Showing posts with label Richard Nixon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Nixon. Show all posts

Monday, June 9, 2014

In Bed with Alex Jones

Confession—I fight it, but not always successfully, so if you need any information on, for example, the alleged Boys Town pedophile scandal, well, I’m your man. Months ago, I spent a cheerful Sunday afternoon—when I didn’t have to be writing—boning up on the subject via YouTube.
Ah YouTube! What a boon to conspiracy nuts and paranoia freaks! In the past, Dear Reader, you had to go to special places—usually drugstores with big magazine sections—to get your fix of extraterrestrials, Mothman, our beloved chupacabra (Puerto Rico’s gift to the world, say I proudly) not to mention that old favorite, the takeover of the entire world by a highly secret, international group of financiers, industrialists and politicians. Now, you can trot over to YouTube and see undercover footage of the Cremation of Care, which does look a little crazy.
You may not know the cremation, since most people, unlike writers, do important things: go to work, raise kids, worry about the bills. But you might have heard about Bohemian Grove, the camp of redwoods north of San Francisco, which for two weeks in July fills up with rich guys peeing in the woods. If you haven’t, here’s a nice little introduction by our old nemesis, Richard M. Nixon:
•           "The Bohemian Grove, that I attend from time to time—the Easterners and the others come there—but it is the most faggy goddamn thing you could ever imagine, that San Francisco crowd that goes in there; it's just terrible! I mean I won't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco."—President Richard M. Nixon on the Watergate tapes, Bohemian Club member starting in 1953.[17][40]
•          "If I were to choose the speech that gave me the most pleasure and satisfaction in my political career, it would be my Lakeside Speech at the Bohemian Grove in July 1967. Because this speech traditionally was off the record it received no publicity at the time. But in many important ways it marked the first milestone on my road to the presidency."—President Richard Nixon, Memoirs (1978)
Ah, Dick! Wonderful how much I don’t miss him!  
Well, the Bohemian Grove is owned by the Bohemian Club, which was set up in the late 19th century by a group of San Francisco men. And here, by the way, is Wikipedia’s explanation of the origin of the name:
In New York City and other American metropolises in the late 1850s, groups of young, cultured journalists flourished as self-described "bohemians" until the American Civil War broke them up and sent them out as war correspondents.[4] During the war, reporters began to assume the title "bohemian," and newspapermen in general took up the moniker. "Bohemian" became synonymous with "newspaper writer".[4] California journalist Bret Harte first wrote as "The Bohemian" in The Golden Era in 1861, with this persona taking part in many satirical doings. Harte described San Francisco as a sort of Bohemia of the West.[5] Mark Twain called himself and poet Charles Warren Stoddard bohemians in 1867.
OK—coming from a family of journalists, I can tell you that the words “journalists” and “cultured” are rarely coupled, especially if a negative isn’t somewhere nearby. And today, how bohemian is the club?
Not very, given that you have to be rich and connected to get in—oh, and the waiting list spans decades. The real question is what the hell goes on there, since it’s top secret, which makes it excellent fodder for us conspiracy theorists. But here are the top theories:
·      the big boys are gathering to  mastermind the takeover of all governments to implement a “new world order.” And guess who’s running it?
·      The big boys like to drink and piss in the woods
·      The big boys are engaging in satanic rituals
Here’s the problem with conspiracy theories—occasionally they’re right. So whatever is going on north of San Francisco a month from now, we can probably say that the CIA or FBI was seriously messing with Paul Robeson, a guy so talented it’s easier to say what he wasn’t than what he was. Here, Wikipedia takes a stab at it:
Paul Leroy Robeson (/ˈroʊbsən/ rohb-sən April 9, 1898 – January 23, 1976) was an African-American singer and actor who became involved with the Civil Rights Movement. At Rutgers University, he was an outstanding football player, then had an international career in singing, as well as acting in theater and movies. He became politically involved in response to the Spanish Civil War, fascism, and social injustices. His advocacy of anti-imperialism, affiliation with communism, and criticism of the United States government caused him to be blacklisted during the McCarthy era. Ill health forced him into retirement from his career. He remained until his death an advocate of the political stances he took.
Ill health? Certainly something happened to Robeson in Moscow in March of 1961; with apparently no psychiatric history, Robeson became acutely anxious, paranoid, depressed during what Wikipedia describes as “an uncharacteristically wild” party. Eventually, he locked himself in his bedroom and tried to slit his wrists. (The nurse in me needs to tell you—this is anatomically impossible….)
Robeson somehow ended up in London, where for almost two years he was zapped with shock therapy and given heavy does of barbiturates. After his son transferred him to a clinic in East Berlin, he “rapidly improved,” again according to Wikipedia.
But if the son is to be believed, the whole thing was fishy. First, consider how acute and how fast his symptom developed—he had been completely normal hours before. Then, through the Freedom of Information Act, Robeson ‘s son learned that the FBI and CIA had been tracking his father and mother for years. And then, also while in Moscow, Robeson had the same thing happen to him: an acute attack of anxiety, depression, and paranoia.
So what was going on? Here’s more from Wikipedia:
Paul Jr. believed that his father's health problems stemmed from attempts by CIA and MI5 to "neutralize" his father.[238][239] He remembered that his father had had such fears prior to his prostate operation.[240] He said that three doctors treating Robeson in London and New York had been CIA contractors,[238] and that his father's symptoms resulted from being "subjected to mind depatterning under MKULTRA", a secret CIA programme.[241] Martin Duberman claimed that Robeson's health breakdown was probably brought on by a combination of factors including extreme emotional and physical stress, bipolar depression, exhaustion and the beginning of circulatory and heart problems. "[E]ven without an organic predisposition and accumulated pressures of government harassment he might have been susceptible to a breakdown."
Whether the CIA was involved or not, it’s certainly true that the fifties were a terrible decade for Robeson—he was blacklisted since 1948, his passport was revoked for most of the decade, and he got slapped in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956. Wouldn’t you be paranoid? And it seems that Project MKUltra did exist, though the CIA destroyed a lot of its records in the height of the Watergate scandal. Remember, we were all nutso about the Communists, so the idea of setting up brothels, installing one-way mirrors, and then giving unwitting subjects LSD, interrogating the men later—all done under a program called Operation Midnight Climax—made a certain bizarre sense. If better dead than red was true, then there wasn’t much that you wouldn’t do….
From the son’s account, Robeson never quite got back in the saddle; he was unable to attend the celebration of his 75th birthday at Carnegie Hall. He had been an activist, a socialist, a supporter of the Soviet Union, and of trade unions. All of that, unfortunately, made him a little too hot a potato for comfort. In his life, he had been able to do so many things: he played pro football, he sang, he acted, he graduated from Columbia Law school, he spoke out for the marginalized. What couldn’t he do?
Take on the CIA.
Who of us can?



