#and the attitudes expressed by the columnists are real

[carriesthewind]

Jesus fucking christ.

Today's "horrible childcare advice from Slate's Care and Feeding" is, surprisingly, not from Doyin Richards. Instead, it's from Allison Price.

The relevant part from the letter writer:

"I’m at my wits’ end about my 4 ½-year-old son’s bedtime. He hates going to bed, always has*, and bedtime is almost always a struggle. We’ve tried everything. We have a bedtime routine, we don’t use screens, we dim the lighting, give transition warnings, and offer choices. When we try to set boundaries, he often responds with threats, like “if you don’t read me this story, I’ll never go to bed.” He squirms all over the bed at tuck-in time. There are frequent curtain calls, even though we try to preempt them. His bedtime is late for his age, he falls asleep between 9 and 10 p.m. regardless of when we start bedtime. He’s usually up by 7:30 am but not always."

*Later in the letter, the parent reiterates that he has struggled with bedtime for literally his entire 4 ½-year-long life.

Allison's response:

"You’re not in a sleep struggle, you’re in a power struggle, and no amount of dim lighting can help with that. He’s acting the way he is because he thinks he gets to be in charge of when he sleeps and when he wakes. You need to erect an absolute bedtime routine, stick to it, and attach consequences to it...If he deviates from it, he loses a bedtime story (or some other natural consequence)...He doesn’t acknowledge your authority at bedtime, so you have to sort of imbue these other structures with authority until he gets the picture."

Look. I understand that children as young as 4 can and do intentionally push at boundaries. But JESUS CHRIST if the kid has been like this since he was born, maybe there is something else going on! Maybe if he is struggling with something he has struggled with his entire life, he's not doing it maliciously because he refuses to accept the proper Hierarchy of Authority and "just go to sleep" (something that it seems, from the letter, like he possibly physically can't do). And maybe the proper response isn't to punish him for doing things like "moving" and "not being able to, as a toddler, sit in total silence and quiet for hours when he can't fall asleep."

As someone who has struggled with a "normal" sleep schedule my entire life, my heart breaks for the kids whose parents read this advice and follow it (or use it to affirm their existing decisions). Sleeping disorders are real problem that real people - including kids - deal with. You can't punish it out of a person, and acting like it is intentional malice doesn't teach people coping strategies - that's just cruelty.

[gadawg-404]

“Navigate the buoys and set it up,” Jimmy Buffett said.

There was a lyrical lift to his voice over the phone decades ago that said he was smiling. Or maybe I just heard that. The singer and actor Bill Murray bought a sliver of the Miami Marlins, then a minor-league baseball team, and the floated idea was to have a young sportswriter sit with them at a game in Key West. Me.

Buffett died Friday night and the obituaries naturally center on the tropical lifestyle of songs that made you want to sail off to the Keys. “Margaritaville”. “A Pirate Looks at Forty”. “Changes in Latitude/Changes in Attitude”.

But Buffett also was a South Florida sports fan in a way that also expressed his fundamental irreverence, passionate search for fun and over the years could leave you snorting in your tropical drink.

His appearances were regular, his glimpses anecdotal. There was a rumor he bought a 5 percent stake in the minor-league Marlins in 1989 when I called his Key West office. His assistant asked how I heard. I didn’t want to tell how.

“Ah, you heard it on the Coconut Telegraph,” said the assistant, Sunshine Smith. Life imitated lyrics.

Buffett came on the phone and explained his interest: “I’ve been a baseball nut for years and thought it would be fun. I like the fact it’s a non-polluting industry with no tall buildings.”

That kind of verbal dexterity was welcome in a sports world often lacking in its fundamental function of fun. The minor-league Marlins didn’t work with the planned split of games Key West and the Mark Light Stadium. But that didn’t matter. He took his swing.

Buffett’s perpetual irreverence was never mistaken for lack of passion, as any Miami Heat fan remembers. He was a Heat season-ticket holder for years who showed up to games in a trademark tan and philosophically flowery shirt. He was a friend of the team. He joined team president Pat Riley in singing, “Heard it through the Grapevine” at a charity event. He partied on New Year’s Eve with Heat owner Micky Arison. He could be seen watching a game with Miami Dolphins quarterback Dan Marino in 2005 or playing the steel drums during a timeout at the 2013 NBA Finals.

Buffett regularly was a real fan, too, as best represented in a 2001 game against the then-hated New York Knicks. Referee Joe Forte stopped the game in the fourth quarter, called security and pointed for them to remove someone.

It was Buffett.

“He was using profanity,” Forte said afterward. “There was a little boy sitting next to him and a lady sitting by him. He used some words he knows he shouldn’t have used so I asked security to move him to another location. We don’t have to take that kind of thing.”

Riley, then the coach, motioned Forte over to him after Buffett walked up the stairs to a higher-level seat.

“Do you know who that is?” Riley asked the referee, who said he didn’t know. Forte still didn’t know when Riley said it was Jimmy Buffett.

“Do you mean to tell me you’ve never been a ‘Parrothead,’ in your life?’’ Riley said, referring to the nickname of Buffett fans. Riley then said of Forte, “He thought I was insulting him and wanted to give me a technical for calling him a Parrothead.’ ”

For years, it was a wonderfully South Florida subplot to sports scene. The Knicks had Spike Lee. Buffett was ours. All ours. Or so we thought until the Marlins — the major-league Marlins by this time — showed up for Game 1 of the National League Championship Series in Chicago in 2003.

There was Buffett in a No. 22 Chicago jersey, the same as Cubs starter Mark Prior. Our Jimmy was theirs. He stretched out of the press box in the seventh inning to sing, “Take Me Out To The Ballgame.”

As a South Florida columnist, I couldn’t allow this to happen without questioning him. I waited in the hallway outside the small booth he sang. When he came out, I asked him, “Jimmy, how could you do this to South Florida?”

He laughed, as he should have and said, “I’ve been a Cubs fan for 32 years.”

So, he really was like many South Florida fans. He had allegiances rooted elsewhere. Buffett also said that night he let Marlins have the rights to his minor-league team’s nickname for free.

“As a gift, I gave it to them, let them have it,” he said.

Buffett came to fewer sports events as the years moved on. The last time I saw him was on a Key West stage in January. The idea of going to a minor-league game with him in Key West was long forgotten, just as that team was.

But as the world mourned a musician Saturday, South Florida also lost a sports fan. He was irreverent and tropically tanned but genuinely passionate as any son of a son of a Heat fan should remember.

Author

Dave Hyde | Sports Columnist

Dave Hyde is Sports Columnist for the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

[jed-thomas]

Ministers with and without Portfolios

When you want to demonstrate your sincerity, you write a letter.

The summer is nearing its summit and 1982 is disappearing in a confused fog. Somewhere, Micheal Foot opens up an envelope. An ambitious young candidate, recently selected in some leafy suburb of London, has written to him. You can feel the youth in his writing - and, regrettably, a palpable eagerness to impress. Nevertheless, there are some admirable phrases:

Socialism ultimately must appeal to the better minds of the people. You cannot do that if you are tainted overmuch with a pragmatic period in power.

For men like Foot, members of a modern British tradition, politics and oratory are not separable. Even the timbre of your voice comes into it. On some cold picket-line, at some bored union congress, or against the baying of the other half of the House, you have to fill the air and rouse the spirits. In so many ways, the tradition of British socialism is a poetic tradition.

Maybe, then, he spots it a mile away. A lack of inspiration, the absence of a real perspective. That faint sense of pantomime. Or otherwise, Michael Foot, soon to be an ex-leader of the Labour Party, dimly registers the writer’s display of party-loyalty and just puts the letter aside. This man had crashed the party’s vote-share in Beaconsfield. Tony Blair is saving face.

X

Last Friday, it was announced that the constituency of Hartlepool would return its first Conservative MP in 62 years. Labour’s vote-share crashed by 16%. Perhaps most astonishingly, the Conservative victory in Hartlepool is only the second time in 40 years that a party in government has taken a seat from their opposition.

In immediate response, Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer MP moved to reorganise the Labour Party’s campaign office. Importantly, Deputy Leader Angela Rayner MP was removed from her position as Chair of the Labour Party, the position ultimately responsible for election campaigns. As the Deputy Leader is elected separately, Starmer’s decision has been criticised as an attempt to undermine the influence of a senior elected official. However, as the days have passed, Rayner has emerged with a new position - or, more accurately, a few new positions. Angela Rayner MP now shadows Michael Gove MP as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and occupies the newly-created, elegantly-titled office of Shadow Secretary for the Future of Work.

Former MP for Hartlepool and Minister without Portfolio under Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson has been named by sources within the party to Guardian columnist Owen Jones. According to Jones, Mandelson signed off the press strategy for Shadow Cabinet members following the result in his former constituency.

X

It’s raining in Stockport. The King Street bridge is abandoned. Looking at the slow river, she knows that she is a cliché, a tired punchline. And she knows that she’ll have to leave school. Other girls have done it, so she’ll get through it, too. But it’s an abrupt and unceremonious change to whatever path she was on before. 16 and pregnant. A joke. Then again, wasn’t this always the intended outcome, in one way or another? Cornered. It was going to be a long time before she understood that there was anything that could be done about that.

The wind takes a few of the leaflets out from under his armpit and scatters them all over the carpark of Oxted station. A favour, he thinks. It’s 8 in the morning, they’re all commuters. No-one’s taking them. As if some serious city lawyer is going to read about the future of proletarian resistance, let alone in a pamphlet handed to him by a spotty adolescent. East Surrey Young Socialists. He isn’t blind to the humour of that. Some preachy privately-educated Surrey boy. He had tried to explain that he��d gotten into Reigate fairly and squarely, that it’d only just started asking for fees in the last few years. Much to his chagrin, by the way. People around here don’t listen. If they did, they’d see that there was nothing to be scared of. But they’re closed off, rigid. It’s enough to make you want to pack it all in, honestly.

His father was staring out at the snow falling on the houses of Hampstead Garden in one of his attitudes of preparation. He had an abiding sense of danger, of impending calamity. Peter always attributed that to his religiosity. Eschatology. The End Times. “Have you compiled your application yet?” “Of course, Dad.” Peter knew the counterpoint melody. Your mother and I have worked too hard. He would say it like that because his mother is the real concerned party. Descendants of the Labour Party aristocracy are obsessed with elite education. He is pretty sure that he will get in. He’s clever, goes to a good grammar. And when he gets in, he is going to have fun, the sort of fun you can only have at a place like Oxford. Judgement Day is a long way off.

The Hampstead Garden Suburb was the brain-child of two idealist architects, Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker. The pair were disciples of the Arts and Crafts movement, an aesthetic philosophy with global reach that found particular purchase among British socialists; indeed, Unwin was a life-long and active member of various socialist organisations. Hampstead Garden was to be spacious, communal and open to all social classes. It was built on land purchased from Eton College by a wealthy patron. The Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust Ltd., established in 1906, executed Parker and Unwin’s designs.

Peter Mandelson was born in 1953 to an advertising manager and the daughter of Herbert Morrison, the Leader of the House of Commons under Clement Attlee. He was raised in the Hampstead Garden Suburb, attended a local grammar school and then, studied at Oxford. As a teenager, he was a member of the Young Communist League. At university, he joined the Oxford University Labour Club.

As a veteran in public relations by the time of Tony Blair’s bid for leadership of the Labour Party in 1994, Mandelson, distrusted by trade union representatives within the party, played his part in the successful campaign in near anonymity, being referred to by staff only as “Bobby”. In his acceptance speech, Blair used the moniker when expressing gratitude to his campaign team. After running Blair’s successful general election campaign a few years later, Mandelson was appointed to the office of Minister without Portfolio, allowing him to attend Cabinet meetings without having any formal obligations. Critics have likened it to a sinecure. In 1998, Mandelson resigned from government, having failed to declare dealings with millionaire Cabinet colleague, Geoffrey Robinson. He is now a peer, happy to be part of the club.

Oxted is an incredibly old town. When William the Conqueror ordered a survey in 1086, Oxted had its various assets - hides, churches, ploughs - recorded. It remained a sleepy time-capsule until it was reached by the new railway system in 1884 and run-off trade from London began to bring money into the town. At the beginning of the last decade, it was the twentieth richest town in Britain by income.

Born to a nurse and a toolmaker in 1962, Keir Starmer was named for the first parliamentary leader of what would become the Labour Party, Keir Hardie. He attended a grammar school and was the first in his family to graduate from university, obtaining an undergraduate degree in law from the University of Leeds. As a result, he undertook postgraduate study at Oxford and became a barrister in 1987. During this time, he edited Socialist Alternative, a controversial magazine associated with various factions on the Marxist left.

Starmer is a relatively green politician, having only been selected as a candidate for Holborn and St. Pancras in 2014. The majority of his life has been spent working in the legal system. In 2010, Starmer successfully prosecuted 3 Labour MPs and a Conservative peer on charges of false accounting. In 2011, he encouraged the rapid prosecution of several rioters, sometimes on the testimony of undercover police officers. In 2012, Starmer brought a case against former Energy Secretary Chris Huhne which resulted in the only resignation of a Cabinet Minister over legal proceedings in British parliamentary history. In 2020, as Leader of the Opposition, Starmer ordered Labour MPs to abstain on the third reading of the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill, which granted undercover police officers full legal immunity for all actions undertaken on duty. Desperate to be heard, Starmer re-tweeted a Guardian column by Angela Rayner MP, adding: ‘We’ll make sure you know Labour is on your side.’

Stockport lies just south-east of the City of Manchester at the point where the Rivers Tame and Goyt become the Mersey. Although bisected by the feudal borders of the counties Cheshire and Lancashire, it belongs to a different epoch. Stockport is a town with almost 300 years of industrial history, home to one of the first mechanised silk factories in the entire British Isles. Surveying all of England for his 1845 history ‘The Condition of the English Working Class’, Friedrich Engels remarked that Stockport was ‘renowned as one of the duskiest, smokiest holes’ to be found in the industrial heartlands.

By the time Angela Rayner was born on a Stockport council estate in 1980, the country seemed eager to be free of this history. This eagerness sometimes manifested as a disdain for trade unionists and benefit claimants. Both of Rayner’s parents were eligible for benefits. And at 31, Angela Rayner was a senior official for the public-sector union Unison.

Having left school at 16 to raise her first son, she got her GCSEs by studying part-time at Stockport College, where she eventually qualified as a social care worker. At work, she clashed with management, discovering a flair for negotiation that would get her elected as a union steward. Finally, after years and years of confusion and uncertainty, someone was being made to answer.

[lydiarosemakin]

Personal Liberation vs Public Objectification

It may not come as a shock to some, but in 2017, the binary notion of feminist vs. not feminist is still very much alive. Shock and scandal ensued this week when it was revealed that Emma Watson, feminist campaigner and UN ambassador, had posed nude in a spread for Vanity Fair. Some Twitter users were eager to hurl her into the ‘Bad Feminist’ bin for her failure to comply with her own feminist ideals, while others commended her for her sense of empowerment.

The photograph in question was one of many included in the in-depth profile which revealed several artistic takes on clothing and couture. Specifically, the only image which could be considered even slightly risqué shows Watson posing in a white lace skirt and a crochet open top by Burberry. Yet the world ignored the context of the article because of the visibility of her breasts. Of course, even if the photo had been intended to be sexual rather than artistic or if there had been ten other similar photos, Watson’s choice to express herself in such a way rests solely with herself, and is not incompatible with her previous decisions to speak out against the intrinsic sexualisation and objectification of the female body.

One of the first to take to Twitter to criticise the image was Julia Hartley-Brewer, a Talkradio presenter and Telegraph columnist. She questioned why posing topless for a “posh magazine” like Vanity Fair was “empowering”, yet doing it for page 3 signified “exploitation”. In other words, would Watson’s nudity really be deemed so liberating if she was a working-class woman from Glasgow on page 3 of the Sun, or is liberation only for the elite?

Perhaps, however, the nature of the photos themselves is more relevant than the subject’s social class. Have the critics considered it possible that, unlike those of page 3 models, the photo of Watson may not have even been intended to be sexual and to perceive it as inherently such is arguably sexist in itself? Should female nudity necessarily be equated with sexuality? Watson is not responsible for society’s preoccupation with such matters.

In a BBC interview earlier this week, the 26-year-old actress said that her decision to pose topless did not subvert her feminist beliefs, stating that “Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women. It's about freedom, it's about liberation, it's about equality.” Thus, Watson has firmly positioned herself as an advocate for choice and has appeared to suggest that feminists should not be undermining one another or dictating the attitudes of others. Individual and subjective reasoning is a necessary basis for gender equality. If Watson doesn’t feel objectified, who’s to say she has been? Her previous objections to the perceived public objectification experienced by other women who have been photographed topless should not prevent her from making her own choices about her own body and to suggest so would simply undermine the core concepts of feminism.

In light of the current institutional and structural barriers preventing women from progressing, mainstream feminism needs to encompass more than just white-washed discussions of gender stereotypes and body image. Of course, these are still relevant and important subjects but there are certainly more pertinent issues to agonise over than whether one particular woman is or isn’t a hypocrite. There should be a larger focus amongst feminists over issues such as FGM, police violence against women of colour and the shocking endemic of sexual assaults on college campuses. To expend energy on obsessing over the actions of a woman who is already making positive contributions to global gender politics through her role as a UN ambassador seems comparatively frivolous.

So, what is the difference between personal liberation and public objectification? The various different angles and belief systems within the feminist movement can be contradictory in themselves. For example, different forums and websites can show immensely different viewpoints between individual feminists on similar issues. However, the common goal remains the liberation of women and the achievement of equality in a society which is currently patriarchal. Watson’s branch of feminism seems to suggest that, rather than categorising an individual’s choices as examples of bad feminism or good feminism based on a one-size-fits-all philosophy, it is important to consider the personal perceptions of each individual woman and the impact her own choices have on her and her own physical and emotional wellbeing. Perhaps a woman defining her own boundaries of independent autonomy and freedom of thought despite the expectations of any one movement is a prime example of this branch of feminism. Thus, the real difference between objectification and liberation rests solely in the hands of the woman who is affected.  

One thing’s for sure: the fact that Watson receives so much criticism over every facet of her behaviour says something sad about the current climate of competitiveness amongst fourth-wave feminists. Twitter policing of the traits and actions of self-proclaimed feminists is becoming more and more pervasive and it's damaging the momentum and reputation of the movement. That's not to say that criticism within the feminist community shouldn't exist; it's always been prevalent and it's always been important because without discussion and continual questioning, how can we move forward, evolve and improve? However, the competitive and spiteful form in which this criticism and pedantry has begun to take shape in recent times amongst fourth-wave feminists is becoming increasingly concerning.

-March, 2017, The Gaudi

[straycatboogie]

2022/11/02 English

Today I worked late. This morning I read Susumu Sogo's "Can't live without movies 1999-2002" as usual. When I was 40 years old, I learned about his book and decided to read it. Since then, this author has been my model of how I should get older and more mature for me. I am already 47 years old and have to live through the process of getting older. I adore Susumu Sogo's style of learning that way of getting mature. I have also some friends who are walking in front of me. That is precious to me.

I listened to Original Love's songs. One of their songs, "Million Secrets of Jazz" gripped my mind suddenly. I can live this life because of Jazz... I guess I can understand what this song says. I am not living with great ideologies or isms. Indeed, I certainly have a dream or a hope, but it is as important that I can enjoy the groove of Jazz and Hip-hop which sounds friendly to me. I also have enjoyed various favorite novelists and columnists, and delicious meals. I can enjoy this sober life. That is good.

I have a job, delicious meals as I wrote, and a place I can stay. If I try not to be so greedy, my life is good... I also have many friends. I talked with Judith on WhatsApp and she said that I am a friend of hers. Ah, when I believed that no one couldn't have worth to be trusted, I thought everyone hated and laughed at me so I must act like everybody was my enemy. It was foolish. Now I feel not afraid of showing this myself straightly. I show myself plainly, and that attitude helps me to make friends. In this diary and the real...I show myself and they accept me. I can feel the touch.

After 10 years, what life would wait for me? If I become my 50s... the 50s is the era Yoshikichi Furui wrote his "Karioujyouden Shibun". I can never write that kind of "ultra profound" novel (and I might not need to write). I live my life and that's all. What is the thing I can trust certainly? As I wrote before, I will keep on reading Haruki Murakami and Susumu Sogo. I also try to talk to myself by writing my diaries like this. I would get the complete form of my life. I could try to speak English more. I want to have the chance... I might try to find the chance to express myself in English more aggressively.

[xtruss]

The Panel Censorship

Is Free Speech Under Threat From 'Cancel Culture'? Four Writers Respond

— An open letter has ignited a heated discussion on the limits of political debate

— Nesrine Malik, Jonathan Freedland, Zoe Williams and Samuel Moyn | Wednesday 8 July, 2020 | The Guardian USA

Author Noam Chomsky. ‘Any letter that carries the signatures of both the former George W Bush speechwriter David Frum – the man who coined the phrase ‘axis of evil’ – and Noam Chomsky is bound to get attention.’ Photograph: Heuler Andrey/AFP/Getty Images

A group of 150 academics, writers and activists have signed an open letter in Harper’s magazine expressing concern that “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments” are “[weakening] norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”. Four writers weigh up the issues

Nesrine Malik: Don’t confuse being told you’re wrong with the baying of a mob

The idea of “cancel culture”, the obvious, albeit unnamed, target of this letter, collapses several different phenomena under one pejorative label. It’s puzzling to me that a statement signed by a group of writers, thinkers and journalists, most whom have Ivy League or other prestigious credentials, would fail to at least establish a coherent definition of what it believes cancel culture is before seeming to condemn it.

The fact is that decisions made by corporate HR departments, failings in editing processes at media organisations such as the New York Times, and the demands of movements for social justice to be accorded recognition and respect do not constitute one clear trend. The new climate of “censoriousness”, if there is one, cannot be diagnosed and dispatched this easily.

In my view, the failure to make these distinctions clear is probably less an oversight and more of a convenient fudge. Because outrage about cancel culture can’t be credibly sustained when you start breaking down what it actually consists of. Companies hastily sacking people who have been mobbed online is about the bottom line and fear of bad PR. It raises interesting questions, but these are more about employment rights and the encroachment by bosses into areas of private opinion and conduct. Being piled on online is nasty, but it is broadly a function of how social media in particular and the internet in general has enabled bullying for the hell of it. Sometimes human beings are unpleasant, and certain platforms are designed to bring out the worst in them. That is separate to the demands for change emerging from many marginalised groups.

In not parsing these different patterns clearly, the Harper’s letter commits the same offence it accuses others of doing: indulging in “the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty”.

To those unaccustomed to being questioned, this all feels personal. They have confused a lack of reverence from people who are able to air their views for the very first time with an attack on their right to free speech. They have mistaken the new ways they can be told they are wrong or irrelevant as the baying of a mob, rather than exposure to an audience that has only recently found its voice. The world is changing. It’s not “cancel culture” to point out that, in many respects, it’s not changing quickly enough.

• Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Jonathan Freedland: The reaction to the letter has shown the need for it

Any letter that carries the signatures of both the former George W Bush speechwriter David Frum – the man who coined the phrase “axis of evil” – and Noam Chomsky is bound to get attention. It takes some doing to get, say, New York Times columnist Bari Weiss and Bernie Sanders advocate Zephyr Teachout to join forces, and there are dozens of similarly unlikely ideological match-ups to be found among those who signed the letter published by Harper’s Magazine.

Endorsed by a bulging list of esteemed writers, artists and public intellectuals, this letter might well come to be seen as an inflection point in an argument that has been rumbling away, much of it on social media, for months if not years. And yet, the text hardly reads like some ground-breaking, revolutionary document. Luther’s 95 Theses, it ain’t.

Instead, as one signatory, Anne Applebaum, conceded on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, it consists of a series of statements that are, in themselves, quite “anodyne”. It’s not disparaging to say that the document, like many open letters, represents a lowest common denominator, a bare minimum that would be acceptable – indeed, obvious – to the likes of both Frum and Chomsky. The letter declares, for example, that: “The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away.” Are there many who would disagree with those words, who would want to make out loud the case for wishing away what they don’t like?

And yet the statement has not been received as a boilerplate recitation of the case for free expression, but has become controversial. That’s partly because of the text itself – which some have read as brimming with thin-skinned privilege, seeing it as a coded attack on marginalised minorities for having the gall to criticise people with power and platforms – but also, as happens often with open letters, because of the names at the bottom. One name in particular has provoked fury: that of JK Rowling, because of her writings on trans rights and gender. At least two signatories have distanced themselves from the letter since its publication.

It’s clear that a number of people believe Rowling should not be included in such statements, that her views have placed her outside the bounds of acceptable discourse. As it happens, the letter speaks of this phenomenon when it describes “a vogue for public shaming and ostracism.” It seems the Harper’s letter might be a rare example of the reaction to a text making the text’s case rather better than the text itself.

• Jonathan Freedland is a Guardian columnist

Zoe Williams: There is no such thing as pure freedom of expression

“We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences,” the Harper’s letter concludes. I was about to say I broadly agreed. But wait: broadly? I wholeheartedly agree. How can intellectual inquiry flourish if people can’t express themselves in good faith? Should professional consequences ever be dire for taking what is later considered to be the wrong position in a debate? Then again, this is quite an abstract proposition. Get into the weeds – what counts as good faith, and who decides – and I might find myself on the other side. If David Starkey complained about “so many damn blacks” in good faith, then I’m definitely on the other side. Professional consequences start off dire for the people who are cancelled en masse by structural racism. At least old white dudes get the respect of being cancelled on a case-by-case basis.

This reminds me a lot of the arguments we used to have about religious tolerance in the 90s. Toleration was a good and necessary thing; but what if it meant you had to tolerate people who themselves wouldn’t tolerate you? That would be fine, we’d shrug: how live an issue was that, really? “Very live!” Melanie Philips and others might exclaim. “Look, here’s a preacher who wants you to burn in hell. Eat that, logisticians.” It was part of the remorseless generation of hatred and suspicion towards Muslims, yes: but separate to that, it was a move towards the territory of absolutes. People who are suspicious of, or simply bored by, consensus love to pin liberals down with these paradoxes. It is so droll to watch them flapping about, either side of the wedge.

What we do know is that there is no such thing as total tolerance: it cannot logically tolerate intolerance. And there is no such things as pure freedom of expression either: the expression of some views necessarily encroaches on the dignity and freedom of others. This is partly a failure of speech itself, which has the facility to raise impossible propositions – Eagleton’s unstoppable force meeting an immovable object – but not to resolve them. Mainly it’s a failure of humans. We should think carefully before lining up behind an abstract, on either side – absolutes have a tendency to dissolve on contact with reality. And it’s in reality, of course, with its compromises and discomforts and competing demands, that we actually live.

• Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist

Samuel Moyn: Abuse of the power to cancel is why I signed the letter

I am not a free speech absolutist. Language is part of how our world is constituted. It does not operate free from the dangers and hierarchies of real life; it makes them possible. Calls for open debate routinely conceal the endurance of hierarchies. Distinguishing between necessarily helpful speech and potentially harmful acts, as John Stuart Mill did and as free speech absolutists do, will not work. And without necessarily incurring the risk of slippery slopes, we can ban – or even empower the state to do so. We can cancel too.

But these are powers that do risk abuse and overuse. And that is why I signed the letter, and would do so again.

If it is true that hierarchies are in part maintained – not just undone – by speech, and that speech can harm and not just help, it doesn’t follow that more free speech for more people isn’t generally a good cause. It is.

Recent events have, in my opinion, proved that a successful movement – one with which I sympathise – can err and undermine its further inroads into opinion. Mill was wrong about a lot. But he was right that “the wellbeing of mankind may almost be measured by the number and gravity of the truths which have reached the point of being uncontested”. Recent abuse and overuse of our power to ban and cancel, put simply, have sometimes hurt the continuing normalisation of truths we care about.

I don’t have the standing to talk down to or tutor those angry about the letter. But it is also correct that some of the chief victims of excessive policing of speech in history have been those with progressive politics like mine. I didn’t know who else would sign it when I did, but I reserve the right to criticise many of them, not just for their own hypocritical patrolling of speech in the past but also for their regularly disastrous ideas. Supporting economic and geopolitical catastrophe is far worse than participating in evanescent Twitter mobs or even more harmful censorship. And we will have missed an opportunity provided by those now honourably calling for free speech if we do not continue to indict the world their speech has made.

• Samuel Moyn is a professor of law and history at Yale

[astrologypredictionss]

Time OF AQUARIUS

On the morning of August 11 it was a bright day in downtown Los Angeles. I was visiting the area visiting from New York. Since I discover news stations to give intriguing reviews of neighborhood culture, I turned on the TV in my lodging to make up for lost time with what was happening in LA and the remainder of the world, and what individuals were stating and thinking. The complete obscuration of the Sun had happened the past night, and the overshadowing's way of totality had been noticeable from quite a bit of Europe. The news communicate indicated film of Europeans stopping up roadways to get to the best vantage point from which to see this last astronomical occasion of our century. Some dear companions in London had ventured out to France to see the obscuration and called to state it was basically awesome. On this report, the male grapple chatted effectively with his female co-stay, merrily expressing that he had heard that this obscuration denoted the official beginning of the Age of Aquarius. His accomplice, in any case, appeared to be suspicious and excused her associate's comment with a fairly flip remark, "Gracious, that. The Age of Aquarius happened decades prior during the 1960s."

In truth, no one knows without a doubt what the real origin date of the Age of Aquarius happens to be. The manner in which this entirely blonde news columnist conveyed her jest made it evident that she not just idea the Age of Aquarius started years prior yet additionally that she figured it must be over at this point. I moaned to myself. A great many people recollect the expression "Time of Aquarius" from the 1960s melodic Hair, however scarcely any individuals know decisively what it implies. The beginning of an age is hard for crystal gazers to pinpoint precisely — we will examine why in a second. We do realize that a mysterious age ranges more than 2,000 years. Maybe this reporter shouldn't have been so mundane about living however the unfolding of another age. Most people won't ever get the opportunity to do that in the course of their life. It is genuinely something exceptional, and anybody alive as of now in time is going to encounter it.

At the point when crystal gazers talk about the Age of Aquarius they are portraying a wonder that alludes to the world's development in reverse (or in "retrograde" movement) into the indication of Aquarius. As you most likely are aware, there are 11 different indications of the zodiac — the earth will retrograde in every one. It will take the earth 25,868 years to visit every one of the 12 signs. On the off chance that you isolate 25,868 by 12 signs, you will get approximately 2,100 years to a specific "age". In this way, when the Age of Aquarius has arrived (and numerous celestial prophets, myself notwithstanding, feel we have arrived at this point) it will remain the Age of Aquarius for a long time. The "precession of the zodiac" that underlies this chief was first found by the Greek cosmologist Hipparchus of Nicaea (c. 190 – c. 120 BC). It is because of a slight wobble in the world's revolution. The precession of the zodiac is a term that depicts the star grouping that lies behind the Sun at the vernal equinox, which changes step by step after some time. As opposed to invalidate the dates of the Sun signs, this precession includes an extraordinary tone of character to every one of the signs. Be that as it may, old style soothsayers don't feel the precession of the zodiac changes the inalienable characteristics of the signs.

