GET SIRIUS, ERIC ALTERMAN! & ERIC ALTAR MAN SAYS, "NADER [NADIR] MADE ME DO THIS!" & ABANDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE!
by Tara Carreon
[I love to hate Nader haters! These original photoshop projects skewer the pseudo-liberals that love to hate Ralph Nader. I love to hate Nader haters, and my photoshop projects will lead you on the cognitive reprogramming journey you need to learn how to hate insufferable prigs like Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin and Gary Sellers, who, Brutus-like, have joined to assassinate the Caesar of progressive politics.]
The Holy Moment (Pun, There!), by Tara Carreon
Get Sirius, Eric Alterman!
"I think Nader is a Leninist. A
very deluded man. Psychologically troubled. A megalomaniac.
Dishonest. He intended to be a spoiler. If he believed what
he said, he should have given all his money to Gore." -- Eric
Columnist for The Nation.
Eric Altar Man Says, "Nader [Nadir] Made Me Do This!"
Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin, and Gary Sellers Say, "ABANDON HOPE, ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE!" -- "This is NOT intellectually sirius. This is NOT ethically sirius. This is LIKE the dog ate my homework."
Eric Alterman is a Distinguished
Professor of English, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, and
Professor of Journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is
also "The Liberal Media" columnist for The Nation, a senior fellow and
"Altercation" weblogger for Media Matters for America, (formerly at
MSNBC.com) in Washington, DC, a senior fellow at the Center for American
Progress in Washington, DC, where he writes and edits the "Think Again"
column, a senior fellow (since 1985) at the World Policy Institute at
The New School in New York, and a history consultant to HBO Films.
American Buddha Librarian's Comments:
"Alter Man / Alter Ego," by answers.com:
The representation of an other complicit in the subject's narcissism, or self-object, the alter ego refers to the narcissistic need of an other similar to the self, a factor in the development of the self. The term appeared in the work of Heinz Kohut in 1971 in the context of alter ego transference, a form of mirror transference. After 1984, given the autonomy of the alter ego transference, it appears as a constituent of the self, along with the grandiose self, the pole of ambitions, and the idealized parental imago, the pole of ideals. Defined as an arc of tension between the two poles, the alter ego takes into account the harmony of the self, while the mirror affirms the vigor of the self and its idealization and cohesion. The line of development of the alter ego is important throughout the period that extends from the age of four to ten years; friendship, the need for someone like us, sometimes changes into the need for an imaginary companion. The alter ego is associated with humanity and sexual identity through self-identification—the father's true son. The reverse would be a Kafkaesque world of dehumanizing experiences. When this sector is stopped, repressed needs remain fixed and are difficult to verbalize because of the shame they arouse. The alter ego is associated with other needs and narcissistic transferences. Within this context, the concept of identification loses the specificity it has in Freudian metapsychology in terms of the constitution of the ego.
"Altar Man," by American Buddha Online Library:
Alderman, by Wikipedia:
An alderman is a member of a municipal assembly or council in many jurisdictions. Historically the term could also refer to local municipal judges in small legal proceedings (as in Pennsylvania and Delaware). The title is derived from the Old English title of ealdorman, literally meaning "elder man," and was used by the chief nobles presiding over shires.
"Doppelgangers," by American Buddha Online Library
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams:
[Narrator] The Encyclopaedia Galactica defines a robot as a mechanical apparatus designed to do the work of a man. The Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as: your plastic pal who's fun to be with!
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy defines the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation as a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. With a footnote to the effect that the editors would welcome applications for anyone interested in taking over the post of robotics correspondent. Curiously enough, an edition of the Encyclopaedia Galactica that fell through a time warp from 1,000 years in the future defines the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybnernetics Corporation as "A bunch of mindless jerks who were the first against the wall when the revolution came."
A party of young Conservatives from Sirius B.
"The Nation magazine," by Kurt Nimmo:
The Nation magazine, where Mr. Alterman writes, is owned by Katrina vanden Heuvel, daughter of William J. vanden Heuvel, the onetime executive assistant to the founder of the CIA, William Joseph Donovan. Vanden Heuvel later became a board member of the Farfield Foundation, billed as a "philanthropic foundation," in fact a CIA front organization.
Farfield Foundation, by SourceWatch:
The Farfield Foundation, a now defunct CIA front, acted as
a philanthropic foundation. The CIA used it as a vehicle for their
covert funding of groups and persons that were believed to be effective
weapons in a culture war against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
CIA employee Tom Braden, who had been the MoMA's managing director from 1947 to 1949 before he began working for the CIA, was initially in charge of the CIA section that oversaw the culture cold war. The section was called the International Organisations Division (IOD). The IOD indirectly, via their fronts and agreeable Foundations, funded prestigious journals, organized conferences, music competitions and art exhibitions.
