The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"The Post"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

Sex, Death, and Secrets in D.C.
by Steve Sailer

December 27, 2017

The new Steven Spielberg historical drama The Post is a celebration of how Democrats turn lemons into lemonade via their control of the media.

A prequel to the 1976 Watergate movie All the President’s Men, the new movie recounts how the Democratic Washington Post used an embarrassing 1971 Democratic scandal—Daniel Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers, the LBJ administration’s secret history of its own incompetence and insincerity in Vietnam—to take its first tentative steps toward eventually teaming up with the Deep State (in the person of J. Edgar Hoover loyalist Mark “Deep Throat” Felt) to overthrow the elected Republican president three years later.

Spielberg rushed The Post into production just last spring for the usual anti-Trump reasons. After the media’s eight-year-long sabbatical/siesta during the Obama White House, it’s good to see some energy and animus against a president, even if it tends to be wildly hypocritical.

Of course, Spielberg is not exactly the most self-aware ironist, so …

Read the whole thing there.

 
• Tags: Movies 
Hide 185 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. • Replies: @duncsbaby
    @wren

    Democracy commits suicide in darkness.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    , @e
    @wren

    Understatements: Genes are powerful things. Nature is more powerful than nurture.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @wren

    He might have inherited a depressive streak from his father. On the other hand, another thing they certainly both had in common was..................an emotional relationship with Katherine Graham.

  2. His soul already sold to the CIA and likely with a Hoover/FBI dossier of his own, Phil Graham offed himself rather than face the sacrifice of his fellow philanderer Jack Kennedy to MIC/CIA/Whomever. Possibly. Reading past accounts, books and interviews into it, I figure months before the assassination, Graham was probably presented with the proposition of Jack’s demise and informed that the Post was going to have to print the contrived ‘story’ of the lone gunman Oswald, of Jack Ruby the ‘madman’, of magic bullets and best of all, the Warren Report. After all, it wouldn’t have been the first time the Post was used for nefarious government escapades. Maybe it was more than old Phil could bear.

    Was Graham a suicidal character? Who knows? But he led a life as perfect as money, broads, fame and “power” could make it. Why kill himself? For all we know, he refused the fraud out of loyalty to Jack and then “killed” himself. Kennedy had been getting warnings from somewhere about trips he made to Chicago, to Detroit months before they went to Dallas in 11-63. For Graham to have killed himself makes no sense. His wife, supposedly of much sterner stuff (not to mention brainless, in spite of her so-called stewardship of the Post), certainly played along with the Government-mandated story run by the Post, post-assassination. Everything went according to plan.

    In any scenario, when the CIA comes-a-calling, for help with a campaign, with publicity for the next Great War, with the planting of phony stories, the Post always ponies up. This will be increasingly obvious as Amazon-owning Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post, expands his Amazon Cloud contracts with (surprise!) NSA, the MIC and all the other elements of Federal Intel and law enforcement depravity. How does the owner of a major Federal contractor objectively run the Post? A fitting epilogue to The Post might have been a nod in the credits by Spielberg at least mentioning the incestuous connections of today. That there are none tells me Spielberg is also owned, he’s just another branch. No reasonable story can be told of The WashPost then without mentioning what the Hell goes on with The Post today.

  3. Spielberg & the Post are running a giant scam to promote mainstream media, hiding the real truth about ‘Watergate’, even though that truth has been published in fairly mainstream books (‘Silent Coup’ by Len Colodny & Robert Gettlin, ‘Family of Secrets’ by Russ Baker)

    The ‘Watergate’ impeachment farce was run by the CIA & military Joint Chiefs who planted a US Navy intel officer under Admiral Maurer (head of US military at the time), as a ‘reporter’ at the Washington Post. That Naval intel officer, Bob Woodward, was apparently such an idiot re journalism at first he needed lots of remedial coaching to meet minimal standards. ‘Deep Throat’ was an absurd fiction, the CIA had all the info.

    The deeper, greater danger here is that – as has been visibly happening recently – the genuine leakers and dissidents are winding up identified, jailed or dead because they trust in this CIA hoax of ‘brave investigative journalism’ … and we will likely never know the real numbers of how many dissidents were destroyed by this kind of ‘rat trap’

    Another ‘impeachment’ farce was the Deep State ‘Monica Lewinsky’ nonsense against Bill Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands … When Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was ‘acquitted’ – the bombings began some days afterwards

    [MORE]

    Counting the shootings of JFK in 1963 and the shooting of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush’s brother (!), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents

    The most successful CIA deceptions involve fake ‘leaks’ & fake ‘dissidents’ … so successful they dupe ‘alternative’ media, as well as the general public yearning for ‘opposition heroes’ … who are dutifully supplied by the CIA & CIA media

    5 major fake ‘leaks’ / ‘dissident heroes’ all used similar techniques … all of them CIA frauds … all involving prominent Jewish or Israeli figures too

    1971 Daniel Ellsberg ‘stolen’ Pentagon Papers
    1973 Watergate ‘Deep Throat’
    2010 Julian Assange Wikileaks
    2013 Edward Snowden ‘stolen’ NSA Papers
    2016 Panama Papers

    All involve CIA-backed fake ‘leakers – dissidents’ with ‘limited hang-out’ partial truth, in order to sell even bigger lies:

    1971 Daniel Ellsberg NY Times Pentagon Papers ‘stolen documents leak’ … (1) Ellsberg promoted JFK assassination ‘lone gunman, not CIA’ hoax (2) Distracted from US Vietnam war crimes outside of ‘limited hang-out’ My Lai, focusing on ‘leaker hero’, not on brutalised Vietnamese (3) Set up meme of ‘brave, trusted’ CIA media

    1973 Watergate ‘Deep Throat’ fictional leaker … (1) Set up ‘Silent Coup’ of Richard Nixon by US military Joint Chiefs & CIA (2) Pumped CIA ‘brave media’ story for WashPost ‘reporter’ Woodward, Naval Intel agent working for Admiral Maurer heading Joint Chiefs & running US coup d’état (3) Deepend fake ‘brave media’ meme for CIA journalists to rat-trap real dissidents, identify & destroy them

    2010 Julian Assange Wikileaks … (1) Leaks ‘selected’ & shielded Israel, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu & US-CIA Zbigniew Brzezinski publicly admitting Assange is an intel hoax (2) Anti-9-11 truth (3) Sold intimidating ‘USA torture war crimes’ story USA enjoys spreading (4) ‘Rat trap’ for dissidents who could be killed after trusting ‘Wikileaks’ (5) Apparently not ‘living in London Ecuardor Embassy’ at all, only there for photos, meetings (6) Known as fake to all major gov intel agencies (7) People dead & jailed after contacting Assange (& Snowden), jailed: Reality Leigh Winner, Lauri Love; dead: Seth Rich, Peter W Smith.

    2013 ‘Edward Snowden’ and his ‘leaked stolen documents’ … (1) ‘Leaked’ to Dick Cheney friend at CIA WashPost, Rothschild employee Greenwald (2) Anti-9-11-truth (3) Nothing really new beyond more than 5+ previous NSA whistleblowers (4) Has CIA lawyers, worked with Brzezinski son, promoted by Brzezinski daughter, fake CV history (5) Known as fake to all major gov intel agencies

    2016 Panama Papers ‘leaks’ … (1) ‘Leaked’ to Mossad-&-oligarch tied well-funded ‘investigative journalists’ (2) Shielding prominent Israeli & US & Nato political figures (3) Focus on targets of hostility for US & related oligarchy (4) ICIJ ‘International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ co-managed by the official Mossad historian (!), another CIA-Mossad ‘rat trip’ to identify & then harass, even silence & kill, real whistle-blowers & dissidents (5) Quickly recognised as a political psy-op, another CIA ‘leaker – dissident’ fraud

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Brabantian


    Another ‘impeachment’ farce was the Deep State ‘Monica Lewinsky’ nonsense against Bill Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands … When Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was ‘acquitted’ – the bombings began some days afterwards
     
    I'm not so sure about this. Look at the timeline.

    Monica Lewinsky became a public figure in January 1998. (Matt Drudge famously broke the story of Lewinsky's tryst with the president, but, in an ironic twist, it was Newsweek - owned by the Washington Post - that legitimized it for the rest of the mainstream press.)

    After sparring with Starr for several months, Lewinsky obtained immunity and testified before a federal grand jury on August 6, 1998. The next day, Osama bin Laden orchestrated bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

    Ten days after the embassy bombings, Clinton testified before Starr's grand jury and then admitted publicly that he had, indeed, had an "inappropriate" (but technically not sexual) relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Three days after that bombshell, the U.S. suddenly and unexpectedly bombed targets allegedly linked to bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan. (In the aftermath of this bombing, the movie Wag the Dog - a 1997 box-office flop - became a household name.)

    The Starr report was released on September 11, 1998. On October 8, the House approved an open-ended impeachment inquiry.

    Four days after the House impeachment vote, Richard Holbrooke reached a deal with Slobodan Milosevic to avoid (temporarily) a military confrontation over Kosovo.

    The Republicans took a beating in the November midterm elections. Days after the midterms, Newt Gingrich resigned as Speaker of the House. Any hopes that the GOP might succeed in removing Clinton from office were pretty much dead by that point.

    The week before Christmas in 1998 - the same week that the House was preparing to impeach Clinton - the U.S. and Britain bombed Iraq for four days straight. Operation Desert Fox was the heaviest military action against Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War.

    (Desert Fox was not a surprise - the U.S. had been threatening to bomb Iraq for over a year. There were constant crises over Saddam's alleged attempts to keep the U.N. weapons inspectors from doing their jobs. At various times in Nov. '97, Feb. '98, and Nov. '98, airstrikes were said to be imminent.)

    The impeachment of the president (on December 19) and the subsequent trial were widely seen as a total waste of time - sheer political theater. It was clear from the beginning that the House prosecutors never had 60 votes in the Senate.

    Clinton was acquitted on February 12, by a 55-45 vote.

    On March 24, 1999, NATO warplanes began bombing Serb targets in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. The bombing ended in June, when Milosevic capitulated. He was overthrown in October 2000.
  4. No way will I spend five minutes seeing a movie glorifying the Jeff Bezos Post and its oh so courageous reporters. Screw ’em all. Though thanks for doing this for us.

    The new Steven Spielberg……..

    Makes this a triple do not see. I rather see the newest Lady Gaga documentary if there is one, while having my fingernails pulled out and The Rock smacking me upside the head. Forever.

    • Agree: Bubba
  5. @wren
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5213347/Washington-Post-heir-William-Graham-commits-suicide.html

    Replies: @duncsbaby, @e, @Mr. Anon

    Democracy commits suicide in darkness.

    • Replies: @Inquiring Mind
    @duncsbaby

    My fave is how sites like HotAir or Powerlineblog will link to the "Post" for an article, dunno, out of sense of civic obligation, for amusement of its readers, to warn us "what we are up against", or to deflect the complaint that the are a Fake News Echo Chamber.

    I click on the link, as I always do, but this time I hit the Post Paywall, with "Democracy Dies in Darkness" as their new motto.

    Does the Post "do" irony? Democracy Dies in Darkness but flash some cash, pal, if you want us to switch a light on for you?

    Forget this, Mr. Bezos, I would just rather patronize my Winger Echo Chambers for my Fake News before I pay the Post anything.

    Replies: @Clyde

  6. Bradlee was a key figure in the giant media cover-up of President Kennedy’s sexual predation upon the White House secretarial pool. Bradlee wrote, sounding rather like Sergeant Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes, that he knew nothing: “Like everyone else, we had heard reports of presidential infidelity, but we were always able to say we knew of no evidence, none.”

    And in the Weinstein sexual assaults, Meryl Streep also does a wonderful Sgt. Schultz yet won’t acknowledge the women who were sexually assaulted by the creep. I’m sure Steven Spielberg knew of his buddy Weinstein’s numerous sexual assaults against gentile women. The outrage and silence is deafening from the Hollywood crowd.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Bubba

    It's Hollywood. You can do whatever you want to the shikses.

    , @Anon
    @Bubba

    To be fair to Bradlee, sexual activities of politicians of all stripes were generally ignored by the media back then(and even now in so many cases). Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    And even though the Media had it in for Nixon, Watergate really was shameful because it was so DUMB.
    And the media did, in the end, turn on Johnson and the Vietnam before Nixon.
    One reason why Johnson chose not to run in 68 was because the media had turned on him. And the media were not easy on Carter. I remember the 1980 election, and Carter got it hard from the press. And the media eventually let Reagan go on Iran-Contra even though that was much bigger than Watergate. The thing was, however, that Iran-Contra could at least be spun as serving nobler ends: releasing hostages and funding anti-communists. In contrast, Watergate was so tawdry. In the end, Nixon was his own worst enemy.

    Media bias were always there, but I've never seen as anything as deranged, crazy, and nuts as Media coverage of 2008 campaign and 2016 campaign and aftermath. The cult of Obama was something closer to commie cult of personality. It was grotesque, hyping this hustler from Chicago as The One.
    And 2016 coverage of Trump was downright nuts. And media have no right to bitch about rise of Alt Right since they are the ones who hyped the nascent movement and tried to connect it to Trump. And Russia Hacking crap? Wow.

    I think the problem has gotten worse for several reasons. Back in the days of Johnson and Nixon, Jews were powerful but not all-powerful. Many still faced uphill climb in many institutions. Since they understood what it meant to be an underdog, many of them were sincerely on the side of speaking truth to power. And to enable this, they really prized freedom and liberty and championed free speech. Nixon in his tapes complained of Jewish control of media, but that was nothing compared to now where Jews are not just powerful but totally dominant in so many areas. With all that power, the media have turned into a case of speaking for power than speaking to power. Also, both political parties are far more servile to Jewish power than in Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon days.
    Ethnic competition was good for journalism and narrative back in the day. Today, all sides praise Jews, Jews, and Jews. And Homos but then, homos are nothing but proxies of Jews. Blacks are also tools of Jewish Power, but at the street level, far more volatile. If black politicians and leaders can be bought, the black mobs can veer totally out of control.

    Another reason why media are crazy is the rise of the internet. Alternative news and narratives have made the Power very nervous. So, maintain Monopoly Narrativism, they go into hysteria mode and howl about RUSSIA HACKING so that enough idiots will believe it.
    And as the Democratic Party is now about self-loathing whites and Diversity, there's bound to lots of divisions. So, to keep them together, there must be hysteria about Nazi-KKK-white-supremacists 24/7.

    So, there is now a concerted war on internet platforms, which is easy to do since most of them are owned by Jews. Also, since Jews control much of Wall Street, they can use carrots and sticks on a company like Twitter. Get rid of 'hate' and Twitter gets showered with candies and prizes.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @guest, @nebulafox

    , @anonymous
    @Bubba

    Not for one minute can anyone with half a brain believe Streep when she said she wasn't aware of Weinstein's shenanigans. But, doesn't matter, really. Big Media is dominated by the kind of people with whom Spielberg etal. sympatico. They wield the megaphone so --guess what we are served up with 24/7/365-66? Is there any wonder why the so-called "alt Right" phenomenon has taken off. And BM is shocked...shocked that this is happening.

    , @syonredux
    @Bubba


    . I’m sure Steven Spielberg knew of his buddy Weinstein’s numerous sexual assaults against gentile women. The outrage and silence is deafening from the Hollywood crowd.
     
    And the victims include Gwyneth Paltrow;Spielberg is her godfather.....

    He knew what was going on.....
  7. Spielberg is not exactly the most self-aware ironist,

    Fortunately for him, neither are most white liberals.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @I, commenter

    Not an ironist on screen but he knows what's up. The innocence of his movies are a put-on. Maybe the innocence was sincere long ago when he was young. But he's been around power for a long time. He now manipulates the childlike innocence of his audience without really believing any of it.

    But then, we have to blame White America. By failing to speak truth to rising Jewish Power all these years, Jews feel totally justified, vindicated, validated, and righteous in whatever they say and do. White America dug its own grave by not holding Jewish feet to the fire like Jews held wasp feet to the fire.

    American Discourse is premised on the notion that whites are both good and evil whereas Jews, blacks, and homos are ONLY GOOD. So, the good can judge the good-bad, but the good-bad cannot judge the good. How can Jews, blacks, and homos be judged when they are totally good? In contrast, whites are seen as good(all the achievements of western civ) and bad(historical crimes). Since whites are marred by badness, they must try to be extra good to redeem their good side by purging their bad side... and how is this done? By sucking up to the Totally Good people. Since Jews are totally good, they are fit to preach to whites about what True Goodness is. So, whites must take this advice(open borders, anti-white education, PC, homomania, interracism, etc) and live up to it... or else they are bad. Trumpism didn't totally follow the script, so it must be bad.

    French worry about Submission to Islam. In the US, it's about white submission to Jewish Power. Israelam is the religion of America.

  8. @Bubba

    Bradlee was a key figure in the giant media cover-up of President Kennedy’s sexual predation upon the White House secretarial pool. Bradlee wrote, sounding rather like Sergeant Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes, that he knew nothing: “Like everyone else, we had heard reports of presidential infidelity, but we were always able to say we knew of no evidence, none.”
     
    And in the Weinstein sexual assaults, Meryl Streep also does a wonderful Sgt. Schultz yet won't acknowledge the women who were sexually assaulted by the creep. I'm sure Steven Spielberg knew of his buddy Weinstein's numerous sexual assaults against gentile women. The outrage and silence is deafening from the Hollywood crowd.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anon, @anonymous, @syonredux

    It’s Hollywood. You can do whatever you want to the shikses.

  9. OT

    Modern inquisitors force he-man race car driver to apologize for saying boys should not wear dresses — who knows what sinister torture methods were used.

    Lewis Hamilton apologises for ‘boys don’t wear dresses’ remark

    • Replies: @Paul Yarbles
    @eah

    I don't understand. Boys don't wear girl's clothes, right? I've only been asleep 20 years. Have dresses become menswear already?

    -- Rip Van Winkle

    , @Autochthon
    @eah

    The grovelling has to stop. The only appropriate response to criticism of those who speak truths (as here) or even merely hold unapproved (by the Man) opinions in matters about which reasonable persons can disagree, is something along the lines of "No. I will not renounce my views nor rescind my statements. I stand by my convictions, and you've every right to your own. If you seek to destroy me or vilify me for mine, though, you can go to Hell."

    Anything otherwise, so close to the feast of St. Stephen, no less, is contemptible.

    When the Man denounces as "hate" or otherwise condemns or mocks truth and men like our harried racer, I am reminded of the appropriate response to self-important fools who deny reality and authority:


    Thou speakest of thraldom. If thraldom it be, thou canst not escape it; for Manwë is King of Arda, and not of Aman only. And this deed was unlawful, whether in Aman or not in Aman.
     
  10. The most wealthy and powerful WASPs, the most socially exclusive WASPs Elites, married to and business partners and political and cultural allies of Jews, against Middle American whites.

    That is the dream vision of Oliver Cromwell; it is the inherent end of WASP culture.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Jake

    Many Anglo-Saxons were Cavaliers.

  11. The recently-famous Hollywood gossip site Crazy Days and Nights implies some very interesting stuff about Mr. Spielberg. Here’s one post which is presumably about him:

    http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2017/11/todays-blind-items-molesters-killed-her.html?m=1

  12. Steve,

    I have to give you props for quoting James DiEugenio to make your conclusion. I never would have guessed you’d even have heard of him, let alone give him the last word!

    Is I-Steve on a the brink of a deeper level of historical analysis for post-war America?

    I hope so! Keep it going!

    (I just made my December contribution to I-Steve in appreciation for this column.)

    https://kennedysandking.com/

  13. Steve,

    HBO had a documentary on Bradlee recently. It included the quote from your article about Bradlee using the Sgt. Schultz defense re: JFK. However, it also included a story of JFK assaulting Bradlee’s second wife at a party on the president’s yacht. Very sporting of him to still cover up dor him after that!

    • Replies: @Danindc
    @Clever User Name

    Did HBO give Steve credit for the quote?

    Replies: @Clever User Name

  14. The Post just seems tailor made to reassure and embolden the Press to keep committing suicide. What they don’t really need right now is another dose of righteous indignation and more hagiographies to crusading journalistic heroes. In fact, what would do the Media a world of good would be a Felt or Ellsberg within each prominent MSM outlet exposing in explicit terms what we all see implicitly – that they’re political operations which work to suppress the truth when it contradicts the political fortunes of one political party, and agitate against the other.

    The Media is like Sex Panther cologne from the Anchorman movies – Half the Time, It Works Everytime.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @Alec Leamas

    The elite press isn't exactly prolefeed. The leftist torrent from the media is probably the most important factor that shifted upper-middle class whites away from the GOP.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    , @Samuel Skinner
    @Alec Leamas

    It would be good for everything but their paychecks; as such they will never wake up.

    , @Verymuchalive
    @Alec Leamas

    Glad to see you're back to normal, Mr Leamas. I didn't like to think you were working yourself to exhaustion. I always thought that if Mr Unz wanted someone sane to fill the Patrick Cockburn slot it should have been you.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    , @guest
    @Alec Leamas

    We keep getting periodic leaks of the kind you describe. Remember Journo-list? Remember the Podesta leaks, which had damning ties to journalists. Remember the Project Veritas videos? Remember the O'Keefe CNN leaks, which caused some people their jobs?

    There are dozens of little scandals like those. Admittedly, they don't have staying power. I don't know why, but I have guesses. First of all, no one trusts the MSM anyway. Leftists and rightists for political reasons, and normal people for normal reasons. No one trusts politicians, either. But they have an interest in going after the dirty ones. With dirty journalists, the instinct is more to get your news from somewhere else.

    Also, unlike other areas of life--like groping on ladies or embezzlement--people don't really understand journalistic ethics. If such a thing exists.

    Finally, there's the conundrum that these scandals are reported upon by news outlets people also don't trust.

  15. @Alec Leamas
    The Post just seems tailor made to reassure and embolden the Press to keep committing suicide. What they don't really need right now is another dose of righteous indignation and more hagiographies to crusading journalistic heroes. In fact, what would do the Media a world of good would be a Felt or Ellsberg within each prominent MSM outlet exposing in explicit terms what we all see implicitly - that they're political operations which work to suppress the truth when it contradicts the political fortunes of one political party, and agitate against the other.

    The Media is like Sex Panther cologne from the Anchorman movies - Half the Time, It Works Everytime.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Samuel Skinner, @Verymuchalive, @guest

    The elite press isn’t exactly prolefeed. The leftist torrent from the media is probably the most important factor that shifted upper-middle class whites away from the GOP.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Maj. Kong


    The elite press isn’t exactly prolefeed. The leftist torrent from the media is probably the most important factor that shifted upper-middle class whites away from the GOP.
     
    I don't know if I'd consider any press outlet truly "elite" in fact. They're largely trading on reputations which themselves may not be deserved but which were acquired several decades ago. Even assuming as I do that Bernstein and Woodward were politically motivated actors, at least you can say that they did journalism of the real kind - i.e., combing through Court records, chasing down ledes, corroborating facts, etc. I doubt that very many if any reporters at WaPo or NYT currently on the payroll could actually competently piece together a story from such a disparate range of facts.

    The value of the WaPo and NYT though is that they have the ability to craft the daily narrative of the news cycle to advantage their political/elected wings. What gets printed on the frontpage inevitably winds up leading the half hour nightly news broadcasts, which is absolutely where loads of ordinary Americans get their news.

    As for the distancing of upper-middle class whites from the GOP, my belief is that this is more attributable to the soft news (like NBC's Today Show) and entertainment media as well as the political bent of the Universities than to the drumbeat of "elite" news outlets. The former shape attitudes and expectations, which are precursors t0 whacky, ostentatious left wing political beliefs at odds with the personal values of upper middle class whites.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

  16. Graham and Bradlee represented the kind of polished, old money establishmentarians who drove Nixon, a poor boy from Yorba Linda, to distraction with their contempt for his arriviste bumptiousness.

    Elites keeping the unwashed masses in their place, that’s what it is always about.

  17. @Alec Leamas
    The Post just seems tailor made to reassure and embolden the Press to keep committing suicide. What they don't really need right now is another dose of righteous indignation and more hagiographies to crusading journalistic heroes. In fact, what would do the Media a world of good would be a Felt or Ellsberg within each prominent MSM outlet exposing in explicit terms what we all see implicitly - that they're political operations which work to suppress the truth when it contradicts the political fortunes of one political party, and agitate against the other.

    The Media is like Sex Panther cologne from the Anchorman movies - Half the Time, It Works Everytime.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Samuel Skinner, @Verymuchalive, @guest

    It would be good for everything but their paychecks; as such they will never wake up.

  18. Steve,

    Ben Bradlee did indeed conceal Mary Pinchot Meyer’s diary from the police. However, I disagree with Peter Janney’s contention that the phone call from his father, CIA official Wistar Janney to Bradlee the afternoon of Meyer’s murder, meant his father had guilty foreknowledge of her murder.

    Peter Janney might be right, but he’s wrong that no one could have known of the murder on the afternoon of October 14, 1964. At the time of the phone call: the police had the name “Meyer” from her gloves at the scene and were in the process of systematically contacting all Meyers in the phone book.
    We know the CIA had been tapping Mary Meyer’s phone, but I’m not sold that they murdered her by setting up Ray Crump. Peter Janney’s theory is totally unpersuasive here.

    Ray Crump was spotted standing over her body within moments of the last shot. He was identified by Henry Wiggins without hesitation. The bit about the discrepancy over the weight is trivial. The height (assuming Crump was wearing shoes) was spot on.

    Crump did it. He was a violent low-life, both before and after Mary Meyer’s murder.

    What’s fascinating in all of this is the arrogant ease in which men like Bradlee and Angleton could decide that the public’s need to know was unimportant, and further, that a man like Spielberg is so unconscious of that.

    You made that point well, and for that, you deserve more money.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    @Paul Jolliffe

    Yes, Crump was the killer. The stupid conspiracy mongers trope-"The CIA did it!"- is supposed to cover every situation. Mary Meyer when alive posed no danger to anyone, least of all the CIA and the Kennedy people.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Paul Jolliffe

    So why did Crump do it?

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe

  19. More mythologising of religious totems for our present elites. First Lincoln and now Woodward and Bernstein. But Woodward and Bernstein thought all the mythologising of them was both silly and deeply damaging to journalism.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Altai


    But Woodward and Bernstein thought all the mythologising of them was both silly and deeply damaging to journalism.
     
    Citation needed.
  20. Interesting contrast then and now.

    Then-GOP POTUS attacks leaker of Dem President’s errors even though the leaker had nothing on Nixon.

    Today-GOP POTUS praises such leakers and tries to find more no matter what.

    (Nixon created the ‘plumbers’ to break into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist office and this eventually lead to Watergate)

    • Replies: @guest
    @anony-mouse

    They might have had the same goal in mind. But to Nixon, the prevailing order was America, even if it had been run by libs for decades. That's why he walked away from the dubious '60 election (unlike Al Gore), and why he resigned rather than be impeached (unlike Clinton). Because he didn't want the office tarnished.

    Of course, he could have burnished the office by not committing crimes. But no one's completely consistent.

    Trump, on the other hand, thinks the prevailing order is run by swamp creatures. It's not America to him. America is outside of Washington.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  21. Hollywood is filled with high-toned skunks.

  22. @duncsbaby
    @wren

    Democracy commits suicide in darkness.

    Replies: @Inquiring Mind

    My fave is how sites like HotAir or Powerlineblog will link to the “Post” for an article, dunno, out of sense of civic obligation, for amusement of its readers, to warn us “what we are up against”, or to deflect the complaint that the are a Fake News Echo Chamber.

    I click on the link, as I always do, but this time I hit the Post Paywall, with “Democracy Dies in Darkness” as their new motto.

    Does the Post “do” irony? Democracy Dies in Darkness but flash some cash, pal, if you want us to switch a light on for you?

    Forget this, Mr. Bezos, I would just rather patronize my Winger Echo Chambers for my Fake News before I pay the Post anything.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Inquiring Mind


    I click on the link, as I always do, but this time I hit the Post Paywall, with “Democracy Dies in Darkness” as their new motto.
     
    Open up that link behind a paywall in a new private window or incognito window. Using Firefox/ Chrome and you are good. This does work with Washington Post and NYTimes.
  23. Steve, what are your recommended readings on this bit of history?

  24. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Bubba

    Bradlee was a key figure in the giant media cover-up of President Kennedy’s sexual predation upon the White House secretarial pool. Bradlee wrote, sounding rather like Sergeant Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes, that he knew nothing: “Like everyone else, we had heard reports of presidential infidelity, but we were always able to say we knew of no evidence, none.”
     
    And in the Weinstein sexual assaults, Meryl Streep also does a wonderful Sgt. Schultz yet won't acknowledge the women who were sexually assaulted by the creep. I'm sure Steven Spielberg knew of his buddy Weinstein's numerous sexual assaults against gentile women. The outrage and silence is deafening from the Hollywood crowd.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anon, @anonymous, @syonredux

    To be fair to Bradlee, sexual activities of politicians of all stripes were generally ignored by the media back then(and even now in so many cases). Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    And even though the Media had it in for Nixon, Watergate really was shameful because it was so DUMB.
    And the media did, in the end, turn on Johnson and the Vietnam before Nixon.
    One reason why Johnson chose not to run in 68 was because the media had turned on him. And the media were not easy on Carter. I remember the 1980 election, and Carter got it hard from the press. And the media eventually let Reagan go on Iran-Contra even though that was much bigger than Watergate. The thing was, however, that Iran-Contra could at least be spun as serving nobler ends: releasing hostages and funding anti-communists. In contrast, Watergate was so tawdry. In the end, Nixon was his own worst enemy.

    Media bias were always there, but I’ve never seen as anything as deranged, crazy, and nuts as Media coverage of 2008 campaign and 2016 campaign and aftermath. The cult of Obama was something closer to commie cult of personality. It was grotesque, hyping this hustler from Chicago as The One.
    And 2016 coverage of Trump was downright nuts. And media have no right to bitch about rise of Alt Right since they are the ones who hyped the nascent movement and tried to connect it to Trump. And Russia Hacking crap? Wow.

    I think the problem has gotten worse for several reasons. Back in the days of Johnson and Nixon, Jews were powerful but not all-powerful. Many still faced uphill climb in many institutions. Since they understood what it meant to be an underdog, many of them were sincerely on the side of speaking truth to power. And to enable this, they really prized freedom and liberty and championed free speech. Nixon in his tapes complained of Jewish control of media, but that was nothing compared to now where Jews are not just powerful but totally dominant in so many areas. With all that power, the media have turned into a case of speaking for power than speaking to power. Also, both political parties are far more servile to Jewish power than in Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon days.
    Ethnic competition was good for journalism and narrative back in the day. Today, all sides praise Jews, Jews, and Jews. And Homos but then, homos are nothing but proxies of Jews. Blacks are also tools of Jewish Power, but at the street level, far more volatile. If black politicians and leaders can be bought, the black mobs can veer totally out of control.

    Another reason why media are crazy is the rise of the internet. Alternative news and narratives have made the Power very nervous. So, maintain Monopoly Narrativism, they go into hysteria mode and howl about RUSSIA HACKING so that enough idiots will believe it.
    And as the Democratic Party is now about self-loathing whites and Diversity, there’s bound to lots of divisions. So, to keep them together, there must be hysteria about Nazi-KKK-white-supremacists 24/7.

    So, there is now a concerted war on internet platforms, which is easy to do since most of them are owned by Jews. Also, since Jews control much of Wall Street, they can use carrots and sticks on a company like Twitter. Get rid of ‘hate’ and Twitter gets showered with candies and prizes.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Anon

    Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    No, his secretary contended in a memoir that they'd had an (unconsummated) affair. His son thought it self-aggrandizing tripe on the part of the secretary in question.

    Replies: @LondonBob

    , @Art Deco
    @Anon

    And the media eventually let Reagan go on Iran-Contra even though that was much bigger than Watergate.

    It wasn't. Bad policy decisions aren't crimes. As for what might be crimes, the primary offense there was contriving an end-run around the Boland Amendment, which prohibited appropriations from being used to finance the Nicaraguan contras. The special prosecutor eventually won a conviction of Oliver north on 3 counts of the original 23 count indictment. The most severe charge was accepting an unlawful gratuity. North's conviction was later vacated on procedural grounds.

    , @guest
    @Anon

    I don't approve of your DUMB assessment. Not that it wasn't dumb, but do you honestly think Nixon was the only president with a potential scandal caused by dumbness? Likely FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson allowed even dumber things to happen, because though there are always factions within factions,* they had less natural selection going on.

    They were all in the same Ruling Liberal Consensus, and had much less to worry from overly hostile political or press opponents. From what I know, their illegal eavesdropping also had its Keystone Cops aspects.**

    Nixon, on the other hand, was at most an Outer Party figure.

    *McCarthy led the last real populist backlash, unless you count Wallace. But he was fed information from Hoover's FBI. Which meant Hoover was at least willing to put the screws to the State Department. But notice the operation was not allowed to threaten the presidency itself.

    It was met immediately with one of the biggest public Establishment hissy fits ever, which continues to this day. But it was allowed to continue on for a while, until it went after the army. Which was likely beyond Hoover's scope. And until the Republicans were in the White House, after which time both parties had every reason to kill it.

    Then it was slammed shut. The worst possible case for the Establishment would have been for it to unravel the WWII narrative, which is the Foundation Myth for the NWO. Pinkos at State is one thing, in the army another, and men like George Marshall or Eisenhower implicated unthinkable.

    **See the book It Didn't Start with Watergate.

    , @nebulafox
    @Anon

    >To be fair to Bradlee, sexual activities of politicians of all stripes were generally ignored by the media back then(and even now in so many cases). Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    The only Presidents between FDR and Dubya who didn't have flings at one point or another were Truman, Nixon, and Carter. Truman met his wife in kindergarten, Nixon probably would be diagnosed on the autism spectrum in 2017, and Carter was a Bible thumper.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  25. Great movie review. Terrific history lesson.

    I have seen the advertisements and couldn’t put anything together other than Graham and Bradlee.

    More importantly, thanks for watching so I don’t have to.

  26. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @I, commenter

    Spielberg is not exactly the most self-aware ironist,

     

    Fortunately for him, neither are most white liberals.

    Replies: @Anon

    Not an ironist on screen but he knows what’s up. The innocence of his movies are a put-on. Maybe the innocence was sincere long ago when he was young. But he’s been around power for a long time. He now manipulates the childlike innocence of his audience without really believing any of it.

    But then, we have to blame White America. By failing to speak truth to rising Jewish Power all these years, Jews feel totally justified, vindicated, validated, and righteous in whatever they say and do. White America dug its own grave by not holding Jewish feet to the fire like Jews held wasp feet to the fire.

    American Discourse is premised on the notion that whites are both good and evil whereas Jews, blacks, and homos are ONLY GOOD. So, the good can judge the good-bad, but the good-bad cannot judge the good. How can Jews, blacks, and homos be judged when they are totally good? In contrast, whites are seen as good(all the achievements of western civ) and bad(historical crimes). Since whites are marred by badness, they must try to be extra good to redeem their good side by purging their bad side… and how is this done? By sucking up to the Totally Good people. Since Jews are totally good, they are fit to preach to whites about what True Goodness is. So, whites must take this advice(open borders, anti-white education, PC, homomania, interracism, etc) and live up to it… or else they are bad. Trumpism didn’t totally follow the script, so it must be bad.

    French worry about Submission to Islam. In the US, it’s about white submission to Jewish Power. Israelam is the religion of America.

  27. We already got “All the President’s Men.” Just why is this movie necessary?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Rosamond Vincy

    Basically, because a lot of people have realized that the Washington Post is just some crappy blog now, and has become kind of a laughingstock.

    So the idea is, if Steven Spielberg makes a movie about it, people will decide that it's really cool after all. I don't know how well it'll work, but probably better than I would like it to.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Alden
    @Rosamond Vincy

    Because old liberals never die. 1965 to about 1975 was the days of their Glorious Revolution.

    They have reunions at places like Oberlin and Swathmore colleges.

  28. (FKA Broski)

    That the FBI screwed Nixon, just as it’s nakedly trying to screw Trump, was a gem you pointed out. (Nixon actually, you know, did something, but still.)

    Of course, Spielberg is not exactly the most self-aware ironist, so The Post, an earnest celebration of how Big Media supports “the people’s right to know,” doesn’t quite get its own joke about how convenient it was for the Democratic press’ uneasy conscience over how little it had criticized JFK and LBJ to be salved by a press putsch against the Republican in the White House.

    That was a long sentence.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Uilleam Yr Alban

    That the FBI screwed Nixon, just as it’s nakedly trying to screw Trump, was a gem you pointed out. (Nixon actually, you know, did something, but still.)

    They didn't. Nixon and his subordinates were guilty. The FBI director at the time, Patrick Gray, actually destroyed inculpatory evidence. John Dean discusses the matter in his memoir (to be sure, Dean is regarded by many as an untrustworthy source).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @TWS
    @Uilleam Yr Alban

    What Nixon did was be republican. By then the swamp was already deadly.

  29. The watergate scandal was an internal power struggle within the government, but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @NOTA

    The administration was caught spying on communists and the president was caught lying about it. In other words, Watergate was a repeat of the U-2 scandal of 1960. Should Eisenhower have been driven from office as well?

    Replies: @David Davenport

    , @Mr. Anon
    @NOTA


    The watergate scandal was an internal power struggle within the government, but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.
     
    Really? How nasty was it? Especially given that it ultimately failed. The Nixon White House paid some of their low-level operatives hush-money. The hush-money worked in buying their silence, but Nixon eventually got busted when it came out on the tapes that he condoned the act of paying hush-money. If the cover-up really was "nasty", then Bob Woodward might have been an unfortunate victim of a "robbery gone wrong". Or Carl Bernstein might have succumbed to a fatal overdose of sleeping pills. Or Mark Felt might have been found to have tragically committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.

    None of what the Nixon administration did was any worse than any thing that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations did in office. I remember, at the time, the shock verging on horror that many (if not most) people had that Nixon had been secretly tape-recording people in the Oval Office. This was deemed to be sleezy, underhanded, un-American even. Of course, as we all know now, Kennedy and Johnson did the same thing, and for the exact same reasons.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Abe
    @NOTA


    but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.
     
    CNN's decade-by-decade documentary series (executive produced by aw-shucks Mr. Fake Americana Tom Hanks) was pretty gleeful in its recounting of how the JFK campaign, during the 1960 Democratic primary, did a false flag operation, putting out anonymous anti-JFK/anti-Catholic fliers to stir up the upper Midwest Catholic vote in JFK's favor. Should *that* have come out? Should that dirty trick have cost JFK the primary, to say nothing of fairly plausible ballot-stuffing accusations in Illinois during the general.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

  30. Has the Watergate affair ever been so clearly and accurately summarized before this? I doubt it. Steve should be put in charge of making up the questions for the AP History exam.

    In general, this is the danger of liberals making hubristic movies like the Post. It creates an opportunity to reevaluate the prevailing common wisdom. In a few paragraphs Steve has demolished the work of millions of public middle school teachers.

  31. Tom Hanks already bravely came out and said he will NOT show the film at the White House. I don’t know how he does it, to fly in the face of everything Hollywood stands for and go against a universally loved President who enjoys near unanimous support from Hollywood, Education, and Media.

    Way to be brave Mr. Hanks. I doubt you’ll see work in this town again with a controversial and highly dangerous stance like yours.

    • LOL: TWS
    • Replies: @David In TN
    @ATate

    Tony Thomas, a writer of numerous biographies of famous actors (Flynn, Stewart, Lancaster, Douglas, Brando, etc), wrote in a book debunking the idea of Eroll Flynn being a Nazi that "Hollywood has never been a brave place."

    Thomas was referring to almost no one but David Niven defending Flynn from the charge.

  32. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosamond Vincy
    We already got "All the President's Men." Just why is this movie necessary?

    Replies: @anon, @Alden

    Basically, because a lot of people have realized that the Washington Post is just some crappy blog now, and has become kind of a laughingstock.

    So the idea is, if Steven Spielberg makes a movie about it, people will decide that it’s really cool after all. I don’t know how well it’ll work, but probably better than I would like it to.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @anon

    I'm not sure Bezos and the WaPo realize that the more they play partisan politics and produce yellow journalism, the more the reputation of the WaPo will be ruined in the eyes of future, and people will start assuming that Watergate was a fake crime ginned up by the press instead of a real crime. It's the most recent impression that sticks in the minds of a younger generation, because the majority of them don't have the patience to go back and plod through all you need to learn the truth.

    It's sort of like how young people who hear a recent Paul McCartney record will assume he's always sucked and not bother to go back to listen to the Beatles. If the WaPo acts like a sucky paper, the young will assume it was always that way. People raised in older times when the Beatles and the WaPo ruled the roost will find this difficult to believe, but younger people can only learn reality through the lens of most recent developments, and that's a different reality.

  33. @wren
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5213347/Washington-Post-heir-William-Graham-commits-suicide.html

    Replies: @duncsbaby, @e, @Mr. Anon

    Understatements: Genes are powerful things. Nature is more powerful than nurture.

  34. Ah yes, I’m sure this film will cause the MSM to engage in a long round of soul searching.

    Who am I kidding? They re just going to double down on huffing their own farts as their empire crashes down around them.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Jack Hanson


    huffing their own farts
     
    I love it you said that about BHO. It's perfect.
  35. @NOTA
    The watergate scandal was an internal power struggle within the government, but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Mr. Anon, @Abe

    The administration was caught spying on communists and the president was caught lying about it. In other words, Watergate was a repeat of the U-2 scandal of 1960. Should Eisenhower have been driven from office as well?

    • Replies: @David Davenport
    @Anonymous

    In other words, Watergate was a repeat of the U-2 scandal of 1960. Should Eisenhower have been driven from office as well?

    What U-2 scandal? Are you saying Eisenhower was wrong to authorize reconnaissance flights over the USSR?

    The USSR was a real threat back then, contrary to what your Lefty profs probably taught you.

  36. @NOTA
    The watergate scandal was an internal power struggle within the government, but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Mr. Anon, @Abe

    The watergate scandal was an internal power struggle within the government, but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.

    Really? How nasty was it? Especially given that it ultimately failed. The Nixon White House paid some of their low-level operatives hush-money. The hush-money worked in buying their silence, but Nixon eventually got busted when it came out on the tapes that he condoned the act of paying hush-money. If the cover-up really was “nasty”, then Bob Woodward might have been an unfortunate victim of a “robbery gone wrong”. Or Carl Bernstein might have succumbed to a fatal overdose of sleeping pills. Or Mark Felt might have been found to have tragically committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.

    None of what the Nixon administration did was any worse than any thing that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations did in office. I remember, at the time, the shock verging on horror that many (if not most) people had that Nixon had been secretly tape-recording people in the Oval Office. This was deemed to be sleezy, underhanded, un-American even. Of course, as we all know now, Kennedy and Johnson did the same thing, and for the exact same reasons.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Mr. Anon

    The Nixon White House paid some of their low-level operatives hush-money. The hush-money worked in buying their silence, but Nixon eventually got busted

    I didn't work. The weakest link was James McCord, who started talking around the time of his sentencing hearing. Also, Howard Hunt's wife was killed in a plane crash in December 1972 and with her personal effects was a satchel with large wads of cash in it. Representing John Dean, Charles Schaffer conferred with Seymour Glanzer of the U.S. Attorney's office in March 1973 and reported to Dean that Glanzer had confided that the investigation was by that time looking north of Hunt and Liddy in the organization. Formally, Liddy reported to John Mitchell who reported to the President.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Mr. Anon

  37. re Nixon’s “arriviste bumptiousness,” I just can’t shake the feeling that the hostility of the Bradleyites actually was more about race. In Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972, Hunter Thompson opined that the essence of the Nixon campaign was “get the niggers.” Graham, Bradley, Broder et al., knowing that law and order was what most Nixon voters wanted, probably felt this one issue is what made Nixon “illegitimate.” Nothing much changes.

    • Agree: Abe
    • Replies: @Alden
    @Marty

    Nixon won partly because his opponent, McGovern loudly promised that in order to raise more tax money to continue the Johnson/Nixon war on poverty programs he would abolish the interest and property tax deductions from income taxes.

    That struck fear to the home owning middle class who depended on that tax deduction.

    Even ultra liberal school teachers and Vietnam protesters maybe didn't vote for Nixon but they couldn't bring themselves to vote for McGovern and lose that tax deduction.

  38. I might have gone to see The Post if it had just been the usual ret-conned pro-Democrat pack of lies, just for the 70s nostalgia hit. But if Spielberg wants to make it about Trump and the current political situation, well, then to Hell with him. I won’t see it. If he wants to alienate half his potential audience, that’s his decision.

    Also, it’s got Bob Odenkirk in it, and I won’t see anything with him anymore, since he came out on that video last year urging the electors to overturn the results of the election. F**k him and any movie he might make in the future.

  39. @wren
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5213347/Washington-Post-heir-William-Graham-commits-suicide.html

    Replies: @duncsbaby, @e, @Mr. Anon

    He might have inherited a depressive streak from his father. On the other hand, another thing they certainly both had in common was………………an emotional relationship with Katherine Graham.

  40. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.

    – Katharine Graham

    Democracy flourishes in the dark.

    https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/katharine_graham_176758

    • LOL: wren
  41. In my younger days, by chance of my friends and location, I spent a fair amount of time around DC reporters. Couple of observations (most not surprising):

    1. Extremely liberal in exactly the way that you’d think, i.e. virtue signaling vs caring about blue-collar workers

    2. A lot of top 20 colleges.
    – You’d see a state university grad here and there but it was heavily Columbia, other Ivies, Georgetown, etc.

    3. Married or in relationship with someone who actually made good money
    – These people weren’t going to suffer for their cause

    4. Cared deeply that they were treated as just as important as the movers and shakers
    – A friend once said that becoming a cop was a way for young, unaccomplished people to get immediate authority and respect without having to earn it. A lot of the DC reporters are like pushy young cops who relish their power over you.

    5. Lived no where near blacks
    – The younger reporters lived in hipster parts of DC. Older ones with kids lived in Arlington or Bethesda – or, if married to some rich guy, in DC but sent their kids to private school

    6. Absolutely zero experience in the real world
    – They almost always grew up in very nice neighborhoods, went to swank schools, hung out with people just like themselves and eventually returned to very similar neighborhoods to where they grew up. A few might have worked as a waiter or something in college but they never had childhood friends who didn’t go to college.

    7. Words are real
    – This is a big one. Because they didn’t grow up around people who worked with concrete things, their world was always about ideas and words. The person who could debate the best won the argument regardless of the actual facts. Words were real. Debating the number of angels on the head of a pin was no different than debating immigration to them. It was all abstract, and, therefore, the correct answer was the one sounded best to them.

    8. They are the good guys
    – For many, it was a calling. Indeed, the occassional reporter that I’d run into who was farily normal generally was looking to get out of the industry. The farther up the ladder you went, the more liberal and bizarre they got.

    9. Utterly un-self-aware – as Steve notes
    – You could crack jokes about their hyprocrisies all day, and they wouldn’t notice. They simply didn’t see it.

    10. All white and heavily Jewish

    But to be fair, most of the reporters that I met were actually decent enough people. Of course, if they knew how I truly thought, they would have wanted me killed, so there’s that.

    Of course, all of this was a long time ago. I’ve occassionally seen one of their names at a prominent new organization, but a new generation of even more stringent SJWs are coming up and they won’t take kindly to their middle-aged white bosses wanting to slow them down. It’ll be fun to watch.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Marty
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I appreciate this post.

    , @Bill B.
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    4. Cared deeply that they were treated as just as important as the movers and shakers
     
    Did not Gore Vidal write something like: a reporter is someone who walks into a room and thinks he knows more than anyone else in the room irrespective of who is in the room.

    7. Words are real
    – This is a big one. Because they didn’t grow up around people who worked with concrete things, their world was always about ideas and words. The person who could debate the best won the argument regardless of the actual facts. Words were real. Debating the number of angels on the head of a pin was no different than debating immigration to them. It was all abstract, and, therefore, the correct answer was the one sounded best to them.
     
    This is a change I have noticed talking to journalists in Europe and Asia. A generation or so ago there was a sense that everyone was trying to find out what the hell was going on. Now it is much more about personal showboating and drawing applause. Of course journalism is more blatantly ideological now so playing with words is safer than working with sometimes uncomfortable facts.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Hibernian
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    In some neighborhoods in Chicago and in the entire city of Seattle, almost everybody is like that.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    , @Anonym
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I agree with Marty. This is the sort of post I am glad to wade through the comments section for.

  42. Actually, I wonder if this film was rushed to release for other reasons. Rumor-wise, the drumbeats do seem to be quickening with respect to Spielberg. The blog Crazy Days and Nights has been on top of the mounting whispers, and I would bet the dam will burst in the first half of 2018. It will be a huge hit to American mainstream cultural self-confidence when and if it does, and it may well eclipse the midterm elections as the biggest story of the year.

    THE POST was likely green-lighted months before Weinsteingate, when the null hypothesis was that Spielberg only had unusual emotional insight into children.

  43. Although he was definitely a bad person, Ray Crump, the suspect in Mary Pinchot Meyer’s murder, probably wasn’t guilty and his acquittal was the correct decision. Meyer was shot to death on a footpath running along the Potomac and the police detained Crump on the footpath about a quarter mile from the murder scene. At the trial, the prosecution emphasized that there were only two exits from the footpath and that it would have been impossible to anyone else to have left through those exits. The defense brought in a mapmaker and aerial photographs to prove that there were several unmarked passages off the footpath, a point the prosecution’s case never addressed.

    The prosecution also relied heavily on the testimony of a witness who had gotten a distant view of a black man standing over a white woman’s body, a view too distant to make out the black man’s face. Crump was short and his limbs were strangely proportioned. Although anyone who saw him would instantly notice his strange physique, the witness did not notice that and in his first statement to the police described a man who was much taller than Crump.

    • Replies: @prusmc
    @prosa123

    So who killed Mary? BTW didn't both Angleton and Bill Colby die under strange circumstances?

    Replies: @prosa123

    , @Alden
    @prosa123

    Wasn't Crump and the person seen standing over a body both wearing a noticeable plaid jacket?
    As far as footpaths go, who needs footpaths, anyone can go through the brush.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  44. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I was reading some interesting stuff about how Katherine Graham murdered her husband Phil Graham. It seems Phil had taken a mistress, was going to get a divorce, and had rewritten his will so that the Post went to his mistress and not Katherine. Katherine had Phil committed to a mental institution, and then took him out of it one weekend for a ‘visit.’ She then disappeared with Phil and a shotgun off to their Virginia farm. Phil was dead from a shotgun blast 48 hours later. From the setup, it looks an awful lot like Katherine pulled the trigger herself. The police report was never made public.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2935-philip-graham/?page=2

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Anon

    Fascinating, thanks for the information.

    Now wouldn't that make a marvelous cold case type movie. Brad Pitt for the detective assigned to go through old records and finally solves the case.

    , @JimB
    @Anon

    Yeah, except William Graham, Phil Graham's son, just offed himself. Like father, like son. Maybe Lewy body dementia, which is inherited.

    , @Henry's Cat
    @Anon

    Wasn't this a Columbo episode?

    , @Art Deco
    @Anon

    It seems Phil had taken a mistress, was going to get a divorce, and had rewritten his will so that the Post went to his mistress and not Katherine.

    His widow does indicate in her memoirs that he was writing his will and that there were drafts in which as much as 2/3 of his property was to be distributed to his mistress. By her account, the mistress wanted no part of any public scandal and refused to press any claims she might have had due to the various drafts.

    He was Eugene Meyer's son-in-law, not his son. It's a reasonable wager that the family's ownership of the Post was so structured (in trusts and whatnot) that it wasn't Philip Graham's to dispose of unilaterally. Eugene Meyer had four other children and his widow was still alive at the time Philip Graham died.

    , @Paul Jolliffe
    @Anon

    George Smathers (Florida Senator and friend of both JFK and Phil Graham) said of Katherine Graham "Well, if you had been married to Kay Graham, you'd have probably shot yourself too."

    Bet that line is not in the movie!

    (Smathers interview, printed page 8 below)

    https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/OralHistory_SmathersGeorge.pdf

  45. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

    This is an interesting read. Has anyone read The Pentagon Papers? Is the wikipedia article an accurate summary?

    It is interesting that the basic goal of the Viet Nam and Korea wars was the Great Game containment of China, rather than sticking up for South Viet Nam (yeah, right) or the more believable Domino Theory.

    It reminds me of the time I learned about the Great Game made explicit after Kitchener won the Battle of Omdurman.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Kitchener,_1st_Earl_Kitchener

    After Omdurman, Kitchener opened a special sealed letter from Salisbury that told him that Salisbury’s real reason for ordering the conquest of the Sudan was to prevent France from moving into the Sudan, and that the talk of “avenging Gordon” had been just a pretext.[26] Salisbury’s letter ordered Kitchener to head south as soon as possible to evict Marchand before he got a chance to become well-established on the Nile.[26]

    The USA has been playing the Great Game in the Pacific since before WWII, when the US was concerned about Japan’s rise, when McCollum wrote his memo.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo

    It seems that the USA has foundered in this era of political correctness and allowed China to achieve its goals of imperialism. I guess as long as we have achieved cultural feats like allowing men to use female bathrooms, it’s ok if the nation’s secrets wander off in USB flash drives. At least we weren’t racist!

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Anonym

    We've played the great game in the Pacific since the Spanish American war when we grabbed the Phillipines.

    Replies: @Anonym

    , @Hibernian
    @Anonym

    The Japanese entered WWI on the Allied side, to steal German colonized Pacific Islands. The European Powers gave a war, and the Japanese came, uninvited.

  46. @prosa123
    Although he was definitely a bad person, Ray Crump, the suspect in Mary Pinchot Meyer's murder, probably wasn't guilty and his acquittal was the correct decision. Meyer was shot to death on a footpath running along the Potomac and the police detained Crump on the footpath about a quarter mile from the murder scene. At the trial, the prosecution emphasized that there were only two exits from the footpath and that it would have been impossible to anyone else to have left through those exits. The defense brought in a mapmaker and aerial photographs to prove that there were several unmarked passages off the footpath, a point the prosecution's case never addressed.

    The prosecution also relied heavily on the testimony of a witness who had gotten a distant view of a black man standing over a white woman's body, a view too distant to make out the black man's face. Crump was short and his limbs were strangely proportioned. Although anyone who saw him would instantly notice his strange physique, the witness did not notice that and in his first statement to the police described a man who was much taller than Crump.

    Replies: @prusmc, @Alden

    So who killed Mary? BTW didn’t both Angleton and Bill Colby die under strange circumstances?

    • Replies: @prosa123
    @prusmc

    Angleton died of lung cancer in a Washington hospital. Colby drowned while canoeing on a river in Maryland, he was 76 years old and suffered from severe atherosclerosis.

    Replies: @Flip

  47. Anonymous [AKA "Joe Regular Guy Dude"] says:

    Corresponding with a white South African, and he reports that though clearly a second class citizen, he is happy enough.

    I wonder if the fact that the issue isn’t settled yet makes it all feel more contentious in the US. The Historic America is still in the process of being overthrown and trying to fight back, thus the Trump election, so there is more contention and heat, like the rush to remove Confederate monuments.
    Maybe once the other side has won definitively, Legacy Americans are irretrievably second class citizens, and there is no point in fighting anymore, things will feel more peaceful.
    Surely Germany in 1948 under occupation, even Soviet occupation, felt more peaceful than when the Allies were closing in on two fronts.

    Though I do wonder. In SA once the blacks “won” there was still some divisions twixt Zulu and the others, but it was still a discrete event, and whites were always a small minority. In the US, whites share of population and position is dwindling away slowly, and so it will be a long time before we are a small enough minority that we aren’t useful as the common enemy of the new America, so the wrangling could last a long while. Plus, once Whitey is no longer dominant and the common enemy, the wrestling match will start over who has power. Blacks have the historic claim as genuine victims as the Legacy Minority, Latinos will have the demographic majority, Asians and Jews the wealth and control of the institutions and elite positions (witness the Zuckerberg marriage for that demographic union at the top), so it won’t be so simple or amenable to a clear victory and stable balance of powers.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @Anonymous

    There are no shortage of Arab Christians willing to accept dhimmi status, and the long-term decline of their community by exogamy of women to Muslim husbands.

    It's a societal version of Stockholm Syndrome.

    Replies: @EdwardM

    , @Samuel Skinner
    @Anonymous

    It won't work. The current set up is unsustainable and eventually things will disintegrate.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

  48. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bubba

    Bradlee was a key figure in the giant media cover-up of President Kennedy’s sexual predation upon the White House secretarial pool. Bradlee wrote, sounding rather like Sergeant Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes, that he knew nothing: “Like everyone else, we had heard reports of presidential infidelity, but we were always able to say we knew of no evidence, none.”
     
    And in the Weinstein sexual assaults, Meryl Streep also does a wonderful Sgt. Schultz yet won't acknowledge the women who were sexually assaulted by the creep. I'm sure Steven Spielberg knew of his buddy Weinstein's numerous sexual assaults against gentile women. The outrage and silence is deafening from the Hollywood crowd.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anon, @anonymous, @syonredux

    Not for one minute can anyone with half a brain believe Streep when she said she wasn’t aware of Weinstein’s shenanigans. But, doesn’t matter, really. Big Media is dominated by the kind of people with whom Spielberg etal. sympatico. They wield the megaphone so –guess what we are served up with 24/7/365-66? Is there any wonder why the so-called “alt Right” phenomenon has taken off. And BM is shocked…shocked that this is happening.

  49. @Alec Leamas
    The Post just seems tailor made to reassure and embolden the Press to keep committing suicide. What they don't really need right now is another dose of righteous indignation and more hagiographies to crusading journalistic heroes. In fact, what would do the Media a world of good would be a Felt or Ellsberg within each prominent MSM outlet exposing in explicit terms what we all see implicitly - that they're political operations which work to suppress the truth when it contradicts the political fortunes of one political party, and agitate against the other.

    The Media is like Sex Panther cologne from the Anchorman movies - Half the Time, It Works Everytime.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Samuel Skinner, @Verymuchalive, @guest

    Glad to see you’re back to normal, Mr Leamas. I didn’t like to think you were working yourself to exhaustion. I always thought that if Mr Unz wanted someone sane to fill the Patrick Cockburn slot it should have been you.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Verymuchalive

    That's a very nice thing to say.

    I use the modified moniker from another computer because in my experience the unz.com comment system doesn't permit the use of the same handle and email address from two different computers alternatively.

  50. 1. Bob Woodward has a known history as a yarn-puller. (He claimed to have had 12 hours of conversations with the moribund William J. Casey without ever being collared by the nursing staff, hospital security, Casey’s wife, or Casey’s daughter. Casey’s wife said in no uncertain terms he was lying through his teeth. The press, who looked after each other in that era, pretended they believed Woodward). Shortly before the Felt ‘revelation’, another journalist published a piece analyzing the mechanics of WoodStein’s account of their dealings with ‘Deep Throat’, concluding the tale was fiction. Suggest the nonagenarian Felt was a source and did them a favor by claiming to be “Deep Throat” when Deep Throat was actually a composite.

    2. There was no ‘silent coup’ contra Richard Nixon. The man had ethical deficits (manifest in his work life, not in his everyday life) and the fish rots from the head down. H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, and John Mitchell were all unscrupulous people to varying degrees. Same deal with Wm. Bittman, Herbert Kalmbach, and Paul O’Brien. A half-dozen others committed minor offenses or allowed themselves to be tainted by the schemes with which these others were engaged. The general counsel to the Committee to Re-elect the President (a lapsed FBI agent and something of a kook) put together a small domestic espionage apparatus making use of a lapsed CIA agent, the chief of security at CRP headquarters, and a quartet of Cuban exiles who had done work for the CIA in the past. His elaborate plans were presented to John Mitchell, Jeb Magruder, and John Dean in early 1972. He was told to scale it back, which he did. N.B. Gordon Liddy had previously been a staff lawyer working for John Dean and Howard Hunt had been a contractor working for Charles Colson. Nixon may have not known Liddy from a cord of wood, but John Mitchell certainly knew well what Liddy’s crew were up to, as did Haldeman’s aide Gordon Strachan. Nixon wasn’t going to come clean about all this and his subordinates all busied themselves trying to raise funds on the QT to keep the arrested burglars from talking.

    • Replies: @The Man From K Street
    @Art Deco


    Shortly before the Felt ‘revelation’, another journalist published a piece analyzing the mechanics of WoodStein’s account of their dealings with ‘Deep Throat’, concluding the tale was fiction. Suggest the nonagenarian Felt was a source and did them a favor by claiming to be “Deep Throat” when Deep Throat was actually a composite.
     
    That's always been the most logical conclusion. The agent who originally marketed the draft for All the President's Men publically claimed that the initial typescript of the book contained absolutely no reference to Deep Throat. Based on that clue, you can speculate either

    A. Woodward and Bernstein originally were going to be so protective of their sources that they were never going to mention him at all, and made at least one draft of the story omitting all reference to Deep Throat; or

    B. Woodward and Bernstein played at condensing history as Hollywood scriptwriters do. A Hollywood scripter sees that the real life Hero had a dozen helpers doing the Great Deed. The hack boils those dozen people down to a single person, and gives him a fictional name.

    So assume (B). Mark Felt, a forgotten man whose life was wasted serving a mercurial J. Edgar Hoover's whims, might remember ratting on his chums several times. He never conveyed the info the fictional Deep Throat did, but he is as close a match as any. As Deep Throat is seen by many as a good guy, he lets the grandkids know the secret ID of the hero.

    Woodstein can then say -- yeah, he was Deep Throat, without addressing the point of whether their literary portrait of the man was accurate in many respects.

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe

    , @Hibernian
    @Art Deco

    Are lapsed CIA and FBI agents sort of like lapsed Catholics?

  51. 18 to 24 is the biggest share of movie audiences. The 35 and older group are often parents and grandparents taking kids to kids movies.

    Why in the world would 15 to 35 year olds go to see a movie about things that happened in their grandparents time?

    Since history is taught to badly in school, anyone who wasn’t at least an older teen at the time has no context to put it in. ho hum

    And given that the 28 to 24 group has never read newspapers in their lives, and those under 40 probably stopped reading newspapers 15 years ago, the subject of newspapers exposing evil governments has no interest.

    Maybe it will be shown only in art houses where elderly liberals can show off to each other with their knowledge of Vietnam and their brave fight against our involvement.

    The usual procedure with all non art house movies like this is to track the opening weekend receipts.
    By about 4 AM Saturday Hawaii time the fate of the movie is known. If the receipts were good, the movie stays. If receipts are low, the movie is pulled a month or so later unless receipts hugely increase in the next few weekends.

    The chains don’t want to waste their overhead on a movie that doesn’t make them money.

    Let us hope it’s a flop.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    @Alden

    As I've said before, Spielberg and Company are content if 15 people see this film. At the least, it will run on the movie channels, netflix, DVD, etc. This is why it was green-lighted despite not being a certain box office hit.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  52. I have not see the movie but the impression I was getting is that the movie was a glorification of early 1970s feminism and all the supposedly great things that occur when women become owners and leaders rather than just wife’s and secretaries.

    If that is true, it will be quite ironic. The movie was rushed out with the Hillary train wreck fresh in everyone’s mind, the Hollywood – Weinstein scandal, Amazon – Bezos – Post, and the growing awareness that the FBI scandal (by the way, we need a proper label that sticks) which appears to be entirely left wing / Democratic Party engineered will make Watergate look like peanuts if proven true.

    Like the Edsel, it is a headstone on a previous era not the beginning of the new one. It gives Spielberg and the left one last chance to wallow in second wave women’s lib and the heyday of the Left before the curtain closes.

  53. @Rosamond Vincy
    We already got "All the President's Men." Just why is this movie necessary?

    Replies: @anon, @Alden

    Because old liberals never die. 1965 to about 1975 was the days of their Glorious Revolution.

    They have reunions at places like Oberlin and Swathmore colleges.

  54. @prosa123
    Although he was definitely a bad person, Ray Crump, the suspect in Mary Pinchot Meyer's murder, probably wasn't guilty and his acquittal was the correct decision. Meyer was shot to death on a footpath running along the Potomac and the police detained Crump on the footpath about a quarter mile from the murder scene. At the trial, the prosecution emphasized that there were only two exits from the footpath and that it would have been impossible to anyone else to have left through those exits. The defense brought in a mapmaker and aerial photographs to prove that there were several unmarked passages off the footpath, a point the prosecution's case never addressed.

    The prosecution also relied heavily on the testimony of a witness who had gotten a distant view of a black man standing over a white woman's body, a view too distant to make out the black man's face. Crump was short and his limbs were strangely proportioned. Although anyone who saw him would instantly notice his strange physique, the witness did not notice that and in his first statement to the police described a man who was much taller than Crump.

    Replies: @prusmc, @Alden

    Wasn’t Crump and the person seen standing over a body both wearing a noticeable plaid jacket?
    As far as footpaths go, who needs footpaths, anyone can go through the brush.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Alden

    The smart lawyer showed the jury the easy routes through the brush.

  55. @Anon
    I was reading some interesting stuff about how Katherine Graham murdered her husband Phil Graham. It seems Phil had taken a mistress, was going to get a divorce, and had rewritten his will so that the Post went to his mistress and not Katherine. Katherine had Phil committed to a mental institution, and then took him out of it one weekend for a 'visit.' She then disappeared with Phil and a shotgun off to their Virginia farm. Phil was dead from a shotgun blast 48 hours later. From the setup, it looks an awful lot like Katherine pulled the trigger herself. The police report was never made public.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2935-philip-graham/?page=2

    Replies: @Alden, @JimB, @Henry's Cat, @Art Deco, @Paul Jolliffe

    Fascinating, thanks for the information.

    Now wouldn’t that make a marvelous cold case type movie. Brad Pitt for the detective assigned to go through old records and finally solves the case.

  56. @Anonym
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

    This is an interesting read. Has anyone read The Pentagon Papers? Is the wikipedia article an accurate summary?

    It is interesting that the basic goal of the Viet Nam and Korea wars was the Great Game containment of China, rather than sticking up for South Viet Nam (yeah, right) or the more believable Domino Theory.

    It reminds me of the time I learned about the Great Game made explicit after Kitchener won the Battle of Omdurman.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Kitchener,_1st_Earl_Kitchener


    After Omdurman, Kitchener opened a special sealed letter from Salisbury that told him that Salisbury's real reason for ordering the conquest of the Sudan was to prevent France from moving into the Sudan, and that the talk of "avenging Gordon" had been just a pretext.[26] Salisbury's letter ordered Kitchener to head south as soon as possible to evict Marchand before he got a chance to become well-established on the Nile.[26]
     
    The USA has been playing the Great Game in the Pacific since before WWII, when the US was concerned about Japan's rise, when McCollum wrote his memo.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo

    It seems that the USA has foundered in this era of political correctness and allowed China to achieve its goals of imperialism. I guess as long as we have achieved cultural feats like allowing men to use female bathrooms, it's ok if the nation's secrets wander off in USB flash drives. At least we weren't racist!

    Replies: @Alden, @Hibernian

    We’ve played the great game in the Pacific since the Spanish American war when we grabbed the Phillipines.

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Alden

    One could also make the case that Commander Perry in 1853 was also partaking in advancing the interests of the US in the Pacific with the opening up of Japan to foreign trade back in 1853.

  57. @Anonymous
    Corresponding with a white South African, and he reports that though clearly a second class citizen, he is happy enough.

    I wonder if the fact that the issue isn’t settled yet makes it all feel more contentious in the US. The Historic America is still in the process of being overthrown and trying to fight back, thus the Trump election, so there is more contention and heat, like the rush to remove Confederate monuments.
    Maybe once the other side has won definitively, Legacy Americans are irretrievably second class citizens, and there is no point in fighting anymore, things will feel more peaceful.
    Surely Germany in 1948 under occupation, even Soviet occupation, felt more peaceful than when the Allies were closing in on two fronts.

    Though I do wonder. In SA once the blacks “won” there was still some divisions twixt Zulu and the others, but it was still a discrete event, and whites were always a small minority. In the US, whites share of population and position is dwindling away slowly, and so it will be a long time before we are a small enough minority that we aren’t useful as the common enemy of the new America, so the wrangling could last a long while. Plus, once Whitey is no longer dominant and the common enemy, the wrestling match will start over who has power. Blacks have the historic claim as genuine victims as the Legacy Minority, Latinos will have the demographic majority, Asians and Jews the wealth and control of the institutions and elite positions (witness the Zuckerberg marriage for that demographic union at the top), so it won’t be so simple or amenable to a clear victory and stable balance of powers.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Samuel Skinner

    There are no shortage of Arab Christians willing to accept dhimmi status, and the long-term decline of their community by exogamy of women to Muslim husbands.

    It’s a societal version of Stockholm Syndrome.

    • Replies: @EdwardM
    @Maj. Kong

    Do a lot of Arab Christian women marry Muslims? That hasn't been my observation (albeit with limit sample size) in the Levant, where Christians rightly see themselves as elite and more western-oriented. The Lebanese, Jordanians, and Syrians who look to marry rich Gulf Arabs seem to be mostly nominally Muslim. Ditto for North African Arabs, among whom of course there aren't a lot of Christians.

    I'd be curious to see statistics on this.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  58. Bradley appeared to be having second thoughts about Watergate in his dotage, IIRC. Wondered if Deep Throat had been real etc..

  59. @prusmc
    @prosa123

    So who killed Mary? BTW didn't both Angleton and Bill Colby die under strange circumstances?

    Replies: @prosa123

    Angleton died of lung cancer in a Washington hospital. Colby drowned while canoeing on a river in Maryland, he was 76 years old and suffered from severe atherosclerosis.

    • Replies: @Flip
    @prosa123

    Colby's employer at the time, Bill Bonner of Agora Financial, wrote that he was suspicious of Colby's death.

  60. @Anonymous
    Corresponding with a white South African, and he reports that though clearly a second class citizen, he is happy enough.

    I wonder if the fact that the issue isn’t settled yet makes it all feel more contentious in the US. The Historic America is still in the process of being overthrown and trying to fight back, thus the Trump election, so there is more contention and heat, like the rush to remove Confederate monuments.
    Maybe once the other side has won definitively, Legacy Americans are irretrievably second class citizens, and there is no point in fighting anymore, things will feel more peaceful.
    Surely Germany in 1948 under occupation, even Soviet occupation, felt more peaceful than when the Allies were closing in on two fronts.

    Though I do wonder. In SA once the blacks “won” there was still some divisions twixt Zulu and the others, but it was still a discrete event, and whites were always a small minority. In the US, whites share of population and position is dwindling away slowly, and so it will be a long time before we are a small enough minority that we aren’t useful as the common enemy of the new America, so the wrangling could last a long while. Plus, once Whitey is no longer dominant and the common enemy, the wrestling match will start over who has power. Blacks have the historic claim as genuine victims as the Legacy Minority, Latinos will have the demographic majority, Asians and Jews the wealth and control of the institutions and elite positions (witness the Zuckerberg marriage for that demographic union at the top), so it won’t be so simple or amenable to a clear victory and stable balance of powers.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Samuel Skinner

    It won’t work. The current set up is unsustainable and eventually things will disintegrate.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @Samuel Skinner

    Multi-kult can work. Singapore and Hong Kong are good examples. It just requires an incorruptible police state.

    The only item that might ding our leftist leaders is corruption. Voters in the coastal regions are already prepared to accept one-party Dem rule, and the removal of most Constitutional rights. But we haven't been able to get corruption charges to stick on Brown, Cuomo, DeBlasio, Menendez, Fineswine, Villar, Jacob Zuma, Sadiq Khan, etc.

    While I'd rather not live under it, permanent NYC dictatorship under a Bloomberg style leader has its benefits.

  61. I did not watch 2015’s Truth until it popped up on cable. When I finally saw it, my presuppositions about it were confirmed. The Times’ reporters were heroic, interested only in the truth, persecuted, and crushed by the pernicious power of the White House and its supporters. The writer and director did such a good job that I almost started feeling sorry for Mary Mapes by the end of the film. Almost but not quite.

    I reckon The Post will be much of the same, if not worse. I’ll wait until it pops up on cable but I sure won’t be going out my way to watch it.

    I also avoided Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper for the longest time. War porn as far as I’m concerned.

    • Replies: @guest
    @enemy of earth

    Zero Dark Thirty is an intelligence movie more than a war movie, though there are action scenes and a big one near the end. But it's also dark (literally) and gritty. Though I realize some people like their porn that way, it's not what people traditionally mean when they use "porn" like that.

    American Sniper is more in line with what you mean, because it has lots of visceral action scenes. But that "porn" descriptor is overused, as all pornography has, or most of what it's supposed to have, is the purpose of prurient visual stimulation. It wouldn't do to call all action movies action porn. Besides, American Sniper has other things, like character development, morals, and an actual story.

    Believe me, I have no interest in defending the Iraq War. If American Sniper does, it also undercuts itself with characters realizing there's no purpose to the whole thing, and a whole lot of PTSD. The movie certainly doesn't share the main character's rah-rah spirit, when he has it.

    The reason I liked it was that the main character was a romantic figure in the sense you don't usually see in movies anymore, outside of cartoons or people saving African children or something. He has a vision of himself, and it may be completely unrealistic but he pursues it like an Ayn Rand hero and actually accomplishes something. Which happens to be killing a crapload of people, but at least he has an actual skill that sets him apart from the common run of humanity.

    If it was a pro-war movie, it was mildly so. Because you can't really make a pure pro-Iraq War movie in today's Hollywood and get anywhere. I prefer an entertaining Iraq War movie that works, despite my politics, miles beyond the run of sad-sack, hand-wringing anti-war movies we got in this and the previous decade. (Billy Flynn's Long Halftime Walk, Lions for Lambs, In the Valley of Ellah, Stop-Loss, Green Zone, Rendition, etc.) They all sucked.

    Movies like Truth and the one about Valery Plame, on the other hand, were errant nonsense.

    By the way, there were good anti-war movies in the Iraq period, like the Wind That Shakes the Barley, but of course that wasn't about the War on Terror. At least not directly.

    , @Marat
    @enemy of earth

    Bigalow's "Detroit" movie was along the same lines ... it should have been titled "Algiers". The assumption that young ahistorical people will make is that all of the riots (oh, right, "rebellions") went down across the board with insane police behaving as reactionary murderous maniacs did in the Algiers Hotel outlier incident. Bigelow implies Newark, Philly, and Chicago were all of the same mold as the Algiers incident, and Black Lives Matter's claims were as valid then as now. No mention of the real spark that set these cities off: MLK's assassination.

    The Marxist revisionist history on urban planning and historical population moves at the very beginning tips the viewer off that this special story is going to be a whopper in the Hollywood Historical Propaganda pantheon. SJWs will be relieved that they are not once asked to examine anything resembling reality. In fact, the movie explains black history of the 60s/70s entirely with 2016 SJW narrative constructs, imagine that!

    Maybe Hollywood believes its movies will one day soon be assigned as the entire history curriculum for public schools.

  62. @Art Deco
    1. Bob Woodward has a known history as a yarn-puller. (He claimed to have had 12 hours of conversations with the moribund William J. Casey without ever being collared by the nursing staff, hospital security, Casey's wife, or Casey's daughter. Casey's wife said in no uncertain terms he was lying through his teeth. The press, who looked after each other in that era, pretended they believed Woodward). Shortly before the Felt 'revelation', another journalist published a piece analyzing the mechanics of WoodStein's account of their dealings with 'Deep Throat', concluding the tale was fiction. Suggest the nonagenarian Felt was a source and did them a favor by claiming to be "Deep Throat" when Deep Throat was actually a composite.

    2. There was no 'silent coup' contra Richard Nixon. The man had ethical deficits (manifest in his work life, not in his everyday life) and the fish rots from the head down. H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, and John Mitchell were all unscrupulous people to varying degrees. Same deal with Wm. Bittman, Herbert Kalmbach, and Paul O'Brien. A half-dozen others committed minor offenses or allowed themselves to be tainted by the schemes with which these others were engaged. The general counsel to the Committee to Re-elect the President (a lapsed FBI agent and something of a kook) put together a small domestic espionage apparatus making use of a lapsed CIA agent, the chief of security at CRP headquarters, and a quartet of Cuban exiles who had done work for the CIA in the past. His elaborate plans were presented to John Mitchell, Jeb Magruder, and John Dean in early 1972. He was told to scale it back, which he did. N.B. Gordon Liddy had previously been a staff lawyer working for John Dean and Howard Hunt had been a contractor working for Charles Colson. Nixon may have not known Liddy from a cord of wood, but John Mitchell certainly knew well what Liddy's crew were up to, as did Haldeman's aide Gordon Strachan. Nixon wasn't going to come clean about all this and his subordinates all busied themselves trying to raise funds on the QT to keep the arrested burglars from talking.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street, @Hibernian

    Shortly before the Felt ‘revelation’, another journalist published a piece analyzing the mechanics of WoodStein’s account of their dealings with ‘Deep Throat’, concluding the tale was fiction. Suggest the nonagenarian Felt was a source and did them a favor by claiming to be “Deep Throat” when Deep Throat was actually a composite.

    That’s always been the most logical conclusion. The agent who originally marketed the draft for All the President’s Men publically claimed that the initial typescript of the book contained absolutely no reference to Deep Throat. Based on that clue, you can speculate either

    A. Woodward and Bernstein originally were going to be so protective of their sources that they were never going to mention him at all, and made at least one draft of the story omitting all reference to Deep Throat; or

    B. Woodward and Bernstein played at condensing history as Hollywood scriptwriters do. A Hollywood scripter sees that the real life Hero had a dozen helpers doing the Great Deed. The hack boils those dozen people down to a single person, and gives him a fictional name.

    So assume (B). Mark Felt, a forgotten man whose life was wasted serving a mercurial J. Edgar Hoover’s whims, might remember ratting on his chums several times. He never conveyed the info the fictional Deep Throat did, but he is as close a match as any. As Deep Throat is seen by many as a good guy, he lets the grandkids know the secret ID of the hero.

    Woodstein can then say — yeah, he was Deep Throat, without addressing the point of whether their literary portrait of the man was accurate in many respects.

    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    @The Man From K Street

    Yeah, I agree that if Felt was a source at all for Woodward, he was not the sole "Deep Throat".

    "Deep Throat" was probably a composite of several people, but whoever he/they was/were, they were clearly pro-CIA.

    Bernstein never met Deep Throat, so Woodward's connections (Woodward in the mid-1960's was a very high level navy briefer for Admiral Thomas Moorer of the Zumwalt/Moorer/Radford spy ring against the Nixon Administration from 1969-1971) to the Deep State matter much.

    Alexander Haig knew all about the JCS spy ring against Nixon and let Woodward and Bernstein in on it, yet they never wrote a word about the JCS spying on the president of the United States.

    They protected Haig as a source, so it's reasonable to conclude that the composite "Deep Throat" included Alexander Haig.

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/bob-woodwards-sins-omission/

  63. @Anon
    I was reading some interesting stuff about how Katherine Graham murdered her husband Phil Graham. It seems Phil had taken a mistress, was going to get a divorce, and had rewritten his will so that the Post went to his mistress and not Katherine. Katherine had Phil committed to a mental institution, and then took him out of it one weekend for a 'visit.' She then disappeared with Phil and a shotgun off to their Virginia farm. Phil was dead from a shotgun blast 48 hours later. From the setup, it looks an awful lot like Katherine pulled the trigger herself. The police report was never made public.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2935-philip-graham/?page=2

    Replies: @Alden, @JimB, @Henry's Cat, @Art Deco, @Paul Jolliffe

    Yeah, except William Graham, Phil Graham’s son, just offed himself. Like father, like son. Maybe Lewy body dementia, which is inherited.

  64. @Alec Leamas
    The Post just seems tailor made to reassure and embolden the Press to keep committing suicide. What they don't really need right now is another dose of righteous indignation and more hagiographies to crusading journalistic heroes. In fact, what would do the Media a world of good would be a Felt or Ellsberg within each prominent MSM outlet exposing in explicit terms what we all see implicitly - that they're political operations which work to suppress the truth when it contradicts the political fortunes of one political party, and agitate against the other.

    The Media is like Sex Panther cologne from the Anchorman movies - Half the Time, It Works Everytime.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Samuel Skinner, @Verymuchalive, @guest

    We keep getting periodic leaks of the kind you describe. Remember Journo-list? Remember the Podesta leaks, which had damning ties to journalists. Remember the Project Veritas videos? Remember the O’Keefe CNN leaks, which caused some people their jobs?

    There are dozens of little scandals like those. Admittedly, they don’t have staying power. I don’t know why, but I have guesses. First of all, no one trusts the MSM anyway. Leftists and rightists for political reasons, and normal people for normal reasons. No one trusts politicians, either. But they have an interest in going after the dirty ones. With dirty journalists, the instinct is more to get your news from somewhere else.

    Also, unlike other areas of life–like groping on ladies or embezzlement–people don’t really understand journalistic ethics. If such a thing exists.

    Finally, there’s the conundrum that these scandals are reported upon by news outlets people also don’t trust.

  65. @NOTA
    The watergate scandal was an internal power struggle within the government, but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Mr. Anon, @Abe

    but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.

    CNN’s decade-by-decade documentary series (executive produced by aw-shucks Mr. Fake Americana Tom Hanks) was pretty gleeful in its recounting of how the JFK campaign, during the 1960 Democratic primary, did a false flag operation, putting out anonymous anti-JFK/anti-Catholic fliers to stir up the upper Midwest Catholic vote in JFK’s favor. Should *that* have come out? Should that dirty trick have cost JFK the primary, to say nothing of fairly plausible ballot-stuffing accusations in Illinois during the general.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @Abe

    Nixon campaigned in Alaska and Hawaii during the final days of the campaign, because of a campaign promise. He might have been able to tip the balance in the Midwest instead. Nixon also made an ill-timed remark about appointing a black cabinet officer.

    Nixon also chose a bad running mate, Lodge Jr wasn't cut of the same timber as his grandfather. The odious Nelson Rockefeller probably would have flipped New York.

    Replies: @David In TN

  66. Graham and Bradlee represented the kind of polished, old money establishmentarians who drove Nixon, a poor boy from Yorba Linda, to distraction with their contempt for his arriviste bumptiousness.

    Steve Sailer says Nixon was a “poor boy from Yorba Linda.” Richard Nixon could be called an “Ohio boy,” to borrow a line from a guy named Coe. Nixon could trace 3 of his 4 grandparents back to Ohio, and the other one was from Pennsylvania. Parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio are highly similar.

    Nixon had Quaker ancestry. If he had ancestor’s who could be called Quaker royalty, then he could match up with a Graham or a Bradlee. “Quaker royalty,” as it were, is simply being related to a land commissioner or land agent who represented some faction back in England. The Quaker line of the Bourchier surname is the Bezer one. Most went to the mid-Atlantic, some went to Virginia. One such land agent was a Bourchier who went to Virginia. The name Bourchier became Bunker, Bezer, Bradshaw and a slew of other names.

    Bradlee was from a Saxon family that hadn’t had the decency to set sail to England yet, screw him and his “European royalty” blood. The Graham’s are money-grubbing cliff jumpers, screw them. One just jumped, recently. I hope the Florida oranges don’t freeze, or that Graham might off himself too.

    Nixon was a Globalizer who wanted to bring cheap Chinese labor into the market for plutocrats to use as a weapon against regular Americans. I am not a big fan of Nixon, I just don’t like snob rats to claim the helm of the USS American Empire because of their so-called fancy blood relations.

    http://takimag.com/article/sex_death_and_secrets_in_dc_steve_sailer/print#ixzz52UX9Pkor

  67. @Abe
    @NOTA


    but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.
     
    CNN's decade-by-decade documentary series (executive produced by aw-shucks Mr. Fake Americana Tom Hanks) was pretty gleeful in its recounting of how the JFK campaign, during the 1960 Democratic primary, did a false flag operation, putting out anonymous anti-JFK/anti-Catholic fliers to stir up the upper Midwest Catholic vote in JFK's favor. Should *that* have come out? Should that dirty trick have cost JFK the primary, to say nothing of fairly plausible ballot-stuffing accusations in Illinois during the general.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

    Nixon campaigned in Alaska and Hawaii during the final days of the campaign, because of a campaign promise. He might have been able to tip the balance in the Midwest instead. Nixon also made an ill-timed remark about appointing a black cabinet officer.

    Nixon also chose a bad running mate, Lodge Jr wasn’t cut of the same timber as his grandfather. The odious Nelson Rockefeller probably would have flipped New York.

    • Replies: @David In TN
    @Maj. Kong

    It wasn't Nixon who promised "a Negro in the cabinet." It was his running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge. Nixon didn't like it.

  68. @Anon
    @Bubba

    To be fair to Bradlee, sexual activities of politicians of all stripes were generally ignored by the media back then(and even now in so many cases). Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    And even though the Media had it in for Nixon, Watergate really was shameful because it was so DUMB.
    And the media did, in the end, turn on Johnson and the Vietnam before Nixon.
    One reason why Johnson chose not to run in 68 was because the media had turned on him. And the media were not easy on Carter. I remember the 1980 election, and Carter got it hard from the press. And the media eventually let Reagan go on Iran-Contra even though that was much bigger than Watergate. The thing was, however, that Iran-Contra could at least be spun as serving nobler ends: releasing hostages and funding anti-communists. In contrast, Watergate was so tawdry. In the end, Nixon was his own worst enemy.

    Media bias were always there, but I've never seen as anything as deranged, crazy, and nuts as Media coverage of 2008 campaign and 2016 campaign and aftermath. The cult of Obama was something closer to commie cult of personality. It was grotesque, hyping this hustler from Chicago as The One.
    And 2016 coverage of Trump was downright nuts. And media have no right to bitch about rise of Alt Right since they are the ones who hyped the nascent movement and tried to connect it to Trump. And Russia Hacking crap? Wow.

    I think the problem has gotten worse for several reasons. Back in the days of Johnson and Nixon, Jews were powerful but not all-powerful. Many still faced uphill climb in many institutions. Since they understood what it meant to be an underdog, many of them were sincerely on the side of speaking truth to power. And to enable this, they really prized freedom and liberty and championed free speech. Nixon in his tapes complained of Jewish control of media, but that was nothing compared to now where Jews are not just powerful but totally dominant in so many areas. With all that power, the media have turned into a case of speaking for power than speaking to power. Also, both political parties are far more servile to Jewish power than in Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon days.
    Ethnic competition was good for journalism and narrative back in the day. Today, all sides praise Jews, Jews, and Jews. And Homos but then, homos are nothing but proxies of Jews. Blacks are also tools of Jewish Power, but at the street level, far more volatile. If black politicians and leaders can be bought, the black mobs can veer totally out of control.

    Another reason why media are crazy is the rise of the internet. Alternative news and narratives have made the Power very nervous. So, maintain Monopoly Narrativism, they go into hysteria mode and howl about RUSSIA HACKING so that enough idiots will believe it.
    And as the Democratic Party is now about self-loathing whites and Diversity, there's bound to lots of divisions. So, to keep them together, there must be hysteria about Nazi-KKK-white-supremacists 24/7.

    So, there is now a concerted war on internet platforms, which is easy to do since most of them are owned by Jews. Also, since Jews control much of Wall Street, they can use carrots and sticks on a company like Twitter. Get rid of 'hate' and Twitter gets showered with candies and prizes.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @guest, @nebulafox

    Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    No, his secretary contended in a memoir that they’d had an (unconsummated) affair. His son thought it self-aggrandizing tripe on the part of the secretary in question.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Art Deco

    Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  69. Thing about the left you’ll learn is that they’re never in power. Not really. If there was a Ruling Liberal Consensus from (to simplify things, though there were progressive presidents before him) FDR-on, suddenly during Vietnam (after malign spirits of revolution had been flattered by the success of civil rights movement), the New Left decided it was no longer part of the ruling order anymore. It was something “new,” as you could tell by its name. Then everyone who had something to do with running the country before was old, and might as well be conservative Republicans for all they cared. Indeed, many of the members of the Liberal Consensus drifted to the right, or were content to think of themselves as conservatives because they had been superseded.

    That’s a classic example of the left outflanking itself. But some members are not content to have no past, and be perpetually reborn every half-minute. They want to pretend there was a good Ruling Liberal Order once. So they simply credit it with everything good (civil rights, etc.) and pretend everything bad was the fault of fascists, or something. Spielberg himself was presumably at least sympathetic to the New Left, if he was anything. That is, given his age, placement, and the circles in which he ran. But he has a respect for the Old Left Order, as represented by his WWII-mania and films such as Bridge of Spies, which valorizes some Cold Warriors (principled liberal lawyers who defend foreign spies who are soft-spoken and have a talent for painting), if not others (CIA agents who resemble mongoloids).

    He’s sorta like Matthew Weiner, who doesn’t like chain-smoking sexually harassing racists of 1959, but does like their clothes, decor, and manners. He appears to despise hippies, but mainly their lack of style. Not necessarily their politics. Anywho, it’s easier to pretend all the bad stuff can be laid at the door of the Nixons of the world. Just like the people throwing bricks through Tom Hanks’ window in Bridge of Spies couldn’t have contributed to the ACLU, probably were in favor of Jim Crow, and their children and grandchildren definitely voted Trump if they took after them.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @guest

    Parts of the Establishment have been Leftist for a long time.

  70. @Paul Jolliffe
    Steve,

    Ben Bradlee did indeed conceal Mary Pinchot Meyer's diary from the police. However, I disagree with Peter Janney's contention that the phone call from his father, CIA official Wistar Janney to Bradlee the afternoon of Meyer's murder, meant his father had guilty foreknowledge of her murder.

    Peter Janney might be right, but he's wrong that no one could have known of the murder on the afternoon of October 14, 1964. At the time of the phone call: the police had the name "Meyer" from her gloves at the scene and were in the process of systematically contacting all Meyers in the phone book.
    We know the CIA had been tapping Mary Meyer's phone, but I'm not sold that they murdered her by setting up Ray Crump. Peter Janney's theory is totally unpersuasive here.

    Ray Crump was spotted standing over her body within moments of the last shot. He was identified by Henry Wiggins without hesitation. The bit about the discrepancy over the weight is trivial. The height (assuming Crump was wearing shoes) was spot on.

    Crump did it. He was a violent low-life, both before and after Mary Meyer's murder.

    What's fascinating in all of this is the arrogant ease in which men like Bradlee and Angleton could decide that the public's need to know was unimportant, and further, that a man like Spielberg is so unconscious of that.

    You made that point well, and for that, you deserve more money.

    Replies: @David In TN, @Jim Don Bob

    Yes, Crump was the killer. The stupid conspiracy mongers trope-“The CIA did it!”- is supposed to cover every situation. Mary Meyer when alive posed no danger to anyone, least of all the CIA and the Kennedy people.

  71. @Marty
    re Nixon's "arriviste bumptiousness," I just can't shake the feeling that the hostility of the Bradleyites actually was more about race. In Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972, Hunter Thompson opined that the essence of the Nixon campaign was "get the niggers." Graham, Bradley, Broder et al., knowing that law and order was what most Nixon voters wanted, probably felt this one issue is what made Nixon "illegitimate." Nothing much changes.

    Replies: @Alden

    Nixon won partly because his opponent, McGovern loudly promised that in order to raise more tax money to continue the Johnson/Nixon war on poverty programs he would abolish the interest and property tax deductions from income taxes.

    That struck fear to the home owning middle class who depended on that tax deduction.

    Even ultra liberal school teachers and Vietnam protesters maybe didn’t vote for Nixon but they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for McGovern and lose that tax deduction.

  72. @Anon
    @Bubba

    To be fair to Bradlee, sexual activities of politicians of all stripes were generally ignored by the media back then(and even now in so many cases). Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    And even though the Media had it in for Nixon, Watergate really was shameful because it was so DUMB.
    And the media did, in the end, turn on Johnson and the Vietnam before Nixon.
    One reason why Johnson chose not to run in 68 was because the media had turned on him. And the media were not easy on Carter. I remember the 1980 election, and Carter got it hard from the press. And the media eventually let Reagan go on Iran-Contra even though that was much bigger than Watergate. The thing was, however, that Iran-Contra could at least be spun as serving nobler ends: releasing hostages and funding anti-communists. In contrast, Watergate was so tawdry. In the end, Nixon was his own worst enemy.

    Media bias were always there, but I've never seen as anything as deranged, crazy, and nuts as Media coverage of 2008 campaign and 2016 campaign and aftermath. The cult of Obama was something closer to commie cult of personality. It was grotesque, hyping this hustler from Chicago as The One.
    And 2016 coverage of Trump was downright nuts. And media have no right to bitch about rise of Alt Right since they are the ones who hyped the nascent movement and tried to connect it to Trump. And Russia Hacking crap? Wow.

    I think the problem has gotten worse for several reasons. Back in the days of Johnson and Nixon, Jews were powerful but not all-powerful. Many still faced uphill climb in many institutions. Since they understood what it meant to be an underdog, many of them were sincerely on the side of speaking truth to power. And to enable this, they really prized freedom and liberty and championed free speech. Nixon in his tapes complained of Jewish control of media, but that was nothing compared to now where Jews are not just powerful but totally dominant in so many areas. With all that power, the media have turned into a case of speaking for power than speaking to power. Also, both political parties are far more servile to Jewish power than in Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon days.
    Ethnic competition was good for journalism and narrative back in the day. Today, all sides praise Jews, Jews, and Jews. And Homos but then, homos are nothing but proxies of Jews. Blacks are also tools of Jewish Power, but at the street level, far more volatile. If black politicians and leaders can be bought, the black mobs can veer totally out of control.

    Another reason why media are crazy is the rise of the internet. Alternative news and narratives have made the Power very nervous. So, maintain Monopoly Narrativism, they go into hysteria mode and howl about RUSSIA HACKING so that enough idiots will believe it.
    And as the Democratic Party is now about self-loathing whites and Diversity, there's bound to lots of divisions. So, to keep them together, there must be hysteria about Nazi-KKK-white-supremacists 24/7.

    So, there is now a concerted war on internet platforms, which is easy to do since most of them are owned by Jews. Also, since Jews control much of Wall Street, they can use carrots and sticks on a company like Twitter. Get rid of 'hate' and Twitter gets showered with candies and prizes.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @guest, @nebulafox

    And the media eventually let Reagan go on Iran-Contra even though that was much bigger than Watergate.

    It wasn’t. Bad policy decisions aren’t crimes. As for what might be crimes, the primary offense there was contriving an end-run around the Boland Amendment, which prohibited appropriations from being used to finance the Nicaraguan contras. The special prosecutor eventually won a conviction of Oliver north on 3 counts of the original 23 count indictment. The most severe charge was accepting an unlawful gratuity. North’s conviction was later vacated on procedural grounds.

  73. @Samuel Skinner
    @Anonymous

    It won't work. The current set up is unsustainable and eventually things will disintegrate.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

    Multi-kult can work. Singapore and Hong Kong are good examples. It just requires an incorruptible police state.

    The only item that might ding our leftist leaders is corruption. Voters in the coastal regions are already prepared to accept one-party Dem rule, and the removal of most Constitutional rights. But we haven’t been able to get corruption charges to stick on Brown, Cuomo, DeBlasio, Menendez, Fineswine, Villar, Jacob Zuma, Sadiq Khan, etc.

    While I’d rather not live under it, permanent NYC dictatorship under a Bloomberg style leader has its benefits.

  74. @Uilleam Yr Alban
    (FKA Broski)

    That the FBI screwed Nixon, just as it’s nakedly trying to screw Trump, was a gem you pointed out. (Nixon actually, you know, did something, but still.)

    Of course, Spielberg is not exactly the most self-aware ironist, so The Post, an earnest celebration of how Big Media supports “the people’s right to know,” doesn’t quite get its own joke about how convenient it was for the Democratic press’ uneasy conscience over how little it had criticized JFK and LBJ to be salved by a press putsch against the Republican in the White House.
     
    That was a long sentence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @TWS

    That the FBI screwed Nixon, just as it’s nakedly trying to screw Trump, was a gem you pointed out. (Nixon actually, you know, did something, but still.)

    They didn’t. Nixon and his subordinates were guilty. The FBI director at the time, Patrick Gray, actually destroyed inculpatory evidence. John Dean discusses the matter in his memoir (to be sure, Dean is regarded by many as an untrustworthy source).

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Art Deco


    (to be sure, Dean is regarded by many as an untrustworthy source).
     
    As indeed are you.

    But go ahead - take John Dean's word - the defendant who was one of the closest to the President, was one of the most deeply involved in the cover-up, and yet.................did no prison time. Funny, that.
  75. @prosa123
    @prusmc

    Angleton died of lung cancer in a Washington hospital. Colby drowned while canoeing on a river in Maryland, he was 76 years old and suffered from severe atherosclerosis.

    Replies: @Flip

    Colby’s employer at the time, Bill Bonner of Agora Financial, wrote that he was suspicious of Colby’s death.

  76. @Mr. Anon
    @NOTA


    The watergate scandal was an internal power struggle within the government, but it was also the administration bugging the opposition party and running a pretty nasty cover-up to keep it under wraps. That *should* have come out, and *should* have cost Nixon the presidency.
     
    Really? How nasty was it? Especially given that it ultimately failed. The Nixon White House paid some of their low-level operatives hush-money. The hush-money worked in buying their silence, but Nixon eventually got busted when it came out on the tapes that he condoned the act of paying hush-money. If the cover-up really was "nasty", then Bob Woodward might have been an unfortunate victim of a "robbery gone wrong". Or Carl Bernstein might have succumbed to a fatal overdose of sleeping pills. Or Mark Felt might have been found to have tragically committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.

    None of what the Nixon administration did was any worse than any thing that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations did in office. I remember, at the time, the shock verging on horror that many (if not most) people had that Nixon had been secretly tape-recording people in the Oval Office. This was deemed to be sleezy, underhanded, un-American even. Of course, as we all know now, Kennedy and Johnson did the same thing, and for the exact same reasons.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    The Nixon White House paid some of their low-level operatives hush-money. The hush-money worked in buying their silence, but Nixon eventually got busted

    I didn’t work. The weakest link was James McCord, who started talking around the time of his sentencing hearing. Also, Howard Hunt’s wife was killed in a plane crash in December 1972 and with her personal effects was a satchel with large wads of cash in it. Representing John Dean, Charles Schaffer conferred with Seymour Glanzer of the U.S. Attorney’s office in March 1973 and reported to Dean that Glanzer had confided that the investigation was by that time looking north of Hunt and Liddy in the organization. Formally, Liddy reported to John Mitchell who reported to the President.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    And even before the McCord letter, Gray admitted that Dean committed perjury during the FBI confirmation hearings in February. That was the beginning crack in the coverup.

    One interesting thing I'll always wonder about: had J. Edgar Hoover lived a year longer, how would things have gone differently? No Hoover, no Gray hearings, and possibly no Watergate committee at all. Whether Hoover would have wanted to save Nixon as a person is debatable, but there's no question he'd want to preserve the power of the Imperial Presidency. Moreover, Hoover would have likely looked at Nixon as the lesser of two evils compared to then increasingly McGovernite Senate.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Art Deco

    None of them ever ratted out the President. None of them could, as he was pretty well insulated from them. The hush money did buy the silence of the other burglars.

    P.S. When I want to find something out, I can use Google. I don't need you. Nobody needs you, you supercilious clown.

  77. @Art Deco
    @Anon

    Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    No, his secretary contended in a memoir that they'd had an (unconsummated) affair. His son thought it self-aggrandizing tripe on the part of the secretary in question.

    Replies: @LondonBob

    Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @LondonBob

    No, Kay Summersby said she had an affair with him. (I think Merle Miller tried to peddle the fiction that Truman had confided he'd scotched Eisenhower's application to seek a divorce from Mamie). His son's opinion on the matter is indicative because his son worked at his father's headquarters.

    Replies: @Jack D

  78. @ATate
    Tom Hanks already bravely came out and said he will NOT show the film at the White House. I don't know how he does it, to fly in the face of everything Hollywood stands for and go against a universally loved President who enjoys near unanimous support from Hollywood, Education, and Media.

    Way to be brave Mr. Hanks. I doubt you'll see work in this town again with a controversial and highly dangerous stance like yours.

    Replies: @David In TN

    Tony Thomas, a writer of numerous biographies of famous actors (Flynn, Stewart, Lancaster, Douglas, Brando, etc), wrote in a book debunking the idea of Eroll Flynn being a Nazi that “Hollywood has never been a brave place.”

    Thomas was referring to almost no one but David Niven defending Flynn from the charge.

  79. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    In my younger days, by chance of my friends and location, I spent a fair amount of time around DC reporters. Couple of observations (most not surprising):

    1. Extremely liberal in exactly the way that you'd think, i.e. virtue signaling vs caring about blue-collar workers

    2. A lot of top 20 colleges.
    - You'd see a state university grad here and there but it was heavily Columbia, other Ivies, Georgetown, etc.

    3. Married or in relationship with someone who actually made good money
    - These people weren't going to suffer for their cause

    4. Cared deeply that they were treated as just as important as the movers and shakers
    - A friend once said that becoming a cop was a way for young, unaccomplished people to get immediate authority and respect without having to earn it. A lot of the DC reporters are like pushy young cops who relish their power over you.

    5. Lived no where near blacks
    - The younger reporters lived in hipster parts of DC. Older ones with kids lived in Arlington or Bethesda - or, if married to some rich guy, in DC but sent their kids to private school

    6. Absolutely zero experience in the real world
    - They almost always grew up in very nice neighborhoods, went to swank schools, hung out with people just like themselves and eventually returned to very similar neighborhoods to where they grew up. A few might have worked as a waiter or something in college but they never had childhood friends who didn't go to college.

    7. Words are real
    - This is a big one. Because they didn't grow up around people who worked with concrete things, their world was always about ideas and words. The person who could debate the best won the argument regardless of the actual facts. Words were real. Debating the number of angels on the head of a pin was no different than debating immigration to them. It was all abstract, and, therefore, the correct answer was the one sounded best to them.

    8. They are the good guys
    - For many, it was a calling. Indeed, the occassional reporter that I'd run into who was farily normal generally was looking to get out of the industry. The farther up the ladder you went, the more liberal and bizarre they got.

    9. Utterly un-self-aware - as Steve notes
    - You could crack jokes about their hyprocrisies all day, and they wouldn't notice. They simply didn't see it.

    10. All white and heavily Jewish

    But to be fair, most of the reporters that I met were actually decent enough people. Of course, if they knew how I truly thought, they would have wanted me killed, so there's that.

    Of course, all of this was a long time ago. I've occassionally seen one of their names at a prominent new organization, but a new generation of even more stringent SJWs are coming up and they won't take kindly to their middle-aged white bosses wanting to slow them down. It'll be fun to watch.

    Replies: @Marty, @Bill B., @Hibernian, @Anonym

    I appreciate this post.

  80. @enemy of earth
    I did not watch 2015's Truth until it popped up on cable. When I finally saw it, my presuppositions about it were confirmed. The Times' reporters were heroic, interested only in the truth, persecuted, and crushed by the pernicious power of the White House and its supporters. The writer and director did such a good job that I almost started feeling sorry for Mary Mapes by the end of the film. Almost but not quite.

    I reckon The Post will be much of the same, if not worse. I'll wait until it pops up on cable but I sure won't be going out my way to watch it.

    I also avoided Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper for the longest time. War porn as far as I'm concerned.

    Replies: @guest, @Marat

    Zero Dark Thirty is an intelligence movie more than a war movie, though there are action scenes and a big one near the end. But it’s also dark (literally) and gritty. Though I realize some people like their porn that way, it’s not what people traditionally mean when they use “porn” like that.

    American Sniper is more in line with what you mean, because it has lots of visceral action scenes. But that “porn” descriptor is overused, as all pornography has, or most of what it’s supposed to have, is the purpose of prurient visual stimulation. It wouldn’t do to call all action movies action porn. Besides, American Sniper has other things, like character development, morals, and an actual story.

    Believe me, I have no interest in defending the Iraq War. If American Sniper does, it also undercuts itself with characters realizing there’s no purpose to the whole thing, and a whole lot of PTSD. The movie certainly doesn’t share the main character’s rah-rah spirit, when he has it.

    The reason I liked it was that the main character was a romantic figure in the sense you don’t usually see in movies anymore, outside of cartoons or people saving African children or something. He has a vision of himself, and it may be completely unrealistic but he pursues it like an Ayn Rand hero and actually accomplishes something. Which happens to be killing a crapload of people, but at least he has an actual skill that sets him apart from the common run of humanity.

    If it was a pro-war movie, it was mildly so. Because you can’t really make a pure pro-Iraq War movie in today’s Hollywood and get anywhere. I prefer an entertaining Iraq War movie that works, despite my politics, miles beyond the run of sad-sack, hand-wringing anti-war movies we got in this and the previous decade. (Billy Flynn’s Long Halftime Walk, Lions for Lambs, In the Valley of Ellah, Stop-Loss, Green Zone, Rendition, etc.) They all sucked.

    Movies like Truth and the one about Valery Plame, on the other hand, were errant nonsense.

    By the way, there were good anti-war movies in the Iraq period, like the Wind That Shakes the Barley, but of course that wasn’t about the War on Terror. At least not directly.

  81. Is Hollywood ever going to tire of heroic Legacy Media movies? I have a feeling we’re going to be stuck with them even after it goes the way of video rental stores and buggy whip companies.

    Or maybe that can’t actually happen, because they’ll be propped up no matter what. Even so, there’ll come a point when no one’s listening.

    I actually liked Spotlight, though I have no idea why it won Best Picture. Truth and Fair Game were embarrassing. Frost/Nixon I would say was pure propaganda, but it actually may have aided Nixon (because it is as his gang’s idea to “confess” on that show).

    Most of them act as if it’s still the All the President’s Men era, which is funny. But it’s also sad, and shall only get moreso.

  82. Phil Graham, older half brother of Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), had been a key figure in “Operation Mockingbird,” the CIA’s project for co-opting prestigious liberal American journalists to trumpet the CIA’s talking points. This campaign was begun by Phil’s close friend, CIA ops boss Frank Wisner (another manic-depressive, who killed himself two years after Graham did), and was run by Cord Meyer, Bradlee’s brother-in-law. (Cord Meyer was apparently not related to Eugene Meyer, Mrs. Graham’s father, the German-Jewish chairman of the Federal Reserve, although this milieu is so incestuous that it’s natural to wonder.)

    Cord Meyer was apparently not related to Eugene Meyer, Mrs. Graham’s father, the German-Jewish chairman of the Federal Reserve, although this milieu is so incestuous that it’s natural to wonder.)

    Steve Sailer is firing on all cylinders, even using that fancy pants word “milieu” to describe the cultural atmosphere of the shysters who infest the globalized central banking organized crime syndicate.

    Sailer has to go back to blood. Regular Americans would love to hear about the ancestral background of these damn treasonites who presume to be the rulers of the United States. The Bradlees and the Grahams and the Bushes and the Clintons and all the rest of the rat bastards in the evil ruling class of the American Empire.

    Sailer has to go total TESS of the D’URBERVILLES on these ruling class rats. Tess was a real blood descendant of the Norman family who defeated the Saxons in 1066. The family had seen hard times and used the anglicized name Durbeyfield. Tess was undone by a scoundrel whose family had not been Norman at all, but had money-grubbed enough where they thought they should pose as Normans so they stole the name D’Urberville.

    The American people are Tess and the unassimilated and treasonous bastards in the WASP / Jew ruling class are the money-grubbing name-stealing scum who have stolen the real America.

    Stephen Spielberg is a memeber of the WASP / Jew ruling class and his movies are rancid anti-Christian and anti-White crap. I hope his horseshit movie on the ruling class rag Washington Post is a flop.

  83. @Bubba

    Bradlee was a key figure in the giant media cover-up of President Kennedy’s sexual predation upon the White House secretarial pool. Bradlee wrote, sounding rather like Sergeant Schultz on Hogan’s Heroes, that he knew nothing: “Like everyone else, we had heard reports of presidential infidelity, but we were always able to say we knew of no evidence, none.”
     
    And in the Weinstein sexual assaults, Meryl Streep also does a wonderful Sgt. Schultz yet won't acknowledge the women who were sexually assaulted by the creep. I'm sure Steven Spielberg knew of his buddy Weinstein's numerous sexual assaults against gentile women. The outrage and silence is deafening from the Hollywood crowd.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Anon, @anonymous, @syonredux

    . I’m sure Steven Spielberg knew of his buddy Weinstein’s numerous sexual assaults against gentile women. The outrage and silence is deafening from the Hollywood crowd.

    And the victims include Gwyneth Paltrow;Spielberg is her godfather…..

    He knew what was going on…..

  84. @Alden
    18 to 24 is the biggest share of movie audiences. The 35 and older group are often parents and grandparents taking kids to kids movies.

    Why in the world would 15 to 35 year olds go to see a movie about things that happened in their grandparents time?

    Since history is taught to badly in school, anyone who wasn't at least an older teen at the time has no context to put it in. ho hum

    And given that the 28 to 24 group has never read newspapers in their lives, and those under 40 probably stopped reading newspapers 15 years ago, the subject of newspapers exposing evil governments has no interest.

    Maybe it will be shown only in art houses where elderly liberals can show off to each other with their knowledge of Vietnam and their brave fight against our involvement.

    The usual procedure with all non art house movies like this is to track the opening weekend receipts.
    By about 4 AM Saturday Hawaii time the fate of the movie is known. If the receipts were good, the movie stays. If receipts are low, the movie is pulled a month or so later unless receipts hugely increase in the next few weekends.

    The chains don't want to waste their overhead on a movie that doesn't make them money.

    Let us hope it's a flop.

    Replies: @David In TN

    As I’ve said before, Spielberg and Company are content if 15 people see this film. At the least, it will run on the movie channels, netflix, DVD, etc. This is why it was green-lighted despite not being a certain box office hit.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @David In TN


    At the least, it will run on the movie channels, netflix, DVD, etc. This is why it was green-lighted despite not being a certain box office hit.
     
    And every school district will buy 10 copies to show in "History" class, assuming they deign to teach such a thing anymore.
  85. @Altai
    More mythologising of religious totems for our present elites. First Lincoln and now Woodward and Bernstein. But Woodward and Bernstein thought all the mythologising of them was both silly and deeply damaging to journalism.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    But Woodward and Bernstein thought all the mythologising of them was both silly and deeply damaging to journalism.

    Citation needed.

  86. O/T

    Honestly a bad response by Nehlen. He should have explicitly repudiated Steve Bannon, and told him to follow Podhoretz the Lesser onto a one-way El Al flight from JFK to Tel Aviv.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @Maj. Kong

    This is what you get for peacefully participating in the political process. Demonization from our supposed intellectual superiors.

    https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/946123335875805184

    , @Charles Pewitt
    @Maj. Kong

    OFF TOPIC

    Paul Nehlen Says:

    IT'S OKAY TO BE WHITE

    https://twitter.com/pnehlen/status/946036821003292672

    , @Henry's Cat
    @Maj. Kong

    I rather like his response. Sounds principled and high-minded.

    , @Charles Pewitt
    @Maj. Kong

    OFF TOPIC

    Paul Nehlen, a GOP primary challenger to Paul Ryan for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, has Tweeted out a picture of Kevin MacDonald's book "The Culture Of Critique" with the caption currently reading and some of the members of the WASP / Jew ruling class don't like it.

    , @LondonBob
    @Maj. Kong

    Doesn't tell us anything about Breitbart that wasn't already obvious, manipulating the inevitable right wing backlash.

    KMac is a legend.

    , @Anonym
    @Maj. Kong

    I liked Nehlen's response btw.

    I suppose it was only a matter of time before Breitbart got co-opted. When they kicked out Katie McHugh that was a sign, and this is another indicator. Their list of the 165 greatest American movies is a virtue signalling PC mess. Apparently the writer was too inept to condense his list down to 100. Movies like Jackie Brown just couldn't go, I guess.

    Stare deep into the swamp and the swamp stares deep into you.

  87. Steven Spielberg and Harvey Weinstein and Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep are best pals:

    https://twitter.com/JamesHartline/status/937123584543113216

  88. @Maj. Kong
    O/T


    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/946095387873484800

    Honestly a bad response by Nehlen. He should have explicitly repudiated Steve Bannon, and told him to follow Podhoretz the Lesser onto a one-way El Al flight from JFK to Tel Aviv.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Charles Pewitt, @Henry's Cat, @Charles Pewitt, @LondonBob, @Anonym

    This is what you get for peacefully participating in the political process. Demonization from our supposed intellectual superiors.

  89. @eah
    OT

    Modern inquisitors force he-man race car driver to apologize for saying boys should not wear dresses -- who knows what sinister torture methods were used.

    Lewis Hamilton apologises for 'boys don't wear dresses' remark

    Replies: @Paul Yarbles, @Autochthon

    I don’t understand. Boys don’t wear girl’s clothes, right? I’ve only been asleep 20 years. Have dresses become menswear already?

    — Rip Van Winkle

  90. @Clever User Name
    Steve,

    HBO had a documentary on Bradlee recently. It included the quote from your article about Bradlee using the Sgt. Schultz defense re: JFK. However, it also included a story of JFK assaulting Bradlee's second wife at a party on the president's yacht. Very sporting of him to still cover up dor him after that!

    Replies: @Danindc

    Did HBO give Steve credit for the quote?

    • Replies: @Clever User Name
    @Danindc

    I just re-read my post and realized that might be confusing. The source for both the doc and (I assume) Steve's review was Bradlee's autobiography. The documentary uses Bradlee's reading of the book as a narrator and the interviews with his Post colleagues make clear how ridiculous it was for him to say he knew nothing of JFK's affairs.

    Replies: @Danindc

  91. @Anon
    I was reading some interesting stuff about how Katherine Graham murdered her husband Phil Graham. It seems Phil had taken a mistress, was going to get a divorce, and had rewritten his will so that the Post went to his mistress and not Katherine. Katherine had Phil committed to a mental institution, and then took him out of it one weekend for a 'visit.' She then disappeared with Phil and a shotgun off to their Virginia farm. Phil was dead from a shotgun blast 48 hours later. From the setup, it looks an awful lot like Katherine pulled the trigger herself. The police report was never made public.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2935-philip-graham/?page=2

    Replies: @Alden, @JimB, @Henry's Cat, @Art Deco, @Paul Jolliffe

    Wasn’t this a Columbo episode?

  92. @Alden
    @Anonym

    We've played the great game in the Pacific since the Spanish American war when we grabbed the Phillipines.

    Replies: @Anonym

    One could also make the case that Commander Perry in 1853 was also partaking in advancing the interests of the US in the Pacific with the opening up of Japan to foreign trade back in 1853.

  93. @Maj. Kong
    O/T


    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/946095387873484800

    Honestly a bad response by Nehlen. He should have explicitly repudiated Steve Bannon, and told him to follow Podhoretz the Lesser onto a one-way El Al flight from JFK to Tel Aviv.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Charles Pewitt, @Henry's Cat, @Charles Pewitt, @LondonBob, @Anonym

    OFF TOPIC

    Paul Nehlen Says:

    IT’S OKAY TO BE WHITE

    https://twitter.com/pnehlen/status/946036821003292672

  94. @Verymuchalive
    @Alec Leamas

    Glad to see you're back to normal, Mr Leamas. I didn't like to think you were working yourself to exhaustion. I always thought that if Mr Unz wanted someone sane to fill the Patrick Cockburn slot it should have been you.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    That’s a very nice thing to say.

    I use the modified moniker from another computer because in my experience the unz.com comment system doesn’t permit the use of the same handle and email address from two different computers alternatively.

  95. @Maj. Kong
    O/T


    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/946095387873484800

    Honestly a bad response by Nehlen. He should have explicitly repudiated Steve Bannon, and told him to follow Podhoretz the Lesser onto a one-way El Al flight from JFK to Tel Aviv.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Charles Pewitt, @Henry's Cat, @Charles Pewitt, @LondonBob, @Anonym

    I rather like his response. Sounds principled and high-minded.

  96. OFF TOPIC

    ICE SNAFU. From today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune:

    Attorneys for deportees on a Somalia-bound flight that returned to the United States after a layover gone awry this month have filed a federal lawsuit to prevent another attempt to deport them.

    The suit on behalf of all 92 people on board, including more than a half-dozen from Minnesota, alleges “inhumane conditions and egregious abuse” aboard the flight, including beatings that resulted in injuries. It also argues that media attention to the flight would make the deportees targets for the militant group Al-Shabab, which has lashed out against Somalis who have lived in the West.

    ICE said Tuesday it does not comment on pending litigation, but it has previously said allegations of mistreatment and injuries on board the flight are “categorically false.”

    The flight headed back to Florida after ICE said issues with a hotel in Dakar, Senegal, forced the aircraft to remain at the airport — with detainees and crew on board — to allow the relief crew time to rest.

    The suit says the detainees on the flight experienced “extraordinary abuse” by ICE officers and contract guards, including being kicked, struck, dragged, choked and bound in straitjackets.

    [MORE]

    ICE said all detainees were screened in a Florida detention center by health care professionals who noted no injuries. More than 60 of the detainees on board had criminal convictions, including homicide, rape and aggravated assault. The rest were ordered deported after failing to win asylum.

    An earlier ICE statement said detainees received sufficient food and water and had access to bathrooms. “No one was injured during the flight, and there were no incidents or altercations that would have caused any injuries on the flight.”

    The University of Minnesota’s Center for New Americans, which declined to comment, filed the suit along with the University of Miami School of Law and two other Florida-based organizations.

    “Ironically, it is ICE’s own botched deportation … that has greatly increased the danger for these people,” the suit said.

    The flight’s return set off a scramble by attorneys locally to argue that their clients should not be sent back to Somalia. On Friday, Judge Michael Davis temporarily blocked the removal of a local man on the flight, but only until a fellow judge in Minneapolis gives a full hearing to his case.

    A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the deportations of all detainees on the flight stayed until Jan. 2, giving the court time to determine if it has jurisdiction in the case. In response to the suit, the government argued the court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

    In the fiscal year ending in September, the government deported 512 people to Somalia, compared with 198 the year before and about 30 five years earlier.

  97. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    In my younger days, by chance of my friends and location, I spent a fair amount of time around DC reporters. Couple of observations (most not surprising):

    1. Extremely liberal in exactly the way that you'd think, i.e. virtue signaling vs caring about blue-collar workers

    2. A lot of top 20 colleges.
    - You'd see a state university grad here and there but it was heavily Columbia, other Ivies, Georgetown, etc.

    3. Married or in relationship with someone who actually made good money
    - These people weren't going to suffer for their cause

    4. Cared deeply that they were treated as just as important as the movers and shakers
    - A friend once said that becoming a cop was a way for young, unaccomplished people to get immediate authority and respect without having to earn it. A lot of the DC reporters are like pushy young cops who relish their power over you.

    5. Lived no where near blacks
    - The younger reporters lived in hipster parts of DC. Older ones with kids lived in Arlington or Bethesda - or, if married to some rich guy, in DC but sent their kids to private school

    6. Absolutely zero experience in the real world
    - They almost always grew up in very nice neighborhoods, went to swank schools, hung out with people just like themselves and eventually returned to very similar neighborhoods to where they grew up. A few might have worked as a waiter or something in college but they never had childhood friends who didn't go to college.

    7. Words are real
    - This is a big one. Because they didn't grow up around people who worked with concrete things, their world was always about ideas and words. The person who could debate the best won the argument regardless of the actual facts. Words were real. Debating the number of angels on the head of a pin was no different than debating immigration to them. It was all abstract, and, therefore, the correct answer was the one sounded best to them.

    8. They are the good guys
    - For many, it was a calling. Indeed, the occassional reporter that I'd run into who was farily normal generally was looking to get out of the industry. The farther up the ladder you went, the more liberal and bizarre they got.

    9. Utterly un-self-aware - as Steve notes
    - You could crack jokes about their hyprocrisies all day, and they wouldn't notice. They simply didn't see it.

    10. All white and heavily Jewish

    But to be fair, most of the reporters that I met were actually decent enough people. Of course, if they knew how I truly thought, they would have wanted me killed, so there's that.

    Of course, all of this was a long time ago. I've occassionally seen one of their names at a prominent new organization, but a new generation of even more stringent SJWs are coming up and they won't take kindly to their middle-aged white bosses wanting to slow them down. It'll be fun to watch.

    Replies: @Marty, @Bill B., @Hibernian, @Anonym

    4. Cared deeply that they were treated as just as important as the movers and shakers

    Did not Gore Vidal write something like: a reporter is someone who walks into a room and thinks he knows more than anyone else in the room irrespective of who is in the room.

    7. Words are real
    – This is a big one. Because they didn’t grow up around people who worked with concrete things, their world was always about ideas and words. The person who could debate the best won the argument regardless of the actual facts. Words were real. Debating the number of angels on the head of a pin was no different than debating immigration to them. It was all abstract, and, therefore, the correct answer was the one sounded best to them.

    This is a change I have noticed talking to journalists in Europe and Asia. A generation or so ago there was a sense that everyone was trying to find out what the hell was going on. Now it is much more about personal showboating and drawing applause. Of course journalism is more blatantly ideological now so playing with words is safer than working with sometimes uncomfortable facts.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Bill B.

    I suspect that reporters were less blatantly ideological at the time simply because that had no opposition. The Internet was killing the industry for a variety of reasons but blogging and online news sites weren't formed quite yet. They didn't have to press the issue as much.

    Then again, I can still remember several reporter friends being depressed for weeks after Bush beat Gore. I mean truly depressed. They didn't want to go out. They avoided people just to sit at home. It was hilarious. I can't imagine what it was like with this new crowd when Trump won. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they held therapy-like meetings to grieve.

    While I like many of them, reporters at that time were in so many ways quite immature. They got away with it because they came from reasonably well-off families and were smart enough to do well at school to get a journalism job. They'd be pointless in real world situations and jobs.

    It's why I drifted away from them over time. They reminded me of the kids I grew up with who never could move past high school.

    Replies: @guest

  98. @Maj. Kong
    O/T


    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/946095387873484800

    Honestly a bad response by Nehlen. He should have explicitly repudiated Steve Bannon, and told him to follow Podhoretz the Lesser onto a one-way El Al flight from JFK to Tel Aviv.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Charles Pewitt, @Henry's Cat, @Charles Pewitt, @LondonBob, @Anonym

    OFF TOPIC

    Paul Nehlen, a GOP primary challenger to Paul Ryan for Wisconsin’s 1st congressional district, has Tweeted out a picture of Kevin MacDonald’s book “The Culture Of Critique” with the caption currently reading and some of the members of the WASP / Jew ruling class don’t like it.

  99. @Maj. Kong
    @Alec Leamas

    The elite press isn't exactly prolefeed. The leftist torrent from the media is probably the most important factor that shifted upper-middle class whites away from the GOP.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    The elite press isn’t exactly prolefeed. The leftist torrent from the media is probably the most important factor that shifted upper-middle class whites away from the GOP.

    I don’t know if I’d consider any press outlet truly “elite” in fact. They’re largely trading on reputations which themselves may not be deserved but which were acquired several decades ago. Even assuming as I do that Bernstein and Woodward were politically motivated actors, at least you can say that they did journalism of the real kind – i.e., combing through Court records, chasing down ledes, corroborating facts, etc. I doubt that very many if any reporters at WaPo or NYT currently on the payroll could actually competently piece together a story from such a disparate range of facts.

    The value of the WaPo and NYT though is that they have the ability to craft the daily narrative of the news cycle to advantage their political/elected wings. What gets printed on the frontpage inevitably winds up leading the half hour nightly news broadcasts, which is absolutely where loads of ordinary Americans get their news.

    As for the distancing of upper-middle class whites from the GOP, my belief is that this is more attributable to the soft news (like NBC’s Today Show) and entertainment media as well as the political bent of the Universities than to the drumbeat of “elite” news outlets. The former shape attitudes and expectations, which are precursors t0 whacky, ostentatious left wing political beliefs at odds with the personal values of upper middle class whites.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    @Alec Leamas

    http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/content-is-king-but-viewing-habits-vary-by-demographic.html

    I do agree that morning TV is more influential after reading your post, but I come from a household that never watched morning shows. But I recalled footage of Katie Couric (who's deceased sister was a Dem pol) concern trolling the GOP about being "extreme" in 1992.

    It's also worth noting that the leftward shift of the UMC and educated occurred across the West. It seems to have passed by Australia, when it comes to voting habits, but not policy preferences.

  100. @Jake
    The most wealthy and powerful WASPs, the most socially exclusive WASPs Elites, married to and business partners and political and cultural allies of Jews, against Middle American whites.

    That is the dream vision of Oliver Cromwell; it is the inherent end of WASP culture.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Many Anglo-Saxons were Cavaliers.

  101. @Maj. Kong
    @Abe

    Nixon campaigned in Alaska and Hawaii during the final days of the campaign, because of a campaign promise. He might have been able to tip the balance in the Midwest instead. Nixon also made an ill-timed remark about appointing a black cabinet officer.

    Nixon also chose a bad running mate, Lodge Jr wasn't cut of the same timber as his grandfather. The odious Nelson Rockefeller probably would have flipped New York.

    Replies: @David In TN

    It wasn’t Nixon who promised “a Negro in the cabinet.” It was his running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge. Nixon didn’t like it.

  102. “By early 1973, U.S. POWs were home.” – Give the ‘turn over all the rocks’ tenor of the article, unfortunate that this statement is present.

  103. Upon hearing news of her murder, Bradlee raced to Mrs. Meyer’s residence to break in and find her diary (which presumably documented her affair with JFK). To his surprise, Bradlee discovered that the CIA’s legendary head of counterintelligence James Jesus Angleton had picked the lock ahead of him and was ransacking the place. Bradlee explained that he ultimately burned her diary because he’d “concluded this was in no sense a public document, despite the braying of the knee jerks about some public right to know.”

    How The Good Shepherd managed to make a fictionalized version of James Jesus Angleton less interesting than the real man is absolutely astounding….

  104. @LondonBob
    @Art Deco

    Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    No, Kay Summersby said she had an affair with him. (I think Merle Miller tried to peddle the fiction that Truman had confided he’d scotched Eisenhower’s application to seek a divorce from Mamie). His son’s opinion on the matter is indicative because his son worked at his father’s headquarters.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    This is his son's opinion:

    "Whether [Summersby] had any designs on the Old Man and the extent to which he succumbed, I just don't know."

    Notice that he imputes agency to a female. As we all know better today, this is totally wrong.

  105. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    In my younger days, by chance of my friends and location, I spent a fair amount of time around DC reporters. Couple of observations (most not surprising):

    1. Extremely liberal in exactly the way that you'd think, i.e. virtue signaling vs caring about blue-collar workers

    2. A lot of top 20 colleges.
    - You'd see a state university grad here and there but it was heavily Columbia, other Ivies, Georgetown, etc.

    3. Married or in relationship with someone who actually made good money
    - These people weren't going to suffer for their cause

    4. Cared deeply that they were treated as just as important as the movers and shakers
    - A friend once said that becoming a cop was a way for young, unaccomplished people to get immediate authority and respect without having to earn it. A lot of the DC reporters are like pushy young cops who relish their power over you.

    5. Lived no where near blacks
    - The younger reporters lived in hipster parts of DC. Older ones with kids lived in Arlington or Bethesda - or, if married to some rich guy, in DC but sent their kids to private school

    6. Absolutely zero experience in the real world
    - They almost always grew up in very nice neighborhoods, went to swank schools, hung out with people just like themselves and eventually returned to very similar neighborhoods to where they grew up. A few might have worked as a waiter or something in college but they never had childhood friends who didn't go to college.

    7. Words are real
    - This is a big one. Because they didn't grow up around people who worked with concrete things, their world was always about ideas and words. The person who could debate the best won the argument regardless of the actual facts. Words were real. Debating the number of angels on the head of a pin was no different than debating immigration to them. It was all abstract, and, therefore, the correct answer was the one sounded best to them.

    8. They are the good guys
    - For many, it was a calling. Indeed, the occassional reporter that I'd run into who was farily normal generally was looking to get out of the industry. The farther up the ladder you went, the more liberal and bizarre they got.

    9. Utterly un-self-aware - as Steve notes
    - You could crack jokes about their hyprocrisies all day, and they wouldn't notice. They simply didn't see it.

    10. All white and heavily Jewish

    But to be fair, most of the reporters that I met were actually decent enough people. Of course, if they knew how I truly thought, they would have wanted me killed, so there's that.

    Of course, all of this was a long time ago. I've occassionally seen one of their names at a prominent new organization, but a new generation of even more stringent SJWs are coming up and they won't take kindly to their middle-aged white bosses wanting to slow them down. It'll be fun to watch.

    Replies: @Marty, @Bill B., @Hibernian, @Anonym

    In some neighborhoods in Chicago and in the entire city of Seattle, almost everybody is like that.

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Hibernian

    Quite true.

    The difference between your typical urban hipster and the reporters that I knew was the reporters' feeling of entitlement about actually impacting national debates. These reporters were in their mid-20s to mid-30s and had never done anything except getting good grades in soft majors, yet they felt that they should influence the course of the country - and, in fact, they did in a small way. It was crazy.

    That's what bugged me the most. These people had never accomplished anything. They hadn't started a business. They hadn't helped cure a disease. They hadn't created a new product or service. They were just the smart kid in the history class. (And even in there they weren't that great because they weren't like Steve in the sense that they questioned anything; they just were really good at regurgitating the narrative.) Who the hell were they to influence anything?

    Nobody, that's who.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  106. Graham and Bradlee represented the kind of polished, old money establishmentarians who drove Nixon, a poor boy from Yorba Linda, to distraction with their contempt for his arriviste bumptiousness.

    Bradlee had a blueblood background. Philip Graham was born in South Dakota to a nondescript family that later made good in Florida real estate (IIRC). Frank Nixon was a fruit-grower turned greengrocer, not cash flush but also not (in that time and place) poor. All of his children were college-educated and all had affluent adult lives. Pat Nixon did come from a rather hardscrabble background, but the term ‘bumptious’ would never apply to her. Philip Graham, on the other hand, was bipolar.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Art Deco

    Sorry, by "Graham" I was referring to Mrs. Graham, not her husband. My apologies for the ambiguity. Mrs. Graham was raised in a 28,000 square foot chateau that was bought by Donald Trump in 1995 with plans to convert it to the clubhouse of what Trump intended to be the world's most expensive country club:

    Trump Buying a Chateau For Use in Golf Complex
    By TRACIE ROZHON

    Donald J. Trump is buying another mansion: the 14-bedroom, 28,322-square-foot Mount Kisco chateau known as Seven Springs. He plans to turn it and its surrounding 200 acres into a golf course with an astronomical entrance fee.

    Mr. Trump signed the contract to buy the estate last week.

    Sources close to the developer said that Mr. Trump wants to turn the 1917 limestone Georgian mansion into a country club and spa, surrounded by an 18-hole golf course designed by either Rees Jones, Tom Fazio, Pete Dye or Tom Weiskopf -- all of whom are said to be scheduled to be interviewed by the Trump staff.

    Mr. Trump refused to comment yesterday, but a source who asked not to be identified said that now the highest entrance fee for a golf club was "around $250,000, and this one is going to be substantially higher." Instead of the usual golf club membership of 400 to 500 people, Mr. Trump is said to plan to limit the membership to around 75, "so you won't have to wait to tee off Saturday morning."

    Mr. Trump is said to have paid $7.5 million for the property, which also includes another mansion: the former H. J. Heinz Jr. house, called Nonsuch. No plans were announced for that house. Mr. Trump so far has no plans to subdivide the property into housing sites; local zoning would let him build as many as 80 houses.

    Mr. Trump was one of the lucky few who got to view the property, which includes three apple orchards, an orangerie for entertaining and a marble indoor swimming pool.

    Since it went on the market in spring 1994 with an asking price of $9.75 million, the property's current owner, Rockefeller University, instituted a tough screening process, said Thomas B. Anderson, the regional director of Sotheby's International Realty, which listed the property.

    "We had to make sure we knew who the buyers were and that they could afford it before they were even given an appointment," said Mr. Anderson, who confirmed that Mr. Trump has signed a contract to buy the parcel. Mr. Trump and his entourage reportedly paid several visits to the property, arriving by helicopter.

    The 200-acre property spans three towns: there are 78.5 acres in Bedford, 91 acres in North Castle and 29.8 acres in New Castle. The main house, built by the architect Charles A. Platt, was the home of Eugene I. Meyer Jr., the industrialist who owned The Washington Post. His daughter, Katharine Graham, to whom he left the newspaper, was married there in 1940.

    , @Steve Sailer
    @Art Deco

    Sorry, by "Graham" I was referring to Mrs. Graham, not her husband. My apologies for the ambiguity. Mrs. Graham was raised in a 28,000 square foot chateau that was bought by Donald Trump in 1995 with plans to convert it to the clubhouse of what Trump intended to be the world's most expensive country club:

    Trump Buying a Chateau For Use in Golf Complex
    By TRACIE ROZHON

    Donald J. Trump is buying another mansion: the 14-bedroom, 28,322-square-foot Mount Kisco chateau known as Seven Springs. He plans to turn it and its surrounding 200 acres into a golf course with an astronomical entrance fee.

    Mr. Trump signed the contract to buy the estate last week.

    Sources close to the developer said that Mr. Trump wants to turn the 1917 limestone Georgian mansion into a country club and spa, surrounded by an 18-hole golf course designed by either Rees Jones, Tom Fazio, Pete Dye or Tom Weiskopf -- all of whom are said to be scheduled to be interviewed by the Trump staff.

    Mr. Trump refused to comment yesterday, but a source who asked not to be identified said that now the highest entrance fee for a golf club was "around $250,000, and this one is going to be substantially higher." Instead of the usual golf club membership of 400 to 500 people, Mr. Trump is said to plan to limit the membership to around 75, "so you won't have to wait to tee off Saturday morning."

    Mr. Trump is said to have paid $7.5 million for the property, which also includes another mansion: the former H. J. Heinz Jr. house, called Nonsuch. No plans were announced for that house. Mr. Trump so far has no plans to subdivide the property into housing sites; local zoning would let him build as many as 80 houses.

    Mr. Trump was one of the lucky few who got to view the property, which includes three apple orchards, an orangerie for entertaining and a marble indoor swimming pool.

    Since it went on the market in spring 1994 with an asking price of $9.75 million, the property's current owner, Rockefeller University, instituted a tough screening process, said Thomas B. Anderson, the regional director of Sotheby's International Realty, which listed the property.

    "We had to make sure we knew who the buyers were and that they could afford it before they were even given an appointment," said Mr. Anderson, who confirmed that Mr. Trump has signed a contract to buy the parcel. Mr. Trump and his entourage reportedly paid several visits to the property, arriving by helicopter.

    The 200-acre property spans three towns: there are 78.5 acres in Bedford, 91 acres in North Castle and 29.8 acres in New Castle. The main house, built by the architect Charles A. Platt, was the home of Eugene I. Meyer Jr., the industrialist who owned The Washington Post. His daughter, Katharine Graham, to whom he left the newspaper, was married there in 1940.

    , @Steve Sailer
    @Art Deco

    Among Angleton's skills was lock-picking.

  107. @Anonym
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

    This is an interesting read. Has anyone read The Pentagon Papers? Is the wikipedia article an accurate summary?

    It is interesting that the basic goal of the Viet Nam and Korea wars was the Great Game containment of China, rather than sticking up for South Viet Nam (yeah, right) or the more believable Domino Theory.

    It reminds me of the time I learned about the Great Game made explicit after Kitchener won the Battle of Omdurman.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Kitchener,_1st_Earl_Kitchener


    After Omdurman, Kitchener opened a special sealed letter from Salisbury that told him that Salisbury's real reason for ordering the conquest of the Sudan was to prevent France from moving into the Sudan, and that the talk of "avenging Gordon" had been just a pretext.[26] Salisbury's letter ordered Kitchener to head south as soon as possible to evict Marchand before he got a chance to become well-established on the Nile.[26]
     
    The USA has been playing the Great Game in the Pacific since before WWII, when the US was concerned about Japan's rise, when McCollum wrote his memo.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo

    It seems that the USA has foundered in this era of political correctness and allowed China to achieve its goals of imperialism. I guess as long as we have achieved cultural feats like allowing men to use female bathrooms, it's ok if the nation's secrets wander off in USB flash drives. At least we weren't racist!

    Replies: @Alden, @Hibernian

    The Japanese entered WWI on the Allied side, to steal German colonized Pacific Islands. The European Powers gave a war, and the Japanese came, uninvited.

  108. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    In my younger days, by chance of my friends and location, I spent a fair amount of time around DC reporters. Couple of observations (most not surprising):

    1. Extremely liberal in exactly the way that you'd think, i.e. virtue signaling vs caring about blue-collar workers

    2. A lot of top 20 colleges.
    - You'd see a state university grad here and there but it was heavily Columbia, other Ivies, Georgetown, etc.

    3. Married or in relationship with someone who actually made good money
    - These people weren't going to suffer for their cause

    4. Cared deeply that they were treated as just as important as the movers and shakers
    - A friend once said that becoming a cop was a way for young, unaccomplished people to get immediate authority and respect without having to earn it. A lot of the DC reporters are like pushy young cops who relish their power over you.

    5. Lived no where near blacks
    - The younger reporters lived in hipster parts of DC. Older ones with kids lived in Arlington or Bethesda - or, if married to some rich guy, in DC but sent their kids to private school

    6. Absolutely zero experience in the real world
    - They almost always grew up in very nice neighborhoods, went to swank schools, hung out with people just like themselves and eventually returned to very similar neighborhoods to where they grew up. A few might have worked as a waiter or something in college but they never had childhood friends who didn't go to college.

    7. Words are real
    - This is a big one. Because they didn't grow up around people who worked with concrete things, their world was always about ideas and words. The person who could debate the best won the argument regardless of the actual facts. Words were real. Debating the number of angels on the head of a pin was no different than debating immigration to them. It was all abstract, and, therefore, the correct answer was the one sounded best to them.

    8. They are the good guys
    - For many, it was a calling. Indeed, the occassional reporter that I'd run into who was farily normal generally was looking to get out of the industry. The farther up the ladder you went, the more liberal and bizarre they got.

    9. Utterly un-self-aware - as Steve notes
    - You could crack jokes about their hyprocrisies all day, and they wouldn't notice. They simply didn't see it.

    10. All white and heavily Jewish

    But to be fair, most of the reporters that I met were actually decent enough people. Of course, if they knew how I truly thought, they would have wanted me killed, so there's that.

    Of course, all of this was a long time ago. I've occassionally seen one of their names at a prominent new organization, but a new generation of even more stringent SJWs are coming up and they won't take kindly to their middle-aged white bosses wanting to slow them down. It'll be fun to watch.

    Replies: @Marty, @Bill B., @Hibernian, @Anonym

    I agree with Marty. This is the sort of post I am glad to wade through the comments section for.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  109. @Danindc
    @Clever User Name

    Did HBO give Steve credit for the quote?

    Replies: @Clever User Name

    I just re-read my post and realized that might be confusing. The source for both the doc and (I assume) Steve’s review was Bradlee’s autobiography. The documentary uses Bradlee’s reading of the book as a narrator and the interviews with his Post colleagues make clear how ridiculous it was for him to say he knew nothing of JFK’s affairs.

    • Replies: @Danindc
    @Clever User Name

    Got it. Thanks

  110. @Art Deco
    1. Bob Woodward has a known history as a yarn-puller. (He claimed to have had 12 hours of conversations with the moribund William J. Casey without ever being collared by the nursing staff, hospital security, Casey's wife, or Casey's daughter. Casey's wife said in no uncertain terms he was lying through his teeth. The press, who looked after each other in that era, pretended they believed Woodward). Shortly before the Felt 'revelation', another journalist published a piece analyzing the mechanics of WoodStein's account of their dealings with 'Deep Throat', concluding the tale was fiction. Suggest the nonagenarian Felt was a source and did them a favor by claiming to be "Deep Throat" when Deep Throat was actually a composite.

    2. There was no 'silent coup' contra Richard Nixon. The man had ethical deficits (manifest in his work life, not in his everyday life) and the fish rots from the head down. H.R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, and John Mitchell were all unscrupulous people to varying degrees. Same deal with Wm. Bittman, Herbert Kalmbach, and Paul O'Brien. A half-dozen others committed minor offenses or allowed themselves to be tainted by the schemes with which these others were engaged. The general counsel to the Committee to Re-elect the President (a lapsed FBI agent and something of a kook) put together a small domestic espionage apparatus making use of a lapsed CIA agent, the chief of security at CRP headquarters, and a quartet of Cuban exiles who had done work for the CIA in the past. His elaborate plans were presented to John Mitchell, Jeb Magruder, and John Dean in early 1972. He was told to scale it back, which he did. N.B. Gordon Liddy had previously been a staff lawyer working for John Dean and Howard Hunt had been a contractor working for Charles Colson. Nixon may have not known Liddy from a cord of wood, but John Mitchell certainly knew well what Liddy's crew were up to, as did Haldeman's aide Gordon Strachan. Nixon wasn't going to come clean about all this and his subordinates all busied themselves trying to raise funds on the QT to keep the arrested burglars from talking.

    Replies: @The Man From K Street, @Hibernian

    Are lapsed CIA and FBI agents sort of like lapsed Catholics?

  111. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    @Rosamond Vincy

    Basically, because a lot of people have realized that the Washington Post is just some crappy blog now, and has become kind of a laughingstock.

    So the idea is, if Steven Spielberg makes a movie about it, people will decide that it's really cool after all. I don't know how well it'll work, but probably better than I would like it to.

    Replies: @Anon

    I’m not sure Bezos and the WaPo realize that the more they play partisan politics and produce yellow journalism, the more the reputation of the WaPo will be ruined in the eyes of future, and people will start assuming that Watergate was a fake crime ginned up by the press instead of a real crime. It’s the most recent impression that sticks in the minds of a younger generation, because the majority of them don’t have the patience to go back and plod through all you need to learn the truth.

    It’s sort of like how young people who hear a recent Paul McCartney record will assume he’s always sucked and not bother to go back to listen to the Beatles. If the WaPo acts like a sucky paper, the young will assume it was always that way. People raised in older times when the Beatles and the WaPo ruled the roost will find this difficult to believe, but younger people can only learn reality through the lens of most recent developments, and that’s a different reality.

  112. @Art Deco
    Graham and Bradlee represented the kind of polished, old money establishmentarians who drove Nixon, a poor boy from Yorba Linda, to distraction with their contempt for his arriviste bumptiousness.

    Bradlee had a blueblood background. Philip Graham was born in South Dakota to a nondescript family that later made good in Florida real estate (IIRC). Frank Nixon was a fruit-grower turned greengrocer, not cash flush but also not (in that time and place) poor. All of his children were college-educated and all had affluent adult lives. Pat Nixon did come from a rather hardscrabble background, but the term 'bumptious' would never apply to her. Philip Graham, on the other hand, was bipolar.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer

    Sorry, by “Graham” I was referring to Mrs. Graham, not her husband. My apologies for the ambiguity. Mrs. Graham was raised in a 28,000 square foot chateau that was bought by Donald Trump in 1995 with plans to convert it to the clubhouse of what Trump intended to be the world’s most expensive country club:

    Trump Buying a Chateau For Use in Golf Complex
    By TRACIE ROZHON

    Donald J. Trump is buying another mansion: the 14-bedroom, 28,322-square-foot Mount Kisco chateau known as Seven Springs. He plans to turn it and its surrounding 200 acres into a golf course with an astronomical entrance fee.

    Mr. Trump signed the contract to buy the estate last week.

    Sources close to the developer said that Mr. Trump wants to turn the 1917 limestone Georgian mansion into a country club and spa, surrounded by an 18-hole golf course designed by either Rees Jones, Tom Fazio, Pete Dye or Tom Weiskopf — all of whom are said to be scheduled to be interviewed by the Trump staff.

    Mr. Trump refused to comment yesterday, but a source who asked not to be identified said that now the highest entrance fee for a golf club was “around $250,000, and this one is going to be substantially higher.” Instead of the usual golf club membership of 400 to 500 people, Mr. Trump is said to plan to limit the membership to around 75, “so you won’t have to wait to tee off Saturday morning.”

    Mr. Trump is said to have paid $7.5 million for the property, which also includes another mansion: the former H. J. Heinz Jr. house, called Nonsuch. No plans were announced for that house. Mr. Trump so far has no plans to subdivide the property into housing sites; local zoning would let him build as many as 80 houses.

    Mr. Trump was one of the lucky few who got to view the property, which includes three apple orchards, an orangerie for entertaining and a marble indoor swimming pool.

    Since it went on the market in spring 1994 with an asking price of $9.75 million, the property’s current owner, Rockefeller University, instituted a tough screening process, said Thomas B. Anderson, the regional director of Sotheby’s International Realty, which listed the property.

    “We had to make sure we knew who the buyers were and that they could afford it before they were even given an appointment,” said Mr. Anderson, who confirmed that Mr. Trump has signed a contract to buy the parcel. Mr. Trump and his entourage reportedly paid several visits to the property, arriving by helicopter.

    The 200-acre property spans three towns: there are 78.5 acres in Bedford, 91 acres in North Castle and 29.8 acres in New Castle. The main house, built by the architect Charles A. Platt, was the home of Eugene I. Meyer Jr., the industrialist who owned The Washington Post. His daughter, Katharine Graham, to whom he left the newspaper, was married there in 1940.

  113. @Art Deco
    Graham and Bradlee represented the kind of polished, old money establishmentarians who drove Nixon, a poor boy from Yorba Linda, to distraction with their contempt for his arriviste bumptiousness.

    Bradlee had a blueblood background. Philip Graham was born in South Dakota to a nondescript family that later made good in Florida real estate (IIRC). Frank Nixon was a fruit-grower turned greengrocer, not cash flush but also not (in that time and place) poor. All of his children were college-educated and all had affluent adult lives. Pat Nixon did come from a rather hardscrabble background, but the term 'bumptious' would never apply to her. Philip Graham, on the other hand, was bipolar.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer

    Sorry, by “Graham” I was referring to Mrs. Graham, not her husband. My apologies for the ambiguity. Mrs. Graham was raised in a 28,000 square foot chateau that was bought by Donald Trump in 1995 with plans to convert it to the clubhouse of what Trump intended to be the world’s most expensive country club:

    Trump Buying a Chateau For Use in Golf Complex
    By TRACIE ROZHON

    Donald J. Trump is buying another mansion: the 14-bedroom, 28,322-square-foot Mount Kisco chateau known as Seven Springs. He plans to turn it and its surrounding 200 acres into a golf course with an astronomical entrance fee.

    Mr. Trump signed the contract to buy the estate last week.

    Sources close to the developer said that Mr. Trump wants to turn the 1917 limestone Georgian mansion into a country club and spa, surrounded by an 18-hole golf course designed by either Rees Jones, Tom Fazio, Pete Dye or Tom Weiskopf — all of whom are said to be scheduled to be interviewed by the Trump staff.

    Mr. Trump refused to comment yesterday, but a source who asked not to be identified said that now the highest entrance fee for a golf club was “around $250,000, and this one is going to be substantially higher.” Instead of the usual golf club membership of 400 to 500 people, Mr. Trump is said to plan to limit the membership to around 75, “so you won’t have to wait to tee off Saturday morning.”

    Mr. Trump is said to have paid $7.5 million for the property, which also includes another mansion: the former H. J. Heinz Jr. house, called Nonsuch. No plans were announced for that house. Mr. Trump so far has no plans to subdivide the property into housing sites; local zoning would let him build as many as 80 houses.

    Mr. Trump was one of the lucky few who got to view the property, which includes three apple orchards, an orangerie for entertaining and a marble indoor swimming pool.

    Since it went on the market in spring 1994 with an asking price of $9.75 million, the property’s current owner, Rockefeller University, instituted a tough screening process, said Thomas B. Anderson, the regional director of Sotheby’s International Realty, which listed the property.

    “We had to make sure we knew who the buyers were and that they could afford it before they were even given an appointment,” said Mr. Anderson, who confirmed that Mr. Trump has signed a contract to buy the parcel. Mr. Trump and his entourage reportedly paid several visits to the property, arriving by helicopter.

    The 200-acre property spans three towns: there are 78.5 acres in Bedford, 91 acres in North Castle and 29.8 acres in New Castle. The main house, built by the architect Charles A. Platt, was the home of Eugene I. Meyer Jr., the industrialist who owned The Washington Post. His daughter, Katharine Graham, to whom he left the newspaper, was married there in 1940.

  114. @Bill B.
    @Citizen of a Silly Country


    4. Cared deeply that they were treated as just as important as the movers and shakers
     
    Did not Gore Vidal write something like: a reporter is someone who walks into a room and thinks he knows more than anyone else in the room irrespective of who is in the room.

    7. Words are real
    – This is a big one. Because they didn’t grow up around people who worked with concrete things, their world was always about ideas and words. The person who could debate the best won the argument regardless of the actual facts. Words were real. Debating the number of angels on the head of a pin was no different than debating immigration to them. It was all abstract, and, therefore, the correct answer was the one sounded best to them.
     
    This is a change I have noticed talking to journalists in Europe and Asia. A generation or so ago there was a sense that everyone was trying to find out what the hell was going on. Now it is much more about personal showboating and drawing applause. Of course journalism is more blatantly ideological now so playing with words is safer than working with sometimes uncomfortable facts.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    I suspect that reporters were less blatantly ideological at the time simply because that had no opposition. The Internet was killing the industry for a variety of reasons but blogging and online news sites weren’t formed quite yet. They didn’t have to press the issue as much.

    Then again, I can still remember several reporter friends being depressed for weeks after Bush beat Gore. I mean truly depressed. They didn’t want to go out. They avoided people just to sit at home. It was hilarious. I can’t imagine what it was like with this new crowd when Trump won. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they held therapy-like meetings to grieve.

    While I like many of them, reporters at that time were in so many ways quite immature. They got away with it because they came from reasonably well-off families and were smart enough to do well at school to get a journalism job. They’d be pointless in real world situations and jobs.

    It’s why I drifted away from them over time. They reminded me of the kids I grew up with who never could move past high school.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    With Bush v. Gore, there was time to get used to the idea. Months of time. It was less traumatic that way.

    Plus, Bush was an Establishment candidate, much less of a question mark, and everyone knew the election would be close. (Though they hoped last-minute cocaine allegations would put it to bed.)

  115. @Alden
    @prosa123

    Wasn't Crump and the person seen standing over a body both wearing a noticeable plaid jacket?
    As far as footpaths go, who needs footpaths, anyone can go through the brush.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    The smart lawyer showed the jury the easy routes through the brush.

  116. @Maj. Kong
    O/T


    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/946095387873484800

    Honestly a bad response by Nehlen. He should have explicitly repudiated Steve Bannon, and told him to follow Podhoretz the Lesser onto a one-way El Al flight from JFK to Tel Aviv.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Charles Pewitt, @Henry's Cat, @Charles Pewitt, @LondonBob, @Anonym

    Doesn’t tell us anything about Breitbart that wasn’t already obvious, manipulating the inevitable right wing backlash.

    KMac is a legend.

  117. @Anon
    I was reading some interesting stuff about how Katherine Graham murdered her husband Phil Graham. It seems Phil had taken a mistress, was going to get a divorce, and had rewritten his will so that the Post went to his mistress and not Katherine. Katherine had Phil committed to a mental institution, and then took him out of it one weekend for a 'visit.' She then disappeared with Phil and a shotgun off to their Virginia farm. Phil was dead from a shotgun blast 48 hours later. From the setup, it looks an awful lot like Katherine pulled the trigger herself. The police report was never made public.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2935-philip-graham/?page=2

    Replies: @Alden, @JimB, @Henry's Cat, @Art Deco, @Paul Jolliffe

    It seems Phil had taken a mistress, was going to get a divorce, and had rewritten his will so that the Post went to his mistress and not Katherine.

    His widow does indicate in her memoirs that he was writing his will and that there were drafts in which as much as 2/3 of his property was to be distributed to his mistress. By her account, the mistress wanted no part of any public scandal and refused to press any claims she might have had due to the various drafts.

    He was Eugene Meyer’s son-in-law, not his son. It’s a reasonable wager that the family’s ownership of the Post was so structured (in trusts and whatnot) that it wasn’t Philip Graham’s to dispose of unilaterally. Eugene Meyer had four other children and his widow was still alive at the time Philip Graham died.

  118. Awesome piece from Steve.

    Fwiw, I remember enjoying this doc about Mary Pinchot Meyer:

  119. Semi-watchable feature film based on Mary Pinchot Meyer case, starring the divine Gretchen Mol:

  120. @guest
    Thing about the left you'll learn is that they're never in power. Not really. If there was a Ruling Liberal Consensus from (to simplify things, though there were progressive presidents before him) FDR-on, suddenly during Vietnam (after malign spirits of revolution had been flattered by the success of civil rights movement), the New Left decided it was no longer part of the ruling order anymore. It was something "new," as you could tell by its name. Then everyone who had something to do with running the country before was old, and might as well be conservative Republicans for all they cared. Indeed, many of the members of the Liberal Consensus drifted to the right, or were content to think of themselves as conservatives because they had been superseded.

    That's a classic example of the left outflanking itself. But some members are not content to have no past, and be perpetually reborn every half-minute. They want to pretend there was a good Ruling Liberal Order once. So they simply credit it with everything good (civil rights, etc.) and pretend everything bad was the fault of fascists, or something. Spielberg himself was presumably at least sympathetic to the New Left, if he was anything. That is, given his age, placement, and the circles in which he ran. But he has a respect for the Old Left Order, as represented by his WWII-mania and films such as Bridge of Spies, which valorizes some Cold Warriors (principled liberal lawyers who defend foreign spies who are soft-spoken and have a talent for painting), if not others (CIA agents who resemble mongoloids).

    He's sorta like Matthew Weiner, who doesn't like chain-smoking sexually harassing racists of 1959, but does like their clothes, decor, and manners. He appears to despise hippies, but mainly their lack of style. Not necessarily their politics. Anywho, it's easier to pretend all the bad stuff can be laid at the door of the Nixons of the world. Just like the people throwing bricks through Tom Hanks' window in Bridge of Spies couldn't have contributed to the ACLU, probably were in favor of Jim Crow, and their children and grandchildren definitely voted Trump if they took after them.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Parts of the Establishment have been Leftist for a long time.

  121. @Anon
    @Bubba

    To be fair to Bradlee, sexual activities of politicians of all stripes were generally ignored by the media back then(and even now in so many cases). Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    And even though the Media had it in for Nixon, Watergate really was shameful because it was so DUMB.
    And the media did, in the end, turn on Johnson and the Vietnam before Nixon.
    One reason why Johnson chose not to run in 68 was because the media had turned on him. And the media were not easy on Carter. I remember the 1980 election, and Carter got it hard from the press. And the media eventually let Reagan go on Iran-Contra even though that was much bigger than Watergate. The thing was, however, that Iran-Contra could at least be spun as serving nobler ends: releasing hostages and funding anti-communists. In contrast, Watergate was so tawdry. In the end, Nixon was his own worst enemy.

    Media bias were always there, but I've never seen as anything as deranged, crazy, and nuts as Media coverage of 2008 campaign and 2016 campaign and aftermath. The cult of Obama was something closer to commie cult of personality. It was grotesque, hyping this hustler from Chicago as The One.
    And 2016 coverage of Trump was downright nuts. And media have no right to bitch about rise of Alt Right since they are the ones who hyped the nascent movement and tried to connect it to Trump. And Russia Hacking crap? Wow.

    I think the problem has gotten worse for several reasons. Back in the days of Johnson and Nixon, Jews were powerful but not all-powerful. Many still faced uphill climb in many institutions. Since they understood what it meant to be an underdog, many of them were sincerely on the side of speaking truth to power. And to enable this, they really prized freedom and liberty and championed free speech. Nixon in his tapes complained of Jewish control of media, but that was nothing compared to now where Jews are not just powerful but totally dominant in so many areas. With all that power, the media have turned into a case of speaking for power than speaking to power. Also, both political parties are far more servile to Jewish power than in Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon days.
    Ethnic competition was good for journalism and narrative back in the day. Today, all sides praise Jews, Jews, and Jews. And Homos but then, homos are nothing but proxies of Jews. Blacks are also tools of Jewish Power, but at the street level, far more volatile. If black politicians and leaders can be bought, the black mobs can veer totally out of control.

    Another reason why media are crazy is the rise of the internet. Alternative news and narratives have made the Power very nervous. So, maintain Monopoly Narrativism, they go into hysteria mode and howl about RUSSIA HACKING so that enough idiots will believe it.
    And as the Democratic Party is now about self-loathing whites and Diversity, there's bound to lots of divisions. So, to keep them together, there must be hysteria about Nazi-KKK-white-supremacists 24/7.

    So, there is now a concerted war on internet platforms, which is easy to do since most of them are owned by Jews. Also, since Jews control much of Wall Street, they can use carrots and sticks on a company like Twitter. Get rid of 'hate' and Twitter gets showered with candies and prizes.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @guest, @nebulafox

    I don’t approve of your DUMB assessment. Not that it wasn’t dumb, but do you honestly think Nixon was the only president with a potential scandal caused by dumbness? Likely FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson allowed even dumber things to happen, because though there are always factions within factions,* they had less natural selection going on.

    They were all in the same Ruling Liberal Consensus, and had much less to worry from overly hostile political or press opponents. From what I know, their illegal eavesdropping also had its Keystone Cops aspects.**

    Nixon, on the other hand, was at most an Outer Party figure.

    *McCarthy led the last real populist backlash, unless you count Wallace. But he was fed information from Hoover’s FBI. Which meant Hoover was at least willing to put the screws to the State Department. But notice the operation was not allowed to threaten the presidency itself.

    It was met immediately with one of the biggest public Establishment hissy fits ever, which continues to this day. But it was allowed to continue on for a while, until it went after the army. Which was likely beyond Hoover’s scope. And until the Republicans were in the White House, after which time both parties had every reason to kill it.

    Then it was slammed shut. The worst possible case for the Establishment would have been for it to unravel the WWII narrative, which is the Foundation Myth for the NWO. Pinkos at State is one thing, in the army another, and men like George Marshall or Eisenhower implicated unthinkable.

    **See the book It Didn’t Start with Watergate.

  122. @anony-mouse
    Interesting contrast then and now.

    Then-GOP POTUS attacks leaker of Dem President's errors even though the leaker had nothing on Nixon.

    Today-GOP POTUS praises such leakers and tries to find more no matter what.

    (Nixon created the 'plumbers' to break into Ellsberg's psychiatrist office and this eventually lead to Watergate)

    Replies: @guest

    They might have had the same goal in mind. But to Nixon, the prevailing order was America, even if it had been run by libs for decades. That’s why he walked away from the dubious ’60 election (unlike Al Gore), and why he resigned rather than be impeached (unlike Clinton). Because he didn’t want the office tarnished.

    Of course, he could have burnished the office by not committing crimes. But no one’s completely consistent.

    Trump, on the other hand, thinks the prevailing order is run by swamp creatures. It’s not America to him. America is outside of Washington.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @guest


    It’s not America to him. America is outside of Washington.
     
    He's correct.

    Washington is principally the capital of the post-American empire.
  123. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Bill B.

    I suspect that reporters were less blatantly ideological at the time simply because that had no opposition. The Internet was killing the industry for a variety of reasons but blogging and online news sites weren't formed quite yet. They didn't have to press the issue as much.

    Then again, I can still remember several reporter friends being depressed for weeks after Bush beat Gore. I mean truly depressed. They didn't want to go out. They avoided people just to sit at home. It was hilarious. I can't imagine what it was like with this new crowd when Trump won. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they held therapy-like meetings to grieve.

    While I like many of them, reporters at that time were in so many ways quite immature. They got away with it because they came from reasonably well-off families and were smart enough to do well at school to get a journalism job. They'd be pointless in real world situations and jobs.

    It's why I drifted away from them over time. They reminded me of the kids I grew up with who never could move past high school.

    Replies: @guest

    With Bush v. Gore, there was time to get used to the idea. Months of time. It was less traumatic that way.

    Plus, Bush was an Establishment candidate, much less of a question mark, and everyone knew the election would be close. (Though they hoped last-minute cocaine allegations would put it to bed.)

  124. I used to be a “cinephile” years ago, now I hardly go to the movies and I have zero interest in seeing this movie, or 90% of movies currently produced. As for Spielberg, he was best as a director of action/science fiction flicks (Jaws, E.T., Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, etc). Then he made some “serious” films such as Schindler’s list or Saving Private Ryan, which, despite some impressive moments, aren’t that great on the whole. Now he matured into a competent, if uninteresting director for middlebrow movies. Talented, sure, but I don’t care for most of his recent ones.

    Also, I really disliked “Argo”, so if this is similar, it’s another reason to avoid it.

    Incidentally, from the list below, of supposedly best movies of 2017 according to The New Yorker, I saw only “Get Out” (which was pretty bad, I didn’t understand all the hype), and I haven’t even heard of most of them. (I saw only the Twin Peaks new series, which despite a few moments of brilliance, was mostly… uneven and strange (as expected), and to be honest with a very disappointing conclusion).

    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/2017-in-review/the-best-movies-of-2017

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    @Dumbo


    As for Spielberg, he was best as a director of action/science fiction flicks (Jaws, E.T., Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, etc). Then he made some “serious” films such as Schindler’s list or Saving Private Ryan, which, despite some impressive moments, aren’t that great on the whole. Now he matured into a competent, if uninteresting director for middlebrow movies. Talented, sure, but I don’t care for most of his recent ones.
     
    I'm not a Spielberg fan but Empire of the Sun is a good, underrated film.
  125. @Hibernian
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    In some neighborhoods in Chicago and in the entire city of Seattle, almost everybody is like that.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Quite true.

    The difference between your typical urban hipster and the reporters that I knew was the reporters’ feeling of entitlement about actually impacting national debates. These reporters were in their mid-20s to mid-30s and had never done anything except getting good grades in soft majors, yet they felt that they should influence the course of the country – and, in fact, they did in a small way. It was crazy.

    That’s what bugged me the most. These people had never accomplished anything. They hadn’t started a business. They hadn’t helped cure a disease. They hadn’t created a new product or service. They were just the smart kid in the history class. (And even in there they weren’t that great because they weren’t like Steve in the sense that they questioned anything; they just were really good at regurgitating the narrative.) Who the hell were they to influence anything?

    Nobody, that’s who.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Yep. Like Ben Rhodes said, "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

    But they think they do.

    Two of my women friends get news on their iPhone, which consists of nothing more than headlines from the NYT, probably something like "GOP tax plan will starve 400,000 homos" or something. This is their only source of news, and they think themselves well-informed.

  126. @Maj. Kong
    O/T


    https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/946095387873484800

    Honestly a bad response by Nehlen. He should have explicitly repudiated Steve Bannon, and told him to follow Podhoretz the Lesser onto a one-way El Al flight from JFK to Tel Aviv.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong, @Charles Pewitt, @Henry's Cat, @Charles Pewitt, @LondonBob, @Anonym

    I liked Nehlen’s response btw.

    I suppose it was only a matter of time before Breitbart got co-opted. When they kicked out Katie McHugh that was a sign, and this is another indicator. Their list of the 165 greatest American movies is a virtue signalling PC mess. Apparently the writer was too inept to condense his list down to 100. Movies like Jackie Brown just couldn’t go, I guess.

    Stare deep into the swamp and the swamp stares deep into you.

  127. @eah
    OT

    Modern inquisitors force he-man race car driver to apologize for saying boys should not wear dresses -- who knows what sinister torture methods were used.

    Lewis Hamilton apologises for 'boys don't wear dresses' remark

    Replies: @Paul Yarbles, @Autochthon

    The grovelling has to stop. The only appropriate response to criticism of those who speak truths (as here) or even merely hold unapproved (by the Man) opinions in matters about which reasonable persons can disagree, is something along the lines of “No. I will not renounce my views nor rescind my statements. I stand by my convictions, and you’ve every right to your own. If you seek to destroy me or vilify me for mine, though, you can go to Hell.”

    Anything otherwise, so close to the feast of St. Stephen, no less, is contemptible.

    When the Man denounces as “hate” or otherwise condemns or mocks truth and men like our harried racer, I am reminded of the appropriate response to self-important fools who deny reality and authority:

    Thou speakest of thraldom. If thraldom it be, thou canst not escape it; for Manwë is King of Arda, and not of Aman only. And this deed was unlawful, whether in Aman or not in Aman.

    • Agree: eah
  128. @Art Deco
    Graham and Bradlee represented the kind of polished, old money establishmentarians who drove Nixon, a poor boy from Yorba Linda, to distraction with their contempt for his arriviste bumptiousness.

    Bradlee had a blueblood background. Philip Graham was born in South Dakota to a nondescript family that later made good in Florida real estate (IIRC). Frank Nixon was a fruit-grower turned greengrocer, not cash flush but also not (in that time and place) poor. All of his children were college-educated and all had affluent adult lives. Pat Nixon did come from a rather hardscrabble background, but the term 'bumptious' would never apply to her. Philip Graham, on the other hand, was bipolar.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer, @Steve Sailer

    Among Angleton’s skills was lock-picking.

  129. I’m struck by the timing of this hagiographic movie about the Washington Post which will certainly serve to repair any recent erosion of the reputation it won long ago in the Nixon presidency (and which was cemented by the release of All the President’s Men in 1976) in the minds of its readership.

    Jeff Bezos’ Post is a highly slanted, propagandistic rag that is highly effective in pushing a fantasy narrative about the right, Trump and “Russians/Putin” because it undeservedly retains that long ago reputation from the time of Bradlee and Graham.

    I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that Bezos put Spielberg up to it, but Spielberg has always been quite the middlebrow Hollywood liberal sentimentalist and is certainly no iconoclast. It is quite possible that he simplistically believes in a noble mission for the media in a democracy and still sees the Post as the embodiment of that. Many on the left seem to believe that the credibility of the left mainstream media is unfairly under attack and are quite blind to the massive degradation in objectivity and professionalism that has happened in the last couple of decades.

    Bezos and Fred Hiatt probably can’t believe their good luck.

  130. @Uilleam Yr Alban
    (FKA Broski)

    That the FBI screwed Nixon, just as it’s nakedly trying to screw Trump, was a gem you pointed out. (Nixon actually, you know, did something, but still.)

    Of course, Spielberg is not exactly the most self-aware ironist, so The Post, an earnest celebration of how Big Media supports “the people’s right to know,” doesn’t quite get its own joke about how convenient it was for the Democratic press’ uneasy conscience over how little it had criticized JFK and LBJ to be salved by a press putsch against the Republican in the White House.
     
    That was a long sentence.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @TWS

    What Nixon did was be republican. By then the swamp was already deadly.

  131. @Paul Jolliffe
    Steve,

    Ben Bradlee did indeed conceal Mary Pinchot Meyer's diary from the police. However, I disagree with Peter Janney's contention that the phone call from his father, CIA official Wistar Janney to Bradlee the afternoon of Meyer's murder, meant his father had guilty foreknowledge of her murder.

    Peter Janney might be right, but he's wrong that no one could have known of the murder on the afternoon of October 14, 1964. At the time of the phone call: the police had the name "Meyer" from her gloves at the scene and were in the process of systematically contacting all Meyers in the phone book.
    We know the CIA had been tapping Mary Meyer's phone, but I'm not sold that they murdered her by setting up Ray Crump. Peter Janney's theory is totally unpersuasive here.

    Ray Crump was spotted standing over her body within moments of the last shot. He was identified by Henry Wiggins without hesitation. The bit about the discrepancy over the weight is trivial. The height (assuming Crump was wearing shoes) was spot on.

    Crump did it. He was a violent low-life, both before and after Mary Meyer's murder.

    What's fascinating in all of this is the arrogant ease in which men like Bradlee and Angleton could decide that the public's need to know was unimportant, and further, that a man like Spielberg is so unconscious of that.

    You made that point well, and for that, you deserve more money.

    Replies: @David In TN, @Jim Don Bob

    So why did Crump do it?

    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    @Jim Don Bob

    Well, since according to Peter Janney's take on Mary Meyer's murder "Mary's Mosaic" Crump had gone to the canal to have sex with a previously unidentified woman named "Vivian", and since they did not (again, according to Janney), my guess is that Crump decided to take Meyer by force and rape her.

    Janney's account leaves no doubt that Henry Wiggins (black mechanic) identified Crump as the man he saw standing over Meyer's body within moments of the last shot, a shot which Wiggins heard.

    Wiggins said that Crump was wearing a cap and jacket when standing over the body, but 45 minutes later, he no longer wore those. So, the police dispatched a boat to search the river and sure enough, within a few minutes, the cap and jacket were found in the water at 1:42.

    Wiggins identified the cap and jacket found by the police as the ones worn by the suspect at the time of the murder.

    Crump claimed he had "fallen asleep" and somehow "fell" into the river, when he lost his cap and jacket. Crump was soaking wet when picked up by the police around 1:15. (The murder was at 12:30).

    Crump was a low-life who had already served 60 days in jail for low-life offences. He skipped work that day, lied to his wife and five kids (Crump was only in his early 20's!) and went for a mid-morning stroll with his "girlfriend" "Vivian". His fly was down when apprehended by the police. He lied about "going fishing."
    He had no coherent alibi.
    He was there.
    He was standing over the body when spotted a very seconds after the last shot.
    He tried to make his escape (after realizing he'd been spotted by Wiggins) by swimming across the river.
    He couldn't swim and had to go back ashore.
    He was caught.
    Wiggins said, "yes that's the guy".
    Crump was guilty as hell.
    He spent the rest of his life living a "horrific life of crime". (Again, that's from Peter Janney, the author of three editions of "Mary's Mosaic" and the architect of the theory that Meyer's murder was somehow the product of the CIA.
    Personally, I think the CIA is responsible for lots of evil deeds, but this ain't one of them.)

  132. @Jack Hanson
    Ah yes, I'm sure this film will cause the MSM to engage in a long round of soul searching.

    Who am I kidding? They re just going to double down on huffing their own farts as their empire crashes down around them.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    huffing their own farts

    I love it you said that about BHO. It’s perfect.

  133. @Brabantian
    Spielberg & the Post are running a giant scam to promote mainstream media, hiding the real truth about 'Watergate', even though that truth has been published in fairly mainstream books ('Silent Coup' by Len Colodny & Robert Gettlin, 'Family of Secrets' by Russ Baker)

    The 'Watergate' impeachment farce was run by the CIA & military Joint Chiefs who planted a US Navy intel officer under Admiral Maurer (head of US military at the time), as a 'reporter' at the Washington Post. That Naval intel officer, Bob Woodward, was apparently such an idiot re journalism at first he needed lots of remedial coaching to meet minimal standards. 'Deep Throat' was an absurd fiction, the CIA had all the info.

    The deeper, greater danger here is that - as has been visibly happening recently - the genuine leakers and dissidents are winding up identified, jailed or dead because they trust in this CIA hoax of 'brave investigative journalism' ... and we will likely never know the real numbers of how many dissidents were destroyed by this kind of 'rat trap'

    Another 'impeachment' farce was the Deep State 'Monica Lewinsky' nonsense against Bill Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands ... When Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was 'acquitted' - the bombings began some days afterwards



    Counting the shootings of JFK in 1963 and the shooting of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents

    --

    The most successful CIA deceptions involve fake 'leaks' & fake 'dissidents' ... so successful they dupe 'alternative' media, as well as the general public yearning for 'opposition heroes' ... who are dutifully supplied by the CIA & CIA media

    5 major fake 'leaks' / 'dissident heroes' all used similar techniques ... all of them CIA frauds ... all involving prominent Jewish or Israeli figures too

    1971 Daniel Ellsberg 'stolen' Pentagon Papers
    1973 Watergate 'Deep Throat'
    2010 Julian Assange Wikileaks
    2013 Edward Snowden 'stolen' NSA Papers
    2016 Panama Papers

    All involve CIA-backed fake 'leakers - dissidents' with 'limited hang-out' partial truth, in order to sell even bigger lies:

    1971 Daniel Ellsberg NY Times Pentagon Papers 'stolen documents leak' ... (1) Ellsberg promoted JFK assassination 'lone gunman, not CIA' hoax (2) Distracted from US Vietnam war crimes outside of 'limited hang-out' My Lai, focusing on 'leaker hero', not on brutalised Vietnamese (3) Set up meme of 'brave, trusted' CIA media

    1973 Watergate 'Deep Throat' fictional leaker ... (1) Set up 'Silent Coup' of Richard Nixon by US military Joint Chiefs & CIA (2) Pumped CIA 'brave media' story for WashPost 'reporter' Woodward, Naval Intel agent working for Admiral Maurer heading Joint Chiefs & running US coup d'état (3) Deepend fake 'brave media' meme for CIA journalists to rat-trap real dissidents, identify & destroy them

    2010 Julian Assange Wikileaks ... (1) Leaks 'selected' & shielded Israel, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu & US-CIA Zbigniew Brzezinski publicly admitting Assange is an intel hoax (2) Anti-9-11 truth (3) Sold intimidating 'USA torture war crimes' story USA enjoys spreading (4) 'Rat trap' for dissidents who could be killed after trusting 'Wikileaks' (5) Apparently not 'living in London Ecuardor Embassy' at all, only there for photos, meetings (6) Known as fake to all major gov intel agencies (7) People dead & jailed after contacting Assange (& Snowden), jailed: Reality Leigh Winner, Lauri Love; dead: Seth Rich, Peter W Smith.

    2013 'Edward Snowden' and his 'leaked stolen documents' ... (1) 'Leaked' to Dick Cheney friend at CIA WashPost, Rothschild employee Greenwald (2) Anti-9-11-truth (3) Nothing really new beyond more than 5+ previous NSA whistleblowers (4) Has CIA lawyers, worked with Brzezinski son, promoted by Brzezinski daughter, fake CV history (5) Known as fake to all major gov intel agencies

    2016 Panama Papers 'leaks' ... (1) 'Leaked' to Mossad-&-oligarch tied well-funded 'investigative journalists' (2) Shielding prominent Israeli & US & Nato political figures (3) Focus on targets of hostility for US & related oligarchy (4) ICIJ 'International Consortium of Investigative Journalists' co-managed by the official Mossad historian (!), another CIA-Mossad 'rat trip' to identify & then harass, even silence & kill, real whistle-blowers & dissidents (5) Quickly recognised as a political psy-op, another CIA 'leaker - dissident' fraud

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Another ‘impeachment’ farce was the Deep State ‘Monica Lewinsky’ nonsense against Bill Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands … When Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was ‘acquitted’ – the bombings began some days afterwards

    I’m not so sure about this. Look at the timeline.

    Monica Lewinsky became a public figure in January 1998. (Matt Drudge famously broke the story of Lewinsky’s tryst with the president, but, in an ironic twist, it was Newsweek – owned by the Washington Post – that legitimized it for the rest of the mainstream press.)

    After sparring with Starr for several months, Lewinsky obtained immunity and testified before a federal grand jury on August 6, 1998. The next day, Osama bin Laden orchestrated bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

    Ten days after the embassy bombings, Clinton testified before Starr’s grand jury and then admitted publicly that he had, indeed, had an “inappropriate” (but technically not sexual) relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. Three days after that bombshell, the U.S. suddenly and unexpectedly bombed targets allegedly linked to bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan. (In the aftermath of this bombing, the movie Wag the Dog – a 1997 box-office flop – became a household name.)

    The Starr report was released on September 11, 1998. On October 8, the House approved an open-ended impeachment inquiry.

    Four days after the House impeachment vote, Richard Holbrooke reached a deal with Slobodan Milosevic to avoid (temporarily) a military confrontation over Kosovo.

    The Republicans took a beating in the November midterm elections. Days after the midterms, Newt Gingrich resigned as Speaker of the House. Any hopes that the GOP might succeed in removing Clinton from office were pretty much dead by that point.

    The week before Christmas in 1998 – the same week that the House was preparing to impeach Clinton – the U.S. and Britain bombed Iraq for four days straight. Operation Desert Fox was the heaviest military action against Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War.

    (Desert Fox was not a surprise – the U.S. had been threatening to bomb Iraq for over a year. There were constant crises over Saddam’s alleged attempts to keep the U.N. weapons inspectors from doing their jobs. At various times in Nov. ’97, Feb. ’98, and Nov. ’98, airstrikes were said to be imminent.)

    The impeachment of the president (on December 19) and the subsequent trial were widely seen as a total waste of time – sheer political theater. It was clear from the beginning that the House prosecutors never had 60 votes in the Senate.

    Clinton was acquitted on February 12, by a 55-45 vote.

    On March 24, 1999, NATO warplanes began bombing Serb targets in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. The bombing ended in June, when Milosevic capitulated. He was overthrown in October 2000.

  134. @Dumbo
    I used to be a "cinephile" years ago, now I hardly go to the movies and I have zero interest in seeing this movie, or 90% of movies currently produced. As for Spielberg, he was best as a director of action/science fiction flicks (Jaws, E.T., Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, etc). Then he made some "serious" films such as Schindler's list or Saving Private Ryan, which, despite some impressive moments, aren't that great on the whole. Now he matured into a competent, if uninteresting director for middlebrow movies. Talented, sure, but I don't care for most of his recent ones.

    Also, I really disliked "Argo", so if this is similar, it's another reason to avoid it.

    Incidentally, from the list below, of supposedly best movies of 2017 according to The New Yorker, I saw only "Get Out" (which was pretty bad, I didn't understand all the hype), and I haven't even heard of most of them. (I saw only the Twin Peaks new series, which despite a few moments of brilliance, was mostly... uneven and strange (as expected), and to be honest with a very disappointing conclusion).

    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/2017-in-review/the-best-movies-of-2017

    Replies: @Alec Leamas

    As for Spielberg, he was best as a director of action/science fiction flicks (Jaws, E.T., Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, etc). Then he made some “serious” films such as Schindler’s list or Saving Private Ryan, which, despite some impressive moments, aren’t that great on the whole. Now he matured into a competent, if uninteresting director for middlebrow movies. Talented, sure, but I don’t care for most of his recent ones.

    I’m not a Spielberg fan but Empire of the Sun is a good, underrated film.

  135. Wasn’t Watergate simply the Jewish media’s payback for Nixon putting the commie Alger Hiss in prison?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?

    Replies: @syonredux, @stillCARealist, @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    , @nebulafox
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    No, Watergate was a series of inept, illegal bungles carried out by an administration headed by an insecure President at a time of unprecedented domestic distress. Said insecure President did indeed have a lot of powerful enemies who piled on, and many of their motivations were far from upstanding, contrary to what Spielberg implies. But Nixon himself "gave them the sword", as he said. He attempted to obstruct justice. Game over.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Art Deco
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Wasn’t Watergate simply the Jewish media’s payback for Nixon putting the commie Alger Hiss in prison?

    Sneaky Joos so patient.

    Nixon was never a federal prosecutor, he was just a member of the HUAC which had held hearings on Hiss. Somehow, the actual prosecutor escaped their talons.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/31/nyregion/thomas-murphy-police-head-and-prosecutor-of-hiss-89.html

    Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian

  136. @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    Wasn't Watergate simply the Jewish media's payback for Nixon putting the commie Alger Hiss in prison?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @nebulafox, @Art Deco

    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?

    • Replies: @syonredux
    @Steve Sailer


    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?
     
    No.

    Alger Hiss was one of five children born in Baltimore, Maryland, to Mary "Minnie" Lavinia (née Hughes) and Charles Alger Hiss. Both parents came from substantial Baltimore families who could trace their roots to the middle of the eighteenth century. Hiss's paternal great-great grandfather had emigrated from Germany in 1729, married well, and changed his surname from "Hesse" to "Hiss".[5] Minnie Hughes had attended teacher's college and was active in Baltimore society. Shortly after his marriage at age 24, Charles Hiss entered the business world and joined the dry goods importing firm Daniel Miller and Co. He did well, becoming an executive and stockholder. When Charles's brother John died suddenly at age 33, Charles assumed financial and emotional responsibility for his brother's widow and six children in addition to his own expanding family.[5] Charles also helped his wife's favorite brother, Albert Hughes, find work at Daniel Miller. Hughes at first distinguished himself and was promoted to treasurer of the firm, but then he became involved in a complicated business deal and was unable to meet the financial obligation that was part of a joint agreement.[5] As a matter of honor, Charles Hiss felt compelled to sell all his stocks to make good his brother-in-law's debts, as well as to resign from the firm. This was in 1907, the year of a great financial panic. After inconclusive attempts by relatives to find him a job, Charles fell into a serious depression and committed suicide, cutting his throat with a razor. Minnie, who had made the most of her former prosperity and social position, now had to rely on her inheritance and assistance from family members.
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss
    , @stillCARealist
    @Steve Sailer

    No, but he was a commie. And the commies were heavily Jewish. I think that's the connection 40 acres is getting at. Not sure who was or was not Jewish in that whole affair. Also, I'm not sure it really matters.

    , @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    @Steve Sailer


    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?
     
    Not that I know of. But Communism was Jewish. I think it was WFB who once wrote that "most Jews aren't Communists, but most Communists are Jews." Hiss was one of the rare Gentile commies. So while he wasn't Jewish himself, his cause was. And the media for decades has portrayed anti-Communists as vicious anti-semites, whose proclaimed love of freedom was merely a cover for their raging hatred of Jews.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco

  137. @Anonymous
    @NOTA

    The administration was caught spying on communists and the president was caught lying about it. In other words, Watergate was a repeat of the U-2 scandal of 1960. Should Eisenhower have been driven from office as well?

    Replies: @David Davenport

    In other words, Watergate was a repeat of the U-2 scandal of 1960. Should Eisenhower have been driven from office as well?

    What U-2 scandal? Are you saying Eisenhower was wrong to authorize reconnaissance flights over the USSR?

    The USSR was a real threat back then, contrary to what your Lefty profs probably taught you.

  138. @Steve Sailer
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?

    Replies: @syonredux, @stillCARealist, @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?

    No.

    Alger Hiss was one of five children born in Baltimore, Maryland, to Mary “Minnie” Lavinia (née Hughes) and Charles Alger Hiss. Both parents came from substantial Baltimore families who could trace their roots to the middle of the eighteenth century. Hiss’s paternal great-great grandfather had emigrated from Germany in 1729, married well, and changed his surname from “Hesse” to “Hiss”.[5] Minnie Hughes had attended teacher’s college and was active in Baltimore society. Shortly after his marriage at age 24, Charles Hiss entered the business world and joined the dry goods importing firm Daniel Miller and Co. He did well, becoming an executive and stockholder. When Charles’s brother John died suddenly at age 33, Charles assumed financial and emotional responsibility for his brother’s widow and six children in addition to his own expanding family.[5] Charles also helped his wife’s favorite brother, Albert Hughes, find work at Daniel Miller. Hughes at first distinguished himself and was promoted to treasurer of the firm, but then he became involved in a complicated business deal and was unable to meet the financial obligation that was part of a joint agreement.[5] As a matter of honor, Charles Hiss felt compelled to sell all his stocks to make good his brother-in-law’s debts, as well as to resign from the firm. This was in 1907, the year of a great financial panic. After inconclusive attempts by relatives to find him a job, Charles fell into a serious depression and committed suicide, cutting his throat with a razor. Minnie, who had made the most of her former prosperity and social position, now had to rely on her inheritance and assistance from family members.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss

  139. Missile gap

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This article is about the military concept. For the Charles Stross novel, see Missile Gap.

    The missile gap was the Cold War term used in the US for the perceived superiority of the number and power of the USSR’s missiles in comparison with its own (a lack of military parity). The gap in the ballistic missile arsenals did not exist except in exaggerated estimates, made by the Gaither Committee in 1957 and in United States Air Force (USAF) figures. Even the contradictory CIA figures for the USSR’s weaponry, which showed a clear advantage for the US, were far above the actual count. Like the bomber gap of only a few years earlier, it was soon demonstrated that the gap was entirely fictional.

    John F. Kennedy is credited with inventing the term in 1958 as part of the ongoing election campaign in which a primary plank of his rhetoric was that the Eisenhower administration was weak on defense. It was later learned that Kennedy was apprised of the actual situation during the campaign, which has led scholars to question what Kennedy knew and when he knew it. There has been some speculation that he was aware of the illusory nature of the missile gap from the start and that he was using it solely as a political tool, an example of policy by press release.

    Inaccuracy of intelligence[edit]

    National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 11-10-57, issued in December 1957, predicted that the Soviets would “probably have a first operational capability with up to 10 prototype ICBMs” at “some time during the period from mid-1958 to mid-1959.” The numbers started to inflate.

    A similar report gathered only a few months later, NIE 11-5-58, released in August 1958, concluded that the USSR had “the technical and industrial capability… to have an operational capability with 100 ICBMs” some time in 1960 and perhaps 500 ICBMs “some time in 1961, or at the latest in 1962.”[1]

    Beginning with the collection of photo-intelligence by U-2 overflights of the Soviet Union in 1956, the Eisenhower administration had increasingly-hard evidence that claims of any strategic weapons favoring the Soviets were false. The CIA placed the number of ICBMs to be closer to a dozen. Continued sporadic flights failed to turn up any evidence of additional missiles. Curtis LeMay argued that the large stocks of missiles were in the areas not photographed by the U-2s, and arguments broke out over the Soviet factory capability, in an effort to estimate their production rate.

    In a widely syndicated article in 1959, Joseph Alsop even went so far as to describe “classified intelligence” as placing the Soviet missile count as high as 1,500 by 1963, and the US would have only 130 at that time.[3]

    It is known today that even the CIA’s estimate was too high; the actual number of ICBMs, even including interim-use prototypes, was 4.[4]

    In 1958, Kennedy was gearing up for his Senate re-election campaign and seized the issue. The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first use of the term “missile gap” on 14 August 1958, when he stated, “Our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the missile gap.”[1] According to Robert McNamara, Kennedy was leaked the inflated US Air Force estimates by Senator Stuart Symington, the former Secretary of the Air Force. Unaware that the report was misleading, Kennedy used the numbers in the document and based some of his 1960 election campaign platform on the Republicans being “weak on defense.”[5] The missile gap was a common theme.

    Eisenhower refused to refute the claims publicly for fear that public disclosure would jeopardize the secret U-2 flights. Consequently, Eisenhower was frustrated by what he conclusively knew to be Kennedy’s erroneous claims that the United States was behind the USSR in its number of missiles.[6]

    In an attempt to defuse the situation, Eisenhower arranged for Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson to be apprised of the information, first with a meeting by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then Strategic Air Command, and finally with the Director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, in July 1960. Still, Kennedy continued to use the same rhetoric, which modern historians have debated as likely being so useful to the campaign that he was willing to ignore the truth.[7]

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    @David Davenport

    Good takes. It was discovered, although disclosed much later (In Janes, IIRC) that not only were the Soviet counts wildly exaggerated, the majority weren't mission capable, they were in half-flooded silos, the fueling systems were old and rotten, maintenance long abandoned on those things by the time SALT II came along.

    There was a guy that played for a rock band, Pink Floyd or one of those. He used to do counts, throw weights and so on, bit of a strategist, too. Can't remember his name. He was interviewed later and was taken aback at how little the old Soviets actually DID have that was ready to launch.

    Replies: @Clyde

  140. @Maj. Kong
    @Anonymous

    There are no shortage of Arab Christians willing to accept dhimmi status, and the long-term decline of their community by exogamy of women to Muslim husbands.

    It's a societal version of Stockholm Syndrome.

    Replies: @EdwardM

    Do a lot of Arab Christian women marry Muslims? That hasn’t been my observation (albeit with limit sample size) in the Levant, where Christians rightly see themselves as elite and more western-oriented. The Lebanese, Jordanians, and Syrians who look to marry rich Gulf Arabs seem to be mostly nominally Muslim. Ditto for North African Arabs, among whom of course there aren’t a lot of Christians.

    I’d be curious to see statistics on this.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @EdwardM

    No, it typically happens the other way around. A Muslim man can marry anyone he pleases, but a non-Muslim man marrying a Muslim woman needs to convert to Islam. So, most mixed marriages involve Muslim men.

    Same story in much of Christianity up until the last century. My Presbyterian grandfather had to sign a legal document promising to raise any children resulting from the marriage (eventually, 5 in total) as Catholics in order to marry his post-WWII European bride. His parents-my great-grandparents-really didn't like it, according to my mother.

    Rounding out the Abrahamic trio, Judaism, on the other hand, works through the matriarchal line, unlike Islam and Christianity. That's one reason why the latter are a lot bigger in size than the former.

  141. @Clever User Name
    @Danindc

    I just re-read my post and realized that might be confusing. The source for both the doc and (I assume) Steve's review was Bradlee's autobiography. The documentary uses Bradlee's reading of the book as a narrator and the interviews with his Post colleagues make clear how ridiculous it was for him to say he knew nothing of JFK's affairs.

    Replies: @Danindc

    Got it. Thanks

  142. @Alec Leamas
    @Maj. Kong


    The elite press isn’t exactly prolefeed. The leftist torrent from the media is probably the most important factor that shifted upper-middle class whites away from the GOP.
     
    I don't know if I'd consider any press outlet truly "elite" in fact. They're largely trading on reputations which themselves may not be deserved but which were acquired several decades ago. Even assuming as I do that Bernstein and Woodward were politically motivated actors, at least you can say that they did journalism of the real kind - i.e., combing through Court records, chasing down ledes, corroborating facts, etc. I doubt that very many if any reporters at WaPo or NYT currently on the payroll could actually competently piece together a story from such a disparate range of facts.

    The value of the WaPo and NYT though is that they have the ability to craft the daily narrative of the news cycle to advantage their political/elected wings. What gets printed on the frontpage inevitably winds up leading the half hour nightly news broadcasts, which is absolutely where loads of ordinary Americans get their news.

    As for the distancing of upper-middle class whites from the GOP, my belief is that this is more attributable to the soft news (like NBC's Today Show) and entertainment media as well as the political bent of the Universities than to the drumbeat of "elite" news outlets. The former shape attitudes and expectations, which are precursors t0 whacky, ostentatious left wing political beliefs at odds with the personal values of upper middle class whites.

    Replies: @Maj. Kong

    http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/content-is-king-but-viewing-habits-vary-by-demographic.html

    I do agree that morning TV is more influential after reading your post, but I come from a household that never watched morning shows. But I recalled footage of Katie Couric (who’s deceased sister was a Dem pol) concern trolling the GOP about being “extreme” in 1992.

    It’s also worth noting that the leftward shift of the UMC and educated occurred across the West. It seems to have passed by Australia, when it comes to voting habits, but not policy preferences.

  143. Read through these comments and no one addresses the predominant issue with the Washington Post. It is owned by a man who also owns Amazon that keeps the paper afloat out of pocket. Bezos, through Amazon is supported by contracts with government. He’s in bed with Intel, Law enforcement, the military via contracts with Amazon Cloud, not to mention is a GAO contractor providng all kinds of services and supply to the Feds. How can he be partial?

    When the CIA (or any agency) comes calling for slant on a war, an action, a scandal, whatever the case, we know that Bezos is first and foremost, financially, and then politically-driven. The Post out and out supported Hillary in endorsements and more importantly, what was and especially, was not ‘investigated’ throughout Bezos’ tenure as owner. Given that Bezos is in bed with the National Security complex and THEIR political leanings, is dedicated to protecting the Clintons and is completely in bed with the DNC and any candidate that spews forth, how then is the Post, supported by all the Bezos money, even a newspaper? After all, the market spoke decades ago. The Post is dead without Bezos money. Same for all of them, only the money changes name.

    From their reporters to their editorialists, the entire shebang is a billboard, a political arm for the Democrats and all their shills in Washington. They run in complete opposition to every stipulation of journalism as taught prior to the 60s. How the hell is THAT a newspaper? It isn’t. If you think it is, and worthy of all this comment (over 140 so far) as if WashPost IS a legitimate news outlet, I have this bridge for sale.

    I-Steve? You write. You likely took a little journalism in your day. How does this present-day version of the Post square with old-time standards of the craft? Even the Great Woodward and Bernstein weren’t journalists, they were paid political hit men with Ben Bradlee running the show. The Post was compromised long before that, though. Also, Steve, did you even make a run at a job with WashPost?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jim Christian

    Bezos, through Amazon is supported by contracts with government.

    Sez who?

  144. @Inquiring Mind
    @duncsbaby

    My fave is how sites like HotAir or Powerlineblog will link to the "Post" for an article, dunno, out of sense of civic obligation, for amusement of its readers, to warn us "what we are up against", or to deflect the complaint that the are a Fake News Echo Chamber.

    I click on the link, as I always do, but this time I hit the Post Paywall, with "Democracy Dies in Darkness" as their new motto.

    Does the Post "do" irony? Democracy Dies in Darkness but flash some cash, pal, if you want us to switch a light on for you?

    Forget this, Mr. Bezos, I would just rather patronize my Winger Echo Chambers for my Fake News before I pay the Post anything.

    Replies: @Clyde

    I click on the link, as I always do, but this time I hit the Post Paywall, with “Democracy Dies in Darkness” as their new motto.

    Open up that link behind a paywall in a new private window or incognito window. Using Firefox/ Chrome and you are good. This does work with Washington Post and NYTimes.

  145. @David In TN
    @Alden

    As I've said before, Spielberg and Company are content if 15 people see this film. At the least, it will run on the movie channels, netflix, DVD, etc. This is why it was green-lighted despite not being a certain box office hit.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    At the least, it will run on the movie channels, netflix, DVD, etc. This is why it was green-lighted despite not being a certain box office hit.

    And every school district will buy 10 copies to show in “History” class, assuming they deign to teach such a thing anymore.

  146. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Hibernian

    Quite true.

    The difference between your typical urban hipster and the reporters that I knew was the reporters' feeling of entitlement about actually impacting national debates. These reporters were in their mid-20s to mid-30s and had never done anything except getting good grades in soft majors, yet they felt that they should influence the course of the country - and, in fact, they did in a small way. It was crazy.

    That's what bugged me the most. These people had never accomplished anything. They hadn't started a business. They hadn't helped cure a disease. They hadn't created a new product or service. They were just the smart kid in the history class. (And even in there they weren't that great because they weren't like Steve in the sense that they questioned anything; they just were really good at regurgitating the narrative.) Who the hell were they to influence anything?

    Nobody, that's who.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Yep. Like Ben Rhodes said, “The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

    But they think they do.

    Two of my women friends get news on their iPhone, which consists of nothing more than headlines from the NYT, probably something like “GOP tax plan will starve 400,000 homos” or something. This is their only source of news, and they think themselves well-informed.

  147. @David Davenport
    Missile gap

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This article is about the military concept. For the Charles Stross novel, see Missile Gap.

    The missile gap was the Cold War term used in the US for the perceived superiority of the number and power of the USSR's missiles in comparison with its own (a lack of military parity). The gap in the ballistic missile arsenals did not exist except in exaggerated estimates, made by the Gaither Committee in 1957 and in United States Air Force (USAF) figures. Even the contradictory CIA figures for the USSR's weaponry, which showed a clear advantage for the US, were far above the actual count. Like the bomber gap of only a few years earlier, it was soon demonstrated that the gap was entirely fictional.

    John F. Kennedy is credited with inventing the term in 1958 as part of the ongoing election campaign in which a primary plank of his rhetoric was that the Eisenhower administration was weak on defense. It was later learned that Kennedy was apprised of the actual situation during the campaign, which has led scholars to question what Kennedy knew and when he knew it. There has been some speculation that he was aware of the illusory nature of the missile gap from the start and that he was using it solely as a political tool, an example of policy by press release.

    ...

    Inaccuracy of intelligence[edit]

    National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 11-10-57, issued in December 1957, predicted that the Soviets would "probably have a first operational capability with up to 10 prototype ICBMs" at "some time during the period from mid-1958 to mid-1959." The numbers started to inflate.

    A similar report gathered only a few months later, NIE 11-5-58, released in August 1958, concluded that the USSR had "the technical and industrial capability... to have an operational capability with 100 ICBMs" some time in 1960 and perhaps 500 ICBMs "some time in 1961, or at the latest in 1962."[1]

    Beginning with the collection of photo-intelligence by U-2 overflights of the Soviet Union in 1956, the Eisenhower administration had increasingly-hard evidence that claims of any strategic weapons favoring the Soviets were false. The CIA placed the number of ICBMs to be closer to a dozen. Continued sporadic flights failed to turn up any evidence of additional missiles. Curtis LeMay argued that the large stocks of missiles were in the areas not photographed by the U-2s, and arguments broke out over the Soviet factory capability, in an effort to estimate their production rate.

    In a widely syndicated article in 1959, Joseph Alsop even went so far as to describe "classified intelligence" as placing the Soviet missile count as high as 1,500 by 1963, and the US would have only 130 at that time.[3]

    It is known today that even the CIA's estimate was too high; the actual number of ICBMs, even including interim-use prototypes, was 4.[4]

    ...

    In 1958, Kennedy was gearing up for his Senate re-election campaign and seized the issue. The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first use of the term "missile gap" on 14 August 1958, when he stated, "Our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the missile gap."[1] According to Robert McNamara, Kennedy was leaked the inflated US Air Force estimates by Senator Stuart Symington, the former Secretary of the Air Force. Unaware that the report was misleading, Kennedy used the numbers in the document and based some of his 1960 election campaign platform on the Republicans being "weak on defense."[5] The missile gap was a common theme.

    Eisenhower refused to refute the claims publicly for fear that public disclosure would jeopardize the secret U-2 flights. Consequently, Eisenhower was frustrated by what he conclusively knew to be Kennedy's erroneous claims that the United States was behind the USSR in its number of missiles.[6]

    In an attempt to defuse the situation, Eisenhower arranged for Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson to be apprised of the information, first with a meeting by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then Strategic Air Command, and finally with the Director of the CIA, Allen Dulles, in July 1960. Still, Kennedy continued to use the same rhetoric, which modern historians have debated as likely being so useful to the campaign that he was willing to ignore the truth.[7]

    ...

    Replies: @Jim Christian

    Good takes. It was discovered, although disclosed much later (In Janes, IIRC) that not only were the Soviet counts wildly exaggerated, the majority weren’t mission capable, they were in half-flooded silos, the fueling systems were old and rotten, maintenance long abandoned on those things by the time SALT II came along.

    There was a guy that played for a rock band, Pink Floyd or one of those. He used to do counts, throw weights and so on, bit of a strategist, too. Can’t remember his name. He was interviewed later and was taken aback at how little the old Soviets actually DID have that was ready to launch.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Jim Christian

    You are thinking of Jeff Baxter?

    Replies: @Jim Christian

  148. @Art Deco
    @LondonBob

    No, Kay Summersby said she had an affair with him. (I think Merle Miller tried to peddle the fiction that Truman had confided he'd scotched Eisenhower's application to seek a divorce from Mamie). His son's opinion on the matter is indicative because his son worked at his father's headquarters.

    Replies: @Jack D

    This is his son’s opinion:

    “Whether [Summersby] had any designs on the Old Man and the extent to which he succumbed, I just don’t know.”

    Notice that he imputes agency to a female. As we all know better today, this is totally wrong.

  149. @Steve Sailer
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?

    Replies: @syonredux, @stillCARealist, @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    No, but he was a commie. And the commies were heavily Jewish. I think that’s the connection 40 acres is getting at. Not sure who was or was not Jewish in that whole affair. Also, I’m not sure it really matters.

  150. @Art Deco
    @Mr. Anon

    The Nixon White House paid some of their low-level operatives hush-money. The hush-money worked in buying their silence, but Nixon eventually got busted

    I didn't work. The weakest link was James McCord, who started talking around the time of his sentencing hearing. Also, Howard Hunt's wife was killed in a plane crash in December 1972 and with her personal effects was a satchel with large wads of cash in it. Representing John Dean, Charles Schaffer conferred with Seymour Glanzer of the U.S. Attorney's office in March 1973 and reported to Dean that Glanzer had confided that the investigation was by that time looking north of Hunt and Liddy in the organization. Formally, Liddy reported to John Mitchell who reported to the President.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Mr. Anon

    And even before the McCord letter, Gray admitted that Dean committed perjury during the FBI confirmation hearings in February. That was the beginning crack in the coverup.

    One interesting thing I’ll always wonder about: had J. Edgar Hoover lived a year longer, how would things have gone differently? No Hoover, no Gray hearings, and possibly no Watergate committee at all. Whether Hoover would have wanted to save Nixon as a person is debatable, but there’s no question he’d want to preserve the power of the Imperial Presidency. Moreover, Hoover would have likely looked at Nixon as the lesser of two evils compared to then increasingly McGovernite Senate.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    And even before the McCord letter, Gray admitted that Dean committed perjury during the FBI confirmation hearings in February. That was the beginning crack in the coverup.

    Dean was a confidential employee and not subject to Congressional subpoenas until he was dismissed at the end of April 1973. His testimony in front of the Senate Watergate Committee was in July 1973, well after the Hunts' wads of cash were discovered.

  151. @EdwardM
    @Maj. Kong

    Do a lot of Arab Christian women marry Muslims? That hasn't been my observation (albeit with limit sample size) in the Levant, where Christians rightly see themselves as elite and more western-oriented. The Lebanese, Jordanians, and Syrians who look to marry rich Gulf Arabs seem to be mostly nominally Muslim. Ditto for North African Arabs, among whom of course there aren't a lot of Christians.

    I'd be curious to see statistics on this.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    No, it typically happens the other way around. A Muslim man can marry anyone he pleases, but a non-Muslim man marrying a Muslim woman needs to convert to Islam. So, most mixed marriages involve Muslim men.

    Same story in much of Christianity up until the last century. My Presbyterian grandfather had to sign a legal document promising to raise any children resulting from the marriage (eventually, 5 in total) as Catholics in order to marry his post-WWII European bride. His parents-my great-grandparents-really didn’t like it, according to my mother.

    Rounding out the Abrahamic trio, Judaism, on the other hand, works through the matriarchal line, unlike Islam and Christianity. That’s one reason why the latter are a lot bigger in size than the former.

  152. @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    Wasn't Watergate simply the Jewish media's payback for Nixon putting the commie Alger Hiss in prison?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @nebulafox, @Art Deco

    No, Watergate was a series of inept, illegal bungles carried out by an administration headed by an insecure President at a time of unprecedented domestic distress. Said insecure President did indeed have a lot of powerful enemies who piled on, and many of their motivations were far from upstanding, contrary to what Spielberg implies. But Nixon himself “gave them the sword”, as he said. He attempted to obstruct justice. Game over.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    at a time of unprecedented domestic distress.

    After the Depression and the War, I don't think inflation and cack-handed efforts at wage and price controls really amount to 'unprecedented domestic distress'.

  153. @Anon
    @Bubba

    To be fair to Bradlee, sexual activities of politicians of all stripes were generally ignored by the media back then(and even now in so many cases). Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    And even though the Media had it in for Nixon, Watergate really was shameful because it was so DUMB.
    And the media did, in the end, turn on Johnson and the Vietnam before Nixon.
    One reason why Johnson chose not to run in 68 was because the media had turned on him. And the media were not easy on Carter. I remember the 1980 election, and Carter got it hard from the press. And the media eventually let Reagan go on Iran-Contra even though that was much bigger than Watergate. The thing was, however, that Iran-Contra could at least be spun as serving nobler ends: releasing hostages and funding anti-communists. In contrast, Watergate was so tawdry. In the end, Nixon was his own worst enemy.

    Media bias were always there, but I've never seen as anything as deranged, crazy, and nuts as Media coverage of 2008 campaign and 2016 campaign and aftermath. The cult of Obama was something closer to commie cult of personality. It was grotesque, hyping this hustler from Chicago as The One.
    And 2016 coverage of Trump was downright nuts. And media have no right to bitch about rise of Alt Right since they are the ones who hyped the nascent movement and tried to connect it to Trump. And Russia Hacking crap? Wow.

    I think the problem has gotten worse for several reasons. Back in the days of Johnson and Nixon, Jews were powerful but not all-powerful. Many still faced uphill climb in many institutions. Since they understood what it meant to be an underdog, many of them were sincerely on the side of speaking truth to power. And to enable this, they really prized freedom and liberty and championed free speech. Nixon in his tapes complained of Jewish control of media, but that was nothing compared to now where Jews are not just powerful but totally dominant in so many areas. With all that power, the media have turned into a case of speaking for power than speaking to power. Also, both political parties are far more servile to Jewish power than in Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon days.
    Ethnic competition was good for journalism and narrative back in the day. Today, all sides praise Jews, Jews, and Jews. And Homos but then, homos are nothing but proxies of Jews. Blacks are also tools of Jewish Power, but at the street level, far more volatile. If black politicians and leaders can be bought, the black mobs can veer totally out of control.

    Another reason why media are crazy is the rise of the internet. Alternative news and narratives have made the Power very nervous. So, maintain Monopoly Narrativism, they go into hysteria mode and howl about RUSSIA HACKING so that enough idiots will believe it.
    And as the Democratic Party is now about self-loathing whites and Diversity, there's bound to lots of divisions. So, to keep them together, there must be hysteria about Nazi-KKK-white-supremacists 24/7.

    So, there is now a concerted war on internet platforms, which is easy to do since most of them are owned by Jews. Also, since Jews control much of Wall Street, they can use carrots and sticks on a company like Twitter. Get rid of 'hate' and Twitter gets showered with candies and prizes.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Art Deco, @guest, @nebulafox

    >To be fair to Bradlee, sexual activities of politicians of all stripes were generally ignored by the media back then(and even now in so many cases). Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    The only Presidents between FDR and Dubya who didn’t have flings at one point or another were Truman, Nixon, and Carter. Truman met his wife in kindergarten, Nixon probably would be diagnosed on the autism spectrum in 2017, and Carter was a Bible thumper.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    The only Presidents between FDR and Dubya who didn’t have flings at one point or another were Truman, Nixon, and Carter. Truman met his wife in kindergarten, Nixon probably would be diagnosed on the autism spectrum in 2017, and Carter was a Bible thumper.


    1. No Nixon wouldn't. He had absolutely no history of problematic interpersonal relations with anyone. He had a small menu of personal friends and he was fairly undemonstrative. You could have said the same of my grandmother.

    2. Carter was a fairly ordinary small town evangelical.

    3. Truman grew up in a small town in Missouri where his wife also grew up. Nothing terribly unusual about that among that age cohort. The same situation applied in re two of my four sets of great-grandparents (to take one example).

    4. Again, the 'affair' between Eisenhower and Summersby is an uncorroborated personal claim that his family didn't take seriously.

    5. No one has ever contended Gerald Ford was a cheat. His marriage was almost certainly canonically invalid, a point which might be of interest to a few old-school Anglicans. (It wasn't of interest to the law courts in 1948 or later).

    6. No one's ever made the case that Ronald Reagan was a cheat either.

    7. The notion that George Bush the Elder was having an affair with Jennifer FitzGerald was a fantasy of Spy magazine.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  154. @Jim Don Bob
    @Paul Jolliffe

    So why did Crump do it?

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe

    Well, since according to Peter Janney’s take on Mary Meyer’s murder “Mary’s Mosaic” Crump had gone to the canal to have sex with a previously unidentified woman named “Vivian”, and since they did not (again, according to Janney), my guess is that Crump decided to take Meyer by force and rape her.

    Janney’s account leaves no doubt that Henry Wiggins (black mechanic) identified Crump as the man he saw standing over Meyer’s body within moments of the last shot, a shot which Wiggins heard.

    Wiggins said that Crump was wearing a cap and jacket when standing over the body, but 45 minutes later, he no longer wore those. So, the police dispatched a boat to search the river and sure enough, within a few minutes, the cap and jacket were found in the water at 1:42.

    Wiggins identified the cap and jacket found by the police as the ones worn by the suspect at the time of the murder.

    Crump claimed he had “fallen asleep” and somehow “fell” into the river, when he lost his cap and jacket. Crump was soaking wet when picked up by the police around 1:15. (The murder was at 12:30).

    Crump was a low-life who had already served 60 days in jail for low-life offences. He skipped work that day, lied to his wife and five kids (Crump was only in his early 20’s!) and went for a mid-morning stroll with his “girlfriend” “Vivian”. His fly was down when apprehended by the police. He lied about “going fishing.”
    He had no coherent alibi.
    He was there.
    He was standing over the body when spotted a very seconds after the last shot.
    He tried to make his escape (after realizing he’d been spotted by Wiggins) by swimming across the river.
    He couldn’t swim and had to go back ashore.
    He was caught.
    Wiggins said, “yes that’s the guy”.
    Crump was guilty as hell.
    He spent the rest of his life living a “horrific life of crime”. (Again, that’s from Peter Janney, the author of three editions of “Mary’s Mosaic” and the architect of the theory that Meyer’s murder was somehow the product of the CIA.
    Personally, I think the CIA is responsible for lots of evil deeds, but this ain’t one of them.)

  155. @Art Deco
    @Mr. Anon

    The Nixon White House paid some of their low-level operatives hush-money. The hush-money worked in buying their silence, but Nixon eventually got busted

    I didn't work. The weakest link was James McCord, who started talking around the time of his sentencing hearing. Also, Howard Hunt's wife was killed in a plane crash in December 1972 and with her personal effects was a satchel with large wads of cash in it. Representing John Dean, Charles Schaffer conferred with Seymour Glanzer of the U.S. Attorney's office in March 1973 and reported to Dean that Glanzer had confided that the investigation was by that time looking north of Hunt and Liddy in the organization. Formally, Liddy reported to John Mitchell who reported to the President.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Mr. Anon

    None of them ever ratted out the President. None of them could, as he was pretty well insulated from them. The hush money did buy the silence of the other burglars.

    P.S. When I want to find something out, I can use Google. I don’t need you. Nobody needs you, you supercilious clown.

  156. @Anon
    I was reading some interesting stuff about how Katherine Graham murdered her husband Phil Graham. It seems Phil had taken a mistress, was going to get a divorce, and had rewritten his will so that the Post went to his mistress and not Katherine. Katherine had Phil committed to a mental institution, and then took him out of it one weekend for a 'visit.' She then disappeared with Phil and a shotgun off to their Virginia farm. Phil was dead from a shotgun blast 48 hours later. From the setup, it looks an awful lot like Katherine pulled the trigger herself. The police report was never made public.

    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2935-philip-graham/?page=2

    Replies: @Alden, @JimB, @Henry's Cat, @Art Deco, @Paul Jolliffe

    George Smathers (Florida Senator and friend of both JFK and Phil Graham) said of Katherine Graham “Well, if you had been married to Kay Graham, you’d have probably shot yourself too.”

    Bet that line is not in the movie!

    (Smathers interview, printed page 8 below)

    https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/OralHistory_SmathersGeorge.pdf

  157. @Art Deco
    @Uilleam Yr Alban

    That the FBI screwed Nixon, just as it’s nakedly trying to screw Trump, was a gem you pointed out. (Nixon actually, you know, did something, but still.)

    They didn't. Nixon and his subordinates were guilty. The FBI director at the time, Patrick Gray, actually destroyed inculpatory evidence. John Dean discusses the matter in his memoir (to be sure, Dean is regarded by many as an untrustworthy source).

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    (to be sure, Dean is regarded by many as an untrustworthy source).

    As indeed are you.

    But go ahead – take John Dean’s word – the defendant who was one of the closest to the President, was one of the most deeply involved in the cover-up, and yet……………..did no prison time. Funny, that.

  158. @The Man From K Street
    @Art Deco


    Shortly before the Felt ‘revelation’, another journalist published a piece analyzing the mechanics of WoodStein’s account of their dealings with ‘Deep Throat’, concluding the tale was fiction. Suggest the nonagenarian Felt was a source and did them a favor by claiming to be “Deep Throat” when Deep Throat was actually a composite.
     
    That's always been the most logical conclusion. The agent who originally marketed the draft for All the President's Men publically claimed that the initial typescript of the book contained absolutely no reference to Deep Throat. Based on that clue, you can speculate either

    A. Woodward and Bernstein originally were going to be so protective of their sources that they were never going to mention him at all, and made at least one draft of the story omitting all reference to Deep Throat; or

    B. Woodward and Bernstein played at condensing history as Hollywood scriptwriters do. A Hollywood scripter sees that the real life Hero had a dozen helpers doing the Great Deed. The hack boils those dozen people down to a single person, and gives him a fictional name.

    So assume (B). Mark Felt, a forgotten man whose life was wasted serving a mercurial J. Edgar Hoover's whims, might remember ratting on his chums several times. He never conveyed the info the fictional Deep Throat did, but he is as close a match as any. As Deep Throat is seen by many as a good guy, he lets the grandkids know the secret ID of the hero.

    Woodstein can then say -- yeah, he was Deep Throat, without addressing the point of whether their literary portrait of the man was accurate in many respects.

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe

    Yeah, I agree that if Felt was a source at all for Woodward, he was not the sole “Deep Throat”.

    “Deep Throat” was probably a composite of several people, but whoever he/they was/were, they were clearly pro-CIA.

    Bernstein never met Deep Throat, so Woodward’s connections (Woodward in the mid-1960’s was a very high level navy briefer for Admiral Thomas Moorer of the Zumwalt/Moorer/Radford spy ring against the Nixon Administration from 1969-1971) to the Deep State matter much.

    Alexander Haig knew all about the JCS spy ring against Nixon and let Woodward and Bernstein in on it, yet they never wrote a word about the JCS spying on the president of the United States.

    They protected Haig as a source, so it’s reasonable to conclude that the composite “Deep Throat” included Alexander Haig.

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/bob-woodwards-sins-omission/

  159. @nebulafox
    @Anon

    >To be fair to Bradlee, sexual activities of politicians of all stripes were generally ignored by the media back then(and even now in so many cases). Eisenhower was reputed to have had affairs too.

    The only Presidents between FDR and Dubya who didn't have flings at one point or another were Truman, Nixon, and Carter. Truman met his wife in kindergarten, Nixon probably would be diagnosed on the autism spectrum in 2017, and Carter was a Bible thumper.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    The only Presidents between FDR and Dubya who didn’t have flings at one point or another were Truman, Nixon, and Carter. Truman met his wife in kindergarten, Nixon probably would be diagnosed on the autism spectrum in 2017, and Carter was a Bible thumper.

    1. No Nixon wouldn’t. He had absolutely no history of problematic interpersonal relations with anyone. He had a small menu of personal friends and he was fairly undemonstrative. You could have said the same of my grandmother.

    2. Carter was a fairly ordinary small town evangelical.

    3. Truman grew up in a small town in Missouri where his wife also grew up. Nothing terribly unusual about that among that age cohort. The same situation applied in re two of my four sets of great-grandparents (to take one example).

    4. Again, the ‘affair’ between Eisenhower and Summersby is an uncorroborated personal claim that his family didn’t take seriously.

    5. No one has ever contended Gerald Ford was a cheat. His marriage was almost certainly canonically invalid, a point which might be of interest to a few old-school Anglicans. (It wasn’t of interest to the law courts in 1948 or later).

    6. No one’s ever made the case that Ronald Reagan was a cheat either.

    7. The notion that George Bush the Elder was having an affair with Jennifer FitzGerald was a fantasy of Spy magazine.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Art Deco

    Nixon was notoriously the winningest poker player in the Navy in WWII.

    Unlikely to have much luck with poker if you're on the spectrum.

  160. @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    Wasn't Watergate simply the Jewish media's payback for Nixon putting the commie Alger Hiss in prison?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @nebulafox, @Art Deco

    Wasn’t Watergate simply the Jewish media’s payback for Nixon putting the commie Alger Hiss in prison?

    Sneaky Joos so patient.

    Nixon was never a federal prosecutor, he was just a member of the HUAC which had held hearings on Hiss. Somehow, the actual prosecutor escaped their talons.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/31/nyregion/thomas-murphy-police-head-and-prosecutor-of-hiss-89.html

    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    @Art Deco


    Sneaky Joos so patient.

    Nixon was never a federal prosecutor, he was just a member of the HUAC which had held hearings on Hiss. Somehow, the actual prosecutor escaped their talons
     
    I never said Nixon was a federal prosecutor. But he made a name for himself by leading the charge to prosecute Hiss. Which is common knowledge, and not disputed. That's why you can still read articles about how Nixon "framed" Hiss.

    Don't act like an idiot.
  161. @nebulafox
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    No, Watergate was a series of inept, illegal bungles carried out by an administration headed by an insecure President at a time of unprecedented domestic distress. Said insecure President did indeed have a lot of powerful enemies who piled on, and many of their motivations were far from upstanding, contrary to what Spielberg implies. But Nixon himself "gave them the sword", as he said. He attempted to obstruct justice. Game over.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    at a time of unprecedented domestic distress.

    After the Depression and the War, I don’t think inflation and cack-handed efforts at wage and price controls really amount to ‘unprecedented domestic distress’.

  162. @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    And even before the McCord letter, Gray admitted that Dean committed perjury during the FBI confirmation hearings in February. That was the beginning crack in the coverup.

    One interesting thing I'll always wonder about: had J. Edgar Hoover lived a year longer, how would things have gone differently? No Hoover, no Gray hearings, and possibly no Watergate committee at all. Whether Hoover would have wanted to save Nixon as a person is debatable, but there's no question he'd want to preserve the power of the Imperial Presidency. Moreover, Hoover would have likely looked at Nixon as the lesser of two evils compared to then increasingly McGovernite Senate.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    And even before the McCord letter, Gray admitted that Dean committed perjury during the FBI confirmation hearings in February. That was the beginning crack in the coverup.

    Dean was a confidential employee and not subject to Congressional subpoenas until he was dismissed at the end of April 1973. His testimony in front of the Senate Watergate Committee was in July 1973, well after the Hunts’ wads of cash were discovered.

  163. Irrelevant. Without the Gray hearings, no one would have had anything other than vague suspicions to go on that anybody higher up in the White House was involved in clandestine activities. From that point on, the collapse of the coverup was a fait accompli. Higher-ups were going to get fingered, start cooperating with the authorities, and the White House edifice would collapse. The McCord letter merely accelerated an already existent process.

    >After the Depression and the War, I don’t think inflation and cack-handed efforts at wage and price controls really amount to ‘unprecedented domestic distress’.

    Compared to the Bonus Army marching on Washington, maybe not. Compared to having more or less the entire nation supporting a war vs. there being a 14 month long spate of daily bombings/hijackings for one period in 1969-1970 in the name of ending it (this is when the NSC wiretaps, Huston Plan, etc originated-far more serious stuff than the campaign tricks), yes, this was a little more serious.

    Also, this is probably nit-picking, but IMO, the weakest link, in terms of personality, involved in Watergate had to be Jeb Magruder rather than McCord.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    Not irrelevant.


    Without the Gray hearings, no one would have had anything other than vague suspicions to go on that anybody higher up in the White House was involved in clandestine activities.

    Come again? Howard Hunt had been employed by Charles Colson's office. This was known in June 1972. Dean has Colson animatedly protesting "Hunt was off my payroll!".



    From that point on, the collapse of the coverup was a fait accompli.

    See Dean's memoirs. Not much mention of Gray bar his disposal of the contents of Hunt's safe in the summer of 1972. Much emphasis on difficulties with fundraising to pay hush money. McCord's letter was on point and was sent to Judge Sirica the 3d week of March, 1973. Dean had already retained counsel at that point.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  164. @Jim Christian
    Read through these comments and no one addresses the predominant issue with the Washington Post. It is owned by a man who also owns Amazon that keeps the paper afloat out of pocket. Bezos, through Amazon is supported by contracts with government. He's in bed with Intel, Law enforcement, the military via contracts with Amazon Cloud, not to mention is a GAO contractor providng all kinds of services and supply to the Feds. How can he be partial?

    When the CIA (or any agency) comes calling for slant on a war, an action, a scandal, whatever the case, we know that Bezos is first and foremost, financially, and then politically-driven. The Post out and out supported Hillary in endorsements and more importantly, what was and especially, was not 'investigated' throughout Bezos' tenure as owner. Given that Bezos is in bed with the National Security complex and THEIR political leanings, is dedicated to protecting the Clintons and is completely in bed with the DNC and any candidate that spews forth, how then is the Post, supported by all the Bezos money, even a newspaper? After all, the market spoke decades ago. The Post is dead without Bezos money. Same for all of them, only the money changes name.

    From their reporters to their editorialists, the entire shebang is a billboard, a political arm for the Democrats and all their shills in Washington. They run in complete opposition to every stipulation of journalism as taught prior to the 60s. How the hell is THAT a newspaper? It isn't. If you think it is, and worthy of all this comment (over 140 so far) as if WashPost IS a legitimate news outlet, I have this bridge for sale.

    I-Steve? You write. You likely took a little journalism in your day. How does this present-day version of the Post square with old-time standards of the craft? Even the Great Woodward and Bernstein weren't journalists, they were paid political hit men with Ben Bradlee running the show. The Post was compromised long before that, though. Also, Steve, did you even make a run at a job with WashPost?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Bezos, through Amazon is supported by contracts with government.

    Sez who?

  165. @nebulafox
    Irrelevant. Without the Gray hearings, no one would have had anything other than vague suspicions to go on that anybody higher up in the White House was involved in clandestine activities. From that point on, the collapse of the coverup was a fait accompli. Higher-ups were going to get fingered, start cooperating with the authorities, and the White House edifice would collapse. The McCord letter merely accelerated an already existent process.

    >After the Depression and the War, I don’t think inflation and cack-handed efforts at wage and price controls really amount to ‘unprecedented domestic distress’.

    Compared to the Bonus Army marching on Washington, maybe not. Compared to having more or less the entire nation supporting a war vs. there being a 14 month long spate of daily bombings/hijackings for one period in 1969-1970 in the name of ending it (this is when the NSC wiretaps, Huston Plan, etc originated-far more serious stuff than the campaign tricks), yes, this was a little more serious.

    Also, this is probably nit-picking, but IMO, the weakest link, in terms of personality, involved in Watergate had to be Jeb Magruder rather than McCord.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Not irrelevant.

    Without the Gray hearings, no one would have had anything other than vague suspicions to go on that anybody higher up in the White House was involved in clandestine activities.

    Come again? Howard Hunt had been employed by Charles Colson’s office. This was known in June 1972. Dean has Colson animatedly protesting “Hunt was off my payroll!”.

    From that point on, the collapse of the coverup was a fait accompli.

    See Dean’s memoirs. Not much mention of Gray bar his disposal of the contents of Hunt’s safe in the summer of 1972. Much emphasis on difficulties with fundraising to pay hush money. McCord’s letter was on point and was sent to Judge Sirica the 3d week of March, 1973. Dean had already retained counsel at that point.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    >Come again? Howard Hunt had been employed by Charles Colson’s office. This was known in June 1972. Dean has Colson animatedly protesting “Hunt was off my payroll!”.

    No. Hunt originally worked closely with Colson (though John Ehrlichman was the main superior who gave the green light, which helped lead to his downfall) during the first incarnation of the Plumbers in 1971-this was when they broke into the office of Ellberg's psychiatrist. But by 1972, the Plumbers were working for CRP and the re-election campaign. CRP was a fundraising organization, not a White House office. That was under John Mitchell's direction, not Colson's, for the purpose of the re-election campaign. Colson generally regarded CRP as his amateurish rivals for the President's attention.

    >See Dean’s memoirs. Not much mention of Gray bar his disposal of the contents of Hunt’s safe in the summer of 1972.

    Well... yes. John Dean had more motivation than anybody else to focus the spotlight on hush money rather than the L. Patrick Gray fiasco-among several other things.


    Somewhat OT, but I think "The Nixon Defense" is a lot better of a book than Blind Ambition. In 1976, Dean was-obviously-dealing with a lot of severe financial issues and was under pressure to publish. He takes his time and creates a more coherent story in The Nixon Defense. Though Dean still omitted or ignored some pretty crucial conversations that showed how involved in the planning of illegal activities he was, particularly the March 13th one where he told Nixon that Strachan had foreknowledge.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  166. @guest
    @anony-mouse

    They might have had the same goal in mind. But to Nixon, the prevailing order was America, even if it had been run by libs for decades. That's why he walked away from the dubious '60 election (unlike Al Gore), and why he resigned rather than be impeached (unlike Clinton). Because he didn't want the office tarnished.

    Of course, he could have burnished the office by not committing crimes. But no one's completely consistent.

    Trump, on the other hand, thinks the prevailing order is run by swamp creatures. It's not America to him. America is outside of Washington.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    It’s not America to him. America is outside of Washington.

    He’s correct.

    Washington is principally the capital of the post-American empire.

  167. @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    The only Presidents between FDR and Dubya who didn’t have flings at one point or another were Truman, Nixon, and Carter. Truman met his wife in kindergarten, Nixon probably would be diagnosed on the autism spectrum in 2017, and Carter was a Bible thumper.


    1. No Nixon wouldn't. He had absolutely no history of problematic interpersonal relations with anyone. He had a small menu of personal friends and he was fairly undemonstrative. You could have said the same of my grandmother.

    2. Carter was a fairly ordinary small town evangelical.

    3. Truman grew up in a small town in Missouri where his wife also grew up. Nothing terribly unusual about that among that age cohort. The same situation applied in re two of my four sets of great-grandparents (to take one example).

    4. Again, the 'affair' between Eisenhower and Summersby is an uncorroborated personal claim that his family didn't take seriously.

    5. No one has ever contended Gerald Ford was a cheat. His marriage was almost certainly canonically invalid, a point which might be of interest to a few old-school Anglicans. (It wasn't of interest to the law courts in 1948 or later).

    6. No one's ever made the case that Ronald Reagan was a cheat either.

    7. The notion that George Bush the Elder was having an affair with Jennifer FitzGerald was a fantasy of Spy magazine.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Nixon was notoriously the winningest poker player in the Navy in WWII.

    Unlikely to have much luck with poker if you’re on the spectrum.

  168. @Art Deco
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Wasn’t Watergate simply the Jewish media’s payback for Nixon putting the commie Alger Hiss in prison?

    Sneaky Joos so patient.

    Nixon was never a federal prosecutor, he was just a member of the HUAC which had held hearings on Hiss. Somehow, the actual prosecutor escaped their talons.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/31/nyregion/thomas-murphy-police-head-and-prosecutor-of-hiss-89.html

    Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Sneaky Joos so patient.

    Nixon was never a federal prosecutor, he was just a member of the HUAC which had held hearings on Hiss. Somehow, the actual prosecutor escaped their talons

    I never said Nixon was a federal prosecutor. But he made a name for himself by leading the charge to prosecute Hiss. Which is common knowledge, and not disputed. That’s why you can still read articles about how Nixon “framed” Hiss.

    Don’t act like an idiot.

  169. @Steve Sailer
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?

    Replies: @syonredux, @stillCARealist, @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?

    Not that I know of. But Communism was Jewish. I think it was WFB who once wrote that “most Jews aren’t Communists, but most Communists are Jews.” Hiss was one of the rare Gentile commies. So while he wasn’t Jewish himself, his cause was. And the media for decades has portrayed anti-Communists as vicious anti-semites, whose proclaimed love of freedom was merely a cover for their raging hatred of Jews.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon's attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.

    Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian, @Art Deco

    , @Art Deco
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Not that I know of. But Communism was Jewish. I think it was WFB who once wrote that “most Jews aren’t Communists, but most Communists are Jews.” H


    He didn't. WFB wasn't known for Joo-obsession and the statement is factually untrue.

  170. @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    Not irrelevant.


