communist goals-congressional record January 10, 1963

[shagdrum]

Shag - once you get over Alexander and actually start thinking for yourself it might behoove me to reply... however, you know that is exactly what foss was doing - taking me out of context in hopes of painting me as an uncaring, vet-hating, liberal... but, you won't address that - it doesn't fall within your 'cut and paste' world.

Not a justification for your gross overgeneralization and ad hominem smears on republicans as you did with this statement.

Foss, your posts are the very best way to show how the right twists and changes things and removes things out of context to create a 'right wing truth', that is in actuality an outright lie... Thank you for following right wing hate 'form' which is actually quite 'meaningless' as well.

You yourself have said something to the effect that people show their true nature when they are emotional. This vindictive little jab on your part gives a window into your own political prejudices that is usually covered by the "aw-shucks" veneer you hide behind.

That action demonstrates your contempt for and disregard of non-liberal views. The narratives Alexander talks about (which I pointed out here) are implicit in your statement. I am simply highlighting that fact for all to see.

 

[foxpaws]

Not a justification for your gross overgeneralization and ad hominem smears on republicans as you did with this statement.

​

You yourself have said something to the effect that people show their true nature when they are emotional. This vindictive little jab on your part gives a window into your own political prejudices that is usually covered by the "aw-shucks" veneer you hide behind.

That action demonstrates your contempt for and disregard of non-liberal views. The narratives Alexander talks about (which I pointed out here) are implicit in your statement. I am simply highlighting that fact for all to see.

However, I stated the truth - Foss was taking me out of context. I pointed out the fact, and related it to the way the 'right' often uses this tactic to demonize the left.

Shag - you might want to go around and spew Alexander's little points - but that doesn't answer the fact that Foss very explicitly used 'out of context' to demonize and marginalize a liberal (well, me ).

You don't have an answer to that - so rather than take that little point head on - you would rather skirt the issue - correct. That is exactly what you are doing.

He used out of context in a very telling, and very obvious manner didn't he Shag? I won't wait for an answer to that - because you won't give me one.

My 'aw shucks' veneer - really Shag - that is funny. I don't hide behind cut and paste - so therefore I am 'aw shucks'. I actually can state what my opinions are without having to revert to someone else's printed thoughts. If that is 'aw shucks' well, I guess I am proud of the fact that I am of that ilk...

 

[shagdrum]

I actually can state what my opinions

And yet, when you first came on this forum, you rarely if ever did so unless and until we started calling you on it. When you first came here, you more often then not looked to set yourself up as change agent or facilitator...

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky Method" (ibid, p.123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial; the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics). This allows for a special application of a basic technique.

The change agent or facilitator goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question. The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While s/he is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. S/He identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument — the "weak or noncommittal".

Suddenly, the amiable facilitator becomes "devil's advocate." S/He dons his professional agitator hat. Using the "divide and conquer" technique, s/he manipulates one group opinion against the other. This is accomplished by manipulating those who are out of step to appear "ridiculous, unknowledgeable, inarticulate, or dogmatic." S/He wants certain members of the group to become angry, thereby forcing tensions to accelerate. The facilitator is well trained in psychological manipulation. S/He is able to predict the reactions of each group member. Individuals in opposition to the policy or program will be shut out of the group.

...

This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not.​

As to your little fight with Fossten, I could care less. That is between you and him and I am not really even reading it. I understand that you want to shift the focus onto that to draw attention away from your telling little outburst, but that issue is not my concern. I picked up on the point you bolded and decided to hightlight how it fits into those narratives that inhibit honest discourse by excluding legitimate opposing points of view from the debate.

 

[fossten]

My 'aw shucks' veneer - really Shag - that is funny. I don't hide behind cut and paste - so therefore I am 'aw shucks'. I actually can state what my opinions are without having to revert to someone else's printed thoughts. If that is 'aw shucks' well, I guess I am proud of the fact that I am of that ilk...

When you re-use the same old talking point or canard (i.e. the VRWC) over and over, you deserve a cut and paste response. It's that simple.

Nothing like a little misdirection right?

You bringing up the VWM was nothing but misdirection, as was your attempt to change the subject onto Skousen's history and his other marginal beliefs. You still haven't addressed the main topic - the points underlined by topher, and whether or not they are happening in this country.

In fact, it's safe to say that 100% of your posts in this thread have been off topic.

 

[foxpaws]

And yet, when you first came on this forum, you rarely if ever did so unless and until we started calling you on it.

Example shag - I believe I went out of my way at the beginning to argue outside of opinionated source - just go to our Jefferson/separation debate - it was you that kept trying to enter opinionated source into the debate, I very explicitly kept to exact quotes from the founding fathers.

You continue to argue this way - in fact, you have gotten to the point that you seem to have lost any opinion derived of your own experience, and now depend entirely on the opinions of others.

As to your little fight with Fossten, I could care less. That is between you and him and I am not really even reading it. I understand that you want to shift the focus onto that to draw attention away from your telling little outburst, but that issue is not my concern. I picked up on the point you bolded and decided to hightlight how it fits into those narratives that inhibit honest discourse by excluding legitimate opposing points of view from the debate.

You are reading it - otherwise the Alexander quote wouldn't have been brought to the forefront yet again shag.

And you aren't discussing the out of context part, not because of the 'inhibit honest discourse' argument, but because foss is wrong... it is wrong to take things out of context - as he did. But, you wouldn't ever, ever question foss would you? Taking out of context is pretty low - however to some extent, to be expected of foss - defense by silence is now the 'new,' even lower, level of expectation of you shag.

Hope that was 'aw shucks' enough for you shag...

I have to agree with Johnny when he posted...

We, the “Established Members” of the LvC P&CEF strive for political unity on this forum and will stop at nothing

 

[foxpaws]

You bringing up the VWM was nothing but misdirection, as was your attempt to change the subject onto Skousen's history and his other marginal beliefs. You still haven't addressed the main topic - the points underlined by topher, and whether or not they are happening in this country.

In fact, it's safe to say that 100% of your posts in this thread have been off topic.

Skousen didn't have a clue about what he was talking about when he driveled on about formless art - why should we believe his other points.

I was using that point (#22) because it is something I understand very well - so it was easy to debunk. The VWM was a good choice to use because most people know of it, and the impact it has.

Skousen wasn't speaking for the communist party - his points are just 'what he believed' that the party was trying to accomplish in the 50s.

Do you have the actual party statements that back up Skousen?

I can say the republicans want to arrest all liberals and put them in camps. Just because I say it doesn't mean that is what Republicans want. Just because Skousen said that the communists wanted the government to take over unions doesn't mean that is what the communists stated as a priority in the 50s.

Skousen is worse than hearsay - he is sort of 'makeup say'.

 

[fossten]

Skousen didn't have a clue about what he was talking about when he driveled on about formless art - why should we believe his other points.

I was using that point (#22) because it is something I understand very well - so it was easy to debunk. The VWM was a good choice to use because most people know of it, and the impact it has.

Skousen wasn't speaking for the communist party - his points are just 'what he believed' that the party was trying to accomplish in the 50s.

Do you have the actual party statements that back up Skousen?

I can say the republicans want to arrest all liberals and put them in camps. Just because I say it doesn't mean that is what Republicans want. Just because Skousen said that the communists wanted the government to take over unions doesn't mean that is what the communists stated as a priority in the 50s.

Skousen is worse than hearsay - he is sort of 'makeup say'.

So, you feebly tried to debunk one single point by discrediting Skousen, and now you're trying proof by assertion by way of appeal to authority. Do you have any actual party statements that debunk Skousen?

Again, misdirection, but you're doggedly clinging to it as an attempt to avoid addressing the entire topic as a whole.

I'm sure that when I leave this topic considering you've failed to address it, you'll claim victory as usual.

 

[shagdrum]

Example shag - I believe I went out of my way at the beginning to argue outside of opinionated source - just go to our Jefferson/separation debate - it was you that kept trying to enter opinionated source into the debate, I very explicitly kept to exact quotes from the founding fathers.

Actually, as this thread shows you were the one who attempted to cherry pick and take Jefferson out of context; distorting what he said to fit your political viewpoint and viewing his quotes in isolation then, when the quotes you cited didn't logically support your claims, you essentially made the fallacious argument that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I insisted on keeping him in context by looking at his quotes in full context and in the broader context of logical consistency with his other quotes which clearly did support what I was claiming and implicitly rejected what you were arguing.

Now that we have dealt with your attempt to distract, how about we go back to the fact that your hyperbolic generalization implicitly reject an entire point of view as illegitimate. Do you care to confront that fact or to simply dodge and delegitimize?

I have to agree with Johnny when he posted...

We, the “Established Members” of the LvC P&CEF strive for political unity on this forum and will stop at nothing

Agree with him? I wouldn't be surprise if you wrote it for him.

While Johnny is all about self-righteous indignation and emotional reaction he is not much more then that; hardly someone to associate the creativity and originality (or even basic forethought) necessary to write something like that.

 

[Calabrio]

Is this a thread about Skousen now?
Why don't we also start a thread about A.S. Herlong, jr?
Did you know that he was a Democrat from Florida? And that he died in the 90s.
Fascinating stuff.
Anyway.....

 

[Calabrio]

So far I haven't seen communists overthrow our government, nor do I ever foresee that as happening.

So do you only take note after the country is "taken over?"
Are you unfamiliar with names like Alger Hiss?
The Verona Project?
How about Van Jones?

Articles like this only serve as negative propaganda to create fear, and to delegitimize the opinions of a group or people.

Did you read the original post?
First, it was an excerpt from a book entered into the congressional record in 1963. And second, what group or opinion is this designed to delegitimatize? Communists?

This is akin to the use, and overuse of Nazi or Hitler references to attack a point of view.

What is? What are you talking about? You've automatically took on a contrary position, but you don't even understand what the position is.

You can question the historic authenticity of the record. You can argue, incorrectly, that there was no subversive effort advanced by the Soviet Union and Communist Party USA. Or, you can attempt to change the subject and use this as an opportunity to attack Skousen, like foxpaws has. But you're seemingly just demonzing it and dsmissing it without even understanding the history behind it.

Before you, I've never seen someone invest so many words, vigorously, arguing why that everyone else is ignorant and how they aren't expected to defend or explain this position.

Freedom of speech and freedom of thought is one of this countries founding principles. A government that represents the people is as well. Our country is made great by the great differences between all people and what they think. People have the right to think and believe in whatever they want.

Does this pass for enlightened or educated in your circles? It's just rambling and thoughtless. Our country is exception because of the founding documents, the constitution, and a limited government which was designed to maximize our liberty.

And people are allow to think and believe what ever they'd like.
What does that have to do with the subject here? And if they embrace a social, economic, and political philosophy that is contrary that is adversarial to the systems established here, should we look the other way if it is advanced in a subversive, clandestine manner?

Besides, much of what is stated in that article are only determined subjectively, and only run counter to conservative views. Self-serving rhetoric.

Such as what?

That being said, for the most part, concerns about Communists have been ridiculous and overblown.

For the sake of discussion, could you provide some examples where this "concern about communist" have been ridiculous and overblown?

You don't really have a background in political history, and based on your age, you probably have absolutely no memory of the Soviet Union. And what you do remember would be limited to the fawning portrayal of Gorbachev during the 80s.

Is it your position that people should be punished for having different views on government than your own?

Where did someone state that people should be punished for having a view that I disagree with?

Where does that end?

Where did that conversation begin.
Though, the communists have historically demonstrated great tolerance for dissenting opinions, haven't they.

Should we also punish people with different religious views while we are at it?

Again, you'd have to ask the communists and their record on the free expression of religion.

Do you believe the US was fully justified and acted righteously during the time of the communist "witch-hunts" prior to and following World War II?

Again, I'll ask you-
are you familiar with Alger Hiss
Julian and Ethel Rosenberg.
The Verona Project.

Those aren't obscure examples. And if you don't know about those things you're incapable of having this discussion. There absolutely was a coordinated effort by the Soviet Union to infiltrate the United States government at high levels. This is historic fact. The FDR and Truman administrations had a number of very highly ranked communist party members.

Would you be comfortable if the current administration had a number of Al-Queda members in the White House? Or would purging them be a denial of their "rights" and failure to embrace their "differences" as you've implied earlier?

 

[Calabrio]

Also, Find, are you familiar with Howard Zinn?
Do you have an opinion of him?

 

[FIND]

I am familiar with all of those people and the VERONA project. You bring up 3 spies and an anti-espionage program and you think that that alone is justification for the thousands of arrests.

Now, let's see if you recognize some names: Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner Jr. John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, and Dalton Trumbo. Maybe we can dig up the other 300 names too. None of these people were a threat to national security, they just went to parties, or had some sympathy to some very liberal causes. While we are on the subject of hysterical responses to political views, what was the evidence against Sacco and Vanzetti in their murder trial, oh yeah, they were anarchists.... Gee, I can't even remember the number of people arrested because they were communist or socialist and happened to protest against WWII, or just be involved with, connected to, or listening to people who did so.

I said that the anti-communist sentiment in this country was FOR THE MOST PART ridiculous and overblown. That does not mean that there was never any cause to be concerned about subversive acts against the US by foreign powers.

Now, to address your question of how this is negative propaganda, as if you don't know.....

Note the first line of it:

This was foretold in 1963, and you look at much of today's culture and you find that many of these things are happening, we need to do a complete 360 with this country and turn it around to the great country it used to be. Some one dug this up and posted it on facebook so I thought it was important to share

I'd say someone was speaking against liberals..... Not that that isn't obvious to you, you are just trying to be difficult. At least cammerfe got the point of the article, and tried to use it as intended.

What in the article is only counter to conservative views? hmmm

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

Coexistance with the Soviet Union was definitely better than apocalypse. What other option was there? The overthrow of the Soviet state and HOPE everyone at the missile complexes called in sick?

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

The communist government in China was as legitimate a government as any other that they had. The communists did succeed in one thing that every other form of government in China had failed to do though. They fed the people. Also, China has become quite the industrial and financial powerhouse. As China moves more and more to a free market in many sectors, you cannot deny their economic power.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

this one I am only adding because it is silly. The UN is not set up as a world government, it is just a forum for nations. Sure, it has some policing powers and whatnot, but you would never be able to charge people with things like war crimes, without some organization of international law.

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

Why should it be outlawed? You don't like free speech?

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

You claim a lot of things violate your civil rights and would like many government agencies or powers weakened so that they cannot. Want to get back on the subject of hate-crime, hate-speech, and anti-discrimination laws?

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

How can you tell the difference between someone who degrades art because it is crappy, or someone who degrades art because in someone's imagination, communism will come out of calling certain art crap?

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

see above

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

Yet you think hate-speech, hate-crime, and anti-discrimination laws are censorship? I have a friend who thinks the word Boobs is an obscenity and pointed out how poorly that speaks of our culture that you hear it all the time on TV or in movies. To think, at the same time, conservatives are always complaining about the PC efforts of liberals.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

see above.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

another conservative viewpoint. Not one worth arguing about in this thread.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

have a look at my last post

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

Personally, I hate when people feel the need to flaunt their religion in front of me. I wouldn't outlaw it or anything else, I just make fun of them for their stupidity. But still. I wonder how many times I have heard conservative or christian groups complain about children participating in religious expression when it comes to islam?

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

It always surprised me to see this in the list. Conservative groups have always been the ones pushing these types of agendas in the US.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

Conservative christian POV. Great double standard too.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

Tea party meeting?


FDR and Truman had a bunch of high ranked communist party members. Well setting aside the fact that some of those findings were only due to witch hunt tactics. Did those officials engage in espionage? Did those individuals effectively do their jobs?

Lastly, yes I am familiar with Zinn. IIRC the FBI wanted to arrest him for protesting against the Vietnam War and for supporting Martin Luther King. What does he have to do with this thread? Sure he promoted some socialist and anarchistic views, but meh, free speech gets you again.


So now, you want to give me a response that isn't quite so condescending or slanderous?

LIBERAL TROLL WARNING:​

The above post was made by a LvC member that has been branded a “LIBERAL TROLL” by the “Established Members” of the LvC Politics & Current Events Forum (P&CEF). The content of the above post is exclusively that of the “LIBERAL TROLL” and in no way reflects the opinions of the “Established Members” and in fact, is subject to the following actions by the “Established Members”: Ridicule, dismissal, ad hominem personal attacks, misconstrue, misdirection, projection, rejection, censorship, fact-free criticism, and flat-out talking bad about his mother.

Other LvC P&CEF members are free to, and are in fact encourage to establishing “street-cred” by joining the “Established Members” in their participation of the above actions. Your participation in piling on this and all other “LIBERAL TROLLS” will be rewarded with 24/7 online moral support by the “Established Members” and like-minded LvC P&CEF moderators. If you don’t agree with something that this, or any other “LIBERAL TROLL” posts regardless of factual basis used, merely notify one of the LvC P&CEF moderators and they will promptly edit or delete offending post as appropriate. We, the “Established Members” of the LvC P&CEF strive for political unity on this forum and will stop at nothing to purge all “LIBERAL TROLLs” to achieve that goal.

 

[Calabrio]

You bring up 3 spies and an anti-espionage program and you think that that alone is justification for the thousands of arrests.

This is news to me.
Please, teach us about these "thousands of (communist) arrests" that took place. While I've studied an awful lot of U.S. history, I haven't ever come across the period of our history where we were rounding up "thousands" of communists and arresting them.

Maybe we can dig up the other 300 names too. None of these people were a threat to national security, they just went to parties, or had some sympathy to some very liberal causes.

No, they were member of the communist party, and it was a subversive organization with direct ties to the Soviet Union.

Gee, I can't even remember the number of people arrested because they were communist or socialist and happened to protest against WWII, or just be involved with, connected to, or listening to people who did so.

We can discuss the tyranny of FDR if you like.

I'd say someone was speaking against liberals.....

The Democrat who introduced the piece to the congressional record?

What in the article is only counter to conservative views? hmmm

Perhaps that says something about how you view liberalism.

Coexistance with the Soviet Union was definitely better than apocalypse. What other option was there?

No, the option wasn't apocalypse.
Perhaps you should learn about Ronald Reagan, Margeret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and maybe a little on Lech Walesa.

I don't want to go through the list line by line with you and invest the energy to teaching you history simply for you to ignore it; the interesting part of this article isn't the list itself, it's WHEN the list was written. It FORESHADOWS things that were to come, in some cases by 30 and 40 years.

FDR and Truman had a bunch of high ranked communist party members. Well setting aside the fact that some of those findings were only due to witch hunt tactics. Did those officials engage in espionage? Did those individuals effectively do their jobs?

Yes. Thank you for AGAIN demonstrating how limited your knowledge of history is. I thought you said you knew who Alger Hiss was, and that was only ONE example.

Lastly, yes I am familiar with Zinn. IIRC the FBI wanted to arrest him for protesting against the Vietnam War and for supporting Martin Luther King. What does he have to do with this thread? Sure he promoted some socialist and anarchistic views, but meh, free speech gets you again.

No, he was a radical communist party member, yet he's presented as a 'liberal' and his revisionist books on history are some of the mostly widely assigned books within the University system.

He died recently and the FBI released his file.
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/zinn_howard.htm

Again, just something else you didn't know about.
I suggest you drop the condescending tone.

So now, you want to give me a response that isn't quite so condescending or slanderous?

I wouldn't condescend or slander. You must interpret things that way because of some insecurity.
You have absolutely no historic perspective or background, yet you have the arrogance to presume you know everything without investing any effort.
It doesn't work that way.

 

[foxpaws]

Actually, as this thread shows you were the one who attempted to cherry pick and take Jefferson out of context; distorting what he said to fit your political viewpoint and viewing his quotes in isolation then, when the quotes you cited didn't logically support your claims, you essentially made the fallacious argument that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Oh, please do read that thread - you will find out a very basic difference between shag and myself - shag is concerned only with the what have beens... I ask what could be. It is the crux of that argument. However I didn't take Jefferson out of context, in fact, I found a huge amount of Jefferson that supported my argument, within context.

Now that we have dealt with your attempt to distract, how about we go back to the fact that your hyperbolic generalization implicitly reject an entire point of view as illegitimate. Do you care to confront that fact or to simply dodge and delegitimize?

Not quite sure where you are going here shag - should we reject Skousen out of hand. Not without good cause. So, lets look at 'cause'. The list he wrote were only his 'ideas' of what the communist party was trying to achieve, and he doesn't have any backing for that, no little red pamphlets or such. Also, it is pretty easy to debunk items in the list - or look at them as things that most people were for - the nuclear retaliation thing for instance as Find brought up. He believed that Eisenhower was a communist agent. He was a member of the John Birch Society. He profited greatly from the red scare, and it was best for him to continue it, his 'anti-communist rants' are how he earned his living, and as the McCarthy era was winding down, I am sure he saw the writing on the wall, and felt his ability to earn slipping away (this is very important - to ensure your livelihood people do many things, some bordering dishonesty). Best to keep us scared and afraid of the 'red threat', so his work would continue to sell. If you only had one or two reasonable causes to question his 'list' you might be able to over look them. However, as the list of reasons to doubt Skousen grows, the validity of his 'communist list' diminishes.

And the fact that it is in the Congressional Record means absolutely nothing - that leads it zero credence.

Agree with him? I wouldn't be surprise if you wrote it for him.

While Johnny is all about self-righteous indignation and emotional reaction he is not much more then that; hardly someone to associate the creativity and originality (or even basic forethought) necessary to write something like that.

Nope shag - Johnny and I can think for ourselves - I realize a concept that has lately begun to escape you...

But, thank you for the compliment nonetheless.

 

[foxpaws]

Oh FIND - this one is easy too...

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

Without free trade Communist China wouldn't be the mostly capitalist state it is today. Thanks to the USAs support of Global Free Trade (with some caveats) the rest of the world gets to understand first hand how great capitalism is. Capitalism is what caused the Soviet Union to fail, and it is moving China slowly away from Maoist type communism. Free trade is our best selling point for democracy.

And anything can be used in war - monitors for tvs, cameras, desks - that certainly is stretching things.

This is exactly the opposite of what Communists would want. Free Trade hurts communism, it doesn't encourage it.

There will be a couple that will be hard to debunk - because they really are part of communist thought - the union one for instance. But I think as we go through the list you will find they are either things that have been with us long before communism, or really are societal changes, and not regime type changes, or are just common sense things. This list isn't about communism, it is about one man's irrational fears.

 

[shagdrum]

shag is concerned only with the what have beens... I ask what could be.

...to go with the "explore" idea you want is pointless and achieves nothing. No real knowledge on the subject is gained, only knowledge on how to make more clever arguments; because that is all that is ultimately going on. It is not based on reality and is only based on who can put the most clever and convincing spin on certain facts. No realistic truth can be discerned in that type of discussion.

To "explore", to focus on "what could be" is simply to eschew truth in favor of spin and distortion, especially in the context of historical interpretation found in that thread.

However, focusing on truth is antithema to a postmodernist like you, eh? It is all about delegitimizing concepts, traditions, etc. as expedience dictates in the dishonest promotion of your agenda.

Not quite sure where you are going here shag - should we reject Skousen out of hand.

That is not what I am talking about and you know it. Nice attempt to dodge and distract, though.

 

[FIND]

This is news to me.
Please, teach us about these "thousands of (communist) arrests" that took place. While I've studied an awful lot of U.S. history, I haven't ever come across the period of our history where we were rounding up "thousands" of communists and arresting them.

Not all at once, no. Obviously you are forgetting a good chunk of history if you think that never happened in this country. Although in most cases, it was a slap on the wrist and they asked you to name a couple other people in the party.

No, they were member of the communist party, and it was a subversive organization with direct ties to the Soviet Union.

Oh, so they were guilty of espionage until proven innocent just because they supported communist views? Now, aside from the fact that they were not all even proven to be real members of the communist party, and none of them were REALLY proven to have ties with the Soviet Union, and none of them were really engaging in subversive acts against the US..... Wait, what were they blacklisted for again?

We can discuss the tyranny of FDR if you like.

So, you think he was a communist now?

The Democrat who introduced the piece to the congressional record?

Now I was very obviously talking about the reason topher posted it. Don't act stupid, you don't appear to be.

Perhaps that says something about how you view liberalism.

Trying to change the subject?

No, the option wasn't apocalypse.
Perhaps you should learn about Ronald Reagan, Margeret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II, and maybe a little on Lech Walesa.

Wow, yeah, they coexisted with the Soviet Union keeping a reasonable distance away. What other option are you talking about, since the list was originally introduced by politicians who wanted to label any effort to NOT dismantle the Soviet Union as a communist goal.

I don't want to go through the list line by line with you and invest the energy to teaching you history simply for you to ignore it; the interesting part of this article isn't the list itself, it's WHEN the list was written. It FORESHADOWS things that were to come, in some cases by 30 and 40 years.

Teach me history huh? I think I'll pass on your history lessons. They sound like they are about as slanted as your views on government and politics. Nice diversion BTW. Maybe if you keep saying stuff like that, people will believe that anything I said in that list has anything to do with history or a failure to understand it. I do sincerely hope you aren't trying to suggest that I don't know what I am talking about when it came to the china bit. I am kinda a history buff when it comes to Eastern Asia, especially China in the early 1900s and Japan from the period just prior to the period of the Meiji revolution until WWII.

Yes. Thank you for AGAIN demonstrating how limited your knowledge of history is. I thought you said you knew who Alger Hiss was, and that was only ONE example.

Did I say that no one in his administration engaged in espionage? In fact, you probably want to re-read my posts, as I have clearly noted that there are and have always been spies. A few limited examples do not justify hysteria, nor do a few limited examples mean that your statements are universally true.

No, he was a radical communist party member, yet he's presented as a 'liberal' and his revisionist books on history are some of the mostly widely assigned books within the University system.

WRONG. The FBI classified him as a communist when they first opened their file on him. He is not a communist party member. He WAS pretty outspoken in support of socialist or anarchist policies. The FBI classified him as extremely dangerous only after he began speaking out against the Vietnam war. Try again.

He died recently and the FBI released his file.
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/zinn_howard.htm

No chit, read it.

Again, just something else you didn't know about.
I suggest you drop the condescending tone.

HAH

I wouldn't condescend or slander. You must interpret things that way because of some insecurity.

You say that, but in the next line:

You have absolutely no historic perspective or background, yet you have the arrogance to presume you know everything without investing any effort.
It doesn't work that way.

You sir, have no idea what you are talking about, thank you for proving such. You seem to want to sit back and declare that people have no idea what they are talking about without providing any factual basis, or without having any idea what you are talking about yourself. You seem to claim a monopoly on knowledge of history because you are a little older than me, and you will not put any effort into HONEST study of anything, preferring only slanted propaganda.

LIBERAL TROLL WARNING:​

The above post was made by a LvC member that has been branded a “LIBERAL TROLL” by the “Established Members” of the LvC Politics & Current Events Forum (P&CEF). The content of the above post is exclusively that of the “LIBERAL TROLL” and in no way reflects the opinions of the “Established Members” and in fact, is subject to the following actions by the “Established Members”: Ridicule, dismissal, ad hominem personal attacks, misconstrue, misdirection, projection, rejection, censorship, fact-free criticism, and flat-out talking bad about his mother.

Other LvC P&CEF members are free to, and are in fact encouraged to establish “street-cred” by joining the “Established Members” in their participation of the above actions. Your participation in piling on this and all other “LIBERAL TROLLS” will be rewarded with 24/7 online moral support by the “Established Members” and like-minded LvC P&CEF moderators. If you don’t agree with something that this, or any other “LIBERAL TROLL” posts regardless of factual basis used, merely notify one of the LvC P&CEF moderators and they will promptly edit or delete offending post as appropriate. We, the “Established Members” of the LvC P&CEF strive for political unity on this forum and will stop at nothing to purge all “LIBERAL TROLLs” to achieve that goal.

 

[FIND]

Oh FIND - this one is easy too...

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

Without free trade Communist China wouldn't be the mostly capitalist state it is today. Thanks to the USAs support of Global Free Trade (with some caveats) the rest of the world gets to understand first hand how great capitalism is. Capitalism is what caused the Soviet Union to fail, and it is moving China slowly away from Maoist type communism. Free trade is our best selling point for democracy.

And anything can be used in war - monitors for tvs, cameras, desks - that certainly is stretching things.

This is exactly the opposite of what Communists would want. Free Trade hurts communism, it doesn't encourage it.

There will be a couple that will be hard to debunk - because they really are part of communist thought - the union one for instance. But I think as we go through the list you will find they are either things that have been with us long before communism, or really are societal changes, and not regime type changes, or are just common sense things. This list isn't about communism, it is about one man's irrational fears.

my list was only meant to serve to demonstrate how this list was made to support the agenda of politicians at the time, and how use of this list currently supports the agenda of the right.

Of course, that union one you mentioned..... well, that is the goal of every political and social movement, to infiltrate things like unions to give their message more power.

 

[shagdrum]

Not all at once, no. Obviously you are forgetting a good chunk of history if you think that never happened in this country. Although in most cases, it was a slap on the wrist and they asked you to name a couple other people in the party.

Proof? Evidence? Anything?

Oh, so they were guilty of espionage until proven innocent just because they supported communist views?

Who said this?

You really might want to do your research on this subject. There is a lot of distortion on this from the left that can be easily disproven by simply looking at the direct evidence. However, since the distortion comes from the left, we know you will uncritically accept it.

 

[shagdrum]

my list was only meant to serve to demonstrate how this list was made to support the agenda of politicians at the time

There is absolutely NOTHING that you have shown that logically supports that conclusion. At best, you have circumstantial evidence that only supports that claim if you already assume it to be true. That is called circular reasoning...

 

[foxpaws]

To "explore", to focus on "what could be" is simply to eschew truth in favor of spin and distortion, especially in the context of historical interpretation found in that thread.

However, focusing on truth is antithema to a postmodernist like you, eh? It is all about delegitimizing concepts, traditions, etc. as expedience dictates in the dishonest promotion of your agenda.

Shag - where would we be if we never looked to 'what could be'... if we never 'explored'. Narrow definitions, fear of the unknown - those certainly aren't what made us what we are.

There is nothing wrong with tradition - but I am rather glad that the founding fathers didn't hold to the tradition of God/King/Lords/Peers/rabble.... Sometimes you eschew tradition, just because you have done it for centuries, doesn't make it right. We would probably be sacrificing virgins to the volcano gods if tradition held fast....

That is not what I am talking about and you know it. Nice attempt to dodge and distract, though.

So, no I don't know what you are talking about....

Now that we have dealt with your attempt to distract, how about we go back to the fact that your hyperbolic generalization implicitly reject an entire point of view as illegitimate. Do you care to confront that fact or to simply dodge and delegitimize?

So, that is one of the most convoluted paragraphs I have ever read... how about getting off your elitist horse - and 'aw shucks' me...

 

[Calabrio]

Not all at once, no. Obviously you are forgetting a good chunk of history if you think that never happened in this country. Although in most cases, it was a slap on the wrist and they asked you to name a couple other people in the party.

If you're talking about internment camps, then you're right. In the 20th century, the United States under Woodrow Wilson and FDR, has interned German Americans, Italian Americans, and Japanese American. But never has this been done because of communist affiliations. And that's not what we're talking about in this thread.

You seem to be disregarding the historical context of the events and tensions of the cold war, there were organized subversive efforts by the Soviet Union. The concerns about Communists weren't without merit as you are implying. The Soviet's had extremely high level spies in the White House and government which severe compromised our security during these periods, and there absolutely WAS a concerted effort within Hollywood, in labor, and in the media to advance a subversive, pro-Soviet, communist agenda through media and art.

No one was imprisoned for simply believing in Marxist theory.

Oh, so they were guilty of espionage until proven innocent just because they supported communist views?

Did anyone say they were all "guilty of espionage" for simple embracing communist ideas?
I didn't. No one has.
But do you think there's a problem when they are members of a subversive organization with foreign ties to an enemy that wishes to destroy us?

There really is no similar example to refer to in current times, but would you think it acceptable for members of Al-Queda, or Al-Queda front groups, to have high level jobs in the state department or influencing popular media?

Now, aside from the fact

Let's address this real quick.
I suggest you stop using the word "fact." You don't deal in facts, you really don't know them. You should say, "Based upon my extremely limited understanding of history...." because that would be far more accurate.

So, you think he was a communist now?

Would you like to have a discussion about FDR in another thread? He's an interesting man and not someone I hold in very high esteem.
I didn't say that he was a "communist, " I said that if you'd like to discuss the tyranny of FDR we can.
You don't have to be a member of the communist party to be tyrannical.

Trying to change the subject?

Well, you're certainly not capable of discussing this topic intelligently....

Wow, yeah, they coexisted with the Soviet Union keeping a reasonable distance away. What other option are you talking about, since the list was originally introduced by politicians who wanted to label any effort to NOT dismantle the Soviet Union as a communist goal.

You're presuming quite a lot, but, you simply don't have the history to back it up yet you now imply an understanding of what the author of the list was speaking of 47 years ago, and you also understand the competing foreign policy approaches taken 30 years ago-

Let's just be honest here.... you don't know much about this subject. You weren't aware during the cold war. You've never been interested in it. And what little you know had been picked up through the main stream media peripherally. It's very difficult to condense the Cold War into a concise message board posts, especially when you're so absolutely hostile to accepting any information that challenges your limited world view.

So now, when we discuss issues related to the Cold War and Soviet/communist tensions, you have no frame of reference.

There were competing views regarding how to handle the Soviet Union. The idea presented in this particular 'article', the one speaking of accepting the dual hegemony reflected the foreign policy demonstrated by someone like Jimmy Carter. That was to simply accept the existence and conditions presented by the existence of the Soviet Union and allow them a reasonable amount of expansion. Mutually Assured destruction was in the background, but there was never to be a situation where we had absolute military dominance. When possible we'd enter into weapons treaties with the Soviets and while we kept our word, we'd pretend that they actually were going to abide by them.

Reagan, and the rest of the true leaders that I mentioned, had a very different approach. They felt that the evil of Communism should be confronted directly. That it could be defeated, millions of people would be freed, and the world would be better for it. It didn't have to be through a direct hot war, but it could done in a variety of ways. Through the churches. By spreading freedom into the occupied Eastern European countries. Through the arms race that the Soviet had no ability to keep up with financially or technologically. Through efforts to expand our culture, ie. getting Levis jeans and cassette tapes into the Soviet Union. And by preventing the unobstructed expansion of communism throughout the world in places like Afghanistan or Latin America.

Teach me history huh? I think I'll pass on your history lessons.

I'm detecting a pattern here, you've clearly skipped a lot of opportunities to learn history.

I do sincerely hope you aren't trying to suggest that I don't know what I am talking about when it came to the china bit.

No, I'm speaking in generalities.
You generally don't know what you're talking about.

I am kinda a history buff when it comes to Eastern Asia, especially China in the early 1900s and Japan from the period just prior to the period of the Meiji revolution until WWII.

..that's very interesting.
Unfortunately, it have virtually nothing to do with this conversation- as you've demonstrated.

Did I say that no one in his administration engaged in espionage? In fact, you probably want to re-read my posts, as I have clearly noted that there are and have always been spies. A few limited examples do not justify hysteria, nor do a few limited examples mean that your statements are universally true.

The examples weren't few or limited, you really should do some research on the subject.
I would offer you some suggestions, but anything more balanced than Howard Zinn would probably be labeled "propaganda" by you.

WRONG. The FBI classified him as a communist when they first opened their file on him. He is not a communist party member. He WAS pretty outspoken in support of socialist or anarchist policies. The FBI classified him as extremely dangerous only after he began speaking out against the Vietnam war. Try again.

No, he absolutely WASa communist party member along with other communist front groups. And they had files on him dating back to the 1940s.
He did leave the communist party, but only to go on to even more radical groups, like supporting the Black Panthers Party, Maoist Progressive Labor Party, the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, and the governments of Cuba and North Vietnam.

And he then wrote his "People's History of the United States" book that is used to "teach" (brainwash) students to this day.
It's assigned in school and it was recently made into a television miniseries.
All while pretending the book is both fair and truthful. It's not.

You seem to claim a monopoly on knowledge of history because you are a little older than me,, preferring only slanted propaganda.

First of all, am I older than you?
I don't presume to know that I am or am not. If there's any age difference, either way, I'm confident it's negligible. If I thought age were of any significance, I'd then have to conclude foxpaws was the most knowledgeable person here. That clearly is not the case.

And I don't prefer "slanted propaganda." That claim, again, demonstrates, just how grossly ignorant you are. You seem to think anything outside of your narrow world view and woefully limited study of history is "slanted propaganda." Unlike you, I've done the research and I've read many of the books and listened to the lectures from people that I don't agree with yet still respect. I aggressively and actively seek out dissenting views to challenge my world view. It's absolutely critical that an intellectually honest person do that. Maybe someday you will have that same kind of intellectual honesty and integrity to do the same.

I've stated this repeatedly, but I would like nothing more for this tiny forum to have some thoughtful, articulate, and honest people who disagree with me participating here. So far, you haven't demonstrated any of those positive characteristics because you've instead chose to be overly defensive and confrontational. You insist upon being an expert on all things, yet being unable to demonstrate even a basic understanding.

I will be honest, based on your written history here, I'd be tempted to bet your background on Mejii comes from watching Kurosawa movies....but maybe that was just what motivated you to research a fascinating period of Japanese history. Tell you what, I'll defer to you on specific issues associated with the Meiji revolution, thought I've read quite a bit on that myself, if you recognize that you might not be equally as knowledgeable on issues of foreign policy, political philosophy, or constitutional principles as all the other members here- combined.

 

[foxpaws]

I'd then have to conclude foxpaws was the most knowledgeable person here.

Thank you Cal I now have a superb 'out of context' quote...

And - we all have areas of expertise - you might not want to 'blanket' that statement about anyone. I could probably rip you apart when it comes to the science of vehicle suspension

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - where would we be if we never looked to 'what could be'... if we never 'explored'. Narrow definitions, fear of the unknown - those certainly aren't what made us what we are.

I am not saying "never" but in appropriate contexts. Looking to discern the truth about an historical figure's views is not the appropriate place for intellectual "experimentation" but for intellectual humility.

And definitions are no place for experimentation as changing those only serves to confuse and hinder both discourse and wisdom. As William Godwin put it, "Accuracy of language is the indispensable prerequisite of sound knowledge."

There is nothing wrong with tradition - but I am rather glad that the founding fathers didn't hold to the tradition of God/King/Lords/Peers/rabble.... Sometimes you eschew tradition, just because you have done it for centuries, doesn't make it right. We would probably be sacrificing virgins to the volcano gods if tradition held fast....

Tradition contains within it a certain wisdom derived from the trial and error of countless generations; from experience of our ancestors. That doesn't mean that tradition is eternal or should be treated as such, but there is an inherent wisdom in there that mere articulated rationality cannot touch and it would be foolish to discount that out of hand. As Hayek put it...

The growth of knowledge and the growth of civilization are the same only if we interpret knowledge to include all the human adaptations to environment in which past experience has been incorporated. Not all knowledge in this sense is part of out intellect, nor is our intellect the whole of knowledge. Our habits and skills, our emotional attitudes, our tools, and our institutions - all are in this sense adaptations to past experience which have grown up by selective elimination of less suitable conduct. They are as much an indispensable foundation of successful action as is our conscious knowledge.​

As to the Framers eschewing tradition, that is not accurate. The Constitution was the end result of a unique culture, with it's own traditions and customs rising up through previous generations in the colonies. As Russell Kirk observed:

True constitutions are not invented: they grow. The Constitution of the United States has endured for two centuries because it arose from the healthy roots of more than two centuries of colonial experience and of several centuries of British experience. For the most part, the American Constitution expressed formally what already was accepted, practiced, and believed in by the people of the new republic. A constitution without deep roots is no true constitution at all.​

Jefferson confirmed as much when discussing the Declaration and what it was meant it's purpose was:

This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.
-Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825​

 

[fossten]

Shag - where would we be if we never looked to 'what could be'... if we never 'explored'. Narrow definitions, fear of the unknown - those certainly aren't what made us what we are.

There you go with the straw man again. Clearly Shag is talking about a very narrow focus - history - and you're mischaracterizing his position to say that we should NEVER look into the future. Your entire premise is a house of cards, and thus your entire post is disingenuous. In addition, you inch further out on this shaky limb by being preachy - and condescending. Makes you look foolish.

So, that is one of the most convoluted paragraphs I have ever read... how about getting off your elitist horse - and 'aw shucks' me...

This is ironic, considering how often you shoot from your ivory tower...

I could probably rip you apart when it comes to the science of vehicle suspension

Yeah, but can you do a coil conversion on a Mark VIII by yourself in a garage only 12 feet wide with no power tools?

Oh, and you've got me when it comes to abstract art.

Teach me history huh? I think I'll pass on your history lessons.

This encapsulates FIND's entire purpose for being here - he's not here to learn anything; in fact, he assumes nobody else knows anything. He's just here to bite ankles and argue why he doesn't have to respond to anything.