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

Old January 9th, 2010 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default history of conservatism in U.S.

jew Rothbard on the "betrayal" of the American right

http://mises.org/store/Betrayal-of-t...-The-P434.aspx
 
Old January 9th, 2010 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

According to Rothbard, the corruption of the right began in the ten years after the end of the Second World War. Before then, a strong movement of journalists, writers, and even politicians had formed during the New Deal and after. There was a burgeoning literature to explain why New Deal-style central planning was bad for American liberty. They also saw that central planning and war were linked as two socialistic programs.

The experience of war was telling. Prices were controlled by central edict. Businesses were not free to buy and sell. Government spending went through the roof. The Fed's money machine ran constantly. The war was a continuation of the New Deal by others means. They learned that a president dictatorial enough to manipulate the country into war would think nothing of ending liberty at home.

There were wonderful intellectuals in this movement: Frank Chodorov, John T. Flynn, Garet Garrett, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, and dozens of others. This movement didn't want to conserve anything but liberty. They wanted to overthrow the alien regime that had taken hold of the country and restore respect for the Constitution. They believed in the free market as a creative mechanism to improve society. They favored a restoration of the gold standard, decentralized government, and peace and friendship with all nations (as George Washington wanted).

Murray Rothbard recounts all this, and then enters into the picture. He was a central player in the unfolding events. As a young man, he first encountered the new generation of people on the right who departed dramatically from the old. They were the first "neoconservatives." They favored war as a means. They were soft on executive dictatorship. They considered economics rather trivial compared with the struggle against international foes.

They found new uses for the state in the domestic realm as well. They like the CIA, the FBI, and no amount of military spending was enough for them. A leader of the movement—William F. Buckley—even called for a "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" so long as Russia, which had been an alley in the war, had a communist system.
 
Old January 10th, 2010 #3
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
They were the first "neoconservatives." They favored war as a means. They were soft on executive dictatorship. They considered economics rather trivial compared with the struggle against international foes.
They were... ex-Trotskyite jews.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old January 10th, 2010 #4
Sam Spears
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
They were... ex-Trotskyite jews.
How would Trotsky's views coincide with (or lead to) Neoconery?
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[from comment at alt-right blog]

A rarely noticed aspect of what happened in the wake of Buckley's purge of traditionalists from National Review was the rise of a form of Evangelical Christianity which embraces globalism, multiculturalism, "anti-racism", and other doctrines taken from Marxism. Thus was the Bushevik movement born, whose only actual differences with leftist Gramscian corporatism are over abortion and gay marriage - what Larry Auster as accurately described as an unprincipled exception to their generally leftist worldview. After the collapse of the effort to impeach Bill Clinton, Jorge W. Busheron and Marvin Olasky emerged as early examples of this re-vamped "family values" movement, whose recent star is Rick Warren, described (brilliantly) by Thomas Fleming as the "Gantry-in-Chief of P.T. Barnum's Church of America." The so-called Randians have likewise been hijacked by those who subscribe to leftist ideas like "anti-racism" - a doctrine Rand herself would have
immediately recognized as totalitarian in nature.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main...t-/-old-right/
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #6
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
[from comment at alt-right blog]

A rarely noticed aspect of what happened in the wake of Buckley's purge of traditionalists from National Review was the rise of a form of Evangelical Christianity which embraces globalism, multiculturalism, "anti-racism", and other doctrines taken from Marxism. Thus was the Bushevik movement born, whose only actual differences with leftist Gramscian corporatism are over abortion and gay marriage - what Larry Auster as accurately described as an unprincipled exception to their generally leftist worldview. After the collapse of the effort to impeach Bill Clinton, Jorge W. Busheron and Marvin Olasky emerged as early examples of this re-vamped "family values" movement, whose recent star is Rick Warren, described (brilliantly) by Thomas Fleming as the "Gantry-in-Chief of P.T. Barnum's Church of America." The so-called Randians have likewise been hijacked by those who subscribe to leftist ideas like "anti-racism" - a doctrine Rand herself would have
immediately recognized as totalitarian in nature.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main...t-/-old-right/
Hmmmm. . .

Kind of all over the place, but with some meritorious points.

Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the new, Catholic-led "right" (exemplified by traitor Buckley) promoted a version of Protestant politics that they were comfortable with--denutted, as it were? The unnecessary (but spot-on) quote by Fleming is ironic in this light.

But the whole "conservative" curve was shifting during this period, not just Protestant politics. Take National Review itself as a prime example. Every observation made above applies to it and the rest of these jokers. Corporatist Marxists all.

And this ("family values" schtick) began years before the Clinton impeachment (which was not a failed effort strictly speaking, given that he was indeed impeached). More like during the early Reagan years, if not somewhat earlier. The writer also fails to (at least in this snippet) identify Olasky and Auster as jews, or to tie in the jewish manipulation that brings to the fore a goof like Warren.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

From what I saw in my brief time in Washington inside the professional conservative ranks, it works like this:

All political magazines lose money. They need to be subsidized with grants from foundations in order to pay their bills and keep printing magazines.

The foundations that fund the publication of the main conservative magazines are usually NOT jewish in origin (Bradley, Scaife, Olin), but jews are usually the middlemen between these foundations and the magazines proper. The publication, for example, may get a grant of $80k or $250k or $100k, for a year, say, but the bills add up quickly, and the publisher is more or less continually having to reapply for grants, seek new foundation funds, and keep trying to scrape up genuine commercial advertisements from corporations with very little interest in right-wing intellectual readers.

The magazines themselves are kind of like formal politics: the formal politician, the titular head, like the president, is usually a WASP, or in the case of the magazines, a Catholic is the editor. But the agenda being pursued is always and only the jews' agenda. Much of the editorial staff may even be Catholic, but since this staff is always small, the real guts of the magazine are its flock of paid contributing writers - and in my experience, no matter the politics of the magazine, no less than half of the writers actually getting a check for their work end up being jews. The practical effect of having an in-house editor and managing editor who are Catholic, but 10 of your top 20 writers being jews, is to make the reader think the publication is Catholic, but in fact it is jewish underneath the Catholic veil. Believe me, this veil is enough to fool 19 out of 20 white conservatives. They will accept what they are told like the good little faithful Christians they have been raised to be. Yet another reason I hate that cult. It's like the religion was designed to make a virtue, if not an art form, out of unsophistication and gullibility.

Anyway, the bottom line is that conservatism is a thoroughly jewish milieu. If a non-jew editor decided to buck the system, to fail to support a neocon war, or to disagree with the race line, the jews would have many easy ways to cut him down. They would simply shut off his foundation funding, or have their writers do hit pieces on the strange new anti-semitic wind blowing through the pages of X magazine.

What I describe is, in url terms, System/right/neo-paleo-just-plain-conservatism.

The only piece left to describe are the readers, and many of them come from the same demographic as WN folks - rural and Southern protestant Americans, and ethnic urban Catholics who share the same politics and social concerns, for the most part. These people are intelligent, often, but not overly sophisticated or nearly suspicious as they ought to be, hence it is easy to fool them.

Goyim, particular those of Anglo-Christian background, are particularly prone to allowing the personal to blind them to the political. They get to liking this or that person, and they simply lose sight of the principles involved. This is why I've always said we will never win until we adopt a more, for lack of a better term, German or ideological or jewish or marxist approach, where rigid ideological lines are drawn. That is not the conservative way, but it is a way that is simply unavoidable for anyone who wishes to fight the jews with any chance of winning.

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 21st, 2011 at 03:09 PM.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #8
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Alex,

What is the pressure point that jews have a lock on in this foundation/magazine dynamic? Is it physical printing/distribution on the front end? Investment management on the foundation back-end? Is it just lack of backbone?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
From what I saw in my brief time in Washington inside the professional conservative ranks, it works like this:

All political magazines lose money. They need to be subsidized with grants from foundations in order to pay their bills and keep printing magazines.

The foundations that fund the publication of the main conservative magazines are usually NOT jewish in origin (Bradley, Scaife, Olin), but jews are usually the middlemen between these foundations and the magazines proper.

