A seemingly personal dispute may not immediately identify a global conflict. But the recent feud between the
New York Times critic Frank Rich and the Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly, points out why the world is so dysfunctional.
On the Imus morning radio program, both men had an opportunity to make their case and present their viewpoint. What was this
controversy all about? Depending on your values, is how the answer to this question may well be shaped.
Rich hates “The Passion of the Christ”, as a movie - or so he says. O’Reilly wrote a “Talking
Points” called - Defining the Elite Media, that excoriates Rich as the epitome of the secular media culture. Both men have a well defined public persona
and staunch followers. Each have faultfinders who eagerly pounce on any opportunity to savage either news celebrity. In the
world of open ideological warfare, the mainstream media seldom participated and rarely departed from the ‘PC’
path of content. The mere fact that such an intense dispute has become possible, illustrates that the strangle hold that media
elites once held, is starting to unravel.
What you think about Mel Gibson, his movie or believe about the Passion account in the New Testament, has
become sport for the entertainment reports. Since views range from the perceptive to the detestable, the context that produces
such intensity merits a serious analysis. A crucial aspect that has received less than deserved attention is the nature of
the politics of religion that is the underlying focal point about this movie.
Rarely has the hypocrisy of the approved culture been exposed as succinctly, as in the O’Reilly memo.
The duplicity and sophistry of Rich demonstrates the extent that elitists will go to maintain their self appointed position
of cultural high priests. Cracks in their armor of immunity from culpability, have been unveiled as a mindset of deceit, malice
and mendacity. Their political privilege was achieved as a result of plunder and prevarication. Their pinnacle of power is
evaporating, as the righteous public restores their self respect, and rush to reject the lies of the Pharisee history.
The politics of religion, at last; can be viewed as a struggle of competing and diametrically opposed systems
of social order. Faith in doctrine and revelation has long been perverted by the media gatekeepers. Ridicule and extortion
are the tools of the secularists. Mr Rich is a fraud to claim himself as religious, when his entire body of work promotes
the materialism of a godless society, ruled by a select - chosen by themselves - that exhibits an arrogant superiority over
the masses . . .
Incessant whining and unceasing victimhood that demands special status and tribute is at the core of this
cultural war. Using religion as a cover and as an excuse, by collectivists that are devoted to the destruction of a spiritual
orientation within society, is the battleground. The conceit of Caiaphas is the trademark brand in the logos of the elite
media. The ideology of abomination is their god and their quest is to consummate the global gulag. The jailers for this prison
are the collaborators in the biggest of all lies. Frank Rich is the maven of shmear. He is a schlockmeister of integrity
and the cause of tsuris for a traditional civilization that rejects the manipulation and subjucation from a tribe
of snobs and whores.
When O’Reilly stated on the Imus program that Rich’s nose is pointed so high in the air that a 747 could fly up it, he is dead on.
The “no spin man” c o n t i n u e s: “Well he doesn't like the fact that this movie was made
and I can't assign his motive as to why he doesn't like it but his writings are constantly secular and we'll get into that
in a moment . . . But I will tell you this that any human being reading those columns, anybody who can read the English language,
would know they are vicious attacks on a person." - Thursday March 11, 2004
This clash of values is a political war. It is a collusion of mortal enemies. Race, religion and community
are ancillary issues. The fundamental dispute is political. Who makes the rules and what rules are to guide society, is the
combat zone. While O’Reilly may be generous not to impugn the motives of why Rich berates the movie, it should be apparent
that this -Ellsworth Toohey - clone is threatened by the loss of cultural dominance. The mindset and values of Frank
resemble his twin - Marc Rich. Both are masters at deceit and treachery - perfectionists of subversion . . .
Sincere and earnest citizens will confront and challenge the collectivist culture conmen. The days of silence
are over. Yes, the “Days of the King” begins. The proper political context is restoring the preeminence of the
middle class. The elites must be dislodged from influence. Ignore the narcissism of Frank Rich and his friends. O’Reilly
proclaims: “The New York Times and others prove that we are now in an age where control of information flow has become
a serious war of words. The elites believe it is them against the howling mob. And the elites are true believers”. The
era of the New York Times is over.
The truth manifests the omen, psychopaths can’t handle their loss of power. They would rather destroy
the rest of society, then renounce their own secular humanism. Relegate this crowd to the annals of the trash bin. Wrap your
fish, but never educate your children from their text. George Neumayr, the managing editor of The American Spectator has it right: “Rich, who usually denounces conservative
busybodies, has become a liberal busybody of comic proportions, hovering over Gibson's project and fretting about its potential
"tinderbox effect." The rich lesson is clear. Scorn Frank Rich!
SARTRE - March 12, 2004