Norway Assassin Coverage Reveals Depth
Of NY Times Fall into Journalistic Depravity
There was a time when the ‘Old Gray Lady’ a.k.a. the New York Times was considered ‘the GOLD standard’ of responsible journalism. That time probably ended in the 50s when they ‘carried water’ for Adlai Stevenson’s two failed presidential (over the years the Times has published 14 books on Stevenson showing remarkable constancy toward his failed candidacies -- mostly men like Dukakis, Mondale, Mc Cain, Dole and Stevenson are little more than footnotes in history) ventures. In any case all semblance at honest, neutral journalism had utterly disappeared when they began huge campaigns of almost open support for progressives (such as Jimmy Carter in early 1976) after 1970. During the seventies the Times had to work extremely hard to virtually ignore the truth behind these events: two years of stock market crashing and utter financial grief, near-depression, the bankruptcy of New York City, near bankruptcy of New York State and near bankruptcy of several other eastern states and many large cities across the nation, and of course the federal bailout of New York City (NYC). The Times made a point of tying everything wrong with the nation to a certain Richard Milhous Nixon and his ‘extreme right-wing’ or ‘extreme conservative agenda’ not to mention even Watergate. The Times and Washington Post were definitely NOT Nixon-lovers.
Compare the absolutely minimal harm done by Nixon to this nation to the absolutely devastating financial debacle created by the actions of the progressive wing of that same Democratic Party which as we’ve documented numerous times on this blogsite** caused the aforementioned: federal bail-out of NYC, two years of stock market crashing and utter financial grief, near-depression, the bankruptcy of New York City, near bankruptcy of New York State and near bankruptcy of several other eastern states and many large cities across the nation?
The New York Times which was clearly pro-left wing politics and left-wing politicians at that time suddenly STOPPED reporting the news with a clear left-wing slant and STARTED virtually only covering political stories with left-wing slant and ignoring any and virtually all stories that revealed any other point of view or instance of fact. Today that bias has reached crisis proportions and today the NY Times is faltering on the precipice of insolvency. Is it fair to say, as Rajjpuut does, that the Times might still be old and gray, but she's no longer a lady?
Let’s look at two stories this past week: Story #1: the Norwegian madman who killed 86 people with a bomb in Oslo and small arms on a nearby island is, the NY Times informs us “a Christian,” a “right-wing extremist,” a “neo-Nazi conservative,” and “far-right wing political activist.” In actual point of fact, the man was insane. His online ramblings are so numerous and voluminous that we can learn an awful lot about him and no, the New York Times is not accurate.
Here’s what is factually known:
1. Breivik has told police that he was planning on hitting “other targets” as well. Those other targets included the Royal Palace, several government buildings and the Labor Party headquarters. Taken individually that’s a strike against the right; the middle and the left . . . the acts of a violent mal-content.
2. The Norwegian assassin, Anders Behring Breivik, was insane and is still non-repentant and still states that what he did was “necessary and crucial for all of Europe.”
3. When it comes to his politics, more than any other single point of view Anders Behring Breivik plagiarized the 'Unabomber' Theodore, Ted, Kaczynski. The Unabomber’s mad rambling “Manifesto” was quoted over and over in full or in part by Breivik in his own online manifesto. The most significant revelation is that Breivik took several pages of Unabomber dogma and, replacing a word here or there, created his own anti-multi-culturalistic manifesto. The Unabomber was, like Breivik, an equal-opportunity hater. Despite claims that Kaczynski was a right-winger -- his bombing victims were technology company big-wigs and his writings mostly showed a severe anti-technology and anti military bent. The Unabomber was arguably a left-wing University of California at Berkeley ideologue and not a right-winger when criticizing the military-industrialists; a right-wing nutcase when talking about planet Earth. His lifestyle could likewise be interpreted either way: as a right-wing survivalist; or as a left-winger returning to nature.
How crucial is it that parts of the manifesto written by the suspect in Norway's terrorist attack were taken almost word for word from the writings of "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski?
The passages copied by Anders Behring Breivik appear mostly in the first few pages of Kaczynski's manifesto. Breivik changed a Kaczynski comments on leftism and what he considered to be leftists' "feelings of inferiority" – mainly by substituting the words "multiculturalism" or "cultural Marxism" for "leftism."
Kaczynski, who often railed against big companies and the military-industrial complex, thought that the leftwing in America needed to grow up and yet wrote that leftists needed to lose their inferiority complex. And he said the psychology of leftism can serve as "an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general." Breivik substituted the terms “multi-culturalism” and “cultural Marxism” for leftism in large expanses of the early writings of his own version of the “manifesto.” Like Kaczynski, Breivik was all over the place in his rambling opinions.
Kaczynski would also say that “leftism was part of the world’s craziness.” The inconsistency of expressed beliefs for both Kaczynski and Breivik is probably far more important than the nature of the beliefs expressed. Note that the Phoenix assassin Jared Loughner (who was also originally called a right-winger; but had spent at least two years supporting and donating to Gabriel Gifford’s political advancement and espousing Marxist beliefs) while primarily a left-winger also expressed incoherent and incongruent ramblings from all over the political spectrum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658269/Norway-shooting-Anders-Behring-Breivik-plagiarised-Unabomber.html
4. The oil companies were a specific kicking boy for Breivik and environmental extremism seems to be one of his ultra-pet projects.
5. Ragnhild Bjørnebek, a researcher on violence for the Norwegian Police Academy, described the connection between Kaczynski and Breivik as “very interesting” and commented on the startling similarities between the two terrorists.
“The Unabomber was very intelligent and who was also a person that was very difficult to detect,” she told Norwegian media.
Kaczynski plotted and carried out his deadly mail bombing spree on a 1.4-acre patch of land near Lincoln, Montana over a period of 17 years between 1978 and 1995. The Harvard-trained mathematician, who railed against the effects of advanced technology in his manifesto, was the focus of the longest and costliest manhunt in US history before his brother tipped off police in 1996.
6. Breivik is a self-claimed “Christian” but spends almost no energy on Christianity in his writings. He seems to have used Christianity for an excuse for the violence (police say the evidence is that he’s been plotting this “for years” but there is according to police no support for his claims of being part of a militant network of “modern day crusaders” or other claims of “belonging” to any groups . . . like Kaczynski and Loughner, Breivik appears to be a hyper-loner personality. His stated desire for a series of coups d’etats across Europe appears to have been pure megalomania.
Story #2 is the debt-ceiling debate presently consuming Congress. According to the Times, the Republican Party’s hateful “obstructionism” is the cause for any ill-effects such as default or down-grading America’s credit rating that might come out of the situation. The TEA Party conservatives, the Times claims have set about to deliberately “shut the government” down; have decided that government spending can only be cut “on the backs of the poor and middle-class and the elderly.”
Information left out by the Times is the fact that the Republican House has passed a budget (neither the nation’s Democratically-controlled House under Nancy Pelosi nor the still Democratically-controlled Senate under Harry Reid has deigned it necessary to fulfill the Constitutional requirements for passing a budget in over 800 days now). Left out by the Times is that the Republican House has passed two separate debt-ceiling bills while neither the President, nor the Senate has put anything on paper to be discussed even though this discussion on the current $14.5 TRillion national debt has been ongoing for almost eight months now. Left out by the Times is that President Obama claimed to have a deal worked out with the Republicans, went to the Senate and POOF! all deals were off; and that Senate Majority Leader Reid also claimed to have a deal in place with the G.O.P., went to the White House and POOFITY-POOF again no deal! Harry Reid claims to have a Reid proposal which John Boehner (G.O.P. Speaker of the House) and Mitch McConnell Senate Minority leader have read -- an actual document from the Democrats?), but has yet to bring it up for a vote in his senate.##
Most importantly left out by the Times is the true nature of Barack Obama’s supposedly constructive approach to bi-partisan compromise. After asking for huge spending hikes earlier in the year, Obama felt the need to put forth a counter-proposal to the very thoughtful Paul Ryan budget that passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives early in the year. The Obama budget was paraded through the Democratically-controlled Senate and there it was defeated by an astonishing 0-97 vote with well over half of those ‘nays’ coming from Democrats. Rajjpuut has never heard of a president receiving less than 25% on any vote in any chamber, much-less in a chamber where his party dominates . . . that’s how serious Barack Obama is about the debt-ceiling as well. It’s all about re-election and making the opposition look bad, our ‘campaigner in chief’ has yet to sit down and actually govern the nation.