Monday, September 9, 2013

A Journalist and an Historian

Well, he’s an interesting guy, with an interesting set of beliefs. And he’s much in the news, now, since he has taken Edward Snowden’s revelations public through The Guardian and The Washington Post.
But the hour-long interview that I just watched was filmed two years ago, when Glenn Greenwald was relatively unknown, and had just published his book, With Liberty and Justice for Some. The central premise of the book? That our political institutions have become so corrupted that we now have a two-tiered system of justice—one for the rich and powerful, the other for the rest of us.
A defining moment for Greenwald was Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. From then on, the idea that we had to “look forward, move on, achieve closure” meant that every president since then joins the old boys network. A classic case, according to Greenwald, was how even in the interregnum of winning the election and the inauguration, Obama was slithering out of persecution of the Bush administration for war crimes, for lying to the American people and to Congress, for launching an aggressive war. Which, by the way, was the key crime of Adolf Hitler that the United States and the world charged in the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.
And it’s a clear path—the lack of prosecution of Richard Nixon lead to the lack of persecution for Irangate and high officials in the Reagan administration, the invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm, the torture and abuses of human rights in the Bush years. And as Greenwald points out, anybody who suggests that Bush be held to justice has instantly self-marginalized himself.
What’s particularly curious is—where’s the outrage? We are, after all, living in the most connected era in history. I can now tell you that in Syria, the foreign minister has appeared to agree to demands to allow international inspection or control. A hundred and fifty years ago, people were still fighting in wars after the truce had been declared.
By now, everyone can see the problem: we have an oligarchy. Members of Congress spend half of their time—minimally—struggling to get elected. And that money doesn’t come from you and me. Unless, of course, your last name is Rockefeller….
The other curious thing is how easy it should be, hypothetically, to solve the whole thing. Look, other governments have found out or figured out ways to take the money out of politics. Why can’t we?
We could start with simply funding public elections. Punto—oh, and can we put an end to television advertising? Debates, yes—but a president or senator isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a product. Though they have become so….
The next thing to do would be to throw out all the fancy voting apparatus and go back to the paper ballot and the cardboard box. The voting machine industry, by the way, is highly technical, extremely expensive, and is dominated by about three companies, all headed by rabid Republicans.
We also are going to have to increase minimum wage. Oh, and speaking of which—and speaking also of the corrosive effect of money on public policy—here’s Bill Moyers on the other NRA.
In June, the National Restaurant Association boasted that its lobbyists had stopped minimum wage increases in 27 out of 29 states in 2013. In Connecticut, which increased its state minimum wage, a raise in the base pay for tipped workers such as waitresses and bartenders vanished in the final bill. A similar scenario unfolded in New York State: It increased its minimum wage, but the NRA’s last-minute lobbying derailed raising the pre-tip wage at restaurants and bars. The deals came despite polls showing 80 percent support for raising the minimum wage.     
Rounding back to Greenwald, he argues that we have a system in which the powerful get away—figuratively and even occasionally literally—with murder, whereas the poor are more easily incarcerated than ever.
OK—jailing is one thing we do to the poor. The other thing we do—as I learned in class today—is to use them as cannon fodder. That’s what my student taught me, as she showed me a photo on her iPhone of her nephew, who had just enlisted in the army.
Well, he thought it was all he could do. He had just turned 18, he had bad grades and couldn’t go to the university, and jobs? Are you kidding?
I tried to be hopeful; my student was near tears. But the reality is that if her nephew comes back, his life may be just as hellish as it was in Iraq. It may, in fact, become something like Iraq 2.0, with the terrors being internal and systemic, as opposed to external and random.
Oh, and the people who wrecked the system, so that there are no jobs, and kids have to off to war? The criminals in the thousand-dollar suits? They’re free, and riding a soaring stock market right now….
Greenwald also makes the point that we have blended the lines between the public and private sectors. And nowhere is this more true than in “national security.” Who would have imagined a world in which we have out-sourced granting security access? It’s madness.
And Greenwald’s observation that journalists have changed is interesting—instead of the hard-bitten, cynical, go-after-the-bastards-and-damn-the-costs guys of the past, we now have people who are employed by corporations, and who know how the corporation works. Which—news flash, here—is by smiling, going along with the herd, ducking your head and not rocking boats.
Well, I came upon Greenwald by listening to “Conversations with History,” a great, hour-long program coming out of UCLA. Yesterday, I watched William Cronon, the president of the American Historical Association and a professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Today was Greenwald.
And both men were inspiring. Oddly, both men spoke briefly of the necessity of hope. Given that Cronon is a specialist in Environmental History, and Greenwald in First Amendment and Civil Rights, one wonders…
Which man has the most reason to be hopeful?
Or the most need?