Posted on 01/31/2013 2:58:06 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
FMCDH(BITS)
It’s not a question of belief - it’s a logical conclusion if you examine the facts. Conservatives can be just as lazy, uninformed and dismissive as leftists when it comes to studying history. Eisenhower aided and abetted the communist takeover of the most strategically significant country in the Americas, and now, more than half a century later, Cuba is still a psychotic dictatorship.
Peter: The FBI investigated the charges made against Highlander Folk School for a considerable period of time.
A July 1963 FBI memo summarizes their file on HFS:
“Due to the interracial character of the School, it has been the subject of numerous allegations that it represented the headquarters of communism in east Tennessee. An extensive investigation was conducted in 1941 and 1942 as a result of the allegations. These allegations have never been substantiated and much of the information of a subversive derogatory nature concerning this School was later repudiated by the individuals who previously furnished the information...This organization has continuously been involved in the integration movement and as a result charges are being continuously made that it is ‘communist’. These charges are based mainly on the opinion of the individuals making the charges that being pro-integration is being pro-communist.” [64-7511-286, July 26, 1963, F.J. Baumgardner to W.C. Sullivan].
Now, with respect to Donald West and Myles Horton. What the JBS (and yourself) never bother to point out is that West and Horton had a nasty falling out (reportedly over West’s much more radical viewpoints) and West left HFS.
Of course, HFS was a “left-wing group” especially IF it is your contention that
(1) ANY critic of segregation, or
(2) ANY person who advocated for labor union rights, or
(3) ANY person who worked with African Americans to teach them about their legal rights with respect to voting registration and voting — is, ipso facto, “left wing”.
Personally, I think of those positions as more “American” than “left wing” — BUT, in the time period (and the environment) in which HFS worked, such ideas were considered radical left wing.
One of our nation’s most accomplished and respected scholars about the McCarthy period in our history is Dr. John Earl Haynes who, along with co-author Harvey Klehr, has written extensively about the major defects in Sen. McCarthy’s viewpoints.
See Dr. Haynes’ articles below:
(a) Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html
(b) Exchange with Arthur Herman re: Venona
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page58.html
Also consider this message from Dr. Haynes to me:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Klehr and I have repeated made clear that neither Venona, Moscow archival material, nor Vassiliev’s notebooks provide any meaningful vindication for McCarthy.”
“First, that there had been significant Soviet espionage and Communist infiltration of key government agencies was not a view originating with McCarthy. That point had been publicly and vigorously advanced years before McCarthy arrived on the scene by, among other, Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers, and Louis Budenz. The evidence that has emerged since the early 1990s certainly corroborates and vindicates their charges and the particulars of their testimony.”
“Second, Joseph McCarthy, however, went beyond them by claiming that the espionage and infiltration occurred with the knowledge and assistance of key Truman administration officials, namely Secretary of Defense and State George Marshall and Secretary of State Dean Acheson, both part of McCarthy’s “a conspiracy so immense”. There is no support in the new evidence for what was new in McCarthy’s charges or for the particular persons he named such as Acheson and Marshall. When McCarthy was right, he was not original and was only repeating charges made years earlier by others. When he was original, he was wrong. For my view of McCarthy, see
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page58.html and
http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2007/12/mccarthy-accord.html “
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothingnew:
Fiction writers are free to write whatever comes into their mind, In other words, they are free to INVENT villains and then put words and motives into the characters they create.
By contrast, NON-fiction writers must carefully examine, evaluate, and weigh verifiable factual evidence — and then make arguments that do not go beyond what available evidence permits.
The problem with your snide comment is that you do not tell us WHAT METHODOLOGY you think should apply to ALL assertions made in order to separate FACT from FICTION.
So, consequently, you are free to INVENT any accusation and then demand that we accept your premises and conclusions or our “voting rights should be revoked”.
Essentially, you have created a self-sealing circular argument. By definition, self-sealing circular arguments can NEVER be falsified because they are constructed to make it impossible for anyone to present any contradictory evidence which would be considered acceptable by the author of the argument.
IMHO, an FBI investigation is not implicitly exhaustive in its finding of fact, I’d rather not even take up that subject (lol).
Unions are a tool of the communist movement, which is international; unions are part of collectivism.
Encouraging unrest of all kinds is a tool of both communists and international bankers.
Given what I’ve read of that group in the last few minutes, it was and is working for leftist goals, whether it knows it or not and whether it admits it or not.
I suggest reading "The Politician".
I don't "demand" anything. Seems like you do.
I wasn't being "snide". If you take what I said too much for you to handle, well, too bad.
FMCDH
(Eisenhower) aided and abetted? And you have proof for that statement?
I believe I already posted that information. I’m out on my android, will send it again when I’m back on my computer.
Pieter: I agree with your comment that an FBI file is not the final word. However, the point continues to be that the persons who originally made the allegations about Highlander were BIGOTS.
I do not understand your final paragraph. Obviously, most “leftists” support the type of “goals” which Highlander worked toward accomplishing. So what?
