Today on Blogcritics
Home » Newt Gingrich Is Un-American

Newt Gingrich Is Un-American

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

You don’t have to believe me about the title assertion, nor do you have to believe Keith Olbermann. I know that the both of us don’t appeal to the tastes of those who send me so much inventive invective plagiarized from the latest screeds of the far right wing.

Maybe it would interest you wonderful folks to know that the creators of the modern American far right wing – the John Birch Society – also think that Newt is un-American?

They certainly do!

Newt Gingrich said on November 27,2006 while addressing the annual Loeb First Amendment Dinner in Manchester, N.H. that Free Speech Should Be Curtailed To Fight Terrorism.

The Birch Society’s response?

“Newt Gingrich, the proto-commissar who gave us NAFTA, now proposes to turn the U.S. into a police state. Gingrich, who is mulling a run for the presidency in 2008, said that freedom of speech should be abandoned in order to fight terrorism. Would government be turned to the purposes proposed by Gingrich, the power of the law would be used to destroy those very rights the government was created to protect.”

Privacy is one of those rights, and it is also under assault by those represented by Gingrich. Many people are complaining about the intrusiveness of government since George W. Bush was handed the election by the US Supremem Court, including Rush Limbaugh, who for once is ranting about something I can agree with: the government using consumer technology – and your employers’ records – to spy on you.

“If your company gets involved in a lawsuit (and let’s face it, most companies are targeted for lawsuits every day) and your area in the company is touched on by the lawsuit, anything you have written — e-mail, instant message, photos — is subject to discovery, and your employer now has to keep all of that.

“Everything you write; every phone call you make, you never know who’s listening in. You’re going to have to make sure that you never say anything that you wouldn’t want published in a magazine or a newspaper, that you wouldn’t want read back to you as you’re a witness on the stand in a trial…

“Just make sure that you never write anything that you wouldn’t want read back to you while you sit on the stand, in court, in front of a jury.”

It doesn’t stop with email or voice mail. Even digital photos of work sites count.

But wait! There’s more!

The FBI can use your cell phone as a remote microphone anytime they want, so you might want to watch what you say even if it’s turned off. They can also activate your phone camera if they choose. They can even hear you through your OnStar system while you drive.

There isn’t anywhere in this country you can be sure that you aren’t being monitored. You can read more about this here if you have a mind to.

But do ask yourself this question: Is this the sort of “freedom” almost 3,000 Americans died “providing ” to Iraqis?

I don’t think any of them thought so. It would be extremely un-American.

Powered by

About pessimist

  • http://www.gweissestate.com/blog/gweiss Gina Weiss

    So many Americans are wrapped in their own little cocoons of apathy & complacency…seems to me they don’t really care until it actually enters that little world of theirs.

  • Maurice

    I only read this because I am a big fan of Newt and read all his books. Your article started out as a credible critique of his statement and then wandered off to paranoia land.

    I am sure many will point this out better than me but here goes. There are many exceptions to free speech including libel, insider trading, purjury. National security seems a reasonable addition to the list of exceptions.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Maurice, if you agree with Newt that we have to dismantle the Constitution in order to save it, the question that follows is: whom do you trust to make these decisions? Police states have used similar justifications for curtailing rights. Where and how do you draw the line?

    Later in Newt’s speech he had the gall to whine that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law tramples on free speech rights. This is a stupid Republican chestnut, but in context it is much more offensive than usual.

    I guess I hope this divisive loudmouth does run for president. It could be entertaining, and he has no chance of being nominated. (Wait, does he?)

  • Maurice

    I didn’t say dismantle the constitution.

    I said we already have many accepted exceptions to free speech. As you noted McCain-Feingold is one of those exceptions.

    I hope he runs also. He would be a lone rational voice that has not been heard since the revolution of 1994.

  • Clavos

    …he has no chance of being nominated. (Wait, does he?)

    I certainly hope so.

  • Franco

    #2 — Maurice

    There are many exceptions to free speech including libel, insider trading, purjury. National security seems a reasonable addition to the list of exceptions.

    Bulls eye. It could not have been said better.

    Realist

    You lefty socialits still don’t get it. Your use of the term “far right wing” is a delusion that you suffer from not conservitives. Today’s concervitives are what the left used to call average conservatives. Morals and standaards used to be supported by the left and right together. Today the right is the only remaining majoriy hanging on to those same standards but are now being called “far right wing” by the new left. It shows you who has changed.

    Realest says….

    Maybe it would interest you wonderful folks to know that the creators of the modern American far right wing – the John Birch Society – also think that Newt is un-American?

    Here is the proof of what I wrote above. John Birch has nothing to do with modern American conservatives. Realest, your head is in a dark moist chamber of approximately 98.6 degrees F. I suggest you remove it so you can get some freah air and start being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

    Realestm my question to you is this. What if anything Newt said would look attractive to you if the follow reality were to materialize.

    One of Americas major cites suffers an attack of bio-weapons and it is now estimated that it has contaminated between 50 to 70% of the population. Countless start to suffer horrible effects and start dying and countless others can not even get to medical treatment or hospitals due to massive system over load. As the panic spreads people try to leave the city however the National Guard and even the US Army have surrounded the city to keep potentially infected persons from going elsewhere. People are shot as they try and escape. The city is under military occupation with no public access in or out except primary US military and authorized bio engineers and there staff workers. Dead victims are growing in number literally everywhere, shops, stores, apartments, homes, the public transportation system, its endless. Public works have been reduced to little efficiency and services come to a slow crawl. All businesses are closed. Riots start. Every city in America is also starting to suffer from the lose of this once great American city. The world stock market starts its slide. The US dollar falls to historical lows against all other major world currencies. Other sleeping terrorist cells in other major cites are elated and join in with what ever smaller terrorist acts they can which causes massive abnormal panic to citizens and public officials that strains the system even more. Everything starts to compound upon itself as the US starts to enter its greatest depression ever which immediately starts to send seriously damaging shock waves around the world compounding the poverty and starvation rates to new historic highs. Millions up on millions die worldwide as a result. The Islamic Imperialism that set off the bio attack is now letting loose its full fiery furry world wide as it feeds on the momentum of the attack on the great satin.

    American life and the world has changed forever as we know it. A police state is necessary to restore order to the land while the military tries to stave off additional attacks, both military and economic.

    OK Realest, facing this reality, what if any of Newts suggestions would you now like to reconsider as having some insight into the seriousness we face today that can easily bring about the above described events if strong measures are not engaged now, before it happens.

    Come on big boy, let’s see if you can stop your winning and address serious and real threats to our freedoms at levels you seem to think do not exist.

  • Nancy

    Franco, you’d be a lot more credible if a) you used your spell check, and b) you stopped lobbing offensive terms like “lefty socialists” against anybody who doesn’t think in lockstep to you. It’s unAmerican, and like Mr. Gingrinch, a direct bow to his true inspiration, the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy of unlamented memory.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Putting aside my personal dislike of Newt, I have to object to your characterization of the Birchers as far right wing. They’ve always been associated with the left and the Democratic party, and I don’t see how that’s changed in recent years, except that maybe everyone’s moved more towards the middle so they can’t really be lumped in with either political wing anymore.

    Dave

  • D’oh

    You have got to be kidding me.

    Here I would have thought that true “conservatism” would be all about protecting and defending the rights of citizens under the Constitution.

    Anything less undermines American values, and giving up ANY of our rights cedes victory to the very same forces such measures propose to combat.

    Does “don’t tread on me” sound familiar?

    How about “live Free or Die”?

    My favorite still remains the Ben Franklin quote, “Those who would sacrifice Liberty for some sense of Security , deserve neither.”

    Quislings need not apply.

  • Nancy

    Touche, D’oh! The amuzing/ironic/appalling thing is, of course the one to determine the guidelines would be Mr. Gingrich, some animals being more equal (& enlightened or knowledgable?) than others, of course.

  • Lumpy

    Why are we talking about newt? If we ignore him he might just go away.

    No one is going to vote for him. He’s too divisive and too unappealing.

    Hell, if you want to vote for a has-been let’s bring back Jack Kemp.

  • MCH

    I don’t know how un-American Gingrich is, but he’s definitely a hypocrite and a chickenhawk. During Vietnam, he used several different deferments to dodge the draft. And then years later said, “What difference could I have made over there?”

    Hey Gingrich…tell that to the family of the guy who couldn’t afford to buy his way out and took your place, dying face down in the mud in Southeast Asia, while you were back home hiding out in college.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dave: “I have to object to your characterization of the Birchers as far right wing. They’ve always been associated with the left and the Democratic party…”

    Maybe this is a joke and I missed something? Another of Dave’s flabbergasting assertions about who was on which side in the past caused me to look this up. I thought the Birchers had disappeared…but I’ve certainly never heard them called left-wing before.

    Birch Society founder Robert Welch believed that Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower were part of a communist conspiracy.

    From Wikipedia:
    “The JBS is anti-leftist, particularly anti-socialist and anti-communist.”

    I guess we have different definitions. Wouldn’t be the first time.

