The Documentary That Criticized Greed and Materialism

The Documentary That Criticized Greed and Materialism

There was a documentary made in the 2000s or 2010s that talked about how materialism does not satisfy. The documentary was made by a journalist who described that making money our everything results in unhappiness. The documentary was made in the 2000s, yet I can not recall the name of the documentary (the documentary described the life of a journalist who worked and also raised her family and also described Warren Buffett's work being the administrator of an investment banking company.) The documentary described how worshiping money does not lead to happiness.

The journalist described through different individuals lives how money is only a tool and not the most important thing in life. Money is meant to be administrated for good use instead of worshiped and misused. The documentary describes the reality of how once individuals have their basic necessities met, money does not actually improve happiness. There are other things that actually do improve happiness like practicing genuine empathy, studying and reading, writing, self-improvement, singing, learning languages, exercising, and keeping fidelity to GOD Almighty. 

The documentary described a journalist who made about average income and described that money was not the source of happiness. She also described the life of wealthy individuals who prioritized money. The documentary described that the worship of money leads to coveting and not to happiness. The documentary describes that money is just a tool that can be used to buy necessities and that can be administrated for good instead of misused and worshiped.

There are multiple sources from Psychiatrists to Psychologists that have stated that money is not meant to be worshiped because it leads to unhappiness and coveting. To place all the emphasis on paper money that can stagflate and also decrease in value is not wise. We instead choose GOD Almighty who allows us to persevere with everything that we need. We may not have specific things because they are not needed to persevere in the path of eternal salvation. The documentary was an eye opener concerning how accumulating stagflated currency does not satisfy. This is because we are created for greater things than the worship of stagflated currency. I saw the documentary in college or after college and understood that money is not everything despite post-modernism and socialism wanting individuals to worship money. The reason socialism wants individuals to worship money is so that they become bitter when they compare themselves to others based on how other people may have more money. (The idolatrous millionaire covets the person with 2 millions and so on and so forth.) That is the point of money worship or idolatry. Instead, we decide to worship GOD Almighty because we do not compare ourselves based on inanimate material perishable items nor stagflated currency (Venezuela's currency is not worth much and that can happen in any country especially under socialism.) The snake wants individuals to covet, and they can only covet when they compare themselves to others. Instead of comparing ourselves based on stagflated currency, we have gratitude for having everything that we need to persevere to Shabbath Millennium. We learn that instead we have authenticity and uniqueness instead of practicing envy and coveting based on paper money (that is not even anchored to diamonds, platinum, gold, silver, bronze, emeralds, rubys, or jewelry). A book that I read, the Reckoning by Jacob Soll, stated that the banking system was basically created on IOUs or paper notes that were receipts. There was no platinum, gold, silver, or bronze backing money. Instead there were IOUs and that became paper money. (That is why Alexander Hamilton and Andrew Jackson opposed the First and Second Bank of the US and were disdained by idolators.) Once we realize that natural resources are more important than monetary paper notes, we begin to understand the beauty of GOD Almighty's creation and how the earth provides basic necessities that are more precious than greed and monetary IOUs. (However if idolators slander, commit adultery, practice homosexuality, murder, steal, and covet, the earth does not produce needed necessities. The climate change false argument was made by idolators to obfuscate the truth and try to prevent the preaching of repentance of sin. The practice of homosexuality (LGBT) and grave sin are the reason for the not so good times.) We learn that greed and coveting are from the snake and describes the non-compete mafia's mentality of not wanting others to improve and get better based on merit and competition such as in sports, jobs, and education (60 years after Civil Rights Movement). We have seen this with covid experimental "vaccines" developed in haste and that cause blood clots (44 years after the 1976 flu "vaccines" of unknown strain that led to adverse health problems and sudden death to many individuals who took the "vaccine" made in haste). We can persevere knowing that these are not the best of times when non-compete mentality is actually celebrated by idolators instead of repudiated. Instead we can acknowledge that we can ignore the lies and choose to keep improving preaching and writing truth. (We can persevere worshiping GOD Almighty despite the not so good times that idolatry and sycophants have caused.)

Fernando del Solar

 Fernando del Solar

Fernando del Solar was a Mexican Argentinian television presenter who was positive and motivated individuals. He worked in the morning editions of television programming being encouraging and positive. Fernando del Solar was able to help individuals see the positive side of life instead of being bitter and envious.

Fernando del Solar would be recognized as one of the best television presenters for his spontaneity and also his good sense of humor. Fernando del Solar was able to encourage television viewers so that they could start their mornings being cheerful.

Del Solar would develop a type of cancer, yet he did not let that discourage him. His wife left him after developing a type of cancer, and Del Solar kept being positive. Del Solar managed to recuperate from cancer and kept a positive mind set through it all. Del Solar describes how circumstances do not define a person and that individuals can still be positive despite not so good circumstances.

After recuperating from cancer, he returned to work at a different television morning program where he was discouraged for being cheerful and positive. Instead of being impressed by his resiliency to be positive and motivated, the bitter feminists attempted to discourage him. They seemed to be negative and irritated by displays of positivity and goodness. Del Solar left that place for another morning program where he remained being positive and encouraging. He remarked how it is better to avoid negative people who try to cause negative emotions. We can learn from Fernando del Solar about the need to avoid socialists and feminists who actually attempt to cause negative emotions in others and resent happiness and positivity. Socialists actually hate cheerfulness and having a sense of humor. We can learn from Fernando del Solar that positivity can help us persevere and to avoid socialists who only want to cause bitterness in others.

The Scientists Whose Plane Fell and Had Developed a Treatment Against a Type of Cancer

 The Scientists Whose Plane Fell and Had Developed a Treatment Against a Type of Cancer in the 1970s or 1980s

There was a story of a group of scientists that had supposedly found a cure for cancer. (I think that it may have been for a type of cancer and not cancer in general because there are different types of cancer.) The scientists had worked on a treatment or medication that would help treat a type of cancer. After working on a treatment, they made a medication or treatment that supposedly cured a type of cancer.

The scientists were then invited to a conference to present their findings. I do not recall if it was after the conference or before traveling to the conference that the scientist's plane in which they were traveling fell and plummeted. The scientists did not survive the plane crash and died in the supposed accident.

I do not recall if this was in the 1970s or 1980s that the plane crash happened. The scientists had created an amazing treatment against a type of cancer and most likely were envied by some socialists in the medical community. The scientists were probably industrious and efficient and instead of being rewarded and appreciated, were probably envied.

There are theories that state that the CIA was responsible for the plane accident. This would not be a surprise because we already read about how MLK and JFK were envied by the FBI and socialist racists. The FDA has also denied an amazing new drug (that treated muscular dystrophy or myasthenia gravis) that passed all medical stages of testing only to be denied without any reasonable explanation. 

John F. Kennedy Jr.

 John F. Kennedy Jr.

John F. Kennedy Jr. was the son of John F. Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy. JFK Jr. was an impressive individual who was hated and envied for being the son of JFK. John Jr. was able to persevere despite having constant intrusion of privacy by the establishment and sycophants. John Jr. was able to be a self-made man who even worked after going to college. John Jr. was able to be a conservative liberal who wrote about Democracy and Catholicism.

John Jr. graduated from university, worked after college, studied and became a lawyer, worked as a lawyer for four years, and then became an independent journalist. John Jr. created a publication named, George, after the First American President of the United States. John Jr. wrote about the importance of Democracy and was a loyal Democrat.

John Jr. was probably envied by the establishment and sycophants for being distinct, unique, charismatic, and well liked. John Jr. wrote about Catholicism including the need to fight against the lies of the snake. For being a Catholic and writing about Catholicism, he also was envied by sycophants. 

It is possible that his plane did not crash accidently and instead was sabotaged by racist FBI socialists for being positive, a Democrat, industrious, impressive, a Catholic, independent, and good. John Jr., his wife, Carolyn Bessette, and his sister-in-law were called up to Heaven and did not have to live in the not so good times. He probably influenced individuals to care about Democracy and Catholicism and was envied. He was an amazing individual and yet was envied. We can persevere reminding ourselves of amazing individuals while going through not so good times. John Jr. kept being positive despite being surveilled and envied by marxists due to the progress of JFK's presidency.

Daniel Ellsberg

 Daniel Ellsberg

Ellsberg was a whistleblower who exposed the corruption that existed in the late 1960s concerning the Vietnam War. It was noted that the Vietnam War was started under dubious circumstances and Americans felt that the war was unjustified. Many Americans took to protests against the war thinking that it was an unnecessary war.

Ellsberg would describe how the Vietnam War was created and escalated with corrupt purposes. Ellsberg would publish the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s during the Nixon Presidency. Ellsberg would also include information concerning Watergate and how Nixon had sent FBI agents to break in to Democratic headquarters, steal information, and place wiretaps in the offices.

Ellsberg would be recognized as a hero by Americans for speaking truth despite opposition and envy from Nixon and the FBI. Ellsberg also described how the Vietnam War seemed to be instigated arbitrarily and with unilateralism. While Americans opposed the war, Johnson kept escalating the war. MLK and college students opposed the war and protested. 

It is quite possible that the war was provoked being that the US was not active in a specific war. (The Cold War was denoted for not involving actual warfare with guns, bombs, and battlefield battles, but by the threat of Nuclear Warfare between the US and Soviets.) In a conventional manner, the US was not engaged in a war on the ground with troops in a nation. In the late 1960s, the US was probably being sabotaged internally through the FBI and also abroad by creating wars that were not needed with the CIA. Kissinger probably was the architect of the Vietnam War and probably trained both sides of Vietnam (Had a big book by Kissinger about his involvement in the Vietnam War written by Kissinger but I did not read it and threw it away. It probably detailed his benevolence instead of speaking the truth.). How else was the guerrila warfare so effective at fighting American forces and also having powerful military equipment from land mines to massive repositories of weaponry similar to the US? It does not make sense unless the reason for the war was to lead to conflict with other nations instead of creating peace (neoconservatives love warfare as much as socialist leftists love abortions) and also tarnish Johnson's leadership although he was also probably intimidated to keep escalating the war by Hoover, Sullivan, and the FBI. Johnson even stated that Nixon had described that he would speak to Vietnam leadership to de-escalate the war while Johnson was president. This describes how both neoconservatives and socialists leftists hate peace and serenity. (Affluent marxist college students who some had military parents who supported marxism (i.e. Rudd) helped Nixon by telling SDS members to skip the elections in 1968 (Maybe McCarthy was not wrong?). This was with the intention to allow Nixon to win the election. Marxists and neoconservatives like Nixon were socialists.) Johnson took to escalate a war that was not approved by Americans and was also hated and disdained by the establishment for not being establishment. Ellsberg was able to speak truth and allow individuals to see the reality of corruption and iniquity. Nixon was not a Christian and definitely was a crook. Ellsberg exposed the true Nixon and FBI.

Ellsberg Was Persecuted By Nixon and the FBI

Ellsberg was a veteran who had served in the Marines and learned about politics and corruption. Ellsberg became aware of discrepencies in the Vietnam War narrative. Ellsberg collected information and published the information in newspapers in the 1970s. Among the information included the obvious questioning of how Vietnam could have been escalated unilaterally by Johnson. It is possible that Johnson's popularity was improving based on continuing JFK's reforms yet was not liked by the Establishment. While the Establishment envied JFK, they tolerated Johnson. The Establishment tolerated but did not actually like Johnson either. Nixon may have been involved in getting Johnson to escalate the Vietnam war through threats and intimidations from Hoover and Sullivan. This was noted when Johnson's popularity dropped due to the Vietnam war and Nixon took advantage to ridicule and appear as the obvious solution to unilateral war escalation. Nixon could not defeat JFK, win the Governorship of California, nor was well liked by Americans. In order to prevent the 1968 election from going to a Democrat, the Vietnam War may have been created as an excuse to lower Johnson's popularity and make individuals believe that America was imperialistic being that Nixon was a socialist. (Nixon would play the role of being a "supposed" Christian after getting caught in Watergate and socialists criticized how it was a Christian who was corrupt. The media focused their attacks on Christianity instead of Nixon's socialist tendencies. This was to also mislead individuals to think that Christianity was causing corruption being that Nixon was not a true Christian, moral, ethical, and was actually a corrupt socialist bureaucrat.)

"Indeed, actual federal expenditures for Vietnam in Year One of the war totaled only $6 billion [In the second year it was stated to cost $10 billion]."

"In fact, in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1966, budgetary expenditures would be not $112.8 but in excess of $126 billion, with Vietnam costing not $10 billion but almost $20 billion." (page 160)

Ellsberg described how the Vietnam war was escalated without approval from Congress and other governing bodies and instead kept on leading to mass casualties. After describing the obvious corruption of the Vietnam war escalation, Nixon, and the FBI's involvement in Watergate, Ellsberg was wiretapped illegaly and most likely surveilled. Nixon wanted to go after Ellsberg because Nixon's obvious corruption was exposed. Ellsberg was charged with treason and espionage for publishing truth in the newspaper being that he was a whistleblower exposing the corruption of Nixon and the FBI who were actually treasonous snakes (obvious projection). Ellsberg was able to persist and not be charged on fake charges from corrupt politicians and the corrupt FBI. Ellsberg triumphed and showed that it is possible to speak truth and stand up for integrity. While he was persecuted for speaking and writing truth, Ellsberg did not quit and kept fighting against corruption. Nixon decided to resign from the presidency since he was going to be the first ever president to be impeached in the history of the United States. Nixon resigned but he was probably enganged in fomenting envy and corruption in his time after the presidency. Ellsberg would outlive Nixon and be considered an amazing individual. 

The Cost of the Vietnam War in 1965 and Domestic Terrorism by the FBI

The monetary cost of the war started at $6 billion in the first year yet escalated to $20 billion in the second year in 1966 despite advisors noting that the cost was estimated at $10 billion. (The real cost of the war was not described and kept being increased while saying that the monetary cost was less.) The war was said to only last until 1967 based on the Vietnam war cost yet kept ballooning in cost. The war went on for more than two years and the cost of the third year in 1967 was $26.5 billion. Johnson described that if he needed to decrease spending on social programs like education and healthcare for the Vietnam war (that was unpopular to many Americans), he was going to keep spending on the Vietnam war. There was skepticism of how the Vietnam war was not being won despite warring for more than two years. It may have been that the Vietnam war was to decrease Johnson's popularity to Americans in order to benefit Nixon in 1968's election. The Vietnam war raised so many questions concerning how can a war have been escalated unilaterally? 

The Vietnam war had caused massive inflation in the second year of the war. Inflation was causing economic difficulties and there was the question of whether Johnson would favor social programs to the Vietnam war. Johnson had been popular in 1964 winning the election by a landslide against the Republican nominee keeping JFK's Civil Rights stance. The Establishment probably did not want his popularity to persist into the 1968 Presidential election since Nixon was going to be a Republican nominee. Johnson was probably intimidated by the FBI and Hoover to escalate the war and make questionable choices deciding to escalate an unpopular war, fund the war, defund social programs, and pay community action organizations to essentially foment racism in the United States. Community organizations were paid to teach socialism and racism to the big cities. Individuals with modest resources were given the opportunity to participate in politics at the local level. Community programs were actually originated from JFK in Peace Corps and Service Corps yet like the socialist bureaucrats like to do, they denied the Service Corps in the United States in 1963 and created their counterfeit version in 1965 (under the deception of fomenting unity and empowering the poor) by marxist socialists. (James Farmer was denied a grant to teach literacy to African Americans with modest resources while Saul Alinsky (an idolator) and several other marxists taught class warfare and probably gangstalking to the poor. Thugs and idolators were paid to make negative and racist street plays and when bureaucrats saw that the idolators were still not happy and demanded more money, the bureaucrats in different cities wanted to scrap the program but did not (they also paid a protection agency to protect them from the marxist thugs costing $15,000 a week in Harlem. Talk about misuse of tax payer resources.) It seems that bureaucrats Sanford Kravitz and Richard Boone were organizing communities to learn socialism and foment conflict. (The FBI were probably intimidating Johnson to not support Farmer and advocating for community programs that taught marxism instead. Instead of the poor working with local politicians to gain political participation, the dynamic was class warfare and racism which was intentional by the marxists who taught the poor. Some local politicians also prevented the poor from participating on boards and led to hostilities, most likely on purpose.) The bureaucracies either were directly or indirectly trying to foment class and race warfare instead of unity and harmony while getting tax payer funded money to pay for the marxist hostilities (The bureaucrats did not suspend the programs from 1965 until 1974 after Congress decided to scrap the programs. Nixon kept the programs under other agencies prior to Congress removing it in 1974.) This was when the Black Panthers were popular and Carmichael was instructing racism and socialism to oppose the Civil Rights Movement. Mark Rudd was a socialist who instructed breaking and stealing from stores. H. Rap Brown instructed the same against Caucasians owned stores and was even given time on the news to foment conflict. How could the Watts race riots have happened? All the while racist socialists were intimidating and attacking pacifist Civil Rights Activists in the mid 1960s. MLK rebuked racism, socialism, criticized the Vietnam war, and kept fighting for equality and justice despite the FBI's persecution in 1965.) It is no coincidence the racist socialists were beats and hippies. Lust and idol worship leads to aggression, envy, and coveting. The Unraveling of America describes how the idolatrous beats, hippies, and socialists were and are the source of problems in the world. Pacifist Christians actually are who have made the world a better place despite persecution and envy seen in JFK, MLK, and Christian Civil Rights Activists. (The Unraveling of America is a book that describes that the turmoil of the 1960s was due to socialism. Yet is a bit generous to Nixon. Nixon never changed despite having P.R. firms that attempted to make him seem genuine and good. Nixon was evil and covetous and never benevolent. Ellsberg did describe the real Nixon and was persecuted, but persevered.

 The Vietnam War and Military-Industrial Complex

The Pentagon Papers described that there were interests from unethical individuals in fomenting warfare. While Johnson had escalated the war, Nixon was touting de-escalation. The FBI probably was intimidating Johnson who decided to escalate the war. All the while, the Establishment wanted to remove Johnson for being non-Establishment. While Johnson was not completely ethical and was noted to eskew the moral standards in order to gain wealth, he was still hated and envied by the Establishment. (Johnson made money by having broadcasting companies that had ties with the government. Obviously, there was favoritism and decreased competition. Definetely not ethical and did not compete with other broadcasting companies fairly.) Despite being unethical, Johnson was not from the Establishment and was hated by the FBI. (The corrupt have tiers and disdain outsiders.) Johnson was favored over JFK because JFK was impressive, ethical, and had a standard of morality preaching genuine empathy. The Establishment wanted to remove JFK from completing another four years since he was able to accomplish so much in three years. When the Establishment knew that JFK was going to win the 1964 election against any Republican contender, JFK was shot. Johnson was president and was tolerated by the Establishment but never a part of. The Establishment disdained Johnson for not being born with money, and Johnson disdained the Establishment being rugged. He did not go to Ivy League schools and also did not favor the pretentiousness of the bureaucracy. Johnson was unethical and not good, yet he was not a bureaucrat. (There are bad people and then there are socialists.)

Nixon was a bureaucrat and a scoundrel. Nixon was even worse than Johnson despite Johnson being not good. Nixon may have been of the Establishment, was a crook, and may have been a part of privately escalating the Vietnam War while also appearing to de-escalate the war publicly. Nixon ridiculed Johnson's de-escalation strategy while intimidating Johnson through the FBI. Nixon was a socialist and took to create an image of sincerity that was repudiated by many people for its fakeness. Nixon also was a part of the military-industrial complex being a part of unnecessary warfare in other countries including Vietnam while saying he was a pacifist and protestant christian. Vietnam was touted as a war to fight against socialism yet the military complex was probably providing weaponry to both sides. The socialists in the military complex including Kissinger were training and proving weaponry to both sides while touting the need to fight the Vietnam war under patriotism. The Pentagon Papers described the discrepancies of how the Vietnam War was not terminated within a specific amount of time and still the obvious incongruencies of military strategy including adding more soldiers when citizens did not approve of the war. Most citizens were against the Vietnam war including MLK and college students. Ellsberg was brave for publishing the exposè that told truth to the lies of Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, the media, and the FBI. Johnson would not seek re-election in 1968 probably being intimidated by the FBI and seeing the truth of how the Establishment operated. Without JFK and Johnson, RFK decided to fight for the working class and went to be a presidential nominee of the Democrat party. RFK was winning the primaries leading the Democrat party when he was shot. Humphrey came close to beating Nixon by a slim margin in 1968 and Nixon was not able to finish his presidency due to Watergate and may have been the first impeached president had he not resigned. While Johnson was not good, Nixon was worse.

Nixon May Have Sabotaged Peace Talks Between Johnson and Vietnam

"As for future talks, North Vietnam dropped its objections to negotiating with Saigon, and the U.S. dropped its objection to negotiating with the National Liberation Front. But on the verge of public announcement, the North raised new demands that the U.S. could not accept. On October 16, 1968, amid international rumors of a breakthrough, President Johnson dejectedly phoned the candidates and told them that it was not so."

Prior to the elections of 1968, Johnson was able to restart peace talks with Vietnam. While North Vietnam seemed to be involved in peace talks with South Vietnam and the United States, it decided to negate peace talks. The North Vietnam representatives decided to not be in favor of peace talks. 

"But negotiations in Paris continued, finally bearing fruit two weeks later, when Hanoi agreed to accept the terms to the original bargain. Now it was Saigon's turn to balk. Johnson had hoped to announce the bombing halt in a communiqué jointly issued by the governments of the United States and South Vietnam. On October 29, under pressure from hawks in his own government, South Vietnamese president Nguyen Van Thieu tried to sabotage the agreement by making unacceptable demands of his own... Thieu told his National Assembly that he would not participate in the Paris talks if the NLF participated also."-(page 434-435)

A few weeks later, the North Vietnam leadership decided to reconsider and described the need to talk about peace concerning the Vietnam war. This time the South Vietnam leadership refused to consider peace talks. It seemed strange that the peace talks were offered prior to the 1968 election. The Vietnam war had lasted three years (costed 52 billion dollars) and was heavily criticized by Americans. The peace talks did not occur until a few weeks prior to the election. Both sides of Vietnam refused peace talks. The intention may have been to make Johnson look opportunistic when in fact it was Nixon and Kissinger who were probably exploiting the timing of the peace talks for the 1968 election. Johnson was disliked for the Vietnam war, and Nixon probably appeared to be a "peacemaker" in 1968. It is possible that the peace talks occurred to make Johnson and the Democrat nominee appear to be pro-war (the war had lasted three years) and also opportunistic for waiting until elections to end the war. Nixon probably criticized Johnson and the Democrats for waiting until the 1968 elections to have peace talks and also was preventing peace talks in private while probably suggesting the peace talks prior to the elections (Racist corrupt bureaucrats were causing foreign wars, Vietnam, riots and looting in the United States, and preventing true democracy in the 1968 election. Nixon was one of the worst presidents along with Hoover.)

"When on October 27 the South Vietnamese Embassy in Washington sent home an intercepted message recommending obstruction of the peace process until after the election, Johnson thought he knew why. On his orders the FBI placed Madame Chennault under surveillance and initiated phone taps at the South Vietnamese Embassy. One day after Thieu's refusal to go to Paris-November 2, 1968-Madame Chennault called the embassy urging Thieu to stand firm on grounds that the South would get a better deal from Nixon. Did Nixon know of this call? The South Vietnamese official asked. 'No, but our friend in New Mexico does,' she replied. Johnson, infuriated, concluded that the friend of whom she spoke was Spiro Agnew, campaigning that day in Albuquerque. It in no way diminished Johnson's suspicions that the FBI check he ordered on Agnew's outgoing phone calls from Albuquerque uncovered none to Chennault. As a high ranking FBI official testified before Congress in 1973, the White House 'felt the Republicans... were attempting to slow down the South Vietnamese from going to the Paris peace talks and... wanted to know who either Mr. Nixon or Mr. Agnew had been in touch with.' Humphrey too harbored suspicions of Nixon. On learning of Chennault's diplomatic meddling, the candidate was tempted to discredit the Republican's in the campaign's last days exposing it. Lacking evidence of Nixon's direct complicity, he reluctantly refrained."-(page 436)

Johnson tried to de-escalate the Vietnam war on multiple occassions towards the last years of his presidency only to have the northern and southern Vietnam leaders deny the peace talks. When Johnson attempted to end war through peace resolutions, Vietnam renounced peace agreements. Vietnam declined to peace talks on multiple occassions. When Johnson attempted to resolve through peace talks, the media also criticized him saying that he was not able to secure peace negotiations despite Nixon probably sabotaging the peace talks and also telling the media to criticize Johnson's inability to end the war. (Nixon was both escalating the war and telling the media to criticize Johnson in his inability to end the war (while intimidating Johnson to escalate the war through Hoover.) This was to decrease Johnson's popularity due to Johnson being popular due to having helped the Civil Rights Movement in 1964. 

Johnson noted that it was probably Nixon who was sabotaging the peace talk with Vietnam. Johnson spoke to the CIA to know why the peace talks were not going well. The CIA told him lies and not complete truth (Maybe McCarthy was not wrong?) The CIA told him lies that it was the Chinese widow of a Republican general that was speaking to Vietnam in favor of Nixon. The CIA said that the Chinese widow was telling the southern Vietnam leader to not participate in peace talks until Nixon was president to obtain better terms. Johnson told the FBI to wiretap and overheard that Agnew was alluded to as knowing why the peace talks were not working out. (This was a lie since it was Nixon who was preventing the peace talks since Nixon also allowed Watergate.) Agnew was alluded to to protect Nixon. The CIA probably told Johnson lies saying that the peace talks were not working out because of the Chinese widow, Johnson wiretapped her, the FBI told the widow that she was being wiretapped, and the widow alluded to Agnew knowing why the peace talks were not going well when it was Nixon who was sabotaging. This was to prevent Johnson from knowing the truth and make Johnson think Agnew was the sabotager when it may have been Hoover, Nixon, and Sullivan. The truth being that Johnson was being scapegoated by the establishment to decrease the Democrats popularity, make Nixon and marxists seem "cool" and "pacifists", and blame moderates for riots and warfare. Johnson then began to doubt Nixon and Agnew. (It was most probably Nixon. Agnew was not a part of Watergate and was prevented from being Vice President so that he would not be President. Nixon wanted Agnew to resign from being Vice President prior to resigning.) Humphrey had skepticism of Nixon. Johnson was lied to by Hoover and the FBI despite being Commander in Chief. This was to get Johnson to blame Agnew when it was Nixon. Nixon wanted to tarnish Johnson's popularity since he had 60% approval prior to the Vietnam war in 1964. Nixon then probably told Vietnam to open peace talks with the US in 1968 and then sabotaged the peace talks to criticize Johnson's leadership. Nixon then said Johnson was callous for waiting so long until re-election to promote peace talks (this was to make it seem that Johnson was in charge of the Vietnam war and not the marxists like Kissinger and Nixon.) This was to make the 1968 Democratic nominee appear evil and opportunistic while Nixon was "idealistic" and "a pacifist". Humphrey did not speak about this in his campaign because he knew the sabotager was Nixon (but did not have conclusive evidence) and not Agnew who was sabotaging the peace talks. (The establishment wanted to blame Agnew for disrupting the peace talks in 1968 and have moderates fighting against each other.) Johnson was not good but Nixon was a lot worse. 

Literary Review

 Literary Review of the Unraveling of America by Allen Matusow

The book by Matusow describes the 1960s through different persepectives. The first section details the importance of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and his presidency in allowing America to improve despite the existence of socialism. Kennedy's presidency displayed how classical liberalism helped improve the United States by fighting for Civil Rights, using Keynesian economics to get the country out of a recession, created jobs, prioritized schools, wanted to send a man to the moon in the Space Race against the Soviet Union, created the Peace Corps, and fought agaist socialism. Kennedy was a bureaucrats nightmare for choosing to improve the United States through jobs and educations consistent with Christianity, Democracy, and capitalism. (Nixon is described in positive terms at times while he was a crook while Kennedy was criticized concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was described having a "personal vendetta against Castro" while Castro had nuclear weapons pointed at the US in Cuba. It seems that Kennedy was defending the US against Cuba and there was no vendetta, but actually removal of nuclear threats. Kennedy is described being impressive throughout the book yet at times is criticized unfairly in the book. This is while racist affluent socialists in SDS are described being a part of the Civil Rights Movement.)

The book also significantly contrasts the mid 1960s when the disillusionment from Kennedy's assassination attempted to discourage Americans from being idealistic and courageous (Socialists envied JFK including Hoover, Sullivan and Nixon for being an impressive and innovative leader who practiced empathy and was a real Catholic Christian). The socialists attempted to cause a racial and class war between American citizens because the US had improved under Kennedy who was a classical liberal. The "counter culture" movement was created by socialists to prevent any further improvements by conservatives and classical liberals in the US. The socialists wanted Americans fighting against Americans based on race. (Racist socialists wanted to keep segregation and were oppressing and persecuting the Civil Rights Movement activists. The intention was for racist socialist bureaucrats to radicalize African Americans and minorities into aggression and violence against Caucasian racists so that bureaucrats could propagate further conflict and division so that there was no unity. The Civil Rights Movement kept civility and prevented a race war that was intended by the socialist bureaucrats in the 1960s.) Then the socialists in 1964 and 1965 attempted to foment class war. The bureaucrat socialists denied grants to Civil Rights activists like Farmer for ending segregation on buses, trains, and airplane while they gave grants to socialist "intellectuals". The socialist propaganda promoters gave free paychecks to poor socialists in order to instigate race and class war. Socialist "intellectuals" made propaganda to instigate class and race warfare identifying themselves with the oppressed while being affluent. (While being affluent they also helped themselves to tax payer funds.)  The intention was not equality but fomenting division and chaos. Despite all of this, Americans citizens still kept integrity and did not give in to incivility and violence. Idolatry was seen shapeshifting since the 40s from socialist nazism to beats to hippies to materialism to SDS to racism to marxism to rock and roll to the Liberation Party to weatherman to Black Panthers to communism to bureaucracy. Socialism is deception and does not have a stable basis. Despite the different iterations of tempting to disobey the commandments of Moses, socialism fails. We are created to practice empathy and not envy. 

Socialism is the Source of the World's Problems

In contrast to the start of the book that describes an impressive United States under classical liberal, JFK, the book also describes how socialism and counterculture attempted to diminish and decrease the United States in the mid 1960s. The book concludes that the existence of socialism in the mid 1960s contributed to the election of Ronald Reagen in the 1980s and clear repudiation of marxism in the US. This does not mean that socialism has disappeared but means that the socialists became covert socialists. The book describes how college affluent students were indoctrinated (and deceived) by socialist agents who may also have been FBI agents such as Black Panthers H. Rap Brown and Carmichael, Mark Rudd, LeRoi Jones, Marcuse, Savio, and Brown. The socialist agents preached hate and racism in order to cause a class and racial war between Americans. Affluent college students also decided to rebel against a quality education preferring to foment division in SDS and also shutting down classes for others. Despite such opposition from marxists against Education, Democracy, capitalism, and genuine empathy, it is stated that only 1 out of 5 students were marxists in 1967. Despite the abrasiveness and foolishness of marxists, only 1 out of 5 college students were socialists. This helps us know that the majority of students in the United States and in the mid 1960s preferred Christianity, Democracy, and capitalism to marxism.

While marxism wanted to eradicate classical liberalism and conservatism, it was actually socialism that declined in the 1960s and later led to the popularity of humble conservatism that was anti-establishment under Carter and Reagen. Despite the oppressiveness and negativity of marxism, moderates were able to persist protecting Democracy and capitalism from racist marxists. Instead classical liberalism and conservatism increased,  and marxist counter culture (not actually culture but heathenism) declined. This was described in how racist socialist groups declined in the 1960s including SDS, weatherman, Black Panthers, marxists, and progressive liberal party. SDS declined seen in how students were barricading universities instead of helping others get a quality education. Instead of fighting the source of inequality that is socialism and socialists, affluent college students trashed their universities and cities. Socialists fought against police in order to be allowed to trash schools and universities. Marxists went to schools and staged sit ins to indoctrinate students in socialism. When confronted with the National Guard on different occassions, the coward socialists dispersed. Marxist students only fought against police when they had more numbers and never against marshalls and the National Guard. Matusow described in great detail the cowardice of marxist affluent students who were neither fighting for the working class nor for their own betterment but for disorder and non-sense. Marxist affluent students wanted to end Democracy and capitalism and instead created a rise in moderates and conservatives who saw that marxism is essentially parasitic and deleterious.

Constructive Criticism Concerning How the Civil Rights Movement Had Nothing To Do With Racism and Marxism

At times the book describes that the racist and marxist groups originated from the Civil Rights Movement. This is a lie. The Civil Rights Movement was anti-violence and anti-segregation. The racist groups and marxist groups were pro-violence and pro-segregation. The Civil Rights Movement is mutually exclusive from the racist marxist groups because pacifism has nothing to do with aggression. The book at times makes statements that the marxist groups were with the Civil Rights Movement, helped, or were derived from the Civil Rights Movement. This is a lie. Independent individuals who may have become radicalized and chosen to practice marxism in the times of the 1960s were no longer Civil Rights activists. Yet it may have been that marxists attempted to obfuscate the truth by calling themselves Civil Rights Activists in order to blame the Civil Rights Movement for riots and looting. This was also to make it appear that Democrats were distruptive and chaotic when in fact it was marxists who were rioting and looting. Marxists projected their evil actions onto Classical Liberals and Christians. (The book was written in the 70s or 80s and may have not conflagrated marxists with the Civil Rights Movement and classical Liberals with malicious intent. The book does describe that marxists were disruptive and disobedient and actually the source of conflict and quarreling). However at times it does criticize Civil Rights leaders with intense scrutiny (MLK could have retired early from the Civil Rights Movement in 1964) while easing off on Hoover (lied to JFK about MLK being a communist and Hoover kept bugging MLK until 1966, yet JFK is described as having allowed the espionage. Hoover was responsible for the espionage and also persecuted JFK and MLK), Sullivan, and Nixon (a "reformed" Nixon was a lie because Nixon was always a crook). Civil Rights Activists kept their integrity and values and were never a part of socialism. Although the book does describe marxist groups as the culprit of the instability in the 1960s.

"[Describing 1961] Participatory democracy was SNCC's implicit goal, anarchism its intuitive philosophy."- (page 346)

"How black power evolved out of the civil rights movement and then failed ideological challenge was one of the decade's more melancholy stories."- (page 345)

The author described that in 1961, SNCC's goal was "participatory democracy" when in fact it was desegregation and enfranchising disenfranchised African-Americans. Initially in the early 1960s, SNCC was working by using pacifism and civil disobedience consistent with MLK's beliefs. The goal was not anarchism nor marxism that was called "participatory democracy" by socialists that included rioting, looting, and harassment. The goal of SNCC in 1961 was breaking apart racist segregation laws in public places and educating African-Americans on their voting rights. This could hardly be called anarchism or "participatory democracy" that was used by marxists to call for harassment of liberals and conservatives. The description was not true because anarchism and harassment was used by marxists in 1965 and was described as "participatory democracy". SNCC in 1961 was harassed and reviled by racist socialists for educating disenfranchised African-Americans on their voting rights and helping them learn how to vote. Racist socialists were actually anarchists and used "participatory democracy" against SNCC in 1961 for educating and helping their African American brethen to exercise their right to vote.

There was a specific quote that described that nationalism (hating other nationalities or ethnicities) "evolved" from the Civil Rights Movement, yet it actually originated from marxism. The socialist Caucasian racists oppressed pacifist African Americans, Caucasians, and minorities in order to lead to a race war. Racist and idolatrous African Americans and minorities attempted to radicalize individuals to use violence and aggression against racists in order to keep promoting violence and racism. The righteous Civil Rights Activists were not a part of calling for violence and resisted hate. To equate the marxist racists to Civil Rights is to equate unneeded war with pacifism or racism with equality. 

MLK preached non-violence and pacifism throughout his protests and activism. He also led others to civil disobedience rejecting rioting and looting that was what H. Rap Brown and Carmichael were calling for while they were infiltrating SNCC leadership since the mid-1960s. Because the Civil Rights Movement had desegregated public spaces in 1964 and was looking to eliminate Jim Crowe voter discrimination laws and housing segregation, Hoover and the FBI probably trained, funded, and supported H. Rap Brown and Carmichael to oppose MLK. SNCC was being infiltrated and led to socialism and racism since they had helped desegregate buses, trains, and airplanes with James Farmer and were looking to educate disenfranchised semi-literate voters on their voting rights teaching them how to read and vote. The socialist racists including H. Rap Brown, Carmichael, Newton, Cleaver, and Seal tried to lead African Americans to a race war while racist Caucasian socialists (Hoover, Sullivan, Nixon, Wallace, and the FBI) were instigating for violence through racism. While H. Rap Brown and Carmichael were calling for violence, there were riots and looting that occured in 1965. 

Matusow described that Black Panther leader Cleaver was a nationalist but not a "racist". Cleaver was a jihadi muslim marxist and racist who worked for Nixon. Cleaver attempted to create a marxist third party in order to shift votes from the 1968 Democratic nominee to the third party and give the election to Nixon. (Cleaver was actually a racist and not trying to foment serenity.) Eventually, Nixon preferred racist Wallace as a third party candidate "populist" who hid his racism in the 1968 election to take votes from Humphrey appearing to be an "anti-bureaucratic Christian Protestant" instead of the California Peace and Freedom third party led by the Black Panthers.

"More successful was the Panthers opening to the white left, a demarché made possible because Cleaver was one nationalist who was not racist as well. In December 1967 he opened negotiations with the California Peace and Freedom Party, a predominanly white group that hoped to provide a radical alternative to the two major parties in the next presidential election..." The Panthers would have exclusive responsibility for defining the Peace and Freedom program for the [idolatrous and marxist] African American community. [Idolatrous marxist] Caucasians could define the party program for Caucasians.- (page 371) [Marxists attempted to create a third party to prevent the Democrats from winning the election of 1968 and give the election to Nixon, the crook. There was also no unity between racist marxists because they hate ethnicities that are not their own. Nixon still preferred Wallace.]

"For the new left, the image of America the bloodsucker organized the data of politics in a compelling and persuasive new way. But it also deflected the movement onto a disastrous course by fostering a romantic sense of identification with Third World guerillas, by bringing old left Marxism back into fashion, and by undermining the movement's commitment to democratic values."- (page 326) [The socialists including Hoover, Nixon, Wallace, and the FBI along with the Black Panther leaders who also were FBI attempted to make the US seem parasitical while actually espousing racism and marxism. (Liberals and conservatives were called parasitical while it was marxists who were actually parasitical.) Civil Rights Activists prevented a race war despite FBI socialists instigating in the 1960s. Vietnam was essentially an unneeded war where billions of dollars were appropiated by socialist bureaucrats from tax payers to cause conflict in Vietnam by Kissinger, Hoover, and Nixon and also to decrease Johnson's popularity. How else was Nixon going to beat a Democratic nominee in the 1960s? When there were considerations for peace talks for Vietnam by Johnson in multiple times, both sides of Vietnam refused and the war kept being escalated. It seems that the intention was to make Johnson seem like a warmonger while Nixon was made to appear like a "peacemaker". The Vietnam war was designed to cause unneeded warfare in Vietnam, make Johnson appear like a deranged warmonger liberal, and also to make socialists appear "kind and pacifists". In reality, Vietnam may have been persecution from marxists against Vietnam, Johnson was threatened to keep escalating the war, and socialist marxists were warmongers and parasitical. That is why marxism and socialism can not be equated with Civil Rights.]

"Black ghettos, they said, were internal colonies victimized by American imperialism precisely as were the colonies of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It followed that black rioters were no less revolutionary guerrillas than the Vietcong-urban guerillas waging war in the belly of the beast. SNCC chairman H. Rap Brown selected August 18, 1965, as the independence day of the internal colony because on that day 'the blacks of Watts picked up their guns to fight for their freedom' [the Black Panthers worked for racist bureaucrats of the FBI trying to instigate their bretheren through lies to a race war... "Declaration of Independence".] That was our Declaration of Independence, and we signed it with Molotov cocktails and rifles.'"- (page 327) [The marxists in the US wanted to cause a race war and justify it based on Vietnam's war. The marxists were not liberating anyone (they were working for the establishment to foment unneeded war in the US while ridiculing MLK and the Civil Rights Movement that was freeing people from racism and marxism). Malcolm X who was an African American Imam realized this and renounced jihadi racism and socialism. Once he was educating people on self-empowerment with self-education and without violence and racism, he was shot by African American jihadi muslims. Che Guevara attacked innocent Bolivians in Bolivia. Marxists were not looking to liberate Africa, Asia, nor Latin America. Chinua Okechebe wrote socialist propaganda complaining that Christianity was improving Africa and that no one wanted to practice paganism in Things Fall Apart. Apparently, individuals prospered because of Christianity and renounced idol worship. Then there was the persecution of farmers in Zimbabwe and South Africa because of envy. Marxists had times of famine because they did not want to or did not know how to work the land once they murdered industrious farmers in Africa. The marxists in America in 1965 instead were causing destruction, rioting, and looting.

"In August 1967 Stokely Carmichael, past SNCC chairman, joined revolutionaries from 27 Latin American countries for a conference in Havana to discuss ways of implementing Che's recent call for 

'Two, three, many Vietnams.'"-(page 327) [So they were pacifists but wanted more warfare? Then Vietnam was used to attempt to promote socialism and racism in the US and other nations. If they were pacifists wouldn't they want no Vietnam [wars]?"

"Martin Luther King was on the streets during the riot, preaching nonviolence."- (page 362)

MLK was in the streets and in the slums during some of the rioting telling African Americans not to riot and loot. The Civil Rights Movement never called for violence and instead called for civil disobedience through peaceful resistance. H. Rap Brown and Carmichael were partly responsible for the rioting and looting along with Caucasian socialist racists who were instigating African Americans, non idolatrous Caucasians, and minorities through intimidation, revilings, and harrassment. Despite the instigation and calls for aggression from jihadi socialists in the Black Panthers, Caucasian socialist terrorists in the Weatherman and FBI racist socialists, the vast majority of African Americans decided to persevere practicing non-violence and civil disobedience. There were also pacifist, anti-socialism, and non-racist Caucasians who fought for the Civil Rights Movement. The FBI attempted to prevent Caucasians and African Americans from working together to end racism and wanted a race war in 1965. (Carmichael told SNCC members that Caucasian members of SNCC should be expelled despite also risking their lives to end racism. Carmichael, prior to Mark Rudd doing the same, told students in a college to oppress the administration and demand for a marxist and socialist education instead of a liberal education causing conflict. )

"They [African American socialists and marxists] looted not in the name of socialism but because looting was one way to acquire the material possessions that they believed, in typical American fashion, would make them happy."- (page 364)

This statement is false since socialism calls for stealing and aggression. To justify looting by blaming capitalism seems a bit dishonest. Capitalism is to be blamed for not dominating and resisting envy and coveting? It is not socialism's fault for the rioting and looting, it is capitalism and Christianity's fault? No! (This is the faulty and disingenous argument being made.) Seems illogical and permissive of sin, consumerism, idol worship, looting, rioting, and socialism or as socialists call it "participatory democracy". Socialists were looting in the name of marxism and communism. Socialist rioters were also receiving free paychecks from OEO offices for community action instructed by Bobby Seale, LeRoi Jones, and Saul Alinsky.

"With the onset of the guerilla fantasy, the corruption of the new left commenced. In the early years movement people tried to live their values by practicing participatory democracy in their organizations, cultivating open relationships, and creating their own community."- (page 330)

In 1965 when Vietnam began, marxists attempted to loot and riot. Marxists blamed everything on liberalism while being the source of problems in the US (Community Action Programs) and abroad (Vietnam war). Matusow stated that the marxists were in fact corrupted, yet conflagrates "movement" or Civil Rights Movement with "participatory democracy" that is harrassment and persecution of liberals and conservatives. Matusow described that marxists used "participatory democracy" in 1965 to describe the college affluent marxist's harrassment of moderates and barricading of universities. Then describes in 1961 and the beginning of the "movement" that Civil Rights Activists were using "participatory democracy" when it was pacifism and civil disobedience. This is done on multiple occassions similar to how marxism is conflagrated with the Civil Rights Movement on multiple occassions. Harrassment and persecution is not pacifism and civil disobedience.

"In the planning stage the Resistance argued for nonviolent civil disobedience, even in the face of arrest. But SDS-ers and other militants flatly rejected nonviolence, hoping to move the antiwar movement 'from the level of moral protests to a show of power.' In the end, no compromise was possible; so it was agreed that the factions would demonstrate on different days of the week [leading to the barricading of street intersections and colleges by affluent college marxists].

The resistance was not a resistance movement because the marxists were a part of the establishment. It is dishonest to call the establishment and marxists, that oppressed different ethnicities and the working class, a resistance movement while calling themselves "oppressed". College affluent marxists did not actually argue for pacifism and civil disobedience because they trashed streets and college campuses while saying they were "oppressed". Matusow describes that marxists were anti-democracy but then calls the marxists a "resistance movement" who argued for civil disobedience. This is false because marxists hate civility and pacifism. This false equivalence occurs multiple times.

"But even as real guerillas employed inhumane means to achieve the humane ends of revolution [false and illogical lie akin to "by any means necessary" lie] so now new leftists began to wonder whether, given their new seriousness, they could any longer afford to indulge their values. Democracy was the first casualty."

"In an even more dangerous departure, Carl Davidson, explicitly rejected the very norms of democracy itself."- (page 330)

Matusow spoke truth about deranged idolatrous marxists that they resent and hate democracy because it allows people to improve and have choices. Marxists hate self-improvement and want everyone to be stagnated in idolatry. True liberals and conservatives hate fascism, totalitarianism, marxism, and sycophantry. "Participatory democracy" that is actual harrassment and persecution of moderates is not democracy, is not revolution (not like the American Revolution where there was actual resistance to oppression from tyranny and creation of democracy and the Bill of Rights), and not utilitarian. Democracy respects the rights of others instead of throwing temper tantrums. We can change the tv station or turn off the tv instead of harrassing others and preventing them from speaking truth like it happened to Humphrey in 1968 with marxists overshouting him at a speech.  (Nixon still resigned in 1974.)

Socialists Hate Pacifism and Civility

"On the cover of the issue of August 24, 1967, the New York Review put a diagram of a Molotov cocktail, while inside Andrew Kopkind, in the midst of dismissing MLK for having failed to make a revolution, wrote, 'Morality, like politics, starts at the barrel of a gun.'"- (page 387)

In a socialist magazine, socialists criticized MLK for making progress against racism and racial segregation through civil disobedience. Racist socialists ridiculed MLK's impressive accomplishments and instead promoted marxism and violence in 1967 (how did the riots happen in California?) Socialist "intellectuals" said that MLK had  failed to make a "revolution". If by "revolution" they meant stealing from the tax payers, promoting looting and rioting, preaching hate and racism, using and selling illicit drugs, enving amazing Civil Rights Activists, causing conflict and division, creating a race and class war, using aggression and hostilities, promoting a caste system, surveilling illegally through bugging private phone calls, stalking and harrassing individuals who think differently, and calling themselves "oppressed", then no. MLK did not do that. Maybe that is why he was so impressive.

MLK did desegregate buses in Montgomery, helped give employment to African Americans and minorities, fought for better wages for sanitation workers, fought for desegregation in schools, universities, restaurants, theaters, shopping centers, libraries, stadiums, airplanes, trains, sports, jobs, and in civil society. MLK did all that by believing in GOD Almighty, practicing genuine empathy, civil disobedience, and pacifism. MLK caused the 1963 Civil Rights Legislation to be law. Then he helped the 1965 Voter Registration Law to pass eliminating racist laws that prevented African Americans and minorities from voting. Then he went to the North and desegregated the housing market in 1968 with the passage of the Equal Housing Bill. All of this while being harrassed, threatened, envied, reviled, slandered, gangstalked, bugged, lied about, arrested, mocked, ridiculed and there are socialists that still say, "MLK failed to make a revolution", while being born with money and calling themselves "oppressed" for having to have discipline in college.

Overall Review of Book

The book is great in the sense of describing the reality of the 1960s. The 1960s were turbulent times because marxism was looking to prevent Democracy and capitalism from operating in the United States. The US had opposition not only in the Soviet Union but also internally through covert marxists. (Maybe McCarthy was not wrong?) This is undeniable through the attacks against McCarthy in 1950 by Edward R. Murrow, who most likely was CIA. Murrow made a tv program slandering and attacking McCarthy. The book by Matusow also attacks McCarthy heavily. Matusow never spoke positively in the book about McCarthy in congruence with the false narrative that McCarthy was a "looney". The book does address the truth that JFK and MLK were amazing by their speeches and actions, yet also criticizes them for idealism. Humphrey was also criticized intensely for idealism.

(Humphrey almost beat Nixon despite Nixon being encouraged and adored by marxists. The whole establishment helped Nixon in 1965-1968. Marxists secretely adored Nixon while they appeared to "hated him in public". Nixon was a covert marxist.) Humphrey was also criticized for being idealistic. Humphrey was called "irrelevant", yet Humphrey almost beat Nixon without establishment support. Nixon used the Vietnam war, race riots, FBI, marxists, Black Panthers, Weatherman, college marxists, and media to foment division, then appeared in 1968 as a "Protestant Conservative pacifist" and still used Wallace as a third party candidate to take votes from Humphrey. Wallace was a socialist racist and worked for Nixon. Humphrey would have beat Nixon, if Wallace had not taken votes from Humphrey in a real competitive election [Wallace's third party candidacy was supported not to allow for democracy but to oppose Humphrey]. Humphrey was also criticized negatively despite battling Nixon after JFK, RFK, and Johnson were no longer candidates. Nixon is also criticized but not as intensely as idealists. Watergate was not even mentioned except in one sentence (While describing that JFK wiretapped, it was actually Hoover who did the wiretapping based on lies. Hoover is noted to have popularized wiretapping with the FBI in other books.) The book did describe that there were covert socialists who were opposing Democracy and American ideals. The greatest discrepancy within the book is when it mixes marxism with Civil Rights on multiple occassions. (At first I thought it was accidental but it maybe with the intention to conflagrate marxism and Civil Rights.)  In trying to understand the overall themes of the 1960s describing classical liberals being tolerant, opposition to Democracy from marxism, and envy from marxism the book speaks truth. Yet in specific instances it criticizes amazing individuals including McCarthy, Agnew, and even Civil Rights Activists while complimenting marxists including Carmichael, Huey Newton, and Nixon.

"... October 21, 1967, across the country in Washington, D.C., there occured one of the most remarkable events in American history."

Matusow complemented the stroll of the marxists through the Pentagon in 1967 as a "remarkable event" when it was probably fake and planned by establishment and marxists. The passage of the Civil Rights Legislation in 1964 that JFK sent to Congress in 1963 was of greater importance. The Voter Registration Act of 1965 was of greater importance. The Equal Housing Legislation Bill that was ratified in 1968 was of greater importance than a stroll through the Pentagon by affluent "oppressed" marxists. The March on Washington and MLK's speech was of greater importance. 

The Book's Conclusion is Not Truthful

"Curiously, despite the 9.9 million votes he attracted, Wallace's candidacy did not much alter the election's result. According to the most authoritative estimate, if Wallace had not run, Nixon and Humphrey would have obtained roughly the same proportion of the two party vote that they actually received."- (page 438)

"Four years before, perceived as a liberal, Lyndon Johnson polled 43.1 million votes. In 1968 Hubert Humphrey, running as a liberal, got only 31.2 million votes- a loss of nearly 12 million. The war, of course, did incalculable damage to the liberal candidate, but it did not do the only damage. Conditions at home hurt too."- (page 438)

The book falsely concludes that while Wallace took close to 10 million votes from Humphrey, it did not alter the election of 1968. Wallace ran as a socialist democrat third party not to offer an alternative to the two parties but to take votes fron Humphrey to help Nixon win the election. Wallace was the governor of Alabama who attempted to run for the presidency while being governor although Alabama law states that a governor can not run for the presidency while being governor. Wallace made his wife governor while he ran for president opposing Humphrey (but Agnew was negated the presidency during Watergate in 1974). Wallace was allowed to help Nixon. Wallace was pro-union, anti-bureaucracy, and "protestant" while being a racist corrupt bureaucrat idolator. (Similar to Nixon.)

Democrats found out that in his actions as governor, Wallace was anti-union, anti-minimum wage, had weak child labor laws (monopoly "capitalism" stances), and was a racist. Based on the riots and looting caused by african american marxists and not African American Christians and Democrat moderates, Wallace took votes from Humphrey (Nixon helped cause the riots and looting while employing Wallace to take votes from Humphrey). Wallace took five states from Humphrey in the Electoral College that previously voted Democrat. If Wallace had not ran, Humphrey would have won by a large majority (even with Vietnam, marxist racists rioting and looting, the media, being discouraged by Johnson, and Democratic candidate Eugene McCarthy not endorsing Humphrey once Humphrey won the nomination).

"The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had appropriated the issues of full employment, poverty, and civil rights as their own. But full employment turned into inflation, the ungrateful poor were rioting in the streets, and civil rights had become black power."

Despite speaking truth at different points of the book, Matusow concludes by saying that classical liberalism did not help the US in the 1960s. Matusow dishonestly concludes the book saying Kennedy's idealism and presidency were not helpful. The reality being that Kennedy was so impressive that there was envy from the establishment and covert marxist bureaucrats. Kennedy learned Keynesian economics in the first months of his presidency (or on the job) and managed to get the country out of a recession and even guarantee full employment. There was inflation in Johnson's presidency because the Fed was printing too much money according to Milton Friedman. (The establishment did not want full employment associated with Johnson and the liberals.) The "ungrateful poor" were "rioting" and makes it seem like the Democrats were responsible when marxist bureaucrats were hiring marxist "intellectuals" to teach how to loot and riot. Not all people of modest resources were idolatrous marxists. Those responsible for the rioting and looting were FBI bureaucrats who were ungrateful that the US was improving after the racist caste system was shattered by Civil Rights Activists (at their best stood down and at their worst persecuted Activists like MLK and Meredith James.) Carmichael and H. Rap Brown were probably FBI agents and not Civil Rights Activists. So the good was Kennedy and the really, really bad was from Nixon and the establishment. We can not conflagrate Kennedy's accomplishments with Nixon's fake protestant marxist sabotages of Democracy.

Criticism of the Civil Rights Movement

"The close identification of the Democratic party with the cause of racial justice did it special injury. While 97 percent of African American voters went for Humphrey, less than 35 percent of Caucasian voters did so. Indeed, three out of ten Caucasians who cast ballots for Johnson in 1964 cast them in 1968 for someone other than Humphrey. If not the sole cause of Caucasian defections, the backlash against [idolatrous marxist] African Americans was certainly high on the list."- (page 38)

The books conclusion describes that because Democrats had decided to support Civil Rights and desegregation, they lost the 1968 election. This is not true either. For supporting the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation the Democrats had won the 1960 and 1964 election. The Democrats had been benefitted for fighting racism and supporting equal opportunity for all in employment and education. Nixon was not going to win the 1968 election on his own merits and probably caused the riots and looting through Hoover and the FBI. Grants were given to instruct marxism and rioting to idolators while Civil Rights activists were negated grants to instruct literacy and voting rights. The riots and looting were done to make Democrats look like the cause of instability while it was the FBI who was causing disorder. Meanwhile, marxist Nixon attempted to appear to be a "pacifist" while actually supporting the marxists and FBI. The media attacked Johnson and Humphrey while making Democrats look like the cause of instability.

The real reason that Humphrey received less votes than Johnson was because the establishment was attempting to make Civil Rights appear to be the cause of the riots and looting (through lies and slander) while praising marxists as heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. Civil Rights and marxism are incompatible and mutually exclusive. The media gave air time on the news to H. Rap Brown to foment conflict, riots, and looting (H. Rap Brown was probably FBI.) Brown worked for Nixon and not for Humphrey nor Johnson. The intention was to cause a race war that would make the Democrats decrease in popularity, make Nixon look like a pacifist, and suggest that segregation was not that bad because at least there were no riots and looting during segregation and Jim Crowe laws (while racist FBI members were punching, envying, and assaulting Civil Rights activists). Humphrey still beat Nixon in the 1968 election, but Nixon still needed a third party candidate. It was Wallace that stole votes close to 10 million votes to prevent Humphrey from winning the 1968 election. Civil Rights did not hurt the Democrats. It was Nixon's sabotage of democracy, Wallace's help to Nixon being a third party candidate, and the establishment and FBI that prevented a true election to occur in 1968.

Criticism of Idealism

"Liberals suffered too because large portions of the public believed that their idealism, which had shaped public policy for eight years, was somehow flawed, that it had delivered far less than promised in the way of social progress and social harmony."

Matusow described how JFK had accomplished great legislation yet concludes by conflagrating Nixon's sabotages of democracy with liberalism. Matusow's conclusion is dishonest and nihilistic probably with the intention to discourage moderates from idealism. Liberalism and democracy was not flawed, and instead flawed marxism attempted to oppose progress and harmony. There were a lot of lies told in the 1960s in order to lead classical liberals and conservatives to idolatry and marxism. There was significant progress and harmony due to the Civil Rights Movement but marxist bureaucrats tried to oppose progress and harmony between different races.

It was actually Nixon, Hoover, Sullivan, Wallace, and the racist FBI that sabotaged and attempted to revert the US back to segregation and Jim Crowe laws from the 1860s. Idealism and democracy had nothing to do with that. To blame idealism and democracy for racism is a blatant lie. Instead the racist FBI merits the blame for riots and looting, instructing slothfulness and racism to marxists, and opposing great leaders. It may be that the conclusion of the book was to cause nihilism and disillusionment with democracy and liberalism. (Despite the dishonest conclusion, marxism and corruption declined in the 1970s with Watergate. Carter and Reagen's election described that liberalism and conservatism were preferred by Americans in the 1970s and 1980s. The Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s.)

David Wilman

 David Wilman

David Wilman was a reporter and journalist who wrote for a newspaper describing how Rezulin, a diabetes drug medication, was causing severe health complications. Dr. Abramson described how faulty medications were being marketed as good medications when they were dangerous medications. David Wilman was a journalist who published truth about Rezulin being a not so good medication.

David Wilman was able to cover the story that allowed individuals to remove Rezulin made by Bristol Myers Squibb from the pharmacies. Dr. Gueriguian had spoken out against the faulty medication being an FDA reviewer with 19 years of experience. For speaking out against the faulty medication that caused liver toxicity, he was removed from the FDA board of reviewers for the medication. 

The medication was approved in haste and caused liver toxicity just like Dr. Guerigian had stated. More than 200 people had health complications from taking the faulty medication. (In the 1990s there were bad medications approved in haste that were later recalled after causing health problems including death. The pharmaceutical companies have kept attempting to promote faulty vaccines in the covid experimental "vaccines". We can be skeptical of faulty "vaccines" and medications.)

David Wilman was able to speak and publish truth that allowed the medication to be recalled. Freedom of speech allows us to publish truth and fight against corruption and deceit from socialists and sycophants.