2002 October 06 Sunday
Why the Nazis get more bad press than the Soviets

Over on Daniel Drezner's blog he and his readers are discussing "why commentators tend to treat public figures and thinkers associated with communism with more respect than those associated with fascism." Assorted reasons are offered. I agree with the explanation that he attributes to Tony Judt: that intellectuals are drawn to power. However, this does not explain why they are still going easy on communism when communism is pretty much in the dustbin of history. There is, after all, no more power left to be drawn to.

I think the Nazi vs Communist system comparison is restricting the scope of the debate. Hence, the arguments are coming up short of a satisfying explanation. What one first ought to ask is one that the late philosopher Robert Nozick asked in a 1998 essay: Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?"

Intellectuals now expect to be the most highly valued people in a society, those with the most prestige and power, those with the greatest rewards. Intellectuals feel entitled to this. But, by and large, a capitalist society does not honor its intellectuals. Ludwig von Mises explains the special resentment of intellectuals, in contrast to workers, by saying they mix socially with successful capitalists and so have them as a salient comparison group and are humiliated by their lesser status. However, even those intellectuals who do not mix socially are similarly resentful, while merely mixing is not enough--the sports and dancing instructors who cater to the rich and have affairs with them are not noticeably anti-capitalist.

Why then do contemporary intellectuals feel entitled to the highest rewards their society has to offer and resentful when they do not receive this? Intellectuals feel they are the most valuable people, the ones with the highest merit, and that society should reward people in accordance with their value and merit. But a capitalist society does not satisfy the principle of distribution "to each according to his merit or value." Apart from the gifts, inheritances, and gambling winnings that occur in a free society, the market distributes to those who satisfy the perceived market-expressed demands of others, and how much it so distributes depends on how much is demanded and how great the alternative supply is. Unsuccessful businessmen and workers do not have the same animus against the capitalist system as do the wordsmith intellectuals. Only the sense of unrecognized superiority, of entitlement betrayed, produces that animus.

Why do wordsmith intellectuals think they are most valuable, and why do they think distribution should be in accordance with value? Note that this latter principle is not a necessary one. Other distributional patterns have been proposed, including equal distribution, distribution according to moral merit, distribution according to need. Indeed, there need not be any pattern of distribution a society is aiming to achieve, even a society concerned with justice. The justice of a distribution may reside in its arising from a just process of voluntary exchange of justly acquired property and services. Whatever outcome is produced by that process will be just, but there is no particular pattern the outcome must fit. Why, then, do wordsmiths view themselves as most valuable and accept the principle of distribution in accordance with value?

From the beginnings of recorded thought, intellectuals have told us their activity is most valuable. Plato valued the rational faculty above courage and the appetites and deemed that philosophers should rule; Aristotle held that intellectual contemplation was the highest activity. It is not surprising that surviving texts record this high evaluation of intellectual activity. The people who formulated evaluations, who wrote them down with reasons to back them up, were intellectuals, after all. They were praising themselves. Those who valued other things more than thinking things through with words, whether hunting or power or uninterrupted sensual pleasure, did not bother to leave enduring written records. Only the intellectual worked out a theory of who was best.

So here is own theory for why intellectuals were more attracted to communism: capitalism accords intellectuals even less status than fascism did. By contrast communism accorded intellectuals a higher status than fascism did. Fascism didn't have as much of a need for intellectuals because it was a more tribal and primitive ideology. One wasn't a great fascist because of one's thoughts. Fascism was a form of ethnic nationalism. One was a great German fascist because one was a prototypical German. That definition based on idealized national characteristics downplayed the role of the mind. Communism, being a more abstract and theoretical political ideology, has a greater need for intellectuals as justifiers, planners, and intellectual defenders.

Here's another post from Drezner's blog that follows up with more explanations.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2002 October 06 04:05 PM  Cultural Wars Western

John Ray said at October 7, 2002 8:50 PM:

Below is the explanation I gave on Sept 12th in Front Page Magazine for the way intellectuals still like Communism but abhor Nazism:


But the Leftist’s advocacy of equality is not all it seems. The Leftist's passion for equality is only apparently a desire to lift the disadvantaged up. In reality it is a hatred of all those in society who are already in a superior or more powerful or more prosperous position to the Leftist and a desire to cut them down to size. Leftists really aim at (and sometimes succeed at) the equality of making everyone poor rather than the equality of making everyone rich.

