William F. Buckley, Jr. spin-off rebuttal thread

[host]

Buckley's life was probably a "deep cover", domestic disniformation "Op". Tiny message, tiny "natural" constituency, successful effort to persuade large numbers to support an entire political philosophy against the best interests of 95 percent of them:

http://wconger.blogspot.com/2007/09/national-review-cia-front.html
Monday, September 24, 2007
NATIONAL REVIEW: a CIA front?
Was the launch of Bill Buckley’s National Review in the mid-1950s a CIA operation? I first heard Joseph Sobran imply this in 1993 at a Rothbard-Rockwell Report conference in San Mateo, California. I thought the idea was kinda paranoid and kooky at the time. But here’s Murray Rothbard himself suggesting the same thing in The Betrayal of the American Right, written 30 years ago:

“In the light of hindsight, we should now ask whether or not a major objective of National Review from its inception was to transform the right wing from an isolationist to global warmongering anti-Communist movement; and, particularly, whether or not the entire effort was in essence a CIA operation. We now know that Bill Buckley, for the two years prior to establishing National Review, was admittedly a CIA agent in Mexico City, and that the sinister E. Howard Hunt was his control. His sister Priscilla, who became managing editor of National Review, was also in the CIA, and other editors James Burnham and Willmoore Kendall had at least been recipients of CIA largesse in the anti-Communist Congress for Cultural Freedom. In addition, Burnham has been identified by two reliable sources as a consultant for the CIA in the years after World War II. Moreover, Gary Wills relates in his memoirs of the conservative movement that Frank Meyer, to whom he was close at the time, was convinced that the magazine was a CIA operation. With his Leninist-trained nose for intrigue, Meyer must be considered an important witness.
“Furthermore, it was a standard practice in the CIA, at least in those early years, that no one ever resigned from the CIA. A friend of mine who joined the Agency in the early 1950s told me that if, before the age of retirement, he was mentioned as having left the CIA for another job, that I was to disregard it, since it would only be a cover for continuing Agency work. On that testimony, the case for NR being a CIA operation becomes even stronger. Also suggestive is the fact that a character even more sinister than E. Howard Hunt, William J. Casey, appears at key moments of the establishment of the New over the Old Right. It was Casey who, as attorney, presided over the incorporation of National Review and had arranged the details of the ouster of Felix Morley from Human Events.”
Here is William Buckley's nephew, and we got to experience how well his prediction played out in the run up to the invasion of Iraq:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL380.cfm
January 21, 1992
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
...Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."...

If you find that your politics are in line with those of the "mega rich", the top one percent of Americans who own more than 30 percent of the total wealth of the country, your thinking is probably the result of an investment they have made, partnered with government "psy-ops", that has paid off, in spades, for them, and for the budgets of the government agencies that conceive and coordinate these types of "Ops".

[host]

Something to think about:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200511011324.asp
November 01, 2005, 1:24 p.m.
Who Did What?
Covert questions.
.....An autobiographical illustration. When in 1951 I was inducted into the CIA as a deep cover agent, the procedures for disguising my affiliation and my work were unsmilingly comprehensive. It was three months before I was formally permitted to inform my wife what the real reason was for going to Mexico City to live. If, a year later, I had been apprehended, dosed with sodium pentothal, and forced to give out the names of everyone I knew in the CIA, I could have come up with exactly one name, that of my immediate boss (E. Howard Hunt, as it happened). In the passage of time one can indulge in idle talk on spook life. In 1980 I found myself seated next to the former president of Mexico at a ski-area restaurant. What, he asked amiably, had I done when I lived in Mexico? "I tried to undermine your regime, Mr. President." He thought this amusing, and that is all that it was, under the aspect of the heavens. ...
....how do you know he wasn't undermining our country, too? Look at the percentage of workers in the US workforce, covered by collective bargaining contracts, in the private sector, when Buckley founded the National Review, in the 50s and compare it to the percentage covered now. Mission accomplished?

[robeiae]

Buckley's life was probably a "deep cover", domestic disniformation "Op". Tiny message, tiny "natural" constituency, successful effort to persuade large numbers to support an entire political philosophy against the best interests of 95 percent of them:Yeah, that's the ticket...

:rolleyes:

I mean, did you just cut and paste a BLOG entry as some kind of meaningful evidence??? Is that your blog?


