Letter from James Miller, Editor of the Dickinson Press, and response.

Dear Mr. Miller, 

Thank you for your considerate reply. You are welcome. I must apologize, as newspapers have a severe stigma attached to them due to decades of deceiving the American people. You may think this is a conspiracy theory, but if you simply look into the primary owners of just three prominent American newspapers, The NY Times (Sulzbergers), The Washington Post (Grahams), and the NY Post (Dorothy Schiff, granddaughter of Federal Reserve architect and Rothschild associate Jacob Schiff) arguably the three leading newspapers in the past century in America, and into their ethnicity and religion, you may understand a rational person’s skepticism of your industry. Ah yes, and Joseph Pulitzer cohencidentally happens to be a member of the same group.

Fair journalism in America used to mean the public was given both sides, which means journalists didn’t castigate controversial members of the public with the dirt they dug up on a Google search (How quaint that Google was started by two men who are members of the same group that owned the three leading newspapers aforementioned, wouldn’t you think?). The article on me was extraordinarily biased. At the same time, you included a lot of negative-sounding information about me; you wholly ignored, wittingly or unwittingly, I know not, explanations and counterarguments. For example, you cite the opinion of the Antidefamation League (ADL), but you leave out that it was begun in 1913 to defend a Jewish man, Leo Frank, who was credibly charged with raping and murdering 13-year-old Mary Phagan. When justice was miscarried, the men of Georgia made sure justice was done.

In the interest of public transparency, which your paper states it is interested in, I would like to interview you. Your newspaper certainly is paid the most to cover the news in Dickinson, but all wise men know that those who control the money rarely fail to be corrupt. I want to ask the owner of the Dickinson newspaper some questions. First, what is his interest in owning a newspaper in a city where practically no one knows him and he knows few people? I’ve been to the last three council meetings and haven’t seen you, your owner, or your reporter present. If you are paid to cover the city’s business, why aren’t you present? Also, in the interest of public transparency and democracy, since secrecy is rarely associated with what is good, is Mr. Butow or yourself Jewish? The public has a right to know precisely the motives behind those who report the news to them. That a man is born a Jew is just fine, but if a man follows the Talmud, which is problematic, to put it mildly, that’s another matter altogether.

The Press America’s Founders had in mind wasn’t a shadowy entity that was above scrutiny. It was owned by and written by men in the community.

You say you take the safety and well-being of your staff seriously. Well, you know, I take Proverbs 28:1 seriously. The righteous are bold as a lion, and the wicked flee when no one pursues. So, when your reporter and newspaper have no problem libeling me from the shadows while never having met me or spoken to me in your lives, and you are afraid of meeting and speaking, Solomon appears to say you are wicked and not righteous. Few righteous men would disagree with his assessment of you. I’ve never stated a threat to you, your staff, or the newspaper, so for you to whine about being concerned about your safety is preposterous nonsense.

I would welcome sitting down with you, a reporter you choose, and your owner to both be interviewed and to interview you. This is how a public discussion works. Both parties ask each other questions. You are not the sole arbiter of truth in Dickinson, as your paper arrogantly believes. You think you get to judge and question others, but believe you are not to be judged or questioned by anyone.

I read your profile with interest, showing you served in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also shows you have mastered four languages. Now, America had no business being in Iraq or Afghanistan. If you don’t realize all of our military conflicts from World War 1 onwards have been engineered by a small clique of bankers who cannot be identified at the peril of being called an “antisemite,” you are deceived about history. But, I find it interesting that you are all over the globe, purportedly to defend Democracy, and yet, the most essential right, the freedom to speak one’s mind, is a right you fail to defend right here in your own hometown and state? How can you defend liberty in other nations but can’t even defend it right here at home?

I’m surprised you gave Evan permission to recklessly publish shoddy pieces of work based on Google searches. These pieces lack all kinds of information that he failed to fully research because he failed to speak with me, but then he claims he can’t speak with me out of concerns of phantom harassment or intimidation. 

Part of the information I wanted to review about the ADL is above; the rest will be sent shortly. Correcting the media half-truths, misrepresentations, lazy research, and deliberate distortions is exhausting work for us citizens. You see, we don’t get paid. We have to spend our time correcting errors that your wealthy owners permit, deliberately or not, I know not, to be published, creating negative perceptions of us. The reason you are afraid of men like me is not because we pose a threat of violence to you; it’s because all men fear those they lie about. I have no fear of you at all; I despise what you represent; it disgusts and nauseates me. I could say a lot more, but I will judge your actions to be done out of ignorance and not malevolence. I was in the military, too. I served for nearly three years as a nuclear machinist mate aboard submarines, but I recognized something was wrong and was discharged before the end of my third year. I didn’t know who controlled the military or that America was never designed to have a standing army, a concept strongly denounced by America’s Founders, but I knew something wasn’t right. I wonder if you have reached this conclusion as well.

Suppose your paper persists in your intransigent and reckless attack on objective truth and morality, as you’ve undoubtedly been doing for decades. In that case, I am sure your financial ruin is inevitable. Seven thousand two hundred subscribers in a city of 30,000 is a marked judgment of a lack of trust. The judgment of those 7,200 doesn’t impress me at all.

We see as we are, not as things are, said Anais Nin, which is why we were advised to take the beam out of our own eye before judging the speck in our neighbors by the most inspiring and transformative man in human history.

As for “respectful dialogue” one must act like a King to be treated like one. So when one engages in petty libel, backbiting, gossip, and defamation and then demands respect, one is asking for what one’s own actions deny them.

Also, truth is revealed by fierce criticism, the kind leveled at corrupt rulers by Socrates and Jesus, and this often doesn’t feel like “respectful dialogue” to corrupt rulers or their lackeys in the media. You are not free to publish the truth, which is sad; you’d be fired tomorrow if you spoke a quarter of the truth that I said. This is why your newspaper published none of the dozens of facts I stated. If you have an expert who wants to debate any of what I presented, I’d be happy to debate, but I doubt you’ll take the challenge; you don’t stand a chance, and public humiliation hurts. This isn’t arrogance, it’s the facts, for when you can’t respond to 45 minutes of reasoned facts laid out, but persist in maligning a man from the shadows, you pose absolutely no threat in any debate contest.

You are welcome, 

Best, 

Ryan