Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

COMMUNISM and CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT --More Birch Society Myths
10-04-03 | Ernieinps@aol.com

Posted on 10/04/2003 10:35:07 AM PDT by Ernie.cal

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: JohnGalt
The ACLU Communists - "Those of us who champion civil liberties in the United States and who at the same time support the proletarian dictatorship of the Soviet Union are charged with inconsistency and insincerity. … If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle … it is only because those liberties help create a more hospitable atmosphere for working-class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world. … When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. … We want also to look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, to talk a great deal about the Constitution" - ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin

The Communist Background of the American Civil Liberties Union - Anarchist Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU in 1919, after his release from prison where he served a sentence for draft evasion, at a party attended by Socialist Party notable Norman Thomas, future Communist Party chairman Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Soviet agent Agnes Smedley. In 1920, Rev. Harry Ward, the Red Dean of the Union Theological Seminary was Chairman, Baldwin was director, and Communist publisher Louis Budenz, who would later go on to testify against Communism, director of publicity. Other Communist and radical founders included William Z. Foster, author of “Toward Soviet America,” Harold J. Laski, Morris Hilquit, A.J.Muste, Scott Nearing, Eugene V. Debs, and John Dewey.

The ACLU: Bill of Rights' Implausible Defenders - In 1931, a congressional report of the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated: "The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly; but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each state by the federal Constitution."

21 posted on 10/05/2003 2:10:47 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
The National Lawyers Guild: Keeping Marxism Alive and Well in America

National Lawyers Guild and its Terrorist Network

The Fifth Column s Legal Team


22 posted on 10/05/2003 2:20:03 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BattleFlag
Yes, those crafty cave dwellers whom the gubmint let in through the front door and live amongst us with expired visas.
23 posted on 10/05/2003 5:44:15 AM PDT by JohnGalt (Attn Pseudocons: Wilsonianrepublic.com is still available.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Abcdefg
In effect!
24 posted on 10/05/2003 6:31:16 AM PDT by Chapita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
I didn't realize that I had released so much info; must be more careful in the future!
25 posted on 10/05/2003 6:34:58 AM PDT by Chapita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
I think the difference between your perception and mine is not that I am ill-informed but that you don't understand what I'm saying.

You seem to think that unless people who are official, card-carrying, dues-paying Communists are also official, card-carrying, dues-paying NAACP members, the penetration has not occurred. That if one cannot find documentation showing checks made out to the CPUSA, penetration has not occurred.

Ideas don't work that way. Penetration and subsequent influence is revealed not in membership lists and money trails alone. It's revealed in attitudes. It's revealed in how an entire culture has been altered, radically altered. What do you suppose the objective you mentioned WAS? I'll tell you: it was to weaken the American ethic of work, individualism, and self-reliance, something that was just as much a part of black culture as white.... until recently. Blacks built entire towns before the Marxist influence crippled them and turned them into wards of the state.

Another goal was to foment class warfare. Since even the poor in America are well-fed and have a lot of the luxuries that would amaze a family in Vietnam, Communists replaced class warfare with race warfare, and have been doing their best to encourage racial hatred. Black separatism is very much a result of Marxist influence.

And notice how the word "minorities" now refers to Latinos and African-Americans, and that's pretty much it? Why do you suppose that is? I'll tell you why: most Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, and Arab-Americans have escaped or emigrated from oppressive Marxist or theocratic regimes... they embrace the American ethic (unless they're Islamist infiltrators, another topic altogether, yet not so very different.)

But Latinos are the second tier of Communist influence, and have not yet suffered enough Killing Fields to learn to hate Marxism. Thus you have African-Americans and Latinos united under pictures of Che Guevara. Do you understand what I'm saying now?

