The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy-Post Your Evidence Here.

[hang a left]

I have been through many transitions since my arrival here. I have been known to be into some serious foil. I now believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to take over and destroy this country. Can they be stopped? Well only time will tell. If they are any true patriots left in government that haven't completely sold out, regardless of their political affiliations, have a plan, maybe we have a chance.

I will start with a recent conspiracy. That is the hacking of the Democratic computers and gaining knowledge of the strategies and research of Federal judges. That was in fact criminal and has stacked the courts in "their" favor.

Care to play?

[wtmusic]

1. Jeez lnp...

where to start???

[oblivious]

2. I know that this is not exactly what you're looking for but...

I've noticed US liberals often credit the BBC for being less biased than the US networks, but read this in the lead up to the Iraq war, when the war propaganda was raining down:

<snip> As the media analyst David Miller points out, a study of the reporting of the war in five countries shows that the BBC allowed the least anti-war dissent of them all. Its 2 per cent dissenting views was lower even than the 7 per cent on the American channel ABC.<snip>

http://pilger.carlton.com/print/132939

But if you go to discussion boards dominated by right-wing toadies, they always preface BBC evidence with "and as everyone knows the BBC has an anti-war bias, blah blah"

It just ain't so. Just a small cog in the right-wing conspiracy. Please cut and paste this snip on those boards every chance you get.

[hang a left]

4. Yes oblivious, the media as well, has been bought and paid for.

I don't think we have ever met. Welcome to DU :hi:

[rucky]

3. Here's what I think...

worldview that overpopulation is the #1 cause of harm to the planet and ourselves. self-appointed group of elite assembles to control how resources are consumed and - basically - who lives or dies by having access to those resources. they adopt a social darwinist philosophy to rationalize the mass murder of millions of the world's hungry, sick & impoverished... it's not a diabolocal homicidal plot in their minds - they're doing the world a favor by controlling the population. Someone's gotta go. it won't be them, so it will be the powerless.

scary thing is - and it's not something we really want to talk about but it's always in the back of my mind: Overpopulation IS the biggest problem facing the world. As we develop technology in health & science that improves our life and our quality of life, we are actually contributing to that underlying problem. So humanity is faced with a choice (and that includes you & me): We can either learn to live with less - i.e. consume less resources. liberal philosophy. OR "thin the herd" & keep at our current level of comsumption. the conservative types who aren't willing to give up what would inevitably amount to a redistribution of wealth/resources (socialism) to save humanity, are essentially giving the green light to mass murder. they are only somewhat aware of this, but do it in a rationalized neglectful sort of way which is less efficient but more subtle than setting up camps a-la-Hitler. Also a good way to keep people "productive" (slaves) & bleed them dry ($) while they slowly die.

G8 & Bilderburgers are the scariest, IMO. this is their mission.

[guitar man]

5. Proof of VRWC

http://www.newamericancentury.org/


There,that should do it.

[Beam Me Up]

6. I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this. . .

For example, if you take this abbreviated chronology from 1820 to 2000 : http://www.serendipity.li/wod/nsmith_chron.htm

and combine it with the abbreviated history contained in this one: http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/112603Phalen/112603phalen.html

What I get is a picture not so much of a "vast right wing conspiracy" so much as a sense that America has a very strong racist/fascist element within it and has had from its inception.

However, this is not the way America likes to portray itself or perceive itself in polite social circles. It wraps itself in all sorts of ideals and virtues having to do with "freedom" and "democracy" and "equal rights for all" which turn out to be more social mythology than actuality. Power, like wealth, is not "equally" distributed. The rule of law does hold in many circumstances but not all. There are many important circumstances where it does not hold or where the law is actually written to favor the few at the expense of the many or circumstances where the law is bent to the point of breaking to favor one group over another.

It seems to me that in a real democracy, with a fully informed populace, this would not be possible. Since it happens, I conclude that we do not have a "real democracy." Rather what we have is an oligarchy of very wealthy families who manage to sustain their power, wealth and privilege through a confluence of economic, military and political interests and strategies. (There may be others as well, but at least these three.)

Is this a "vast right wing conspiracy" or the inevitable consequences of wealth, privilege and power accruing in the hands of the few?

One thing is for certain, nothing will ever change so long as people remain ignorant of the actual networks of power that are at play behind the scenes of politics and economics as presented via the media. Because these 'networks of power' own and operate the media which could be used to inform the people, they aren't likely to allow them to be used against themselves. This is why it is so important that we utilize forums such as DU to educate ourselves and one another--and hopefully many more who may not have the time, interest or resources to access this information.

BMU

[w4rma]

7. Imho, VRWC = Owners of biggest corporations who also own big media

…
Gore has shared their frustration. In an interview last December with the New York Observer, he described the conservative outlets as a “fifth column” within the media ranks that injects “daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective.”

“The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party,” Gore said. “Fox News Network, The Washington Times , Rush Limbaugh — there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,459345,00.html
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6665

The Internet might soon be the last place where open dialogue occurs. One of the most dangerous things that has happened in the past few years is the deregulation of media ownership rules that began in 1996. Michael Powell and the Bush FCC are continuing that assault today (see the June 2nd ruling).

The danger of relaxing media ownership rules became clear to me when I saw what happened with the Dixie Chicks. But there’s an even bigger danger in the future, on the Internet. The FCC recently ruled that cable and phone based broadband providers be classified as information rather than telecommunications services. This is the first step in a process that could allow Internet providers to arbitrarily limit the content that users can access. The phone and cable industries could have the power to discriminate against content that they don’t control or-- even worse-- simply don’t like.

The media conglomerates now dominate almost half of the markets around the country, meaning Americans get less independent and frequently less dependable news, views and information. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fear that economic power would one day try to seize political power. No consolidated economic power has more opportunity to do this than the consolidated power of media

Posted by Howard Dean at 06:31 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000683.html

Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship
CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."

As criticism of the war and its aftermath intensifies, Amanpour joins a chorus of journalists and pundits who charge that the media largely toed the Bush administrationline in covering the war and, by doing so, failed to aggressively question the motives behind the invasion.

On last week's Topic A With Tina Brown on CNBC, Brown, the former Talk magazine editor, asked comedian Al Franken, former Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke and Amanpour if "we in the media, as much as in the administration, drank the Kool-Aid when it came to the war."

Said Amanpour: "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did."

Brown then asked Amanpour if there was any story during the war that she couldn't report.

"It's not a question of couldn't do it, it's a question of tone," Amanpour said. "It's a question of being rigorous. It's really a question of really asking the questions. All of the entire body politic in my view, whether it's the administration, the intelligence, the journalists, whoever, did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels."

Clarke called the disinformation charge "categorically untrue" and added, "In my experience, a little over two years at the Pentagon, I never saw them (the media) holding back. I saw them reporting the good, the bad and the in between."

Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

CNN had no comment.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm

Why Isn't Randi Rhodes Syndicated? The Dilemma of a Liberal Talk Show Host.

RHODES: Oh, I am so glad you asked. I am a ratings and revenue queen. Number 1 or 2 in the ratings usually. So what are the “mainstream” talking about? Well, they say Liberals don't make money because no one wants to hear them. Okay, let's think.

First, remember that more Americans are registered or identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans. So here's the dirty little secret of news talk. There are advertisers making huge “buys” on really low rated shows that air nationally. If advertisers only go where the listeners are why do they buy cable news, Oliver North, or Rush Limbaugh who has horrible ratings?

They are buying CONTROL of CONTENT. It's leverage, whether it's radio, cable or network. They control millions of dollars of any company's revenue source. So that if something is said or done to disrupt their global business, they take their advertising elsewhere, or threaten to and then shut down the message.

And, think about this . . . how many products are on TV that you can't even buy? Plastics, computer chips, prescription drugs, soybeans. I mean honestly. This is the story that NEVER gets told. People just think, “Well, if your good enough, you'll have a big audience and that's what advertisers want.” “Whose being naïve now Kaye?” I am always number one or two in the market. Rush is somewhere around 21st. I replaced G. Gordon Liddy!

I hope this gets told over and over because it is how they control our news, our Information Awareness. Get it?

BUZZFLASH: Explain the allegations that Rush Limbaugh has stated, that if Clear Channel syndicated your show, he would take his program to another company. Could there be a Democratic or Progressive Rush Limbaugh type personality on the airwaves?

RHODES: Not at Clear Channel.

First, let me tell you where the story came from. I had two meetings with middle managers who both liked me and what I had done for our 'pod'. (At Clear Channel the territories are split up into 'pods'.) In two separate meetings I was told “The Rush story.” Additionally, I should never expect to be syndicated by Clear Channel because Rush had said he'd just do what advertisers do. He'd go somewhere else. I was an unknown, he was a known.

I begged for and got (6 months later) a meeting with a senior manager. He told me the “Rush story.” So that's where it comes from. Now, when Oliver North was on the air, he stated that Rush was syndicated because Rush was a better talent and got better ratings. (This is insulting because of the fatness of the lie) . . . I then told him that Rush had threatened to take his show elsewhere if I were to be syndicated by Clear Channel. He said “I've heard that but I can't comment.” So everyone does seem to know “The Rush Story.” (North and Rush are friends).

Control the Content . . . we have business that cannot be disturbed by a questioning public.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/01/03_Rhodes.html

Meanwhile, the Web site www.allyourtv.com posted a commentary on Wednesday by Rick Ellis saying that he had been leaked an internal NBC study that described Donahue as “a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.”