The age before the Age of Aquarius was the Age of Pisces. Since the earth is moving in retrograde movement, we have quite recently left the Age of Pisces, which denoted the years 1-2000 AD. This time corresponds with the time of Christ and Christianity. Pisces is viewed as the last indication of the zodiac, an abstract of the considerable number of signs that preceded it, from Aries to Aquarius. Pisces is simply the sign known for all inclusive love, empathy, generosity, charitableness, inventiveness, instinct and profound otherworldliness. Pisces know reality of the universe yet can't exactly say why they know it. It doesn't make a difference, for Pisces realize that "truth" is consistently in motion. To Pisces, what is in the human heart is valid, for it is consistent with the spirit. Pisces is a thoughtful sign. This Piscean attitude has been the manner in which mankind has moved toward the world since we advanced and has hued everything that we have experienced during that period.

[zohratheexplorer1857-blog]

Assignment # 1

I chose the french debate as my topic. The first article is withdrawn from Toronto Sun. The second article is taken from North 99. Both articles draw some conclusions from the french debate that took place recently. Nevertheless, each of them has an opposite way of approaching it. 

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/marin-no-mojo-trudeau-four-takeaways-from-french-debate

Thus, the first article has conservative approach to it. Author acts as a troll as he pokes the liberal leader Trudeau throughout his article by using the words that demonstrate his personal negative negative attitude towards Justin Trudeau. On the other hand, he extols his opponent Scheer. The article is more focused on showing hypocrisy of Trudeau. It is more focused around Scheer’s comments about Tredeau rather than his own statements. As a result, it robs us as viewers of the full picture of the debate. As a result, that creates an echo chamber because competing views are not even represented, they are excluded from the entire picture. It is mainly based on the author’s personal view and opinion about Trudeau. He clearly doesn’t like him. Therefore, he uses different techniques to portray Trudeau in a negative light.The words are framed in the way to mock and make fun of Trudeau. For example,the word ‘mojo’ is used to show that Trudeau is losing his charm. 'Landing a decisive blow’ is the satirical description of Sheer’s winning the debate over Trudeau. This article can also be tied to the idea of conspiracy theory because Trudeau is seen as a secret plotter whose real intentions do not coincide with what he claims he fights for.

https://north99.org/2019/10/03/scheer-confirms-hes-anti-choice-after-months-of-avoiding-the-topic/

On the other hand, the second article has more a liberal approach to it. It talks about the Sheer’s negative relation towards women’s rights to have an abortion. Words are framed in such a way to show that Sheer is a liar and manipulator. There is a word 'anti-choice’ to emphasize the negative relation of Scheer towards the abortion. 'After obfuscation and misdirection’ are the words that express personal negative opinion of the author. The other interesting detail is that he highlights certain words in order to draw the attention of the viewer to the point he attempts to make. He also brings up the example of the grassroot movements as a possible way of solution to overturn the power in place. This article intersects with the idea of ‘elective affinity’ because it provides a platform to appeal to ordinary people. These two articles can also resonate with the concept of hybridity by Klinger and Svenson because these two medias compete with one another. Whereas the first article is filtered by professional gatekeepers, the second article is the product of the like minded people. While the first article adheres to professional values and codes, the second article is focused more on the attention accumulation.

[thereallygoodblogshow]

MA Fashion and Textile Practices Major Project Path - 3rd September

Punk and Vivienne Westwood

One of those New York emerging bands was The New York Dolls. They were struggling musicians who also designed and made their own clothes to make extra cash. Founder of the band Sylvain Slyvain and his high school friends Billy Mercier and Giovanni Genzale (aka Johnny Thunders) took inspiration from Marc Bolan, make up from their girlfriends bags and the clothes from their wardrobes to create the unique look of the Dolls. Slyvain would travel to the UK to buy items from Kensington Market and the Kings Road to form their androgynous look.  

Proto Punk Apothecary, n.d. (2016). The New York Dolls - Live at the The Boston Armory [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://protopunkapothecary.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-new-york-dolls-live-at-bottom-line.html.

The image was to prove attention seeking in all wrong (right!) ways. The band were asked of the were homosexual or bi-sexual, but insisted they were try-sexual, they’d try anything! They did upset the gay liberation community who called them transvestites, something which was somewhat of an insult at the time. You’ll notice in the video how lead singer David Johansen is clearly influenced by the Rolling Stones lead singer Mick Jagger. 

The New York Dolls [TheNewYorkDollsVEVO]. (2016, Mar 29). New York Dolls - Personality Crisis [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aQTGqqXHw4

A similar band at the time were Wayne County & The Electric Chairs, lead singer Wayne (aka Jayne) used to wear almost full drag on stage with a huge plastic dildo which squirted milk at the audience. Wayne was also a DJ at a club in where other aspiring musicians would hang out. One day a certain Marky Ramone (aka Mark Steven Bell) walked in and liked what he heard, some of the Electric Chairs had heard Marky play and recommended him to join the band, they then became Wayne County and The Backstreet Boys.   

Gruen, B. (1974). Jayne County, NYC, 1974. [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.morrisonhotelgallery.com/photographs/1lkaV5/Jayne-County-NYC-1974.

Wayne County & The Electric Chairs had been inspired by The Stooges early on. Iggy didn’t care, he had a devil may care attitude when he performed and they connected with that. Iggy (2019) said of the way he felt back then:

“I sort of started to see things a different way. There was this feeling something had to happen that was more amazing to look at, more aggressive to listen to. It wasn’t some sort of marketing plan or something, it was just what I felt inside, how I wanted to be. Look out, watch this!” 

Danny Fields - A&R man at Elektra records, was to become a confidant and ‘babysitter’ for Iggy whilst on tour. Iggy became increasingly more extreme in his performances and Fields felt the need to be at their gigs to keep an eye on him, or the audience for safety’s sake. Iggy would pour hot wax on his body, slash his chest with broken glass, smear peanut butter on himself and jump into the audience, nobody did stage diving back then. 

Rolling Stone, n.d. (2016). Iggy Pop, in Cincinatti, the night he whipped peanut butter at the crowd.. [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/20-wildest-iggy-pop-moments-72545/first-eyewitness-account-of-iggy-slicing-up-his-torso-may-23-1969-24964/.

Marky Ramone left Wayne County and The Backstreet Boys when he met American singer and songwriter Richard Hell who formed Richard Hell & the Voidoids. After a 1977 UK tour with upcoming bands like The Clash they came back to New York where Marky went to the club CBGB in Manhattan's East Village. Here he met Dee Dee Ramone and was asked if he’d like to join the band. The Ramones were initially inspired by The New York Dolls but gradually formed their own aesthetic, unifying their look with skinny jeans, their own logo t-shirts and black biker jackets. Danny Fields was also the rock and roll columnist for the Soho News the the time and happen to see The Ramones at one of their early gigs. He was impressed and asked to be their manager, they said if you have $3,000 to buy new equipment then the job is yours. Fields clearly thought the band had promise, so asked his mother to lend him the $3,000 to give to the band              

The Ramones [Rhino]. (2018, Sept 12). Ramones - I Wanna Be Sedated (Official Music Video) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm51ihfi1p4

Many locations throughout the city weren’t suitable for the new wave of bands coming through, but one place that was accepting of this new sound was CBGB’s. The Ramones became regulars players at the club, with female lead Blondie as its warm up band. They were the warm up act for The Ramones for more than two years who just got better and better. I have always loved Blondie, my brother being a fan growing up I often heard their music coming from his bedroom. Debbie Harry was, and still is a real style icon, she was one of the few female performers who set the tone for women within the music industry.

Taylor, T. (2018). Debbie Harry. [Photograph]. Retrieved from https://www.interviewmagazine.com/culture/obvious-history-debbie-harry-near-fatal-brush-ted-bundy.

The music scene at CBGB’s was one of diversity. Not one band sounded like the other, that early New York music scene didn’t have one defining sound, they just had the attitude of experimentation and expression. The sound didn’t become punk until the authors of Punk Magazine used the phrase to describe it. Three young guys from Connecticut - John Holmstrom, Legs McNeil and Ged Dunn wanted to create a magazine based on their two loves, rock & roll music and cartoons. John had seen The New York Dolls play a song called ‘Teenage News’ and wanted the magazine to be called that, the other guys thought it was a little lame so Legs suggested Punk as a joke. He had seen kids called it on films and TV shows, and been called it a few times himself, so thought it fitting.  

Vogue, n.d. (2016). Punk Magazine. [Illustration]. Retrieved from https://www.vogue.fr/culture/a-voir/diaporama/exposition-the-ramones-punk-new-york-queens-museum-groupe-rock/30884.

The term didn’t go down well with some of the bands at first. The term punk was also use for male prisoners who turned tricks in jail, so the connotations weren’t seen as complimentary. The more the term was used in media and television the more the term punk rock became the phrase used to define the scene, so it inevitably stuck. John Holmstrom (2019) explains what they were trying to do:

“What we were trying to do with Punk Magazine was to redefine Rock & Roll as Punk Rock. The original spirit and rebellion of the 50′s, it wasn’t safe, it wasn’t what your mother listened to, it wasn’t even what your big brother listened to. We wanted to wipe all that out and start over again.” 

Drugs had started to become rife on the scene. Not just recreational drugs such as Marijuana and LSD, but hard drugs such as Heroin. President Nixon was very focused on the drugs influx into America’s towns and cities, but less focused on the amount of Vietnam vets coming back from the war addicted to Heroin and the sheer demand for hard drugs across the nation. With the use of hard drugs, creativity began to suffer and the scene began to diminish. One of the major bands to suffer was The New York Dolls, a few of the band were addicts or alcoholics and they had just been dropped my their management. They were on the verge of breaking up when Slyvain Slyvain was to by chance bump into someone who he had met a few years before; Malcolm McLaren. 

Slyvain had met McLaren and his girlfriend Vivienne Westwood at an International Boutique Show in 1971 where they had discussed their shop ‘Let It Rock’. McLaren was a big fan of the Dolls and invited Sylvain to hang out with him. Seeing an opportunity McLaren got the band members into rehab and cleaned up long enough to wear his clothes to their next gig. McLaren had chance to see many of the bands perform at CBGB’s and noticed their clothing,  which a lot of the bands had put together themselves. He met Richard Hell from the Voidoids and noticed he was wearing a T-shirt which had been ripped apart and then held together with safety pins, and the next thing he and Vivienne were selling clothes with rips and safety pins.  

Gruen, B. (1977). The Voidoids, NYC, 1977. [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.bobgruen.com/richard-hell/.

Soon the band were kitted out head to toe in red - to fit in with the bands new song ‘Red Patent Leather’ - all designed by McLaren and Westwood. It was intended to be a new chapter for the band, under McLaren’s management he issued a manifesto stating that the band were no longer puppets of their last management and were free to be who they wanted to be, reminiscent of a communist manifesto. This new marketing ploy however was to fall flat, they weren’t taken seriously by the public or other bands, they had become a bit of a joke. Some of the band members resorted to taking drugs once more and the band split soon after. In Detroit Wayne Kramer from MC5 had become embroiled in the criminal underworld, and started selling drugs to support his new venture. He was caught selling cocaine to undercover federal agents and was sentenced to four years in prison. 

The general consensus about punk rock was that it was on a slow decline in 1970′s America. Not many bands were being signed, and when new releases came out they were lost in the quagmire of Disco and Stadium Rock records. It was considered a niche sound that didn’t travel well outside its home turf. DJ’s on the usual stations didn’t want to play the records, America wasn’t ready for the type of sound punk was pushing. Danny Fields and Linda Stein - The Ramones then joint managers - suggested they introduce the Ramones sound to a UK audience, and McLaren had already suggested to Slyvain that he should come to England as there was a youth culture there which would possibly appreciate the Dolls sound.... 

[ourownspaces]

Chapter - 2

The moment he heard the Starbucks door 'ding', closing off the air conditioning behind him, Thomas had known he made mistake not getting his coffee iced. Normally, he could gauge the odds of his being stopped outside of any place he happened to enter--and in turn, he could further decipher if it were more beneficial to order his coffee hot or cold. The more people who would want to stop him, the less logical it would be to waste money over heat that would be lost by the time he had a moment to himself to pay attention to his drink. 

But, in his current mindset, Thomas’ radar was muddled. So, by the time he'd given his hugs and taken his selfies, and graciously said his 'thank you's to the compliments that showered him, he was left to a lukewarm cup. It was befitting, though-- completely harmonious to his attitude as he whipped out his phone again and searched through his contacts. By the time the line began ringing in his ear, he was already grimacing at the taste of cold caramel. "Thomas!" The voice at the other end cheerily greeted, but rather than matching this enthusiasm, he 'humphed' a brief, unamused sort of chuckle to himself.

"Hello, Joanna."

"Ooh, what's this..." the woman's tone changed at the dullness of his greeting. Evidently, she'd sensed the dissatisfaction in him, and therefore, she quickly shifted her gears to remedy this, "You hardly sound as chipper as you should, love!" 

"Oh? And how d'you figure," he asked, keeping his questions as deadpan as his statements, "Have I missed something?"

"Looks like it, yeah! You're about a signature away from owning your place, ...most would mark that a joyous occasion!" She said again. By the sound of things, she was expecting Thomas to be jumping at this declaration. He wasn't.

"Mm," he hummed around another unpleasant, near coagulated sip of his cappuccino, "I swear I've heard this from you once before... some time before New Year, that I recall--"

"No--but I mean it now."

"You 'mean it now'," he echoed her, now dubious as he searched his pockets for his cigarettes, "Oh! Well, then, that’s my mistake, innit? I keep forgetting I’m new to this real estate... buying... situation. You’ll forgive me, won’t you--I was under some naive assumption that you’d meant it the first time."

"Oh, don’t do this, Thomas, darling. You’ve misunderstood me," Now she was tutting at him, feigning hurt at him even saying such a thing, of accusing her (however indirectly) of dishonesty, "Of course I meant it before. I just hadn't known the bidding would go this far."

"Mhmm... but it has," he filled in this part for her, sparing his agent her professional pride, but driving to his point nonetheless, "So, what's it that has you so positive I've got it, then...--out of the blue?"

"Oh, the other buyer does!"

Thomas' brows popped at that. This couldn't have been feasible, from any angle he looked at it. And yet, oddly enough, Joanna sounded peculiarly sure of herself, ...a fact which lit his suspicions even more than she'd managed to previously.

"...does she..?"

"Absolutely! There is no - possible - way she could go any higher than this last offer, you have my word; you are as good as settled in, my dear."

"Well. That  c e r t a i n l y  wasn't the impression she gave this Saturday last," Thomas said, his lips tight from speaking whilst lighting a ciggy between them, "In fact, she were somewhat vehement to the contrary."

"--You ran across her?"

"I did," he answered... far more coolly than how she had squealed the question at him, "Just after you'd left, actually."

"Ah..." Joanna said. She paused with it, lending the moment to contemplation, seemingly, "Fiery git, ey?"

"Positively combustible," he agreed, tapping ashes away, "But I didn't exactly give her the warmest of greetings..." He had to acknowledge that much. But, he was digressing. "Anyway--"

"Yes. Anyway," she interrupted, " Whatever impression she gave, it was a bluff, I can assure you."

He frowned a bit at that, "How is that?"

"I have it from a source," She answered, and he could hear her smiling over it.

"Source?" He repeated after her a second time. His face scrunched with more, growing perplexity, "Fucksake, you sound like a gossip columnist."

"I simply meant I know the agency she's looking through, and I've heard from someone more than reliable."

"Christ, Joanna,” he droned, scratching his thumb along his eyebrow while his cigarette idly burned, “don't pull me into your tittle-ing, I beg you." 

"I'm not! Thomas, you've asked me how I've come to be sure; Now I start to tell you and you piss and moan over it before I can even get out a single wo--"

"Alright, alright, then," he cut her off, holding up his hand now, as if to stop her, despite them being clear across the city from one another, "You've made your point. Go on."

There was a bracing sort of pause on her end, even after Thomas had given the go ahead, almost as if she suspected him to renig and hang up. But he was silent, and she eased her way into continuing to share.

"Well. This entire time, it turns out she's only ever had the original asking price-- all of the other additional funds she's been acquiring from dipping elsewhere," she giddily chattered, making Thomas' eyes roll, and making him feel a thorn of moral conflict suddenly being jabbed into his side, "Such a pity-- American student or some other... but your good luck comes in here: She's no more tuition money left to lend to her cause, and even if she had, seeing you would most assuredly frighten her off now, knowing your stock!"

She steadily carried on after that, but Tom had blocked her out by then. His frown deepened in contemplation, and his lungs drew in more of his nicotine while he looked off--caught in his own thinking. He wasn't sure what she’d been in the middle of saying by the time he’d fallen back into listening, but he had already decided to waste no more time with her rumor mongering.

"Yeah, thanks, Jo,” he rushed, “that's fantastic--I've got to run, now."

"Hold on, aren't you going to put in your final?"

"I'll get back to you with it." 

She didn't sound too very pleased when he hung up after that. Jo was still yammering on even as he disconnected the line, but Thomas remained unaffected. He had another phone call to make.

"...Back with an update already?" Will laughed as he answered, picking up without a 'hello', or any other conventional greeting.

"Yeah," Thomas' voice cracked a bit, catching the contagious chuckling before he said, "New developments; couldn't be helped... that, and there’s been a change of plans, so... we’ve a little work ahead of us."

"We?! Us?! Oh, look at this! Are you finally accepting my services, then, princess?" Will asked. Thomas rolled his eyes, chucking both his coffee and his cigarette butt.

"Shut up and tell me where you are, I need a number two on this."

Thomas had reached Will's home within the next twenty minutes, being met with the other awaiting (and looking) entirely too eagerly for him as he pulled up. The second Thomas let down his kickstand, he could see stern refusal tampering the face Will wore. It made Thomas snicker, and he removed his helmet in sync with the swing of his leg over to dismount his motorbike.

"What's this, luv!" He laughed out, "You look like you've seen a ghost...!"

"I won't,” Will responded immediately, “You aren't getting me on it."

"Oh, but darling..." Thomas taunted again, but Will spoke over whatever he'd been getting at. 

"Whatever jokes you want to bloody make, do it--but I’m driving. Wherever it is we're going. You aren’t getting me on one of those bloody things," Will greeted him with this, laughing at himself, but still eyeing the motorcycle in skepticism. He hadn’t needed the reiterating. Just the expression on him was enough to tell Thomas that he would not be riding it with him.

"We can take your car, but I'll need your hands free, mate. If you trust me," Thomas answered.  It didn’t look to matter either way to will; They made for the younger male's vehicle, Will unlocking it for the both of them and allowing Tom to take the driver's side. He could see Thomas' cell being held out to him once he closed the passenger door beside him, and looked up to the blond with a lifted brow.

"You can google and all that whatnot, yeah?" Tom asked. Will snorted, taking the phone from him.

"Yeah, of course, man. What d'you need?"

"Address to the condo’s in there," he said, starting the engine, and distractedly giving instruction as he pulled out of his friend's driveway and onto the road, "I need you to see if you can pull up the nearest Universities to it for me."

"There's..." Will stretched out the word, distracted as his thumb twiddled about the keys, "Yeah. Found it."

"You can get the directions as well?"

"Already done," Will answered again. The phone itself confirmed it, saying 'Calculating Route' in an automated, female voice not a half-second behind him, "Now. Mind telling me what's going on?"

[astrosecrets]

Chiron in the 4th house: Well, just about everyone had some trouble or other in childhood with their parents. Chiron in the 4th house will just make it a little more noticeable. The home itself would tend to be an issue here. Perhaps one is so busy outside the home that they cannot spend much time there, or their work forces them to travel and be away frequently. The father is more likely to have been chronically ill, away from home, or emotionally unavailable. Perhaps there could be a "don't feel at home anywhere" attitude. Chiron in the 4th house might work out in other ways as well. This placement could conceivably show a person who can help everyone else with their home, while their own place is a wreck.

Chiron in Scorpio: The issue here is power. Those with Chiron in Scorpio may fear their own power and try to suppress it. Conversely, they may feel powerless and try to cover this up by acting strong (even to the point of being a bully). Sex is only one way this may work out, and yes, having compulsive sex is one possibility. Another is an avoidance of sex because it's too "dangerous" (they may try to dominate me). This would be a perfect placement for a sex therapist who can help everyone else with their sexual problems but cannot help themselves. Inheritance matters may also be a sore point. Problems and upsets would tend to come with it.   

Aspects:

Chiron and the Sun: The effects can be similar to Chiron in Leo (which is ruled by the Sun). Chiron aspects to the Sun can make you feel "special." There is frequently a strong sense of being here for some grand "purpose" or other. There is an ability to help others with their creativity and self-expression, but if you have this aspect, make sure not to neglect your own. Negatively, there could be an increased sensitivity to criticism of any sort. Learn to take it without feeling like you are being attacked or that they all hate you.

Chiron and Saturn: Saturn organizes and controls. The person with a Chiron/Saturn aspect will tend to be compulsively controlling and over organized. The reason could a fear of letting go, or perhaps they are still trying to please an over restrictive parent. The other side of the coin would be someone who is highly disorganized and sloppy, or seems too fearful or depressed to make a move. A high colonic would be helpful here to remove that lead pipe (Saturn) from their rear end.

Chiron and Uranus: This type of person is the one who can say things like: "Be for peace, or I'll kill you!" The tendency is to love people in the abstract, but not in the flesh. They love the ideal of brotherhood and sisterhood of all people. It's relating to actual, live, real human beings that turns them off. This is because relating requires them to show some feelings, a concept they find alien and icky. But feelings and emotions are exactly what have to be worked on here. The Chiron/Uranus individual may produce brilliant works of genius while all the time feeling stupid. More often, they will come up with off the wall ideas that they claim are works of genius. Chiron/Uranus people may be completely "Uranian," constantly mouthing shocking opinions, or they may go to the opposite extreme and be against anything that is new in any way. If they manage to keep themselves grounded, in contact with reality and their own emotions, their true genius can flow freely.

Chiron and Neptune: Neptune rules dreams, imagination, and intuition. On the negative side, it shows where we try to avoid any reality that we find unpleasant. Sometimes this can manifest as a rejection of anything "mystical." Or the other extreme could come out and produce someone who can't make a move without consulting a psychic. The intuitive powers may feel blocked. Conversely, they may be active with a vengeance and constantly contradict the "logical" conclusions that are reached. Chiron/Neptune could make for someone who constantly "malingers" and avoids all unpleasant situations (anything requiring work or contact with reality). The alternative is a person who is hard working, "responsible" in a very conventional way, and suppresses their imaginative-creative side. Then, all of a sudden, they become an alcoholic, drug addict, or have a mental breakdown of some sort. They could also fall in "love" with someone who has these problems (or who is a con artist) and get completely drained, even ruined. A perfect example of this comes from the world of literature: the professor that Marlene Dietrich's character ruined in "The Blue Angel." The way to deal with Chiron/Neptune is to strike a balance, to let the Neptune genie out of the bottle in a constructive way, to give vent to the sympathy and imagination without giving up reality. If you've been repressing the Neptune, take a class in art (or better yet, dance). Do some volunteer charity work. If you happen to be the malingering type of Chiron/Neptune, your cover is blown. The malingering is not the real problem. It is the smokescreen you put up to hide your real problems. Wake up and deal with them. 

Chiron and the Mid-Heaven: The Mid-Heaven and the Nadir are exactly opposite each other and have to be considered as one axis. Something aspecting one of them will also aspect the other. A Chiron aspect here could affect the career and public image (Mid-Heaven) and the domestic environment as well (Nadir). Relations with both parents are also affected. If there is a conjunction with the MC, the effect is similar to Chiron in the 10th house, and the career could be in a Chiron related field, such as education. If Chiron makes the conjunction from the 9th house side, then any potential Chiron problems would tend to be suppressed and driven into the subconscious. The result could be success in a career that one thinks they like, but is not really satisfying. A similar situation could occur with the opposition to the Mid-Heaven from the 3rd house. In this case, there could be something about the domestic environment that makes one uneasy. The cure for both of these situations is a constant effort to bring the hidden problems to the surface.

Any Chiron aspect to the Mid-Heaven/Nadir axis will affect relations with both parents, but hey, what else is new? Who doesn't have a bone to pick with their parents at one time or another? The real lesson here is to leave the past in the past and get on with our lives. Rona Barrett, the gossip columnist, is a good example here as well. She has Chiron in conjunction with the Mid-Heaven and has become famous by talking about the famous and their problems.

Source: http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/chiron21.5.html

[freeworldimmigration]

White supremacists have expressed fear that Europeans and those of European descent in the U.S. and other English speaking countries will become minorities in their countries due to immigration. This has been termed “The Great Replacement” and apparently inspired the Unite the Right marchers at the University of Virginia in 2017 to chant “You will not replace us.” (See here, here, here and here.) The suspect in the murders at mosques in New Zealand titled his manifesto “The Great Replacement.”   

White supremacists also have conjured up conspiracy theories that liberal elites are orchestrating this “replacement.” While I have never encouraged immigrants to come to the U.S. (they have their own motivations to migrate), I am a liberal who welcomes high levels of immigration as a means to reduce the proportion of the population which self-identifies as white. This reduction could help diminish the influence of white supremacists and their fellow travellers by shrinking the proportion of the population from which they can draw recruits and influence the country’s direction.

Unfortunately, white supremacy has always been part of America’s fabric. While the Declaration of Independence supports universal rights, former white nationalist Derek Black notes that the first naturalization laws in the 1790s restricted citizenship to white people and states that

“the United States was founded as a white nationalist country, and that legacy remains today. Things have improved from the radical promotion of white people at the expense of all others, which has persisted for most of our history, yet most of us have not accepted the extent to which white identity guides so much of what we still do. Sometimes it seems that the white nationalists are most honest about the very real foundation of white supremacy upon which our nation was built.”

A 2017 article in The New Yorker echoes Black’s analysis: “… the Founding Fathers organized their country along the bloody basis of what we now tend to understand as white supremacy.” And Adam Serwer notes in the Atlantic that

“America has always grappled with, in the words of the immigration historian John Higham, two ‘rival principles of national unity.’ According to one, the U.S. is the champion of the poor and the dispossessed, a nation that draws its strength from its pluralism. According to the other, America’s greatness is the result of its white and Christian origins, the erosion of which spells doom for the national experiment.”

The “radical promotion of white people” has had devastating consequences for millions. Native Americans were massacred and forced off the land they inhabited. African Americans endured centuries of slavery, followed by the oppression of segregation, disenfranchisement, the Ku Klux Klan, lynchings, “slavery by another name,” red-lining, police brutality, mass incarceration, and other forms of discrimination. Asian immigrants suffered violence and discrimination, particularly in the 19th century. Hundreds of thousands of Latino Americans were forcibly pushed out of the U.S., while others experienced mob violence and endured segregation.  Racist ideology directed against eastern and southern Europeans also led to the restrictive immigration legislation of the early 1920s, which ultimately blocked many Jews from fleeing the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s. (See also here and here.)

In recent decades, overt white supremacy in the U.S. has weakened.  Research based on 2016 data suggests that less than 6% of non-Hispanic whites support the promotion of white interests over those of other groups. In addition, a 2017 poll, which apparently included respondents from a variety of racial and ethnic groups, found that strong majorities agreed that all races are equal and that all races should be treated equally. Moreover, the American public appears to be increasingly comfortable with diversity.  

However, the 2017 poll revealed that “while only 8 percent of respondents said they supported white nationalism as a group or movement, a far larger percentage said they supported viewpoints widely held by white supremacist groups.” The 2016 study also suggests that millions of European Americans think like the alt-right. (See also here. )

One implication of the resilience of white supremacist beliefs among many Americans has been hate crimes. Examples include the 2018 massacre of Jews in Pittsburgh, the violence in 2017 in Charlottesville, the 2015 massacre of African Americans at a South Carolina church, and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Hundreds of people have been killed in recent years by white supremacists and members of the far right. Assaults, intimidation, and vandalism are other manifestations of this hate. 

Another implication of the continued existence of white supremacy in the U.S. has been the elevation of a demagogue, Donald Trump, to the presidency. Vox notes that “study after study has shown that Trump’s primary and general election victories were driven by the racial resentment and demographic panic he activated among white voters.” Adam Serwer also writes that “the specific dissonance of Trumpism—advocacy for discriminatory, even cruel, policies combined with vehement denials that such policies are racially motivated—provides the emotional core of its appeal… As the president continues to pursue a program that places the social and political hegemony of white Christians at its core, his supporters have shown few signs of abandoning him.” The columnist Charles Blow has similarly stated that “Trump’s central promise as a politician has been the elevation, protection and promotion of whiteness, particularly white men who fear demographic changes and loss of status and privilege.” (See also here.)

Trump threatens our liberal democracy and encourages violence against his political opponents. Some his prominent supporters such as Steve Bannon, who has described himself as a “Leninist,” also apparently have little respect for liberal democracy. Moreover, his administration has exacerbated the suffering of immigrants through its draconian policies. And his resistance to tackling climate change threatens the future of all of humanity.

Accelerating the rate of immigration into the U.S. could help prevent the emergence of future politicians who use racist demagoguery to persuade a substantial share of the white population to vote for them. With more immigration, the portion of the electorate made up of those voters will diminish faster.

Unfortunately, this approach to squelch white nationalism has its risks and uncertainties. To begin with, increasing immigration levels to transform the country’s demographics faces headwinds. Some assume that the demographic status quo, even with no change to current immigration levels, will eventually produce an America with a diminished white population, given Census Bureau predictions that non-Hispanic whites will become a minority of the population in the next two decades. However, the sociologist Herbert Gans posits that “… the ‘minority-majority’ forecast, as it is commonly interpreted, is likely to be proven wrong. Not only could whites remain a majority well past midcentury, but they will retain political, economic and cultural control of the country long after that.” He describes a “whitening” process whereby the offspring of intermarriage between individuals of different races often self-identify and are identified by others as “white.” He also notes “the long history of the whitening of populations previously labeled nonwhite,” such as immigrants from Ireland and southern and eastern Europe. Consider Stephen Miller, Trump’s ferociously restrictionist advisor, who also happens to be Jewish. 

Furthermore, elevated levels of immigration might push more white Americans towards nativism and white nationalism. While Americans are increasingly supportive of immigration to the U.S., with a large percentage believing immigrants are beneficial for the country and growing percentages supporting increased levels of immigration, more whites might feel threatened by greater numbers of immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Indeed, most Americans either want to keep immigration at current levels (38%) or reduce the levels (24%). In fact, the political commentator Andrew Sullivan has argued that the Democratic Party must become more restrictionist to prevent Trump from winning re-election. 

Despite these uncertainties, accelerating the rate of immigration to combat white nationalism is a risk worth taking. With regard to the “whitening” process, the children and grandchildren of interracial intermarriage will likely be less receptive to white nationalism, given that they have familial connections to people who are racial minorities and that families with a history of intermarriage presumably hold more tolerant attitudes. This tolerance should coexist with a white identity. For example, as The Washington Post reports, some demographers “note that many Hispanics already identify as white and yet still vote like a minority group.”

As to the risk of driving more whites into the supremacist camp by increasing immigration, one should begin with the assumption that the Republican Party is a party of white nationalists and others who are comfortable making common cause with the nationalists, even though there is a minority of Republicans and Republican leaning leaning independents who support increased immigration levels. Therefore, the focus should be on whether some Democrats and Democratic leaning independents might defect to the Republicans if immigration levels are increased. A third of Americans apparently support an increase in legal immigration into the U.S., with 40% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents supporting the increase. Will increased immigration make many of the 60% of Democratic supporters who don’t endorse the increases receptive to white nationalism and/or greater immigration restrictions?  

Probably not. A political scientist has observed that “the Democratic Party is increasingly a coalition of professional-class whites and members of ethnic and racial minority groups.” Given the general cosmopolitanism of the Democratic Party, most of its supporters who don’t support increasing immigration levels likely would never support white nationalism and the Republican Party associated with it. In addition, most voters probably do not make electoral decisions based on a single issue. It therefore seems likely that most Democrats would swallow increased immigration levels while continuing to oppose the Republicans. A Washington Post columnist recently posited that “there’s virtually no evidence that support for more immigration is a political liability… At worst, an immigration supporter will lose the 30 percent of voters he or she would have lost anyway.”   

In fact, increasing numbers of Democrats may be persuaded to accept more immigration if that means preventing future demagogues from becoming president. It should be emphasized to Democrats that Trump is the catastrophic consequence of having an electorate with a large proportion of racist whites. Changing that electorate through accelerated immigration flows could be promoted as a way to vaccinate society against future demagoguery.

The vitality of jurisdictions with diverse populations should also be highlighted, including those with “majority minority” populations.   An article in Axios points out that “non-white Americans are now the majority of the population in four states, as well as in the most prosperous and powerful U.S. cities.”

One of these cities is San Antonio. Referring to white fears about America becoming a majority minority country, a journalist and San Antonio resident writes that

“… I’m here to calm those fears. Hear me out. I have seen the future and it is … San Antonio.  When I came to San Antonio to attend college in 1964, non-Hispanic whites, aka Anglos, were in the majority. It was about the time I left, in 1968, that this status changed. The 1970 census put us at 48 percent.

Anglos have been in the minority fully 50 years. Now we’re at just over 25 percent. Latinos are 63 percent and blacks 7 percent.

So how are things going for us Anglos now that we make up only one-quarter of the nation’s seventh-largest city? Has the city stagnated in a sea of corruption? Have our fellow Anglos fled after being subjected to discrimination and abuse?

The reality is that San Antonio cannot be compared with the stagnant, overgrown town it was is in the late 1960s when we Anglos were in the majority…

San Antonio showed little ambition and a well-earned inferiority complex. Its national image was such that outsiders were often surprised to learn that the city had an airport…

Fast forward 50 years to today. San Antonio is thriving as one of the U.S.’ fastest-growing cities – 1.5 million and counting. Its economy is humming and diversifying, with cybersecurity as a key growth industry. Downtown, previously almost abandoned to tourists, is booming both as a business center and residential magnet.

I’m not suggesting Latinos alone lead to the city’s economic growth. Anglos still dominate the business sector. But Latinos certainly contributed to that growth, both politicians – led early by Henry Cisneros – and business leaders.

Our 11-member City Council has been made up of at least five Latinos and one black member since 1977, with only a few years excepted. Cisneros was elected the first Hispanic mayor of modern times in 1981, but there have been only two Hispanic mayors since. Ivy Taylor served as the city’s first black mayor from 2014-2017.

That is partly because the Hispanic population doesn’t vote as vigorously as Anglos and blacks. It is also because Latino voters are discriminating – in the best sense of the word – but don’t discriminate, in the word’s worst sense.

Today’s seven-member “minority” majority on City Council is hardly lacking in qualifications. Every one has a graduate degree, even though most come from modest backgrounds. Councilwoman Ana Sandoval (D7) has a degree in chemical engineering from MIT, a masters in civil and environmental engineering from Stanford, and a masters in public health from Harvard.

Like all American cities, San Antonio has serious problems: severe economic and racial segregation, many underperforming schools, environmental challenges, a severe lack of adequate mass transit, and more. But we’re working on it together.

White folks who are frightened at becoming a minority need to understand the U.S.’ amazing power of assimilation. San Antonio has thrived under a City government that for 40 years has been governed by racial and ethnic minority councils, mostly the children and grandchildren of Mexican immigrants…

White Americans should not be afraid of such successes. They should be proud of them.”

Houston, another Texas city with a majority minority population, has been deemed the most diverse U.S. city. Like San Antonio, it has challenges, but a Rice University sociologist argues that ethnic tensions in the city have eased over the years and states that “’No city has benefited from immigration more than Houston, Texas.’” 

In addition, immigration supporters can point to small American towns that have succeeded while ethnically diversifying. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman writes about Willmar, Minnesota, population 21,000. It “is now nearly half Latino, Somali and a Noah’s ark of other East African and Asian immigrants. The languages spoken in the high school include English, Arabic, Somali, Spanish and Karen (spoken by an ethnic group from Myanmar).”  According to Friedman, the town has welcomed its immigrant workers, who fill jobs in a local economy with almost no unemployment and without enough “white Lutheran Scandinavians” to fill them. The town’s mayor, who favors helping immigrants integrate into the community, was elected convincingly when he ran against an anti-immigrant candidate.

Thriving Canadian cities also demonstrate the success of diverse societies in North America. Philippe Legrain, author of Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them highlights Toronto, Canada as successfully integrating its ethnically diverse population. At the same time, the city has been highly ranked for its quality of life. About half of its population consists of “visible minorities.” (See also here, here, and  here.)

As a political matter, pushing for increasing immigration levels is probably a better approach to diminishing the influence of white racism than pushing for open borders. While open borders is the best policy choice from a moral standpoint, most Americans would be very uncomfortable with open borders, and calling for just an increase in immigration levels would be more palatable for voters than the radical approach. 

How much of an increase should be championed? In 2013, the U.S. Senate approved legislation which would have raised legal immigration levels by 50 to 70 percent within five years, which suggests a politically realistic goal. A more ambitious campaign would promote an annual immigration flow of between 6-7 million people and would cite the Israeli experience of successfully absorbing a comparable flow in the 1990s.

It is acknowledged that there is no easy solution to individual acts of violence and other harassment based on hatred toward a particular ethnic or racial group. But preventing future nationalist demagogues from attaining power means that there would not be people in power provoking individuals to act out their worst instincts.

While pushing to transform the nation’s population for political ends may seem brazen, the nationalists are not timid about realizing their own version of social engineering. While Trump’s recent proposal to overhaul legal immigration apparently would not change immigration levels, just last year he proposed changes which, according to The Washington Post, “could cut off entry for more than 20 million legal immigrants over the next four decades.” Michael Clemens noted that “’By greatly slashing the number of Hispanic and black African immigrants entering America, this proposal would reshape the future United States. Decades ahead, many fewer of us would be nonwhite or have nonwhite people in our families… Selectively blocking immigrant groups changes who America is. This is the biggest attempt in a century to do that.’” Dana Milbank of The Washington Post similarly summarized the intent of the legislation: “… the Trump-backed immigration proposal, combined with other recent moves by the administration and its allies — support for voter suppression, gerrymandering and various other schemes to disenfranchise minority voters — could extend the white hegemony that brought Trump to power and sustains Republicans.” Trump also  revealed his preferences for whom should immigrate when he infamously asked last year “… why we want people from Haiti and more Africans in the US and added that the US should get more people from countries like Norway.”

White supremacy has been a blight on America, from its origins up to the present, and its marginalization is long overdue. Allowing higher levels of immigration into the U.S. could be an effective way to erode its influence, and increasing immigration levels should be promoted by those who hope for a more tolerant and better governed America.

  from Open Borders: The Case http://bit.ly/2JR1igc

[delwray-blog]

WHO RULES AMERICA?

A R E S E A R C H - R E P O R T

You already know that the news and entertainment media are biased. Now you will find out why they are biased.

Updated November 2004 Copyright ©2004 by National Vanguard Books

THERE IS NO GREATER POWER in the world today than that wielded by the manipulators of public opinion in America. No king or pope of old, no conquering general or high priest ever disposed of a power even remotely approaching that of the few dozen men who control America’s mass media of news and entertainment.

Their power is not distant and impersonal; it reaches into every home in America, and it works its will during nearly every waking hour. It is the power that shapes and molds the mind of virtually every citizen, young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.

The mass media form for us our image of the world and then tell us what to think about that image. Essentially everything we know—or think we know—about events outside our own neighborhood or circle of acquaintances comes to us via our daily newspaper, our weekly news magazine, our radio, or our television. It is not just the heavy-handed suppression of certain news stories from our newspapers or the blatant propagandizing of history-distorting TV “docudramas” that characterizes the opinion-manipulating techniques of the media masters. They exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in their management of the news and the entertainment that they present to us.

For example, the way in which the news is covered: which items are emphasized and which are played down; the reporter’s choice of words, tone of voice, and facial expressions; the wording of headlines; the choice of illustrations—all of these things subliminally and yet profoundly affect the way in which we interpret what we see or hear. On top of this, of course, the columnists and editors remove any remaining doubt from our minds as to just what we are to think about it all. Employing carefully developed psychological techniques, they guide our thought and opinion so that we can be in tune with the “in” crowd, the “beautiful people,” the “smart money.” They let us know exactly what our attitudes should be toward various types of people and behavior by placing those people or that behavior in the context of a TV drama or situation comedy and having the other TV characters react in the Politically Correct way.

Molding American Minds

For example, a racially mixed couple will be respected, liked, and socially sought after by other characters, as will a “take charge” Black scholar or businessman, or a sensitive and talented homosexual, or a poor but honest and hardworking illegal alien from Mexico. On the other hand, a White racist—that is, any racially conscious White person who looks askance at miscegenation or at the rapidly darkening racial situation in America—is portrayed, at best, as a despicable bigot who is reviled by the other characters, or, at worst, as a dangerous psychopath who is fascinated by firearms and is a menace to all law-abiding citizens.

The White racist “gun nut,” in fact, has become a familiar stereotype on TV shows.

The average American, of whose daily life TV-watching takes such an unhealthy portion, distinguishes between these fictional situations and reality only with difficulty, if at all. He responds to the televised actions, statements, and attitudes of TV actors much as he does to his own peers in real life. For all too many Americans, the real world has been replaced by the false reality of the TV environment, and it is to this false reality that his urge to conform responds. Thus, when a TV scriptwriter expresses approval of some ideas and actions through the TV characters for which he is writing, and disapproval of others, he exerts a powerful pressure on millions of viewers toward conformity with his own views. And as it is with TV entertainment, so it is also with the news, whether televised or printed. The insidious thing about this form of thought control is that even when we realize that entertainment or news is biased, the media masters still are able to manipulate most of us. This is because they not only slant what they present, but also they establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion.

As an example, consider the media treatment of Middle East news. Some editors or commentators are slavishly pro-Israel in their every utterance, while others seem nearly neutral. No one, however, dares suggest that the U.S. government is backing the wrong side in the Arab-Jewish conflict, or that 9-11 was a result of that support. Nor does anyone dare suggest that it served Jewish interests, rather than American interests, to send U.S. forces to cripple Iraq, Israel’s principal rival in the Middle East. Thus, a spectrum of permissible opinion, from pro-Israel to nearly neutral, is established.

Another example is the media treatment of racial issues in the United States. Some commentators seem almost dispassionate in reporting news of racial strife, while others are emotionally partisan—with the partisanship always on the non-White side. All of the media spokesmen without exception, however, take the position that “multiculturalism” and racial mixing are here to stay and that they are good things.

Because there are differences in degree, however, most Americans fail to realize that they are being manipulated. Even the citizen who complains about “managed news” falls into the trap of thinking that because he is presented with an apparent spectrum of opinion he can escape the thought controllers’ influence by believing the editor or commentator of his choice. It’s a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Every point on the permissible spectrum of public opinion is acceptable to the media masters—and no impermissible fact or viewpoint is allowed any exposure at all if they can prevent it.

The control of the opinion-molding media is nearly monolithic. All of the controlled media—television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, motion pictures—speak with a single voice, each reinforcing the other. Despite the appearance of variety, there is no real dissent, no alternative source of facts or ideas accessible to the great mass of people that might allow them to form opinions at odds with those of the media masters. They are presented with a single view of the world—a world in which every voice proclaims the equality of the races, the inerrant nature of the Jewish “Holocaust” tale, the wickedness of attempting to halt the flood of non-White aliens pouring across our borders, the danger of permitting citizens to keep and bear arms, the moral equivalence of all sexual orientations, and the desirability of a “pluralistic,” cosmopolitan society rather than a homogeneous, White one. It is a view of the world designed by the media masters to suit their own ends—and the pressure to conform to that view is overwhelming. People adapt their opinions to it, vote in accord with it, and shape their lives to fit it.

And who are these all-powerful masters of the media?

As we shall see, to a very large extent they are Jews. It isn’t simply a matter of the media being controlled by profit-hungry capitalists, some of whom happen to be Jews. If that were the case, the ethnicity of the media masters would reflect, at least approximately, the ratio of rich Gentiles to rich Jews. Despite a few prominent exceptions, the preponderance of Jews in the media is so overwhelming that we are obliged to assume that it is due to more than mere happenstance.

Electronic News and Entertainment Media Continuing government deregulation of the telecommunications industry has resulted, not in the touted increase of competition, but rather in an accelerating wave of corporate mergers and acquisitions that have produced a handful of multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates. The largest of these conglomerates are rapidly growing even bigger by consuming their competition, almost tripling in size during the 1990s. Whenever you watch television, whether from a local broadcasting station or via cable or a satellite dish; whenever you see a feature film in a theater or at home; whenever you listen to the radio or to recorded music; whenever you read a newspaper, book, or magazine—it is very likely that the information or entertainment you receive was produced and/or distributed by one of these megamedia companies:

Time Warner The largest media conglomerate today is Time Warner (briefly called AOL Time Warner; the AOL was dropped from the name when accounting practices at the AOL division were questioned by government investigators), which reached its current form when America Online bought Time Warner for $160 billion in 2000. The combined company had revenue of $39.5 billion in 2003. The merger brought together Steve Case, a Gentile, as chairman of AOL-Time Warner, and Gerald Levin, a Jew, as the CEO. Warner, founded by the Jewish Warner brothers in the early part of the last century, rapidly became part of the Jewish power base in Hollywood, a fact so well-known that it is openly admitted by Jewish authors, as is the fact that each new media acquisition becomes dominated by Jews in turn: Speaking of the initial merger of Time,

Inc. with Warner, Jewish writer Michael Wolff said in New York magazine in 2001 “since Time Inc.’s merger with Warner ten years ago, one of the interesting transitions is that it has become a Jewish company.” (“From AOL to W,” New York magazine, January 29, 2001) The third most powerful man at AOL-Time Warner, at least on paper, was Vice Chairman Ted Turner, a White Gentile. Turner had traded his Turner Broadcasting System, which included CNN, to Time Warner in 1996 for a large block of Time Warner shares. By April 2001 Levin had effectively fired Ted Turner, eliminating him from any real power. However, Turner remained a very large and outspoken shareholder and member of the board of directors. Levin overplayed his hand, and in a May 2002 showdown, he was fired by the company’s board. For Ted Turner, who had lost $7 billion of his $9 billion due to Levin’s mismanagement, it was small solace. Turner remains an outsider with no control over the inner workings of the company.

Peter Chernin of Fox: Without the cheerleading of Fox News, the Iraq War would have been a much harder sell to the American people.

Also under pressure, Steve Case resigned effective in May 2003. The board replaced both Levin and Case with a Black, Richard Parsons. Behind Parsons, the Jewish influence and power remains dominant.

AOL is the largest Internet service provider in the world, with 34 million U.S. subscribers. It is now being used as an online platform for the Jewish content from Time Warner. Jodi Kahn and Meg Siesfeld, both Jews, lead the Time Inc. Interactive team under executive editor Ned Desmond, a White Gentile. All three report to Time Inc. editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. Their job is to transfer Time Warner’s content to target specific segments of America On line’s audience, especially women, children, and teens. Time Warner was already the second largest of the international media leviathans when it merged with AOL. Time Warner’s subsidiary HBO (26 million subscribers) is the nation’s largest pay-TV cable network. HBO’s “competitor” Cinemax is another of Time Warner’s many cable ventures.

Until the purchase in May 1998 of PolyGram by Jewish billionaire Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Warner Music was America’s largest record company, with 50 labels. Warner Music was an early promoter of “gangster-rap.” Though when Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick (pictured, top), made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in the media boardrooms across the country. Turner had made a fortune in advertising and then built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN, with over 70 million subscribers. Although Turner had never taken a stand contrary to Jewish interests, he was regarded by William Paley and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: loose cannon that might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews.

To block Turner’s bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a “friendly” takeover of CBS. From 1986 to 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Ted Turner to acquire CBS were obstructed by Gerald Levin’s (pictured, bottom) Time Warner, which owned nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and had veto power over major deals. But when his fellow Jew Sumner Redstone offered to buy CBS for $34.8 billion in 1999, Levin had no objections.

Thus, despite being an innovator and garnering headlines, Turner never commanded the “connections” necessary for being a media master. He finally decided if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em, and he sold out to Levin’s Time Warner. Ted Turner summed it up:

“I’ve had an incredible life for the most part. I made a lot of smart moves, and I made a lot of money. Then something happened, and I merged with Time Warner, which looked like the right thing to do at the time. And it was good for shareholders. “But then I lost control. I thought I would have enough moral authority to have all the influence in the new company. If you go into business, be very careful with whom you merge. “I thought I was buying Time Warner, but they were buying me. We had kind of a difference in viewpoint. Then they merged with AOL, and that was a complete disaster, at least so far. I have lost 85 percent of my wealth.” “Be very careful with whom you merge.”

Ted Turner’s Lesson:

Its involvement with Interscope Records (prior to Interscope’s acquisition by another Jewish-owned media firm), it helped to popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites.

Bronfman purchased Warner Music in 2004, keeping it solidly in Jewish hands.

In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio, Castle Rock Entertainment, and New Line Cinema). Time Warner’s publishing division is managed by its editor-in-chief,

Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. He controls 50 magazines including Time, Life, Sports Illustrated, and People. Book publishing ventures include Time-Life Books, Book-of-the-Month Club, Little Brown, and many others. Time Warner also owns Shout cast and Winamp, the very tools that most independent Internet radio broadcasters rely on, and, as a dominant player in the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), was essentially “negotiating” with itself when Internet radio music royalty rules were set that strongly favored large content providers and forced many small broadcasters into silence. (The Register, “AOL Time Warner takes a grip of net radio,” 8th April 2003)

Disney. The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 2003 revenues of $27.1 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. It’s leading personality and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew.

The Disney empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a “control freak,” includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television) and cable networks with more than 100 million subscribers altogether. As for feature films, the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group includes Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Jewish Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, who have produced such ultra-raunchy movies as The Crying Game, Priest, and Kids.

When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, the company under Eisner has expanded into the production of a great deal of so-called “adult” material.

In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which owns the ABC television network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston.

In addition, in the United States ABC has 225 affiliated TV stations, over 2,900 affiliated radio stations and produces over 7,200 radio programs.

ABC owns 54 radio stations and operates 57 radio stations, many in major cities such as New York, Washington, and Los Angeles.

Radio Disney, part of ABC Radio Networks, provides programming targeting children.

Sports network ESPN, an ABC cable subsidiary, is headed by President and CEO George W. Bodenheimer, who is a Jew. The corporation also controls the Disney Channel, Toon Disney, A&E, Lifetime Television, SOAP net, and the History Channel, with between 86 and 88 million subscribers each.

The ABC Family television network has 84 million subscribers and, in addition to broadcasting entertainment (some of it quite raunchy for a “family” channel), is also the network outlet for Christian Zionist TV evangelist Pat Robertson.

Although primarily a telecommunications company, ABC/Disney earns over $1 billion in publishing, owning Walt Disney Company Book Publishing, Hyperion Books, and Miramax Books. It also owns six daily newspapers and publishes over 20 magazines. Disney Publishing Worldwide publishes books and magazines in 55 languages in 74 countries, reaching more than 100 million readers each month on the Internet, Disney runs Buena Vista Internet Group, ABC Internet Group, ABC.com, ABCNEWS.com,

Oscar.com, Mr. Showbiz, Disney Online, Disney’s Daily Blast, Disney.com, Family.com, ESPN Internet Group, ESPN.sportzone.com, Soccernet.com, NFL.com, NBA.com, Infoseek (partial ownership), and Disney Interactive.

Time Warner’s Norman Pearlstine: He controls 50 popular magazines. Disney CEO Michael Eisner: Subverting the Disney legacy.

Viacom Number three on the list, with 2003 revenues of just over $26.5 billion, is Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), a Jew. Melvin A. Karmazin, another Jew, was number two at Viacom until June 2004, holding the positions of president and chief operating officer. Karmazin remains a large Viacom shareholder. Replacing Karmazin as co-presidents and co-COOs are a Jew, Leslie Moonves, and Tom Freston, a possible Jew. (We have been unable to confirm Freston’s Jewish ancestry; he has done work for Jewish organizations and was involved in the garment trade, a heavily Jewish industry, importing clothing from the Third World to the U.S. in the 1970s.)

Viacom produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 39 television stations outright with another 200 affiliates in its wholly-owned CBS Television Network, owns 185 radio stations in its Infinity radio group, and has over 1,500 affiliated stations through its CBS Radio Network. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing (born Sherry Lee Heimann), who is planning to retire at the end of 2005.

Viacom was formed in 1971 as a way to dodge an anti-monopoly FCC ruling that required CBS to spin off a part of its cable TV operations and syndicated programming business. This move by the government, unfortunately, did nothing to reduce the mostly Jewish collaborative monopoly that remains the major problem with the industry. In 1999, after CBS had again augmented itself by buying King World Productions (a leading TV program syndicator), Viacom acquired its progenitor company, CBS, in a double mockery of the spirit of the 1971 ruling. Redstone acquired CBS following the December 1999 stockholders’ votes at CBS and Viacom. CBS Television has long been headed by the previously mentioned Leslie Moonves; the other Viacom co-president, Tom Freston, headed wholly-owned MTV.

Viacom also owns the Country Music Television and The Nashville Network cable channels and is the largest outdoor advertising (billboards, etc.) entity in the U.S.

Viacom’s publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, Fireside, and Archway Paperbacks. It distributes videos through it’s over 8,000 Blockbuster stores. It is also involved in satellite broadcasting, theme parks, and video games.

Viacom’s chief claim to fame, however, is as the world’s largest provider of cable programming through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, Black Entertainment Television, and other networks. Since 1989 MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the juvenile television audience. MTV dominates the television market for viewers between the ages of 12 and 24. Sumner Redstone owns 76 percent of the shares of Viacom. He offers Jackass as a teen role model and pumps MTV’s racially mixed rock and rap videos into 342 million homes in 140 countries and is a dominant cultural influence on White teenagers around the world. MTV also makes race-mixing movies like Save the Last Dance. Nickelodeon, with over 87 million subscribers, has by far the largest share of the four-to-11-year-old TV audience in America and is expanding rapidly into Europe. Most of its shows do not yet display the blatant degeneracy that is MTV’s trademark, but Redstone is gradually nudging the fare presented to his kiddie viewers toward the same poison purveyed by MTV. Nickelodeon continues a 12-year streak as the top cable network for children and younger teenagers.

NBC Universal another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress. Seagram owned Universal Studios and later purchased Interscope Records, the foremost promoter of “gangster rap,” from Warner. Universal and Interscope now belong to Viv-Sumner Redstone of Viacom: He encouraged his lieutenant, Tom Freston, to create a homosexual-oriented television network to add to his media empire. Edgar Bronfman, Jr. of Warner Music, late of Vivendi Universal this Seagram’s liquor heir buys and sells media empires like Collectors trade stamps. His father is president of the World Jewish Congress.

Endi Universal, which merged with NBC in May 2004, with the parent company now called NBC Universal. Bronfman became the biggest man in the record business in May 1998 when he also acquired control of PolyGram, the European record giant, by paying $10.6 billion to the Dutch electronics manufacturer Philips.

In June 2000, the Bronfman family traded Seagram to Vivendi for stock in Vivendi, and Edgar, Jr. became vice chairman of Vivendi. Vivendi was originally a French utility company and was then led by Gentile Jean-Marie Messier. A board of director’s faction led by Bronfman forced Messier to resign in July 2002. Vivendi also acquired bisexual Jew Barry Diller’s USA Networks in 2002. (Diller is the owner of InterActive Corporation which owns Expedia, Ticketmaster, The Home Shopping Network, Lending Tree, Hotels.com, CitySearch, Evite, Match.com, and other Internet businesses.)

Vivendi combined the USA Network, Universal Studios, Universal Television, and theme parks into Vivendi Universal Entertainment (VUE). After the Vivendi-NBC merger,

Bronfman used his considerable personal profits to strike out on his own and recently purchased Warner Music from Jewish-dominated Time Warner. The current chairman of NBC Universal is a Gentile often associated with Jewish causes, longtime NBC employee Bob Wright. Ron Meyer, a Jew, is president and chief operating officer of Universal Studios. Stacey Snider, also Jewish, is the chairman of Universal Pictures.

The president of NBC Universal Television Group is Jeff Zucker, another Jew.

With two of the top four media conglomerates in the hands of Jews (Disney and Viacom), with Jewish executives running the media operations of NBC Universal, and with Jews filling a large proportion of the executive jobs at Time Warner, it is unlikely that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on the Jews’ part.

Other media companies:

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation owns Fox Television Network, Fox News, the FX Channel, 20th Century Fox Films, Fox 2000, and publisher Harper Collins. News

Corp. is the fifth largest megamedia corporation in the nation, with 2003 revenues of approximately $19.2 billion. It is the only other media company which comes close to the top four. Its Fox News Channel has been a key outlet pushing the Jewish neoconservative agenda that lies behind the Iraq War and which animates both the administration of George W. Bush and the “new conservatism” that embraces aggressive Zionism and multiracialism, Murdoch is nominally a Gentile, but there is some uncertainty about his ancestry and he has vigorously supported Zionism and other Jewish causes throughout his life. (Historian David Irving has published information from a claimed high-level media source who says that Murdoch’s mother, Elisabeth Joy Greene, was Jewish, but we have not been able to confirm this.) Murdoch’s number two executive is Peter Chernin, who is president and chief operating officer—and a Jew.

Under Chernin, Jews hold key positions in the company: Gail Berman runs Fox Entertainment Group; Mitchell Stern heads satellite television division DirecTV;

Jane Friedman is chairman and CEO of Harper Collins, and Thomas Rothman is chairman of Fox Filmed Entertainment. News Corporation also owns the New York Post and TV Guide, and both are published under Chernin’s supervision. The primary printed neoconservative Rupert Murdoch of News Corporation: An ardent Zionist and backer of the neocons. Sony’s Andrew Lack: The Japan-based Company perhaps not wanting to disrupt “American” corporate culture has staffed its U.S. operations with Jewish executives. Melvin Karmazin is out at Viacom and currently oligarch without portfolio. When a reporter asked the then-CBS president why he wanted a merger with Viacom, he said: “This is the deal I’ve wanted to make, I think, from the time I was bar-mitzvahed.” journal, The Weekly Standard, is also published by News Corporation and edited by William Kristal, a leading Jewish neocon spokesman and “intellectual.”

Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by large media corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, Spyglass, an “independent” film producer which has made such films as The Sixth Sense, The Insider, and Shanghai Noon, is controlled by its Jewish founders Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum, who are co-chairmen. Jonathan Glickman serves as president and Paul Neinstein is executive vice president. Both men are Jews. Spyglass makes movies exclusively for DreamWorks SKG. The best known of the smaller media companies, DreamWorks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair. DreamWorks was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Considering the cash and connections that Geffen, Katzenberg, and Spielberg have, DreamWorks may soon be in the same league as the big four. One major studio, Columbia Pictures, is owned by the Japanese multinational firm Sony. Nevertheless, the studio’s chairman is Jewess Amy Pascal, and its output fully reflects the Jewish social agenda. Sony’s music division recently merged with European music giant BMG to form Sony BMG Music Entertainment, now one of the world’s largest music distributors. It is headed by CEO Andrew Lack, formerly president and CEO of NBC—and a Jew. Sony’s overall American operations are headed by a Jew named Howard Stringer, formerly of CBS, who hired Lack. It is well known that Jews have controlled most of the production and distribution of films since shortly after the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century. When Walt Disney died in 1966, the last barrier to the total Jewish domination of Hollywood was gone, and Jews were able to grab ownership of the company that Walt built. Since then they have had everything their way in the movie industry. Films produced by seven of the firms mentioned above—Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), Universal (NBC Universal), 20th Century Fox (News Corp.), DreamWorks, and Columbia (Sony)—accounted for 94% of total box-office receipts for the year 2003.

The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities.

While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson; NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert; and CBS first by William Paley and then by Laurence Tisch. Over several decades these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other Jewish-dominated media corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong.

NBC provides a good example of this. The president of NBC News is Neal Shapiro. Jeff Zucker is NBC Universal Television Group president. Reporting directly to Zucker is his close friend Jonathan Wald, formerly an NBC program producer, now a senior consultant for CNBC.

David M. Zaslav is president of NBC Cable (and also a director of the digital video firm TiVo Inc.). The president of MSNBC is Rick Kaplan. All of these men are Jews. A similar preponderance of Jews exists in the news divisions of the other networks. Sumner Redstone, Tom Freston, and Les Moonves control Viacom’s CBS. Moonves demonstrated his power in 2002 by replacing the entire staff of the new CBS Early Show. He is also a great-nephew of William Kristol preaches neo-conservatism under Chernin and Murdoch.

Amy Pascal is the head of Columbia Pictures. Steven Spielberg is a partner with Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen in up-and-coming Jewish media firm Dream works SKG.

Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister. Al Ortiz (also a Jew) is executive producer and director of special events coverage for CBS News. Senior executive producer Michael Bass and Victor Neufeld (formerly producer of ABC’s 20/20) produce the CBS Early Show; both are Jews.

At ABC, David Westin, who is a Jew according to Jeffrey Blankfort of the Middle East Labor Bulletin, is the president of ABC News. The senior vice president for news at ABC is Paul Slavin also a Jew. Bernard Gershon, a Jew, is senior vice president/general manager of the ABC News Digital Media Group, in charge of ABCNEWS.com, ABC News Productions, and ABC News Video Source.

The Print Media

After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. About 58 million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1,456 different publications. One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against minority control and distortion. Alas, such is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of majority interests than a casual observer would think.

In 1945, four out of five American newspapers were independently owned and published by local people with close ties to their communities. Those days, however, are gone. Most of the independent newspapers were bought out or driven out of business by the mid-1970s. Today most “local” newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Today less than 20 percent of the country’s 1,456 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only 103 of the total number have circulations of more than 100,000. Only a handful is large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest must depend on these few for all of their national and international news.

The Associated Press (AP), which sells content to newspapers, is currently under the control of its Jewish vice president and managing editor, Michael Silverman, who directs the day-to-day news reporting and supervises the editorial departments. Silverman had directed the AP’s national news as assistant managing editor, beginning in 1989. Jewess Ann Levin is AP’s national news editor. Silverman and Levin are under Jonathan Wolman, also a Jew, who was promoted to senior vice president of AP in November 2002.

In only two percent of the cities in America is there more than one daily newspaper and competition is frequently nominal even among them, as between morning and afternoon editions under the same ownership or under joint operating agreements.

Much of the competition has disappeared through the monopolistic tactics of the Jewish Newhouse family’s holding company, Advance Publications. Advance publications buy one of two competing newspapers and then starts an advertising war by slashing advertising rates, which drives both papers to the edge of bankruptcy. Advance Publications then steps in and buys the competing newspaper. Often both papers continue one as a morning paper and the other as an evening paper. Eventually, though, one of the papers is closed—giving the Newhouse brothers the only daily newspaper in that city. For example, in 2001 the Newhouse’s closed the Syracuse Herald-Journal leaving their other Syracuse newspaper, the Post-Journal, with a monopoly. The Newhouse media empire provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America’s daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip. The Newhouse’s own 31 daily newspapers including several large and important ones such as the Cleveland Plain Top, Samuel Newhouse, Jr. of Advance Publications; below him heir apparent Samuel Newhouse IV. The Newhouse Media Empire has avoided much of the volatility of the others by remaining privately held.

It was established through rapacious monopolistic practices, driving competitors out of business.

Donald Graham, CEO of the Washington Post Company. His is the third generation of racially Jewish owners of the most influential paper in the nation’s capital and all its associated enterprises.

Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of television stations and cable operations; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 35 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including The New Yorker, Vogue, Wired, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride’s, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group. The staffing of the magazines is, as you might expect, quite Kosher. The parade can serve as an example: Its publisher is Randy Siegel, its editor, and senior vice president is Lee Kravitz, its creative director is Ira Yoffe, its Science editor is David H. Levy, and its health editor is Dr. Isadore Rosenfeld. This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. When he died in 1979 at the age of 84, he bequeathed media holdings worth an estimated $1.3 billion to his two sons, Samuel and Donald. With a number of further acquisitions, the net worth of Advance Publications has grown to more than $9 billion today. The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was facilitated by newspapers’ revenue structure. Newspapers, to a large degree, are not supported by their subscribers but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenue—not the small change collected from a newspaper’s readers—that largely pays the editor’s salary and yields the owner’s profit. Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the last century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapers—to some extent a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants. Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Three Jewish Newspapers

The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America’s newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation’s three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America’s financial and political capitals, are the newspapers that set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones that decide what news is and what isn’t at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it. And all three newspapers are in Jewish hands. The New York Times, with a 2003 circulation of 1,119,000 is the unofficial social, fashion, entertainment, political, and cultural guide of the nation. It tells America’s “smart set” which books to buy and which films to see; which opinions are in style at the moment; which politicians, educators, spiritual leaders, artists, and businessmen are the real comers. And for a few decades in the 19th century, it was a genuinely American newspaper.

The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry J. Raymond, and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones’s estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-great-grandson, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and the chairman of the New York Times Co. Russell T. Lewis, also a Jew, is president and chief executive officer of The New York Times Company. Michael Golden, another Jew, is Peter R. Kann, who controls Dow Jones & Co., publishers of the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, and 33 other newspapers.

Harvey Weinstein, who, with his brother Bob, has produced such motion pictures as the Crying Game, Priest, and Kids through Miramax Films in association with Michael Eisner’s Walt Disney Company, Vice-chairman. Martin Nisenholtz, a Jew, runs their massive Internet operations. The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe, purchased in June 1993 for $1.1 billion; eight TV and two radio broadcasting stations; and more than 40 news-oriented Web operations. It also publishes the International Herald Tribune, the most widely distributed English-language daily in the world. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines. Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its “leaks” throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.

The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John R. McLean, and later inherited by Edward B. McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier and former partner of the infamous Bernard Baruch, a Jew who was industry czar in America during the First World War. The Washington Post was run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter, until her death in 2001. She was the principal stockholder and board chairman of the Washington Post Company; and she appointed her son, Donald Graham, publisher of the paper in 1979. Donald became Washington Post Company CEO in 1991 and its board chairman in 1993, and the chain of Jewish control at the Post remains unbroken. The newspaper has a daily circulation of 732,000, and its Sunday edition sells over one million copies.

The Washington Post Company has a number of other media holdings in newspapers (the Gazette Newspapers, including 11 military publications); in television (WDIV in Detroit, KPRC in Houston, WPLG in Miami, WKMG in Orlando, KSAT in San Antonio, WJXT in Jacksonville); and in magazines, most notably the nation’s number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek.

The Washington Post Company’s various television ventures reach a total of about 12 million homes, and its cable TV service, Cable One, has 750,000 subscribers. The Wall Street Journal sells 1,820,000 copies each weekday and is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation that also publishes 33 other newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones are Peter R. Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal.

Most of New York’s other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. In January 1993 the New York Daily News (circulation 729,000) was bought from the estate of the late Jewish media mogul Robert Maxwell (born Ludvik Hoch) by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. Another Jew, Les Goodstein, is the president and chief operating officer of the New York Daily News. And, as mentioned above, the neocon-slanted New York Post (circulation 652,000) is owned by News Corporation under the supervision of Jew Peter Chernin.

News Magazines

The story is much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, films, music, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There is only three of any importance published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subsidiary of Time Warner Communications, the news media conglomerate formed by the 1989 merger of Time, Inc., with Warner Communications. The editor-in-chief of Time Warner Communication is Norman Pearlstine, a Jew. Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jew Donald Graham. Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million. U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.0 million, is owned and published by the aforementioned Mortimer B. Zuckerman, who also has taken the position of editor-in-chief of the magazine for himself. Zuckerman also owns New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the nation.

Our Responsibility

Those are the facts of media control in America. Anyone willing to spend a few hours in a large library looking into current editions of yearbooks on the radio and television industries and into directories of newspapers and magazines; into registers of corporations and their officers, such as those published by Standard and Poor’s and by Dun and Bradstreet; and into standard biographical reference works can verify their accuracy. They are undeniable. When confronted with these facts, Jewish spokesmen customarily will use evasive tactics. “Ted Turner isn’t a Jew!” they will announce triumphantly as if that settled the issue. If pressed further they will accuse the confronter of “anti-Semitism” for even raising the subject. It is fear of this accusation that keeps many persons who know the facts silent. But we must not remain silent on this most important of issues. The Jewish control of the American mass media is the single most important fact of life, not just in America, but in the whole world today. There is nothing—plague, famine, economic collapse, even nuclear war—more dangerous to the future of our people.

Jewish media control determines the foreign policy of the United States and permits Jewish interests rather than American interests to decide questions of war and peace.

Without Jewish media control, there would have been no Persian Gulf War for example. There would have been no NATO massacre of Serb civilians. There would have been no Iraq War, and thousands of lives would have been saved. There would have been little if any, American support for the Zionist state of Israel, and the hatreds, feuds, and terror of the Middle East would never have been brought to our shores.

By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by parents, schools, or any other influence. The Jew-controlled entertainment media have taken the lead in persuading a whole generation that homosexuality is a normal and acceptable way of life; that there is nothing at all wrong with White women dating or marrying Black men, or with White men marrying Asian women; that all races are inherently equal in ability and character—except that the character of the White race is suspect because of a history of oppressing other races; and that any effort by Whites at racial self-preservation is reprehensible.

We must oppose the further spreading of this poison among our people, and we must break the power of those who are spreading it. It would be intolerable for such power to be in the hands of any alien minority with values and interests different from our own. But to permit the Jews, with their 3,000-year history of nation-wrecking, from ancient Egypt to Russia, to hold such power over us is tantamount to race suicide. Indeed, the fact that so many White Americans today are so filled with a sense of racial guilt and self-hatred that they actively seek the death of their own race is a deliberate consequence of Jewish media control.

Once we have absorbed and understood the fact of Jewish media control, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break that control. We must shrink from nothing in combating this evil power that has fastened its deadly grip on our people and is injecting its lethal poison into our people’s minds and souls. If our race fails to destroy it, it certainly will destroy our race.

A growing number of White Americans are working to build new media not under Jewish control. National Vanguard Books, the publisher of this pamphlet, also publishes its own full-color magazine of news, thought, and opinion, National Vanguard, a sample of which is available from the address below for $5 in the U.S. and Canada, $8 elsewhere. We also operate news and comment Web site, updated several times daily, at NationalVanguard.org; and a weekly radio program, American Dissident Voices. The program itself and a broadcast schedule are available at natvan.com and National Vanguard.org or by writing to the address below. It is vital that we support our own alternative media. The National Alliance, the parent organization of National Vanguard Books, is a membership organization of activists working for White interests and helping to build and fund our new media. For further information on Alliance membership, write to P.O. Box 90, Hillsboro WV 24946 USA.

Additional copies of this pamphlet may be ordered from National Vanguard Books, P.O. Box 330, Hillsboro, WV 24946 USA. 10 copies $6. 25 copies $9. 100 copies $20. 1000 Copies $154 prices include postage. Our book catalog, listing over 600 books, videos, and audio recordings, is available for $3 postpaid.

All contents copyright ©2004 National Vanguard Books, Inc. Media owners, managers, and corporate relationships change from time to time, of course. All of the names and other data in this report, except where otherwise noted, are accurate as of November 2004.

Media of Our Own

[xto10x-blog]

50 Blogs Every Digital Marketer Should Follow (Complete List 2019)

If you making your career into Digital Marketing, Growth Hacking, SEO, PPC etc. or an expert looking forward to keeping you up to date with industry happenings then here is the list which you should add to your bookmark list.

SEO

It’s one of the fastest-moving areas of marketing – and a skillset that every marketer needs. These blogs will help to keep you where it’s at on search trends

Blind Five Year Old

Blind Five Year Old is an SEO agency and blog run by AJ Kohn. The name comes from a tried-and-tested SEO philosophy: treat search engines like they are blind five-year-olds. It’s technical but very authoritative and a must-read if you’re passionate about search.

Website: http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/

Search Engine Journal

Mixing news, tips, and tactics, this is very much applied search marketing wisdom – and has some great insights for marketers.

Website: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/

Backlinko

Link-building is still a woefully under-appreciated art in SEO and content marketing. Brian Dean’s blog dispenses much-needed, practical wisdom that can make a real difference to your content visibility.

Website: https://backlinko.com/

Tubular Insights (formerly ReelSEO)

If you’re planning a role for video content in your strategy then you need to follow this blog. It’s where you find the real juice on what works and what doesn't – from a technical as well as a creative perspective.

Website: http://tubularinsights.com/

Moz

The grand-daddy of all SEO blogs headed up by the legendary Rand Fishkin. It will keep you on top of all the latest developments in search – with plenty of inspiration and new tactics mixed in.

Website: https://moz.com/blog

Search Engine Land

More news-focused than the other SEO blogs that I follow, this one gives me absolute confidence that I’m on top of everything I need to know.

Website: https://searchengineland.com/

SEO by the Sea

I think of this as a living encyclopedia of search. It takes a research-led approach to SEO issues as they come up, combing through published material from the search engines to piece together how things actually work.

Website: http://www.seobythesea.com/

Marketing and Advertising

From content marketing to demand and lead generation and proving ROI – these are the blogs I turn to for industry news and inspiration:

Content Marketing Institute

From the ups and downs of working with content agencies to the nuts and bolts of building a content calendar, with plenty of top-level tips on formats from podcasts to webinars thrown in: this is a feed must-have for content marketers. You’ll find plenty of great in-depth resources too.

Website: http://contentmarketinginstitute.com/blog/

Convince and Convert

Jay Baer is one of the most entertaining, original and insightful voices out there on content. His blog stands out for its focus on linking content back to the bottom line. You want evidence, numbers, and ROI? This blog will help you deliver them.

Website: http://www.convinceandconvert.com/blog/

Social Media Examiner

Your ‘guide to the social media jungle’ delivers a regular flow of ‘how to’ posts that answer some of the most pressing practical questions you’re likely to have as a content marketer.

Website: https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/

MarTech

There’s a great mix of technology-related content on here, including on broader issues of how marketing and tech intersect. The real value, though, is in the podcasts: practical insights from real experts on different emerging platforms.

Website: https://martech.zone/

Copyblogger

Copyblogger founder Brian Clark is one of the original pioneers of B2B content marketing as we know it today. This blog reflects that legacy: it’s packed with resources (again, the podcasts are particularly good), but also with posts that explore all aspects of what it means to be a content marketer today.

Website: https://www.copyblogger.com/blog/

Marketing Insider

Michael Brenner is the author of The Content Formula and one of the most widely shared thought-leaders on LinkedIn SlideShare, which makes his blog an essential addition to your feed.

Website: https://marketinginsidergroup.com/blog/

Marketing Land

Broad-ranging, authoritative and current, with around five new posts a day on average: Marketing Land is a great source for the digital marketing news that you won’t necessarily get from the mainstream marketing press. It’s not afraid of a good strong opinion either.

Website: https://marketingland.com/

Marketing Profs

Any blog associated with my friend and mentor Ann Handley is guaranteed to deliver smart, alternative opinions that are sharply expressed. The Marketing Profs blog doesn't disappoint. Add it to your feed and you’ll find a regular stream of alternative perspectives on life as a content marketer. You’ll also get a heads up on Marketing Profs’ new resources (some of the best in the business), as they’re launched.

Website: https://www.marketingprofs.com/opinions/

Kissmetrics

Metrics and analytics remain a blind spot for many content marketing strategies. This blog is on a mission to remedy that. It focuses on the outcomes you need and then works back to explore the techniques that can get you there.

Website: https://blog.kissmetrics.com/

InternetMarketingNinjas

Great name – and a very canny blog approaching internet marketing from an SEO perspective.

Website: https://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/blog/

AimClear

It promises “digital marketing news with a side of snark” and I honestly can’t think of a better description for what AimClear serves up. It’s a living example of how you can pep up content by stirring a bit of attitude and energy into it.

Website: http://www.aimclearblog.com/

AdAge

AdAge is still one of marketing’s most authoritative thought-leadership brands – and that’s reflected in the heavyweight line-up of columnists on this blog.

Website: http://adage.com/blogs/

Adland

Savvy, smart and plugging you straight into the creative side of marketing: I get a regular top-up of creative inspiration from Adland.

Website: https://adland.tv/

AdRants

Out-there opinions, occasionally off-message, and always interesting whether you agree with them or not: that’s what you get with this blog.

Website: http://www.adrants.com/

Ogilvy On our Minds

Tapping you straight into the thinking of a global agency, with perspectives and practical advice from across different markets.

Website: https://www.ogilvy.com/

SuperX Growth Hackers

SuperX Growth Hackers is a team lead by passionate entrepreneurs and growth hackers who live and love hacking growth for startups.

Website: https://www.superxgh.com/blog.html

The marketers I have massive respect for:

There are blogs that I follow religiously because I know, admire and respect the author. I’ve never been disappointed by the results:

Ann Handley

Personal reflections from the frontline of content marketing from one of the quickest-witted, most empowering and most inspiring writers out there. You need Ann Handley’s thinking in your life.

Website: http://annhandley.com/blog/

Minter Dial

The first thing I did after meeting Minter Dial was to add his blog to my feed. He’s a passionate storyteller with a unique perspective born of his experiences as an award-winning filmmaker and marketing leader at L’Oréal. His contact book adds up to a great list of interviewees and guest bloggers as well.

Website: http://myndset.com/blog/

Matt Heinz

B2B marketing wisdom delivered in a straight, understated, no-nonsense style. Whether he’s curating or creating, Matt Heinz is well worth listening to.

Website: https://www.heinzmarketing.com/blog/

Chris Penn

Chris is one of the smartest marketing minds I’ve ever come across and following his blog is one of the most enjoyable ways imaginable to get a handle on metrics in marketing.

Website: http://www.christopherspenn.com/

Brian Solis

The author of Engage!, WTF and X is also a prolific contributor of industry-specific articles and posts – and they are all collected on this blog. However, this is just part of Brian’s contribution to the blogosphere. For more off the cuff thoughts, make sure you subscribe to Gapingvoid (see below) as well.

Website: http://www.briansolis.com/

Neil Patel

Neil is a genuine online marketing guru. The content on his blog covers everything from the technicalities of bounce rates to insights on how to find profitable niche audiences. He’s also the master of the irresistible call to action: ‘Yes, I want to learn everything’; ‘No, I don’t want more traffic on my blog’. If I’m writing a CTA, his blog is a great place to look for inspiration.

Website: https://neilpatel.com/blog/

Mark Schaeffer

Mark has one of the most engaging writing styles in B2B marketing – and also one of the most interesting contact books. Put those two things together and you get hugely readable posts with insights on new developments, research and trends that you often won’t find elsewhere. The tagline for his ‘grow’ blog is Marketing. Strategy. Humanity. And that’s exactly what it delivers.

Website: https://www.businessesgrow.com/blog

Heidi Cohen

Heidi’s Actionable Marketing blog is as determinedly practical as it promises to be. You get great tips on everything from making over neglected content to overcoming the dreaded writer’s block.

Website: https://heidicohen.com/

Seth Godin

It’s the most original, most unique, most inspiring marketing blog out there. Seth writes as he thinks – like nobody else. His daily posts are succinct, hugely personal and yet hugely relevant to the business of marketing – and the business of being alive.

Website: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/

Creativity

Here’s where I turn for a shot of inspiration – often from out of left-field and all the more potent for that:

terribleminds

This blog is like no other on this list – in fact, it’s like no other blog full stop. It’s the stream of consciousness of writer Chuck Wendig. It goes where no other thought leadership on creativity dares to. It’s your morning espresso hit of insane content inspiration.

Website: http://terribleminds.com/ramble/blog/

GapingVoid

Irreverent, insightful and often very funny, the Gapingvoid blog fuses witty cartoons on the marketing zeitgeist with pithy observations from Brian Solis. It will put a smile on your face – and potentially a new thought in your mind.

Website: https://www.gapingvoid.com/blog/

I love typography

This is a real change of pace from every other blog on this list – and that’s why I love it so much. In-depth meditations on typefaces, the craft that goes into creating them, and the way that meticulous design influences the way that audiences engage and respond. It’s pure relaxation to read – and I guarantee it will add new dimensions to your creativity.

Website: https://ilovetypography.com/

Icanhascheezburger

Pure, meme-driven social media madness. I love it because it makes me laugh, frown and tear my remaining hair out – sometimes simultaneously. And also because, if you want to keep a handle on how human attention works, you have to stay on top of this stuff. Well, that’s my excuse anyway.

Website: http://icanhas.cheezburger.com/

Readwrite

Okay – back to the more serious stuff. Readwrite delivers despatches from the frontline of tech. It’s a great spark to creativity just because it puts you in touch with future hot topics first.

Website: https://readwrite.com/

Where Data, Tech, and Marketing Meet

They may appear more specialist, but there’s insight and inspiration in here for everyone:

Techcrunch

The bible of technology news. It was originally pitched to a start-up audience, and there’s a real insider flavor to its take on the intersection between venture capital, entrepreneurship, and innovation. If you want to know about the next unicorn, add this to your feed.

Website: https://techcrunch.com/

EConsultancy

The essential digital marketing blog: original research mixed with creative commentary and confident opinions.

Website: https://econsultancy.com/blog/

Fivethirtyeight

Nate Silver’s blog is where data analysis meets popular culture – hugely readable, bringing a new perspective to the big global stories, and a must for anybody who works with numbers.

Website: http://fivethirtyeight.com/

Inspirational Thinking

Life as a marketer isn’t just about the marketing that you do – these blogs take a more holistic approach. They’re deeply human and often deeply inspirational:

WaitButWhy

The first thing you’ll notice about this blog is that the posts don’t come at you all that frequently. The second thing you’ll notice is that there’s a very good reason. Tim Urban explores subjects as immense as AI and the human brain with wit, verve and depth you will find nowhere else. There are surreal stories. There are lots and lots of hilarious stick men illustrations. There are moments of deep, human inspiration. An update from this blog is one of my highlights in any given month. Every installment is epic.

Website: https://waitbutwhy.com/

The Tim Ferriss Show

The blog of one of the most thought-provoking podcasts out there – a professional lifestyle magazine that finds inspiration everywhere it hides.

Website: https://tim.blog/

Bakadesuyo

Eric Barker’s blog is empowering life coaching at its best: the secrets of happiness, mindfulness and being your best self.

Website: https://www.bakadesuyo.com/

Ryan Holiday

Meditations on strategy and life from a generous, inspiring author and life coach.

Website: https://ryanholiday.net/category/blog/

Artificial Intelligence

I’ve given AI its own section because it’s so important for marketers to cut through the hype and build up true knowledge quickly. These blogs definitely help:

Deep Learning

The latest applications of AI – a blog that manages to turn a potentially terrifying concept into an inspiring one.

Website: http://www.notey.com/blogs/deep-learning

Edwin Chen

Edwin’s blog is a great insight into what those at the cutting edge of AI are thinking – and it throws out some real pearls of wisdom for anybody ready to think differently about metrics.

Website: http://blog.echen.me/

Microsoft’s AI blog

News from the heart of a business that’s doing some of the most exciting current work in AI.

Website: https://blogs.microsoft.com/ai/

Photography

Okay – it’s a little off the marketing track (and a personal passion) but these are hugely relevant for anybody interested in creating better visuals:

Petapixel

This blog features practical advice, product reviews and photography news – but my favourite element of it is the stories it tells of photographers themselves, and how a single image can sometimes transform lives.

Website: https://petapixel.com/

FroKnowsPhoto

If you heard my Sophisticated Marketer’s Podcast interview with Jared Polin, you’ll already know why this blog is unmissable for anyone who works with visual images: straight-down-the-line insight from an expert who’s also one of the most engaging presenters out there.

Website: https://froknowsphoto.com/

Fstoppers

A great community photography blog that pools advice, stories, and tips. It proves too just how much appetite photo artists have for sharing their passion.

Website: https://fstoppers.com/

[party-hard-or-die]

Remedy for high drug costs: Let Medicare negotiate

CHICAGO (Reuters) – (The writer is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Pharmaceutical tablets and capsules are arranged on a table in a photo illustration shot September 18, 2013. REUTERS/Srdjan Zivulovic/Illustration/File Photo

Americans do not agree on much these days, but we are united on the cost of medicine.

Large majorities of Republican, Democratic and independent voters say they would be more likely to vote for candidates in this year’s midterm elections who are committed to bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, according to a poll released last week by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF).

“The public feels strongly about doing something on drug prices and wants to see action,” said Tricia Neuman, senior vice president and director of the program on Medicare policy at the foundation. “They’re almost indifferent to what action is taken, so long as it works.”

That “do something, do anything” attitude goes a long way toward explaining the Trump administration’s “blueprint to lower drug prices” unveiled last week.

Some of the ideas might help, but the plan bypasses an obvious remedy – one that President Donald Trump embraced as a candidate: allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Seniors on Medicare are more interested than most in drug prices, since they tend to have more chronic conditions and use more medications. And what they have seen lately has not been pretty. Average per-capita costs in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program rose at a 4.4 percent annual rate between 2013 and 2016, and are projected to rise 4.7 percent annually through 2026, according to KFF analysis of federal data.

Medicare’s drug benefit is relatively new. Part D insurance was created under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the first plans were sold in 2006. Today, Medicare accounts for 29 percent of all spending for U.S. retail prescription drugs, but the law contained a sop to the powerful pharmaceutical lobby that helps explain today’s drug price inflation problem.

The law states that the secretary of Health and Human Services “may not interfere” in negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and prescription drug insurance plan providers. “It was a remarkable phrase to slip in,” Neuman said, “and it was designed to keep the pharmaceutical industry happy.”

Imagine: a buyer that controls nearly one-third of all pharmaceutical buying has its hands tied when it comes to negotiating price. Instead, it relies on the negotiating muscle of the hundreds of private Part D insurance providers who sell plans to Medicare enrollees. That makes the Medicare drug program unique among federal health programs; the Medicaid program contains mandatory drug price rebates, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) requires that drug providers charge no more than the lowest price paid by any private-sector buyer. The VA pays 40 percent less than Part D, according to a 2011 research study published in Health Economics.

PROMISE OF ‘IMMEDIATE CHANGE’

The Trump plan identifies four problems that the administration intends to address: high list prices for drugs, a “lack of the latest negotiation tools,” high and rising out-of-pocket costs for consumers, and “foreign governments free-riding off of American investment in innovation.” The plan contains dozens of proposals and poses a long list of questions for exploration.

Rather than empower Medicare to negotiate directly, the blueprint would give private plans more authority to negotiate by loosening requirements that they cover certain drugs. That would allow them to threaten to drop drugs when manufacturers refuse to cut prices – but it could also reduce availability to patients, said Neuman.

The plan also calls for cutting out-of-pocket costs by requiring drug plans to pass along manufacturer discounts and rebates. That might help enrollees with big drug bills for serious chronic conditions – but it also could push up insurance premiums.

The administration also proposes a cap on total out-of-pocket costs. “That could provide real help to people with serious medical conditions and very high drug bills,” Neuman said.

Part D requires enrollees to pay 25 percent of program costs plus co-pays, but there is no cap on total out-of-pocket costs. But more than 800,000 enrollees not protected by special low-income subsidies reached so-called catastrophic levels of spending in 2016, according to Avalere Health, a consulting and research firm.

In 2018, the catastrophic level starts at $5,000 in combined spending by enrollees and insurers; at that point, enrollees pay 5 percent of drug costs; the federal government pays 80 percent and Part D plans pay 15 percent.

And that payment structure kicks in only after an enrollee passes through the notorious “donut hole,” the gap in coverage that begins this year when your combined spending hits $3,750. At that point, and until spending hits $5,000, you pay 35 percent of the cost of brand-name drugs and 44 percent of generics. The Affordable Care Act gradually closes the gap, and it will disappear entirely for brand name drugs in 2019 and generics in 2020.

The donut hold reforms increased the number of beneficiaries who reached the catastrophic coverage level by 50 percent from 2013 to 2016, notes Kelly Brantley, vice president of Avalere.

“It sounds like a bad-news story, but it actually means more people are getting out of the coverage gap more quickly.”

The post Remedy for high drug costs: Let Medicare negotiate appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2Iwyi94 via Breaking News

[cleopatrarps]

Remedy for high drug costs: Let Medicare negotiate

CHICAGO (Reuters) – (The writer is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Pharmaceutical tablets and capsules are arranged on a table in a photo illustration shot September 18, 2013. REUTERS/Srdjan Zivulovic/Illustration/File Photo

Americans do not agree on much these days, but we are united on the cost of medicine.

Large majorities of Republican, Democratic and independent voters say they would be more likely to vote for candidates in this year’s midterm elections who are committed to bringing down the cost of prescription drugs, according to a poll released last week by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF).

“The public feels strongly about doing something on drug prices and wants to see action,” said Tricia Neuman, senior vice president and director of the program on Medicare policy at the foundation. “They’re almost indifferent to what action is taken, so long as it works.”

That “do something, do anything” attitude goes a long way toward explaining the Trump administration’s “blueprint to lower drug prices” unveiled last week.

Some of the ideas might help, but the plan bypasses an obvious remedy – one that President Donald Trump embraced as a candidate: allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

Seniors on Medicare are more interested than most in drug prices, since they tend to have more chronic conditions and use more medications. And what they have seen lately has not been pretty. Average per-capita costs in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program rose at a 4.4 percent annual rate between 2013 and 2016, and are projected to rise 4.7 percent annually through 2026, according to KFF analysis of federal data.

Medicare’s drug benefit is relatively new. Part D insurance was created under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the first plans were sold in 2006. Today, Medicare accounts for 29 percent of all spending for U.S. retail prescription drugs, but the law contained a sop to the powerful pharmaceutical lobby that helps explain today’s drug price inflation problem.

The law states that the secretary of Health and Human Services “may not interfere” in negotiations between pharmaceutical companies and prescription drug insurance plan providers. “It was a remarkable phrase to slip in,” Neuman said, “and it was designed to keep the pharmaceutical industry happy.”

Imagine: a buyer that controls nearly one-third of all pharmaceutical buying has its hands tied when it comes to negotiating price. Instead, it relies on the negotiating muscle of the hundreds of private Part D insurance providers who sell plans to Medicare enrollees. That makes the Medicare drug program unique among federal health programs; the Medicaid program contains mandatory drug price rebates, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) requires that drug providers charge no more than the lowest price paid by any private-sector buyer. The VA pays 40 percent less than Part D, according to a 2011 research study published in Health Economics.

PROMISE OF ‘IMMEDIATE CHANGE’

The Trump plan identifies four problems that the administration intends to address: high list prices for drugs, a “lack of the latest negotiation tools,” high and rising out-of-pocket costs for consumers, and “foreign governments free-riding off of American investment in innovation.” The plan contains dozens of proposals and poses a long list of questions for exploration.

Rather than empower Medicare to negotiate directly, the blueprint would give private plans more authority to negotiate by loosening requirements that they cover certain drugs. That would allow them to threaten to drop drugs when manufacturers refuse to cut prices – but it could also reduce availability to patients, said Neuman.

The plan also calls for cutting out-of-pocket costs by requiring drug plans to pass along manufacturer discounts and rebates. That might help enrollees with big drug bills for serious chronic conditions – but it also could push up insurance premiums.

The administration also proposes a cap on total out-of-pocket costs. “That could provide real help to people with serious medical conditions and very high drug bills,” Neuman said.

Part D requires enrollees to pay 25 percent of program costs plus co-pays, but there is no cap on total out-of-pocket costs. But more than 800,000 enrollees not protected by special low-income subsidies reached so-called catastrophic levels of spending in 2016, according to Avalere Health, a consulting and research firm.

In 2018, the catastrophic level starts at $5,000 in combined spending by enrollees and insurers; at that point, enrollees pay 5 percent of drug costs; the federal government pays 80 percent and Part D plans pay 15 percent.

And that payment structure kicks in only after an enrollee passes through the notorious “donut hole,” the gap in coverage that begins this year when your combined spending hits $3,750. At that point, and until spending hits $5,000, you pay 35 percent of the cost of brand-name drugs and 44 percent of generics. The Affordable Care Act gradually closes the gap, and it will disappear entirely for brand name drugs in 2019 and generics in 2020.

The donut hold reforms increased the number of beneficiaries who reached the catastrophic coverage level by 50 percent from 2013 to 2016, notes Kelly Brantley, vice president of Avalere.

“It sounds like a bad-news story, but it actually means more people are getting out of the coverage gap more quickly.”

The post Remedy for high drug costs: Let Medicare negotiate appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2Iwyi94 via News of World