26 posted on 10/05/2003 6:49:24 AM PDT by wizardoz (Palestinians blow up over the least little thing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; Ernie.cal
Joe, what do you think of my previous post? And did you show all those quotes and links to Ernie?
27 posted on 10/05/2003 6:51:54 AM PDT by wizardoz (Palestinians blow up over the least little thing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wizardoz
Wizard:

My questions to you are:

1. What, in your judgment, constitutes "influence"
that can be attributed exclusively to
"Communist" efforts?

2. You use the word "attitudes" -- but whom do you
propose as the arbiter of a "correct" or "patriotic"
attitude versus a "subversive" or noxious "attitude"?
You seem to be saying that YOUR PERSONAL POLITICAL
PREFERENCES should become the standard by which all
matters should be judged.

3. Virtually ALL "evidence" of alleged "Communist
influence" within Highlander originated with
segregationists. Do you consider those persons
as impartial, fair analysts? (Please re-read
the testimony of Ed Friend to refresh yourself on
how he defined "subversive").

4. Your insinuations about the NAACP are completely
false and, of course, not based upon any empirical
evidence. Once again, you confuse Communist attempts
to infiltrate organizations with actual success at
influencing policies or activities.

5. Suppose that Highlander staff engaged in voter
registration efforts due to the "influence"
of secret Communists involved with the school.
Local segregationists opposed all such activities.
Are you proposing that our country would now be
better if the segregationists had triumphed over
the alleged "Communists" and the persons whose
"attitudes" they "influenced"?

Ernie
28 posted on 10/05/2003 9:24:06 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wizardoz
Wizard:

One more thing I forgot to include in my previous response to your comments.

When black Americans look back in time and ask the question "who stood with us during our civil rights battles?" -- obviously, the persons and groups that share your viewpoint (such as the Birch Society) are totally invisible.

However, the Birch Society did make it clear whose side THEY were on! Numerous Birch Society officials, including National Council members, chapter and section leaders, and prominent authors they recommended were often racists, segregationists, or otherwise connected to White Citizens Councils or even more noxious white-supremacy organizations.

Why is that?

Ernie
29 posted on 10/05/2003 9:36:56 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
One more thing I forgot to include in my previous response to your comments.

I'll just answer this since I answered your other comments in private e-mail (why do you send them both public and private, by the way? Could we just pick one?)

When black Americans look back in time and ask the question "who stood with us during our civil rights battles?" -- obviously, the persons and groups that share your viewpoint (such as the Birch Society) are totally invisible.

Sure.

However, the Birch Society did make it clear whose side THEY were on! Numerous Birch Society officials, including National Council members, chapter and section leaders, and prominent authors they recommended were often racists, segregationists, or otherwise connected to White Citizens Councils or even more noxious white-supremacy organizations. Why is that?

Because they were supporting States' Rights, I suspect. My caveat to you would be that the Communists were using Black Americans, simple as that. They used them the way a pimp uses his girls. And those girls will look back at the mean cops who arrested them, and then at the pimp who bailed them out, and spoke nicely to them... (and then put them back on the front lines,) and they'll make the wrong decision, again and again.

It's difficult to ultimately decide that the principles of those unsympathetic to you are better than the goals of those who were nice, and stroked you, and smiled at you. But I'd advise black Americans to think it over. Look at Cuba, whose prisons are 85% black. Look at North Korea and China, and ask how many people they murdered. Look at what Communists did to Angola, slaughtering thousands of Angolans because to the Communists, they were utterly expendable.

Everything good to you isn't good for you.

30 posted on 10/06/2003 6:55:44 AM PDT by wizardoz (Palestinians blow up over the least little thing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
Oh, by the way, for anyone interested, Don West was indeed a member of the Communist Party, according to the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel99/foia1130.htm
31 posted on 10/06/2003 6:57:13 AM PDT by wizardoz (Palestinians blow up over the least little thing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wizardoz
Well, Wizard, I admire your candor but you are simply on the wrong side of history.

No thinking person allies himself with anyone or any group that is morally defective just because that person or group might have some political ideas that resonate.

That's why even IF one could make a case for seductive conclusions and proposals offered by the KKK, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, etc. -- no honorable, decent person would find it acceptable to become an adherent or promoter of their viewpoints.

