ethics, or sense of fair play. The guy reminds me of Colonel Banastre âButcherâ Tarleton, the most justly hated Redcoat during the Revolutionary War. Soros and Tarleton can both be associated with take-no-prisoner policies: In both cases, their prey, whether traditionalists today or colonial rebel fighters in the eighteenth century, were simply people trying to strengthen their country.
I mean it. For traditional-minded Americans, George Soros is public enemy number one. Without his unlimited cash (along with that of Peter Lewis), the S-P movement could not attack so readily and so effectivelyâand with such venom. Soros envisions a libertine society that soaks the rich (except for him) and forms no judgments on personal behavior. His one-world philosophy would obliterate the uniqueness of America and downsize its superpower status. His secular approach would drastically diminish Judeo-Christian philosophy in America and encourage his own spiritual philosophy: atheism. George Soros is truly an imposing force, and his elite media allies are making him even more so. We ignore him at our peril.
He who controls the air is likely to win the battle.
âTHE ART OF CULTURE WAR,
OâREILLY TZU
Most politicians in America, with the obvious exception of the President, hold only casual power; that is, they can make small changes and minor contributions to the country in their various capacities. The media hold the ultimate power to persuade. Without control of the mass media, the secular-progressives will never achieve power in this country, because, as Iâve mentioned earlier, most Americans are traditionalists and donât want drastic change.
But guess what? The mass media are not âmost Americans.â They consider themselves smarter than the average bear (thatâs you) and are tilting toward the S-P agenda more than ever before. The battle over Christmas in 2005 was the most illuminating example of this; weâll deal with that incredible controversy shortly.
Over the past ten years, I have fought scores of battles against my peers in the media, and, as mentioned, I put their support of the S-P agenda at about 75 percent. My analytical conclusion was reached the hard wayâI have been hammered each time I put forth a traditional point of view or championed a traditional cause.
For the past thirty years, television news has been dominated by left-leaning individuals who gave the S-P leadership hope. If the TV big shots sympathized with liberal causes, the S-P generals rightly reasoned, then the door was ajar for a more radical message, but that message had to be marketed with a delicate touch. Full-blown radical thought along the lines of Noam Chomsky, for example, would be impossible to place on the TV news. No, small doses of secular-progressive philosophy would be presented under the guise of liberal politics, and gradually the nation would be more open to things like gay marriage and legalized drugs. The strategy has worked very nicely, indeed.
                 Â
                 Â
Just for fun and insight, letâs profile some of Americaâs most powerful electronic media people vis-Ã -vis the culture war. As the title of this chapter says, some of these are the âenablers at the topââpeople whose S-P proclivities set the tone and agenda for their powerful news organizations. I will analyze only people I know personally. We begin at the very topâthe network anchors.
        Â
Dan Rather:
A lifelong Democrat, Mr. Rather is an emotional reporter who often does not even attempt to hide his feelings. He lost his job on
The CBS Evening News
because of the President Bush/ National Guard fiasco. You could not have missed this debacle, but most of the public read the situation wrong. True, Rather too eagerly smelled a huge