Thursday, January 31, 2013

What is the News Worth Knowing and Why Don't We Know It?

By Rich Kozlovich
For weeks I have been watching the news in stark amazement.  Am I the only one who noticed that an awful lot of hours have been devoted to a football player named Te’o, a cycler named Lance, Mrs. Obama’s new hair-do and Bob Beckel claiming that the only thing America “really” wanted to know during Steve Kroft’s interview with the President of the United States and Hillary Clinton was how they got worked things out together to get along. 
Say what?  
My mother, who turned 88 this year has a phrase for this kind of thing:  “That falls under the category of who gives a crap!”  Only she doesn't say crap.  Clearly a fit phrase for this whole last couple of weeks of news…. well .......actually most of what passes for ‘news’ from the main stream media. 
By comparison how much time has been devoted discussing about efforts by N. Korea and Iran to develop a nuclear delivery system. You know - two countries who were part of what President Bush called the Axis of Evil -which of course made the media smugly snicker.  How about the potential military conflict between China and Japan over the Senkakus islands in the East China Sea?  Mali is just now coming to the media's attention.  I linked information about this  on October 13th.  On to Timbuktu! A New Jolly Little War We Can't Find on a Map, on October 30th , -What Mali's Crisis Means for the Future of Western Military Intervention, and on November 2nd,  Welcome to Islam: The Sound of Silence in Mali.
What passes for news is full of meaningless dribble that is an effort in misdirection from the facts about important realities that allow people to develop understanding and make good decisions.   Instead we get news that is filled with lies of omission, lies of commission and outright bias.  I wonder how these people sleep at night.   The word jaded comes to mind when I think of the main stream media. 
Or is it more?
We have to understand that the media was heavily infiltrated with Stalinist sympathizers or outright Communists from the 1920's on. But not only the media!  During the Great Depression FDR expanded government tremendously when he created all those new agencies.  Agencies which very quickly became infiltrated by Communists, allowing them to act secretly as agents for the Soviet Union while on America's payroll.  Largely with the help secret communists acting as agents for Stalin like Harry Hopkins.   
The intercepted messages between the Soviet Union and their agents in the U.S. (known as the Venona intercepts) clearly showed that Hopkins was contact No. 19 who KGB defector Oleg Godievsky named as a Soviet intelligence agent. In fact he quoted another KGB operative Iskhak Akhmerov as saying that Hopkins was “their most important Soviet war-time agent in the United States”.  Hopkins was FDR’s closest aide, often seeing him daily, and even living in the White House.  
Hopkins was directly responsible for getting Roosevelt, who was totally unprepared and extremely ill, to go to Yalta and negotiate what would become the fate of Eastern Europe under Stalin's iron boot. As Reed Irvine states in his January 5, 2000 article, Harry Hopkins: Traitor, Not Hero”;
 “Hopkins said the Russians had been "reasonable and farseeing." Robert Sherwood, a Roosevelt speechwriter, called Yalta "a monstrous fraud." Hopkins had been instrumental in our supplying, with no conditions, the arms that enabled Stalin to defeat the Germans. He helped seal their control of Eastern Europe, and he is suspected of having authorized shipments of uranium that helped them develop their A-bomb."
More importantly it was discovered by the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS), forerunner of the CIA, (both of which were infiltrated by Soviet agents during the war and after) that Stalin was "diverting American Lend-Lease supplies shipped to Russia via the Pacific to the control of the Japanese, in exchange for materials Moscow was receiving from Japan."  When this betrayal was discovered by the OSS "they were ordered by highest authority: drop the subject, make no mention of it."  Apparently serving the interests of the Soviet Union was a far larger priority than serving American interests and saving American lives. 
In spite of all the propaganda from the media about FDR he wasn’t the brightest pebble in the brook.  He, like his cousin Teddy was a failure in his business ventures, and his understanding of leftist dictators was appalling, especially Stalin, which Hopkins nourished.   By the way; if you look Hopkins up in Wikipedia you would think was a wonderful public servant, instead of the traitor that he was. 
As for the media, there were people like I.F. Stone who was very influential in the U.S. among left wingers, and who was according to KGB general Oleg Kalugin was “functioning as a Soviet intelligence asset”,  which was later confirmed through Venona.  It has been touted that he broke with the KGB, but apparently he hadn’t broken with his loyalty to Stalin or the Soviet Union or International Communism - take your pick - because he later re-established contact with them. 
Then there was Michael Straight, who became editor of the New Republic, a “left-liberal magazine …read by many influential people in government and elsewhere”, founded by his parents.  He was recruited into the Communist Party while attending Cambridge University in England, along with infamous Soviet spies Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean and Anthony Blunt.  All acting as Soviet agents!  Later he claimed that he broke with the Soviets, but “for years he neglected to tell anyone about his Cambridge comrades, specifically Guy Burgess, whom Straight knew to be working at the British embassy in Washington during the Korean War and undoubtedly sharing Anglo-American military secrets with his Soviet bosses.”   We really do have to start thinking clearly about this.  Those who presumably left the Communist party yet refused to testify about those who remained were protecting Soviet agents because those who stayed had to be agents or else.  

He was also related by “marriage to two certified Soviet agents – Louis Dolivet and Gustavo Duran”, also about whom he wasn’t “conspicuously forthcoming”.  This was the editor of the New Republic “who regularly instructed his liberal readers on Cold War issues.”
Then there was “famed newspaperman Drew Person, whose sensational exposes in his syndicated column, appearing in hundreds of papers and widely broadcast radio show, made him a prominent and powerful figure”, who made a “specialty of attacking anti-Communist spokesman of the day in the executive branch and Congress.” Although I am not aware of any evidence that he personally was a Communist, or a Soviet agent, two of his “legmen” were.  This would appear to be a classic case of infiltration, just as it was with FDR.  Many of these types were fellow travelers, or as Stalin described them, “useful idiots”.
When you look more deeply at that media you find startling facts that seem almost beyond belief.  On November 12, 2012 I wrote an article about the New York Times entitled; The Lady is a Hag.  I felt it was important to do some history on the media and the number one socialist dictator in the world - Fidel Castro.  What follows is from that article.
At the death of CBS news guru Don Hewitt Humberto Fontova wrote an article calling him a Castro Enabler because of “his media advance-work helping install a Stalinist regime in Cuba”.
He went on to say that; “Hewitt of CBS still seemed proud of his work as a Castro media auxiliary. During that interim, over 20,000 Cubans were murdered by firing squad and beaten or starved to death in forced labor camps. Another 70-80 thousand were ripped apart by sharks or drowned in the Florida straits (attempting to flee a nation that previously took in more immigrants per-capita than the U.S.” (Please follow the link to see the truth about Hewitt’s deliberate chicanery over the interview with Elian’s father by Dan Rather.  If you had doubts that there is such a thing as leftist corruption amongst “journalists” this would certainly dispel them.)
What does that have to do with the New York Times you may ask?   This is merely demonstrating how badly infested the main stream media is with leftist thinking, and has been for decades.   
Fontova went on to say that New York Times reporter Herbert Matthews “made Fidel Castro an international pop star on the front page of the world's most important newspaper.” “The February 1957 NYT's headline article proclaimed that, "Fidel Castro has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore Cuba's Constitution....this amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic and therefore anti-Communist."  That was a lie and they all knew it.
But that shouldn’t surprise anyone that the NYT would lie about socialist dictators.  Walter Duranty is in my opinion the epitome of infamy when it comes to journalistic corruption in favor of leftism.   Who was Walter Duranty? 
 In this article by Roger Simon; “Announcing the Winners of the Inaugural Walter Duranty Prize", (a prize for journalistic mendacity) they state that Duranty deliberately “whitewashed the repressive evil deeds of the Soviet Union”…. most prominently in the case of the Ukrainian Holodomor: the forced starvation of between 1.2 and 12 million ethnic Ukrainians, depending on whose estimates you believe.  In other words, a lot of people.  Duranty called that genocide “an exaggeration and malignant propaganda”.  This appeared in” newspaper of record”, the New York Times.  British author Malcolm Muggeridge called Duranty: “The greatest liar I have met in fifty years of journalism.” Duranty also made sure that the Soviets knew that the New York Times would “vet all reports about” the Soviet Union before it appeared in the NYT; “effectively making that newspaper a U.S. branch of Pravda, for a time anyway.”  Duranty won the Pulitizer Prize for his mendacity; a prize that the NYT refuses to return, and the prize committee refuses to revoke in spite of the now known truth of his actions.
Simon notes that polls have shown that sixty percent of the general public has little trust in the media.  He wonders who are the other forty percent?  Good question since it is clear that the media supports a movement that has murdered over one hundred million people, kept them starved, disease ridden, down trodden, abused and tyrannized since the terrible  beginning of that movement; The French Revolution.  What kind of person would have confidence in them? 
For the media to support leftist thinking is unconscionable.  The leftist media knows the truth and must be insane, otherwise how could they possibly support such thinking?  And now society begins to understand.  The people have been lied to by these powerful entities; they will not forget or forgive.  
As for the “Old Gray Lady”! I keep hearing seemingly conservative commentators who feel saddened that the Times is dying.  I think perhaps that insanity is an infectious disease in journalism, or perhaps they don't have the courage to be a rock in the current.  Heterodoxy isn't for the faint of heart!
No one can be characterized as a lady who, for all of these decades, has been guilty  of promoting such a vile cancerous philosophy as socialism.  She's not a lady, she's a hag, and much of the media is equally as vile.  When the “Old Gray Hag” disappears that will be a day for rejoicing.  Not only for ourselves and our children and grandchildren, but also for the 100 million poor suffering people who were slaughtered by the socialist monsters of the 20th century.  Monsters they supported!
This brings me back to my point.  What is the news worth knowing and why don’t we know it?  I know that it can't be a conspiracy to keep us uninformed, misinformed and ignorant because we all know "there is no such thing as a conspiracy".  And I know that must be so because my friends who don't read history books have told me so.  So then, if the answer is that there is no conspiracy, I still have to ask; what is the news worth knowing and why don't we know it?   

Gerard Jackson wrote this in his article Is Journalism and Treason Now Joined at the Hip?, he  notes:
"Treason is an ugly word and an even uglier crime. In simple language treason is the act of betraying one’s country to those who would destroy it and enslave its people. This definition is so simple that leftwing sophisticated journalists sneer at it. To them treason is merely relative with one country’s traitor being another country’s hero. This is the appalling moral and intellectual state of current Western journalism. The moral rot runs so deep that one despairs of living long enough to see any improvement."
On any issue of consequence I feel that it is important to know the history, i.e., the events and characters involved with the issue.  Tell me the history and I will give you the answer and the history of the main stream media clearly shows who and what they are.  And they are not honorable! Some of the most prominent people in the main stream media and Hollywood have declared that Fidel Castro - a man who is clearly a mass murderer - is one of the greatest men in modern history.  Are we to believe his crimes aren’t known to these people?

Now the next questions every clear thinking person should be asking are these.  What are they promoting and what are their goals and why - and based on their past history can they be sane?

Recommended reading.  Stalin's Secret Agents by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein.

No comments:

Post a Comment