© COPYRIGHT 2004, by NewRuskinCollege.com
New Ruskin College Lecture Hall:
History’s judgment rendered today!
today reminds me of Weimar Germany.
--- Linda Ronstadt
“That is the most ridiculous
thing I have ever heard. There is just no comparison between Weimar
Germany and today in America. I have studied history. I taught History.
I know what I am talking about. That is just ridiculous.”
--- Bill O’Reilly, (before the fall. (Mr. Rath was a schoolmaster too.)
Note: The theme of the Last Letter is not that Weimar is important
because America is about to fall victim of the NAZIs, but
rather because the Weimar Republic, as
U. S. Senator Moynihan noted at the time was, “a struggling young democracy.” Weimar
did not have to, was not predestined to, lead to catastrophe, just as we have said about our own time, see Max Weber Institute.
% GEORGE W.
% JOHN KERRY
% RALPH NADER
Oct 22 - 24,
Based on Likely Voters: GALLOP
“In the final NEWSWEEK
Poll before Tuesday's vote, Bush holds a four-point lead over Kerry among registered voters (48-44) and a six-point lead among
likely voters (50-44).” --- Newsweek, 10-31-04
"I think our guys are doing
a superb job. I think they've been smart. I think the administration leadership has done it well. We're
on the right track." ----- Senator
J. F. F. Kerry, December 2001, on CNN after the battle of Tora Bora.
“I regret that when George
Bush had the opportunity in Afghanistan and Tora Bora, he
didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job to Afghan warlords.
I would have never done that. I think it was an enormous mistake and we are paying the price for it today." ----- Stooge J. F. F. Kerry 2004
“. . . and I tell
you that these polls --- in the battleground states, do not represent the strength
of Senator Kerry.” --- Representative Pelosi, of the Post Liberal Bay Area elite IN DENIAL, on ABC’s
This Week, 10-31-04
“. . . he can win Hawaii, where Dick Cheney is out there, as we speak, trying to steal that state,.
---- Tim Russert, Meet the Press, IN DENIAL, 10-31-04 (Steal? Stay tuned.)
Lecture Notes: 10-31-04
Cell Phones for Bush!!!!!!!!
Not only is the President
going to win reelection, see how he wins!
He wins not against
a fair and honest opposition, but against liars.
He wins not with a
neutral and dispassionate media, but against a partisan media.
Go ahead tell some
more lies. Say, “. . . nearly tied . . .” all you want. He wins.
Forge some more documents?
Ignore the veterans
who served with Kerry?
Claim he “lied”
about the war, concocting a story “in Texas,” for political reasons?
That he is responsible
for the killers who are attacking our troops? (“Thanks that is all I need.”)
You are for the war,
then when the political win turns, you flip flop against it.
You have done your
worst and still he wins. He Wins!
He wins because fundamentally
you are dishonest. He wins because you can only campaign with lies. You got as close as you did because you control the media, the schools, the foundations, the civil service
(particularly at State and the CIA. (Wilson
IV, another of your liars, exposed as a liar by his own report, yet you have hidden the facts and go on telling your lies
on your networks, CBS, NPR, ABC, etc. etc.))
Over 40 pages of internal
Iraqi documents show the terrorist link yet you ignore this evidence too. Scare
the pensioners about their Social Security. Scare them about the flu shots too. Tell all the lies you like. This is why he wins.
Because the people know you for the liars you are.
So, yes, you have ignored
the burglary at the Colonial Motel, the electronic eaves dropping, the years of harassment, the oppression, Weiner, Imus,
Owens, Krasney, etc. go ahead, ignore it,
but still, here you have been defeated . . . I can die now.
Lecture Notes: 10-29-04
But your fees are not
included in the tuition.
Counselor: No, of course not.
Well I just wanted
to make sure there was no misunderstanding ---
Counselor: . . . You are on.
Yes! Welcome back to New Ruskin. Welcome. . . . uh, let’s
clarify a few points. Some College visitors have asked if we meant to imply that
Mr. Jones the putative Republican candidate for U. S. Senate had thrown the election in order to secure the continued support
of Marin Senators Boxer and Feinstein for his state mandated “ethanol?”
not. We did not mean to imply that. We
meant to categorically affirm it.
Earlier in the campaign
Mr. Jones made a point of letting everyone know that he had funded his campaign with $2 million of his own money. (He is said to be worth $14 million.) Recently he let it be
known that, due to business difficulties, he is illiquid and not able to fulfill his promises to make available to his campaign
the financial resources which he had previously represented to the Republican
Party of California would be spent on advertising. In other words he reneged on the promise to fund the campaign.
Let me be clear. If I had $2 million I would not spend it on a campaign for Senate, so I do not condemn Mr. Jones for prudence. I condemn him
for being a liar.
Mr. Jones represented
to the Party that he would use some of his own money. He made a promise and now
says he will not keep the promise. There are others who would have been willing
to fund their own campaigns had Mr. Jones not made his misrepresentations. Mrs.
Jack Swanson has reported (on KSFO AM) that Mr. Jones has collected back from
the contributions made to his campaign, by others, the $2 million he had previously “given.” He lied even about the original funding of the campaign.
I submit for your consideration
that Mr. Jones knew from the beginning that it would be better for his “ethanol” plant to have the Marin Senator
Boxer returned to office; that he deliberately failed to campaign, failing even
to use the free media; ignoring issues, ignoring opportunities, deliberately
sabotaging the Republican Party; all in furtherance of a collusive agreement
with the Democrats to fix the Federal election for Boxer; and all of this in
return for the continued support of the Democrats for Mr. Jones’ “ethanol” plant.
