Since this has no place in the gamming forum I'm taking that discussion with jhkim and continuing it here.
BLM calls for genocide, should I give money to anyone supporting them? Even if I believe genocide is wrong? Even if they are calling for the genocide of people with MY skin color?
I'm very curious, which is to say suspicious, about the source of that image. Not saying it's a fake, but it doesn't really mean much if it isn't coming from some recognized source that is directly tied to BLM influencers etc., any more than some anonymous "white power rah rah" leaflet with the GOP logo would be credible.
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 07, 2021, 09:16:04 PM
I'm very curious, which is to say suspicious, about the source of that image. Not saying it's a fake, but it doesn't really mean much if it isn't coming from some recognized source that is directly tied to BLM influencers etc., any more than some anonymous "white power rah rah" leaflet with the GOP logo would be credible.
Oh really? You think the same people thay say this
https://www.ibtimes.com/black-lives-matter-most-controversial-quotes-statements-2492936 (https://www.ibtimes.com/black-lives-matter-most-controversial-quotes-statements-2492936)
Wouldn't say that?
Give me a break.
So you don't know where it came from then?
Quote from: Trinculoisdead on December 07, 2021, 10:22:29 PM
So you don't know where it came from then?
I'm trying to remember where.
It's a hoax. Created by anti-BLM people to smear BLM. Nothing tracks it back to actual BLM. See for example:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-flyer-enemy-of-people/
Quote from: Mistwell on December 08, 2021, 12:12:55 AM
It's a hoax. Created by anti-BLM people to smear BLM. Nothing tracks it back to actual BLM. See for example:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-flyer-enemy-of-people/
On the other side, Snopes saying "it's a hoax" without any proof is not actually proof of anything, other than Snopes' very well known leftist bias. The link actually admits that they have no idea where the flyer originated from, but they are just declaring that it was made by white-supremacists.
Could be a false flag or troll.
Then again, BLM has plenty of black supremacists in their ranks.
BLM is a terrorist organization. Nobody needs to make up things to smear BLM, the facts of murdered police, murdered children, and smoldering cities speak for themselves.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 08, 2021, 12:12:55 AM
It's a hoax. Created by anti-BLM people to smear BLM. Nothing tracks it back to actual BLM
If you want a real BLM smear, their co-founder is a self-admitted marxist https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/ (https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/) for whom all of this is just a lens to push for that. Their leadership is also fabulously wealthy https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/ (https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/)all of the sudden.
She resigned recently and mysteriously, but the radical bullshit is still all baked in.
And communists are pretty good at genocide. So I don't see BLM pushing for genocide intentionally. Just by side effect.
If you believe they are a good cause, your either ignorant, or an idiot.
Edited out of DCC thread
QuoteThat explains it. That's a complex juxtaposition of Jesus' teaching* and the fucking nonsense Libertarians believe.
*while he lived before Marx, I think it's safe to say Jesus was a socialist.
No we were not. Dear Lord, I have to do with freaking libertarians all around expanding definition of socialism to everything they don't like (and I mean Geeky is guilty as well), and then came you using the same bullshit in some ridiculous attempt to prove it was cool.
State do something = communism. That's some bullshit.
Socialism to be socialism demands public or collective ownership of means of production. Land. Technology. Factories.
So no state hiring guards to guard streets does not count. Or freaking charity actions.
QuoteSo to you supporting those who make calls to exterminate a race is not supporting those who want to exterminate a race? Would need to search for it but Burn Loot Murder has made such calls.
QuoteBLM is a terrorist organization. Nobody needs to make up things to smear BLM, the facts of murdered police, murdered children, and smoldering cities speak for themselves.
Luckily for BLM they are not organisation, but Twitter hashtag. Ergo lot of people with wastly different persepectives could write various bullshit underneath. Decentralised, disorganised movement which is basically no movement at all.
I need more for witch hunt than this. Specifics. Otherwise it's no different than some lefty loon making claims all Christians are like David Koresh because we all use same prayers.
If for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter_Global_Network_Foundation those guys are promoting violence, theft and so on, and then you have some designers paying them or being member, that's another thing.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 08, 2021, 01:59:22 PMLuckily for BLM they are not organisation, but Twitter hashtag. Ergo lot of people with wastly different persepectives could write various bullshit underneath. Decentralised, disorganised movement which is basically no movement at all.
Something doesn't stop having general overriding objectives and general goals if its decentralized or has a twitter hashtag. Some segments are disorganized. Others are very organized.