There is something particularly noxious and specious about using "State's Rights" as a device for denying basic human rights to your fellow citizens because of one's self-perceived racial superiority --- in much the same way that Communists used their theories of "inevitable" historical development to justify mass murder to advance "social progress".

Finally, with respect to Don West and Highlander Folk School: I haven't seen the evidence yet to confirm that he was a Communist Party member. I have about 70% of the FBI files on Highlander Folk School and his name wasn't even mentioned in the documents I have. However, as I pointed out in my original posting, Don West and Myles Horton were associated for a very brief period of time (about 6 months) before their relationship soured and a parting-of-the-ways occurred. So--what, one wonders, did Don West actually contribute in the context of his alleged "Communist" motivation?

Also--since I was asked, rhetorically, "where did the money come from?" to start Highlander....there is nothing mysterious about it.

Several books and doctoral dissertations have discussed Highlander Folk School (HFS) history in exhaustive detail and a major portion of Highlander's papers are archived at the State Historical Society of Wisconsin in Madison WI as well as the Tennessee State Library Manuscripts Division in Nashville.

Lilian W. Johnson donated her farm for the creation of HFS and Myles Horton sought (and received) modest financial assistance from acquaintances he met during his education at Union Theological Seminary (and elsewhere) plus within the labor movement. During the winter of 1932-1933, Highlander cash on-hand dwindled to $250. By April 1933, the school had 8 students---hardly an inspiring financial success!

History is often the story of determined individuals working against established authority or orthodoxy. Even Birchers should be able to appreciate how difficult it is to "go against the flow" of prevailing wisdom or customs.

Highlander Folk School did nothing in its long history to deserve the venomous attacks it received from racists and non-racists fearful of a society undergoing change. Unfortunately, as was so often the case, the John Birch Society chose to ally themselves with mean-spirited attacks that seldom were based upon facts---as even the FBI recognized over time.
32 posted on 10/06/2003 8:58:18 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
So was King wrong about saying that blacks should have voting rights and the ability to participate in the economic structure of their communities?
33 posted on 10/06/2003 9:00:50 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
No thinking person allies himself with anyone or any group that is morally defective just because that person or group might have some political ideas that resonate.

Well, you'd better abandon all political individual rights, then, because the men who enumerated them were slaveholders.

You'll also have to abandon all religion.

As for Highlander, it is obvious that you are determined to defend them. Go ahead. I can't stop you. I just think you are deep in denial.

34 posted on 10/07/2003 3:31:01 PM PDT by wizardoz (Palestinians blow up over the least little thing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: wizardoz
Wizard -- Sorry to report that you totally lost me in your reply.

For the record, I am not determined to defend Highlander. I merely think that (a) facts matter --and-- (b) mistaken ideas have consequences. If, for example, it were true that Highlander engaged in illegal activities or served as a cover for subversives to accomplish their ends, I would have no problem acknowledging that because I have no vested interest in Highlander.

Similarly, for example, if it turns out that Don West was actually a member of the Communist Party -- I will have no problem acknowledging that either. What is still left open to question, however, is precisely what effect he had on HFS policies and programs.

This may come as a shock to you, but for many years I defended the Birch Society against some of its more irrational and mean-spirited critics. In fact, there are several issues about which the Birch Society and I are in agreement (although perhaps for different reasons).

However, I still think that truth should matter -- and while I do not pretend to be the repository of all knowledge and wisdom --- I think a reasonable, compelling case can be made that the JBS injured American society and specific individuals and organizations with FALSEHOODS that go beyond mere differences in political philosophy. (For one example, see my previous posting concerning Harry Overstreet).

