now, we screwed them around long enough."
It is the silence of regret, sorrow, and remorse.
silence, for all of its good faith, none the less can, and has lead to all sorts of mischief.
yourself in Nazi Germany. The Jewish woman from across the hall comes to your door. She has a pot with some utensils. She
says she and her family are ordered to move tomorrow to the "new Jewish quarter." You are Germans, you have lived separate
lives. You have visited. You have taken your children to the playground together. She wants you to have these things she can
not put in her suitcases. She looks at you. You are "friends." There is a look. Her eyes ask, will it be all right?
This is devastating.
You think it is wrong. You may even have campaigned against Hitler. Voted for the other party. But what can you do? Also there
is embarrassment, an uncomfortable situation. The mass media does not recognize this injustice. Society is silent. When do
any of us know when to take up arms? When to fight? We are all citizens of Weimar. We each depend on our community, the bonds
of affection, intellectual honesty, we trust in good faith. Will it be all right?
situation is different? What is happening in the inner
cities is a kind of Holocaust.
Silence isn't going to help. Conservatives, having badly bungled the civil rights issue were not in a position to say anything.
First they failed to explain their theory that the market economy would naturally correct the racial imbalance. But this policy
was mistaken, for the imbalance was not caused by the market economy but by government decree. Then they failed to appreciate
the uses of (real) Affirmative Action to accelerate the correction. A thoroughly botched job.
So we kept
silent. Not my problem. It is an embarrassment. We wish the problem would go away. We trust that someone will intervene. All
that is required is for good men to keep quiet.
to Nazi Germany is over drawn. Yet there are similarities. What does one do when, in substantial compliance, one continues
to be beaten by the police? What can any of us do? We are citizens of Weimar. We trust? We hope that the community will come
to our aid.
In Mr. King's
case people came forward. One officer intervened and stopped the beating, the only one to do so, though he too was charged.
Others testified. One officer was fired, the only one who could be fired. The others were suspended without pay. Charges were
filed. A trial, according to the law, was held. But the mass media did not regard any of this in a favorable light. They chose
to turn "the beating" into a symbol: "see the black man being beaten." Later it was a "travesty" of "justice" and this too
became a symbol for manipulation in the mass media. To what effect we saw. The media manipulators are standing outside our
society, looking in. Social understanding of complexity is someone else's responsibility. They are silent.
scribbler I told you about earlier, was taken to KQED's studio not so he could be introduced. Not even so the radicals at
KQED could argue with him. They wanted to show that they could control his life. That they could physically manipulate him.
They wanted to demonstrate their mastery over him. The fact that he did not know what was happening to him made it all the
better. His privacy. was invaded. Psychologically tortured.
Many at P.B.S.
and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and KQED are familiar with the facts. But they do not come forward. They know
it was wrong, but they wish the problem would go away. It is an embarrassing situation for them. And there you are. They attribute
to themselves and their "friends" in their "network family" good faith. They are silent.
convinced that they are in the right. They, as you said Sir, "believe." That's all there is to it. Weimar.
Eleanor Holmes Norton?
What shall be the order of
the child, and what shall be the manner of his work?
Judges, XII1, 12
New Ruskin College
Very truly yours;
real University, he said, has no specific location. It owns no property, pays no salaries and receives no material dues. The
real University is a state of mind. It is that great heritage of rational thought that has been brought down to us through
the centuries and which does not exist at any specific location. It's a state of mind which is regenerated throughout the
centuries by a body of people who traditionally carry the title of professor, but even that title is not part of the real
University. The real University is nothing less than the continuing body of reason
itself." ‑‑‑ Robert M. Pirsig,
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
special guests: Senator Hollings, Representative
Dr. Richard T. La Pointe
Regional Education Board
Director, U. S. Dept. of Education
Secretary, Dept of Education
Director, Dept. of Education
Deputy Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece
Secretary, U. S. Dept of Education
Oak Ridge National Labratory
U. S. Dept. of Education
Secretary, U. S. Dept. of Energy
Lynn Martin Sam Skinner
U. S. Dept. of Labor
Chief of Staff, the White House
United States of America
Biden 2Senator Bingaman
3Senator Bond 4Senator
Bumpers 6Senator Byrd
7Govern. Bayh 8Govern.Campbell
Cochran 10Senator Cohen
Gephardt 18Rep. Gingrich
19Senator Gore 20Senator
Heflin 22Senator Helms
26Senator R. Kerry
28SenatorLott 29Senator Lugar
29.5 Senator Metzenbaum
31SenatorMoynihan 32Sentator Nunn
33Rep. Obey 34Senator
Pinetta 36Govern. Romer
Specter 40Senator Simon
41 Senator Seymour
Wallop 44Senator Warner
46 Govern. Wilson
will be allowed to view these documents on alternate Tuesdays on even numbered
months by permission of the Ludi Magistor.
© COPYRIGHT 2010,
2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, by NewRuskinCollege.com
All Rights Reserved.