I think only general overreaching sentiment is: black Americans are unjustly more persecuted by police due to prejudice than other ethnic groups and it should stop.
Anything more- I need to delve deeper into specific people and well real organisation that exist in this wide movement.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 08, 2021, 02:14:39 PM
I think only general overreaching sentiment is: black Americans are unjustly more persecuted by police due to prejudice than other ethnic groups and it should stop.
Which is already a tenous position in terms of its connection to reality. The tenous reasonable (without much further thought) sounding position is a thin smokescreen for misanthropic people and commies.
The commies in the USSR positioned their desire for utter destruction of the state and every general aspect of life behind a genuine greviance to the Tsar. And that greviance was more real then what BLM is complaining about. And it still had lots of useful idiots lined at the walls and shot (or sent to gulags).
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 08, 2021, 08:13:43 AM
Could be a false flag or troll.
Then again, BLM has plenty of black supremacists in their ranks.
Without any source, author, or other evidence that it is genuine, I don't think that the flyer from the OP is worth discussing. Black Lives Matter is a well-known movement - there is plenty to discuss without turning to unsourced material.
As others say, the problem with discussing Black Lives Matter is that it's a widespread hashtag movement. Like other hashtag movements from GamerGate to MeToo, it's hard to pin down any specific beliefs or policies among supporters. There are founders and activists, but most people who use the hashtag aren't expressing faith in the founders or any particular organization - they are supporting the general cause. From recent polling (Sep 2021), about 28% of Americans say they strongly support Black Lives Matter, and about 55% at least somewhat support it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/27/support-for-black-lives-matter-declined-after-george-floyd-protests-but-has-remained-unchanged-since/
QuoteWhich is already a tenous position in terms of its connection to reality. The tenous reasonable (without much further thought) sounding position is a thin smokescreen for misanthropic people and commies.
I agree. Alas it's living sentiment.
QuoteThe commies in the USSR positioned their desire for utter destruction of the state and every general aspect of life behind a genuine greviance to the Tsar. And that greviance was more real then what BLM is complaining about. And it still had lots of useful idiots lined at the walls and shot (or sent to gulags).
But then with Stalin it was revealed they well all crypto-Tsarist all along ;)
QuoteFrom recent polling (Sep 2021), about 28% of Americans say they strongly support Black Lives Matter, and about 55% at least somewhat support it.
Are those 28 within 55 or is it 83% of people being unopposed at least?
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 08, 2021, 03:00:55 PMBut then with Stalin it was revealed they well all crypto-Tsarist all along ;)
This is also a lie purpetuated by commies. That Stalin killed all those people because he was just a dictator, not because he was a communist. While debatable, I believe the bloodiest and cruel things he did where in the name of communism.
The commies revealed their true intentions when after the more popular first revolution, they turned on anybody that was OK with the status qou-sans tsars. Which was the longer and bloodier revolution.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 08, 2021, 03:00:55 PM
Quote from: jhkim on December 08, 2021, 02:58:12 PM
From recent polling (Sep 2021), about 28% of Americans say they strongly support Black Lives Matter, and about 55% at least somewhat support it.
Are those 28 within 55 or is it 83% of people being unopposed at least?
Sorry it wasn't clear. The 55% includes the 28% - I had intended the "at least" to indicate that. Exclusive, it's 28% strongly support, 27% somewhat support. So that's about 90 million each, or 180 million total.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2021, 04:34:07 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 08, 2021, 03:00:55 PMBut then with Stalin it was revealed they well all crypto-Tsarist all along ;)
This is also a lie purpetuated by commies. That Stalin killed all those people because he was just a dictator, not because he was a communist. While debatable, I believe the bloodiest and cruel things he did where in the name of communism.
The commies revealed their true intentions when after the more popular first revolution, they turned on anybody that was OK with the status qou-sans tsars. Which was the longer and bloodier revolution.
It's an interesting thing trying to figure out how many people were killed by communism. Then you come to the realization that it'd be a lot less if the USG had gone after the commies in our own government that McCarthy warned about. Communists in the Dept of State slow-rolled aid to Chiang Kai -Shek, forcing a retreat to Taiwan and letting Mao take over. No Mao = no Korean War and no Vietnam War...
Let that sink in.
Quote from: 3catcircus on December 08, 2021, 05:30:38 PMIt's an interesting thing trying to figure out how many people were killed by communism. Then you come to the realization that it'd be a lot less if the USG had gone after the commies in our own government that McCarthy warned about.
While the USA has been damaged by infiltration, the USA has sucked at nation building. We don't know what would have happened.