Our Governor has again
said that another candidate for public office, Poizner, (who is spending $8 million for a State Assembly seat),
is so rich that “he can not be bought.” It will be recalled that
the Governor had previously said the same thing about himself. Further recall
that, at the time, we reminded the College visitor of G. K. Chesterton’s
point that, “A politician who claims that he is too rich to be bought is a fool, for he fails to perceive that he has
already been bought.”
Let us offer the Governor,
Mr. Jones as an example of just such a rich man as G. K. Chesterton describes. The
problem with the Governor’s thesis is that it assumes that a man who has $14 millions is “above” mortal
cares. For one thing Mr. Jones, like so many others, having arrived at $14 millions
now wants $15 or $20 millions. Then too there is “insurance.” With so much of his capital sunk in the “ethanol” plant, (he did say he was illiquid), Mr. Jones far from being care free has a great many cares, a lot of them
tied up, along with his millions, in his “ethanol” plant, which depends on state mandates as no consumer will
voluntarily pay for the product of Mr. Jones’ plant.
I doubt that even this scandal of a deliberately thrown election will cause the Governor to reconsider his position about
the superior virtue and trustworthiness of the rich. As we have said so many
times before, the rich are no friends of free markets. They in general prefer
to use the power of the state to fix and pervert the market. Mr. Jones for example.
As we have explained,
(see The Magnificent Five in the E-Mail Archives at the Moynihan), the $7.4 trillion
in national debt is especially favored by the rich because this allows them to completely withdraw from the vicissitudes of
the market. No late nights studying what the consumers want, or how to meet those
demands, etc. When your capital is in Treasury Bonds all you need do is clip
coupons and let the I.R.S. shake the money out of the people. Even though the Governor is from Austria
I have never heard him mention the Austrian School
of Economics. In any case the Governor does not impress me as a man given to
long reflection and deep introspection.
The other point that
needs clarification is the issue of Mr. O’Reilly’s news judgment. Some
College visitors have suggested that he may simply have considered the story presented here at this website and deemed it
Possibly so. Two networks, one intentionally interfering with a private contractual relation, the other burglarizing
a notebook. Both involved in years of harassment, over a decade, interfering
with employment with one employer after another, electronic eaves dropping, on and on it goes, ending in suicide ---- well,
ok so maybe it isn’t news.
But now look at what
has happened. I claimed that my troubles started when I wrote some letters to
the Senate. I claim that because I expressed conservative Republican views I
became a target here in the ultra liberal Bay Area of San Francisco.
Now, Bill O’Reilly
claims that he has been targeted in an extortion attempt, by politically motivated Democrat partisans who are taking advantage
of some risqué after hours talk between collaborating adults.
Just on the correspondence
of the two stories, wouldn’t you think that just these similarities would prompt interest?
One guest on the O’Reilly
radio show complemented him on his great insight in recognizing the importance of the Swift Boat Vets story, “from the
start.” O’Reilly accepted the complement.
Yet anyone familiar
with the facts knows that O’Reilly repeatedly accused the Vets of a political “smear.” That he compared them to Michael Moore. That he famously concluded
the Friday broadcast by informing his radio audience that the Vet’s story was a one week event and that they will not
be heard from again.
The following week
he announced that he was excited to have gotten an interview with John O’Neil for his TV show the following week, i.e.
two weeks after O’Reilly had announced that the story would have been over.
I had said at
the time, (see Lecture Notes), that O’Reilly took the side of the elite, in this case Kerry, over the merely middle
class Vets. Subsequent events suggest another reason O’Reilly may have
decried the “smear” and “lies,” etc. etc. At one point
he even propounded the theory that the Swift Boat Vets were not “primary sources” because they were not actually
on Kerry’s boat.
They were not “primary
sources” because they were not flying away down river with Kerry. They
were only fishing the wounded out of the water, trying to save the damaged boat, providing first aid, etc. etc. The absurdity of this argument is self evident.
What may not
be so clear is why O’Reilly repeatedly makes these “mistakes” in judgment.
His first consideration is his own ego: what is best for O’Reilly? Some times he guesses wrong. For example
he not only did not investigate the charges made here about Weiner he positively endorsed him, even doing promotional spots
for Weiner’s show. He seems enamored of Imus too. He even used Bo Dietl, Imus’ friend, in his own case, where clearly Dietl has seriously done damage.
tried to befriend the very people who now abuse him, Imus, Weiner, and Dietl, who, as I say, has actually done immeasurable
harm to him. Imus even went on the air, (when O’Reilly tried to get air
time after the filings in court), abusing O’Reilly publicly and ridiculing him.
not only did not take up the story presented here about Imus and Weiner, but O’Reilly tried to befriend both of these
cowardly bastards, and both have betrayed him. All his efforts backfired. But the problem starts with the fact that he does not start his analysis by trying
to find out what is true, he starts his analysis by thinking what is best for O’Reilly.
Had he started with
the truth, he would now have a huge story about how two powerful networks, ABC and NPR, set out to destroy a man; how Don
Imus and Michael Weiner for years have burglarized, harassed, and oppressed, this man, etc. etc.
Instead we have
a story about how he has harassed, etc.
So Governor, now what? Jones, O’Reilly, Imus, Weiner, Dietl, all rich men. Millionaires several times over. And yet you still propound
the argument that “rich men can not be bought?” Sir? Sir? Is this what you are continuing to argue?