  • Clavos

    Hey Gingrich…tell that to the family of the guy who couldn’t afford to buy his way out and took your place, dying face down in the mud in Southeast Asia, while you were back home hiding out in college.

    None of us, dead or alive, made one damn bit of difference over there, emmy, and you know it.

    That’s why the 58,000+ US dead is such a waste and tragedy.

  • Baronius

    Handy, it wasn’t that long ago that the left included anti-communists and segregationists. I wouldn’t characterize the Birchers as left-wing, but they had their conflicts with the right. If I recall correctly, they accused Bill Buckley of being a communist agent, and they had some ties to the Wallace campaign. They occupied that gray fringe of the conspiracy theorist.

  • Lumpy

    JBS may be anti communist, but what they’re most known for is being anti-catholic and anti-masonic, which certainly puts them at odds with the republicans.

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    You mean the John Birch Society that J. Edgar Hoover and his senior subordinates described in FBI memos as: “irrational”, “irresponsible”,
    “extremist”, “lunatic fringe” and “fanatics” ???

  • Clavos

    Franco, you’d be a lot more credible if a) you used your spell check, and b) you stopped lobbing offensive terms like “lefty socialists” against anybody who doesn’t think in lockstep to you. It’s unAmerican, and like Mr. Gingrinch, a direct bow to his true inspiration, the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy of unlamented memory.

    This from the woman who uses “fascist” liberally when referring to people on the right?

    The woman who “lob(s) offensive terms like”:

    No, you’re a wackjob religio-fascist control freak

    Nancy, you need to quit tossing stones around. I hear glass shattering all the way down here.

  • Franco

    #7 — Nancy

    Franco, you’d be a lot more credible if a) you used your spell check, and b) you stopped lobbing offensive terms like “lefty socialists” against anybody who doesn’t think in lockstep to you. It’s unAmerican, and like Mr. Gingrinch, a direct bow to his true inspiration, the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy of unlamented memory.

    Nancy,

    By the way, Gingrinch is spelled Gingrich, and unAmerican is spelled Un-American just like Realist correctly did at the heading to his article.

    On matter (a), I am a functioning dyslectic and have always had serious spelling problems. I use my spell checker in MS word or everything I type and for all my BC posts. I do the very best I can. What’s your excuse?

    On matter (b), How is the wording “lefty socialist” any more or less offensive then “far right wing – John Bircher” as used by this author repeatedly in the article?

    On McCarthy, anyone still thinking that dragging out the old McCarthy card to try and discredit someone as if it had any weight with people paying attention, places the joke upon themselves. Nancy I have read a lot of your posts on BC. I find it hard to believe that you are that obtuse about playing this old dead card.

    As fare as your reference to being un-American, I think and believe what I wrote is about as American as one can be. Your point about being more credible is a good one and well taken. But in this case it is a matter of credible with whom and for what reason. I see Realist and those that think the same as a danger to the US. In that light I wrote my post and yes, it is confronting the liberal left socialists now in charge of our country.

    I just hope the New Left now in charge has the stomach to face realities with realties before they are forced down the throat of one of our major cities by terrorests. With this enemy there is not appeasement, compromise or rational which all librels want to employ. It is not going to work with this enemy. Something the NYT seems to brush off and then abuse confidential state security secrets in the name of the right to free speech.

    Abuse of free speech is every bit a danger to our freedoms and liberties as abusing the right to free speech. It takes wise and insightful leaders to balance that thin line between the two evils that both encroach on free speech.

    I think Newt is that gifted to see and understand that line. I am looking forward to finding some one on the New Left in charge now with these same skills. We need them today like theres no tomorrow.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Franco, the dragging out and beating of McCarthy’s corpse is a well enshrined ritual of the left. It’s the same old argument they use so much, that McCarthy was evil therefore the forces he was fighting were good and/or did not exist. But the truth is more complex and while McCarthy was a sick, opportunistic bastard, there actually was a communist threat and there were and apparently still are fifth columnists working within the US.

    Dave

  • Acin

    Franco,

    In your initial comment you said that morals and standards used to be supported by the left and the right. I still think they are supported by reasonable liberals and conservatives, not too mention us center of the road types. However, I question Gingrich being a moral person fit to lead this nation. First, I believe he divorced a dying woman. Could be wrong here but I don’t think so. Second, he had an affair while married to wife number 2, divorced her and married his paramour. This is the moral person who espoused family values back in the contract with America in the early 1990s?

    As to Gingrich being gifted enough to walk the fine line between abridging our freedoms and protecting them, I don’t think he is the right person. I’ve not read his books, but I’ve seen enough of him on Hannity and Colmes and other such shows, he is not qualified to lead this nation. Just my opinion, you can agree or disagree.

    Quite frankly, if it becomes a toss up between Hilary Clinton and Newt, I’m moving to Canada. They are both too dangerous for this country.

  • Franco

    #20 — Dave Nalle

    I agree with everything you said. I just think that everytime we see the card we need to address it for what it is.

  • Franco

    #21 — Acin

    In your initial comment you said that morals and standards used to be supported by the left and the right. I still think they are supported by reasonable liberals and conservatives, not too mention us center of the road types.

    It is refreshing to see someone think and speak the way you do. I believe we are still the silent majority. Lets keep it that way so don’t move to Canada, we need you here now like there is no tomorrow.

    I can not speak on the moral dereliction’s of Newt and his women. I do think though he dose in fact have gifted insights into American politics and his love of and for American liberties is un-questionable when his work is studied. Should he run for President. I don’t think so but Hillary is going to run for sure and you are correct, she is too dangerous for this country. Who the right or independent parties put forth that truly stands a chance of defeating her long and well laid out plan for the Whitehouse is not yet clear.

  • Franco

    Dave,

    One other point on your comment on McCarthyism. In my comment I made reference to people paying attention in the following context.

    anyone still thinking that dragging out the old McCarthy card to try and discredit someone as if it had any weight with people paying attention, places the joke upon themselves.

    For you the use the word phrase “fifth columnists” and understand it as you clearly do, shows you are one of the people paying attention. The problem is over half the bloggers on BC don’t even know what “fitth columnist” means let alone its threat to our liberties.

    You post was very well said.

  • STM

    Newt Gingrich un-American?

    Even though he could have sued his parents for calling him Newt if he’d lived in another part of the English-speaking world, Newt Gingrich is, in fact, a richly American name. It just evokes the smell of hamburger frying.

    Newt: Fantastic stuff … almost as good as Chuck and Randy.

  • Nancy

    I’m able to evade the more egregious errors on my own; unfortunately, I can’t get my spell-checker to work w/this program (this website) so I can’t avoid all of them … especially if I haven’t had my caffeine or I’m typing too fast.

    I would appreciate a definition or explanation of “5th columnist”, actually, as you understand it. I know what I always thought it meant, but I could be wrong. In any event, it never hurts to ask. Thanks.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    from Wikipedia:
    “A fifth column is a group of people which clandestinely undermines a larger group to which it is expected to be loyal, such as a nation.”

    Japanese-Americans were thought of as likely fifth-columnists in WWII, leading to the internment camps that are widely thought shameful and racist today.

    The term can apply to perception as well as reality.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Brilliant demonstration of my comment above about the left’s favorite tactic.

    Your logic: the Japanese were interned unfairly therefore talking about 5th columnists is bad and/or there were no real ones.

    What you overlook is that there WERRE in fact Japanese agents in the US during WW2, so the threat that internment addressed was real despite the fact that it was an excessive reaction.

    Dave

  • D’oh

    OK, first thing is about this silly derailing of the topic on fifth columnists. Talk about your conspiracy theories! Can we get spared the ridiculous insinuations about there being some kind of conspiracy here?
    Dave rightly states that there were indeed some Japanese who were loyal to their country of birth during WW2, what he doesn’t state at all is that the overwhelming majority of those interned were completely loyal Americans, nor does he mention that one of the most highly decorated units in WW2 was made of of Japanese Americans fighting for the U.S. in the European portion of the war.

    Just as valid a case could be made that the neocons and or the theocons are a fifth column, and one that has formed foreign policy to the detriment of our country.

    Putting that silly distraction and bullshit straw man aside, let’s focus on the real topic here, the fact that one of the political editor’s of Fox news, and a major fund raiser for the Republicans, namely Newt, has publicly and on the record stated that he is in favor of curtailing rights and freedoms for the American people in a very tangible way, with no checks and balances, in exchange for some non-provable assurances that some how it will help against a nebulous and amorphous terrorist threat.

    The Japanese internment is a pretty decent analogy, they were stripped of their rights as Americans in a very tangible sense, against a possible threat which never was proven nor did it ever materialize. Note that no German or Italian Americans were interred in camps. Do also remember that there were bundists and Nazi sympathizers.

    These were known and watched, but no mass imprisonment, only the yellow folks got that. Sound fair and American to you? That’s were the type of thinking Newt expressed in that speech.

    Again, see the last line of comment number 9.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dave: I said nothing of the kind. I did use a counterexample, but I did not say there’s no such thing as a traitor or infiltrator. I didn’t express my own opinion at all, in fact…I said “widely thought.”