Quote from: jhkim on December 08, 2021, 02:58:12 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 08, 2021, 08:13:43 AM
Could be a false flag or troll.
Then again, BLM has plenty of black supremacists in their ranks.
Without any source, author, or other evidence that it is genuine, I don't think that the flyer from the OP is worth discussing. Black Lives Matter is a well-known movement - there is plenty to discuss without turning to unsourced material.
As others say, the problem with discussing Black Lives Matter is that it's a widespread hashtag movement. Like other hashtag movements from GamerGate to MeToo, it's hard to pin down any specific beliefs or policies among supporters. There are founders and activists, but most people who use the hashtag aren't expressing faith in the founders or any particular organization - they are supporting the general cause. From recent polling (Sep 2021), about 28% of Americans say they strongly support Black Lives Matter, and about 55% at least somewhat support it.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/27/support-for-black-lives-matter-declined-after-george-floyd-protests-but-has-remained-unchanged-since/
Well, that's an extension of the problem. "Do you support the BLM movement?" doesn't mean much. Do they support the widespread looting and burning of minority owned businesses done in the name of BLM? Do they support the founders of BLM as an organization of "trained marxists"?
Quote from: jhkim on December 08, 2021, 02:58:12 PM
From recent polling (Sep 2021), about 28% of Americans say they strongly support Black Lives Matter, and about 55% at least somewhat support it.
That percentage reminds me of the Scott Adams Law of Polling.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2021, 05:52:02 PM
Quote from: 3catcircus on December 08, 2021, 05:30:38 PMIt's an interesting thing trying to figure out how many people were killed by communism. Then you come to the realization that it'd be a lot less if the USG had gone after the commies in our own government that McCarthy warned about.
While the USA has been damaged by infiltration, the USA has sucked at nation building. We don't know what would have happened.
It's not "Hey, you. Yeah, you, random bastard. You're the next contestant on who wants to be President" nation building I'm referring to. It's a commie in the State Dept's shipping department "losing" paperwork, purposely preventing aid going where it's intended by Congress and the President. There don't need to be active measures - just delaying tactics - that have allowed hidden commies to be effective.
Nobody really likes to admit that McCarthy was right -- that there were communists infesting the State Department.
Here's a fun exercise: the Army-McCarthy hearings were not really about the Army; they were about the prospect of censuring McCarthy because he'd been raising the alarm over numerous security risks. Everyone knows about Joseph Welch and his weepy 'have you no sense of decency, sir?' -- but how many people know what he was responding to? What was the context?
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 09, 2021, 07:55:55 AM
Nobody really likes to admit that McCarthy was right -- that there were communists infesting the State Department.
Here's a fun exercise: the Army-McCarthy hearings were not really about the Army; they were about the prospect of censuring McCarthy because he'd been raising the alarm over numerous security risks. Everyone knows about Joseph Welch and his weepy 'have you no sense of decency, sir?' -- but how many people know what he was responding to? What was the context?
I didn't for a long time. I only knew that McCarthy was the bad guy, chasing imaginary commies and harassing good, decent people.
Of course, the only thing I knew about McCarthy and the hearings was what pop culture told me.
By the time I got to this video, I'd already become skeptical of everything I had culturally absorbed, so it wasn't such a shock as when I first learned about Marxist Feminism.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 09, 2021, 07:55:55 AM
Nobody really likes to admit that McCarthy was right -- that there were communists infesting the State Department.
Here's a fun exercise: the Army-McCarthy hearings were not really about the Army; they were about the prospect of censuring McCarthy because he'd been raising the alarm over numerous security risks. Everyone knows about Joseph Welch and his weepy 'have you no sense of decency, sir?' -- but how many people know what he was responding to? What was the context?
I agree that there were communist agents and informants working in the U.S. government, just as there were American agents and informants working in the Soviet government at the time. It was the Cold War, after all. But McCarthy didn't just make generic claims about communists in government. He made very specific claims like this:
QuoteI have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.
He never released his list, and never proved a single member of the Communist Party working in the State Department. I do not believe that this list even existed, or that Dean Acheson was informed of the names on it.
There are tons of proven, well-sourced criticisms of communism, but McCarthy's attacks aren't that. It's much like the original post of this thread. There's tons of proven, well-sourced ways to criticize Black Lives Matter. Why turn to an un-attributed, un-sourced image of a flyer that is likely a false flag?
As for the "have you no decency" line - that was about McCarthy trying to attack former legal assistant Fred Fisher because of his prior work for the National Lawyer's Guild (NLG) while in law school. As a progressive organization, the NLG had been accused of being a communist front. Because Fisher had quit the NLG long ago and was no longer on the case, McCarthy's continued attacks on him were perceived as malicious attacks on a private citizen unrelated to the topic of the hearing.
Quote from: jhkim on December 09, 2021, 01:58:07 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 09, 2021, 07:55:55 AM
Nobody really likes to admit that McCarthy was right -- that there were communists infesting the State Department.
Here's a fun exercise: the Army-McCarthy hearings were not really about the Army; they were about the prospect of censuring McCarthy because he'd been raising the alarm over numerous security risks. Everyone knows about Joseph Welch and his weepy 'have you no sense of decency, sir?' -- but how many people know what he was responding to? What was the context?
I agree that there were communist agents and informants working in the U.S. government, just as there were American agents and informants working in the Soviet government at the time. It was the Cold War, after all. But McCarthy didn't just make generic claims about communists in government. He made very specific claims like this:
QuoteI have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.
He never released his list, and never proved a single member of the Communist Party working in the State Department. I do not believe that this list even existed, or that Dean Acheson was informed of the names on it.
There are tons of proven, well-sourced criticisms of communism, but McCarthy's attacks aren't that. It's much like the original post of this thread. There's tons of proven, well-sourced ways to criticize Black Lives Matter. Why turn to an un-attributed, un-sourced image of a flyer that is likely a false flag?
As for the "have you no decency" line - that was about McCarthy trying to attack former legal assistant Fred Fisher because of his prior work for the National Lawyer's Guild (NLG) while in law school. As a progressive organization, the NLG had been accused of being a communist front. Because Fisher had quit the NLG long ago and was no longer on the case, McCarthy's continued attacks on him were perceived as malicious attacks on a private citizen unrelated to the topic of the hearing.
As usual, you are wrong, more wrong, and always wrong.
One, McCarthy was hesitant to name names because as he said himself, he could be wrong. Show me leftists who had that kind of forbearance.
Two, the NLG was flagged as a Commie/radleft group by the FBI, particularly as it was raising funds for the fucking Weather Underground. This slap at Fisher came after Welch had spent hours hectoring Roy Cohn, gaybaiting him, and mocking him for his concern over commies in the State Department.
Now get fucked, tankie. Go play with those millions of skulls that serve as a monument to communism.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 09, 2021, 07:55:55 AM
Nobody really likes to admit that McCarthy was right -- that there were communists infesting the State Department.
Yup, he was absolutely right. And Hollywood, and the education system, and all the rest of the civil services.
I have doubts that flier is real. However, all it does is espouse EXACTLY what the organization BLM espouses, just out loud and without any sort of attempts at hiding their intentions. As mentioned already, avowed communist and dismantling the nuclear family is more than enough to make them my enemy, period. I would also say the "movement" is just a bunch of bullshit contrived by the media and this felonious organization (which is run from behind the curtain by a woman who was a terrorist). So dipshits "supporting" it means about nothing to me, well nothing beyond a segment of proof the average iq in the country is under 100 now. When I saw the "hands up dont shoot" was going to be a real thing, I knew the decline was going hard and heavy.
The flyer is either a quote, or a summary. Does it matter much which it is?
As for the flyer: I doubt thats legit marketting material by anything but the most fringe.
But is a segment of the BLM leadership racist fucks that wouldn't be against genocide? Yes. Again you would have to be utterly oblivious, a liar, or a moron to believe otherwise after their current actions.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 08, 2021, 12:43:00 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on December 08, 2021, 12:12:55 AM
It's a hoax. Created by anti-BLM people to smear BLM. Nothing tracks it back to actual BLM
If you want a real BLM smear, their co-founder is a self-admitted marxist https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/ (https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/) for whom all of this is just a lens to push for that. Their leadership is also fabulously wealthy https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/ (https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/inside-blm-co-founder-patrisse-khan-cullors-real-estate-buying-binge/)all of the sudden.
She resigned recently and mysteriously, but the radical bullshit is still all baked in.
And communists are pretty good at genocide. So I don't see BLM pushing for genocide intentionally. Just by side effect.
If you believe they are a good cause, your either ignorant, or an idiot.
I believe they didn't make this flyer is what I believe. "Oh sure this one was totally wrong but look over here" is a non-sequitur.
Everyone trying to justify fake news because it sounds right is part of the fucking problem. This is what is done to the right by the left constantly. Don't do it back. If it's fake, call it fake. Don't spin it as acceptable because it matches your world view. You're justifying the tactic of using fake things to make a caricature of those who dissent from your view. The argument should be strong enough on it's own without resort to making up a fake flyer as if it's real.
Quote from: Mistwell on December 09, 2021, 03:56:17 PM"Oh sure this one was totally wrong but look over here" is a non-sequitur.
'This one is probably not real but the group as a whole aligns to this viewpoint anyway' is not a non-sequiter.
If I made a poster for the Hutu displaying support for Tutsi genocide, that wouldn't suddenly make them non-genocidal.
I have run out of patience for people like you. If your unaware at this point, your crazy or delusional. And I put more stock in the latter. In that this ties into your identity and worldview.
QuoteEveryone trying to justify fake news because it sounds right is part of the fucking problem.
Im not justifying it. Im not saying putting that poster out is a good thing or it serves the 'greater good' of information. Id say its a bad thing to do in terms of morals, and even as a dirty tactic its a bad one because grants BLM deniability.
Quote from: DM_Curt on December 09, 2021, 03:04:38 PM
The flyer is either a quote, or a summary. Does it matter much which it is?
Regardless of whether it's against left or right, if something is a fake or false flag attack, then I'll want to know and debunk it. I would hope that everyone should agree on this. So to your question, yes, I think it does matter.
Re: McCarthy
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 09, 2021, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim on December 09, 2021, 01:58:07 PM
I agree that there were communist agents and informants working in the U.S. government, just as there were American agents and informants working in the Soviet government at the time. It was the Cold War, after all. But McCarthy didn't just make generic claims about communists in government. He made very specific claims like this:
QuoteI have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.
He never released his list, and never proved a single member of the Communist Party working in the State Department. I do not believe that this list even existed, or that Dean Acheson was informed of the names on it.
As usual, you are wrong, more wrong, and always wrong.
One, McCarthy was hesitant to name names because as he said himself, he could be wrong. Show me leftists who had that kind of forbearance.
McCarthy had no problems naming dozens of people as suspected communists who did *not* work in the State Department. Why would he specifically protect the reputation of the people who were the greatest security threat? As for protecting those on the list - he didn't need to release the list to the public in order to get confirmation of it. He could have shared it with discrete investigators, fellow members of Congress, or similar. Since according to him, those names had already been reported to Dean Acheson, the accusations were already out there. Even after seventy years we have no idea of who the names were on the list. No one in the State Department was revealed as a member of the Communist Party.
There are tons of actual documented atrocities committed by communists, and many agents revealed by prosecution and release of former Soviet secrets. With relatives who went through the Korean War, I've had plenty of direct evidence of the horrors of communism. Unsubstantiated claims like McCarthy's list weaken that picture - not strengthen it.
Quote from: jhkim on December 09, 2021, 01:58:07 PMQuoteI have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.
While I have heard that qoute repeated allot, I can't actually find the source for it.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 09, 2021, 07:18:09 PM
Quote from: jhkim on December 09, 2021, 01:58:07 PMQuoteI have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.
While I have heard that qoute repeated allot, I can't actually find the source for it.
It was reported on the Wheeling Intelligencer newspaper based on his speech in Wheeling, Feb 10, 1950.
(https://www.ohiocountylibrary.org/images/content/bk08vwdi_1950-02-10_mccarthyheadline.jpg)
Text of the article: http://129.71.204.160/history///government/mccarthy.html
He later answered that on the floor of Congress when confronted about it, and said "
I said I had in my hand 57 names of individuals who would appear to be members of or loyal to the Communist Party, but who, nevertheless, were helping to shape our foreign policy." However, when demanding a "yes" or "no" about whether he said what the newspaper reported, he refused to give a clear answer. i.e. He didn't claim they misquoted him.
The exchange in Congress is here:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Congressional_Record/iN3fBc25D_8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22I+have+here+in+my+hand+a+list+of+205%22+%22Wheeling+Intelligencer%22&pg=PA6255&printsec=frontcover
EDITED TO ADD: The link to the article text.
Quote from: jhkim on December 09, 2021, 07:40:08 PMIt was reported on the Wheeling Intelligencer newspaper based on his speech in Wheeling, Feb 10, 1950.
Apreciate it.
Quote from: jhkim on December 09, 2021, 06:21:46 PM
Quote from: DM_Curt on December 09, 2021, 03:04:38 PM
The flyer is either a quote, or a summary. Does it matter much which it is?
Regardless of whether it's against left or right, if something is a fake or false flag attack, then I'll want to know and debunk it. I would hope that everyone should agree on this. So to your question, yes, I think it does matter.