This explains the common puzzle of why it is that modern-day “liberals” are still indulgent about the old Soviet system. As Amis (2002) points out, the many people in literary and academic circles today who once supported Stalin and his heirs are generally held blameless and may even still be admired whereas anybody who gave the slightest hint of support for the similarly brutal Hitler regime is an utter polecat and pariah. Why? Because Hitler’s enemies were “only” the Jews whereas Stalin’s enemies were those the modern day Left still hates — people who are doing well for themselves materially. Modern day Leftists understand and excuse Stalin and his supporters because Stalin’s hates are their hates.

Bernard Yomtov said at October 7, 2002 9:39 PM:

With all respect for Robert Nozick, the notion that intellectuals oppose capitalism is silly. On what evidence is this based. Go to any economics department and you will find overwhelming support for capitalism as an economic system. Sure, it won't be unanimous, but it won't be a remotely close contest.

I don't know what physicists, mathematicians, et al think about this, but am not prepared to believe, without any evidence, that they "oppose capitalism".

Probably what Nozick and others are referring to when they say things like this is some literary types, who first of all represent only a small fraction of "intellectuals," properly defined, and secondly whose opinions on this question are no more intelligent than anyone else's, maybe less.

By the way, our society does in fact reward intellectuals quite well, at least good ones. Tenured faculty at major universities don't earn what a decent major league shortstop does, but by most standards they lead very comfortable lives.

Jim Glass said at October 7, 2002 9:43 PM:

To discuss this subject in comfort, drop in on NYC's "KGB bar" which is as its web site says, "a big hit among New York's scene-hungry younger literati, who flock to KGB regularly for one of the hottest reading series in town." http://www.echonyc.com/~bucky/kgb/ [There is no "Gestapo Bar" as of yet.]

Tom Wolfe also wrote an interesting essay on what attracts intellectuals to socialist authoritariansim, "The Intelligent Coed's Guide to Socialism" on line at http://www.worldandi.com/public/1987/january/ss3.cfm

It's all the more interesting for being written in the 1980s while the Soviets apparently were still going strong, and names names of people who are still about.

BTW, Brad Delong's web log has a discussion going on this that has 72 posts in it so far. "What Is the Difference Between Far Left and Far Right?", at http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/

Judging from it, yes indeed, there still are a lot of lliberals about who are quite indulgent of Communism for its "good intentions", regardless of show trials, Nazi pacts, and 100 million civilians killed more or less (versus a mere 40 million or so for the fascists).

godlesscapitalist said at October 7, 2002 9:54 PM:

"By contrast communism accorded intellectuals a higher status than fascism did"

This is totally mistaken. Remember that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. ordered pogroms against intellectuals, just like Hitler did. I think that the only difference of importance between fascism and communism is that the former focuses on race (or so the public thinks) while the latter focuses on class (or so the public thinks).

Of course, race and class are not as orthogonal as people think. Even a cursory investigation of the Third Reich reveals that much of the animosity against Jews arose because Jews were uber-capitalists. They were successful in banking, moneylending, etc. and this sparked jealousy and hatred. The situation with the mass murder of kulaks in Russia was very similar, the only difference being that the kulaks weren't part of a readily identifiable ethnic group.

And while this fact appears to distinguish communism from fascism - b/c the former is supposedly an equal opportunity oppressor - it does no such thing. For one thing, there were certainly racial overtones to Communism. Look at how the USSR treated/murdered non-white Russians and Jews during the Communist years.

For another thing, the fact that race and class are both hereditary, and that race (to some extent) determines class via IQ means that communism's class struggle and fascism's race struggle end up in the same place: hatred towards high IQ elites. Sometimes those high IQ elites are identifiable (Jews in Germany, Brahmins in India, Chinese in Malaysia) and the resulting pogroms are associated with fascism. Sometimes those high IQ elites are less identifiable (intellectuals in China, Cambodia, and Russia) and the resulting pogroms are associated with communism.

I think the difference is academic at best.

godlesscapitalist said at October 7, 2002 10:00 PM:

One correction -

Brahmins are hated in Southern India for their achievements, but widespread pogroms have not been launched (yet). That doesn't mean that such attacks are unlikely - there are groups who spend all their time agitating about Brahminical evil. See here for a typical example. The modus operandi is to accuse the Brahmins of horrible crimes and political & economic domination to demonize them and stir up public sentiment against them. As Brahmins are a tiny minority in India, the possibility of violence is real.

Randall Parker said at October 7, 2002 10:35 PM:

Bernard, Economics departments are about the most capitalism-friendly departments in academia. But go back in a time machine a few decades and its likely they were less so (or go to the UK and I suspect they are still that way). But they are hardly a typical example. After econ departments engineering departmeents are probably next in terms of having capitalistic attitudes. Engineers are practical people after all. Humanities departments and various "Studies" departments are full of people rather more resentful of capitalism.

Yes, academics are paid fairly well as compared to say, manual laborers. But they compare themselves to mid to high level business executives and are resentful. They see themselves as just as smart or smarter and earning less. Resentment and jealousy are powerful emotions in humans.

J.I. said at October 8, 2002 12:49 AM:

So the intellectuals' oposition to capitalism is ironically based on capitalist principles. They have rationally reached the conclusion that their utility will increase under a Socialist system, and they therefore wish to implement such a system. You can't escape the laws of free-market economics. They confirm the universal truth of the theory behind capitalism by opposing it.

Dan said at October 8, 2002 4:59 AM:

Even in the humanities, the overwhelming majority of professors are capitalists; most are not particularly politically motivated at all.

One factor in the different reactions to Communism and Nazism is where they come from. One can read Marx's Das Kapital without invisioning the rise of Stalinism. Mein Kampf, however, cannot be read without seeing what was coming.

Of course those who have read neither work wouldn't know that.

godlesscapitalist said at October 8, 2002 5:39 AM:


"One can read Marx's Das Kapital without invisioning the rise of Stalinism"

What could be observed from Marx's work is that he supported violent revolution and the notion that the "ends justified the means". He stated or implied on multiple occasions that mass murder of the bourgeoisie and the capitalists would be appropriate during the revolution because of their "oppression" of the proletariat.

In other words, you could have seen many of the features of both Stalinism and Leninism from even a cursory inspection of Marx's endorsement of violence and vengeance.

Roger Sweeny said at October 8, 2002 6:04 AM:

godless capitalist wrties, "Remember that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. ordered pogroms against intellectuals, just like Hitler did." Very true. They also ordered purges against members of the Communist Party. That does not constitute evidence that they thought Party members were unimportant.

Quite the contrary. Intellectuals had to be kept in line because they were considered so important. The whole rationale for the Party to rule (instead of the workers directly) was that by mastering Marx/Engels thought and dialectical materialism, the Party knew where history was going and how to get there (like the medieval priests who knew Latin, only they could offer salvation).

Stalin had a number of books published under his name, which people had to study. It was important that he be thought of as an intellectual.

John Povejsil said at October 8, 2002 6:19 AM:

Bernard Yomtov raises a point that needs to be addressed, at least obliquely: there is a new kind of lefty (i.e., the Clintonite) who is not explicitly anti-capitalist, and in some ways could be called a hyper-capitalist. (In the academy, Stigletz comes to mind, or on Wall Street, Rubin). One characteristic of this ideology is the belief that the market can withstand any amount of larding on of "costs of doing business." Consequently, these folks aren't looking to socialize the means of production, but rather to allow the market to operate, but then tap into the profit with various mandates. Another consequence of this (and this comes out quickly with any conversation with an honest New Democrat), is that they do hate small business. Small businesses, being marginal, cannot (or will not) carry the load of mandates. Remember Hillary's comment, "I can't worry about every under-capitalized business out there." Finally, they do believe in capitalism, but one where only Krups and Seimanns and the like are the "firms." From the true old lefty point-of-view, third way New Democrats are neo-fascists.