Sir? If you do not answer I will kill myself in protest of you too?
Then it is done. I will protest you too! Come death lead
me away from these villains and fools, whores and monsters, . . . I can say no more.
Lecture Notes: 10-28-04
How do you sustain
What stories do they
tell themselves? That’s what I want to know. How do they live with themselves?
for example, at home with his young wife and child, in the kitchen, preparing the salad with the vinaigrette dressing, walnut
oil, the shrimp sizzling on the fire, the wine breathing . . . what stories does he tell himself?
He likes to tell
his audience, he positively gloats, that he is a “tax and spend liberal”
and proud of it. This is the ‘I’m rich and can afford to pay
the taxes,’ conceit. (Also Sean Hannity.) Yet, as we know, (see prior Lecture Notes), the rich, like Mr. Keeler, are
not the ones who end up paying the majority of the taxes. By operation of the
market all costs are redirected by market forces.
periodically raises the fees it charges “member stations,” much of
the cost being paid out of Federal subsidies, and Mr. Keeler’s bank account is replenished so that when next he goes
to the market, and swipes his card, the connection is completed and he takes another feast home to his young wife.
How does he live with
Answer: This is why he is a liberal.
is a salve he applies to his guilty conscience as
he slides into his seat next to his very young wife, the pasta steaming, the wine glowing in the crystal goblet.
That part of the cost
of his banquet has been paid by forced payments from the poor, the bottom 75% is
a fact that needn’t bother one, if one simply ignores it. Ignore also the
regular price rises of Keeler Enterprises and PBS and NPR and all the price rises of all the members of the top 25%. Forget that these price rises take place against a global background of deflation,
of twenty five cents an hour labor abroad, of workers literally chained to their work benches, and not just in Chinese prison
factories, of illegal workers here in the USA, three million a year, working sub minimum wage for Marin Senators clearing
brush, forget a world of six billion, forget all this and enjoy! Dinner is served.
This is how Garrison
Keillor sustains himself. Ignorant of market operations all he knows is that
his bank account pushes him ahead of need, and his “tax and spend liberalism” protects his ego, his vanity, his
happy enjoyment of his young wife and her child.
Tell him that government
money is being wasted he will roll his eyes under those bushy eyebrows confident that even if it was wasted, ‘What of
it? It came from the rich! Me and
my rich friends, why we pay the majority of the taxes!’ You see? Impenetrable.
It is a willful ignorance. And still, this is what sustains him. That
the rich are merely the tax collectors of the system, that they manipulate the price mechanism to avoid taxes is, for Keeler, “only a theory” compared to the hard fact of “tax and spend
He prefers his lie
to the truth because this is what allows him to enjoy his “rewards” in peace and comfort. This is the story he tells himself. This is how he sustains
Don’t get me
wrong. I am a conservative. I am
not proposing socialism as an alternative. For one thing consider that the taxes
collected by the rich are voluntary, for the most part. Keeler does receive some
subsidies, but most rich people can only raise their prices if there are consumers who are willing to pay. The market system is one of mutual consent.
But if we could force
“tax and spend liberals” to face the fact that their taxes are being redistributed by the market from those who
can raise prices, people like Garrison Keillor, onto people with less ability to raise prices, for example, all those workers
who must compete with the slave laborer and the illegal migrant, then these liberals might take more seriously our reports
that the tax is being misspent.
Because of the complacency
induced by the wine, and the “tax and spend liberal” ideology, it is difficult to redirect the attention of liberals
onto what is actually being done. In Boston,
New York, San Francisco, for example, three big liberal, Democrat controlled urban centers, zoning has been used by the Post
Liberal elite, Mr. Keeler’s friends, to price housing out of the reach of the people.
(see paper no. 1948. Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko The Impact of Zoning on Housing
Affordability next link )
#1948. Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko The Impact of Zoning on Housing Affordability
Yet because of the
stories Mr. Keeler tells himself, and his audience, they are literally blind to the harm government is doing to the people. Because he tells himself as he munches on his shrimp and salad, that he wants to do
good, he thinks that he actually is doing good. That his party is ruining the
people, taking their meager wages from them, in taxes yes, and in prices and price increases to a greater extent, and then
using the power of government to drive housing, education, medical care, etc. beyond the reach of the people, is quite literally
lost on Keeler as he stretches on his couch for his nap.
Every dollar spent
by government should be regarded as theft from the people. But I am a conservative not a libertarian. The charge of theft is a rebuttable presumption. For example
when it was proposed that the Golden Gate Bridge should be built and that the power of the state should be used to raise the
capital, (through government bonds), and competition from ferries limited, etc. the project, the proposed expenditure, might
be justified if it were shown that the bridge would open up Marin County real estate thereby lowering the cost of real estate
for the people of San Francisco.
And this is what
the advocates of the Golden
Gate Bridge propounded. The
good of the people! Yet, see how the people were betrayed. No sooner had the people been conned out of their money than the rich people of San
Francisco and Marin immediately set about separating the people from their bridge. Senators Boxer and Feinstein in Marin and San Francisco respectively were part of the process by which
the elite down zoned both counties driving up the cost of housing and forcing the middle class and poor out, leaving the people’s
bridge for the benefit of the rich.
(Shhhh! Don’t wake up Mr. Jones. He wouldn’t want to make
any of these points. Let him sleep. The
campaign will soon be over and he can go back to his “ethanol” plant. Boxer
and Feinstein are big supporters of Mr. Jones’ “ethanol.” It
is in fact a government monopoly. People would not voluntarily agree to buy Mr.
Jones’ “ethanol” because of the laws of physics. (It takes
more energy to make “ethanol” than it produces. It is a poor bargain
where no one benefits. Well Mr. Jones benefits.
Benefits as long as his “opponent” Boxer and the other Marin Senator Feinstein support the “ethanol”
fraud.) Sleep Mr. Jones, sleep.)
This is the reality
of the “tax and spend liberalism” which Mr. Keeler advocates. This
is the dark truth he shields his guilty liberal conscience from. He knows that
there is an “unfairness” in society but rather than investigate it he projects it onto the Republicans, who are
the villains in the story he tells. That the “unfairness” might be
more basic, that it might stem from his own perverse ideology can not be admitted by him on account of his desire for a sound
Keeler has contacts
at KQED and Marin, possibly with Yvonne herself. He has made many references
over the years to my situation. (At one point I even considered if I was being targeted by old men with young wives: Keeler, Imus, MacLaughlin, Swanson . . . Then it came to me. I was only hearing from people who have radio microphones in front of them.
And what kind of people have radio microphones? Self absorbed egotists,
the kind of men who have second, third families, marrying younger and younger wives.)
What stories do the
egomaniacal tell? Comforting stories.
Stories full of kitsch. They are never responsible for the harm they see
all around them. Imus was at first for the war but his ego found it more comfortable
for him to now tell the story that he is against the war. MacLaughlin also has
found more restful snoozes sustaining his ego with a new story line: such is
the power of young wives.
For the longest time
I could not understand O’Reilly’s lack of interest in the story of this website.
Here was a chance to expose his competitors, Weiner, Imus, the whole NPR involvement, then too the chance to expose
ABC, and thereby possibly push FOX into the top three, displacing ABC. A story of how powerful egotistical broadcast personalities used their power to destroy a man for no other
reason than that they could. This was a story that FOX
should have lusted after.
Then find out what
is going on, I found out that in April, when I was protesting Imus, (see Imus Protests: April), O’Reilly was talking
dirty to a girl.
Counselor: . . .
A woman. So what stories does O’Reilly tell himself. He used
to bitterly complain about his Federal taxes. Now he can not beg Andrea enough
to take $6 million off his hands? Instead of talking dirty to Andrea he could
have been on the phone to me, developing a story about how a rival network set out to destroy me . . . could have pushed FOX
into the forefront, a major story, and
he is talking to Andrea, holding the phone in one hand and----
Counselor: . . .
And anyway what does
he say to himself? How does he sustain himself?
What stories does he tell? He could still have his $6 million; he
could have helped FOX; could have done justice, why not?
Bill, why? . . .
I don’t get it. And yet people will say O’Reilly he is a white male and I am a white male and
add our incomes together to get the average white male income, like we are on
the same team? Not only did he not take the story he has repeatedly expressed
contempt for me. Argued against even general obvious points. (see Clones, 2nd edition) Same team? The rich white men even support quotas as another way to torment humanity.
To hell with justice! Imus, Weiner, O’Reilly, stand for the platform
How do you all sustain
yourselves? What stories do you tell yourselves?
I don’t understand
you . . .
Lecture Notes: 10-26-04
Well I don’t
see why everyone is getting so upset ----
Counselor: No one is upset.
But why are they all
talking about ---
Counselor: They thought it a little strange that’s all. You
were talking about doomsday weapons and the end of the world one moment, and then you started talking about school fees and
tuition. The transition was a bit abrupt that’s all.
But I thought that’s
what you meant . . .
Counselor: Shhhhh! You are on . . .
Ah! Welcome back everyone . . . Some College visitors have expressed surprise that we should have described
Bo Dietl as an amateur. (see Lecture Notes: 10-25-04)
In civil litigation! His prior experience as an “investigator” has been limited to knocking
the heads of Brooklyn thugs together.
In the Mackris case
Bo Dietl turned a straightforward employer-employee sexual harassment claim into a case of defamation, invasion of privacy,
unauthorized release of confidential information, oppression, etc. etc.
See Bo this is what
comes from having a mouth that is bigger than your brain. What do you think visitors?
Would you want to hire this loud mouthed coward? Want to turn a small
claim into a big one? Or a big one into an even bigger one? I think not. Not very good advertising for Bo Dietl and Asses
Of course, Don
Imus, on the other hand is himself a loud mouth coward so no doubt he will still hire Bo.
((see Psy Ops) One College
visitor even suggested that Bo Dietl may even have used GAB Robins to eliminate some competition for Bo Dietl and Asses.)
The degenerate Don
Imus today used the public air ways to issue a series of threats to unspecified victims, promising them that he would destroy
their lives, warning them that he is “vicious.” This is the same
way Mrs. Jack Swanson described herself when in 2002 and 2003 she was carrying the Iman’s water. (see Psy Ops) “I’m vicious,” she said
of herself. Don you talk like Mrs. Jack Swanson,
are you as dumb as Mrs. Jack Swanson?
his rant with the boast, “What are you going to do . . . hire an attorney? I’ve got the best attorneys in the country.” See how proud Imus is that the judiciary has been perverted by the rich.
Also see that there is no F.C.C. to stop him from using the public airways to issue his threats.