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
$$ The motto of the Times is “All the news that’s fit to print." In Rajjpuut's not-so-humble opinion the paper's leaving out of the Climate-Gate scandal story was their #1 ommission for the last decade; but at least a couple dozen close to as monumental stories omitted by the Times in just the last four years could easily contend. Rajjpuut, who was his J-school's academic excellence winner and a pretty fine feature and investigative journalist in his day, believes that the utter abandonment of truth and impartiality by the New York Times is the most hideous development in the history of journalism since state-controlled newspapers in the old Soviet Union, Red China, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
** In a nutshell: Inspired by the Watts Riots, in 1966 two Columbia University (NYC) neo-Marxists sociology professors (Richard Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven) wrote an article in the left-wing The Nation magazine in 1966 titled The Weight of the Poor: a Strategy to End Poverty. The article revealed their effort to get a GNI (guaranteed national income) law passed in the United States by overloading the Lyndon Johnson expanded welfare rolls (he was conducting a “War of Poverty” within his “Great Society” programs). This manufactured crisis, they thought would virtually bankrupt the nation and was sure to bring Cloward’s and Piven’s Democratic Party to the rescue with the GNI. The couple believed that the poor needed to become “storm troopers” against the middle-class and the government establishment. In a short time the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” was all the talk of the left wing individuals across the country. In late 1966 or early 1967 Cloward and Piven joined forces with Black militant George Wiley and created the National Welfare Rights Organization in 1967 to put C-P Strategy to work. Here are further important details . . . .
From 1967 to 1976 they doubled the nation’s welfare rolls from eight to sixteen million people using Saul Alinsky’s street theater and other nasty demonstrations to get left-wing social workers to cave-in to their demands for marginal or unqualified individuals to become part of the welfare system. Saul Alinsky, you’ll remember was the author of 1946’s Reveille for Radicals and 1971’s Rules for Radicals. He was also the mentor for Hillary Clinton nee Rodham and Barack Obama taught not only Constitutional Law for a short time but also a course in “Rules for Radicals” virtually non-stop during his community organizer days. The cause of the twenty-five month stock market collapse and the cause of the bankruptcy of NYC and the federal bailouts of NYC was C-P Strategy. Although they never got their GNI, Cloward, Piven and Wiley claimed victory orally and in print and told their enthusiasts that the next areas for C-P Strategy would be voter registration and housing for the poor.
In 1977 shortly after Jimmy Carter took the Oval Office, ACORN^^ was created and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA ’77) became law . . . forcing home lenders to knowingly make very bad loans to highly UNqualified home loan applicants. From 1975 when the suspect home loan statistics showed 0.24% of home loans were offered at 3% down payment or less (20% minimum has long been more or less standard) to 2005 when a sickening 34.2% of all home loans were suspect there were five expansions of CRA ’77 including four by Bill Clinton (one massive 1993 regulatory expansion; two smaller legislative expansions in 1995 and a steroid version expansion of CRA in 1998). By the way, Wiley and C-P lieutenant Wade Rathke who’d been active with NWRO in Arkansas since 1970 created ACORN and it was originally a “test-case” for C-P Strategy. Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now was so successful that although they’d only operated in one small state they doubled the nation’s suspect loan rate to 0.51% by 1985. ACORN was a success and expanded nationally becoming Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now and a Chicago lawyer named Barack Obama served two years as their lawyer helping to shake-down and browbeat banks and mortgage companies to comply with the sick-sick tenets of CRA law. ACORN also put Bill Clinton into the Arkansas governor’s mansion in 1978 and kept him there for twelve of the next fourteen years and then into the Oval Office.
## Breaking news, John Boehner took his copy of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to raise the debt ceiling a few hours ago and put it up for a vote in the House. The House pre-emptively rejected the plan after the vote came after a lengthy and acrimonimous debate, during which Nancy Pelosi compared Speaker Boehner to Darth Vader, baselessly claimed Boehner's bill "eliminates Medicare," and asserted that Republicans are destroying "the air our children breathe." The vote to reject Reid's plan was 246-173, with 11 Democrats joining Republicans in opposition and 10 Republicans voting for Reid’s effort. This amounted to 28 more votes against Reid’s proposal than Boehner had secured a day earlier in passing his own second debt-ceiling bill (that one and the earlier “Cut, Cap and Balance Bill” are sitting on Harry Reid’s table because he would not allow debate or discussion of them.
Let us be clear: While the Times did bask gratefully in the sun during Nixon’s 67-month occupation of the presidency, Nixon’s Watergate scandal was undeniably a senseless political act driven along by a severely paranoid man intending to maintain himself in power. Nixon was a sickie, no doubt . . . but, what in reality did he actually do to the country? What did he actually do other than hurt himself and his conservative cronies miserably by trying to spy on the Democratic National Committee? The Times diverted attention from the tons of negative stories they seldom ran about the evils being promulgated by the left wing in New York City itself to virtually insignificance while making a cause celebre` out of the Nixon White House's decadence . . . imagine how much better the country would stand today, if the leading newspaper in America had covered the Cloward-Piven-Wiley actions as the root cause of the bankruptcy of the city in which the Times lives; and the stock market crash of '73-74; and the near bankruptcy of New York State; and the federal bailout of NYC? Certainly our present financial malaise is unlikely to have ever happened.