Roger Sweeny said at October 8, 2002 6:41 AM:

Bernard Yomtov brings up the absolutely basic question of whether intellectuals really "oppose capitalism." Well, it depends on what you mean by "oppose" and "capitalism."

Seriously. Most intellectuals don't like the grubby, low-culture world of capitalism and they'll complain and feel superior. Emotionally, they will generally feel warmer toward calls for more government "oversight" or "regulation" than they will toward calls for less. But given the choice of more money or less, they'll take more, and spend a good deal of it on McDonalds and internal combustion engines.

Economists are generally in favor of "efficient resource allocation" and an "equitable distribution of income." For most of them, that means a "mixed economy," with a good deal of government regulation to correct "market failures," to provide "public goods," and to ensure a "more equitable income distribution." Some want these governmental elements to be small. But others think that the USA doesn't have nearly enough. In fact, until fairly recently, it was fairly common for economists to say that good outcomes could be obtained when government owned everything. As long as the economic planning units were run by trained economists, who "set price equal to marginal cost" and did all the other things that economic theorists had discovered would be a good thing.

Andy Freeman said at October 8, 2002 7:12 AM:

I find it interesting that the only intellectuals being discussed are economists.

While the idea that economists are the only or dominant intellectuals might be popular among economists, I don't think that it is accurate.

In fact, it almost looks manufactured to support an argument against the thesis that intellectuals are anti-capitalist. I don't think that it does so - I think that it demonstrates that the thesis is correct.

T. Hartin said at October 8, 2002 9:23 AM:

To understand why intellectuals (read: university professors) tend to give Communism a pass, you need only realize that while Communism was still an operating system, most university intellectuals were all in favor of it. For them to condemn Communism now would be to admit that they were fools (or worse). Nazism never enjoyed a comparable fad in academia, for the most part.

As to why Communism was looked on so fondly by university intellectuals, first you have to realize that, rhetoric about withering away to one side, Communism erected an elite charged with governing society. University intellectuals see themselves as an elite, and so are naturally drawn to elitist models for organizing society. (This also explains why they are still pursuing elitist models such as socialism and transnational progressivism.) Further, the Communists actually revered intellectuals (Marx, Lenin), and treated them better than most other folks.

Obviously, a system that recognized the need for people like them to be in charge, and that actually gave them real-world power, was much to be preferred to the capitalist system, which treated them indulgently but not with the respect they thought they deserved.

Randall Parker said at October 8, 2002 9:35 AM:

Upon reflection: One can be hostile toward something and still accept its necessity. So, for instance. one can be a class snob who treats trash collectors very rudely and yet still accept the necessity of trash collectors. There are people who rather grudgingly accept the necessity of capitalism while also looking down on it at the same time.

David Gillies said at October 8, 2002 10:48 AM:

What an interesting and erudite discussion this has turned into!

With regards to Bernard Yomtov's question about the prevalence of leftist beliefs in the 'harder' areas (i.e. maths, science, engineering) of the academy, I can say anecdotally that they are much less widespread than in the 'softer' areas. (i.e. the humanities). This, from my observation, stems from the greater weight that empirical results are given in the former. It is in the nature of an engineer to look at what works and draw appropriate conclusions.

This is by no means to say that extreme leftist views (and slightly more wishy-washy ones) are not to be found there, merely that one is more likely to encounter a staunch conservative or libertarian capitalist-booster in a Physics department than a Sociology department.

The biggest problem is, as John Povejsil points out, not the extreme leftists, who are marginalised and largely restricted to campus where they can do little harm, but the big-business/technocrat axis of modern corporatism. This consists of real people with real power, who can and do make decisions that affect the world at large. Clintonian New Democrats, Labourite Third Wayers and old-style paternalistic Tories are all exemplars of this. Many who would formerly have been drawn to Communism as a means to power are now drawn to the much more successful (in the sense of its adoption in the real world) idea of corporatism. It is the perfect symbiosis of the bureaucrat's desire to regulate coupled with big business' desire to stifle competition from below. As T. Hartin observes, intellectuals are naturally drawn to a top-down style of economic governance. Corporatism gives them the opportunity to transform their desire for control into a system that actually can function (albeit sub-optimally) in the real world.

Bernard Yomtov said at October 8, 2002 11:16 AM:

Glad I raised such a fuss. First, let me reiterate that I don’t think we have very good evidence about what “intellectuals” in general think about capitalism. I do know that modern economists generally regard a market system as the best way to run an economy. What engineers or philosophers think about it I don’t know. I’m not prepared to accept that they oppose capitalism without some evidence, and I don’t mean a few random quotes from selected ignoramuses.

Second, part of this depends on what one means by “intellectuals.” My notion includes scientists and others who may not regard public policy debate as part of their job description. It does not include everyone who puts an opinion in writing.

Reading these posts makes me want to raise an important point. It is one thing to recognize markets as being a good way to organize things. It is something else to pretend that they are perfect, and that any government involvement is necessarily bad, or “anti-capitalist.” Markets can function only in the framework of a legal system. To begin with, someone needs to enforce contracts, assure access, punish fraud, provide currency, etc. Further, like it or not, there are market failures, externalities, public goods, etc.

Markets are desirable precisely because they tend to lead to efficient allocation of resources (setting price equal to marginal cost WITHOUT government planning), not because they are divinely ordained. But they only tend to, and then under idealized circumstances. There are situations where they do not accomplish this, and government action is desirable. One well-known example is pollution. If the polluter does not bear the cost of pollution then resources are inefficiently allocated, because the polluter’s cost does not reflect the cost to society of his activity.

So Roger Sweeny needs to take the quotation marks outof his post. These are real issues, not just jargon, or phoney rationales for government involvement in the economy. And we all need to understand that capitalism and markets, human institutions, are not flawless. They work well, but not perfectly, and government has a role to play both in improving their functioning and in dealing with economic problems markets can’t solve.

Gray1 said at October 8, 2002 11:46 AM:

I think that much of the popularity of Leftist doctrine amongst the university elites is that Marxist theory in itself provides a "tool of anylysis" for understanding economic and social dynamics, which is something that the Nazi and Fascist ideologies never did. After all, what do academics do? Much of their effort is geared toward analysing a given set of data and forming conclusions about it. Marxism provides a handy prepackaged set of tools that can be used to critique anything from economics to works of literature and art. The fact that the predictions of Marxist theory never came through, and now seem to be totally discredited, is irrelevant to them. History abounds with examples of academics who stubbornly clung to theories which had been superceded or shown to be false. One of the best examples is the hostility and resistance to Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, and this was in the field of physics, not one of the "soft sciences" like economics or sociology in which it is really difficult to "prove" anything.

David Gillies said at October 8, 2002 1:12 PM:

One of the fallacies of invoking government regulation and intervention in the case of 'market failure' is to assume a priori that in such cases government will be able to rectify a problem that the market was unable to.

Under classic Objectivist capitalism, enforcement of contract is one of the few things that falls within the purview of government. Corporatism extends the scope of government action beyond that which a true laissez-faire capitalist would want.

Pollution (and other externalities) were indeed a problem for classical theories of laissez-faire capitalism. All sorts of problematic notions arise, from the free-rider problem (Garret Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons) to the accurate and equitable apportioning of cost. Coase's ideas on the importance of transaction costs as regards externalities gives us a way out of the dilemma.

Those on the left do not wish to impose the soft restrictions of corporatism or the harder strictures of communism and socialism out of a desire to mitigate the impact of 'market failure'; their animus against the free market stems from its emancipatory nature and their concomitant removal from the levers of power.

Bernard Yomtov said at October 8, 2002 4:11 PM:

In response to David Gillies:

"One of the fallacies of invoking government regulation and intervention in the case of 'market failure' is to assume a priori that in such cases government will be able to rectify a problem that the market was unable to."