I couldn’t understand
why Imus was so upset with the F.C.C.. Even if they do issue a fine it will be
paid by Viacom not Imus. Then I realized what it was. It was just the idea that someone would judge him. Just the
idea that there was someone with “authority” over him. Expelled from
high school. Sent to juvenile Hall. Forced
into the Marine Corps. His whole life he has been acting out against “authority.” The F.C.C. represents the father figure for him.
(But why? Latent homosexuality perhaps?)
that here with Don Imus we see, the flaunting of the bling bling, the “gangsta” slang, the mouthing of the empty liberal platitudes, as symbolized
by his empty headed support for John F. F. Kerry, the Post Liberal elite unabashedly presenting its true face. The wizened junkie face of Don Imus. The Post Liberal elite is here ascendant, in full possession of the powers of the state
(the next President?); it fears no challenge to its power, not from the judiciary, nor
the F.C.C.: those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.
To be a real conservative
we must stand for more than just lower taxes. We must redress this abuse of power. There will always be the rich, but they need not be given control of the state, should
not be given control of the state. Many stupidly assume that the rich favor free
markets. They do not. Whenever given
the chance they will take control of the state and manipulate the market --- if we let them.
We must make the Post Liberal elite see that it lives in the same world as the rest of us --- and that their children
do as well.
So now what are
you going to do Imus?
You see Don, you have
already destroyed my life, remember, GAB Robins? This is the difference between
me and your other victims: I’m ready to die. How about you? Are you ready to die Don Imus? In fact, the next time you pass the dinning room why don’t
you stick your head in and ask your young wife and her child if they are ready? .
. . for you to die.
It is always
funny when it is about someone else isn’t it Don? You gutless coward.
Lecture Notes: 10-25-04
That is what Drudge
splashed on Andrea Mackris. Bo Dietl had just said that he and his “investigators”
were going to ruin her reputation, defame her, destroy her, undermine her credibility,
and sure enough two days later Dredge had her credit report.
here we can separate the amateur from the professional.
Do you think her credit
report “improves” her case or “undermines” it?
Why did she take the
calls? Why didn’t she just hang up the phone?
Remember? You have read these “points for the defense” being raised by the elite and the defenders of
the elite. Paul Harvey for example.
She was his subordinate. He could have called almost any woman in the world.
He chose this one. Why?
Because she was his
subordinate. Because he knew she had a mountain of debt. (Two thirds of which were for student loans. But even this
was presented as “high living” or “living beyond her means.”
(Rose above her station did she?)) She needed the income. Needed the job in “his” organization. And what’s
more he knew she needed the job. (Or does Fox not do credit checks on employees?)
And there is more. She had just returned from CNN, where she had been involved in another sexual harassment
by employer situation. She was vulnerable and O’Reilly knew it.
Let us pause here and
reflect on the “women of CNN.” Why
did she have to deal with the harassment by the CNN superior? Or do you suppose
the CNN management never sexually harassed any other female employee? Well, of
course because the other “CNN women” did not stand up to the harassment.
Were they so desperate for their jobs in the “media” that they would whore themselves out to management?
Or consider, why has
no one at KGO-ABC come forward and given evidence about the burglary at the Colonial Motel.
Rosie Allen? Want to guess? Because
they too are desperate to keep their jobs. Bought and paid for. They are property of management. Corporate slaves.
So now geniuses, you
tell me, (I only have 24 years experience in insurance litigation, what do I know?),
but you are “J” School graduates, columnists, talk radio “personalities,” you tell me, does Ms. Mackris’ credit make her claim of duress more or less plausible?
Well of course, more
plausible. Like so many others O’Reilly has confused his sex drive with
his greed, his vanity, his desire for power. He admits he has “a big mouth,”
by way of explanation. He derived special pleasure from not only the “phone
sex,” but from the subordinate. She was the subordinate. She needed the job. He knew she had debts; and that he could force himself on his subordinate, this is what gave him the special pleasure he craved. He also knew she was involved in a prior
sexual harassment situation at CNN. Would anyone believe her twice? After all she could just hang up the phone. Right? Isn’t that what you said? Genius? (Bo, this is satire, the humor lies in the fact that we all know you are a loud mouth coward, a fool. (That is why you helped Imus harasse me at GAB Robins. Because you are a coward.))
And speaking of cowards
let us not forget the cowardly women at CNN and FOX.
Or do you suppose that O’Reilly has not sexually harassed other subordinates at FOX?
And please remember
all the cowards at KGO ABC who knew of Michael Weiner’s burglary at the Colonial Motel.
And speaking of disturbed sexual deviants: remember too Michael Weiner
following me to Berkeley, (see Psy Ops), and his following me to the health club and standing outside in the night, looking
in windows from the darkness, (see Intel Operations), remember the electronic eaves dropping at the Colonial Motel, (see Psy
Ops), and at the storage garage, (see Psy Ops); remember too Michael Weiner’s
constant discussion of his homosexual desires, his love letters to Allen Ginsburg, (see Micael Savage Sucks . com); and as with O’Reilly, it was not just the sexual desire either,
it was for Michael Weiner also the exercise of power --- the power to destroy another man’s life, that gave him
his special pleasure.
And then too, think
on Don Imus. His young wife in his bed next to him but what he is thinking about
is not her, but some insurance adjuster in Concord California,
why? Why does the former Marine
bugler gloat over how he is able to ruin the life of an officer’s son. Oh,
is it because he is an officer’s son? Getting even are we Don?
Imus, all have confused sex with power. Their “fat relentless egos”
have consumed their whole lives.
I am thinking of Suetonius’
Twelve Caesars. How power ruined each of them according to the defect of their
personalities. Each turned to the savagery and debauchery that they were predisposed
And as with the Caesars,
the radio personalities sink into their depravity because those around them are too afraid to speak up and give evidence.
Lecture Notes: 10-23-04
Once again our Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger leads California back to the future!
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
has stepped out in front of the ordinary politicians and has endorsed Proposition 71.
With the passage of
Proposition 71 California will hold its leadership position in the Life Sciences. Because
of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s leadership California has a chance
to lead the world into the Fifth Day of Creation.
Why have we had
to wait so long for the likes of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger? Why couldn’t
we have had such leadership over the last decades?
Think how much
depends upon this one individual!
are a lot of things going on in this case . . . what we are going to do as investigators is take her credibility and show
the court, if it ever goes there, show the court her credibility falling apart .
. . we are going to investigate you, we are going to uncover things about your life that
we already ha--- about your life, so you are wide open right now . . . Beware people.”
---- Bo Dietl, 10-16-04
Note: This is what Don Imus did to me in 2003 when I was working at GAB Robins in Concord,
California. These rich powerful people, Don
Imus, Michael Weiner, and the rest, have used their power to interfere with my employment, my private relations, to drive
me into ruin, to destroy me. Beware people.
Benedict P. Morelli
Attorney at Law
950 Third Ave
New York, NY 10022
Dear Mr. Benedict P. Morelli;
You do not know me but
you no doubt have heard of my tormenters whose oppression I have endured for over twelve years: Michael Weiner, Don Imus, Bo Dietl, and of their friend, Bill
O’Reilly. It is too late for me, but I wish to help you and your client.
Bo Dietl’s “surveillance
technicians” were used by Don Imus in 2003 when I worked for GAB Robins to .
. . To Be Continued . . .
* * *
* * *
Number one Web Site for coverage
of the number one story in Radio, as determined by Google?
Google Search Results for:
Imus, Weiner, O’Reilly:
Imus Protests April 2004
... Your knowledge of what Don Imus, and Michael Weiner, and Ron ...
exercise,” your “sense of truth.” For example consider when Bill O’Reilly, just before ...
www.newruskincollege.com/id14.html - 90k - Supplemental Result -
Cached - Similar pages
Lecture Notes: April
... Bill O’Reilly has advised his listeners not to be honest
with even their wives ... that Mr. O’Reilly developed a close relationship with Michael Weiner, of hate ...
www.newruskincollege.com/id17.html - 47k - Supplemental Result -
Cached - Similar pages
Number one Web Site for coverage
of the number one story in Radio, as determined by Yahoo?
New Ruskin College
... Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Weiner
, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, but most of all Don Imus
his limos and jets ... death I protest Don Imus
, Michael Weiner
, Mrs. Jack Swanson ...
- newruskincollege.blogspot.com - 78k - Cached - More from this site
- New Ruskin College.com
Bush Kerry Schwarzenegger Bill Jones Boxer Feinstein Iraq 911 WTC SARS AIDS Limbaugh clones Kennedy Clinton
Biden Dodd Hatch McCain Imus ... appearance on the Don Imus radio program ... Michael Weiner, Bill O'Reilly,
Rush Limbaugh, but most of all Don Imus, discussing his ... an example. Michael Weiner found himself, (when
he ...www.newruskincollege.com - 236k - Cached - More from this site
New Ruskin College.com. Imus Protests April 2004. © COPYRIGHT 2004, by NewRuskinCollege.com. Psy
Ops #6: Imus Protest Handbill 04-14-04. Psy Ops Number Six: ... no idea how Don Imus might be able to get ...
have explained that Michael Weiner is now moving to ever ... opposition, (KQED, Michael Weiner, ABC, Don Imus,
etc.), claim ...www.newruskincollege.com/id14.html - 98k - Cached - More from this site
New Ruskin College.com. We Make What all the World Wants: The Ultimate Source of All Power. -Knowledge
! ... Don Imus radio program ... Michael Weiner and his ... Imus, Mrs. Jack Swanson, Brian Susman, Bernie
Ward, Rosie Allen, Ed Wygant, Jim Dunbar, the "Red" comedian of KQED, and Michael Weiner ...newruskincollege.com
- 200k - Cached - More from this site
... Michael Weiner has escalated his harassment and Don Imus has made ... from doing a
promo for Weiner.) First you ever ... continues on the Don Imus show as a regular ...newruskincollege.com/id18.html
- 163k - Cached - More from this site
Tuesday, August 24, 2004. Kerry,O'Rilly, and Corruption too. NewRuskinCollege. From www.NewRuskinCollege.com.
Lecture Notes: 08-25-04. Corruption! ... Dodd Hatch McCain O'Brien Drudge Gore Keeler Imus Russert bigrussandme Beck
O'Reilly Krauthammer Lehrer Brooks ... Notes 08-07-04 New Ruskin College. Michael Weiner Holocaust Denier ...newruskincollege.blogspot.com/... /kerryorilly-and-corruption-too.html - 14k
- Cached - More from this site
when Mr. Bush said, “With a straight face, he said he had only one position on Iraq. He
must think we're on another planet,” . . . that was . . . ?
It doesn’t work like that.
If Mr. Bush wants to get in on this he has to do something more than that.
Counselor: Like what?
Well if he called Kerry an extraterrestrial. Something like that. Then we would let him join.
Counselor: Well that
raises the bar. I don’t know . . . Oh,
how about this one:
-- Engineers here at Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corporation are readying NASA's Deep Impact mission for shipping this
month to Cape Canaveral, Florida. Next stop: Comet Tempel 1.
A NASA Discovery-class spacecraft, the Deep Impact mission
features the "Flyby" spacecraft that releases the "Impactor", hardware destined to run into with Comet Tempel 1. The spacecraft
pair will give scientists their first close-up look at the interior of a comet.
the point? It’s a science mission?
Counselor: Yeah, that’s what they want us to think. But
really it’s like those movies . . .
Yvonne, I’m starting to worry about you. Are you ok?
you die, out there, we will still be here at New Ruskin . . .? Nothing here in
the domain will change will it?
Oh, of course not. Everything
here will stay the same, this is the internet.
Lecture Notes: 10-05-04
Junkie Nation III
If you can not defend
America at $17.25 an hour then you can not defend America.
I was listening to
Tammy Bruce discuss the Los Angeles grocery store strike. Now that she is a conservative she is uncomfortable taking up the worker’s side but she did not want
to take up with management either. (The strike was over a slight increase in
the portion of the health insurance costs the workers would pay. Though the amount
was not large the union leadership judged it a bad precedent that the workers should be made to pay more. (Health insurance is an interesting example of where all the lies and hypocrisy of the political establishment
are shown up for what they are.))
So Tammy Bruce
took a middle position by pointing out that the average worker’s wage was “only” $17.25, under the contract. The wage was not in dispute in the strike, but she wanted to know, “Why would
you settle for only $17.25?” She demanded of her audience, “Don’t you want anything better? Are you going
to settle for that?” she mocked.
This is a line we get
from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Weiner, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, but most of all Don Imus, discussing his
limos and jets and mansions. The ‘How come you are not rich like
Now dears, $17.25 is slightly above the national medium.
True, half the workers earn more, but also half the workers earn less. And
here you have the reason why these imposters are not really conservatives, or even the “patriotic” Americans that
they claim to be.
They are, with
their superior ability, drive, ambition, (or was it just luck?), contemptuous of the rest.
They defend the Free Enterprise System only because they have millions.
There is nothing wrong
with striving. Strive! An individual can always strive to “get ahead.” Even
whole societies can try to better themselves. But for all your effort you can
not undo the laws of the universe. There will always be a top and a middle and
sad to say a bottom. (This is why none of them will discuss the Bell Curve or
even the general topic of the genetic origins of cognitive ability. They can
not admit that there are limits on what can be achieved. As noted earlier, (See
Clones 2nd Edition at the Max Weber Institute), it is typically American to insist that “All men are created
equal,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.)
In other words
there will always be a medium wage. If you can not justify living in America at $17.25 an hour then you can
not justify America.
And saying, ‘OK, that is fine for starters but to get ahead . . . or yes, but the opportunities are really what
make America great, etc. etc.’ are all merely evasions. Some individuals may rise up above the medium, but by definition there will always
be a medium. (This is why Economics is a tautology.) That America
can be justified for ordinary citizens living decent ordinary lives at $14 an hour, or $11.25, or $5.75, etc. would simply
not occur to them. Just as admitting that the national average I. Q. is 100 seems
Un-American so too “settling” for an “ordinary” job making
an “average” income also seems vaguely unpatriotic.
The problem with
these carnival barkers and hucksters is that their “patriotism,” their “conservatism ,” is phony. Their insistence on the “American Values,” of “success,” “achievement,”
and “American optimism,” has been bought. One suspects that if they
were not multi-millionaires they would not feel that “America
is the greatest country in the world.”
Some of them are clearly
ill at ease discussing ordinary Americans, and their ordinary concerns. Bruce’s
incomprehension that half of America would not only “accept” $17.25 but would rejoice over it, revel in it, spend
the weekend celebrating that they had reached a point in their lives that they could make so much, is an example. Michael Weiner found himself, (when he was still a “compassionate conservative,” before he became
an “independent nationalist”), trying to defend the minimum wage. He
was apparently aware that as a conservative he should be against the minimum wage but like Bruce, (both former leftists, homosexuals,
looking for a niche in the radio business), he could not bring himself to oppose it.
He could only
ask his conservative listeners to have “some heart.” He simply could
not think through the problem on any other level. “You know, you conservatives,
it is not all with your head . . .” he whined.
How might a real conservative
defend the minimum wage? If you were really a conservative and not just pretending
to be one to get a radio gig, you might start by recognizing that conservatives are not libertarians. We recognize that the state may have to interpose itself to restore balance in society. This is especially so when the state has interfered in society and disrupted the social balance.
we do not have religious scruples about using the power of the state. We have
time and again pointed out all the ways the elites have taken over the power of the state for their own ends. They have used the state to block entry into markets, created monopolies, erected barriers to the entry
into the professions, and even ordinary occupations such as beauticians, and street cart vending. Regulations have been piled up on every area of life and the tax code is annually churned just to guarantee
its utter incomprehensibility. Actual traffic barriers have been erected to keep the vulgar mass out, and zoning codes guarantee
the elite control over not only their property but everyone else’s property as well.
are tightly regulated to make sure stray students do not cross over the boundaries that the zoning codes are indented to establish. We do not want our little darlings to go to school with the wrong sort! Still we call them “public schools.” For generations
they were unequally funded not withstanding the claim of “public” and our conceits about free, open and equal,
etc. etc. Even now no one would claim these “public” schools are equal and the bureaucracy and unions maintain
a strangle hold to prevent innovation.
Well, one could go
on, . . . suffices to say that the powerful have manifold control over all the organs of society and the combined effect is
to stifle the market and limit the freedom of the people. Therefore, simply setting
a minimum wage, an admittedly small counter balance, a pitifully small counter balance, is hopefully only a step to redressing
the injustice wrought in the abuse of state power for the special interests of the elite.
But to make these arguments
Michael Weiner would have to have genuinely thought about these social political economic issues. But Michael Weiner is a fraud. He just wanted a right wing
radio niche. So he used the argument he might have used when he was wooing Ginsberg,
“heart, man, you got to have heart.” He
could not make these arguments because he really does not care about any of these issues.
He is lost in his own “fat relentless ego.”
Alan Watts said that
Americans insisted that all men are created equal because if it should turn out that they are, in fact, not equal, America
will feel disappointed. They would feel humanity had let them down. As we have explained this is certainly true of Bill O’Reilly, but it is even
more so true of Hannity and Beck.
Both have public humiliation
days when they hold ordinary Americans up to ridicule. Hannity does a “Man
on the Street Interview,” and Beck has his “Moron Jeopardy.” Both
seek to demonstrate how stupid people are, with Beck usually shouting, “And these are the people who will decide the
Hannity and Beck in
particular regularly boast of their superior “American optimism.” (I’m
more optimistic than you. Of course they never seem to consider that optimism
is easier with millions in the bank and trust.) But during their public humiliation
days their “American optimism” quickly disappears into something like fear and loathing, as they confront America
with adolescent ridicule. It turns out that Hannity and Beck are not quite the sunny optimist they so often brag of being.
All the hosts
have segments where they demonstrate the stupidity of the human race by reading the answers to questionnaires. Typically they conclude by saying, “and 20% didn’t even know that . . . etc.” High
School students are a common source of amusement. Yet these repeated, boringly
repeated segments all arise from the same source. They all simply refuse to accept
the bell curve distribution of cognitive ability just as they reject the distribution of income.
Limbaugh has often
used the teacher competency test as an example of the general stupidity of mankind.
(Mr. Limbaugh has it in for schools, which he pronounces “screwools”
as in “screw” the schools. He has many times explained that
he acted out in school and appears never to have established a respect for, or appreciation of, learning.)
But teacher competency
testing perfectly illustrates the problems that arise if one is unwilling to accept the limitations of human existence. My understanding of conservatism is that
to be truly called a conservative one must firstly recognize reality, and the limitations reality imposes on the policy maker.
Question: If the teacher competency test were designed so that only the average student in the graduating college
class passed the exam, how many of the teachers would have passed?
Answer: Almost none.
Why? Because teachers are all most all of them drawn from the bottom third of the graduating college class. The tests have been “dumbed down” because of this reason: you would not have any teachers if the test were more difficult.
to comprehend the reality of the human situation is not limited to radio carnival barkers and hucksters. The high school diploma suffers for the same reason. The average
I. Q. of 100 is not sufficient to be competitive for college. This is a fact
of human existence. But the stupid American insistence that “All men are
created equal,” utterly confuses the public discussion. If you prepare
the students for college, 75% will fail. If you have a curriculum for the middle
50%, still 25% will fail and the top 25% will not be challenged. You need a different
curriculum for the different, may I say unequal?, students, may I say human beings?
But the point I want
to leave you with is this: Can you not see that the same egotism of the carnival
barkers that caused them to ridicule the average wage, also causes them to ridicule the average I. Q.? 100 is the average. You need to be one full standard
deviation above the mean, 115, to qualify for even being considered “marginal college material,” according to
Dr. Charles Murray.
Counselor: So you were lucky?
Boy, don’t I
know it ------ Yvonne!
This stuff is confidential.
Counselor: Oh, sorry.
Only 25% of the population
is above 115. Again, I say, if you can not justify America
for people with I. Q.s between 85 and 115,
that is 50% of the population then you can not justify America. Can you not see that it is the same issue?
is this? For whom are we arranging things?
The top 25% or the bottom 75%?
I know I over used
this word, but you are hypocrites.
Your smarmy smirking
about your own “success,” your gloating pride in your “achievement”
at “this point in my life,” etc. etc. is hucksterism, because you will not recognize the reality of the situation
---- out – side – your – fing – egos.
And this is why you
are not really conservatives. You fail to see the fundamental reality of the
situation. If you did then you would not be surprised that 20% do not know where
Europe is located, or that the average teacher does not know Dr. Werner Heisenberg or his uncertainty principle. Your asinine use of “man
on the street,” or “moron,”
to say nothing of Michael Weiner’s ridiculous trumpeting of his three puny degrees while shouting like one of
the deranged, escaped from the mental hospital, all perfectly illustrate the point that your egotism blinds your reason.
Yes, 20% of the population
considers it a good day if they are not run over by the engines of our complex, twisted society; but again I ask, whose society is it?
If you can not defend
them then get the gas chambers ready you nimrods; for you have learned nothing.
for the new bio-weapons. Kill us
Have you been listening
to Michael Weiner’s tapes that he clandestinely recorded of me? Did you
listen to me crying when my father died? Did you catch the part when Yvonne and
my sister refused to meet me before my father died? Did you hear my anguish?
Did Don Imus entertain
you with what he had Frank Blaha at GAB Robins do to me? How he had Bo Dietl’s
people follow me?
Did Michael Krasney
record his call to me at AAA Auto Club?
I dare you. Kill us now. No?
Then I will kill myself, to show with what contempt I regard you.