If you find that your politics are in line with those of the "mega rich", the top one percent of Americans who own more than 30 percent of the total wealth of the country, your thinking is probably the result of an investment they have made, partnered with government "psy-ops", that has paid off, in spades, for them, and for the budgets of the government agencies that conceive and coordinate these types of "Ops".
What are the politics of the "mega rich," anyway? Do they actually have a say in the matter, or have you decided what their opinions are for them?

If you think you're one of the few "in the know" because of what you read on the internet, your thinking is probably a result of a profound lack of thinking.

[host]

The "classism" in the US is so deeply ingrained, yet so infrequently acknowledged:
http://pseudoconservativewatch.blogspot.com/2006/10/william-f-buckleys-courageous-fight.html
Monday, October 30, 2006
William F. Buckley's Courageous Fight for Principle--NOT
In "Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader" (http://www.amazon.com/Conservatism-America-since-1930-Reader/dp/0814797997/sr=8-4/qid=1162127374/ref=sr_1_4/102-0114583-5947314?ie=UTF8&s=books) edited by Gregory L. Schneider (2003), one of the readings is William F. Buckley's "Statement of Intentions" for his National Review magazine (pp. 195-200). Buckley lists as "Among our convictions" the following: "The competitive price system is indispensable to liberty and material progress. It is threatened not only by the growth of Big Brother Government, but by the pressure of monopolies--including union monopolies. What is more some labor unions have clearly identified themselves with doctrinaire socialist objectives. The characteristic problems of harassed business have gone unreported for years, with the result that the public has been taught to assume--almost instinctively--that conflicts between labor and management are generally traceable to greed and intransigence part of management (sic). Sometimes they are; often they are not. National Weekly will explore and oppose the inroads upon the market economy caused by monopolies in general, and politically oriented unionism in particular; and it will tell the violated businessman's side of the story."...
....Here is Wikipedia's descriptive account of William F. Buckley's childhood:
"Buckley was born in New York City to lawyer and oil baron William Frank Buckley, Sr., of Irish Catholic descent, and Aloise Steiner, a southerner of Swiss-German descent. The sixth of ten children, young Buckley moved with his family to Sharon, Connecticut. He soon moved to Paris where he attended first grade and learned French. By age seven, he had received formal training in English at a day school in London. As a boy, Buckley developed a love for music, sailing, horses, hunting, skiing, and story telling. All of these interests—and his strong Roman Catholic religious faith—would reflect in his later writings. He is also an accomplished amateur harpsichord player. He attended St John's Beaumont in England at age 13 just before World War II."..
..... he is mainly concerned with "union monopolies"--and this in a country where it took unions until 1938, just 16 years before Buckley was writing, to gain adequate power to organize and fight for working interests. On the other hand, business corporations were given huge aids to their development for decades prior to 1938. The courts, government and police were biased against labor unions throughout most of the period while corporate collectivism was feeding gluttonously.

[Roger J Carlson]

If you find that your politics are in line with those of the "mega rich", the top one percent of Americans who own more than 30 percent of the total wealth of the country, your thinking is probably the result of an investment they have made, partnered with government "psy-ops", that has paid off, in spades, for them, and for the budgets of the government agencies that conceive and coordinate these types of "Ops".Give it a rest, will you? This is a R.I.P. thread.

[host]

Give it a rest, will you? This is a R.I.P. thread.
I can support my opinion that Buckley was an awful man, from the standpoint of the best political and financial interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans.

What better time or place than here, and now, on the occasion of Buckley's death, to make such a case?

This is a politics forum, not a legacy.com obit forum. Is it really only appropriate to post "good things" about Buckley?

If this was the day Nixon died, would your "give it a rest", be appropriate, on a politics forum? Buckley's life was devoted to politics, he devoted himself to the goal of the total triumph of those who already own almost everything, over the rest of us. It cannot be sugercoated.

[Birol]

Then do it in a different thread, Host. Start a new one. Do not disrespect someone's legacy and memory in a thread meant to honor their passing. That's just poor taste.

Also, I know this has been mentioned to you, do not keep copying and pasting entire articles, or near entire articles from other sources onto AW. That is very much frowned upon here.

[host]

Then do it in a different thread, Host. Start a new one. Do not disrespect someone's legacy and memory in a thread meant to honor their passing. That's just poor taste.

