I find a lot of the views expressed on that site repugnant, and would not re-post them. You seem to have a desire to re-post and cite that site repeatedly, thereby having the side effect of increasing its search engine reference counts. Why would you want to do that?
As I have noted previously, you are very sensitive to being characterized as someone who is "liberal", even though you consider yourself "a libertarian populist", believe "in catholic social justice precepts" and you apparently look favorably on Eugene Debs:
Have you heard of Eugene Debs, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton? Do you know anything about their tireless efforts with respect to women’s suffrage or the 8-hour work day or equal pay for women?
In 1917, Eugene Debs’ hometown newspaper in Terre Haute IN described him as “a man who had devoted more time and interest than any other man in the United States to bring about political freedom for women.”
As I presume you know, Eugene Debs ran for president on several occasions as the candidate of the Socialist party. He was a very well known socialist. You are the first person who claims to subscribe to conservative or libertarian values I have ever seen pick Eugene Debs as a positive example for anything.
You also use the common liberal tactic of insulting anyone who disagrees with you, or points out a fault in your logic or statements.
I'll leave it to others to figure out your motivations and beliefs.
Everything contained in your message is based upon your FALSE and UNKIND assumptions about me and disingenuous statements about your own beliefs.
1. You do NOT find Metapedia “repugnant”. Instead, you immediately decided to quote from it as a reliable source of information about me.
2. My “posting” in Metapedia consists SOLELY of my reply to their egregious falsehoods about my background. If you were intellectually honest (which you are not), you would have recognized that Metapedia is a bigoted website. If you had performed even minimal due diligence, you would have noticed their self-description on their homepage which made it obvious that they deliberately slant their articles to conform to their bigotry and Jew-hatred.
3. I am NOT “sensitive to being characterized as someone who is ‘liberal’ “ That is your FABRICATION. If I was a liberal, I would have no problem acknowledging that. My objection is to being FALSELY described on a bigoted website — which YOU then repeated.
4. I do not “look favorably” upon Eugene Debs — in terms of his socialist beliefs. I referred to him only in reply to your absurdity that people left-of-center have nothing valuable to contribute to our national discussions and to point out that many reforms which have been adopted in our country’s history originated with left-of-center individuals. Once again, this proves that you are INCAPABLE of making rational distinctions.
5. The “insults” in this thread began when YOU falsely attributed beliefs and values to me which are NOT who I am — and you chose to use sinister insinuations and snide or sarcastic remarks instead of obeying God’s 9th Commandment.
6. Insults are not the exclusive property of liberals or conservatives. Again, this reveals your ideological pre-supposition that anything left-of-center must always be condemned and ridiculed. Shame on you.
Incidentally, just to illustrate how incredibly vacuous your intellect is.....and to illustrate the extent of your irrationality and your FALSE assumptions about me:
(1) My research into the Communist Party USA has been recognized by many of our nation’s most prominent historians and scholars as exceptionally valuable. I was the first person to discover the actual number of FBI security informants inside the Communist Party — and I posted that info on my CPUSA webpage here:
https://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/cpusa
That information was also posted online in the History of American Communism (HOAC) Discussion Network. On at least 3 occasions, Dr. John Earl Haynes has referred to my research in HOAC.
The academic journal, American Communist History (ACH), publishes articles by many of our nation’s most well-known and respected scholars who specialize in the history of the communist movement in the U.S. In 2009, ACH published an article regarding my research.
(2) During my online debates/discussions, I have often been asked what book I recommend for an accurate understanding of communism. Usually, I refer readers to the 1999 book, “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression”.
I mention all this because of your absurdity that “hearing others denounce leftist ideas must grate on you.”
IF you were intellectually honest (which, again, you clearly are not), you would ask pertinent questions before forming derogatory judgments about somebody who is a total stranger to you. But like all political extremists, you prefer to ATTACK rather than engage in principled discussion.
(3) It is significant that during this entire discussion you have not revealed anything about your own background.
Last time I checked, there are more than 8000 references online to my research or to my most common screen name (ernie1241) and another 2000+ to my full name.
There are also many additional references to me online — including, for example, (1) universities which have created webpages to summarize the material which I have donated to them such as: http://crws.berkeley.edu/fbi-foia-archive
and (2) the Internet Archive which has posted hundreds of FBI files in my collection online (link below) and I will be donating hundreds more FBI files to them later this year:
https://archive.org/details/lazarfoia
There are also many references online to authors who have used material which I gave to them in their books, academic journal articles, conference papers, doctoral dissertations, newsletters, etc. Last time I checked, there were about 150 references online to me in those sources.
BY CONTRAST: What do we know ABOUT YOU? Absolutely nothing!
(4) Ankle-biters (like yourself) are quick to make adverse judgments — but they rarely perform rudimentary research to obtain factual information before arriving at those adverse judgments. Your behavior here indisputably proves that you prefer to attack and slime somebody — which certainly explains why you rely upon bigoted websites like Metapedia.