The magazines themselves are kind of like formal politics: the formal politician, the titular head, like the president, is usually a WASP, or in the case of the magazines, a Catholic is the editor. But the agenda being pursued is always and only the jews' agenda. Much of the editorial staff may even be Catholic, but since this staff is always small, the real guts of the magazine are its flock of paid contributing writers - and in my experience, no matter the politics of the magazine, no less than half of the writers actually getting a check for their work end up being jews. The practical effect of having an in-house editor and managing editor who are Catholic, but 10 of your top 20 writers being jews, is to make the reader think the publication is Catholic, but in fact it is jewish underneath the Catholic veil. Believe me, this veil is enough to fool 19 out of 20 white conservatives. They will accept what they are told like the good little faithful Christians they have been raised to be. Yet another reason I hate that cult. It's like the religion was designed to make a virtue, if not an art form, out of unsophistication and gullibility.

Anyway, the bottom line is that conservatism is a thoroughly jewish milieu. If a non-jew editor decided to buck the system, to fail to support a neocon war, or to disagree with the race line, the jews would have many easy ways to cut him down. They would simply shut off his foundation funding, or have their writers do hit pieces on the strange new anti-semitic wind blowing through the pages of X magazine.

What I describe is, in url terms, System/right/neo-paleo-just-plain-conservatism.

The only piece left to describe are the readers, and many of them come from the same demographic as WN folks - rural and Southern protestant Americans, and ethnic urban Catholics who share the same politics and social concerns, for the most part. These people are intelligent, often, but not overly sophisticated or nearly suspicious as they ought to be, hence it is easy to fool them.

Goyim, particular those of Anglo-Christian background, are particularly prone to allowing the personal to blind them to the political. They get to liking this or that person, and they simply lose sight of the principles involved. This is why I've always said we will never win until we adopt a more, for lack of a better term, German or ideological or jewish or marxist approach, where rigid ideological lines are drawn. That is not the conservative way, but it is a way that is simply unavoidable for anyone who wishes to fight the jews with any chance of winning.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
Alex,

What is the pressure point that jews have a lock on in this foundation/magazine dynamic? Is it physical printing/distribution on the front end? Investment management on the foundation back-end? Is it just lack of backbone?
It's guys like Michael Joyce. Look up that name. He's the guy at the foundations deciding who gets the money. This is the stuff EMJ starts to get into re the jews/neocons getting "front" catholics to push their positions as Catholic postions to the lay fools out in flyover. The jews do this stuff on all fronts at all times. That's why you have to be extremely careful that what you are reading or hearing was not first vetted by jews - hence VNN's "No Jews. Just Right." What you read here has not first been vetted or paid for by a jew, it is my honest opinion. But 100% of the shit you read from the conservatives has in fact been bought outright or self-curtailed out of fear of the jews.

See, there are plenty of rich goyim out there. But they don't have the background in politics or the connections that jews do, just an interest in politics. So when a right-wing guy of, say, German-American background, Christian religion, makes a billion - let's call that guy

Coors (beer)
Koch (oil)
Anschutz (telecom+)

when this guy makes a bundle, he wants to start playing in politics, who do you think are the people he meets with? The jews. They control DC. Doesn't matter whether your politics are left or right, they're standing ring around the beltway to meet and greet or beat into retreat you.

Like any other gang.

They're just more verbal-legal than mashy-bashy like the wops the FBI dragged in last night.

So then these billionaires set up foundations, and the foundations come to be run by a subset of these jews I describe. And if not jews, then people who have been trained by or hired by jews - directly parallel to the jew-goy milieu at the magazines. The jews are far better connected than any other group in Washington, and they see to it that all monies are directed into their houses, their coffers, their causes, and in pursuit of their agenda.

You can try to work through and around all this, but it is difficult, as Pierce found when the jewed courts refused to give his 501c religious organization legal status that any other racial religious church would receive as a matter of course.

This is how the world actually works, as opposed to the theory of neutral legal and democratic machinery available to all on the same terms.

Basically the jews are the boss gang, and they run the henhouse. Anyone who wants to beat them, has to see the system for what it is, and build up a more powerful competing gang.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Foundation people are leftist. Just like teachers or any other liberal-arts subset. It's a truism that over time, foundations set up by right-wing men come to push the agenda of left-wing women.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #11
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[on michael joyce, who died in 2006]

By: Peter Collier
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, March 01, 2006

We lost a friend over the weekend. David Horowitz and I. And the conservative movement, or at least that forward-looking part of it seeking to engage the Left at the key checkpoints where it controls our cultural institutions. And America herself. We have all lost someone that meant our country well and did well by it even if he did not always do well by himself.

This friend was Michael Joyce, who died on February 24 at the age of 63. He worked in philanthropy but he shuddered at the idea of being called a “philanthropist.” I think he would like to be remembered as an artist (perhaps a trapeze artist, because he worked, ultimately to his peril, without a net) of social change. He loved football and was pretty good at it himself in his youth—one of those tough little guys who play the cornerback position like heat-seeking missiles. And he started off, in fact, as a high school football coach. But he had one of those relentless Catholic minds that gets hold of ideas and shakes them. In Mike’s case, the ideas had to do with America, its founding, and its essential nature; and how America had been debased by enemies within and how it might recover its identity. These ideas got him into a different game.

A summary of Mike’s career in philanthropy can be found in John J. Miller’s excellent book, A Gift of Freedom. He did a warm up at the Morris Goldseker Foundation in Baltimore. While there he came to the attention of Irving Kristol. Mike himself was a former bien pensant liberal who, because he’d read the classics of American thought and had an instinct for intellectual trench warfare, was actually a neo con waiting to happen. He always called Kristol “the Godfather,” referring to his role in founding the neo conservative movement. But I got a feeling that Irving really was a paternal figure for Mike. He was certainly one of the few people for whom Mike, who could be thoughtlessly cruel about others, spoke of with awe. And as for Kristol himself, when I once joked to him that his nickname would have to be changed to “The Great Godfather,” because Mike Joyce himself had taken over his role, he gave an eloquent shrug and said, “Why not?”

A one man talent agency, Kristol played a role in getting Mike a promotion to the Institute of Educational Affairs, and then to the John M. Olin Foundation in 1979. About the move to Olin, his predecessor there, Frank O’Connell, once told me that the final two candidates for the job were Mike and Bill Bennett, and Mike was hired because he was more impressive. If so, Joyce equalized things when he worked on the Reagan transition team in 1980 and helped get Bennett selected to head the National Endowment of the Humanities.

Olin was a proving grounds for what he would do later at the Bradley Foundation, beginning in 1985. Created out of the industrial fortune amassed by two remarkable brothers, Lynde and Harry Bradley, the foundation might easily have devoted itself largely to hometown Milwaukee matters if not for Mike. A Midwesterner himself (he grew up in Ohio), Mike himself became a transplanted Milwaukeean and came to love the city with a fierce parochial pride. A good part of the Bradley Foundation’s largesse was earmarked for civic concerns—a first rate museum, music and theatre, and above all for Mike, several million to keep the Brewers in town. But he also believed that the Bradley Foundation had to play a national role. It seemed improbable: At $600 million or so, Bradley was small by comparison with Ford, Rockefeller, and other of the other liberal foundations that were postmodernizing America. But Mike felt that by leveraging its money with the neo conservative worldview, he could multiply the effect of the Foundation’s smaller resources and make it a player. And this was what happened during his 15 years at Bradley. The Foundation, a mere David in comparison to the leftish philanthropic Goliaths, hit them squarely in the forehead with programs that countered their far more expensive own.

A fan and supporter of Charles Murray’s Losing Ground, Joyce got Bradley involved in the Wisconsin’s welfare reform movement, model and laboratory for the nation’s reform policy. He made Milwaukee the seedbed of the school choice movement and gave black kids the opportunity to escape failing and violent public schools. Bradley’s emancipation proclamation put a finger in the eye of the left-wing racists whose policies are designed to keep blacks on the liberal plantation. Mike understood very well that the school choice movement had taken aim at the unholy alliance between the Democrats and the National Education Association, America’s most disgraceful union since Dave Beck’s Teamsters, and black hustlers like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, all of whom collaborated for their own cynical reasons to keep black kids in bondage.

Mike also helped touch off what would become compassionate conservatism. He was a Tocquevillian who believed that the genius of America was in its coming together in voluntary associations to create its future. Mike’s fingerprints were all over dozens of organizations where Bradley’s venture philanthropy made a difference. One small personal example: In 1998, Mike heard that my wife Mary had formed a non profit called the Friendship Club to help at risk girls in the small community where we live in the California foothills. He arranged for a modest challenge grant that the community matched. The Friendship Club has now served hundreds of girls in a community of a few thousand. Almost all of them have gotten through school against horrific odds. It is fully funded by the community the Bradley grant challenged. This story has been repeated, I reckon, in many other places. Such things add up.

He hated the Left and what it had done to this country. In the mid-1980s, when David Horowitz and I were looking for funding to start a Second Thoughts Movement to bring together the handful of others who were also refugees from the ‘60s Left, we stopped in Milwaukee to see Mike, who had just recently begun at Bradley. He supported the Second Thoughts movement and kept supporting us without hesitation in endeavors like the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and Encounter Books. And we were not the only ones.

I once asked him how he saw himself. “As the owner of a really good restaurant,” he replied. “I can’t cook myself, but I know how to hire great chefs.” These chefs have been preparing an abundant repast for the American political table for the last 20 years.

Mike was an odd and opaque person, not easily fathomable. The following are perceptions from the outside.

Mike was a little guy, a scrapper with a chip on his shoulder ready to fight friends, it sometimes seemed, as well as foes. He was capable of acts of incredible impulsive generosity that set one back. He was a heavy smoker and drinker and at times a fascinating non-stop talker; he was always thinking, always watching and plotting, not always altruistically—“deep devising,” as Homer says of Odysseus. He was a strong and faithful Catholic whose highpoint came when attended a private Mass with John Paul II; but sometimes he seemed to be a man who felt his own way to grace was blocked.

Mike seemed to live in a cerebral bubble, unconcerned with the impressions he made, particularly if they were bad impressions. He had contempt for people who had been born better off than him. (Hillel Fradkin, who worked with Mike for many years, once told me that he was the only person he’d ever known who continued to use a word that died in the early 1900s, “swells,” to describe such people.) This class prejudice, for that was what it was, was a blind spot. It kept Mike from appreciating people who he assumed had gotten with ease what he had gotten only by sheer doggedness.

He had contempt for what he derisively called “the Irish thing” and for poseurs like Tom Hayden who discover their Irishness and discontents as a cause in the middle of their Americanness. Yet he was more Irish than he knew—black Irish in mood and a little in appearance; truly Joycean, it always seemed to me, not only in the artistic pulling of many strings, but also in the silence, cunning and exile he practiced, particularly after he left Bradley in 2000 under unpleasant circumstances that were of his own making.

For all those years he had been the grand restaurateur of ideas and organizations. Now, nobody knew where he was or what he was doing. He was the bright star in the cosmos of ideas and action that suddenly flamed out. People wondered if he would find another place, if there were bridges left that he had not burned, if there was a second act in this American life. In the infrequent sightings, Mike himself always encouraged speculation that things were great and he was ready to go to the next step.

Friends of mine who ran into him were struck by his deteriorating appearance over the past few months. To them, he said that indeed he had been sick but was getting better. As recently as a couple of weeks ago a friend who saw him in New York said he was shrunken and gray and looked like someone who had just stepped out of a death camp. Mike told him blithely that he’d had a serious liver disease but was on the mend.

Perhaps he was in denial. More likely, he was doing it his way. I hope that when his end came he knew that whatever else had happened to him, in the one thing he had staked his intellectual life on—putting an army in the field so that conservatives could put up a fight in the culture war—he had succeeded very well.

Peter Collier co-authored seven books with David Horowitz, including the widely read Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About the ‘60s. He is also the author of many other books including, biographies on the Fords, Rockefellers, and Kennedys.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/read...spx?ARTID=5392

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 21st, 2011 at 03:56 PM.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #12
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/p...hael_1942-2006

Michael Joyce, who passed away in early 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the "godfather of modern philanthropy." Joyce was a key financial booster of the modern conservative movement as the head of a number of right-leaning foundations, including the Bradley, Olin, and Goldseker foundations. Joyce also engineered several right-wing policy campaigns and supported various neoconservative advocacy groups, including the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), founded in 1997 by neocon scions William Kristol and Robert Kagan.