Also, I know this has been mentioned to you, do not keep copying and pasting entire articles, or near entire articles from other sources onto AW. That is very much frowned upon here.
I have never participated in a politics forum with so little propensity for debate and so much for bullying, editorial critique, and a lack of any genuine passion about politics. When I saw the thread title, I thought that the "R.I.P." was a cynical reference, I still do.

I don't tell you how or what to post. Please afford me the same courtesy, and consider to what degree you are motivated by your disagreement with my opinions. So many here post of what they know not, with so much conviction. I fully support everything that I post, partly because I see the near total absence of such a practice, and because of the innovation or the internet, it is possible to do so.

[Roger J Carlson]

If this was the day Nixon died, would your "give it a rest", be appropriate, on a politics forum? Yes, in fact, it would. I find it sad that you can't see that.

[Gravity]

...he devoted himself to the goal of the total triumph of those who already own almost everything, over the rest of us.

Good God. Bitter much?

[Haggis]

I have never participated in a politics forum with so little propensity for debate and so much for bullying, editorial critique, and a lack of any genuine passion about politics. When I saw the thread title, I thought that the "R.I.P." was a cynical reference, I still do.

I don't tell you how or what to post. Please afford me the same courtesy, and consider to what degree you are motivated by your disagreement with my opinions. So many here post of what they know not, with so much conviction. I fully support everything that I post, partly because I see the near total absence of such a practice, and because of the innovation or the internet, it is possible to do so.

Host, it is quickly approaching the time when it will not be possible for you to post. You have been asked to modify your behavior several times by board moderators. I suggest you listen to them. I also suggest you read this (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66315) so you may better understand the kind of behavior that's expected of you here.

[Jcomp]

I'm just going to chime in and say that a person's legacy should, it would seem to me, up for potential debate in the politics forum. Whether or not the "R.I.P." is cynical seems somewhat irrelevant to me. Were this Office Party I could see where debating the man's life and legacy would seem a bit much, perhaps tactless even.

But here, so long as the arguments are reasoned and not mere trolling, I would think it should be acceptable.

[Jcomp]

Host, it is quickly approaching the time when it will not be possible for you to post. You have been asked to modify your behavior several times by board moderators. I suggest you listen to them. I also suggest you read this (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94156) so you may better understand the kind of behavior that's expected of you here.

You mis-linked.

[Haggis]

Link corrected. Thanks, Jcomp.

[Birol]

I have never participated in a politics forum with so little propensity for debate and so much for bullying, editorial critique, and a lack of any genuine passion about politics. When I saw the thread title, I thought that the "R.I.P." was a cynical reference, I still do.

I don't tell you how or what to post. Please afford me the same courtesy, and consider to what degree you are motivated by your disagreement with my opinions. So many here post of what they know not, with so much conviction. I fully support everything that I post, partly because I see the near total absence of such a practice, and because of the innovation or the internet, it is possible to do so.

Here's the thing. I don't typically "hang out" in P&CE. I just don't care to discuss my political opinions or viewpoints on the internet. So, I don't come in here much, except when a situation or an individual warrants it and the people who DO mod this board aren't immediately available. I honestly don't really know what your opinions are or how they compare to my own, nor have I said anything about your opinions. They're not the issue. You have only tried to make your opinions the issue because you'd rather play the martyr, claiming you are being harassed due to a bias against your beliefs, than admit that your behavior is anti-social and does not conform to the standards of the community in which you have chosen to engage.

That, I promise you, won't get you far. Not here. Not with me.

[Birol]

I'm just going to chime in and say that a person's legacy should, it would seem to me, up for potential debate in the politics forum. Whether or not the "R.I.P." is cynical seems somewhat irrelevant to me. Were this Office Party I could see where debating the man's life and legacy would seem a bit much, perhaps tactless even.

But here, so long as the arguments are reasoned and not mere trolling, I would think it should be acceptable.

Yes. Agreed. But not in a thread meant to commemorate them. It's one thing to debate the Iraqi war. It's another thing to do so at a soldier's funeral.

If Host would like to have an intelligent discussion about Buckley's legacy, rather than just express condolences at his passing, then he should start another thread.

[Plot Device]

I have never participated in a politics forum with so little propensity for debate and so much for bullying, editorial critique, and a lack of any genuine passion about politics. When I saw the thread title, I thought that the "R.I.P." was a cynical reference, I still do.

I don't tell you how or what to post. Please afford me the same courtesy, and consider to what degree you are motivated by your disagreement with my opinions. So many here post of what they know not, with so much conviction. I fully support everything that I post, partly because I see the near total absence of such a practice, and because of the innovation or the internet, it is possible to do so.

Host, I can see by your post count and your join date that you are a newbie. Here's some advice. Take it or leave it:

1) You have been asked --with a very stern tone-- by two mods to be respectful of Mr. Buckley in THIS thread for no other reason than the fact this thread is an R.I.P thread. But you have rebuffed both those very stern requests, insisting you have some kind of a right and/or duty to disregard those two mods.

2) You have been openly invited/directed by one of those mods to launch a different thread here in this same forum where you are assured full freedom to lambast Mr. Buckley's politics to your heart's content. But you have refused to do so and prefer to plant your soapbox stubbornly in THIS thread.

3) You're not at all succesfully getting the drift of the established culture of civility and protocols of this forum. So you're coming across as quite thick and most likely not winning any friends or converts.

4) Get a clue, and get it fast. Or you are in danger of suffering (at best) pariah-hood, or (at worst) a banning.

[SC Harrison]

I have never participated in a politics forum with so little propensity for debate and so much for bullying, editorial critique, and a lack of any genuine passion about politics.

I strongly recommend you give up trying to educate us and go somewhere else where your brilliance will be understood and appreciated.

[Jcomp]

What are the politics of the "mega rich," anyway?

Get mega-richer?

[davids]

Get mega-richer?

yes and it is pure joy!!

[Cranky]

Get mega-richer?

Hell, when you're that rich, you don't have to do much of anything. Compounded interest will do the work.

Bwhahahahahaha!

(sorry)

[davids]

Hell, when you're that rich, you don't have to do much of anything. Compounded interest will do the work.

Bwhahahahahaha!

(sorry)

so true Cranky-so true-ah the tedium! I loved Mr. Buckley he stood for everything that I stand for or at least hire people to stand for me!

[John Paton]

That, I promise you, won't get you far. Not here. Not with me.

host

That's why they call him the scary one.

Ignore at your peril.

[Cranky]

host

That's why they call him the scary one.

Ignore at your peril.

Pssst... she

[Jcomp]

Hell, when you're that rich, you don't have to do much of anything. Compounded interest will do the work.

Bwhahahahahaha!

(sorry)

True that. I think the only available next step is to become mega-ultra-gamma rich.

Really, I don't think you can accumulate that much wealth, unless it falls in your lap, without developing an insatiable appetite to keep succeeding. And I don't mean this negatively or positively, I mean it as, "it is what it is." Once you start becoming wealthy--pass it on for generations / my name is royalty wealthy--how do you hit a ceiling? How do you one day just say, "All right, I just hit ten figures, I'm good. That's it, I'm done." I think it might get to a point where folks that rich don't even understand how rich they are, as if they exist in an entirely separate world. It becomes a competition where they always want to succeed and they unwittingly become mild versions of Daniel Plainview.

I'm just speculating of course. One day I'll be able to come back and tell everyone what it's really like.

[robeiae]

The "classism" in the US is so deeply ingrained, yet so infrequently acknowledged:
BS. You use one person--Buckley--and the particulars of his background to make a sweeping generalization about the United States? Really? Do you have any idea how ludicrous that is?

And then you have the audacity to claim "I fully support everything that I post..."?

Now, if you want to talk socio-economic classes in the U.S. across history, I'm game. Of course, we should start at the beginning--of U.S. history--not the 1930's or 1960's. That's just silly.

I would suggest a good starting point would be Albion's Seed.

[xhouseboy]

I fully support everything that I post, partly because I see the near total absence of such a practice, and because of the innovation or the internet, it is possible to do so.

This Internet's got to a lot to answer for.

It's largely at fault for the drop off in sales of bass drums, loudhailers, and sandwich boards.

[Gary]

Something to think about:

....how do you know he wasn't undermining our country, too? Look at the percentage of workers in the US workforce, covered by collective bargaining contracts, in the private sector, when Buckley founded the National Review, in the 50s and compare it to the percentage covered now. Mission accomplished?


This forum might be more suited to your debating style.

http://www.oldhippie.com/forums/

[Duncan J Macdonald]

This Internet's got to a lot to answer for.

It's largely at fault for the drop off in sales of bass drums, loudhailers, and sandwich boards.
And soapboxes. Don't forget the soapboxes.