Should I now cite examples of fascist groups that share your viewpoints so that I can insinuate that YOU are a fascist or fascist sympathizer?
Are you so intellectually hostile toward anything left-of-center that you cannot distinguish between legitimate, honorable, alternative points of view OR is your position that ANY person or organization which does not agree with you is, by definition, suspect with respect to their integrity and patriotism?
Nothing new: Unlike yourself, I have read both the 1950’s unpublished version of The Politician as well as both the 1963 and 2002 editions of The Politician.
So what is your problem?
“I agree on the Eisenhower part”
Eisenhower was a yes man for FDR, if he hadn’t been screwing FDR’s daughter he wouldn’t ever gotten past lieutenant!!!
Nothingnew: One more point. Again, unlike yourself, I used the FOIA to request the FBI investigative files on almost all the people discussed by Welch in The Politician.
With one exception (Phillip Jessup), the FBI files DO NOT support Welch’s conclusions.
Furthermore, The Politician is nothing more than Welch’s personal opinion—sort of like saying strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream and expecting someone to “disprove” that contention.
You will notice a common denominator in almost all conspiracy narratives. The author of the conspiracy narrative almost never has any personal contact with the persons they write about (i.e. no correspondence, no emails, no phone calls). In addition, conspiracy authors almost never have any personal contact with people who were friends, acquaintances, business partners, co-workers, etc with the persons written about.
So you have a very unique situation where an author makes ultimate final conclusions about the beliefs and motives of persons whom they have never met and never questioned; usually such authors do not even do research into college and university archives which have important primary source documents which pertain to the subject matter they are writing about.
The reason for this omission is obvious: conspiracy authors rely entirely on the workings of their own mind. There is no fact-checking mechanism in place to prevent wrong information, mistaken interpretations, or defective judgments from entering their writing. That is the case with Welch’s book-length “private letter”. I have copies of letters written by friends of Welch which pointed out factual errors in his unpublished manuscript but he never bothered to correct those errors when The Politician was first published in 1963.
More importantly, Robert Welch (and the JBS) explicitly stated that they had total confidence in the knowledge, integrity, and patriotism of J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. [I have copies of private letters to Hoover written by Welch and other JBS officials along with Hoover’s replies.]
Significantly, the FBI falsified virtually every assertion and conclusion which Welch and the JBS made. Particularly important are FBI files on the CPUSA which often contain verbatim transcripts of secret, closed Communist Party meetings and copies of confidential CPUSA documents which the FBI obtained from its two most important moles inside the CPUSA (Morris and Jack Childs). It is clear from FBI files that Welch and the Birch Society were totally ignorant about the actual tactics, strategy, objectives, and achievements of the Communist movement in the U.S.
As I mentioned in a previous message, the conclusion of the FBI was diametrically opposite to the conclusion espoused by the JBS.
I quote Hoover’s comment again for your consideration:
“The Communist Party in this country has attempted to infiltrate and subvert every segment of our society, but its continuing efforts have not achieved success of any substance. Too many self-styled experts on communism, without valid credentials and without any access whatsoever to classified factual data regarding the inner workings of the conspiracy, have engaged in rumor-mongering and hurling false and wholly unsubstantiated allegations against persons whose views differ from their own. This is dangerous business. It is divisive and unintelligent, and makes more difficult the task of the professional investigator.”
During his Warren Commission testimony, Hoover was asked a question about an article published by the Birch Society in its magazine at that time, American Opinion. Hoover chose to ignore the specific question so that he could make a larger point, as follows:
“I have read that piece. My comment on it is this in general: I think the extreme right is just as much a danger to the freedom of this country as the extreme left. There are groups, organizations, and individuals on the extreme right who make these very violent statements, allegations that General Eisenhower was a Communist, disparaging references to the Chief Justice and at the other end of the spectrum you have these leftists who make wild statements charging almost anybody with being a Fascist or belonging to some of these so-called extreme right societies.”
“Now, I have felt, and I have said publicly in speeches, that they are just as much a danger, at either end of the spectrum. They don’t deal with facts. Anybody who will allege that General Eisenhower was a Communist agent, has something wrong with him. A lot of people read such allegations because I get some of the weirdest letters wanting to know whether we have inquired to find out whether that is true. I have known General Eisenhower quite well myself and I have found him to be a sound, level-headed man.” (Warren Commission, Volume V, page 101)
I assume everyone here knows that “Stormfront” is one of the most vicious neo-nazi websites in existence.
I happened to notice this morning that one of their contributors has posted a link to this thread on Stormfront because (apparently) some nazis believe that Reaganite Republican’s arguments are compelling!
See: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t944477/
I really trust the government for the truth, especially the fbi and j edgar hoover.
FMCDH(BITS)
nothingnew:
As usual, you miss the point.
It is not a question of whether you personally trust the thousands of FBI Special Agents who investigated all sorts of matters, OR
whether or not you personally trust the thousands of informants inside legitimate and subversive organizations who made reports to the FBI, OR
whether or not you personally trust the hundreds of thousands of contacts which the FBI received from other independent sources such as local and state law enforcement, military intelligence (G-2, ONI, OSI), state and federal un-American activities committees, the Subversive Activities Control Board, the Loyalty Review Board, etc.
The point is that Robert Welch and the Birch Society are on record numerous times declaring that THEY trusted both Hoover and the FBI (as did the entire conservative movement in our country) — including (probably) every national figure whom YOU DO admire and respect.
And to refresh your memory regarding the JBS evaluation of Hoover and the FBI:
JBS Bulletin, July 1961, p 11
“But we have been equally emphatic at all times in expressing our confidence in J. Edgar Hoover and in the FBI under his direction.”
Robert Welch 11/20/64 letter to J. Edgar Hoover after seeing Boston newspaper article regarding Hoover’s criticisms of Welch at an 11/18/64 press conference:
“I can only hope that in time I may still earn your respect, simply by continuing to put all that I am and that I have into the same fight as your own. With all good wishes to you in the meantime, for your continued great service to our country, I am, Sincerely, Robert Welch” [FBI HQ file 62-104401, serial #2381, 11/20/64 letter by Welch]
Hattiesburg MS American, 5/5/65, p4 “John Birch Society Representative Discusses Talk He Will Make Tonight” re Reed Benson (the National PR Director of the JBS):
“Benson praised the dedication of J. Edgar Hoover who he said is the foremost authority on Communism. ‘I fear and tremble at thought of the day when he will be out of the FBI’ Benson said.”
Albuquerque NM Journal, 3/22/66, p1, “John Birch Lecturer” re Julia Brown (former FBI informant within CPUSA):
“We must demand full support for the great American, J. Edgar Hoover.”
American Opinion (JBS magazine), October 1966: “The Wisdom and Warning of J. Edgar Hoover”:
Hoover is described as “the government’s top authority on Communism. His patriotism, integrity, devotion to duty, and consistent efficiency are well known...Had we been wise enough to heed his clear words of warning over the years, we would not now be faced with such a monstrous conspiracy...God bless J. Edgar Hoover!”
Robert Welch letter to Hoover asking for permission to publish book with Hoover comments on communism:
“Mr. Welch advised he had the greatest admiration for the Director and that the captioned book was intended as an instrument against communism. He said he felt the statements on the subject from Mr. Hoover would be taken as statements from the world’s greatest authority on the matter of communism.” [FBI HQ file 62-104401, #3148; 6/28/67 airtel from SAC Boston to J. Edgar Hoover concerning contact made by Douglas C. Morse, Managing Editor of Western Islands Publishers.]
Review of the News (JBS magazine), 6/27/78, pp 31-44
John Rees: “J Edgar Hoover Was Right: A Review of FBI Documents Under the Freedom of Information Act” and
Review of the News, 9/5/79, pp 31-44: John Rees: “They’re Out To Destroy The FBI”
John Birch Society Website 8/19/93: Robert W. Lee: “Assassinating J. Edgar Hoover”
“If it is true that a person’s character can be judged as precisely by the enemies he earns as by the friends he makes, the character of former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover must be rated high indeed…J. Edgar Hoover had, and obviously still has, the right enemies. They continue to stand, in their own peculiar way, as a special tribute to his character, his patriotism, and those ‘social values of home’ which he espoused.”
Incidentally, why do you think that tens of thousands of FBI Special Agents over the years have been totally incompetent to do their jobs?
And more importantly:
Is it your contention that ALL of the people who were convicted of crimes based primarily (or entirely) upon FBI investigations should be exonerated and compensated because the FBI was incompetent and corrupt and never found the truth or the real culprits?
In other words, we should totally discard and dismantle the FBI’s fingerprint database? We should ignore the expertise of the FBI’s laboratory staff? We should erase the many hundreds of thousands of interviews which FBI Agents conducted which led to discovering the perpetrators of the crimes they investigated? We should destroy all of transcripts and recordings of closed, secret meetings of senior Communist Party officials? We should ignore all of the testimony of FBI security informants inside the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations which resulted in convictions of Klan members? Because ALL of this data and testimony is WORTHLESS and has no relationship to “the truth” since it originated inside the FBI?
In my experience, people (like yourself) who make the type of comment which you made are so hostile toward Hoover or the FBI (and so intellectually lazy) that you have become totally irrational.
Furthermore, I am willing to bet that you have never even seen an FBI investigative file — which is why you can so cavalierly pretend that nothing in them is valuable. What an incredibly stupid position to associate yourself with!
No reply is needed.
FMCDH(BITS)
Wm F Buckley was a NeoLiberal Globalist just as the John Birchers knew! Buckley really showed this when he purged the National Review of actual conservatives and filled the leadership with the NeoCon aka faux Con followers of Strauss and Trotsky. It has always been pretty evident that almost all Yankee Republicans were worthless and just look what these types have done hand in hand with leftist progs aka Stalin’s useful tools towards destroying the Republic.
Thinking things through for yourself does not preclude error, does it? Significantly, your snide reply does not refute anything I have presented.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.