Today on Blogcritics
Home » Newt Gingrich Is Un-American

Newt Gingrich Is Un-American

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin 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.

About pessimist

  • handyguy


    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.


  • 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?

  • 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.

  • 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.”


    “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.”

  • 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.


  • 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


    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.

  • 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

  • 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?

  • 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


    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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.