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?
posted on 10/05/2003 6:49:24 AM PDT
(Palestinians blow up over the least little thing...)
My questions to you are:
1. What, in your judgment, constitutes "influence"
that can be attributed exclusively to
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"?
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?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson