archersKaplan quits MSNBC--Any takers?Thu Jun 8, 2006 11:31
MY AWAKENING by David Duke
Chapter 19: Who Runs the Media?
Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and judiciary. One would like to ask; by whom has it been elected and to whom is it responsible?
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
In the Oscar-winning 1976 movie Network,1 Howard Beale, the “mad prophet of the airwaves,” becomes consumed with the idea of exposing an insidious danger facing America: the takeover of American television by Arabs through their petro-dollars.
The film was based on an Oscar-winning screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky, who depicts a dark plot by Arabs to buy and control the TV networks. Howard Beale, played by Peter Finch, is a deranged news anchorman who speaks his mind about any subject, resulting in skyrocketing ratings. Raving about the inequities and corruption in American life, Beale would cry out: “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!”
Imagine if Iraqi-American supporters of Saddam Hussein had control of the American media. Suppose they controlled the national television networks and were a majority of the owners, producers, and writers of television entertainment and news. TV is an irresistible power that reaches into every American home — the primary source by which most Americans learn about the world. Consider the dangers of that enormous power dominated by a tightly knit, Iraqi Muslim minority that supported the Hussein regime.
If the non-television media were still free, they undoubtedly would treat Iraqi media domination as a great danger to America. Every non-Iraqi source of media would proclaim that such control threatens our freedoms. Congress would likely draft legislation to break up the Iraqi stranglehold on television. Patriots would remind Americans that if we were not free to obtain unbiased news, documentaries, and programming, democracy could not work. The power of TV controlled by one point of view would erode the foundation of all our freedoms: the freedom of speech. Pundits would be outraged that non-Americans, people with allegiance to a foreign power, had control over the American mind.
Taking the analogy further, imagine if the rest of the media were also in Iraqi hands. Suppose that the three major news magazines, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report were run by Iraqis, that the three most influential American newspapers, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post — as well as a majority of the remaining major newspapers and magazines — were controlled by Iraqis. Imagine that Muslim Iraqis dominated the Hollywood movie industry as well as book publishing and even book distribution. Picture the Iraqis as also holding immense wealth in business and banking, as thoroughly entrenched in entertainment and Hollywood, academia, the judiciary, and the government. On top of all this, suppose that supporters of Saddam Hussein had the most powerful lobby in Washington and were responsible for the bulk of the fundraising of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Suppose a dedicated Iraqi were head of the National Security Council at the White House. Would such a situation be dangerous for America?
If Americans awoke one morning and found Arabic names scrawled all over their TV and movie credits, on their magazine and newspaper mastheads and in the pages of their books, millions would say, “We’ve been taken over!” Viewers would suspect the motives of everything they see on television and read in newspapers, magazines, and books. They would be especially wary of information about issues related to Iraqis, Saddam Hussein, Islam, and the Middle East conflict. In very short order, many Americans would cry out in the fashion of Howard Beale: “I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore!”
When I came to the realization that the original Russian Revolution was not Russian, that it was financed, organized, and led mostly by Jews who were driven by a centuries-old conflict between themselves and the Russian people, I wondered how such an important fact of history had been so effectively covered up. Upon learning fully about the Communist murder of millions of Christians in Russia and Eastern Europe, I asked myself why there were so few movies, dramatic television series or documentaries, novels, books, or magazine articles about it, but endless coverage of the Holocaust.
Then I read a copy of the Thunderbolt newspaper, published by Dr. Edward Fields of Marietta, Georgia.1 Dr. Fields carefully documented Jewish control of America’s three major television networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC. I carefully checked Dr. Fields’ sources, which included biographies published by Jews.
At the time of my first inquiry, Richard Sarnoff was the head of NBC, William Paley was the head of CBS, and Leonard Goldenson ran ABC. I was amazed to learn that all three were Jews, all were active in Zionist organizations, and all had been honored by awards of numerous Jewish, Zionist, and pro-Israeli groups. Then I discovered that the leading newspaper in America, The New York Times, was Jewish-owned and -edited. So was the newspaper that has more influence on the federal government than any other, The Washington Post. Jews also owned the largest circulation daily paper in America, The Wall Street Journal. They even owned my hometown newspaper, the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
I learned that Jews had dominated Hollywood for years. It was interesting to find out that of the “Hollywood Ten,” who took the Fifth Amendment when asked before Congress whether they were Communists, 9 were Jewish. As I looked into magazine and book publishing, again I discovered a striking preponderance of Jews — most of them dedicated to Jewish interests, much like today’s Steven Spielberg, director of Schindler’s List,2 who is an outspoken supporter of Zionist causes. In fact, the most-watched movie ever made about the Holocaust, viewed as history by millions, was entirely a Jewish production.
Jerry Molen — producer; Gerald R. Molen — producer; Steven Spielberg — director, producer; Kurt Luedtke — screenwriter; Steve Zaillian — screenwriter; Janusz Kaminski — cinematographer; Michael Kahn — editor; Ewa Braun- set decoration/design, production designer; Branko Lustig — producer, production designer; Allan Starski — production designer; Lew Rywin co-producer.
Years later I read Jewish publications that boasted about Jewish domination of American media. I also read An Empire of Their Own3 by Neal Gabler, a book that details the Jewish takeover of the film industry.
Ben Stein, a Jewish screenwriter (and son of Herbert Stein, an economic advisor to President Richard Nixon), wrote the book The View from Sunset Boulevard. In it he candidly remarks that a great majority of Hollywood’s television writers and executives are Jewish and that they are adamantly opposed to Christian values and the conservatism of traditional, small-town America.4 He wrote an article for E!-online in 1997 entitled: “Do Jews Run the Media” accompanied by a subtitle that read, “You bet they do — And What of it.”5
In the ’70s Dr. William L. Pierce, chairman of the National Alliance and editor of National Vanguard magazine, along with his staff, researched the question and documented the Jewish dominance in his essay “Who Rules America?”1
What I discovered was that the worst nightmare of Paddy Chayefsky and his Network character, Howard Beale, has been realized. A small but cohesive minority, with a 3,000-year loyalty to their own people and a fanatical dedication to their newly formed nation, dominates America’s media. But it is not the Arabs who have this power; nor is it the Irish, Germans, French, English, Russians, Swedes, Danes, or Italians. It’s not Muslims, Christians, Mormons, or Catholics. Ironically, it is the group made up of the Paddy Chayefskys of the world. Chayefsky — an enthusiastic supporter of Jewish causes and the state of Israel — cleverly attempts to influence viewers against Arabs by fictionally accusing them of attempting the same thing that Jews have already accomplished. The rest of the Network staff included director Sidney Lumet, producer Howard Gottfried, and editor Alan Heim. The same tribe that financed, produced, wrote and distributed the film Network, dominates the American media, and truly the media of the entire Western world.
Jewish media power is so extensive that one can scarcely exaggerate it. It is not simply a question of their power being disproportionate to their percentage of population — their power is breathtaking.
If you live in a major city, the daily newspaper you read will more than likely be Jewish-owned or -edited. So will the national newsmagazine you buy at the news counter. More than likely, the national cable or regular TV network you watch will be Jewish-owned, and if not, Jews will be preponderant in the executive and decision-making departments. The movie you see in the theater or watch on television will very likely have been produced, directed, or written by Jews — and often all three. The publishers of the hardbacks or paperbacks you read, even the record companies that produce the music you buy, will probably be Jewish-owned, and if not, they will very likely have Jews in key executive positions. Bookstores and libraries often select their new book purchases based on reviews by Jewish critics and publications such as The New York Times Book Review, another part of the Jewish-run NY Times.
It is certainly true that many people in media are not Jews. Nor do I allege that every Jew in media is part of some fantastic and intricate conspiracy or that every Jew is ardently Zionist. But the overwhelming domination and thrust of American media is Jewish, and no group is more ethnocentric and more organized for their perceived interests than are Jews. With these facts in mind, can any reasonable person believe that Jews present news and entertainment without a slant for their own purposes in what Gabler calls “An Empire of their Own”?
I grew up reading the New Orleans Times-Picayune, and from third grade on, I would read it every morning with my father. By the time breakfast ended, Father had decorated it with toast crumbs and coffee stains, and I had garnished it with oatmeal and milk. My father would take the news section first, and I would take the sports and the comics pages, and then it would be my turn to get into the headlines while he read the other parts of the paper. Up until the late ’50s, the Times-Picayune was truly a Southern newspaper. It reflected the values, standards, political viewpoints, and heritage of the South. We considered the paper our lifeblood of information about the simple goings-on around town and about the major events in the world at large. It was our paper — and not only because it was printed in our city; it represented something of our thinking, our culture, and our values.
When integration of schools began, the Times-Picayune railed against the federal intrusion into our way of life. Many articles talked about the amicable relationship between Blacks and Whites in New Orleans, about the excellent quality of life for Whites and Blacks, and about how the city included one of the largest Black entrepreneurial classes of any in America. It wrote about how, under White direction, Black educational and living standards had progressed over the last few decades. The editorial writers of the Times-Picayune predicted dourly that forced integration and the stirring up of Blacks by Yankees and liberal agitators would ruin one of the most beautiful and culturally rich and charming cities in the world. Integration, they maintained, would retard the progress of the Black community and threaten White standards.
After the purchase of the Times-Picayune by S.I. Newhouse, the paper gradually began to shift to the left. Integration was eventually depicted as “progress” and something that would increase “love” and “brotherhood.” Editorials chastised those who opposed integration, referring to them as bigoted, hateful, and shortsighted. Integration, the paper claimed, would promote racial goodwill and lessen poverty and crime (which was then manageable). “What is the harm,” the paper moralized, “with two little Negro girls going to a White school?”
As the city’s schools and government services began to disintegrate under integration and the Times-Picayune became increasingly liberal, my father — who was mildly conservative — came to dislike it. I still enjoyed the paper, and as I got older, I found myself agreeing with its racial viewpoints. I didn’t know that the Picayune was no longer a Southern newspaper, and that the owner, a Jewish refugee of Czarist Russia, resided in the New York city area.
When Newhouse died, he left a media colossus worth about $10 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald. Among their newspaper holdings were the Times-Picayune; the Syracuse, New York, morning Post-Standard and the afternoon Herald-Journal; the Mobile, Alabama, Morning Register and Afternoon Press; the Huntsville, Alabama, morning News and afternoon Times; the Birmingham, Alabama, morning Post Herald and afternoon News; the Springfield, Massachusetts, morning Union, afternoon News, and Sunday-only Republican.
The Newhouse empire today owns 12 television stations, 87 cable-TV systems, two dozen national magazines, 26 daily newspapers, and the Parade Sunday supplement that has a staggering circulation of more than 22 million.
When Newhouse bought the Times-Picayune, it was reported by Time magazine that he commented, “I just bought New Orleans.”1 In some ways, his statement is accurate. Newhouse and his employees could say anything they liked about any person or any issue with little fear of contradiction. Newhouse, secure in his monopoly, was free to push whatever social and political agenda he wished.
Even today, more than 25 years after Newhouse’s purchase of the Times-Picayune, many in New Orleans are unaware that a Jewish New York family owns the paper. The editorial page gives a local address and says the publisher is Ashton Phelps, a descendent of the family that once owned the paper.
When I was a teenager, just learning of the Jewish control of media, I noticed that many of the Picayune’s advertisers were Jewish-owned businesses, including Goldrings, Levitts, Mintz, Godchauxs (a French adapted Jewish name), Kirshmans, Rosenberg’s, Rubinstein Bros., Gus Mayer’s, Adler’s, and Maison Blanche. One of the biggest advertisers in New Orleans was Sears & Robuck, and Edith Stern, a New Orleans activist in Jewish and liberal causes, was Sears’ largest stockholder. I soon learned that many of the largest advertising agencies, both local and national, were under Jewish ownership and direction. These agencies could steer advertising to whatever newspaper or media outlet they desired.
Jewish advertising power not only has increased the Jewish monopolization and consolidation of American newspapers, it also greatly affects publications with Gentile management or ownership. All major publications are dependent on Jewish advertising revenue, so their features, reporting, and editorial policies must be carefully attuned to Jewish attitudes and interests. Ultimately, the free press is not free. It runs on money. The old axiom certainly holds true in the media: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
At the beginning of this century, most major cities had two or three daily newspapers, and many had even more. There has been an alarming trend toward monopolization of daily newspapers. There are only about 50 cities in America with more than one daily newspaper, and many of those have the same parent company. The Newhouse-owned Times-Picayune and the afternoon States-Item aptly illustrate the trend; they merged into the Times-Picayune early and late editions.
As a result, of the 1,600 daily newspapers in America, only 25 percent are independently owned rather than part of a newspaper chain. And only a tiny number are large enough to have even a skeleton reporting staff based outside their own communities. They are d
Main Page -
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES