Friday, August 1, 2008


Admittedly Catherine Austin Fitts has a pretty unusual background for a commentator on Pacifica's California station KPFA. Fitts served as managing director and member of the board of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. She was Assistant Secretary of Housing and a Federal Housing Commissioner in the first Bush Administration, and was the president of Hamilton Securities Group, Inc., an investment bank and financial software developer. On the other hand, she was one of the most creative and unusual voices you'll hear out of the business world, especially important when the economy is falling apart.

She was recently dumped as a guest on KPFA's Flashpoints for reasons that are unclear, although a reader's letter - later retracted - accusing Fitts of self dealing may have been involved. The station also appears to have decided that only academics and staff of non-profits can talk about business. Small business folk are to be excluded, as the left has successfully done for decades to its own disadvantage. Station management has declined to respond to our inquiries

In any case, the incident is another reminder that censorship exists on the left as well as the right. Your editor, for example, has long been persona non grata at many liberal media, most likely because of his ideological quirkiness and his involvement in forming the national Green Party which many conventional liberals abhor.

The most dangerous thing one can do on either left or right is to think for yourself and thus Fitts certainly was headed for trouble from the start.

Catherine Austin Fitts


At August 1, 2008 5:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's a shame. fitts has a lot of interesting things to say.

At August 1, 2008 10:28 PM, Anonymous Greg Brooks-English said...

As a contributor to DN!, I love Catherine Austin-Fitt's analyisis, which I find original, insightful, and extremely valuable for the so-called liberal left. Chomsky, for example, has NEVER mentioned in any writing I have read about "central banking warfare", nor the term "tapeworm economics". However, Chomsky eludes direclty to them by speaking about public wealth being converted into private profit. But Austin-Fitts is incisive in her creative terminology which makes extremely complex events simple - which is EXACTLY what we need on DN! and KPFA Flashpoints. Please wake up KPFA! Wake up DN!

Perhaps one thing KPFA is afraid of is Austin-Fitt's friendly-investor model, as opposed to investor-friendly model, meaning that she cares about people using what she calls "The Popsicle Index" which indicates just how safe it is for a child to go to the nearest store to buy a popsicle and come home.

Is KPFA afraid of The Popsicle Index, Central Banking Warfare, or Tapeworm Economics. If they are, they are only bitting off their nose despite their face. I hope that people can wake up to the fact that investor's are not evil, and that a lot of what is wrong with the world is not about making money, but about how that money is used and how unethical people do terrible things. There is such a thing as Kings being good rulers, this being said from an advocate of worker-owned cooperatives.

I submit to KPFA, allow small business owners on, as some are part of the solution and not the problem. Catherine Austin-Fitts is one of them.

At August 2, 2008 8:36 AM, Anonymous said...

1. yes, 'the left' (such as it is) can and DOES CENSOR *almost* as egregiously as the right... for myself, it is more disappointing inasmuch as the left *PURPORTS* to support and believe in freespeech (most really don't); while reichwing authoritarian types can hardly be expected to act any differently...

2. there are very few progressive websites which will allow unfettered freespeech in all its power and glory... ...and mess
(and -many times- it is NOT even petty CENSORSHIP for -you know- 'dirty' words and stuff; it is -many times- for 'dirty' ideas like nine one one truthseeking, which are jettisoned)

3. this includes some of the 'mainstream' progressive sites like huffpo (well, almost as much infotainment as *real* mainstream media), and salon (go for the greenwald, leave for the woman-camel-pig)...
huffpo especially, WILL NOT allow virtually ANY criticism of its celebrities/writers, NO MATTER how germane, truthful, and spot-on the commenter is...
(in fact, the more truthful it is, the less likely it is to be allowed to stand; if its just stupid 'criticism' like 'you suck', then that is okay...)

i just happened to observe huffpo's CENSORSHIP on a relatively obscure column by a celeb/wench who was defending her husband's defending conrad black in public and media appearances (black being recently convicted at the time)...
a commenter on the 'article' (just another huffpo vanity piece) pointed out that said husband was on a $40k yearly retainer, NO WONDER he was 'defending' black in the media, blah blah blah...
i happened to check up on the commenters story, and it turned out to be right: the blogger's husband turned out to be a conrad black sockpuppet for hire...
but she was acting like she was all outraged and aghast that her pure-as-the-driven-snow hubbie was being 'unfairly' rebuked...
a couple minutes later when i went back to the article to leave a comment about that comment, said comment was gone...
when i commented on the CENSORED comment and how they were correct, etc, *my* comment disappeared into teh aether...

yep, free, fair, and open discussions; don't look for them on the liberal side of the aisle either...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy


At August 2, 2008 5:59 PM, Anonymous robbie said...

Again, you throw the term "liberal" around very freely. If the folks who run KPFA are "conventional liberal", then Nancy Pelosi might as well be Grover Norquist.

At August 5, 2008 5:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CATHERINE FITTS NOW! as the new host of "Meet the Press"! No one else is as articulate about how things do and don't work in America and beyond.

At August 9, 2008 12:51 AM, Blogger Christopher said...

As someone who has been "pushed out" of a radio station (unceremoniously replaced by less qualified people that make a board leader feel more comfy) , I can suggest that “There’s More To This Story”.

Probably someone didn’t like Catherine personally and the letter just provided the ammo.

And that person is high enough in the power tree that no-one else has the time, gumption, personal power and is already so distracted by their personal dramas to take on that upper management person that didn’t like Catherine.

For those of you who DO have the time and personal resources to take this on: This is my suggestion:
1) Go to the Board Meetings. Several of them. Figure out who didn’t like Catherine. You might even find out there was actually an unknown good reason. But so far it sounds like not.
2) Start sniffing “innocently” with the Socratic Method of questions to figure out WHY and WHO (one or more most likely) was out to get Catherine.
3) Then join the relevant subcommittees whose declarations in support of those who support Catherine would make it uncomfortable to be those upper managers that are out to get Catherine.
Be useful, become relevant to the functioning of that subcommittee.
(Note: This will all take quite a bit of time. Months)
Start getting policy developed and implemented that would make this more difficult in the future.

Also: “Board Development” and positive interaction with the volunteers is VITAL to keeping KPFA from sliding … it sounds boring, but pay LOTS of attention to it!

ALTERNATIVELY if you don’t have TIME for the positive approach above:

You could just write up a clearly defended and thought out position paper and send those to the funders of KPFA. Make sure you realize that this is a bit of potentially “nuclear option” as many funders may just pull back from drama and thus push the station further into the arms of remaining funders. This could actually INcrease concentration of power. That’s why I would prefer the slower but more positive approach.
To reduce the “nuclear effects” of this more destructive (but less time consuming) approach, make sure your letter ID’s the problem person on the Board and make sure the funder realizes this is one person (or clique) and not the many hundreds of people that make up KPFA.

Overall, I’d say this is an example of why we all must support a vibrant Low Power FM radio movement. If KPFA falls, but there’s a 100W pipsqueak that can take over the job of serving real community activity, then that backup, while weak, will at least provide SOME outlet for those frustrated by destructive ego BS. as it takes down a station.

Furthermore this "competition" will keep listeners on the FM band instead of the frustrated giving up entirely for their MP3 podcaster or SatCaster receivers ... so actually a progressive LPFM might actually save the likes of KPFA.


Post a Comment

<< Home