I spoke of the left/right paradigm; the modern conservative movement was hatched by the venerable William F. Buckley. Do you know who Buckley really was? I didn't until I became astonished that the liberals always, always got their way no matter what party was in power. Just using statistical modeling that's an impossibility. If they always win there's a reason; the game is rigged.Why is it the best the GOP can offer in the last 2 elections was a RINO war hero with no fight and a RINO Mormon? By the way, I left the GOP when they chose McCain, I registered as unafilliated. But I was a staunch Bushite in spite of his big spending and weak stance on immigration. That changed the day he said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save free markets. That was when he and Goldman Sach's Hank Paulson walked up to a bank of microphones on the white house, or capital, steps and declared that we had to fork over $800 billion or the world economy was going to collapse. And we had to give it to Hank, no strings attached, to divy out as he saw fit, with no oversight, hell with no hind sight either. We couldn't even question him after he spent the money as to how he spent it!
This happened right before the elections. If McCain hadn't done enough already to lose it that cinched it for Barak Hussein Obama. A full scaled economic crisis right before the elections, yeah, that really helped the GOP. They worked together to put Obama into the White House!
By Michael Collins Piper
William F. Buckley Jr. is dead. The demise of the ex-CIA man-turned-pundit sparked a shameless wave of over-the top media encomiums for the longtime publisher of National Review, a so-called “conservative” journal many suspected had been (from the beginning) no more than a stylish—if boring—CIA “front.”
The nature of the lavish media praise for Buckley was best reflected by the liberal New York Times which went so far as to claim—in all seriousness—that “people of many political stripes came to see his life as something of an art form” because—among other things—Buckley rode motorcycles.
However, despite the hagiography of Buckley in the press, the full story of his intrigue has yet to be told. Although accounts of his record were much on target—in one respect—what was not said about Buckley is more revealing.
The fact is—as The New York Times asserted—Buckley did weave “the tapestry of what became the new American conservatism” during the 1950s. Using National Review as his forum, Buckley did, as the Times said, help “define the conservative movement.”
Claiming Buckley’s “greatest achievement was making conservatism . . . respectable in liberal post-World War II America,” the Times cited a Buckley crony as declaring that, without Buckley, “there probably would be no respectable conservative movement in this country.”
What all of this means is that in the early 1950s, Buckley and a clique of associates appointed themselves the new conservative leaders—pompously calling themselves “responsible conservatives”—and loudly announced (with enthusiastic media support) that all who dared to advocate old fashioned America First nationalism or to oppose U.S. meddling in endless wars abroad were no longer even to be considered “conservative” at all.
The “Buckleyites” pronounced themselves boldly internationalist, intent on “winning” the ColdWar, even at the expense of a hot war. They had no desire to bring American troops home to protect America. Instead, they were venturing out on a global imperium, and old-style conservative concerns about big government. That socialism (big government) must be the inevitable consequence of military adventurism was pushed aside.
Buckley acknowledged on Jan. 25, 1952 when he wrote in Commonweal, a liberal journal, that he was willing to support what he called “Big Government” for “the duration [of the Cold War]” because—he said—only “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores” could ensure total victory over the communist menace.
The new conservatism was not new at all. In fact, Buckley’s “contribution” to conservatism was introduction of a host of longtime Trotskyite (Marxist) communists as voices for “modern conservative thought.”
Foremost among them, James Burnham, only 20 years earlier, had been Jewish Bolshevik Leon Trotsky’s “chief spokesman” in American “intellectual” circles. Then, during World War II, Burnham worked for the Zionist- and Trotskyite-infested Office of Strategic Services, forerunner of the CIA, which later recruited Buckley while he was at Yale.
After the war, when Soviet strongman (and Trotsky foe) Josef Stalin began moving against the Zionists and the Trotskyites (who were, in most respects, one and the same) Burnham became a so-called “anticommunist
The term “anti-communist liberal”—in the Cold War—was effectively a euphemism for describing Trotskyites in America. But, led by Burnham and Buckley, the Trotskyites began transmogrifying, through the venue of National Review, into what ultimately are the now-infamous “neo-conservatives” of today.
While traditional American anti-communists wanted to contain Stalinist Russia, the Trotskyites wanted all-out war, so much so that one of Burnham’s leading critics was American historian Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes, who described Burnham’s shrill calls for war as being “most dangerous and un-American.”
In fact, Burnham—this Trotskyite—was the chief theoretician for National Review for more than 20 years.
Another Buckley collaborator wasMarvin Liebman—yet another “ex-communist”—who had smuggled arms for the Irgun terrorist gang that killed Christians, Muslims and even Jews in the drive to establish a Zionist state in Palestine. While Buckley ran the “idea” end of the carefully orchestrated seizure of the conservative movement, Leibman ran the business end, assembling massive lists of conservative Americans, most of whom had no idea their movement was being manipulated by forces that were hardly “conservative” at all.
That Buckley should traffic with a figure in the Zionist underground may have involved ulterior motives: Buckley’s father—a rich oil man—was later revealed to have lucrative petroleum interests in Israel, among other places.
n addition, the late conservative Chicago Tribune columnist Walter Trojan, a highly respected name in journalism, told intimates that although Buckley was widely touted as a devout “Irish Catholic,” Buckley’s mother was from a German-Jewish family in New Orleans named Steiner that converted to Roman Catholicism, something common for many New Orleans Jewish families in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Whatever his heritage, young Buckley—enthusiastically encouraged by friendly promoters in the major media—authoritatively began to declare what was permissible for American conservatives to discuss: Anyone who raised questions about such issues as Zionism or the role of big international money in dictating the course of world affairs was a “conspiracy theorist” who was “beyond the pale” and delving into “fever swamps” from which Buckley vowed it was his singular mission to exterminate such pestilence, in particular that of “anti-Semitism.”
Considering all of this, Buckley watchers were not surprised that “WFB” was invited to join the Council on Foreign Relations, the New York affiliate of the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, the foreign policy making arm of the Rothschild banking empire. Many conservatives tried to explain Buckley’s CFR membership by saying Buckley would be a good counterpoint to the predominantly “liberal” point of view perceived to reign at CFR headquarters.
But when Buckley popped up in Cesme, Turkey in 1975 at the conclave of the even more powerful international Bilderberg group, established under the auspices of the Rothschild empire and its junior partners, the Rockefeller family, more people began to get the big picture.
And, when Buckley advocated legalizing marijuana and giving away the American canal in Panama, a lot of conservatives were apoplectic.
However, there were traditional conservatives who were able to withstand the Trotskyite-Zionist onslaught of the Buckley organism poisoning the conservative movement.
That’s why a particular Buckley target was the expanding populist movement surrounding Liberty Lobby, founded by Willis Carto in 1955. Buckley was incensed that Liberty Lobby was growing exponentially with grass-roots support, whereas his publication received a substantial base of its subscriptions from purchases made by U.S. government propaganda agencies such as the Voice of America and U.S. propaganda libraries around the world.
When Buckley published a 1971 smear of Carto, sworn testimony later revealed that a primary source for the smear was syndicated columnist Jack Anderson.
Along with his mentor, the late Drew Pearson, Anderson had bragged that much of the garbage they peddled came from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a known conduit for Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad.
Pearson’s own ex-mother-in-law, newspaper publisher Cissy Patterson, once called Pearson “both undercover agent and mouthpiece for the ADL.”
After Liberty Lobby launched an extended investigation of Buckley and his affairs, some details (but not all of them) were published in The Spotlight, Buckley then filed a libel suit against Liberty Lobby in 1980.
And—not coincidentally—this came not long after Buckley’s longtime friend and former colleague in the CIA station in Mexico City, E. Howard Hunt, one of the former Watergate burglars, had filed his own lawsuit against Liberty Lobby.
Not only was the CIA providing Hunt with money and attorneys, but Buckley was helping fund Hunt’s lawsuit, even as Buckley was waging his own legal assault on the populist institution.
In the end, in 1985—under the skillful defense of attorney Mark Lane—Hunt’s lawsuit was dealt a devastating defeat, as later described in Lane’s best-selling book, Plausible Denial as well as this writer’s Final Judgment.
The jury concluded—just as The Spotlight had said—that there had been CIA involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and that Hunt had somehow been involved. Although Hunt denied under oath that he had any knowledge of any conspiracy to kill Kennedy, he later admitted, in a deathbed confession publicized by his own sons, that he did have foreknowledge of the impending assassination.
And, for the record, it should be noted that there were published allegations that Buckley himself may have had some role in the JFK conspiracy.
In any event, not long after Hunt’s lawsuit was scuttled, Buckley’s case against Liberty Lobby came to trial. Although Buckley sued for millions of dollars, the jury awarded Buckley only a dollar (plus $1,000 in punitive
damages). When the verdict was announced, a Buckley supporter in the courtroom burst into tears.
Buckley and his cronies may have had the last laugh, however. A CIA intriguer with ties to operations of Israel’s Mossad later orchestrated another legal case against Liberty Lobby that led to its destruction in 2001 at the hands of a federal judge (himself tied to Mossad intrigue).
One of the individuals helping fund that lawsuit was longtime Buckley associate, ex-priest and best-selling author Malachi Martin, who—when not penning articles for Buckley—was writing for the American Jewish Committee’s Commentary magazine.
Prior to that Martin had acted as a destructive Zionist agent inside the Second Vatican Council during the early 1960s, a role exposed by such diverse writers as the late Revilo P. Oliver, Michael A. Hoffman II, and Lawrence Patterson of Criminal Politics magazine. [See Michael Collins Piper’s The Judas Goats for the entire story.—Ed.]
Buckley is gone, but his ugly legacy remains.