During his 15-year tenure as head of the Bradley Foundation, Joyce turned the foundation into one of the most powerful conservative funders in the country. He supported two of William Kristol's outfits, PNAC and the Project for the Republican Future, which helped spearhead the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

Before his early retirement from the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation in 2002, Joyce created Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise to build support for President George W. Bush's controversial faith-based initiative. According to the Washington Post (June 25, 2001), "The administration has also been working behind the scenes to build support for the plan. Michael S. Joyce, a proponent of school choice who has been developing the intellectual framework for faith-based efforts for 12 years, said Bush asked him at a Rose Garden ceremony May 10, 'Did Karl call you yet?' Joyce said Karl Rove, Bush's senior adviser, phoned later that day and asked Joyce 'to undertake a private initiative to help get this legislation through.' . On June 1, Joyce opened Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise with a stable of consultants and lobbyists and an office on Pennsylvania Avenue. . 'For a lot of people, this conjures images of serpent-handlers and speaking in tongues,' Joyce said. 'We're busy convincing centrist Democrats that allowing equal access to public resources is not establishing a religion.'" Other members of the now-defunct organization (including the affiliated Foundation for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise, led by his wife Mary Jo) included Richard John Neuhaus, William Bennett, and William Kristol.

According to Milwaukee journalist Barbara Miner, Joyce, who grew up in a Democratic family from Cleveland, first got involved in national politics and philanthropy after he moved to New York City in 1978 and began working for the Institute for Educational Affairs, "a neoconservative organization started by right-wing trailblazer Irving Kristol and William Simon, secretary of the treasury for presidents Nixon and Ford. The following year Simon asked Joyce to head the Olin Foundation." Fewer than 10 years later, in 1986, the Atlantic Monthly called Joyce one of the three most important individuals behind the success of the conservative movement (both quotes cited in Media Transparency profile of Michael Joyce).

During his time at Olin and Bradley, Joyce refined the strategy of waging what he called a "war of ideas" to change the course of U.S. policies. The strategy has been replicated by conservative foundations and think tanks across the country with enormous success. In a speech at Georgetown University shortly after he retired from Bradley, Joyce said: "At Olin and later at Bradley, our overarching purpose was to use philanthropy to support a war of ideas to defend and help recover the political imagination of the [nation's] founders-the self-evident truth that rights and worth are a legacy of the creator-not the result of some endless revaluing of values" ( Newhouse News Service, September 18, 2003).

But according to some critics, what Joyce called a "war of ideas" was really "more about selling ideas than thinking them," as Bruce Murphy wrote in an obituary on his Milwaukee Magazine blog Murphy's Law (March 7, 2006). There was also a fair bit of disciplined and targeted funding priorities. While at Olin (from 1979 to 1985), Murphy wrote that Joyce "simply shipped the money to the usual suspects: conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Hoover Institution, and Hudson Institute." Other conservative foundations quickly followed suit, helping increase the impact of the giving, according to Murphy. "Some 50% of the universities funded by Olin under Joyce were soon being funded by the Bradley Foundation. Typically, it was not just the same university but the same department, and in some cases, the same scholar. The net effect was a kind of intellectual cronyism, in which a select group of conservative individuals and groups get all of the money and do all of the thinking. Joyce argued that there was a liberal bias at many foundations, which might have been true, but it was not a systematic bias that carefully ruled out any scholar who didn't fit a list of buzz words and concepts. In a war of ideas, you naturally funded the people who were on your side, and you made sure they were warriors who expressly aimed to influence government, the media, and public policy. But ideological soldiers are rarely the same as great scholars."

In a National Review obituary, the magazine hailed Joyce as being "responsible for tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of spending on conservative ideas and causes. His name will long be linked to the rise of school choice, welfare reform, and faith-based initiatives." The obit quoted James Piereson, head of the defunct Olin Foundation, who said: "Mike was an inspirational leader. He basically invented the field of modern conservative philanthropy-it existed before him and he didn't do it alone, but he made it far more successful than it had been."
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

So you see, Joyce is not actually a jew, but he's trained and placed by the founder of neoconservatism itself, Irving Kristol.

This is how D.C. works. Very few white men have any real principles (even those you would think might, since they're 1) interested in politics, 2) intellectuals, and 3) often believers in religion and religious absolutes) that will stand against even a 5mph wind of self interest. These guys come to DC, they see where the power lies; what plays and what doesn't, what their boss likes and is looking for. If they fit in and meet the standards, they acquire friends, a patron, a benefactor, a mentor - they sing his tune, and he tutors, trains, mentors, and opens doors for them - puts them in position as part of his puzzle. He is using them, and in return they receive salary, benefits, emoluments, connections and respectability. They are team players. Some of these know what they actually are, as they have changed their position on the important things for money and status, but heck, that's how the world works, who are they to question it? And of course Team Jew feeds them a continual stream of flattery with all the tuff-manly-military metaphor-adjectives it can ladel, the better to cover up the essentially feminine domination and submission that's actually going on.

I hardly need explain why Catholics are particularly good underdogs for the jews.

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 22nd, 2011 at 05:15 PM.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #14
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Foundation people are leftist. Just like teachers or any other liberal-arts subset. It's a truism that over time, foundations set up by right-wing men come to push the agenda of left-wing women.
Yeah, the mentality of these people sickens me. TIAA-CREF's commercials do too, but I think they get it absolutely perfect for their target audience.

 
Old January 21st, 2011 #15
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
So you see, Joyce is not actually a jew, but he's trained and place by the founder of neoconservatism itself, Irving Kristol.

This is how D.C. Very few white men have any real principles that will stand against even aa 5mph wind of self interest. These guys come to DC, they see what plays and what doesn't, they meet a "friend," a "patron," a "benefactor," they sing his tune, and he mentors and helps them, puts them in position. He is using them, and on some level they know it, but he builds them up with all the tuff-manly-military metaphor-adjectives, to cover up the essentially feminine domination and submission.

I hardly need explain why Catholics are particularly good underdogs for the jews.
Same story everywhere. Mormon Jon Huntsman (of the chemical company/Utah political dynasty) had a jew "adopt" him when he was a young adult, evidently grooming him for their purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by from Businessweek
A cancer survivor, the University of Pennsylvania graduate continually funds his cancer institute and the Wharton School at his alma mater. [...]. I (Jon Huntsman--L.R.) mentioned in my book that my father was a rural schoolteacher, and I'm not Jewish, but a wonderful Jewish family gave me a scholarship to the Wharton school.
http://hyelog.blogspot.com/2005/11/j...d-armenia.html
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #16
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Notice the thick scum of IRCs around the neocon jews. The Bennetts, Joyce... I had forgotten that aspect - it's ok to be Irish and talk about how great it is to be Irish. That's part of the cultural aspect of pro conservatism. But it's a superficial thing, in no way racial. Anything racial is horrible-German and competely off limits.

Last edited by Alex Linder; January 21st, 2011 at 04:22 PM.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #17
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Notice the thick scum of IRCs around the neocon jews. The Bennetts, Joyce... I had forgotten that aspect - it's ok to be Irish and talk about how great it is to be Irish. That's part of the cultural aspect of pro conservtism. But it's a superficial thing, in no way racial. Anything racial is horrible-German and competely off limits.
The Bennetts stuck out to me, too. I've always wondered what their "in" is to big-time Republican politics, since they don't appear to the casual observer to bring anything to the table.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
The Bennetts stuck out to me, too. I've always wondered what their "in" is to big-time Republican politics, since they don't appear to the casual observer to bring anything to the table.
They're smart, aggressive, rich lawyers. Who can blow this way or that, like many people in DC. "It was all a game; a way of making a living."
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

EMJ is great on this stuff. This is not about Joyce, but about this type and more. The point is that until proven otherwise, you should assume that ANY, yes, ANY figure raised to public prominence on the right is a jewish sockpuppet.

http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Unity.htm

Professor George did not spring full-blown from the mind of Zeus. He may be, as the Times claims, the intellectual heir of Richard John Neuhaus, but Neuhaus could just as easily be described as the intellectual heir of William Buckley, or Michael Novak, or Deal Hudson, former editor of the now defunct Crisis, a magazine which came into existence ten years before First Things. All of these men claimed to be Catholic spokesmen for reformist political movements, but were in reality creations of Jewish money men like Marvin Liebman, or foundations like the Bradley Foundation, or think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, and their careers—but more importantly, their ideas—were a function of the money those institutions disbursed. “He who pays the piper calls the tune” has more relevance in the realm of foundation-backed ideas than it has to music.

Now you would think, theoretically, that men concerned about their everlasting souls would be the last to sell out, but you'd be wrong. In the real world, they're the first.
 
Old January 21st, 2011 #20
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
They're smart, aggressive, rich lawyers. Who can blow this way or that, like many people in DC. "It was all a game; a way of making a living."
Well, whadayouknow? I looked up that quote, came up with Sobran/Grant Havers, and came up with this:

http://takimag.blogspot.com/2008/04/...on-coward.html
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 PM.
Page generated in 0.22482 seconds.