    You fight fairer than that, most of the time. And I wasn’t even fighting.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The discussion is not completely off-topic, since Newt seems to want to brand certain groups of speech and speakers disloyal, i.e. fifth-column, and therefore [he says] not protected by free speech rights. It sounds like a very dangerous road to me.

    But maybe some specific examples of this kind of speech would help clarify how totally we disagree with his deliberately provocative remarks.

  • D’oh

    handyguy, there were no specific examples.
    Instead it was left tenuous and ill defined. These types of pogroms are usually left open ended, so that the authoritarians who instigate the police state policies can aim them at whomever they choose for their own aggrandizement of power.

    For all the bullshit talk about a leftist fifth column, let us not forget that it remains a Republican administration, with the aid of a Republican controlled House and Senate which put out the PATRIOT act, the NSA warrantless wiretaps, data mining phone company and online records, among other heinous violations of the Constitution.

    Does anyone honestly think that if such infringements of our First and Fourth Amendment rights would be as tolerated by certain portions of our population if it was the Second Amendment under assault?

    Hypocrisy rampant.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Actually, just looked again at the section of the speech in question…Newt refers fairly specifically to closing down web sites that recruit new terrorists, and that promote the idea of destroying Western cities with bio or nuclear weapons.

    I still disagree with him. As long as it’s merely talk on a web site, I say it’s legal.

    Discuss among yourselves.

  • D’oh

    handyguy, you are right, and I stand corrected when it comes to these few examples.
    My worry stems from the more open ended parts of his speech, and that once Pandora’s box of governmental censorship is opened, it cannot and never has in history, been closed again.

    On the strategy side, far better for catching miscreants to leave these sites up, and get a legal warrant to monitor and investigate. Then prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.

    Better to live on our feet, than do as Newt suggests, and die on our knees, having succumbed to the adversary and destroyed our own society.

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    Sen. McCarthy and “McCarthyism”:

    My experience is that both sides of this controversy are usually highly ideological and have never independently and carefully investigated the facts — particularly since the release of secret Venona and other documents never previously available.

    However, I would add the following comments to this discussion for anyone who still thinks Sen. McCarthy made a useful contribution to our national debate about communists:

    1. In a speaking tour that began with a 2/9/50 Lincoln Day speech in Wheeling WV, McCarthy said:

    “While I cannot take the time to name all of the men in the State Department who have been named as members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205 that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping the policy in the State Department.”

    See: wvculture.org

    2. McCarthy lied. He had no such list.

    Wire services picked up the story because, of course, it was sensational news. By the time McCarthy reached the next stop on his speaking tour (Salt Lake City) the number had changed to 57 and “the list” of names had been “misplaced” in his other bag—so he said.

    FBI Chief Inspector (and later Assistant Director) William Sullivan observed:

    “We didn’t have enough evidence to show there was a single Communist in the State Department, let alone fifty-seven cases.”

    Sullivan also wrote in his 1979 memoir The Bureau: My Thirty Years in Hoover’s FBI (see pages 45 and 267)

    “During the Eisenhower years the FBI kept Joe McCarthy in business. Senator McCarthy stated publicly that there were Communists working for the State Department. We gave McCarthy all we had, but all we had were fragments, nothing could prove his allegations. For a while, though, the allegations were enough to keep McCarthy in the headlines.”

    3. When one reviews FBI documents and files pertaining to internal security matters, it is clear from the Bureau’s own statistical and investigative reports — that McCarthy’s allegations were gross exaggerations or sometimes outright fabrications.

    Clint Murchison, a close friend of both McCarthy and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, observed in 1959:

    “I’ve spoken to J. Edgar Hoover about McCarthy. He said the only trouble with Joe is that he’s not general enough in his accusations. He’ll give some numbers like ‘274 Communists’ being infiltrated somewhere instead of just saying ‘many Communists’. And then the FBI has to account for them. It makes the job a whole lot tougher.”

    4. FBI SECURITY INDEX:

    The FBI Security Index was designed by the FBI to track all persons thought to pose a security risk to the U.S. This included, but was not limited to,

    (a) known or suspected Communist Party members and sympathizers,
    (b) persons with revolutionary or anarchist beliefs,
    (c) potential saboteurs and suspect persons working in “vital facilities”, and
    (d) United Nations Secretariat employees or foreign diplomatic personnel

    Persons listed on the SI were likely to be apprehended and detained by the FBI in time of national emergency — which the Bureau referred to as its “DETCOM” (Detention of Communists) Program.

    SECURITY INDEX STATISTICAL REPORT FOR FEBRUARY 1950:

    SECURITY INDEX “SPECIAL SECTION”

    * See HQ file 100-358086, serial #136 dated 2/28/50 which summarizes data regarding names in FBI Security Index “Special Section”.

    The “Special Section” captured data in the following categories:

    (a) U.S. government employees
    (b) Atomic Energy Program employees
    (c) prominent persons
    (d) employees of UN Secretariat
    (e) espionage subjects

    MC CARTHY SPEECH:

    In February 1950 when McCarthy made his claim that he had a list of 205 Communist Party members working in the State Department, the FBI’s monthly Security Index statistics report reflected the following information.

    1. Total number of persons on Security Index (all categories) = 11,554
    2. Total number of known or suspected Communists = 11,166
    3. Total number of persons in “Special Section” of the Security Index (see above for definition) = 171

    So, in summary, at the precise time that McCarthy claimed 205 “Communists” were working in just one agency of the U.S. Government (the State Department), in reality (according to the FBI) there were 171 “Special Section” names which included not only all known or suspected Communists working in the entire U.S. government but also the four additional categories shown above!

    Whittaker Chambers summed it up pretty well in his 1/14/54 letter about McCarthy to conservative book publisher Henry Regnery, when Chambers observed that….

    “All of us, to one degree or another, have slowly come to question his judgment and to fear acutely that his flair for the sensational, his inaccuracies and distortions, his tendency to sacrifice the greater objective for the momentary effect, will lead him and us into trouble. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will play directly into the hands of our common enemy and discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come.”

    FBI security informant Herbert Philbrick told a Boston newspaper reporter that:

    “He [McCarthy] harmed the cause of anti-communism more than anybody I know.”

    And in 1952, Philbrick observed:

    “According to the Communist leaders, McCarthy has helped them a great deal. McCarthy’s kind of attacks add greatly to the confusion, putting up a smokescreen for the Party and making it more difficult than ever for people to discern who is a communist and who is not.”

    FBI Supervisor, Robert J. Lamphere, supervised the investigations of some of the biggest espionage cases of the cold war, including those of the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs and Kim Philby plus he was intimately involved, in conjunction with Meredith Knox Gardner of the Army Security Agency, in using deciphered Soviet cables to build espionage cases.

    Lamphere wrote in his personal memoir that:

    “McCarthy’s approach and tactics hurt the anti-Communist cause and turned many liberals against legitimate efforts to curtail Communist activities in the United States, particularly in regard to government employment of known Communists.”

    He also said: “McCarthy’s star chamber proceedings, his lies and overstatements hurt our counterintelligence efforts.”

  • Clavos

    ernie1241:

    That’s an interesting compilation of the timeline and documents pertaining to Senator McCarthy and his activities, but what’s your point? Nobody on this thread said anything in support of him.

  • Franco

    #36 — Clavos

    Hi Clavos, nice to see you out and about.

    I think ernie1241 point is as he states from the beging when he said.

    “both sides of this controversy are usually highly ideological and have never independently and carefully investigated the facts”

    I was making the same point (in other words less articulate)in my post 24 to Dave.

    It all started when I had a McCarthy card played on me by Nancy in her post #7 and I called her on it.

    emie1241 further points out some very important reasons we can’t debate communist subvertion activities in the US between the righ and left today because of McCarthyism. i.e. What Lamphere wrote in his personal memoir that emie1241 posted.

    There was, and still is, a communist fifth column active and working inside the US each and everyday. McCarthyism bars us from getting at the heart of this ongoing subversion. The fifth column has and is effecting and will continue to effect our whole society and many more of our leaders. Its in our universities, grades schools, the anti-war and peace movement is one of their big pushes, the environmental movement including the global warming junk science from with in the fifth column doctorates. And on and on the list goes.

    They are working to destroy our economic system in order to usher in socialism. They want to criple our ecconomic structure. They are playing the enviornmental and globle warming card worldwide in efforts to gain worldwide support and support from within the US to limit our access to growth for natural rescorces by scaring the world into believing we are distorying the earth, we are greedy, selfish, we consum most of the worlds resorces, the plant and its rescores are not big enough to support another America which American wants to do in other countries with free market capitalism. America has’t to be stopped says the fifth column, the only solution is replacing capitalism with socialism and on and on the bull shit goes.

    Most Americans don’t even know it exists as a subversive activity and so they are unaware they are taking on its mindset as if its all a good thing and actually supporting it to their own destruction.

    Socilists do not like the word communit. They like progressive, liberial left and so on. So is the word and world of communism gone. I’ll let you decide.

    “War between Capitalism and Communism is inevitable…in order to win we will need the element of surprise, but the Bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions… stupid and decadent (Capitalist countries), they will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction.” Demitri Manaillsky from the speech at the Lenin School of Political Warfare 1931

    “In October, 1917 we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving towards a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road!” Mikhail Gorbachav before the Supreme Soviet, 1987

    “We are convinced in the vitality of the Marxist-Leninist teaching which has scientifically substantiated the possibility of building a society of social justice and a civilisation of free and equal people. That is what guides us in our revolutionary perestroika. And that is how we shall act in its new and crucial stage that is being ushered in by our Party Conference!” Mikhail Gorbachev – 19th All Union Conference of the Communist Party, Moscow, June 28-July 1, 1988

    Dwight D. Eisenhower knew of the communist fifth column working within the US to transformthe US capitalist base system to a socialist based or communist run system and society It should be noted here and now that Eisenhower disliked McCarthy immensely and about as much as anyone can.

    The Presidential Papers of Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Dear Senator Jenner: As you were advised some time ago, the suggestions you made with respect to exposure of the Soviet Fifth Column have been under intensive and prolonged study in the Department of State. Document #568; November 30, 1953

    Complete document The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission; Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press

    See Wikipedia Scroll down to McCarthy and Eisenhower

  • Clavos

    Franco,

    I understand what you’re getting at; I’ve been aware of the Fifth Column concept for years.

    But I was wondering why ernie expended so much effort to basically discredit McCarthy and his activities when nobody on this thread seemed to be supporting McCarthy.

  • Franco

    29 —D’oh

    OK, first thing is about this silly derailing of the topic on fifth columnists. Talk about your conspiracy theories! Can we get spared the ridiculous insinuations about there being some kind of conspiracy here?

    Conspiracy theories? Putting that silly distraction and bullshit straw man aside? Can you explain and or justify why you believe these statements?

    Then you go on to say…

    The Japanese internment is a pretty decent analogy, they were stripped of their rights as Americans in a very tangible sense, against a possible threat which never was proven nor did it ever materialize.

    There was no why to prove or disprove the level of their threat. It would have been impossable. The only thing we had to go on was the fact that was already proved, which was their native homeland and one time religiouly reveried imperer had, by surprise, attacked us in a massive way. Right or wrong, the times were very different. The US was not the military power it is today nor did we have the technology and security measures we do today. We as a nation were extremely vulnerable at that time we were attacked following the great depression. And about they’re possible threats not ever materializing that statement is Monday morning quarterbacking, its useless.

    Note that no German or Italian Americans were interred in camps, only the yellow folks got that. Sound fair and American to you? That’s were the type of thinking Newt expressed in that speech.

    I don’t remember Germany or Italy engaging in a massive military surprise attack on any US east coast states port and military base wiping out most of our Atlantic navel fleet.

    And on Newt, if you had turly studied him you would know he is one of the most major defenders of our liberties. As I posted earlier; Abuse of free speech is every bit a danger to our freedoms and liberties as abusing the right to free speech. It takes wise and insightful leaders to balance that thin line between the two evils that both encroach on free speech.

    For Newt to propose new measures of preventing abuses to free speech, means that there are abuses occuring and what he is saying is loose lips sink ships. If you don’t like his ideas for combating that, then what ideas do you have on this important topic. Or are these abuses Net is concerned about just one more, how did you put it, “Can we get spared the ridiculous insinuations about there being some kind of conspiracy here?”

  • Franco

    Clavos,

    I guess he had done his homework on it for propably another debate and sence he know so much about it and its negitive effects for right/left debate on communism activities in the US, he saw another opporturnity to share what he knew.

    He did have a lot to say.

    Anyway, is see you posted your first artical in BC. I read it but it was to central to Florida for me to know what was going on so I passed on comment. How was that experacne for you? Are you going to do it again?

  • D’oh

    Well Franco, you typed a doozy earlier, let me quote it for clarity.

    “There was, and still is, a communist fifth column active and working inside the US each and everyday. McCarthyism bars us from getting at the heart of this ongoing subversion. The fifth column has and is effecting and will continue to effect our whole society and many more of our leaders. Its in our universities, grades schools, the anti-war and peace movement is one of their big pushes, the environmental movement including the global warming junk science from with in the fifth column doctorates.”

    The unproven, irrational and delusional opinions expressed in this single example show beyond doubt that no attempt at rational discussion based on reality as most of mankind experiences it would be possible with you involved.

    Enjoy the conspiracy theories, and remember when making your tin foil hat to keep the shiny side out.

  • Clavos

    Franco,

    Actually I’ve now posted two articles; here and here.

    Both are about the November election, and strictly from a Florida perspective.

    I enjoyed it very much, and I definitely do plan to post more in the near future.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    The unproven, irrational and delusional opinions expressed in this single example show beyond doubt that no attempt at rational discussion based on reality as most of mankind experiences it would be possible with you involved.

    You can SAY this all you want, but you’re fooling yourself. Plenty of people have traced the money and the people involved in the anti-war movement and pointed out the obvious connections to international socialist organizations. To claim that there’s not an active socialist fifth column operating within the US and particularly within the Democratic Party is an act of massive self-deception. It’s not just a matter of conspiracy theories, there are plenty of those involved who freely admit their involvement and are even proud of it.

    Dave

  • D’oh

    So Dave joins the ranks of the conspiracy theorists, hence the fortified pimped out duck blind with a gun collection.

    Wouldn’t the neocon/theocon alliance within the Republican party fit the definition of a fifth column even better?

    And I do think you will find that there are more Illinois Nazis in total numbers than all the communists in America.

    So we should now bow to Newt and his willingness to destroy rights under the Constitution in order to quell this new “red menace” that Dave and Franco are so afraid of?

    Dave, see your doctor, get your meds changed, tinfoil is not a designer fabric.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dave, you’re obviously smart and well read. Most of the time, you seem downright reasonable and rational, and then you post wildly inflated nonsense like #43.

    There are many shades of liberal/left/Democrat/progrssive etc. I’ve known quite a few myself. None of them has ever in my presence self-identified with communism – possibly a few with socialism, in a fairly watered-down and theoretical sense. Maybe we’re just the naive ones along for the ride, and we don’t know how sly and evil our fellow D’s are. Or maybe anyone who supports a national health system and a progressive income tax [as I do] is a fifth columnist. But I don’t think so.

    The wild-eyed tone you take on when this issue comes up makes me think you really fear these people, that you actually think they might ‘win’ [whoever ‘they’ are]. But even Scandinavian-style ‘benign socialism’ is off the radar screen of acceptability among most Americans. Do you see some other possible outcome than socialism remaining a distantly sidelined philosophy in this country? And why do you lump the antiwar movement in with economic progressives? Doesn’t that dilute your argument?

    Yes, there are people who disagree with you on economics. Do you really need to resort to calling them ‘fifth columnists,’ implying treason? Do you think they ought to be outed and accused of a crime? If not, why the hysterical rhetoric?

    Since there is no longer a Soviet Union, and China is becoming one of the biggest capitalist economies, what would these secret villains you and Clavos have nightmares about be up to anyway? This just doesn’t sound like the real world to me.

  • Franco

    #41 — D’oh

    D’oh,

    Is this the answer you really want to go with to my question? OK, at face value, I respond accordingly.

    Here is a quick review or your original statement, then my question to it, and now your answer as they developed in the following posts.

    Your original statement post #29, you said: OK, first thing is about this silly derailing of the topic on fifth columnists. Talk about your conspiracy theories! Can we get spared the ridiculous insinuations about there being some kind of conspiracy here?

    In my response question to you in post #39, I asked you about you comments of conspiracy theories and asked if you could explain and or justify why you believe what you were saying. A reasonable question which promotes free speech, and it was sincere.

    The here is the answer that comes in from you.

    Well Franco, you typed a doozy earlier, let me quote it for clarity.

    “There was, and still is, a communist fifth column active and working inside the US each and everyday. McCarthyism bars us from getting at the heart of this ongoing subversion. The fifth column has and is effecting and will continue to effect our whole society and many more of our leaders. Its in our universities, grades schools, the anti-war and peace movement is one of their big pushes, the environmental movement including the global warming junk science from with in the fifth column doctorates.”

    The unproven, irrational and delusional opinions expressed in this single example show beyond doubt that no attempt at rational discussion based on reality as most of mankind experiences it would be possible with you involved.

    Enjoy the conspiracy theories, and remember when making your tin foil hat to keep the shiny side out.

    In simple review of this answer, D’oh has answered nothing at all. Instead he has resorted to ad hominem attacks which are the fallacies he hides behind. When all of D’oh’s ad hominem attacks are removed, the only thing that could even resembles any attempt at an answer to my question is the one word “unproven”. A one word answer that is substantiated by absolutely nothing. To quote D’oh’s own words back to him, “that’s not a rational discussion.”

    The inability and or immaturity for D’oh to discuss/debate this issue rationally and with applied intellect marks his prejudice on this topic. Therefor I refute D’oh’s assertion based on fallacy filled with nothing more then ad hominem attacks.

    Now we come to the more serious and important point , D’oh has also revealed a much more devious aspect of his true core beliefs and his so called respect for our first amendment rights to free speech. Since that bares directly on the topic in this blob, his subtl buy yet dircts attact on free speech is worth commet.

    D’oh’s ad hominem tactics make a direct and concerted effort to limit my free speech, and he attempts to influence others to do the same based on his fallacy that states, “No attempt at rational discussion would be possible with me involved.”

    D’oh, has exposed himself as self appointed free speech judge, jury, and executioner of those (#1) that he doesn’t even know, and (#2) encourages others to go along with his fallacy for who is qualified as worthy (under his intellectual viewpoint) to engage in free speech. And he does all of this even though he has failed to prove anything through his actions in clearly choosing not to discuss/debate the issue.

    D’oh has inadvertently exposed his true colors on what he really thinks of free speech. Free as long as he agrees with what is being said, and if he doesn’t, he takes measures into your own hands to curtail, limit, the free speech of others through attempted character assignation via ad hominem fallacy dicreditation. Now he is not using a knife to stop me, but as a wise man once said, the pen is mightier then the sword. Exercising free speech in D’oh’s world is limited too only those who he approves of. Welcome to the New Left!

    In direct contrast to D’oh’s concept of free speech, Newts free speech concepts would never suggest such a thing, in fact they promote and support the opposite. Ironically, hypocrisy has a way of getting to the surface early on if one is paying attention to hypocrites. D’oh has shown he is the deceitful slippery snake in the rock pile, not Newt.

    The historical proof of communist fifth column activist agents in the US over the course of the past 60 years is out there and in boatloads, but you have to cover a lot of information and crosschecks. An enemy working against a country from within is not going to hand all this to you on a silver platter. And when you start talking about it in earshot of this enemy, they are either going to deny it or try to discredit you.

    What is different today then in the 50’s through the 80’s is that today these past communism/socialism fifth column efforts have permeated our thinking to the point today that we in the US are starting to embrace it more and more as a healthy alternative to America ways that are being called selfish etc, etc, culminating into the evil empire, which the fifth column has been successful in getting an ever enlarging world population to believe, even many Americans.

    As a result or our slow but steady shift in thinking, communist fifth columnists are becoming less covert and secretive about their efforts and are much easier to spot. But you still have to be willing to look at it. Example: A May 1, 2006 communist fifth column movement:

    I suppose also that D’oh would say the following documented proof is nothing more then irrational and delusional opinions being expressed.

    FBI Supervisor, Robert J. Lamphere wrote in his personal memoir that:

    “McCarthy’s approach and tactics hurt the anti-Communist cause and turned many liberals against legitimate efforts to curtail Communist activities in the United States, particularly in regard to government employment of known Communists.”

    Enjoy our prejudice and keep up your blind man walking critique while ushering in the New Left. They need all the help they can get.

  • D’oh

    Franco, I’ll keep this simple.I have no desire nor intent to limit your right to free speech, please show where I have tried to do so. Instead you might want to actually read why I wrote, and take it as such, no more nor less.

    I think that, based on your statement, that the opinions you hold and the positions you portray are NOT rational, reasonable nor based in objective reality.

    Thus any attempt at dialog with you is fruitless, and pointless, since we do not appear to observe reality in the same manner. One cannot argue with a delusion, and one cannot rationally debate with a faithist’s “because god says so”.

    By the evidence of your writing here on BC, you have shown to be both, in my own estimation.

    So, are you done trying to frame my words as other than I wrote them? How about you skip the feeble attempts at mind reading where it comes to my own words and their expression?

    As for your “they need all the help they can get” comment, remember who won in November.

    I will state it again very clearly, I have no desire to curtail anyone’s rights, especially that of free speech.

    I just choose to ignore opinions and positions that I consider irrational, not logical, and delusional. I stand by my position, that the paragraph I quoted from Franco is indeed not rational, unproven and appears to stem from some type of paranoid delusion.

    Thus, there is nothing to debate or discuss.

    As for Newt, I still stand by everything I’ve said on the topic, and have seen nothing and no reason to change my own opinion in the matter.

    Again, see comment 9, the last line is especially for folks like Franco.

  • Franco

    #47 — D’oh

    I would expect you would say something in your own defense. Yet why and I not surprised that your staying ever so true to your ad hominem fallacy form. Thanks for re-confirming my points.

    Additionally, trying to get out of the hole you dug for yourself using the same tools that put you there in the first place is a Catch-22. You create another Catch-22 when you state that my statements are unproven, yet you will not discuss/debate them. This is another fallacy that is demonstrably flawed in its logic.

    Therefor I stand by my post #46 assessment of you based on your statements assertions and there clear intentions.

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    In reply to Franco message #37 and comments asking why I posted my McCarthyism summary:

    (1) Franco

    The following Manuilsky “quotation” cited by you in your message is bogus. Many such falsehoods circulate in ill-informed anti-Communist circles and are used by critics to discredit anti-communism in general. As I mentioned in my original message, debates about controversial matters often descend into highly ideological attacks — rather than careful examination of evidence.

    “War between Capitalism and Communism is inevitable…in order to win we will need the element of surprise, but the Bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard of concessions… stupid and decadent (Capitalist countries), they will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction.” Demitri Manaillsky from the speech at the Lenin School of Political Warfare 1931)

    (2) McCarthyism

    I posted my original message because I thought it might be relevant to the general themes being introduced in this thread.

    “McCarthyism” refers to a phenomenon where legitimate concerns about internal security matters can be twisted by ignorant or highly partisan individuals to conform to their own personal idiosyncratic, (and often) inaccurate beliefs.

    For anyone wishing to pursue what the FBI thought about the conspiracy theories promoted by groups like the John Birch Society see 65-page Report based upon first-time-released FBI files and documents here

    The report demonstrates how highly ideological organizations artfully select ONLY that evidence which conforms with what they already believe—and, as a result, they arrive at false conclusions–many of which are outright fabrications and libelous characterizations of persons whose views diverge from their own.
    Some of that is already making itself apparent in this message thread.

  • D’oh

    Oh ernie, you mean like deliberately misleading people by cherry picking information?

    Nah, no one would do that, next you will tell us that the whole WMD thing was fabricated in the manner you are addressing.

    Perish the thought.

    The above was brought to you by Tzar Chasm Inc.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Ernie1241:

    I found your long comment on McCarthy fascinating. I can’t find articles by you on Blogcritics. You should contribute some if you haven’t. That kind of actual reporting would raise the general level of thought and discussion around here considerably.

  • Franco

    #49 — ernie1241

    The following Manuilsky “quotation” cited by you in your message is bogus.

    If it is bogus, would you kindly show me where I can find that out and crosscheck such information. If you will provide me with this information which will allow me to review your source and determine if this is the case. If in fact I can verify Manuilsky “quotation” is bogus I will make corrections to my post #37.

    Until then the post remains.

    Thank you for your additional insights on McCarthyism.

    I just went to you website and it is a comprehensive assembly of information. I will be reviewing more it to get familiar with your work.

    The report demonstrates how highly ideological organizations artfully select ONLY that evidence which conforms with what they already believe—and, as a result, they arrive at false conclusions–many of which are outright fabrications and libelous characterizations of persons whose views diverge from their own.
    Some of that is already making itself apparent in this message thread.

    Your statement above is really true of all human nature on every issue on everything known and unknown to man. I’m not sure it pertains more to the JBC then any of the rest of us, only that it might be more painfully obvious with JBC. That is why it is to important that we all keep open lines of communication going. In any event, I plane to study your work on your site to get to know you better.

    Franco

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    Reply to Franco #49

    Franco: I don’t know how old you are, so I need to provide some historical background to answer your question about the Manuilsky “quotation” appropriately.

    During the 1950’s and 1960’s some Americans asserted that “peaceful co-existence” with the Soviet Union and its satellites was not possible. Without always saying so directly, many of these folks apparently preferred some sort of pre-emptive nuclear strike against Communist countries because, they assumed, war was inevitable.

    The bogus Manuilsky “quote” entered our public debate circa August 1953 in an article written by Richard L. Stokes. Stokes claims he learned about this “quote” from ex-Communist Joseph Zack Kornfeder. Kornfeder claimed that Manuilsky spoke the words you quoted during a lecture at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow in 1930.

    Kornfeder testified in July 1953 before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He testified at length concerning the courses of the Lenin School and he even provided the Committee with a copy of its actual Curriculum (pages 2039-2043 of the HCUA report). In the section devoted to textbooks used in the various courses, no mention whatsoever is made of Manuilsky. In the section which lists all instructors and lecturers — no mention is made of Manuilsky.

    In 1962 Kornfeder was asked for more details about his attendance at the Lenin School and Manuilsky’s “quote”. Kornfeder stated that Manuilsky’s statement was made at a meeting of senior students of the Lenin School in March 1930 in response to a question and Kornfeder was at that meeting.

    However, in his sworn testimony before the Dies Committee on September 30, 1939, Kornfeder testified that he was in South America as a delegate of the Communist International (Comintern) from 1930 through the end of 1931, when he was arrested. Later, he contradicted himself and claimed he returned to the United States in the fall of 1931.

    In 1955 and 1961 and 1963 Kornfeder gave accounts of the Manuilsky “quote” which contradict previous explanations by him. In an article published in the July 1963 issue of American Mercury magazine, Kornfeder mentioned that he had been interviewed by Richard L. Stokes in the summer of 1953 and he generally described Manuilsky’s views and Stokes then converted his anecdotal remembrances from events 23 years earlier into a “quotation”.

    No scholar has ever been able to authenticate the “quote” or anything comparable which was written by Manuilsky. Nor has our Library of Congress been able to authenticate it.

    Interestingly, another ex-Communist who testified before the HCUA (John Lautner) stated that there was no verifiable evidence to confirm the Manuilsky “quote”.

    Other observers have “quoted” the same text but they claimed Manuilsky made the remarks in different years! For example: Lawrence Sullivan (Christian Economics magazine in August 1967)attributes the “quote” to Manuilsky in 1931.

    In December 1963, Tom Anderson, a John Birch Society National Council member and an Associate Editor of its magazine, was asked to provide substantiation for his use of the Manuilsky “quote”. He ultimately replied as follows:

    “When I published the quotation attributed to Manuilsky, I did not realize that prevailing evidence indicates he never made the statement.”

    In 1989 a book about the use of fake quotes and hoaxes authored by Paul F. Boller and Dr. John George was published [“They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquoes and Misleading Attributions”, Oxford University Press]. An appendix in the book is devoted to “phony quotations”. On page 97, the following description of the Manuilsky “quote” appears:

    “This ‘war to the hilt/clenched fist’ statement was supposedly given by Manuilsky to a group of students at the ‘Lenin School of Political Warfare’ in either 1930, 1931, or 1949. ‘Devious Dimitri’ never said any such thing and the Lenin School of Political Warfare has never existed except in the minds of the uninformed.”

    The FBI file on ex-Communist Joseph Zack Kornfeder also contains numerous examples of contradictions in his sworn testimony before legislative committees. For example: Sometimes he claims he was born in Slovakia. In other instances he claims he was born in Scranton PA.

    In summary, Franco, this is just one of many “quotes” circulating in extreme right circles which are bogus. Significantly, these same circles sometime circulate other authentic quotes which contradict the sentiments expressed in the phony Manuilsky quote—so one wonders how partisans reconcile the discrepancy?

  • Franco

    #53 — ernie1241

    Thands for providing source information. There is a lot to research here. I’ll get back to you..

    By the way, one thing you said I want to ask you about now.

    “They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquoes and Misleading Attributions”, Oxford University Press]. An appendix in the book is devoted to “phony quotations”. On page 97, the following description of the Manuilsky “quote” appears:

    “This ‘war to the hilt clenched fist’ statement was supposedly given by Manuilsky to a group of students at the ‘Lenin School of Political Warfare’ in either 1930, 1931, or 1949. ‘Devious Dimitri’ never said any such thing and the >Lenin School of Political Warfare has never existed except in the minds of the uninformed.”

    Are you supporting this claim that the Lenin School of Political Warfare has never existed except in the minds of the uninformed?

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    Franco #54:

    There was a Lenin School (also sometimes called Lenin Institute) but, apparently, there was never an institution called “Lenin School of Political Warfare.”

    Hoaxes or disinformation are often successful because they are created by individuals who combine truthful data with fiction.

    Often exaggerated claims are made which an ordinary person does not have the resources (or inclination) to perform the arduous research required to distinguish fact from fiction.

    For example: many former FBI informants subsequently became paid speakers and writers for extreme right organizations. Many of these folks were guilty of inflating their credentials to make it appear that they had more “inside knowledge”, training, or special expertise than really was the case.

    The Bureau used to describe these folks as “professional anti-Communists” because they earned their living from their lurid and inflammatory accounts of “subversion” and “treason” within our institutions–without much regard for factual accuracy.

    This, incidentally, is why J. Edgar Hoover eventually discontinued FBI assistance to Sen. Joe McCarthy–because McCarthy was prone to wild exaggerations and outright fabrications which Hoover thought (correctly) would damage the anti-communist movement.

    There are numerous other examples of phony quotes–such as the “Communist Rules of Revolution” which (like the Manuilsky “quote”) was also very popular during the 1960’s.

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    Postscript to previous reply to Franco:

    Incidentally, just for clarification purposes, I am copying the full text of the alleged Manuilsky quote below so everyone can see it in its entirety.

    There is much more information which could be presented on this matter which pertains to the reliability of Joseph Zack Kornfeder. As indicated in my previous messages, he had a long history of providing contradictory testimony about important matters.

    Offhand, I do not recall any explanation ever being given for why Kornfeder waited 23 years to “reveal” this sensational quotation. Seems like he would have mentioned it to someone before 1953!

    I also have never been able to determine what accounts for why some people (including yourself) claim that the comments were made in 1931 instead of what Kornfeder told Richard L. Stokes in 1953, namely that the comments by Manuilsky originally were made in March 1930. So whom is responsible for attributing the quote to 1931?? Another mystery!

    And, lastly, I have never seen any independent corroboration from any communist or non-communist source.

    Incidentally, in July 1959 the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the U.S. State Department published an exhaustive volume entitled “Soviet World Outlook: Handbook of Communist Statements” which quoted hundreds of statements by Communist officials beginning with Karl Marx and ending with Nikita Khrushchev that pertained to Soviet perceptions of capitalist countries and foreign policy matters.

    Significantly, the Manuilsky “quote” is not included.

    One final observation concerning the name of the school. After I posted my last message I checked some of my notes and I noticed that the former Staff Director of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (Richard Arens) was specifically asked about this matter in July 1958 and he stated that there was no institution by the name of the “Lenin School of Political Warfare.” Instead, Arens observed that “…the Lenin school of political warfare is the Lenin University.” In June 1959, Arens answered another inquiry as follows:

    “There appears to be no one proper name for the Communist training institution in Moscow named after Lenin. It is variously referred to as The Lenin School, Lenin University, and Lenin Institute.”

    THE FULL TEXT OF THE BOGUS MANUILSKY “QUOTE”

    “War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 to 30 years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist.”

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I think that one of the reasons the Manuilsky quote is believable is that so many other Soviet figures said similar things. The same basic concepts are in the writings of Marx and Lenin and others, so putting them all together in one scary and unambiguous quote may be a deception, but it represents a real belief common among socialists/communists. You even hear it being echoed by Hugo Chavez.

    Dave

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    To Dave re #57

    I would partially agree with your observation, but there is a major caveat.

    The Manuilsky “quote” was used in the 1950’s and 1960’s as incontrovertible “evidence” to support the claim that the Soviet Union planned to attack the United States (and/or Western Europe). In other words, they had already made up their minds that “peaceful co-existence” was impossible.

    However, Marxist ideology predicts conflicts between capitalist and communist societies because of what Marxists believe is the “inherent contradictions” within capitalist societies and the aggressive tendencies of “imperialist” countries. In other words, devout Marxists assumed that the U.S. (and other capitalist societies) would INITIATE the attack on Communists.

    Now this might seem preposterous to you and I but consider the hostility which confronted the new Bolshevik regime just after their Revolution. In point of fact, Western nations did express extreme hostility toward Russia and most of Russia’s previous wars were fought as a consequence of aggression by Western powers.

    The Manuilsky “quote” became a convenient intellectual justification for the extreme right’s perceptions and observations about the intentions of Soviet leaders.

    As mentioned previously, there were several other equally “scary” quotes. For example, during the height of our racial problems there suddenly appeared the “Israel Cohen” hoax regarding a “plot” by communists to use racial turmoil to overthrow our government. This hoax was exposed by several prominent conservative publications including Human Events and the Washington DC Star newspaper and columnist James Jackson Kilpatrick.

    There was also the phony “Communist Rules of Revolution” document.

    If you would like to pursue this subject further (i.e. phony quotations and hoaxes) consult the book I previously cited by Paul Boller and Dr. John George. Another version may also be found in the book by John George and Laird Wilcox entitled “Nazis, Communists, Klansmen and Others On The Fringe” published in 1992.

    The key thing to remember from all this is simply that there are people who have a vested interest in creating sensational news stories and publishing lurid accounts about various matters because they earn their living from giving such speeches and selling their inflammatory writings.

    Careful examination of credentials and independent research is always prudent.

    As J. Edgar Hoover once observed:

    “Our fight against communism must be a sane, rational understanding of the facts, Emotional outbursts, extravagant name-calling, gross exaggerations hinder our efforts…Today, far too many self-styled experts on communism are plying the highways of America giving erroneous and distorted information. This causes hysteria, false alarms, misplaced apprehension by many of our citizens.”

    Oddly, some of the persons that Hoover hand in mind as meeting this description were former FBI employees (such as former FBI Special Agent Dan Smoot) and former FBI informants who sought to capitalize upon their association with the FBI by presenting themselves as “experts” on internal security matters when they subsequently became paid speakers for extreme right organizations.

  • Frank

    Conservatives are just brain dead people who haven’t had the plug pulled on them yet….. These guys are all about police states and must be stopped for they will be the end of America.

  • Franco

    #58 — ernie1241

    ernie1241,

    I have noticed that every post you have made so fare has been concerning ONLY allegedly bogus communist quotes.

    Therefor while I continue my research on the links you have provided me, and the sites that lead to sites and and crosschecks and so on, I have the following question in the mean time.

    Would you be so kind as to provide any communist quotes that are verified and made directly against capitalism and the need to eliminate it and replace it with communist socialism.

    I am sure that with as many whom died under the hand of Stalin, surly there are verifiable quotes that even exceed the meaning intended in Manuilsky “quote” And surly with your time spent at research you would have come across such verifiable quotes.

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    Franco, #58

    Well, Franco, there are lots of quotations originating from Communist officials and theoreticians which reflect hostility toward western societies and which predict the ultimate triumph of communism over capitalism.

    Obviously, Marxism-Leninism is a philosophy which claims to be based upon a “scientific” understanding of the historical development of societies. Consequently, its adherents believe that as societies evolve, the different class interests will inevitably come into conflict. Naturally, they believe that communism will ultimately triumph because it is the natural progression of society—-despite all historical evidence to the contrary.

    I mentioned the 1959 publication by our State Department, entitled Soviet World Outlook, which contains hundreds of quotations by Communist officials. Several of J. Edgar Hoover’s books (actually ghost written for him) also contain such statements — such as “A Study of Communism”.

    You can also consult books such as Dr. Harry Overstreet’s 1958 book entitled What We Must Know About Communism. Overstreet received assistance from the FBI in the writing of this book.

    In addition, both the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee produced scores of publications which refer to such statements.

    Perhaps I am misinterpreting your question but I get the feeling that you want to say something like “what difference does it make if Manuilsky’s “quote” is bogus–if it accurately summarizes or paraphrases Communist intentions or philosophy?”

    If that, indeed, is the attitude behind your question—-then you need to reflect upon the requirements of intellectual honesty in debate and discussion of controversial topics. If truth doesn’t matter—then what is the basis of your argument?

    1. Facts matter
    2. Accurate history matters
    3. Mistaken ideas, if believed, usually have undesirable consequences

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    Some of us can remember a time when Americans of many different political persuasions were able to talk to one another in a civil fashion.

    Honorable, decent people can vigorously disagree about all sorts of matters but it is difficult to engage in civil discussion if ALL one’s opponents are demonized in an effort to convey the idea that there is only ONE correct position on any given matter.

    I’d like to offer some brief observations about each of the following comments in this thread. My remarks are preceded by asterisks (***)

    ==========================
    Dave Nalle, #8
    “Putting aside my personal dislike of Newt, I have to object to your characterization of the Birchers as far right wing. They’ve always been associated with the left and the Democratic party, and I don’t see how that’s changed in recent years, except that maybe everyone’s moved more towards the middle so they can’t really be lumped in with either political wing anymore.”

    *** Sorry, Dave, but you are completely mistaken. You can’t get much more far right wing than the Birch Society. If you doubt me, I suggest you consult the JBS publication entitled
    “Conservative Index” which rates the voting records of Congressmen and Senators. Here’s the latest edition.

    Name someone you think of as representing conservative values or the conservative movement either now or in the recent past: John McCain? Dennis Hastert? Bill Frist? Ronald Reagan? Newt Gingrich? Richard Nixon? Robert Dole?

    From the JBS perspective, all these guys are “statists” and “collectivists” who seek to destroy our way of life!

    And what is the JBS position on such famous Americans as: President Dwight Eisenhower, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Gov. (and later Vice President) Nelson Rockefeller, President Jimmy Carter, or Senator John Kerry?

    According to the JBS they are ALL “Communists” or “Communist agents” and/or “traitors”

    Robert Welch, the founder of the John Birch Society (JBS)was a life-long conservative Republican. Most of the original members of the JBS National Council had ties to the Republican Party.

    The JBS never officially endorsed any political candidates as an organization, but, historically, prominent Birchers have expressed their greatest admiration for such GOP conservatives as: Sen. Robert A. Taft, Sen. Barry Goldwater, Sen. William Knowland, and Gov. Ronald Reagan (but that changed when Reagan became President).

    JBS support for Democrats has been limited almost exclusively to ultra-conservative southern Democrats such as: Gov. George Wallace, Sen. James O. Eastland, and Gov. Ross Barnett.

    ================================

    Lumpy, #16
    “JBS may be anti communist, but what they’re most known for is being anti-catholic and anti-masonic, which certainly puts them at odds with the republicans.”

    *** Sorry, Lumpy, you are totally wrong! The majority of the original officers or leaders of the JBS were Catholic. Later, JBS founder Robert Welch estimated that 40% of JBS members were Catholic and 35% of JBS headquarters staff were Catholic. In addition, the JBS National Council included a Catholic priest, a Catholic constitutional law professor from Notre Dame University, and the editor of a Catholic periodical. Among the initial endorsers of Robert Welch and the Birch Society was Cardinal Richard Cushing of Boston.

    The JBS has never expressed anti-masonic sentiments and several of its top officials have been Masons.

    =====================================

    Frank, #59
    “Conservatives are just brain dead people who haven’t had the plug pulled on them yet….. These guys are all about police states and must be stopped for they will be the end of America.”

    *** Frank, it is easy to dismiss all persons whose beliefs differ from your own as “brain dead people”.

    If YOU are described as “brain dead” by someone, are you more or less inclined to believe that your antagonist is legitimately interested in listening to, and giving serious consideration to, what you have to say?

  • http://www.didonline.com Dennis Francis

    Hey, folks. The best national defense is citizen participation in our government. Let’s pay more attention to the fact that we are quickly becoming a classic “third world nation”. Our educational system is being actively dismantled and our Television is the national drug of choice.
    I have to commend you all for being very intelligent and committed to your ideas. That’s what the U.S. is all about. I enjoy free speech and the exchange of ideas. I also know that Newt is an articulate and intelligent man. His ideas are sometimes a bit suspect but my take is, that he believes most of what he says. I think that he’s very dangerous if ever given political power.
    Newt is the reason that the Republicans became so divisive over the last 12 years. I think that extremists are always dangerous because they represent the axiom “Too much of anything is good for nothing”. I believe that the U.S. Constitution is a great place for us all to refer when judging the ideas of our intellectuals. Please remember that intellectuals usually get us into trouble and everyone else has to sort it out. Much love to my left, right and middle-of-the-roaders. Never stop asking the tough questions.

  • Clavos

    ernie,

    Interesting comments on the JBS.

    I began to explore conservatism in high school; some of my early ideas came from the JBS and its publications at that time. When I graduated high school, the Senior Class prediction had me selling “Birch beer and Welchade” for a living.

    One question: I find it strange that many of the top officials have included both Catholics and Masons. Aren’t the Masons anti-Catholic?

  • D’oh

    No Clavos, not really. Masons can be anything, they just need to acknowledge that there is a “Creator”. Many of the Founders were Masons, and Deists. But Masons themselves come in all stripes as far as denominations, admittedly in the past it had been mostly a Protestant thing but never known any instance where they have given any faith any preference one way or another.

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    Clavos and D’oh:

    The analysis of freemasonry depends upon whom you ask. Many devout believers in conspiracy interpretations of history think freemasons are a component of centuries-old evil forces dedicated to the destruction of all religious values and the eventual establishment of a one-world dictatorship.

    Albert Pike was a 33rd degree Mason. He was a co-founder and head of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, being the Grand Commander of North American Freemasonry from 1859 until his death in 1891. In 1869, he was a top leader in the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

    Pike was said to be a Satanist, who indulged in the occult, and he apparently possessed a bracelet which he used to summon Lucifer.

    Birch Society founder Robert Welch often described Albert Pike as a 19th century “Master Conspirator” and it was Pike who described 32nd degree Masons as follows:

    “To the crowd we must say: we worship a God, but it is the God one adores without superstition. To you Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Bretheren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: all of us initiates of the high degrees should maintain the Masonic religion in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine… Yes, Lucifer is God, and, unfortunately Adonay is also God… religious philosophy in its purity and truth consists in the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay.”

    For Robert Welch’s analysis of organized masonry, see October 1973 JBS Bulletin, pages 13-14.

    In reply to accusations that he (Welch) might have been a Mason, Welch responded: “So what?” and he added:

    “At least ninety-five percent of the four million ordinary American Masons are just as patriotic as you or I.”

    Incidentally, J. Edgar Hoover was a 32nd degree Mason.

  • Clavos

    The reason I asked the question is because when I was a kid, I was invited to join the Order of The DeMolay, but my devoutly Catholic mother wouldn’t let me, because she said the Masons were anti-Catholic.

    I never questioned her decision, but I remember being deeply disappointed, because in my school, the DeMolay was the “coolest” organization, and it was an honor to be invited to join.

  • D’oh

    I was a DeMolay from 13-18 years of age. I’ve also known more than a few Masons in my life, and nothing described by ernie’s bits form the JBS not from this Pike person comes anywhere near my own experience.

    For Clavos, I personally knew 5 Catholic DeMolays, and many times that number of Catholic Masons. That’s not to even get into the agnostics, gnostics and free thinkers among the many Masons I have known over the years.

    My own thoughts on this idea that Catholicism is incompatable with Freemasonry comes more form the idea that most devout Catholics might be put off by a secret society, with their own rituals and history, who don’t really appear to care about church doctrines nor sectarian divisions.

    There is also the historical emnity that could arise from the past conflict between the Templars and the Church.

    An entirely different conversation.

  • Franco

    #61 — ernie1241

    ernie sez….

    Perhaps I am misinterpreting your question but I get the feeling that you want to say something like “what difference does it make if Manuilsky’s “quote” is bogus–if it accurately summarizes or paraphrases Communist intentions or philosophy?”

    If that, indeed, is the attitude behind your question—-then you need to reflect upon the requirements of intellectual honesty in debate and discussion of controversial topics. If truth doesn’t matter—then what is the basis of your argument?

    1. Facts matter
    2. Accurate history matters
    3. Mistaken ideas, if believed, usually have undesirable consequences

    Yes you have clearly misunderstood my question and its intention.

    That is not an exceptional fault with any of us in and of itself. But unfortunately what is exceptional are your actions of assumtion taken following your first admitting your confusion.

    Lets again review the question I posted to you……..

    “Would you be so kind as to provide any communist quotes that are verified…….surly there are verifiable quotes that even exceed the meaning intended in Manuilsky “quote” And surly with your time spent at research you would have come across such verifiable quotes.”

    It is a simple and genuine question. No where does my question insinuate that it did not matter if (as you put it) “what difference does it make if “Manuilsky’s “quote” is bogus–if it accurately summarizes or paraphrases Communist intentions or philosophy?”

    What I find disturbing is that you would presume to first state “Perhaps I am misinterpreting your question” and instead of asking me to clarify, you instead carry your admitted confusion forward on a feeling of fallacy into an assumed judgment for (in your words) questioning my intellectual honesty.

    That was out of line and without any justification. That assumption and fallacy came from you and with an snide inference that remains a questionable mystery in and of itself.

    Your actions have displayed your lack of respect for the very principles you claim to espouse. It now becomes clear it is you who need to reflect upon (as you put it) “the requirements of intellectual honesty in debate and discussion.” As you stated and asserted yourself. “If truth doesn’t matter—then what is the basis of your argument?”

    In getting back to my question which was really a request for “verifiable quotes” that echo Manuilsky’s “quote”. You instead type out a (1,921 characters and spaces) reply and still manage not to answer my simple request. Since you did not deny that such quotes exist I am left to believe that they do in fact exist. I will take under consideration the provided sources you claim are apparently verified quotes of such nature.

    I hope you understand that if in the future if you wrench this kind of tactic again, it will only serve to reinforce a now existing suspicion that you can talk the talk but can’t walk the walk on the principles you espouse. This unfortunately would render your credibility to suffer under greater suspicion. The ball is now in your court, I hope you can keep it in bounds.

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    Franco #69

    You are over-reacting Franco. I clearly stated that I might have mis-interpreted the purpose of your question. If I was attempting to violate the principles of discussion which I enunciated I would never have made such an acknowledgement. Instead, I would just have accused you directly.

    The reason I even brought up this matter is because on numerous occasions I have presented background about phony quotes and more often than not what I have presented has been characterized as “irrelevant” or “nitpicking” — because there were OTHER (authentic) quotes which conveyed a similar meaning.

    Now — with respect to your request for specific quotations.

    I provided you with several sources where you could find the type of material you had in mind. I sincerely do not understand why you expect me to go into each source and then arbitrarily choose a sample of quotations which might fit your general criteria….particularly since you may have something specific in mind that my choices would not satisfy.

    For example: I might choose to quote from the November 1960 Moscow Manifesto which observed that:

    “Peaceful coexistence of states does not imply renunciation of the class struggle as the revisionists claim…Peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems does not mean conciliation of the socialist and bourgeois ideologies. On the contrary, it implies intensification of the struggle of the working class, of all the Communist parties.”

    An article by two Soviet theoreticians in the Moscow periodical Kommunist, 07/60, discussed the question of force and violence with respect to the transition from “capitalism to socialism”. It said the transition might be accomplished non-violently, without civil war, in some societies but:

    “At the same time is should be emphasized that the theses of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party (Soviet Union) and the Declaration of the Communist and Workers Parties on the forms of transition of different countries to socialism did not proclaim a peaceful transition as the only possibility. On the contrary, the Congress noted that in some capitalist countries, where the military and police apparatus of the monopolistic bourgeoisie is strong, it is necessary to be prepared for attempts on the part of the latter to suppress the will of the people by force and thus compel them to resort to the sharpest forms of the class struggle. And so, the working class and its parties should acquire command of all the means and forms to struggle.”

    “All means and forms to struggle” is code for violence to overthrow the existing government.

    Or I could quote a high-ranking Communist Party (USA) official (William Weinstone) who wrote in 1960 that “…peaceful co-existence will not come of itself but must be imposed on the imperialists…by unceasing struggle.” [“imposed” is emphasized in italics in the original.]

    But perhaps those choices are not explicit enough for you?

    Plus there is the matter of what some observers describe as Aesopian language used by Communists to hide true intent. Aesopian language gives hints and uses code-words but is not explicit.

    For example: CPUSA General Secretary Gus Hall stated in an article published in 09/60 World Marxist Review that a major question facting the world Communist movement was “…is it possible to force U.S. imperialism to retreat while at the same time preventing it from provoking or precipitating an armed conflict?”

    What Hall meant by “U.S. imperialism to retreat” is Aesopian language for bringing about the elimination of U.S. military defense bases in foreign countries, the withdrawal of American troops from foreign soil, and numerous related developments that would ultimately result in the isolation of the U.S. in a hostile world and thus its eventual capitulation to communism.

    OR you could find even more dramatic quotes such as the one in 1935 by a member of the CP Central Committee in a booklet entitled “Why Communism?” which stated that “in the final revolution”, Communists could not win “unless the armed forces, or at least a part of them, join the workers. But once they join, the workers have not only rifles and cannon, but also airships and poison gas and battleships to fight the bosses (and) there is no reason why the workers should not use them against the enemy when the final conflict has arrived.”

    In a section of the booklet captioned “The Question of Force and Violence”, the following observations are made:

    “But this is force and violence, somebody will contend. ‘Don’t you Communists know that the use of force and violence is wrong?’ We reply to this, first, that if being a red-blooded American means anything, it means that you must not take punishment lying down, that you must offer resistance…We Communists say the workers cannot have respect for boss law and boss morality directed against them. The class interests of the working class—these are the supreme law for the workers. When you fight capitalism you are doing what is right and just and lawful from the point of view of your class interest and of the future of humanity. You are not ‘outlaws’ the way the capitalist world brands revolutionary fighters. YOu are fighting for a higher morality and a higher law that will forever abolish exploitation—the morality and the law of the social revolution.”

    I choose to ignore the unkind statements you have made about me or my motives.

  • Franco

    #70 — ernie1241

    The reason I even brought up this matter is because on numerous occasions I have presented background about phony quotes and more often than not what I have presented has been characterized as “irrelevant” or “nitpicking” — because there were OTHER (authentic) quotes which conveyed a similar meaning.

    OK ernie, I can see things now from your perspective which apparently causes you to react in a bit of quick assumption judgment mode. Please understand, from my perspective, I had no way of knowing where you were coming from, and since I was not going down that road you assumed I was on, you comments seemed way out of character and out of the blue.

    I went back to reread by post over and over to see where in the world you could have come up with such a thought from what I posted. I could not find anything to indicate such a thing. There was no other way for me to take it other then your comments to appear as snide innuendo and it offended me. I hope you can understand my response to your actions from this perspective. I sorry it happened for both of us.

    I seek to put it behind us with no ill will, and hope you share my sincerity.

    I would like to add that other then this incident, I have found our knowledge and insights on this subject, as well as your respect for discussion integrity, both refreshing and professional.

    Additionally I want to thank you for posting the quotes. Its has shown me you do in fact have intellectual honesty. It has not be that each of me to find quotes at your listed sources containing documents sources and or PDF’s for full review.

    I am working on something I want to discuss with you but will have to post it later as it is not completed yet.

    I the mean time, if you would, have a look at this site and give me your thoughts in brief.

    The Strange Tactics of Extremism

  • http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/jbs-1 ernie1241

    Franco—thanks for your comments.

    I devote an entire chapter of my JBS Report to Dr. Harry Overstreet and the attacks made upon him (or incited) by false and libelous information circulated by the Birch Society.

    My personal conclusion is that if Harry Overstreet had sued Robert Welch and the JBS for libel in 1959 or 1960, Harry would have destroyed the JBS—particularly since he could have brought into the courtroom such character witnesses as Assistant Directors of the FBI, the Chief Counsel of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and other highly-regarded and indisputable anti-communists.

    In his book, Strange Tactics of Extremism, Overstreet was one the very few people that attempted to refute specific premises and conclusions made by the extreme right. Most responses during the 1960’s were simply ad hominem or general philosophical objections which did not examine actual assertions made by the extreme right.

%d bloggers like this: