The Importance of Being Murdoch: Why the Left Hates and Fears the Media Mogul

Rupert Murdoch, founder of the Fox network and Fox News Channel and CEO of media giant News Corp has the ability to make grown journalists cry. A quick survey of liberal media blogger Jim Romenesko's Media News page shows an industry in a panic over Murdoch's $5 billion offer to purchase Wall Street Journal parent company Dow Jones.

To put it simply, Rupert Murdoch is one of the few powerful individuals on the right who realizes the importance of the mainstream. Over the years, the right has had success building up an alternative infrastructure of think tanks, magazines, and web sites. Murdoch, however, has been one of the very few to understand that there is no need to "ghettoize" the libertarian and conservative viewpoints. That is why he is feared.

In the battle for ideas, there are essentially three main fronts: the intellectual front, the political front and the popular front.

Up until the early 1970s, the right had no forces on either front in this country. The wipeout faced by the Republican party at the hand of Franklin Roosevelt mostly did away with the right's political forces. Sure, there were still Republicans but they were generally more of the Dwight Eisenhower variety (who incidentally was the last Republican endorsed by the New York Times and the last one voted for by Dan Rather).

The elimination of the right's political side was inevitable, however, because its intellectual and popular fronts had long since withered away. What was called socialism in Europe had managed to attach itself in this country to classical liberalism. The Marxian theory of the "march of history" had been successfully grafted to American revolutionary tradition, along with a type of Christian socialism popularized by Edward Bellamy in his book Looking Backward.

The libertarian right which had provided the fertile ground for the diverse philosophies of Voltaire, Burke, Locke and others had been effectively extinguished in the American body politic. It wasn't until the mid-20th century and the publishing of Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind, the launch of National Review, and the emergence of philosophers Friedrich Hayek, Leo Strauss and Michael Oakeshott that the right's intellectual heart began beating again. This soon followed on the political end with the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the creation of many conservative and libertarian advocacy groups (including the Media Research Center in 1987) and the victory of Ronald Reagan.

There has been one piece missing, however, and that is the mainstreaming of conservatism. In point of fact, it is conservatism that is the moderate position in politics. It stands between those who would radically change society on some whim or media-generated sob story and those who would take America back to being a closed society defined by narrow international interests and restricted freedom for minorities.

If there is to be an emergence of a conservative popular front--the kind which pervades every aspect of the culture from Hollywood to the tech world to academia--Rupert Murdoch will have played a role in that. And that is why Murdoch is feared and hated by the left above almost everyone other than George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. The media empire that he has built from nothing represents the final threat to the one thing they still have a monopoly on: mainstream culture.

One of the best ways in which this dominance is evident is in what the MSM consider to be stupid. Call it the lunacy gap if you will.

Riffing off a preposterous comment by Bill Maher that the left has fewer "nuts" in it (i.e. fewer religious people), Ace argues that there is a very overt double standard the media applies to things it considers illogical:

It seems the AP and all the rest have people who monitor Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell 24/7 in the hopes they'll say something stupid. Robertson and Falwell often don't disappoint either. But where are the regular reports on the outright crazy stuff spouted by Louis Farrakahn, Maxine Waters, or Dennis Kucinich? They're simply not there. This is in part because the left has an almost iron-clad grip on what is unacceptable to believe.

The rise of "South Park," the conversion of Dennis Miller and the rise of Fox News Channel are threats to this dominance. And that is why even though Rupert Murdoch operates fully within the realm of journalistic free enterprise his activities are an affront to "decent people" everywhere.

“...it is conservatism that is the moderate position in politics. It stands between those who would radically change society on some whim or media-generated sob story and those who would take America back to being a closed society defined by narrow international interests and restricted freedom for minorities.” [end excerpt]

More proof that conservativism (classic liberalism) is the moderate political position:

Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Ahmadinejad, Ape of God http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/search?q=Ahmadinejad%2C+Ape+of+God

By Robert W.Godwin, Ph.D - a clinical psychologist whose interdisciplinary work has focused on the relationship between contemporary psychoanalysis, chaos theory, and quantum physics.

In order to understand patients, psychologists routinely monitor and observe their own reactions to the patient, known as counter-transference. My counter-transference reaction to Ahmadinejad is that he is palpably and disturbingly evil, like a demon in human form—like Hitler or Arafat.

Not only do I agree with Dr. Sanity http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2006/09/spectrum-of-stupidity_20.html that Ahmadinejad’s positively satanic speech yesterday before the UN was nausea inducing, but I believe that if you didn’t have some sort of similar gut reaction, there is something wrong with the state of your soul.

And yet, one sees the useful idiots of the MSM blithely analyzing the literal content of his speech, as if it has any meaning or significance whatsoever. On the other hand, President Bush cannot utter the most banal truth without the MSM trying to determine his “actual” underlying political motive.

My reaction to Ahmadinejad must have felt somewhat similar to the way the delusional left reacts to President Bush. This is no secret, for if you read most any liberal blog, they openly talk and write about their visceral hatred of the President. Thus far I have seen no mention of any similar reaction toward Ahmadinejad, which speaks volumes about their moral compass, or lack thereof.

I’m trying to imagine, say, a Republican in 1942 who absolutely loathed FDR with every fiber of his being, but who was indifferent toward Hitler. What to make of such a morally broken person?

To further quote Dr. Sanity, “Only in a world that values nothing would there not be instantaneous outrage at the lies, deceptions and self-serving tripe offered for world consumption by a man who clearly has no conscience and enjoys lying and distorting for the fun of it.”