    Without the Gray hearings, no one would have had anything other than vague suspicions to go on that anybody higher up in the White House was involved in clandestine activities.

    Come again? Howard Hunt had been employed by Charles Colson's office. This was known in June 1972. Dean has Colson animatedly protesting "Hunt was off my payroll!".



    From that point on, the collapse of the coverup was a fait accompli.

    See Dean's memoirs. Not much mention of Gray bar his disposal of the contents of Hunt's safe in the summer of 1972. Much emphasis on difficulties with fundraising to pay hush money. McCord's letter was on point and was sent to Judge Sirica the 3d week of March, 1973. Dean had already retained counsel at that point.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Come again? Howard Hunt had been employed by Charles Colson’s office. This was known in June 1972. Dean has Colson animatedly protesting “Hunt was off my payroll!”.

    No. Hunt originally worked closely with Colson (though John Ehrlichman was the main superior who gave the green light, which helped lead to his downfall) during the first incarnation of the Plumbers in 1971-this was when they broke into the office of Ellberg’s psychiatrist. But by 1972, the Plumbers were working for CRP and the re-election campaign. CRP was a fundraising organization, not a White House office. That was under John Mitchell’s direction, not Colson’s, for the purpose of the re-election campaign. Colson generally regarded CRP as his amateurish rivals for the President’s attention.

    >See Dean’s memoirs. Not much mention of Gray bar his disposal of the contents of Hunt’s safe in the summer of 1972.

    Well… yes. John Dean had more motivation than anybody else to focus the spotlight on hush money rather than the L. Patrick Gray fiasco-among several other things.

    Somewhat OT, but I think “The Nixon Defense” is a lot better of a book than Blind Ambition. In 1976, Dean was-obviously-dealing with a lot of severe financial issues and was under pressure to publish. He takes his time and creates a more coherent story in The Nixon Defense. Though Dean still omitted or ignored some pretty crucial conversations that showed how involved in the planning of illegal activities he was, particularly the March 13th one where he told Nixon that Strachan had foreknowledge.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @nebulafox

    It was interesting that Oliver Stone's movie Nixon portrayed John Dean to be practically just "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and John Erlichman to be the conscience of the White House. Halderman, on the other hand, was portrayed as a sleezy, cynical con-man. Guess who served as "technical advisors" on the film.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  171. @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    @Steve Sailer


    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?
     
    Not that I know of. But Communism was Jewish. I think it was WFB who once wrote that "most Jews aren't Communists, but most Communists are Jews." Hiss was one of the rare Gentile commies. So while he wasn't Jewish himself, his cause was. And the media for decades has portrayed anti-Communists as vicious anti-semites, whose proclaimed love of freedom was merely a cover for their raging hatred of Jews.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco

    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon’s attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.

    • Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    @nebulafox


    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon’s attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.
     
    And....?

    What's your point, exactly?

    The existence of some mutual class-based animosity between them in no way negates the fact that much of Nixon's rise to prominence was based on the publicity he got as a Congressman attacking Alger Hiss for being a Communist spy.

    Nor does it change the facts that the media is and was heavily Jewish, that they've always portrayed anti-communists as paranoid Jew-hating conspiracy kooks or worse, and that many of them saw Nixon's crusade against WASP Hiss as a crusade against Jews by proxy.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon’s attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.

    Nixon's family wasn't notably ethnic; all of his great-grandparents were born in the United States. Re Hiss, he had one grandfather born in Ireland and one whose parents had been born in Prussia. Hiss' grandfathers appear to have been fairly prosperous Baltimore businessmen (one retired in his 50s), but the money appears to have been fairly crisp, made after the Civil War.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  172. @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    >Come again? Howard Hunt had been employed by Charles Colson’s office. This was known in June 1972. Dean has Colson animatedly protesting “Hunt was off my payroll!”.

    No. Hunt originally worked closely with Colson (though John Ehrlichman was the main superior who gave the green light, which helped lead to his downfall) during the first incarnation of the Plumbers in 1971-this was when they broke into the office of Ellberg's psychiatrist. But by 1972, the Plumbers were working for CRP and the re-election campaign. CRP was a fundraising organization, not a White House office. That was under John Mitchell's direction, not Colson's, for the purpose of the re-election campaign. Colson generally regarded CRP as his amateurish rivals for the President's attention.

    >See Dean’s memoirs. Not much mention of Gray bar his disposal of the contents of Hunt’s safe in the summer of 1972.

    Well... yes. John Dean had more motivation than anybody else to focus the spotlight on hush money rather than the L. Patrick Gray fiasco-among several other things.


    Somewhat OT, but I think "The Nixon Defense" is a lot better of a book than Blind Ambition. In 1976, Dean was-obviously-dealing with a lot of severe financial issues and was under pressure to publish. He takes his time and creates a more coherent story in The Nixon Defense. Though Dean still omitted or ignored some pretty crucial conversations that showed how involved in the planning of illegal activities he was, particularly the March 13th one where he told Nixon that Strachan had foreknowledge.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    It was interesting that Oliver Stone’s movie Nixon portrayed John Dean to be practically just “in the wrong place at the wrong time” and John Erlichman to be the conscience of the White House. Halderman, on the other hand, was portrayed as a sleezy, cynical con-man. Guess who served as “technical advisors” on the film.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Mr. Anon

    There's a little bit of a grain of truth to this, from Stone's perspective. Far from the Siamese twins that they’ve historically been portrayed as, Haldeman and Ehrlichman were not a unified team-in many respects, they were rivals. They were very different from a personality standpoint, had different duties, and they occupied different ends of the ideological spectrum in the White House. I would say that there's a grain of truth to the idea that Haldeman was a harder personality. Rough tactics and politics didn't come very naturally to Ehrlichman (who was absolutely horrified when he realized what the Plumbers did to Ellsberg-seeing the pictures of the broken glass, etc-and responded by shutting them immediately and outsourcing them... to CRP), and part of his downfall lay in the fact that he ended up trying to overcompensate in the cult of the tough guy that ran endemic in the Nixon White House. Ehrlichman also had three kids caught up in campus protests, so he ended up getting pretty emotionally torn/damaged in the spring of 1970. Haldeman was far more of a... "nut-cutter", who also shared a lot of Nixon's various prejudices, coming from a similar social milieu in pre-bellum Southern California.

    That said, Ehrlichman, in the end, helped contribute to the scandal as much as anybody. Haldeman had a very necessary function in keeping Nixon's darker musings in check (Haldeman's pathological dislike of Colson stemmed from this) and keeping his boss functional. In order to succeed in a job so at odds with his basic personality and idiosyncrasies, Nixon required a great number of unique social mechanisms, and Haldeman was the one who implemented them. The accusation that he fatally isolated Nixon is an unfair one: Nixon himself insisted on the isolation. When he left in April of 1973, things changed, big time.

    Regarding the ideological differences: Haldeman, while an instinctual right-wing proto-Reaganite, was at bottom uninterested in policy (as a good White House Chief of Staff should be), and his main job was "running the ship" and also quietly acting as Nixon's "minder" of sorts. Ehrlichman was Nixon's domestic policy majordomo, and he was a pseudo-liberal Seattle Republican. He was the driving force behind OSHA, EPA, Native American rights, opting to allocate 2/3rds of the Drug War money to treatment, and other "liberal" initiatives during those years. Since Nixon's main interest was foreign policy, he gave Ehrlichman considerable latitude-within his broad guidelines, of course-on domestic policy, and Ehrlichman was quite productive at hammering out deals with the Democratic Congress.

    As for Dean: again, a grain of truth to this. I don't subscribe to the Stone thesis that he was the mastermind of Watergate. He was a young, young guy at the time, easily malleable: Nixon seldom interacted with him personally before early 1973. However, his role in the illegal activities of the scandal was far deeper than his apologists (such as Stanley Kutler) have said over the years, and his decision to lie to Ehrlichman about Strachan's foreknowledge in June of 1972 ended up being pretty fatal for the Nixon White House.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  173. @nebulafox
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon's attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.

    Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian, @Art Deco

    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon’s attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.

    And….?

    What’s your point, exactly?

    The existence of some mutual class-based animosity between them in no way negates the fact that much of Nixon’s rise to prominence was based on the publicity he got as a Congressman attacking Alger Hiss for being a Communist spy.

    Nor does it change the facts that the media is and was heavily Jewish, that they’ve always portrayed anti-communists as paranoid Jew-hating conspiracy kooks or worse, and that many of them saw Nixon’s crusade against WASP Hiss as a crusade against Jews by proxy.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Nor does it change the facts that the media is and was heavily Jewish, t

    It isn't.

  174. @enemy of earth
    I did not watch 2015's Truth until it popped up on cable. When I finally saw it, my presuppositions about it were confirmed. The Times' reporters were heroic, interested only in the truth, persecuted, and crushed by the pernicious power of the White House and its supporters. The writer and director did such a good job that I almost started feeling sorry for Mary Mapes by the end of the film. Almost but not quite.

    I reckon The Post will be much of the same, if not worse. I'll wait until it pops up on cable but I sure won't be going out my way to watch it.

    I also avoided Zero Dark Thirty and American Sniper for the longest time. War porn as far as I'm concerned.

    Replies: @guest, @Marat

    Bigalow’s “Detroit” movie was along the same lines … it should have been titled “Algiers”. The assumption that young ahistorical people will make is that all of the riots (oh, right, “rebellions”) went down across the board with insane police behaving as reactionary murderous maniacs did in the Algiers Hotel outlier incident. Bigelow implies Newark, Philly, and Chicago were all of the same mold as the Algiers incident, and Black Lives Matter’s claims were as valid then as now. No mention of the real spark that set these cities off: MLK’s assassination.

    The Marxist revisionist history on urban planning and historical population moves at the very beginning tips the viewer off that this special story is going to be a whopper in the Hollywood Historical Propaganda pantheon. SJWs will be relieved that they are not once asked to examine anything resembling reality. In fact, the movie explains black history of the 60s/70s entirely with 2016 SJW narrative constructs, imagine that!

    Maybe Hollywood believes its movies will one day soon be assigned as the entire history curriculum for public schools.

  175. @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    @Steve Sailer


    Was Alger Hiss Jewish?
     
    Not that I know of. But Communism was Jewish. I think it was WFB who once wrote that "most Jews aren't Communists, but most Communists are Jews." Hiss was one of the rare Gentile commies. So while he wasn't Jewish himself, his cause was. And the media for decades has portrayed anti-Communists as vicious anti-semites, whose proclaimed love of freedom was merely a cover for their raging hatred of Jews.

    Replies: @nebulafox, @Art Deco

    Not that I know of. But Communism was Jewish. I think it was WFB who once wrote that “most Jews aren’t Communists, but most Communists are Jews.” H

    He didn’t. WFB wasn’t known for Joo-obsession and the statement is factually untrue.

  176. @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    @nebulafox


    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon’s attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.
     
    And....?

    What's your point, exactly?

    The existence of some mutual class-based animosity between them in no way negates the fact that much of Nixon's rise to prominence was based on the publicity he got as a Congressman attacking Alger Hiss for being a Communist spy.

    Nor does it change the facts that the media is and was heavily Jewish, that they've always portrayed anti-communists as paranoid Jew-hating conspiracy kooks or worse, and that many of them saw Nixon's crusade against WASP Hiss as a crusade against Jews by proxy.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Nor does it change the facts that the media is and was heavily Jewish, t

    It isn’t.

    • LOL: Autochthon
  177. @Mr. Anon
    @nebulafox

    It was interesting that Oliver Stone's movie Nixon portrayed John Dean to be practically just "in the wrong place at the wrong time" and John Erlichman to be the conscience of the White House. Halderman, on the other hand, was portrayed as a sleezy, cynical con-man. Guess who served as "technical advisors" on the film.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    There’s a little bit of a grain of truth to this, from Stone’s perspective. Far from the Siamese twins that they’ve historically been portrayed as, Haldeman and Ehrlichman were not a unified team-in many respects, they were rivals. They were very different from a personality standpoint, had different duties, and they occupied different ends of the ideological spectrum in the White House. I would say that there’s a grain of truth to the idea that Haldeman was a harder personality. Rough tactics and politics didn’t come very naturally to Ehrlichman (who was absolutely horrified when he realized what the Plumbers did to Ellsberg-seeing the pictures of the broken glass, etc-and responded by shutting them immediately and outsourcing them… to CRP), and part of his downfall lay in the fact that he ended up trying to overcompensate in the cult of the tough guy that ran endemic in the Nixon White House. Ehrlichman also had three kids caught up in campus protests, so he ended up getting pretty emotionally torn/damaged in the spring of 1970. Haldeman was far more of a… “nut-cutter”, who also shared a lot of Nixon’s various prejudices, coming from a similar social milieu in pre-bellum Southern California.

    That said, Ehrlichman, in the end, helped contribute to the scandal as much as anybody. Haldeman had a very necessary function in keeping Nixon’s darker musings in check (Haldeman’s pathological dislike of Colson stemmed from this) and keeping his boss functional. In order to succeed in a job so at odds with his basic personality and idiosyncrasies, Nixon required a great number of unique social mechanisms, and Haldeman was the one who implemented them. The accusation that he fatally isolated Nixon is an unfair one: Nixon himself insisted on the isolation. When he left in April of 1973, things changed, big time.

    Regarding the ideological differences: Haldeman, while an instinctual right-wing proto-Reaganite, was at bottom uninterested in policy (as a good White House Chief of Staff should be), and his main job was “running the ship” and also quietly acting as Nixon’s “minder” of sorts. Ehrlichman was Nixon’s domestic policy majordomo, and he was a pseudo-liberal Seattle Republican. He was the driving force behind OSHA, EPA, Native American rights, opting to allocate 2/3rds of the Drug War money to treatment, and other “liberal” initiatives during those years. Since Nixon’s main interest was foreign policy, he gave Ehrlichman considerable latitude-within his broad guidelines, of course-on domestic policy, and Ehrlichman was quite productive at hammering out deals with the Democratic Congress.

    As for Dean: again, a grain of truth to this. I don’t subscribe to the Stone thesis that he was the mastermind of Watergate. He was a young, young guy at the time, easily malleable: Nixon seldom interacted with him personally before early 1973. However, his role in the illegal activities of the scandal was far deeper than his apologists (such as Stanley Kutler) have said over the years, and his decision to lie to Ehrlichman about Strachan’s foreknowledge in June of 1972 ended up being pretty fatal for the Nixon White House.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    Rough tactics and politics didn’t come very naturally to Ehrlichman (who was absolutely horrified when he realized what the Plumbers did to Ellsberg-seeing the pictures of the broken glass, etc-and responded by shutting them immediately and outsourcing them… to CRP),

    This is very much inconsistent with Dean's description. Dean describes Ehrlichman as an intimidating office politician dedicating to collecting discretion in his office. Again, the White House Plumbers were run by his protege Egil Krogh. See also Dean's account of Charles Colson's scheme to firebomb the Brookings Institution. Per Dean, John Caulfield came to him in a panic about it because Colson expected Caulfield and Anthony Ulaszewicz to make it happen. Dean went to Ehrlichman to persuade him to call it off. Ehrlichman knew all about the scheme and had been on board with it up to that time.

    Replies: @nebulafox

  178. @nebulafox
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian

    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon's attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.

    Replies: @40 Acres and A Kardashian, @Art Deco

    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon’s attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.

    Nixon’s family wasn’t notably ethnic; all of his great-grandparents were born in the United States. Re Hiss, he had one grandfather born in Ireland and one whose parents had been born in Prussia. Hiss’ grandfathers appear to have been fairly prosperous Baltimore businessmen (one retired in his 50s), but the money appears to have been fairly crisp, made after the Civil War.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    >Nixon’s family wasn’t notably ethnic.

    I never implied that it was.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  179. @nebulafox
    @Mr. Anon

    There's a little bit of a grain of truth to this, from Stone's perspective. Far from the Siamese twins that they’ve historically been portrayed as, Haldeman and Ehrlichman were not a unified team-in many respects, they were rivals. They were very different from a personality standpoint, had different duties, and they occupied different ends of the ideological spectrum in the White House. I would say that there's a grain of truth to the idea that Haldeman was a harder personality. Rough tactics and politics didn't come very naturally to Ehrlichman (who was absolutely horrified when he realized what the Plumbers did to Ellsberg-seeing the pictures of the broken glass, etc-and responded by shutting them immediately and outsourcing them... to CRP), and part of his downfall lay in the fact that he ended up trying to overcompensate in the cult of the tough guy that ran endemic in the Nixon White House. Ehrlichman also had three kids caught up in campus protests, so he ended up getting pretty emotionally torn/damaged in the spring of 1970. Haldeman was far more of a... "nut-cutter", who also shared a lot of Nixon's various prejudices, coming from a similar social milieu in pre-bellum Southern California.

    That said, Ehrlichman, in the end, helped contribute to the scandal as much as anybody. Haldeman had a very necessary function in keeping Nixon's darker musings in check (Haldeman's pathological dislike of Colson stemmed from this) and keeping his boss functional. In order to succeed in a job so at odds with his basic personality and idiosyncrasies, Nixon required a great number of unique social mechanisms, and Haldeman was the one who implemented them. The accusation that he fatally isolated Nixon is an unfair one: Nixon himself insisted on the isolation. When he left in April of 1973, things changed, big time.

    Regarding the ideological differences: Haldeman, while an instinctual right-wing proto-Reaganite, was at bottom uninterested in policy (as a good White House Chief of Staff should be), and his main job was "running the ship" and also quietly acting as Nixon's "minder" of sorts. Ehrlichman was Nixon's domestic policy majordomo, and he was a pseudo-liberal Seattle Republican. He was the driving force behind OSHA, EPA, Native American rights, opting to allocate 2/3rds of the Drug War money to treatment, and other "liberal" initiatives during those years. Since Nixon's main interest was foreign policy, he gave Ehrlichman considerable latitude-within his broad guidelines, of course-on domestic policy, and Ehrlichman was quite productive at hammering out deals with the Democratic Congress.

    As for Dean: again, a grain of truth to this. I don't subscribe to the Stone thesis that he was the mastermind of Watergate. He was a young, young guy at the time, easily malleable: Nixon seldom interacted with him personally before early 1973. However, his role in the illegal activities of the scandal was far deeper than his apologists (such as Stanley Kutler) have said over the years, and his decision to lie to Ehrlichman about Strachan's foreknowledge in June of 1972 ended up being pretty fatal for the Nixon White House.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Rough tactics and politics didn’t come very naturally to Ehrlichman (who was absolutely horrified when he realized what the Plumbers did to Ellsberg-seeing the pictures of the broken glass, etc-and responded by shutting them immediately and outsourcing them… to CRP),

    This is very much inconsistent with Dean’s description. Dean describes Ehrlichman as an intimidating office politician dedicating to collecting discretion in his office. Again, the White House Plumbers were run by his protege Egil Krogh. See also Dean’s account of Charles Colson’s scheme to firebomb the Brookings Institution. Per Dean, John Caulfield came to him in a panic about it because Colson expected Caulfield and Anthony Ulaszewicz to make it happen. Dean went to Ehrlichman to persuade him to call it off. Ehrlichman knew all about the scheme and had been on board with it up to that time.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    >This is very much inconsistent with Dean’s description. Dean describes Ehrlichman as an intimidating office politician dedicating to collecting discretion in his office.

    Which was invariably the face Ehrlichman wanted to show the world, especially after mid-1970 when the power struggles within the Nixon White House took on a decidedly darker turn. Ehrlichman was a cynical practitioner of the art of political hardball, but much of the imperious personality act was overcompensation, as was the constant desire to prove he was "tough". Ehrlichman admitted himself how much he changed in the first couple years of the White House. Dean, being a young staffer, would have taken this all at face value, especially in 1976 when writing Blind Ambition.

    (Ehrlichman was far from alone in undergoing a personality shift during those years, with Henry Kissinger being another good example. Of course, this is seen in every White House with the inner circle-part of the pressure of the job-but with the Nixon White House, moreso than average.)

    >See also Dean’s account of Charles Colson’s scheme to firebomb the Brookings Institution. Per Dean, John Caulfield came to him in a panic about it because Colson expected Caulfield and Anthony Ulaszewicz to make it happen. Dean went to Ehrlichman to persuade him to call it off. Ehrlichman knew all about the scheme and had been on board with it up to that time.

    Then why did Ehrlichman, like Haldeman and Kissinger, do everything in their power the following year to get Colson out of the White House and away from the President? The Teutonic trio generally were a cynical, amoral bunch who didn't have a problem playing (often violently illegal) hardball, but they weren't nuts, and could easily see that Colson was. The "firebombing" plan clearly has no chance of success (sneak in by following the firefighters???) and would have immediately been quashed by HR Haldeman with all people connected, had he been aware of it. Haldeman, at this pre-election juncture, had far more access and influence over Nixon than Colson didn't, and could have taken this excuse to have him purged-along with other rivals. Furthermore, why would Ehrlichman, if he was on board with Colson, take the random advice of a young staffer to reverse himself after committing to the plan?

    Dean's specific coloration of the story where Ehrlichman was dissuaded by *him*, a sane young White House staffer-as opposed to the story itself-seems unlikely. It's probably true that Dean would have thought the plan was nuts, but so would most of the people around him. Perhaps Ehrlichman talked to Dean, but was just telling him about the plan rather than a commitment to go through with it, and Dean registered his disapproval. Perhaps Ehrlichman never talked to Dean at all. This would go in hand with Dean's general efforts to portray himself as a moderating influence in the White House, present in all his books, which are to be taken with a heavy pinch of salt. Case in point: it was Dean's idea for G. Gordon Liddy and some of the other clowns from the first, Ehrlichman-era incarnation of the Plumbers for the purposes of the re-election campaign, not that you'd learn this from Dean.

    OT: It is worth mentioning that Nixon himself often ordered similarly crazy schemes-including one particularly infamous order to break into the Brookings institution. But Haldeman knew when to ignore or leave on hold Nixon's "orders" as a product of anger or overstimulation, as Nixon himself fully expected (that was one of his "minder" functions for which Haldeman existed), and let it quietly die. Colson, however, was a more literal minded figure. Bryce Harlow summed it up best when Watergate was ready to blow in the spring of 1973: "Some damn fool walked into the Oval Office and took literally what he heard here."

    Replies: @Art Deco

  180. @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    Rough tactics and politics didn’t come very naturally to Ehrlichman (who was absolutely horrified when he realized what the Plumbers did to Ellsberg-seeing the pictures of the broken glass, etc-and responded by shutting them immediately and outsourcing them… to CRP),

    This is very much inconsistent with Dean's description. Dean describes Ehrlichman as an intimidating office politician dedicating to collecting discretion in his office. Again, the White House Plumbers were run by his protege Egil Krogh. See also Dean's account of Charles Colson's scheme to firebomb the Brookings Institution. Per Dean, John Caulfield came to him in a panic about it because Colson expected Caulfield and Anthony Ulaszewicz to make it happen. Dean went to Ehrlichman to persuade him to call it off. Ehrlichman knew all about the scheme and had been on board with it up to that time.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >This is very much inconsistent with Dean’s description. Dean describes Ehrlichman as an intimidating office politician dedicating to collecting discretion in his office.

    Which was invariably the face Ehrlichman wanted to show the world, especially after mid-1970 when the power struggles within the Nixon White House took on a decidedly darker turn. Ehrlichman was a cynical practitioner of the art of political hardball, but much of the imperious personality act was overcompensation, as was the constant desire to prove he was “tough”. Ehrlichman admitted himself how much he changed in the first couple years of the White House. Dean, being a young staffer, would have taken this all at face value, especially in 1976 when writing Blind Ambition.

    (Ehrlichman was far from alone in undergoing a personality shift during those years, with Henry Kissinger being another good example. Of course, this is seen in every White House with the inner circle-part of the pressure of the job-but with the Nixon White House, moreso than average.)

    >See also Dean’s account of Charles Colson’s scheme to firebomb the Brookings Institution. Per Dean, John Caulfield came to him in a panic about it because Colson expected Caulfield and Anthony Ulaszewicz to make it happen. Dean went to Ehrlichman to persuade him to call it off. Ehrlichman knew all about the scheme and had been on board with it up to that time.

    Then why did Ehrlichman, like Haldeman and Kissinger, do everything in their power the following year to get Colson out of the White House and away from the President? The Teutonic trio generally were a cynical, amoral bunch who didn’t have a problem playing (often violently illegal) hardball, but they weren’t nuts, and could easily see that Colson was. The “firebombing” plan clearly has no chance of success (sneak in by following the firefighters???) and would have immediately been quashed by HR Haldeman with all people connected, had he been aware of it. Haldeman, at this pre-election juncture, had far more access and influence over Nixon than Colson didn’t, and could have taken this excuse to have him purged-along with other rivals. Furthermore, why would Ehrlichman, if he was on board with Colson, take the random advice of a young staffer to reverse himself after committing to the plan?

    Dean’s specific coloration of the story where Ehrlichman was dissuaded by *him*, a sane young White House staffer-as opposed to the story itself-seems unlikely. It’s probably true that Dean would have thought the plan was nuts, but so would most of the people around him. Perhaps Ehrlichman talked to Dean, but was just telling him about the plan rather than a commitment to go through with it, and Dean registered his disapproval. Perhaps Ehrlichman never talked to Dean at all. This would go in hand with Dean’s general efforts to portray himself as a moderating influence in the White House, present in all his books, which are to be taken with a heavy pinch of salt. Case in point: it was Dean’s idea for G. Gordon Liddy and some of the other clowns from the first, Ehrlichman-era incarnation of the Plumbers for the purposes of the re-election campaign, not that you’d learn this from Dean.

    OT: It is worth mentioning that Nixon himself often ordered similarly crazy schemes-including one particularly infamous order to break into the Brookings institution. But Haldeman knew when to ignore or leave on hold Nixon’s “orders” as a product of anger or overstimulation, as Nixon himself fully expected (that was one of his “minder” functions for which Haldeman existed), and let it quietly die. Colson, however, was a more literal minded figure. Bryce Harlow summed it up best when Watergate was ready to blow in the spring of 1973: “Some damn fool walked into the Oval Office and took literally what he heard here.”

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    I gather you figure if you keep waving your hands, it's good exercise.

  181. @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    Alger Hiss was a WASP that came from an elite East Coast family, something that unquestionably colored both Nixon’s attitude toward him and his own attitude toward Nixon.

    Nixon's family wasn't notably ethnic; all of his great-grandparents were born in the United States. Re Hiss, he had one grandfather born in Ireland and one whose parents had been born in Prussia. Hiss' grandfathers appear to have been fairly prosperous Baltimore businessmen (one retired in his 50s), but the money appears to have been fairly crisp, made after the Civil War.

    Replies: @nebulafox

    >Nixon’s family wasn’t notably ethnic.

    I never implied that it was.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @nebulafox

    I never implied that it was.

    You referred to Hiss as a 'WASP' from an 'east coast' 'elite' family. That actually does imply that Nixon was not 'WASP'. Nixon's background was old-stock American. Hiss, not so much.

    The Wiki entry on Hiss presents his family as old money fallen on hard times, but the author appears to have conflated his family with some other Hiss family. His maternal-side gf was almost certainly a potato famine migrant. The paternal-side gf was born in 1822 in Baltimore to parents who were born in Prussia and appears to have worked for an insurance company at one point and raised chickens at another point. Not that elite.

  182. @Jim Christian
    @David Davenport

    Good takes. It was discovered, although disclosed much later (In Janes, IIRC) that not only were the Soviet counts wildly exaggerated, the majority weren't mission capable, they were in half-flooded silos, the fueling systems were old and rotten, maintenance long abandoned on those things by the time SALT II came along.

    There was a guy that played for a rock band, Pink Floyd or one of those. He used to do counts, throw weights and so on, bit of a strategist, too. Can't remember his name. He was interviewed later and was taken aback at how little the old Soviets actually DID have that was ready to launch.

    Replies: @Clyde

    You are thinking of Jeff Baxter?

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    @Clyde

    Perhaps. He used to "appear" on George Noory's radio broadcast decades back. I also vaguely remember his discussions on Matt Drudge's old Sunday night radio show out of 77 WABC-NYC. I believe he had engineering chops, maybe a degree, I dunno. Anyway, the message at the end was the same as in War Games: the only way to win is never to play the game.

    Amazing, for all the overlay of drugs and depravity, within certain sectors, the rock world turned out some educated peeps.

  183. @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    >This is very much inconsistent with Dean’s description. Dean describes Ehrlichman as an intimidating office politician dedicating to collecting discretion in his office.

    Which was invariably the face Ehrlichman wanted to show the world, especially after mid-1970 when the power struggles within the Nixon White House took on a decidedly darker turn. Ehrlichman was a cynical practitioner of the art of political hardball, but much of the imperious personality act was overcompensation, as was the constant desire to prove he was "tough". Ehrlichman admitted himself how much he changed in the first couple years of the White House. Dean, being a young staffer, would have taken this all at face value, especially in 1976 when writing Blind Ambition.

    (Ehrlichman was far from alone in undergoing a personality shift during those years, with Henry Kissinger being another good example. Of course, this is seen in every White House with the inner circle-part of the pressure of the job-but with the Nixon White House, moreso than average.)

    >See also Dean’s account of Charles Colson’s scheme to firebomb the Brookings Institution. Per Dean, John Caulfield came to him in a panic about it because Colson expected Caulfield and Anthony Ulaszewicz to make it happen. Dean went to Ehrlichman to persuade him to call it off. Ehrlichman knew all about the scheme and had been on board with it up to that time.

    Then why did Ehrlichman, like Haldeman and Kissinger, do everything in their power the following year to get Colson out of the White House and away from the President? The Teutonic trio generally were a cynical, amoral bunch who didn't have a problem playing (often violently illegal) hardball, but they weren't nuts, and could easily see that Colson was. The "firebombing" plan clearly has no chance of success (sneak in by following the firefighters???) and would have immediately been quashed by HR Haldeman with all people connected, had he been aware of it. Haldeman, at this pre-election juncture, had far more access and influence over Nixon than Colson didn't, and could have taken this excuse to have him purged-along with other rivals. Furthermore, why would Ehrlichman, if he was on board with Colson, take the random advice of a young staffer to reverse himself after committing to the plan?

    Dean's specific coloration of the story where Ehrlichman was dissuaded by *him*, a sane young White House staffer-as opposed to the story itself-seems unlikely. It's probably true that Dean would have thought the plan was nuts, but so would most of the people around him. Perhaps Ehrlichman talked to Dean, but was just telling him about the plan rather than a commitment to go through with it, and Dean registered his disapproval. Perhaps Ehrlichman never talked to Dean at all. This would go in hand with Dean's general efforts to portray himself as a moderating influence in the White House, present in all his books, which are to be taken with a heavy pinch of salt. Case in point: it was Dean's idea for G. Gordon Liddy and some of the other clowns from the first, Ehrlichman-era incarnation of the Plumbers for the purposes of the re-election campaign, not that you'd learn this from Dean.

    OT: It is worth mentioning that Nixon himself often ordered similarly crazy schemes-including one particularly infamous order to break into the Brookings institution. But Haldeman knew when to ignore or leave on hold Nixon's "orders" as a product of anger or overstimulation, as Nixon himself fully expected (that was one of his "minder" functions for which Haldeman existed), and let it quietly die. Colson, however, was a more literal minded figure. Bryce Harlow summed it up best when Watergate was ready to blow in the spring of 1973: "Some damn fool walked into the Oval Office and took literally what he heard here."

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I gather you figure if you keep waving your hands, it’s good exercise.

  184. @nebulafox
    @Art Deco

    >Nixon’s family wasn’t notably ethnic.

    I never implied that it was.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    I never implied that it was.

    You referred to Hiss as a ‘WASP’ from an ‘east coast’ ‘elite’ family. That actually does imply that Nixon was not ‘WASP’. Nixon’s background was old-stock American. Hiss, not so much.

    The Wiki entry on Hiss presents his family as old money fallen on hard times, but the author appears to have conflated his family with some other Hiss family. His maternal-side gf was almost certainly a potato famine migrant. The paternal-side gf was born in 1822 in Baltimore to parents who were born in Prussia and appears to have worked for an insurance company at one point and raised chickens at another point. Not that elite.

  185. @Clyde
    @Jim Christian

    You are thinking of Jeff Baxter?

    Replies: @Jim Christian

    Perhaps. He used to “appear” on George Noory’s radio broadcast decades back. I also vaguely remember his discussions on Matt Drudge’s old Sunday night radio show out of 77 WABC-NYC. I believe he had engineering chops, maybe a degree, I dunno. Anyway, the message at the end was the same as in War Games: the only way to win is never to play the game.

    Amazing, for all the overlay of drugs and depravity, within certain sectors, the rock world turned out some educated peeps.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS