Firing Line With William F. Buckley: Saul Alinsky- 'Mobilizing The Poor (1967)'

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- community activist Saul Alinsky, appearing on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967,

Source:The FreeState

"The common aim of all Mr. Alinsky's organizations is to mobilize the poor--mobilize them by whatever mean comes to hand (marches, sit-ins)--to demand decent housing conditions or whatever the local need may be. This one is a knock-down, drag-out from start to finish. SA: "I refuse to debate with him [David Riesman], which only came up recently ... I made the remark that any time I see any of his stuff, it sort of makes me feel like a grizzled, battle-scarred dog going down the street while way back, say, six blocks back or so, this little whining Pekingese comes out sniffing, yipping, and licking and growling at my leavings. And I'm not going to waste my time turning around."  

From the Hoover Institution 

"Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr.: Mobilizing the Poor" 

From Firing Line With William F. Buckley 

"There are many who know little or nothing about the recent and distant past. They are often disinterested about such things and when pressed can find no value in its study.

 

Because our lives are linear we can't escape an essential truth: that an event follows a previous event and that, quite often, new things and ideas are built upon those that preceded them. What came before informs and influences the present and possibly the future, too. Knowledge of those things, people, and events of the past can't help but shine a sort of light on life and events of today, and what might be tomorrow. This is a simple calculus but all too often ignored. The great challenge is not finding historical things, events, and people to study, but interpreting their meaning—particularly as they might relate to the present.

 

After the election victory of Donald J. Trump, the country appears to have descended into upheaval. President Trump's election success was directly due to the functions of the checks and balances system (as represented in this case by the Electoral College) constructed by the founders; the losing candidate soon called for its abolition. Such an essentially revolutionary response to an election defeat is readily understood if the times themselves are seen as revolutionary, too." 

Source:New English Review- community activist Saul Alinsky, on Firing Line With William F. Buckley, in 1967.

From New English Review

Source:Firing Line With William F. Buckley- community activist Saul Alinsky in 1967.

‘Mobilizing the Poor’, sounds like a great idea to me, but what to mobilize them for is the question. What do you want them to do. 

Now, me if I’m going to mobilize the poor, I would work with them to improve their own lives and empower them to empower their own lives. To make themselves self-sufficient, but also to get them involved in their own communities, if nothing else to make them better. So they are no longer stuck living in crumbling housing projects, living in dangerous neighborhoods and living in low-income communities where they can’t get good jobs. Because one, good jobs don’t exist in their communities. But also because they don’t have the skills to get good jobs and their kids won’t get the skills to get good jobs.

We still have low-skilled low-income adults are stuck going to rotten schools in violent neighborhoods, because their parents don’t have a choice in where they send their kids to school. And thus are stuck with the same awful future that their parents had or in lost of cases just one parent. Perhaps never ever meeting their biological father or mother and in many cases father and end up repeating the same cycle of poverty as past generations in their family. 

In women’s cases having kids too early and not finishing high school to take care of their kids. Ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives or perhaps ending up hanging out with the wrong crowds and ending up in jail or prison with kids.

And in men’s cases fathering kids way too early and perhaps never even meeting them or walking out on them, because they are not ready to raise them and can’t handle it. And perhaps dropping out of high school and ending up on Welfare or stuck working minimum wage jobs the rest of their lives as well. Or ending up in jail or prison, because they tried to make easy money by again hanging out with the wrong crowd. 

This is the future that we as a society should mobilize the poor to get away from and into a much more positive future of quality education, for parents and their kids, good jobs for the parents and their kids, so they can live in thriving communities.

If you’re talking about people living in poverty, but a have place of their own to live in, like an apartment, but don’t make enough money to support themselves on their own, or are on Welfare Insurance and don’t work at all, then I believe the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty, are good, positive and simple. 

And it really gets down to education, for parents and their kids to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient and live in their own home. And it’s also about housing as well, whether it gets to encouraging the private sector to invest in low-income communities and train some of the people there. So they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs in these company’s, so the people there can get good jobs to become self-sufficient.

We should be reforming Public Housing in a way all together by instead of forcing low-income people to live in housing projects in low-income communities. Build these housing projects in middle class communities so low-income people are exposed to other communities around them and aren’t forced to live in violent communities. And have a shot at living a good life but reforming Public Housing alone won’t solve the problem. 

Another component has to be about reforming public education in America. So low-income students and their parents aren’t stuck going to bad schools, where perhaps they won’t even finish high school. But even if they do finish high school, they won’t have the skills that they need to get good jobs.

America needs public school choice so parents can decide on their own what school to send their kids too. But also empowering low-income parents and adults to finish high school as well as go to community college so they can get the skills that they need to get good jobs. 

The answer to finally winning the War on Poverty is not just Welfare checks, even though that helps people on Welfare Insurance survive in the short-term. But the answers to finally winning the so-called War on Poverty is about empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need to become self-sufficient on their own. 

Conel Rad: Barry Goldwater- '1964 Campaign Film: Sleaze Montage'

Source:Conel Rad- Barry Goldwater For President, in 1964.

Source:The FreeState

"The closing segment of the controversial 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film, "Choice." 

From Conel Rad 

Entertaining movie, or an entertaining clip from a movie and in this sense as well as others, during Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign.

This movie, was probably 12-20 years ahead of its time by using short films instead of just campaign ads to broadcast his political message. And bringing in the film industry. My problem with this film is that it sort of contradicts Senator Goldwater’s political message of individual freedom. And suggests that part of the problem with American society is pornography and sex. And that we have too much sexual freedom and perhaps government should do something about it.

And since Senator Goldwater was running for President, perhaps the Federal Government should do something about it. And he mentions that people who are in favor of sexual freedom, do it under the protection of the First Amendment. And that perhaps the First Amendment doesn’t protect Freedom of Expression. Which is course is a big part of what the adult entertainment industry is about, expressing how people feel about sex.

This film would’ve been better suited for a Christian-Right theocratic candidate. Like Pat Robertson or Michele Bachmann or Mike Huckabee or a Rick Santorum.

Someone who believes that part of America’s problems are that our morals have declined and as former U.S. Senate and presidential candidate Alan Keyes said: “The problem with America is that we have a moral crisis and that the Federal Government should try to fix it.” Part of what Mr. Keyes meant about our “moral crisis” was the adult entertainment industry. A movie like this is not for a political candidate who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom.

Someone whose anti-Big Government and pro-limited government, because individual Liberty is more than just low taxes and regulations and economic freedom. But the freedom for individuals to live their own lives and not for government to try to run their lives for them. Someone who believes that government should be used to protect people from themselves as well as others, is not a big fan of individual liberty. Except when people are living their lives exactly as they want them too.

Entertaining film and worth watching, but I’m disappointed it comes from someone who preaches the message of individual liberty and freedom. This film is better suited for Theocrats not Classical Conservatives which is what Barry Goldwater was and even if he made this film to appeal to Christian Conservatives back then, who weren’t very powerful in American politics yet, then this film was designed to make Senator Goldwater look like something he’s not. Which is a big problem with American politics and still is. 

Krazy Kraz: Barry Goldwater 1964 Speech- Freedom vs. Communism

Source:Krazy Kraz- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona)

Source:The FreeState 

"Many thanks to all librivox and other readers and public speakers."  

From Krazy Kraz

One of the things that I believe America had going for us over Russia in the Cold War was that we essentially had a country united behind freedom. With several variations an ideology’s to achieve exactly how we get there. Liberals who wanted a liberal democracy, conservatives who want a democratic republic, Socialists who wanted a social democracy. Libertarians who wanted to stay true to be a democratic constitutional republic. And we tried to push democracy around the world and also said to these other countries that were sort of on the fringe and could go one way or the other.

That freedom is the best form of government and that you should decide for yourself if you agree. But then figure out what type of democracy you should have on your own. Where in Russia when it was the Soviet Union, people didn’t have a choice. They got authoritarianism in a communist form. Where we had different sources and a variety of ideas we could go to in how best to protect American freedom. Where Russia just had the state to look after its people and govern the entire country.

The Soviet theory being if you give people freedom, they won’t know what to do with it and will become a threat to the state. Not the country exactly, but the State. The people in charged of the people essentially. Where in America we believe at least Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians, that the less freedom the people have, the more powerful the state is meaning the state becomes more powerful and the people have less.

Less freedom for the people to live their own lives. One of the reasons why I believe the Soviet Union collapsed, to go along with its faltering socialist Marxist economy, but also because the people saw through foreign TV and other sources, the freedom that people had in Europe and North America and what they could do with it. Liked what they saw and decided that they wanted a taste of that themselves. And told Moscow, “that you let us have or we’ll go somewhere else and get it.”

Moscow could see the breakup of the Soviet Union essentially coming and let these break away republics take off. Now not all these break aways are perfect examples of democracy. But many these countries now have more freedom than they ever had before. One of the beauty’s of freedom is that its an idea not an ideology. That several different ideology’s share. With a lot of different approaches to achieving and protecting it. And they are all against authoritarianism whatever the form. Whether its communist, theocratic or another type like in a monarchy or something. Freedom maybe the only idea that these different democratic ideology’s have in common. 

Conel Rad: The Choice (1964) ‘Decay of American Morality’

Source:Comel Rad- from a 1964 Barry Goldwater Campaign film.

Source:The FreeState  

"The "Two Americas" segment of the controversial 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign film, "Choice."  

From Conel Rad

There’s a book that was written by Lee Edwards that’s essentially called the 1964 Election a Glorious Defeat for the Conservative Movement. (I’m paraphrasing the title) It came out in 2005 or 2006. I was working at a book store part-time then and being the political junky that I am and not just interested in my politics and people who think like me. 

I saw the book on a table in the store and bought it. I think I still have it somewhere. The premise of it was that even though Senator Barry Goldwater only won something like 40% of the popular vote in that presidential election and won like ten states.

Barry Goldwater inspired Conservative-Libertarians young and from the Baby Boom Generation like Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott and other young Conservatives when. Like John McCain who I believe was in Vietnam when and Alan Simpson and many more. 

All these people who I mentioned by the way served in Congress at least at one level and all served in Congressional Leadership, which gets to my point. All these people consider Barry Goldwater to be a hero at least to some degree and agree with him on a lot of issues. And weren’t involved in politics at least at the Federal level at the time.

And all of these young Conservatives ended up getting involved in politics, running and getting elected to Congress and then serving there for a long time. Senator John McCain obviously is still in Congress and was originally elected to the House in 1982. 

Some might say that Senator Goldwater’s presidential campaign was badly run because of how badly he lost electorally. But I don’t believe that’s the main reason he ran for President at the time. Going into 1964 the chances of any Republican beating Lyndon Johnson weren’t very good. Because of President Kennedy being assassinated and the country pretty much saw President Johnson’s role to carry out President Kennedy’s agenda which he agreed to do. And I believe a lot more successfully as well.

Plus America is still in the Progressive Era of the New Deal and later the Great Society. Which is another reason why the Goldwater Campaign was important for classical conservatism. 

Without the 1964 Goldwater Campaign, Richard Nixon doesn’t become President in 1968 or get reelected in 1972. Ron Reagan doesn’t get elected President in 1980 or reelected in 1984. Senate Republicans don’t win control on the Senate in 1980 for the first time in 28 years and hold it for two more elections after that. Republicans don’t win control of Congress for the first time in 42 years in 1994.

All of these things happened because of Barry Goldwater, who inspired generations of Conservatives to get involved in conservative politics and run for office. At the local, state and federal levels. Despite losing forty states in 1964, Senator Goldwater managed to win states that democrats use to own. Like Alabama and Mississippi and today the Republican Party now owns the Sun Belt and the rest of the Bible Belt. A region that the Democratic Party use to own. Which is a reason why Richard Nixon won some of those States just four years later. Today’s right-winger conservative classical, theocratic and neo, owe a lot of their success to Barry Goldwater. 

Conel Rad: Ronald Reagan- Time For Choosing (1964)

Source:Conel Rad- Then private citizen Ronald Reagan, speaking in favor of Senator Barry Goldwater for President in 1964 

Source:The FreeState 

"Ronald Reagan delivers his "A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Senator Barry Goldwater in the waning days of the 1964 general election. "The Speech" as it is also known launched Reagan's political career. Two years after this film was broadcast on NBC on October 27, 1964, he was elected governor of California. Contrary to some entries on Wikipedia and elsewhere, Reagan did NOT deliver this speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. He taped it on a soundstage in Hollywood, California."  

From Conel Rad

I wonder if the RNC Delegates still thought they nominated the right person for President in 1964. Actually, when it came to speaking for classical conservatism, Ron Reagan and Barry Goldwater were probably about equal. Except that Reagan had some better lines and better humor. He was essentially a comedian in Hollywood who could also act a little bit, as well as a comedian as a politician. And wrote most of his material, something good comedians have as an advantage as speakers over non-comedians. They can speak off the top of their head. Reagan also had the ability to put down the opposition with humor, without sounding like a jerk.

Reagan was great at getting people to laugh at themselves and laugh at him intentionally as well. 1964 was the last general election that the Democratic Party owned the South even though they won in a landslide, the White House and Congress. Even with Senator Goldwater's huge defeat, he managed to win some Southern states that the Democratic Party previously owned. 

Goldwater had some success in the South, because he opposed the civil rights legislation of the mid 1960s, on libertarian-constitutional ground. But part of it was also Senator Goldwater and Ron Reagan with their classical conservative message of limited government and more individual freedom. That they took across the country, including in the South. That made the Republican Party competitive all across the country, even in the Northeast and Far West.

This was an era from around 1952 with Dwight Eisenhower, up to 1992 with George H.W. Bush where the Republican Party was truly the Grand Ole Party. That was about limited government and individual freedom. That Eisenhower, Goldwater, Gerry Ford and Reagan communicated so well. And why they won 7-10 presidential elections and became competitive in Congress again. Even holding the Senate for eight years in that time period, which at the time was a huge accomplishment for them. Where in the 70s and 80s they would speak to the Christian-Right but wouldn't give them anything. How times and the Republican Party have changed. 

Moog Rogue: Mr. Conservative- 'Barry Goldwater vs The Religious Right'

Source:Moog Rogue- Mr. Conservative U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (Republican, Arizona)

Source:The FreeState 

"From the documentary "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater On Goldwater" (2006)"  

From Moog Rogue

Barry Goldwater and Pat Robertson to me represent the two competing factions in the Republican Party today. Which unfortunately from my perspective as a Liberal the Pat Robertson faction of the party winning today, because they clearly have more influence. 

Barry Goldwater came from the classical conservative faction of the Republican Party that dominated the party. Probably from the 1930s all the way up to the 1980s, all of their presidential nominees came from that faction. 

Pat Robertson of course comes from the Christian-Right faction of the Republican Party. Or as I prefer to call them the Theocratic-Right, America’s version of people who would like to see a Christian Theocracy in America. As oppose to a Islāmic Theocracy that’s in the Middle East.

As Barry Goldwater said, Classical Conservatives believe government should be out of people’s wallets and bedrooms. Let free people be free in a free society like America. Keep our taxes and regulations down, don’t try to run our lives, defend the country, protect the streets and be responsible with our tax revenue. 

Use free market principles to help people in need, instead of new government programs and reform our current social insurance programs in a way to make them more cost-effective and efficient. Theocratic Conservatives, tend to be in line with the Classical Conservatives on economic and foreign policy, but take a different approach when it comes to social issues.

Christian-Conservatives, believe in a certain type of authoritarianism, a theocratic authoritarianism. And believe that government should be used to tell people how to live their own lives and prohibit activities that they find offensive. Even if they aren’t hurting anyone else in what they are doing. 

Things like abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, marijuana, sex before marriage, women in combat, etc. (Hopefully you get the idea) And if people engage in these activities, even if willingly and on their own and they are not hurting anyone innocent people in what they are doing, that these activities should be illegal and punishable by law and these people should face jail and prison time for engaging in these activities.

Classical conservatism and Christian-Fundamentalist authoritarianism, are the two competing ideology’s in the Republican Party. With unfortunately from my perspective theocratic authoritarianism, is currently winning out. With Republican candidates not being able to get nominated or elected without at least pledging a certain amount of faith in religion. (And of course the right religion) But it wasn’t always this way, the Republican Party used to be an anti-big government party that believed that free people should be allowed to be free.

Elephant Owners Dotcom: Ronald Reagan on Socialism

Source:Elephant Owners- Ronald Reagan, talking about socialism, in 1964.

Source:The FreeState 

"Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. There are many ways in which our government has invaded the free precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to 1/5th of the total industrial capacity of the United States."

From Elephant Owners

Ronald Reagan I believe back in 1964 or 65 when he made this speech comparing socialism with liberalism try's to link socialism with liberalism, as if they are one in the same. A classical Conservative who's as intelligent and articulate as Ron Reagan, should know that socialism and liberalism are two different political ideology's not one in the same. Socialism and liberalism does have one thing in common though, they are both progressive meaning they believe that government can be used to make society better. But are completely different in how they accomplish these goals.

Socialism is collectivist meaning that Socialists believe that government especially the central government and in America's case the Federal Government, should be used to make society better through social insurance programs meaning the welfare state. Things like education, health care, health insurance, pension, Unemployment Insurance, transportation, banking, energy etc. And that all these services should be provided by the central government, or that the central government should at least have a major role in providing these services.

And what government doesn't run, it highly taxes and regulates whatever private sector there is. To finance the welfare state and take care of people who don't have enough. And that no one should be able to make a lot more money than others. Even if they earned and created most if not all the wealth that they have. And that no one essentially should be able to make a lot of money compared with the rest of society and that people who make a lot of money should be highly taxed to take care of the people who don't have enough.

Socialism is very statist when it comes to economic policy and I don't mean that to be insulting. But descriptive, but socialism is more than just an economic policy. Its a fully developed political ideology that also have views on both social policy and foreign policy. Socialists tend to liberal to libertarian on social issues, just look at Canada and Sweden for example where both of those democracy's have a lot of social freedom. Way too much social freedom in the eyes of theocrats and other authoritarians in America and other countries. Socialists tend to be dovish and isolationist on foreign policy and law enforcement.

Liberalism however is very anti-statist and big government in general. And very anti-establishment as well. Liberals don't have much faith in centralized power public, or private. And believe government should be used to protect people's constitutional rights and protect people from being hurt by others. But not regulate how adults live their own lives. Liberal comes from the word liberty and when it comes to liberalism, that means freedom and responsibility for the individual. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. And that government can be used to empower people who are down get themselves up with a hand up not a hand out. Socialism and liberalism are both progressive, but in different forms. Socialism is about empowering government to make society better. Liberalism is about empowering the people to make their own lives better. 

Phil Donahue Show: Professor Milton Friedman- Free To Choose (1979)

Source:Phil Donahue Show- Professor Milton Friedman, on Phil Donahue in 1979.

Source:The FreeState

"Friedman, shows why he is unsurpassed in modern times in defending liberty. He cheerfully decapitates the ideas of a government-controlled economy, over a wide range of examples. His layman's explanation as to how government intervention and the Federal Reserve control of the money supply helped cause the Great Depression is simply outstanding." 

From Brittle 

I think it's great that a Classical Liberal like Milton Friedman can sit down to an interview with someone who I would describe as a Democratic Socialist like Phil Donahue. Someone who I again I have a lot of respect for, but who I rarely agree with. 

I love Milton Friedman, but I don’t agree with him on everything either. But I think it's great that these two brilliant men can sit down and have an intelligent conversation without trying to kill each other. Being respectful with each other without agreeing on anything. Something that Bill Buckley was able to do with Liberals and Socialists, without agreeing on anything with them as well either.

By the way, Milt Friedman didn’t consider himself a Libertarian but a Classical Liberal. As someone who’s a Classical Liberal in myself, but just considers myself to be a Liberal, I disagree with Mr Friedman. 

I also view him as a Classical Liberal, even through he believes government should be completely out of the economy and is for legalizing all narcotics. I disagree with both of those positions. I support legalizing with regulation and taxation of marijuana. Because it represents the same dangers, or less than alcohol and tobacco, both legal drugs. But I don’t support legalizing heroin, cocaine and meth. Which are narcotics that can kill people instantly. I don’t believe non-heroin, cocaine and meth users, should be forced to subsidize the health costs of these drug users.

I believe that government has a limited role in the economy, a very limited role. To prevent and stop people from hurting other people in the economy for example and providing a safety net for people who fall through the cracks. By giving them a hand up, not a hand out to move to self-sufficiency. 

Friedman, essentially believed government had has no role in the economy. He would be for eliminating Welfare Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security, Medicare. No regulations for seat belts and safe cars and mileage standards and a lot more. He and I simply disagree here, which is one reason why he’s viewed as a Libertarian and I’m a Liberal. I believe government should protect people from hurting other people, but not themselves, different positions.

But here’s where Milt Friedman and I agree and if the Republican Party had more people like him today, they would truly be an anti-big government party: maximize freedom and responsibility for the individual, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Very simple, but an important concept. Socialists, aren’t fans of maximize freedom generally. Because if you give people a lot of freedom, they might take advantage of it and be less dependent on government and make a lot more money than others.

Socialists, tend not to be fans of responsibility, thinking that taxpayers should be forced to bail people out when they make bad choices in life. 

Authoritarians, don’t like the concept of maximize freedom either, whatever the party they belong to. They believe that government should be able to regulate how people live their own lives. 

But if adults want to own a gun, smoke a joint, look at porn, pay for sex, sell themselves for sex, drink, smoke, whatever the case is, let them do that, because it's their own life. But don’t expect government to bail you out when you make bad choices and don’t force other people to do something they don’t want to and don’t hurt them. All actions have consequences good and bad. 

Chad Reiser: U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater- 1964 Republican National Convention: 'Freedom is The Only Solution'

Source:Chad Reiser- U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater: accepting the 1964 Republican Party nomination for President, in San Francisco. Hardly a utopia for conservative libertarianism.

Source:The FreeState 

"The only true solution to our current economic and national security situation is true Liberty and Freedom! This is a video compilation of some of my heroes: Ronald Reagan, Ezra Taft Benson, Milton Friedman, Margaret Thatcher, and Barry Goldwater." 

From Chad Reiser

If there's one thing that Liberals such a myself and Conservatives like the late Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's can agree on, is that freedom is the answer and statism, whether it comes from the left or right is the problem.

That free adults have the constitutional right to live their own lives without government interfering with how we live our lives, as long as we are not abusing innocent people or hurting them. That use to be what conservatism and liberalism were about in America and to me at they still are. I don't buy terms like "Modern Conservatism", which is basically Christian-Nationalism a form of right-wing statism that today dominates the Republican Party.

Conservatism and liberalism are both about freedom. How to protect it for the people who already have it and how to expand it for the people who don't have it but deserve it. Which gets to economic opportunity, how to empower low-income people take the next step up and get themselves out of poverty.

This is what freedom is about which is what today's Christian-Nationalist Republicans and Social Democrats don't understand. Christian-Nationalists want to take America back to the 1950s and protect what they see as the American Way of Life, where we weren't as free and where American democracy didn't work a well for all Americans, just the special few.

Christian-Nationalists don't tend to speak in terms like freedom, except when it comes to economic freedom and religious freedom for Christians. Christian-Nationalists and Socialists tend to speak in terms of Europe: "This is how its done in Europe." they don't seem to have a problem with less freedom over there. And it seems to work, which is why we should be like them, which is neither conservatism or liberalism.

Barry Goldwater is the father of the conservative movement in America: he is called Mr. Conservative, because he wrote the literal blueprint on what it means to be an American Conservative (The Conscience of a Conservative) and he's one of the original Constitutional Conservatives, because he actually believed in the U.S. Constitution and believed that it needed to be conserving. Unlike the so-called Conservatives (Christian-Conservatives) who only talk about the Constitution when it benefits their Far-Right, anti-conservative, partisan, political objectives.