Well, government certainly can't solve all problems, but if the market fails isn't it worthwhile to at least think about whether there might be a government solution? The idea that there can't possibly be one is just as bad as the idea that there must be one.

"Under classic Objectivist capitalism, enforcement of contract is one of the few things that falls within the purview of government. Corporatism extends the scope of government action beyond that which a true laissez-faire capitalist would want."

Who cares? This is not an argument. It makes as much sense as saying that "under Marxism.... Therefore.." Citing an ideology you like in order to prove something is meaningless. There is no obligation to conform our thinking to "classic Objectivist caapitalism."

"Pollution (and other externalities) were indeed a problem for classical theories of laissez-faire capitalism. All sorts of problematic notions arise, from the free-rider problem (Garret Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons) to the accurate and equitable apportioning of cost. Coase's ideas on the importance of transaction costs as regards externalities gives us a way out of the dilemma."

Really? What is it? Coase begins with well-defined property rights and no transaction costs. Who, other than government, is going to assign the property rights? And how exactly are all the people affected by pollution going to negotiate with the factory owner without incurring transaction costs? And if the govenment assigns the property right (to clean air) to the residents, not the factory, doesn't the government have to enforce this through (shudder) regulation?

"Those on the left do not wish to impose the soft restrictions of corporatism or the harder strictures of communism and socialism out of a desire to mitigate the impact of 'market failure'; their animus against the free market stems from its emancipatory nature and their concomitant removal from the levers of power."

More nonsense. Ascribing bad motives to your opponents is an easy way to avoid dealing with their ideas. How in the world can you pretend to know what motivates "those on the left?" How can you asume that it's the same for everyone? I can assure you that, while I favor some of what you call "soft strictures of corporatism," it's because I think they will benefit our society. I don' t have any levers more powerful than my can opener.

Roger Sweeny said at October 9, 2002 9:31 AM:

Bernard Yomtov,

I completely agree that market failure, public goods, etc. "are real issues, not just jargon, or phoney rationales for government involvement in the economy."

The reason I put them in quotation marks was to indicate that they are "contested terms." People disagree about just what they mean and just how significant they are. Unlike say, temperature, they are not obvious and easily measured. My post did not make this at all clear. My bad.

Take public goods. A public good is supposed to meet two criterea. If it is provided to one person, it is impossible to exclude other people from "consuming" it (non-excludability). Second, one person's "consumption" of it doesn't decrease anyone else's consumption of it (non-rivalry in consumption). The canonical example is national defense. The government can't defend Joe without defending Mary (non-excludability). And if it defends Joe more, it won't defend Mary less (non-rivalrous). It is easy to show--well, since Samuelson did it, it's been easy to show :)--that a market will provide way too little pure public goods.

But of course, there are no perfectly pure public goods. Even national defense can protect some more than others. Compare, say, the northeast of France and the southwest of France. Compare the draftee with the defense plant worker. Compare the plant owner whose factory is taken over for war work with the plant owner who is instead given a lucrative contract.

All goods have degrees of "publicness" (or even more rigorously, they have degrees of non-excludability and degrees of non-rivalrousness). And "publicness" is not some unchanging platonic essence of a good. Changes in technology or institutions or people's behavior can change a good's publicness. E.g. a performance inside a building is more excludable than a performance inside a stockade fence which is more excludable than a performance inside a chain link fence which is more excludable than a performance in an open field.

Economists used to have a silly tick of saying, "This is a public good; therefore it should be provided by a government." What they really meant was, "This good have some elements of publicness. A perfectly benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent government would provide a better amount of it than a market would. Therefore a government should provide it."

Similar things can be said about "market failure." No market is ever "perfect"; there are always some elements of "market failure." It was once fairly common for economists to say, "Look: market failure. This is a job for the government." Well, maybe yes and maybe no. It depends on just how bad the "failure" is and what we can honestly expect "the government" to accomplish to make it better. Alas, there are many problems that neither "the market" nor "the government" can solve.

I was trying to say that though most economists support "capitalism" and "markets," they do so with all sorts of exceptions. And sometimes the exceptions can eat up much of the support.