The rationale behind this covert philanthropy was that American avant-garde culture that was both leftist and anti-communist could be an effective foil against Stalinist Communism's rise in Western Europe, post World War II. It was not just the CIA that directed the flow of money, it was also some very influential and wealthy Americans with names that included Rockefeller, Ford, and Dodge. Although they were not CIA fronts, many other foundations have been implicated as having received CIA monies.
The primary beneficiary of the Farfield Foundation's philanthropy was another CIA front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and its US Chapter, the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, which in turn funded groups and individuals through themselves. Even early neoconservative thinkers received funding from covert CIA sources for journals and freelance authorship.
The need for secrecy was as much for domestic reasons as foreign. The McCarthy-era federal politicians distrusted modern culture and viewed it as destructive of American Ideals; it is highly unlikely that Norman Rockwell paintings and evangelical-styled Christian missionaries would have been successful in holding Communism's cultural allure at bay in Post-WWII Western Europe.
What's wrong with the CIA covertly funding the export of American Expressionism? It is a true art form. It is a product of America that many have felt an affinity to. Artists have usually required patrons supporting both their physical sustenance, and their psychological well being in a positive recognition of their creative worth. Historically, artists' sponsorship has often been government or religious officials. Communism's spread was viewed as a positive force, or in muted fatalism, an inevitability, amongst many of Western Europe's Post WWII cultural elite. The unbridled individualism of expressionism offered an effective contrast, as well as viable alternative to the stark bleakness of Soviet Realism's portrayal of grayscaled existence within the Stalinist sphere of influence. The Soviet Government had their own arsenal of covert actions too. It would be a great stretch of logic to view the funding of musicians who were virtuosi of Jazz's improvisational spontaneity in the 50's on working trips to Europe as the acts of an evil empire. There is an aura of comical irony swirling about an effective usage of the frequently apolitical lords of American Abstract Art and the drop out Icons of the Beat Generation as the USA's secret Cold War arsenal in cultural warfare. Both American politicians and their Soviet analogs viewed them as part of an American degeneracy that was infecting their country, and causing a decline in domestic morality. Soviet politicians perceived it as an effect of capitalism's excesses, while American politicians viewed it as a creeping red menace.
What is condemnable isn't the act of funding artists in an
ideological cultural war, it is the unseen hands of manipulative
elitists, who believe they are acting for the greater common good,
secretly affecting the World's societies. The overuse of and dependence
upon a methodology of opaque actions, and an unyielding faith in the
propriety of the use of stealth within an open democratic society is
where the malevolence lies. The same mechanisms used for covertly
funding and secretly manipulating culture to fight communism were also
used to covertly aid undemocratic-but-anti-communist regimes around the
world. Instead of just listening to Coltrane, Byrd, Gillespie or Brubeck,
while contemplating the artworks of Motherwell, Pollock, Rothko or
Kline; reflect also upon "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier of Haiti,
Anastasios Somoza of Nicuragua, Augusto Pinochet of Chile, General
Suharto of Indonesia, Hugo Banzer of Bolivia, Jonas Savimbi of South
Africa, Lon Nol of Cambodia, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Mobutu Sese Seko
of Zaire, Raoul Cedras of the Raboteau massacre, Reza Shah Pahlavi of
Iran, Roberto D'Aubuisson of El Salvador, and do not forget Saddam
Hussein. Secrecy surrounding government's foreign policy is all too
often used to obfuscate foreign policy that is a destructive force on
the receiving end. The target country's citizenry ends up taking the
brunt of the force, and the seeds of their democratic will are sown into
the wind. Covert action is also used to hide governmental practices that
would be viewed negatively by the majority of American citizens if it
were not kept secret. It ends up being an antidemocratic government
action, ostensibly engaged upon for protecting and expanding liberty and
democracy world-wide. This hypocrisy causes the onset of
anti-Americanism, leads to blowback, as well as being a primary cause
for the disbelieving naiveté Americans often express when confronted
with the storm of antagonism resultant from the hidden actions, having
awakened just in time to reap its whirlwind.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, by Wikipedia:
Katrina vanden Heuvel (born October 7, 1959) is the editor,
part-owner, and publisher of the liberal magazine The Nation. She has
been the magazine's editor since 1995 and a frequent guest on numerous
television programs. Vanden Heuvel is a self described liberal.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is a recipient of Planned Parenthood's Maggie Award for her article, "Right-to-Lifers Hit Russia." The special issue she conceived and edited, "Gorbachev's Soviet Union," was awarded New York University's 1988 Olive Branch Award. Vanden Heuvel was also co-editor of Vyi i Myi, a Russian-language feminist newsletter.
She has received awards for public service from numerous groups, including The Liberty Hill Foundation, The Correctional Association and The Association for American-Russian Women. In 2003, she received the New York Civil Liberties Union's Callaway Prize for the Defense of the Right of Privacy. She is also the recipient of The American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee's 2003 "Voices of Peace" award. Vanden Heuvel is a member of The Council on Foreign Relations, and she also serves on the board of The Institute for Women's Policy Research, The Institute for Policy Studies, The World Policy Institute, The Correctional Association of New York and The Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation magazine.
She is also an owner of The Nation, being one of a handful of investors brought together in 1995 by then-Editor Victor Navasky in a for-profit partnership to buy the magazine - then losing $500,000 a year more - from investment banker Arthur Carter. This group of investors included, among others, former Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Alan Sagner, novelist E.L. Doctorow, actor Paul Newman and Peter Norton, creator of the Norton Utilities software.
Born in 1959, vanden Heuvel studied politics and history at Princeton University, writing her senior thesis on McCarthyism. She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton in 1981. She worked as a production assistant at ABC Television. According to a Princeton alumni publication, during her Junior year she had already worked "as a Nation intern for nine months after taking the 'Politics and the Press' course taught by Blair Clark, the magazine's editor from 1976 to 1978" and "returned to The Nation in 1984 as assistant editor for foreign affairs."
Her father William vanden Heuvel served between 1953
and 1954 as executive assistant to William Joseph Donovan, founder of
the Office of Strategic Services (forerunner of the
Agency (CIA)), during Donovan's tenure as U.S. Ambassador to Thailand.
By the early 1960s vanden Heuvel was a special assistant to New
York Governor Averell Harriman
and then to U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy. In 1976 Bill vanden
Heuvel was chairman of Jimmy Carter's New York primary campaign
committee. Following Carter's victory, vanden Heuvel served from 1979
until 1981 as Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations with
the rank of Ambassador. Today he sits on the board of the United Nations
Association-USA and several other organizations.
In 1989 vanden Heuvel was promoted to The Nation's editor-at-large position, responsible for its coverage of the USSR. In 1990 she co-founded Vyi i Myi ("You and We"), a quarterly feminist journal linking American and Russian women. She also did reporting for the Moscow News. In 1995, vanden Heuvel was made editor of The Nation. She and Navasky moved aggressively to expand The Nation via radio, the Internet, books and other synergistic opportunities.
Vanden Heuvel's latest book is Taking Back America: And Taking Down the Radical Right (co-authored with Nation Contributing Editor Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future); it is published by Nation Books.
She and her husband are co-editors of Voices of Glasnost: Interviews with Gorbachev's Reformers (Norton, 1989) and editor of The Nation: 1865-1990, and the collection A Just Response: The Nation on Terrorism, Democracy and September 11, 2001.
She is a frequent commentator on American and international politics on MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and ABC, as well as a weekly guest pundit on the John Batchelor Show, heard on WABC New York and KFI Los Angeles. Her articles have appeared in The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and The Boston Globe.
Her weblog (thenation.com) is called "Editor's Cut".
William vanden Heuvel, by Wikipedia
Jules C. Stein, by Wikipedia:
Dr. Jules C. Stein (April 26, 1896 – April 29, 1981) was an American musician, physician, and business leader.
He was born in South Bend, Indiana, and received degrees from the University of Chicago and Rush Medical College. He founded the Music Corporation of America (MCA) in 1924.
Stein and his wife Doris founded the Jules Stein Eye Institute at UCLA in the 1960s.
He died in Los Angeles, aged 85.
His widow, Doris J. Stein, founded the Doris J. Stein Foundation in Beverly Hills, California. Doris Stein, and her daughter, Mrs. Susan Shiva, both died from breast cancer the same year (1984) within months of each other.
Dr. Stein was the grandfather of the noted journalist and television personality Katrina vanden Heuvel, who publishes The Nation.
The Stanley High smear on consumers is one instance of the policy of reaction (which is Fascism) of the Reader's Digest. By consumers of course we mean the entire American people; and while it is the purpose of a democracy to aid the people, to aid all consumers, it is the purpose of a Big Business dictatorship (Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Portugal, ManDerheim-Finland, etc.) to aid only the industrialists who subsidize the fascist party and the top party leaders at the expense of the entire nation. This is what Fascism in every nation was founded for.
We the people -- the consumer, labor, the majority -- never get a square deal in the newspapers or in the magazines which take advertising for two reasons: (1) the advertiser does not want us to know the facts and (2) the advertiser is part of the Big Business setup which is the enemy of labor and of the consumer, the majority. Enlightened America therefore has always prayed for newspapers and magazines which will not be prostituted by advertising and which will therefore be in a position to tell the truth. Most publications which refuse advertising are more honest than most publications which live by advertising, but in recent history two horrible exceptions to the rule almost ruined it. They are Social Justice, which spread more actual falsehood and more maliciousness than any publication in the country; and Reader's Digest, which was in the position to lead the Henry Wallace Crusade for the Century of the Common Man, but which preferred instead to lead the De Witt Wallace retreat into the economic and social barbarism of Fascism.
The Stanley High smear on consumers' organizations is a good example because it betrays the fact that the typical Fascist is a hypocrite as well as an enemy of the people.
Taking no advertising, Reader's Digest would have no fear of writing honestly about the cooperatives, the cooperative commonwealth of the future, liberal and radical minority parties or movements, fraudulent medicines, the corrupt press, the treason of Big Business in wartime. But whereas the newspaper publisher is afraid of the advertiser, the little man who started out with a pastepot and scissors 22 years ago is today scared to death of losing some of his accumulated millions. Mr. De Witt Wallace believes that he can take it with him.
And so even consumers' cooperatives and non-profitmaking public welfare organizations are smeared, and the leading brass-checker of upper-bracket journalism, Stanley High, does the smearing.
The smear, entitled Guinea Pigs, Left March, was planted by Wallace in the Forum magazine, October, 1939. According to a revelation later made by New Republic (January 1, 1940) the original order for High's smear came from the offices of Hearst's Good Housekeeping, which had been charged with fraud by the U.S. Government in the operation of its Seal of Approval and other enterprises in conjunction with the advertisers of patent medicines, Miracle Whip, which was later found to have killed four children, and other products. It is also a fact that Hearst's Good Housekeeping Club Service sent the Forum-Reader's Digest piece throughout the country with a foreword saying that the cooperatives and consumers' protection organizations were "radical elements ... bent on foisting their revolutionary views on an unsuspecting public." Here is an instance of Mr. Wallace, aided by the bootlicking writer High, doing a job for America's No. 1 Fascist, William Randolph Hearst. But this is not the first or last time the Digest followed the Hearst line.
As originally published in the Forum, non-profit-making cooperatives and public service organizations were attacked. Listed alike were Consumers Research and Consumers Union, both of which test products and issue reports. But when Mr. Wallace, who had ordered and planted the High article in the Forum, reprinted it in the Reader's Digest, he made one change; he censored out the name of Consumers Research.
Here is the explanation: Consumers Union was formed as a non-profitmaking organization by employees of Consumers Research after a strike against Consumers Research owners, including J. B. Matthews, who were making fine money and paying workers as little as $13.13 a week. Liberal publications and liberal-labor organizations denounced Matthews, and pledged their support to the new organization, Consumers Union. Matthews in revenge went over to the Dies Committee and became its chief smearer of labor-liberal organizations. Matthews cooperated with the maker of Listerine (Lund, once head of NAM); Hearst and Sokolsky joined in the Dies smear against cooperatives and consumers' organizations shortly afterwards. But so far as Wallace, High and the Reader's Digest were concerned, both consumers' organizations did the same work, and both had been smeared in the original Forum article, but because Matthews had already aligned himself with the fascist forces of the country, Wallace cut the name of his organization out of the Reader's Digest reprint of the smear. This is not only venal censorship, it is a high water mark of hypocrisy. (We still insist the Pulitzer journalism committee should issue hypocrisy prizes annually.)
Again, in the High article the author, who attacks everything benefiting the consumer as "subversive," also deplores the bulletin of the Idaho State Department of Education which says: "Advertising has assisted in bringing about a fake scale of value in our civilization." Hearst and other Fascists who live on the millions from advertising, and the Pacific Coast ad organizations, declared such statements subversive, but what explanation is there for a similar viewpoint in the only big publication in the world which takes no advertising? Obviously Wallace's interests and Hearst's interests are identical as are the interests of most millionaires.
"... not one plan or proposal, made anywhere in the democracies by either Jews or non-Jewish champions of the Jews after the Nazi conquest of Europe, could have rescued one single Jew who perished in the Holocaust." -- William vanden Heuvel
[Todd Gitlin, Columbia School of Journalism] This is nuts. This is not intellectually sirius. It is not ethically sirius. It's the responsibility of a sirius person not to be a fool. You know, this is like "The dog ate my homework." Except it wasn't my dog. Everybody else's dog ate my homework.
[Gary Sellers, October 2000] It's really sad. Ralph is a very sophisticated political thinker. A profound thinker. He knows what the consequences are -- The consequences are -- are really profound. Of course it'll lurch the Democratic Party a little bit to the left, but it'll take 30 years to undo the harm that Ralph is going to do in the next 12 days.
[Eric Alterman, Columnist for "The Nation"] If Nader meant what he said, he would've run his race inside the Democratic Party and tried to take it over the same way the Christian Coalition took over the Republican party.