The report allegedly said Donahue presented a difficult face for NBC at a time of war, saying a nightmare scenario would be one in which his show becomes “a home for the liberal anti-war agenda at the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/5263274.htm

While “Donahue” does badly trail both O'Reilly and CNN's Connie Chung in the ratings, those numbers have improved in recent weeks. So much so that the program is the top-rated show on MSNBC, beating even the highly promoted “Hardball With Chris Matthews.”

Although Donahue didn't know it at the time, his fate was sealed a number of weeks ago after NBC News executives received the results of a study commissioned to provide guidance on the future of the news channel.

That report--shared with me by an NBC news insider--gives an excruciatingly painful assessment of the channel and its programming. Some of recommendations, such as dropping the “America's News Channel,” have already been implemented. But the harshest criticism was leveled at Donahue, whom the authors of the study described as “a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace.”
http://www.allyourtv.com/0203season/news/02252003donahue.html

NOW In Depth - Massive Media PBS
Solid Ratings Don't Protect Progressive Radio Voices
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Podvin on the Media 1-31-02
Harper's editor laments rise of corporate news purveyors
Commentary: The Surrender Of MSNBC
The Wayward Media

HUSTLER: What has happened to the the news media in this country?

PALAST: I vomit every time I see Tom Brokaw.

HUSTLER: And Dan Rather-

PALAST: I feel sick at heart when I see Rather, because he's actually a journalist. He came on my program, Newsnight and said, “I can't report the news. I'm not allowed to ask questions. We're gonna send our children and our husbands into the desert now, and I can't ask a question, because I will be lynched.” This is what Rather said in London. He looked defeated and awful, and I was thinking, Why am I feeling sorry for this guy who is worth millions? He should turn to the camera and say, “Well, now for the truth. Over to you, Greg, in London.” The problem is that he can't report the story of the intelligence agents who are told not to look at the Bin Laden family, not to look at Saudi funding of terror.

HUSTLER: What makes Rather afraid to do his job?

PALAST: It's not just that there are brutal shepherds like Rupert Murdoch out there to beat the dickens out of any reporter that asks the wrong questions; it's all about making news on the cheap. You know, for some of these editors, cheap and easy is a philosophy of life. To do a heavy-duty story on Bush, and his oil and Bush and his gold-mining company is beyond them. A little bit of the Harken stock scandal came out, but that story was already seven years old. To some extent they know that there are certain things you cannot say. Rather says he would be necklaced for telling the truth.

HUSTLER: He said that? What did he mean?

PALAST: In South Africa, under apartheid, if someone didn't like you, they put a burning tire around your neck. That was called “necklacing.” On my show, Rather said, “If I ask any questions, I'll be necklaced.” And I'm thinking, Oh, that's a good image. It's sad, but if Dan Rather doesn't have the cajones to ask a question, then you name a reporter who's gonna step out and ask about what's going on. It's not that the corporate guys say, “Don't run that story,” although that has happened to me many times in North American media, but also the shepherds pick the lambs who won't ask the questions. For example, there was a reporter, some poor producer, who wanted to run a story about how Jack Welch had lied about polluting the Hudson River. The story didn't run. Shockeroo. That was for Dateline NBC, owned by General Electric, of which Jack Welch was the chairman of the board. Or as in the case of Venezuela, I was stunned to come back from Caracas to find a picture on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle of 100,000 people marching against the president of Venezuela. Sounds like he's a terrible guy and people hate him. What they didn't say was that half a million people were marching for him. At least the Soviet Russians knew that the stuff in Pravda was coming out the wrong end of a toilet, whereas, we live under the pretense that The New York Times prints all the news that's fit to print.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=181&row=1

…
Robins was talking serious politics on a morning chat show - and clearly hackles went up. By 8:24 Robins was explaining “We're fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people right now so that they can have freedom of speech, yet we're telling our own citizens they have to be quiet”

Lauer could have called it quits there -but he went on “When you see pictures of Iraqi's dancing and celebrating -does it change your mind?” “No” Said Robbins - “I'm ecstatic that they feel this freedom, I hope we have the resolve to get in there and make it work.”

It was at this point that something happened that has perhaps never happened before in the history of morning television.

The music swelled under Robbins... Mid-sentence answering a question that had been asked just 10 seconds earlier... “We have a terrible track record” said Robbins, clearly not able to hear that music was coming up to literally 'play him off the stage'.

The camera cut to a wide shot. Lauer was leaning in and very much in conversation. Either Lauer was ignoring what must have been the deluge of invectives in his earpiece, or he just determined that he wasn't finished with this line of questioning.