(and I haven't even ranted about the contested meaning and use of "efficiency")

Bernard Yomtov said at October 9, 2002 10:10 AM:

Roger Sweeny,

Yes, it's certainly true that many people who support markets make exceptions and adjustments. I'm one of them. And I agree that imperfections are not always best handled by government action. But sometimes they are.

My main point is this: economic processes are complex. A certain amount of government involvement is useful. It is worthwhile to try to figure out how much, and there will inevitably be disagreements.

But just because I may favor more involvement than you do, does not mean I "oppose capitalism'" or am trying somehow to control the world, or have any other nefarious goals. It only means that my judgment about when government action is beneficial differs from yours.

What I oppose is not capitalism, but a sort of quasi-religious market-worship that does not even recognize the possibility of market imperfection, and therefore automatically condemns any government involvement in the economy at all. Those who take this view are ideologues, true believers, people who want a simple scheme to explain the world, so they don't have to do much thinking. In this sense, dare I say it, they are not unlike dedicated Marxists. The received wisdom cannot be challenged.

James Baird said at October 9, 2002 10:18 AM:

I think Godless capitalist's remark from way back needs comment:

"This is totally mistaken. Remember that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. ordered pogroms against intellectuals, just like Hitler did."

While this is true, this misses the ultimate character of the regime, as well as it's attraction for intellectuals.

The Soviet state was, at it's very heart, an intellectual enterprise. Lenin and Trotsy in particular were literary intellectuals of the highest order. Their founding of the Soviet regime was a conscious attempt to put intellectuals in charge, to remake the sordid "class society" into a new, "rational" order.

But there is nothing about such a state that prohibits the persecution of intellectuals: indeed, such a regime MUST liquidate all "nonconforming" intellects in order to survive. A state founded on abstract ideas must zealously police ideas, much more so than a regime based on tradition, rights, or even naked force. We, in our constitutional regime, can afford to have freedom of thought - since intellectuals have no power, what they say doesn't matter. But intellectuals were fundamental to the Soviet state - they were the only thing that gave it legitimacy. That was why any intellectuals who did not conform to the Party Line HAD to be killed or exiled. It was academic politics, but instead of being passed over for tenure, you were sent to the gulag.

The best explanation of this can be found in Arthur Koestler's "Darkness at Noon", a novel set during the 30's show trials - a novel that has fallen into seeming obscurity, but that I believe shows the nature of the Soviet state better than any other.

Randall Parker said at October 9, 2002 10:23 AM:

Bernard, the capitalistic ideologues serve some very useful purposes. First of all, they serve as a counterweight to all those who, for selfish reasons, advocate some intervention in the economy that will benefit them. Secondly, they serve as a counterweight to the arrogance of intellectuals who, while they may recognize some market imperfection, do not have enough humility to realize they do not know how to have the government intervene in a way that will result in a better outcome than the outcome that the market flaws will cause.

Roger Sweeny said at October 9, 2002 11:17 AM:

Bernard Yomtov,

Back in the Reagan administration, Michael Kinsley wrote a TRB column for the The New Republic in which he said, "The White House needs more people who understand markets, and fewer people who worship them." He was, of course, right.

It would be just as correct to say that "We need more people who understand markets, and fewer people who demonize them." Robet Kuttner springs to mind. One sign of a demonizer is adjectives in front of "captalism" or "market", like "cowboy" or "out-of-control."

Though Randall Parket has an interesting thought: if some people demonize markets, is it a good idea to have an equal number of people worship them, to create a "level playing field"?

Several people have compared scientists to "softer" intellectuals and said that they are more likely to "support capitalism." I think it is true that scientists are less likely to use theoretical schemes that make a bogey-man out of "capitalism." Partly because it just isn't relevant. Sociology is about people interacting. Molecular biology is about chemicals interacting. But the situation is complex.

Take the journal "Science." Their editorial policy seems to be: The world is in grave danger from poverty, environmental degradation, and global warming. These problems can only be solved by 1) lots more money spent by governments on scientific research, 2) more power to and better "management" by the right people--university-trained people working in governments or non-profits. This isn't so much an anti-capitalist policy as it is a pro-technocracy one but the effect may be the same.

Bernard Yomtov said at October 9, 2002 11:35 AM:


The best counterweight to bad ideas is good ideas, not ideology.

A skeptical approach is useful, but only if you're willing to be convinced by a sufficiently strong case. When people's thinking is set in stone, so that they simply cannot be convinced, then they contribute nothing to the debate, because they recognize no need to actually understand the issue. Instead they recite their formulas: "market good, government bad," "the Bible says..", "Marx says.."

And who says those who advocate government intervention are doing so only out of selfishness or arrogance, while those who oppose it are pure of heart?

If you think something is a bad policy make your case. Don't shout slogans.

Randall Parker said at October 9, 2002 12:48 PM:


Sometimes the best arguments are still wrong. Someone can know the more about some subject than the vast bulk of the population and still reason their way to very wrong conclusions and bad policy recommendations. High IQ people have a tendency to think that because of their superior intellects and greater knowledge they know what to tell others to do.

Look at the 20th century. Communism was extremely popular among intellectuals. The greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the product of the minds of intellectuals. They advocated centralized planning (and imagined themselves as the central planners). They sneered at capitalism. This was not just the case among intellectuals in the humanities. Marxism had followers among economists and even renowned physicists. That they were so totally wrong ought to be a reason for humility in the face of a reality that is more complex than their obviously flawed models. But the humility still seems to be in short supply.

Far less educated and less smart people opposed communism and they turned out to be right. There's a lesson there for anyone who cares to learn it.

Bernard Yomtov said at October 9, 2002 4:05 PM:

Many intellectuals were Marxists. So were many less well educated people. Were most intellectuals, or even a sizeable minority, Marxists? I don't think so, but I doubt that anyone knows. Certainly there were some intellectually prominent Marxists.

Yes, there are lessons there, as you say. One is that even very smart people can be mistaken.

Another is that refusal to believe that "reality is more complex than models" can lead one into serious error. I agree with you completely. In fact, that's a big part of what I've trying to say here. Don't oppose ideas just because they don't conform to your model, be it Marxism or pure laissez-faire capitalism. And don't ascribe all sorts of vile motives to people who point out that your ideology fails to deal with important problems, and that their might be good solutions that don't fit into your scheme.

That's it for me on this. (Unless I get really angry again)

Your Mom said at October 11, 2005 5:59 PM:

"Why the Nazis get more bad press than the Soviets"? Because Jews in America have so much influence over eveything.

Your Mom said at October 11, 2005 6:01 PM:

"Why the Nazis get more bad press than the Soviets"? Because Jews in America have so much influence over everything.

Raja said at February 26, 2006 3:01 PM:

Who Rules America?
The Alien Grip on Our News and Entertainment Media Must Be Broken

By the Research Staff of National Vanguard Books
P.O. Box 330 · Hillsboro · West Virginia 24946 · USA

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 whom 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 & 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. 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 Online'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 "gangsta rap." Through 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 Shoutcast 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 grip of net radio," 8th April 2003)

Ted Turner's Lesson: "Be very careful with whom you merge."

When Ted Turner, the Gentile media maverick, 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: a loose cannon who 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 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."

Disney. The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 2003 revenues of $27.1 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its 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, SOAPnet 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.

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 its 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 per cent 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 "gangsta rap," from Warner. Universal and Interscope now belong to Vivendi 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 utilities company, and was then led by Gentile Jean-Marie Messier. A board of directors 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, long-time 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 journal, The Weekly Standard, is also published by News Corporation and edited by William Kristol, a leading Jewish neocon spokesman and "intellectual."

Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the 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 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 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 are 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 per cent 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 buys 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 Newhouses 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 Newhouses own 31 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain 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. 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 is news 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 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 is 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 are 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 Poors 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.

Media of Our Own

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 a 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 NationalVanguard.org or by writing to the address below. It is vital that we support our own alternative media.

The National Alliance, 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.

Copies of this article in booklet form 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 catalogue, listing over 600 books, videos, and audio recordings, is available for $3 postpaid.


Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©