What kind of world is it, in which there is instant denunciation of the Pope’s truthful words about Islam, but no similar reaction to the outrageously vile lies of Ahmadinejad?

It means that in this dark world, the Truth is under constant attack while the Lie flourishes, abetted at every step along the way by the nihilistic left.

I will say it again: there is no religion or doctrine higher than truth, for if all good people were united in confronting the Islamic world with the simple truth, as did the pope, it would wither like a coward.

These monsters are only emboldened by our cautious and mealymouthed evasions of _their _truth.

Ahmadinejad’s speech was not aimed at people like you or me or Dr. Sanity.

Rather, as she writes, it was addressed “to the passive, uncritical and morally bankrupt minions who nod sagely at any idiocy as they desperately try to maintain a world view that ignores reality as its founding principle.”

In fact, the speech was aimed at three varieties of idiot, 1) those with Bush Derangement Syndrome, both foreign and domestic, 2) the airheads of the mass media, and 3) well-intentioned but foolish and naive people who believe liberal platitudes about the world.

In the past, I have discussed Bion’s idea that truth is anterior to the thinker, and that it is only for us to discover it. In that sense, truth doesn’t require a thinker. It just is. The lie, on the other hand, requires a thinker— often a brilliant one for particularly grandiose lies, such as Marxism.

In order to know and speak the truth, one needn’t be aware of the lie. But in order to lie, one must be aware of the truth, otherwise it isn’t a lie.

This is why it is such a damnable lie for liberals to mindlessly chant that “Bush lied.” First, to say that “Bush lied” is to deceptively redefine the meaning of “lie.” But on a more malignant level, in order to advance their own lie, these libeling liberals must be aware of the truth. In other words, their lie has no basis in reality, but exists solely as a reaction to the truth—in the same way that a shadow exists only as an artifact of light.

There was a profoundly cosmic symmetry yesterday, what with existential light and darkness crossing paths in the same building on the same day. I don’t know if you had the opportunity to hear President Bush’s speech, but it was one of the most straightforward and morally lucid political speeches I have ever heard. If anyone but Bush had made the speech, it would be considered one of the few shining moments in the sordid history of the UN. So full of light were the President’s words, that I am surprised the U.N. building didn’t burst into flames. The very walls of this sanctuary of darkness must have cried out in pain at the violent intrusion of such an unfamiliar force of truth. It was like a reverse rape—forcing decency upon an unwilling subject.

Ahmadinejad’s words were a precise mirror image of truth, again highlighting the fact that one must on some level know the truth in order to lie about it. In Ahmadinejad’s case, one was struck at how frequently he made appeals to specifically Judeo-Christian principles and rights that he and the dictators of Syria or Libya or the Saudi entity would never dream of granting their own enslaved peoples: “Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect. Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.” (Where is my CAIR-sickness bag?)

This is one of the most disgusting and dysfunctional aspects of the U.N., for it means that tyrants and dictators can make pleas for the very justice or liberty or democracy that they deny their own people. And liberals fall for it every time. Indeed, why can’t Iran have nukes when Israel does? Why don’t the so-called Palestinians deserve a state? How are oppressed peoples to express their grievances but through terrorism?

Liberals love beautiful but empty platitudes about peace and justice and oppression, so Ahmadinejad was speaking directly to them when he said that “Today humanity passionately craves commitment to the truth, devotion to God [liberals don’t mind so long as it’s a non-Christian one], quest for justice, and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed, and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth who aspire to a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion.”

Ahmadinejad sounds exactly like the America-hating Jimmy Carter—whom he is once again slapping in the face—when he says “The Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them. By causing war and conflict, some [he didn’t have the courage to say the United States and Israel] are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.”

In words calculated to warm the hearts of empty-headed liberals everywhere, Ahmadinejad asks the same vapid questions they asked of Reagan: “What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or are these weapons in fact instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?” As every liberal knows, evil people don’t kill people, weapons do.

Sounding just like our own resident One Cosmos moonbat, he appeals to the hearts and so-called minds of those who believe that pseudo-spiritual platitudes are the answer to the world’s problems: “Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom? ... Aren’t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away, and no reason will remain for conflict.” He knows full well that people such as our resident moonbat confuse personal spirituality with civilizational suicide, and is speaking their language.

Speaking directly to the anti-Semites of the angry left, he echoes their grossly distorted understanding of history: “The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the second world war. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that war, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants. It was placed under the control of some of the war survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world who had not been even affected by the second world war, and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness.”

And sounding just like neo-Marxist new age dopes such as Deepak Chopra, he says “Peoples driven by their divine nature intrinsically seek good, virtue, perfection and beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection.”

If not “the,” then certainly Ahmadinejad is an Antichrist, in the sense that he is an absolute ape of God, of all that is good and decent and holy.

I don’t think he said a single thing that wouldn’t fit perfectly into the Democratic platform.

You can be sure that no prominent Democrat will rise to defend our country and our president from the insults of this little creep, as they know that he was playing to their base (in both senses of the term).

After all, he hit every one of the Democratic barking points, except perhaps for global warming.

My advice to him is that he tell the world that Iran is only pursuing nuclear power because it is gravely concerned about the adverse effect of fossil fuels. That should neutralize Gore, outflank Hillary, and cinch the nomination. ~ Robert W.Godwin [aka Gagdad Bob]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.