But the music ended. The bumper music ended and the studio was in the two shot as Robbins said...“It's for some reason not in our best interest to keep it going and pursue it to the next level.” Lauer nodded, and the camera faded to black as Robbins - mid sentence - had his microphone turned down.

A conversation about free speech. An anchor asking reasonable questions. A guest responding in equally reasonable tones. No attempt to close out the discussion - to say “Well thank you Tim”. This was not a filibuster. Robbins was not hogging the spotlight.

Someone in the control room simply decided that it was time to pull the plug. And without grace or ceremony, or even the face saving of letting Lauer say “We're out of time” as morning shows do on so many occasions.

A conversation about free speech and free expression was cut off mid sentence as the network went to black.

Television history was made, as million of Americans got to watch in real time just how powerful and inescapable censorship can be. Robbins wasn't revealing troop locations, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Remember the war has been won - by all accounts. He was discussing freedom, free speech, and why his appearance has been canceled at the Baseball Hall of Fame. NBC should invite him back and let him finish his thought - or admit at least who was on the phone to master control demanding that they pull the plug.
http://www.rense.com/general37/dark.htm

Tampa cable won't air ad criticizing Bush tax cut

TAMPA - (AP) -- A TV commercial critical of President Bush's tax plan won't air in Tampa after the city's major cable provider expressed concerns about the script.

The commercial was produced for MoveOn.org, an online political activist group, and was slated to air about 10 times a day this week on cable systems in 23 cities, said Lanicia Shaw, executive assistant for Zimmerman and Markman, a Santa Monica, Calif., advertising agency handling the commercial.

The ad is a reenactment of an event in Eugene, Ore., a month ago in which 50 parents lined up outside a clinic to sell their blood plasma to help pay a teacher's salary.

''George Bush's tax cuts for the rich have meant less money for education,'' the commercial contends.
…
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/5862591.htm

3. How important is “truth” in mass media reporting compared to ratings?
The media doesn't care about outing the real stories - nor about ratings. The truth GETS ratings - but it doesn't win friends in high places. We got more information about the war in Vietnam through “MASH” and “Star Trek” allegories than on CBS news.
The corporate owners of the networks will make a killing on their stealing the digital spectrum, given away for nothing by the Telecommunications Act. (For details, see my website www.GregPalast.com) They are willing to give up ratings points by serving up snooze-news with Tom Brokaw rather than gain audience share but lose their tickets to White House dinners.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=145&row=1

Wall Street Journal:
War Produces Rift in Media Between U.S., Other Nations
… British television reporter Geoff Meade asked the officer what he would say to Iraqis and other Muslims who might welcome such images. Some U.S. reporters looked stunned at the aggressiveness of the question. A hush fell on the room. The general eyed him coldly and parried the query. Afterward, says Mr. Meade, a veteran correspondent with Sky News, a service of British Sky Broadcasting Group PLC, “Somebody joked to me that I'd find myself at the back of the room along with the French and the Germans.”
…
“We believe people need to see the truth, and there's no need to make the truth cosmetic because it's not pretty,” says Nawal Assad, a producer at al-Jazeera's London office.

… callers on Italian talk shows criticized as censorship the U.S. government's request to U.S. networks to refrain from showing the images. In Germany, the press has engaged in lengthy dissections of U.S. news organizations, often concluding that the U.S. media has gone through “Gleichschaltung,” an ominous word used to describe how the Nazis took over key public institutions, including the media (rough translation: “bringing into line”).
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB104854123024458400-email,00.html

[Beam Me Up]

9. great info in you rpost, thanks n/t

:kick:

[CaptainClark23]

8. Conspiracy, yes..."Wings" are secondary

In fact right wing and left wing are convenient mechanisms for control.

Creating rabid dichotimies allows the "conspiracists" to a)have attention deflected from themselves b) piggyback on hot issues, on either side, in order to further specific monetary goals.

[RandomKoolzip]

10. Yeah, except that the left's "hot issues" actually matter.

And the right's "hot issues," should they become reality, are detrimental the the greater number of people.

So I guess I've chosen which vast conspiracy I'd rather be involved with: the one whose ostensible goals actually call for the betterment of humanity.

[CaptainClark23]

11. agreed.

Just tossing out that the Vast Conspiracy trancends the Right Wing.

The "Right Wing" as it is popularly recognised doesn't have the sophistication to pull off some of this shit on their own.

They are good for a visible target...like Bush is....but Bush by his own faculties couldn't dream up half the outrages being exercised in his name. He's a tool.

[IronLionZion]

13. yes, like the "establishment"

That's why independent thinkers can never win elections despite being ahead in the polls.

While Kerry is way better than Bush and we should all vote for him, he will still be influenced by the establishment. Otherwise he would have lost the primaries like Howard Dean and John McCain.

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. One word sums it up.

Diebold