I also would recommend that interested parties take a look at J.R. Nyquist's pertinent August 2001 article entitled "Not All Conspiracies Are Created Equal" at:
http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/aug/28/nyquist.htm


Ernie

35 posted on 10/07/2003 5:44:42 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
If you will abandon State's Rights because it was once supported by racists, it is not surprising that you can't follow my arguments. From what I can tell, you don't even read most of what I write.
36 posted on 10/07/2003 8:21:53 PM PDT by wizardoz (Palestinians blow up over the least little thing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wizardoz
Wizard - Now you are inventing straw-man arguments!

I never said anything about "abandoning" States rights arguments because racists hijacked that philosophical viewpoint. My point is that we should reject the RACISTS -- not States rights!

One might want to peruse the FBI file entitled "KKK Infiltration of Law Enforcement" for some background into how prominent southern community leaders (judges, sheriffs, police departments, clergymen, newspapers, businessmen, etc.) were using "States rights" to hide their true agenda.

You and I may disagree over what takes priority when a decision must be made about egregious violations by State or local governments controlled by segregationists whose phony fights against "subversion" or "un-American" activities were usually nothing more than window-dressing for their white supremacist point of view.

There are many honorable, decent, and thoughtful Americans who championed the States' rights position (Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater come immediately into mind) -- but they did so WITHOUT appealing to the WORST qualities in our countrymen or allying themselves with bigots.

Regretably, such figures as Sen. James Eastland (MS), Gov. Ross Barnett (MS), Gov. Marvin Griffin (GA), General Edwin A. Walker, and the John Birch Society (to name just a few) fall into the latter category.

A good idea does not become a bad one just because bad people attach themselves to it. That applies to left-wing ideas also---something which Birchers need to consider when they attempt to conflate Communism with anything left-of-center that they don't like.

And, yes, I HAVE read all of your posts (usually 2 or more times). Not sure what you think I overlooked.

Ernie
37 posted on 10/08/2003 11:31:07 AM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
I never said anything about "abandoning" States rights arguments because racists hijacked that philosophical viewpoint.

Well, perhaps we'd better slow down and maybe you can elaborate what you meant by this:

No thinking person allies himself with anyone or any group that is morally defective just because that person or group might have some political ideas that resonate.

38 posted on 10/08/2003 2:29:12 PM PDT by wizardoz (Palestinians blow up over the least little thing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wizardoz
Wizard: I'll try to be more clear.

Honorable men and women can argue and disagree about all sorts of public policy questions.

However, when we consider whom or what is deserving of our political or financial support, it seems to me that an honorable, decent person understands that certain options are unacceptable---EVEN IF those options might propose ideas, policies, and programs that otherwise might seem attractive.

I previously used Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and KKK as examples of options that would be unacceptable under any circumstances, because they are morally defective, i.e. the spirit underlying their premises, conclusions, and proposals are manifestly hateful and designed to capitalize upon fear and suspicion, and can only lead (if successful) to oppression.

In a free society, no honorable decent person should ally themselves with "States' rights" (SR) proponents if SR is being used as a device to impose and sustain second-class citizenship on a segment of Americans whom SR proponents consider inferior beings undeserving of equal protection of the law.

Consequently, the well-known systematic disenfranchisement and intimidation of black Americans as a matter of public policy in States like Alabama and Mississippi would render void any claims to SR used by racists who were prominent citizens and civil authorities within those States.

Finally, I would very much like to give the benefit of the doubt to organizations like the John Birch Society when it comes to whether or not their alliance with racists was nothing more than incidental to their main focus on SR. Obviously, the JBS had many fine and decent folks as members. But, regretably, official JBS spokespersons and literature never seemed willing to make the distinctions I have discussed above. The JBS was a magnet for all sorts of characters whose beliefs were (at a minimum) racially insensitive and mean-spirited and, in some instances, outright bigots.
39 posted on 10/08/2003 5:01:05 PM PDT by Ernie.cal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ernie.cal
And I say violating a principle like States' Rights in order to attain a desirable end was the wrong thing to do. Find a way to attain the end without violating the principle.
40 posted on 10/08/2003 7:11:35 PM PDT by wizardoz (Palestinians blow up over the least little thing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson