[Lerkfish]

Interesting how THIS is the publisher that publishes the Swift Boat Liars for Bush?
Why wasn't a mainstream publisher interested?

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intel...le.jsp?aid=479

White Supremacists
Reclusive publishing heir to start all-white dating service

William Regnery II, an heir to the Regnery publishing fortune who's a prime mover and shaker in white nationalism publishing, is moving into a new line of business: match-making for "heterosexual whites of Christian cultural heritage."

In an appeal to potential investors titled "Population is Destiny," the famously reclusive Regnery wrote this March that the Caucasian dating service would be no ordinary money-making opportunity, but a chance to ensure "the survival of our race," which "depends upon our people marrying, reproducing and parenting."

Regnery, who says he's long been concerned with a "tendency to bachelorhood" among white men, told the potential investors that his latest effort to save the white race would not stop with match-making.

The dating service, he says, will be only the "first arrow in a business quiver" providing "services and products to whites."

Promoting white nationalism is nothing new for Regnery � or his family. His grandfather, William I, signed incorporation papers for the America First Committee, an organization that opposed fighting Nazi Germany in World War II. His father, Henry, created Regnery Publishing, one of the major purveyors of books by right-wing attack dogs like Anne Coulter and G. Gordon Liddy.

William II has made his mark as a major fundraiser in radical right circles as the founder of the Charles Martel Society in 2001. The society publishes The Occidental Quarterly, an academic-looking journal filled with articles by white-supremacist luminaries such as Sam Francis, editor for the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens and Wayne Lutton of the hate group The Social Contract Press.

The society is putting together conferences, summer schools and a speaker's bureau � all designed to push Regnery's view that the white race is veering toward extinction.

other titles by this publishing company:

2002 releases:

When I Was a Kid, This Was a Free Country
By G. Gordon Liddy

Fighting Back (Bush)
By Bill Sammon

Shakedown: Exposing the Real Jesse Jackson
by Kenneth R. Timmerman

Bias
by Bernard Goldberg

The Final Days
by Barbara Olson


Earlier releases:

Absolute Power, by David Limbaugh, 2001

At Any Cost: How Gore Tried to Steal the Election, Bill Sammon, 2001

Backfire: A Reporter�s Look at Affirmative Action, Bob Zelnick, 1996, 0-89526-455-2, hardcover, $27.50, �Zelnick traces how affirmative action was first sold as a short-term program designed to expand employer awareness of qualified minority job applicants, but has become a coercive network of racist laws, quotas, and entitlement programs�

Betrayal: How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security, Bill Gertz, 1999

Boy Clinton: The Political Biography, �R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.�, 1996

Brighter than the Baghdad Sun: Saddam Hussein's Nuclear Threat to United States, Shyam Bhatia & Dan McGrory, 2000

God and Man at Yale, �William F. Buckley, Jr.�, 1986

God, Guns & Rock and Roll, Ted Nugent, 2000

Gore: A Political Life, Bob Zelnick, 2000

The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind, Bernard Nathanson, 1996

Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barbara Olson, 2000

The Heterodoxy Handbook: How to Survive the PC Campus, David Horowitz and Peter Collier, 1994

High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, Ann Coulter, 1998

Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Jonathan Wells, 2000

The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, �R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.�, 1997

Inquisition, Carlton Sherwood, 1991, 0-89526-532-X, hardcover, $29.95, �This is an astounding expose of the false prosecustion of Reverend Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church and an urgent warning about the ever-present potential for abuse in our justice system�

Inventing the AIDS Virus, Peter Duesberg, 1996, 0-89526-470-6, hardcover, $29.95, �Peter Duesberg, M.D., an eminent scientist anda pioneer in the discovery of retroviruses (such as HIV), challenges the widely accepted belief that HIV is the cause of AIDS�

Making Government Work: A Conservative Agenda for the States, Tex Lezar, 1994

My Dear Alex: Letters from the KGB, Dinesh D�Souza and Gregory Fossedal, 1987, 0-89526-576-1, hardcover, $14.95, �This fictional account on how to manipulate the American media has been called the best �political satire since Orwell� by former President Nixon�

The Myth of Heterosexual Aids, Michael Fumento, 1993

The New Color Line: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy, Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton, 1995

Opus Dei: Leadership and Vision in Today�s Catholic Church, Vittorio Messori, 1997

Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America, Roger Morris, 1999

Power Grab: How the National Education Association is Betraying Our Children, G. Gregory Moo, 1999

The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 1997

Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton�s Impeachment, David Schippers, 2000

Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, Gary Aldrich, 1996

A Washington Tragedy: How the Death of Vince Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm, Dan Moldea, 1998

Year Of The Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash, Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II, 1998

[PacHead]

So somebody started a white-christian only dating service ? Um, big deal.

BTW - the Swift book is #1 on Amazon right now.

The left is apparently getting desperate now.

[Lerkfish]

The point is, why wouldn't a mainstream publisher handle it? did you look at the list of other books they publish?

[CreepingDeth]

Hey conspiracy-man, what title was, uh, racist?
Nice try. Didn't find any questionable titles there.

Next, Steve Jobs will have four arms!

[SimeyTheLimey]

They just look like conservative titles published by a specialized publisher. As a matter of fact, I have read a couple. I don't see any evidence of racism any more than I saw it in Bernie Goldberg's Bias.

Besides, the politics of the publisher has has nothing to do with the content of the book. This seems like a pretty desparate smear to me. I haven't read the book but it sure seems to be scaring some people.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Hey conspiracy-man, what title was, uh, racist?
Nice try. Didn't find any questionable titles there.

Next, Steve Jobs will have four arms!

LOL!

ok, here it is again, pay attention:
issue one: the publisher appears to be a white supremacist
issue two: his publishing house is a conservative vanity press.
issue three: why, if the swift boat was honest, wouldn't they have shopped it to a more reputable publishing house? Why is it published through a right wing propaganda mill?

[CreepingDeth]

The publisher is racist?
Here's a sparkler. Only if you prove it and clean your room.

[ebuddy]

C'mon Lerk, this post surprises me of you.

If someone is opposed to Kerry, happens to have ideals that differ from yours, this makes the entire book somehow invalid?

Kerry has based his candacy on war-heroism. I welcome the truth behind his service. As concerned with "Bush-lies" as you are I thought it was less about Bush lies and more about wanting to seek the truth in general. Why then would you attempt to squelch the voice of truth now? Kerry has several who served with him that appreciate his service. There are several hundred who have problems with his service including his gunmen who served on Kerry's swift-boat and others that watched him flee leaving the others vulnerable to attack, doctors that gave bandaids for purple-heart wounds, and officers who knew of Kerry's service as an administrator. I'd like to hear their voice as well. This man is running for the Presidency of the US. If you're concerned with lies, Kerry may very well be the candidate who sets new standards for dishonesty. I'd like to know.

[ebuddy]

ok, here it is again, pay attention:

Okay, I think I got it.

issue one: the publisher appears to be a white supremacist

Appears to be a white supremacist because of the history behind them and the other titles you sited? I don't see it. Look at the history behind those outlets owned by Time, Random House, and Hearst. You'll find questionable history behind each. I don't think you can always judge text by the publisher.

issue two: his publishing house is a conservative vanity press.

so? Where are the lies? Do you know anything about it or are you just knee-jerking because this makes your candidate look like he may be using war-heroism falsely?

issue three: why, if the swift boat was honest, wouldn't they have shopped it to a more reputable publishing house?

Like, Time-Warner, Hearst, Random House?

Why is it published through a right wing propaganda mill?

Why not? It exposes lies from a book Kerry published through Harper-Collins. While I have no qualms with Harper-Collins, it would not surprise me that they would not involve themselves in a controversial piece of this nature. Many others may not have wanted to get involved with this either. It doesn't make the piece dishonest. It means the piece is controversial.

[Millennium]

Why wasn't a mainstream publisher interested in what?

So a known racist started a racist dating service. I fail to see how this is news. The service won't last; we all know that. I give it a year, and probably much less than that, before it goes bankrupt.

[sanity assassin]

It's not overt racism to some, particularly those poor souls who are mentally challenged by being right-wingers; but what such publications do, is to subconsiously implant separatist, racist ideals in an underhand manner.

Pretty shocking stuff to most, but hey, right-wingers won't see that now, will they?

[Spliffdaddy]

just like a michael moore film

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL!

ok, here it is again, pay attention:
issue one: the publisher appears to be a white supremacist
issue two: his publishing house is a conservative vanity press.
issue three: why, if the swift boat was honest, wouldn't they have shopped it to a more reputable publishing house? Why is it published through a right wing propaganda mill?

OK. You've got several random arguments going on here.

Do you automatically asume a book publisher will only publish books that adhere to their political ideology? I thought business was about making money.

So what if it is a vanity press with conservative leanings? Is it a surprise that they would publish something anti-Kerry? How many anti-Bush screeds have been published by a vanity press with liberal leanings?

It seems to me you are trying to equate the validity of the book being published with the political leanings of the publisher (i.e.: right-leaning makes the content all lies). Everyone all across the political spectrum wants *their* opinion to be heard. So what if they publish a book critical of Kerry? So what if it contains lies? There will be plenty of books from the other side doing the same thing against Bush.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL!

ok, here it is again, pay attention:
issue one: the publisher appears to be a white supremacist

I don't think anyone disagrees with this assertion.

issue two: his publishing house is a conservative vanity press.

It certainly publishes many books by conservatives. Is it a "vanity press"? I don't know if I'd go that far.

issue three: why, if the swift boat was honest, wouldn't they have shopped it to a more reputable publishing house?

Are you so certain that they didn't?

Why is it published through a right wing propaganda mill?

Because they agreed to publish it.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The point is, why wouldn't a mainstream publisher handle it? did you look at the list of other books they publish?

Probably because they offered a better rate. That's usually how those things go.

Harper Collins was my publisher, but I recently switched for a more lucrative offer. Big deal. *shrug*

[mo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Probably because they offered a better rate. That's usually how those things go.

Harper Collins was my publisher, but I recently switched for a more lucrative offer. Big deal. *shrug*

Oh, it's really unlikely that Regnery offers better compensation to a prospective author than HarperCollins, if HarperCollins wanted the book in the first place. What Regnery does do is sell a bunch of books in the same category, and it knows how to market them. It also would have a interest in books that attracted midlist and lower sales figures (unlike, increasingly, publishers with a wider range of titles).

And Regnery is a right-wing publishing house, no question. I don't know why anybody -- admirers or detractors -- would claim differently.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Probably because they offered a better rate. That's usually how those things go.

Harper Collins was my publisher, but I recently switched for a more lucrative offer. Big deal. *shrug*

that's a valid possiblity.

I think another valid possiblity is it wouldn't survive the publisher's factcheck dept.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
And Regnery is a right-wing publishing house, no question. I don't know why anybody -- admirers or detractors -- would claim differently.

I don't think that anyone is claiming differently. It's just that being a "right wing publisher" doesn't make the books they publish any less valid. Unless, I suppose, your mind is simply closed to anything you don't agree with.

I don't think, however, it is correct to call them a "vanity press" as Lerk did. That implies that they publish just anything so long as you pay them. That's quite a charge to make without evidence.

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think that anyone is claiming differently. It's just that being a "right wing publisher" doesn't make the books they publish any less valid. Unless, I suppose, your mind is simply closed to anything you don't agree with.

Don't know why you would say such a mean thing. Seems a little presumptive. I've edited plenty of books and articles with which I disagreed.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[BI don't think, however, it is correct to call them a "vanity press" as Lerk did. That implies that they publish just anything so long as you pay them. That's quite a charge to make without evidence. [/B]

Well, I can't agree with you on that one. They've done that. But, I don't exactly care, either. People can publish whatever they want.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
Don't know why you would say such a mean thing. Seems a little presumptive. I've edited plenty of books and articles with which I disagreed.



Well, I can't agree with you on that one. They've done that. But, I don't exactly care, either. People can publish whatever they want.

Would you mind putting that quote back the way I wrote it. I never wrote "Grammar, logic and usage should know no ideological boundaries" and I don't like seeing it attibuted to me when I didn't write that.

[AuPhalanx]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

issue two: his publishing house is a conservative vanity press.

A "vanity press" is a publishing house where the author of the work finances the printing of the book, not the publisher. Regnery is nothing of the sort. Regnery is a small/medium-sized publisher that obviously found its niche in conservative titles. Many titles are released every year by small presses--probably more than a few that you may read. There is not a thing wrong or non-"mainstream" about it. You are grasping for straws here and completely misusing publishing terms.

Have fun... Tony.

[Zimphire]

[mo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Would you mind putting that quote back the way I wrote it. I never wrote "Grammar, logic and usage should know no ideological boundaries" and I don't like seeing it attibuted to me when I didn't write that.

You know, I think I typed in your field, there. Apologies, please accept, counselor. (I'll edit that message now.)

But I do agree with the statement i haphazardly made: Grammar, logic and usage shouldn't know ideological boundaries.

I would re-state, back on the original response, that I don't think you should insinuate that I have a problem publishing or editing material with which I do not agree. I've done plenty of that. I merely described what Regnery is -- which is what it is, for good or bad.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by AuPhalanx:
A "vanity press" is a publishing house where the author of the work finances the printing of the book, not the publisher. Regnery is nothing of the sort. Regnery is a small/medium-sized publisher that obviously found its niche in conservative titles. Many titles are released every year by small presses--probably more than a few that you may read. There is not a thing wrong or non-"mainstream" about it. You are grasping for straws here and completely misusing publishing terms.

Have fun... Tony.

Interesting reading:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?...articleId=4351

also interesting: http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/cl...ulwar8-20.html

Coulter's book was published by Regnery. Phillips/Eagle, a major owner of Regnery, also publishes Human Events.149 Coulter went to work for the Scaife-funded Center for Individual Rights, then as a legal affairs writer for Human Events, which had previously run a favorable review of her book. Coulter also played matchmaker, helping Paula Jones find lawyers and suggesting that attorney Jim Moody help Linda Tripp with her legal problems.150

biased, but interesting nonetheless: http://topplebush.com/oped560.shtml

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19389/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...main050299.htm

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6969

In the meantime, Dick Morris, John McCain, Bill O'Reilly and others should stop twittering about how rude and crass and dishonorable and counterproductive it is to even explore such nasty possibilities in public and take a look at the charges and supporting documentation brought forth by the Swiftvets. Does it matter whether they are funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, George Soros, or The Tooth Fairy? What does matter in a close presidential election is if there is significant evidence that some or all of the Vietnam service Kerry has elected to make the center of his campaign to move from "war hero" to "war president" is a tissue of lies.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2004/cyb20040807.asp

1. NBC/MSNBC Team Up to Repress Anti-Kerry Ad, Fret Over "Loophole"
NBC Nightly News and MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann on Friday night denounced the ad from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, treating the group's expression of free speech as a "loophole" in campaign finance law that must be plugged. Unencumbered by any restrictions on their free speech, NBC's Tom Brokaw and Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann launched their own independent attack on the Vietnam vets who are detractors of John Kerry in order to discredit those with a viewpoint NBC/MSNBC apparently wants to keep hidden from the American people. "They may get away with it," Mitchell fretted. Approaching lunacy, Olbermann warned that an upcoming book from a Swift Boat Veterans for Truth leader is "from Regnery Press, which is supported in some way by Richard Mellon Scaife of the Pittsburgh

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407270001

http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/n...er.v02.n02.htm

It's becoming clearer every day that moderates and progressives need a more effective way to get their message out. The reason the Right has been so effective at getting their message out, and getting their politicians elected, and getting their policies enacted, is that they've established an extremely well-funded idea-development and communications infrastructure that has been called "The Mighty Wurlitzer." This infrastructure consists of think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute; radio talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh; TV pundits on Fox News; newspapers like the Washington Times and New York Post, publishing houses like Regnery; and a variety of other organizations.

All of this constitutes an "infrastructure" because it is already set up and in place, ready to amplify and disseminate any message that the conservative movement's ideological leaders feed into it. Moderates and progressives, meanwhile, don't have anything comparable in place. That has to change!

Politicians respond to the public - that's their job. So: to change the country's political climate, we need to change public attitudes, not just rely on politicians. This is how the Right has accomplished so much. They have pursued a decades-long strategy of using the media to inundate the public with ideological messages, year by year nudging the public further to the right - thus enabling their politicians to move in and harvest the results.

Consider the Right's efforts to undermine public education. For many years they have been pumping out the message that "public schools are failing," and - lo and behold - a consensus forms that the public schools are failing. In turn, since "failure" implies that there's nothing left to be done, conservative politicians can more successfully promote school vouchers, rather than seeking to improve public education through greater investments in teachers, classroom materials, and physical facilities. Moreover, this is taking place in the larger context of the conservative campaign to promote all forms of privatization while demonizing government services - and thus the specific policy of vouchers gets greater traction in a broader messaging environment.

Now, compare that to, say, health care reform. Americans have not been widely exposed, to say the least, to moderate and progressive critiques of the health care system. Consequently, there is no widespread perception of a problem that calls for progressive solutions. Those politicians who advocate health care reform must - from scratch, during the election cycle - seek to explain the nature of problem and then try to enlist public support for proposals. On the center-Left, the burden rests with elected leaders because a broad base of public support for their ideas has not already been developed by a comparable communications infrastructure. It's like reinventing the wheel while swimming upstream! And that's where the Commonweal Institute comes in....

The conservative movement infrastructure was set up by a core group of right-wing activists - including Richard Mellon Scaife, Joseph Coors, and Rupert Murdoch, among others - with a clear vision and tons of money. That infrastructure now consists of hundreds of organizations, both large and small, with some differences between them, but with a remarkable consistency of strategy and message. These organizations all exist because of the fierce determination and funding power of a relatively small number of people.

have fun!

[AuPhalanx]

Lerk!

Thank you for the links. It was good reading, but that type of stuff occurs in EVERY part of the publishing world. (The "stuff" being that a publisher gets good reviews for its books in its sister publications.) It also proves my point: that Regnery is NOT a vanity press. They're a conservative publishing house. No conspiracy exists. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of publishing houses, each with their owm emphasis. Some publish children's books, others do mysteries, yet others do holistic-herbal-new age-mediatation books. If you're trying to find a conspiracy, you'll not find one because one publishing house (and its affiliate companies) are releasing and marketing a book.

Have fun... Tony.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mo:
You know, I think I typed in your field, there. Apologies, please accept, counselor. (I'll edit that message now.)

But I do agree with the statement i haphazardly made: Grammar, logic and usage shouldn't know ideological boundaries.

I would re-state, back on the original response, that I don't think you should insinuate that I have a problem publishing or editing material with which I do not agree. I've done plenty of that. I merely described what Regnery is -- which is what it is, for good or bad.

I don't think I was really directing that at you as such. "Your" would have been better put as "one." The problem is that "one" is considered pretentious in English. My apologies if you thought that was a personal attack. It was intended as more of a general comment.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Even the most casual examination of the list of authors reveals that most of them have no trouble getting published with all manner of major publishing houses.

G Gordon Liddy -also published by St. Martin�s press

Bill Sammon -published by HarperCollins

Kenneth R. Timmerman -Published by Houghton Mifflin

Bernard Goldberg -published by Warner Books and Perennial

William F. Buckley Jr. (Please, he has a list of major publishers a mile long)

Bill Gertz -published by Crown

Bernard N. Nathanson -published by Bantam Dell

David Horowitz and Peter Collier -published by Encounter, Simon & Schuster, Free Press, Artisan, and a host of others separately

Ann Coulter published -by Crown/Three Rivers Press

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr -published by HarperCollins, Rowman & Littlefield

Carlton Sherwood -published by Putnam

And the list goes on and on- obviously to anyone but a bitter conspiracy nut, few of their authors seem to have much problem getting published. Many have moved on from Regnery to other publishers. (Ann Coulter for example).

It a certainty- contrary to what the conspiracy nuts are trying to float here- that no one at Crown gives a rat�s ass where Ann was published before. (To cite but one example.)

�Bias� by Bernard Goldberg for example was picked up directly from Regnery by Perennial (An imprint of HarperCollins.) Quick! Someone watch for black helicopters, HarperCollins must be in on this vast Right Wing conspiracy too!

Regnery is merely a medium sized publisher with a niche market in conservative titles (as AuPhalanx pointed out.) They compete for authors in their niche the same as any other publisher, and obvliously they�ve launched quite a few best-sellers. Big whoop- the same exists for left-wing authors. (Duh.)

It�s also worth noting that it�s not owned nor operated by William Regnery II, but by his father Henry. Even the original quoted conspiracy rant can�t seem to dig up any actual dirt on Henry himself, and so in typical fashion it�s the son and grandfather that are maligned because Henry dares publish books that the rant�s author doesn�t like.

Another idiotic conspiracy that can�t stand up to the light of actual scrutiny dies kicking and screaming.

ONCE AGAIN.

[CreepingDeth]

You know Lerk, he can make a conspiracy out of two frogs eating dirt.

No conspiracy here.
*helicopter engine*

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
You know Lerk, he can make a conspiracy out of two frogs eating dirt.

Obviously it'd be the frog on the RIGHT that's hatching the conspiracy.

[CreepingDeth]

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:

Excellent!!!