Agree. One should check their own sources even more vigirously than the other side's. I've made my share of boo-boo's but I try not to.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on December 07, 2021, 04:51:09 PM
Since this has no place in the gamming forum I'm taking that discussion with jhkim and continuing it here.
BLM calls for genocide, should I give money to anyone supporting them? Even if I believe genocide is wrong? Even if they are calling for the genocide of people with MY skin color?
And the people they want to genocide will just freaking go along with it so they don't get called racist.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 09, 2021, 02:15:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim on December 09, 2021, 01:58:07 PM
QuoteI have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.
He never released his list, and never proved a single member of the Communist Party working in the State Department. I do not believe that this list even existed, or that Dean Acheson was informed of the names on it.
There are tons of proven, well-sourced criticisms of communism, but McCarthy's attacks aren't that. It's much like the original post of this thread. There's tons of proven, well-sourced ways to criticize Black Lives Matter. Why turn to an un-attributed, un-sourced image of a flyer that is likely a false flag?
As for the "have you no decency" line - that was about McCarthy trying to attack former legal assistant Fred Fisher because of his prior work for the National Lawyer's Guild (NLG) while in law school. As a progressive organization, the NLG had been accused of being a communist front. Because Fisher had quit the NLG long ago and was no longer on the case, McCarthy's continued attacks on him were perceived as malicious attacks on a private citizen unrelated to the topic of the hearing.
As usual, you are wrong, more wrong, and always wrong.
One, McCarthy was hesitant to name names because as he said himself, he could be wrong. Show me leftists who had that kind of forbearance.
Two, the NLG was flagged as a Commie/radleft group by the FBI, particularly as it was raising funds for the fucking Weather Underground. This slap at Fisher came after Welch had spent hours hectoring Roy Cohn, gaybaiting him, and mocking him for his concern over commies in the State Department.
Now get fucked, tankie. Go play with those millions of skulls that serve as a monument to communism.
A few points...
1) It was the democrat Secretary of State James Byrnes (not Dean Acheson) that claimed there were 205 identified security risks at the State department several years before McCarthy claimed he had the names of 57 communists at State.
2) Welch had relieved Fisher from his team weeks before because he had found out he had ties to the NLG and which the New York Times had themselves called a communist front. Only after the McCarthy hearings did the NYT start glorifying the NLG and Fisher.
3) I also believe the BLM flyer to be a hoax. OTOH I don't doubt some of their members are in the same orbit of the flyer.
Quote from: DocJones on December 11, 2021, 08:38:03 PM
A few points...
1) It was the democrat Secretary of State James Byrnes (not Dean Acheson) that claimed there were 205 identified security risks at the State department several years before McCarthy claimed he had the names of 57 communists at State.
OK, from search, I can see that there was such a list - but being considered a potential security risk is very different from McCarthy's more specific claim of "member of the communist party". For example, security risk could mean being a homosexual like Joseph A. Panuch. Panuch was staunchly anti-communist and had even been praised by McCarthy - but had been flagged as a risk previously for his homosexuality. Other supposed security risks were figures like Gustavo Durán, who was a Spaniard who had fought against fascist Franco before fleeing the country. Franco basically declared everyone who fought him as communist.
There were genuine Soviet agents within the U.S. government, just as there were U.S. agents in the Soviet government. However, that doesn't vindicate McCarthy's specific statements. He still needs to be judged on his specific claims, not on just generically about communism.
Quote from: DocJones on December 11, 2021, 08:38:03 PM
2) Welch had relieved Fisher from his team weeks before because he had found out he had ties to the NLG and which the New York Times had themselves called a communist front. Only after the McCarthy hearings did the NYT start glorifying the NLG and Fisher.
I haven't read anything of the New York Times coverage, but I don't see what that has to do with the issue. As you confirm above, Fisher was no longer involved in the case. So McCarthy attacking him had nothing to do with prosecuting the case on trial.
Quote from: DocJones on December 11, 2021, 08:38:03 PM
3) I also believe the BLM flyer to be a hoax. OTOH I don't doubt some of their members are in the same orbit of the flyer.
Cool. That's my impression as well.
QuoteThis is also a lie purpetuated by commies. That Stalin killed all those people because he was just a dictator, not because he was a communist. While debatable, I believe the bloodiest and cruel things he did where in the name of communism.
Oh, I definitely disagree with it.
That's why Stalin gets some casual sympathy in pro-authoritarian right wing circles, because he is definitely seen as another of harsh Russian authocrats and his rule and his purges were made in vast majority to destroy any possible rivals in party and military (which later crippled military in WW2). I don't think in his dictator stage he cared about much else. And politics towards both economic and social issues was very fluid and without much regard for communist orthodoxy.
Just like modern China PR's aparatchiks are still venerating Mao as new Yellow Emperor, but they are in general way much more inheritors of old Chinese buerocracy.
QuoteIt's an interesting thing trying to figure out how many people were killed by communism. Then you come to the realization that it'd be a lot less if the USG had gone after the commies in our own government that McCarthy warned about. Communists in the Dept of State slow-rolled aid to Chiang Kai -Shek, forcing a retreat to Taiwan and letting Mao take over. No Mao = no Korean War and no Vietnam War...
In terms of stopping Asian revolutions yes. Then of course Asian revolutions even more than Russian reversed to very traditional Asian modes of government quite quickly.
The dynamics of Russian or Chinese societies are really powerful and well rooted. Whoever takes power - he'll most likely be assimilated (I mean Chinese assimilated Mongols and Manchu, no wonder they assimilated own commies :P )
Of course that makes them ultimately much more dangerous politically for USA than actual commies. Ironically.
QuoteOther supposed security risks were figures like Gustavo Durán, who was a Spaniard who had fought against fascist Franco before fleeing the country. Franco basically declared everyone who fought him as communist.
While anti-Franco forces were more than communists - various forms of communists and socialists were definitely dominant players, overshadowing centrits, and even more majority among migrants (because they were harsher persecutions among them). Duran himself was socialist.
Now of course not every socialist was Soviet agent in fact Stalin-aligned communists in certain period waged internal persecution among Republican forces against anarchists and anti-Soviet less radical socialists (which as one could guess did not help Republican cause at all).
I would suggest everyone read up on Alger Hiss and how the left defended him for decades. How Whittaker Chambers was attacked, discredited and ignored by the same people. How Alger Hiss was factually proven to be a Russian agent when he was with the state department, despite a lifetime of protestations otherwise.
The state department specifically was chock full of communists. It was very popular to be a communist amongst young intellectuals in the 1920's. That's where Alger Hiss got hooked. Look at all of the bizarre deals we made with the Russians. We forced Great Britain to pay in gold specie when the Russians were allowed to pay with credit. We stood by and pretty much agreed to every demand of the Russians at Yalta and other conferences. The Russians got the nuke well ahead of schedule because of ideological sympathizers.
America had Russian communist sympathizers who were giving it away for free. We had next to zero good human intelligence coming out of Russia. The UK had the same problem. West Germany and Italy had the same issues post war. The west was full of people who worked for the USSR and most did it for ideology reasons.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 14, 2021, 06:07:26 AM
Quote from: jhkim on December 13, 2021, 07:14:09 PM
Other supposed security risks were figures like Gustavo Durán, who was a Spaniard who had fought against fascist Franco before fleeing the country. Franco basically declared everyone who fought him as communist.
While anti-Franco forces were more than communists - various forms of communists and socialists were definitely dominant players, overshadowing centrits, and even more majority among migrants (because they were harsher persecutions among them). Duran himself was socialist.
Now of course not every socialist was Soviet agent in fact Stalin-aligned communists in certain period waged internal persecution among Republican forces against anarchists and anti-Soviet less radical socialists (which as one could guess did not help Republican cause at all).
It sounds like we're in overall agreement. I agree that communists and socialists were the dominant players among the anti-Franco forces - but that means that anyone fighting against Franco was associated with socialists and/or communists. I don't think it reflect poorly on Durán, since Franco was a horrible fascist dictator - and fighting against him meant being in the right, in my opinion. I didn't see any sign that Durán was personally a socialist other than participating in anti-Franco organizations, though it is possible. Durán was evidently personally vouched for by Ernest Hemingway, though some have claimed that as evidence that Hemingway was a communist.
Quote from: horsesoldier on December 14, 2021, 01:28:21 PM
I would suggest everyone read up on Alger Hiss and how the left defended him for decades. How Whittaker Chambers was attacked, discredited and ignored by the same people. How Alger Hiss was factually proven to be a Russian agent when he was with the state department, despite a lifetime of protestations otherwise.
The state department specifically was chock full of communists. It was very popular to be a communist amongst young intellectuals in the 1920's. That's where Alger Hiss got hooked.
Look at all of the bizarre deals we made with the Russians. We forced Great Britain to pay in gold specie when the Russians were allowed to pay with credit. We stood by and pretty much agreed to every demand of the Russians at Yalta and other conferences. The Russians got the nuke well ahead of schedule because of ideological sympathizers.
America had Russian communist sympathizers who were giving it away for free. We had next to zero good human intelligence coming out of Russia. The UK had the same problem. West Germany and Italy had the same issues post war. The west was full of people who worked for the USSR and most did it for ideology reasons.
This is based on the argument that McCarthy's only position was that there were a lot of communist sympathizers around in the West -- but McCarthy had tons of specific claims and accusations, almost none of which were proven. He made a ton of unproven and inconsistent claims.
McCarthy was *not* involved in the conviction of Hiss. McCarthy's crusade started months *after* the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of Hiss.
I would argue that McCarthy badly damaged the reputation of anti-communism, by his showmanship and bombastic public accusations. The more effective people for the anti-communist cause were those who did real investigation and revealed the horrors happening in communist countries, as well as those responsible for successful prosecution of Soviet agents.
Quote from: jhkim on December 14, 2021, 01:56:41 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on December 14, 2021, 01:28:21 PM
I would suggest everyone read up on Alger Hiss and how the left defended him for decades. How Whittaker Chambers was attacked, discredited and ignored by the same people. How Alger Hiss was factually proven to be a Russian agent when he was with the state department, despite a lifetime of protestations otherwise.
The state department specifically was chock full of communists. It was very popular to be a communist amongst young intellectuals in the 1920's. That's where Alger Hiss got hooked.
Look at all of the bizarre deals we made with the Russians. We forced Great Britain to pay in gold specie when the Russians were allowed to pay with credit. We stood by and pretty much agreed to every demand of the Russians at Yalta and other conferences. The Russians got the nuke well ahead of schedule because of ideological sympathizers.
America had Russian communist sympathizers who were giving it away for free. We had next to zero good human intelligence coming out of Russia. The UK had the same problem. West Germany and Italy had the same issues post war. The west was full of people who worked for the USSR and most did it for ideology reasons.
This is based on the argument that McCarthy's only position was that there were a lot of communist sympathizers around in the West -- but McCarthy had tons of specific claims and accusations, almost none of which were proven. He made a ton of unproven and inconsistent claims.
McCarthy was *not* involved in the conviction of Hiss. McCarthy's crusade started months *after* the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of Hiss.
I would argue that McCarthy badly damaged the reputation of anti-communism, by his showmanship and bombastic public accusations. The more effective people for the anti-communist cause were those who did real investigation and revealed the horrors happening in communist countries, as well as those responsible for successful prosecution of Soviet agents.
But were there Communists in the State Department?
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 14, 2021, 06:07:26 AMI don't think in his dictator stage he cared about much else. And politics towards both economic and social issues was very fluid and without much regard for communist orthodoxy.
Well I feel like this is missing critical aspects of the man. True, he eliminated political rivals, but his personal musings reveal it came from a belief that counter-revolutionary sentiment to progressive ideas originated from the militrary based on the french revolution.
And I don't think they where very fluid at all. I can't read the guys mind of course, or know if his account of the events where lies. But it came off more to me as a 'Il make this as communist as possible right now, but if I can't il come back to it later'.
Things like 'Lets plant crops together in one spot because natural competition is a borgoius idea' speaks to a man willing to risk crop failure for the idea of communism.
Quote from: Wrath of God on December 14, 2021, 06:07:26 AM
Now of course not every socialist was Soviet agent in fact Stalin-aligned communists in certain period waged internal persecution among Republican forces against anarchists and anti-Soviet less radical socialists (which as one could guess did not help Republican cause at all).
Communists became increasingly influential on the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War vis-à-vis both moderates and anarchists because to fight a war you need weapons and with France etc. not allowing arms exports to the Republicans and the fascists providing a lot of aid to the Nationalists. This made the Republicans increasingly dependent on Russian arms and it gave the Spanish communists enormous influence as the main conduit of arms imports.
Ironically, during the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish communists were mostly pushing for moderate policy. Not because of communist ideology but because of Stalin's foreign policy concerns which, at the time included a "united front" policy against fascism because he was scared of Hitler. This was an about-face from Stalin's earlier policy of doing everything he could to undermine Western social democrats ("social fascists") and not taking the fascism seriously.
If the French and British hadn't been so insistent in shooting their own feet off and let the Republicans purchase arms freely then the Spanish communists would've been far less influential during the Civil War.
So why ain't the media complaining about BLM hate speech if this is true?
Quote from: Redwanderer on February 01, 2022, 04:24:51 PM
So why ain't the media complaining about BLM hate speech if this is true?
So why aint the media complaining about BLM hate speech?
That sure is a mystery.