JFK Researchers: Communists as Sources

[Tim Gratz]

Let me try to say this in closing on this subject:

Would you find a statement by Winston Churchill more likely to be true than a statement by Adolph Hitler?

I think that illustrates the point I was making.

[John Simkin]

Let me try to say this in closing on this subject:

Would you find a statement by Winston Churchill more likely to be true than a statement by Adolph Hitler?

I think that illustrates the point I was making.

I am sure you do want to bring this discussion to a close. However, I will keep it going until you attempt to explain your comments “all communists are liars: it’s their philosophy”.

As far as your latest point goes, it is clearly as ridiculous as your statement about communists. The statements of Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill would be treated in the same way by historians. They would not pre-judge them. They would be aware that sometimes Hitler told the truth and sometimes Churchill lied. They would therefore look at the evidence of the statement made by these men and would then compare it to the evidence available. For example, here is a statement made by Winston Churchill in May, 1945. Historians would be seen as incompetent if they accepted this statement as truth just because it was made by Churchill. In fact, we now know that Churchill made a terrible miscalculation in trying to lie to the British people in this election broadcast. The British people were intelligent enough to know he was lying (he had a long record of doing this) and voted him out of office and gave the Labour Party its largest majority in its history. This is what Churchill had to say in his radio broadcast:

”I must tell you that a socialist policy is abhorrent to British ideas on freedom. There is to be one State, to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This State, once in power, will prescribe for everyone: where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say, what views they are to hold, where their wives are to queue up for the State ration, and what education their children are to receive. A socialist state could not afford to suffer opposition - no socialist system can be established without a political police. They (the Labour government) would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo.”

The British people were much more impressed by Clement Attlee’s reply the following night:

”The Prime Minister made much play last night with the rights of the individual and the dangers of people being ordered about by officials. I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others. There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day. I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the State, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners. The Conservative Party remains as always a class Party. In twenty-three years in the House of Commons, I cannot recall more than half a dozen from the ranks of the wage earners. It represents today, as in the past, the forces of property and privilege. The Labour Party is, in fact, the one Party which most nearly reflects in its representation and composition all the main streams which flow into the great river of our national life.”

[Mark Stapleton]

In addition to restriction on civil liberties and the overt political paranoia of Communist Governments, the thing that most appalls people like Tim is their "godlessness". I believe Tim will confirm this. John, don't hold your breath waiting for Tim to defend his latest indefensible comment--'"all Communists are liars"--even a good debater would find it almost impossible. Also, there's others in the queue ahead of you. I'm still waiting for Tim to advise me of the parts of Sorenson's bio of JFK which so emphatically exonerate Douglas Dillon from involvement or foreknowledge. "Dillon would have laid down his life for his friend (JFK)", Tim said. Surely you jest, Tim.

[Pat Speer]

Tim, I just found an old book that not only subscribes to the Oswald did it because he was a commie theory, but that James Forrestal and Joseph McCarthy were also killed by the communist conspiracy. The Death of James Forrestal, by Cornell Simpson. I wonder if there were any Russian books that developed the Stalin was killed by the evil capitalists theory, or is this rampant paranoia strictly a Western thing?

[John Dolva]

.

Edited May 14, 2007 by John Dolva

[Tim Gratz]

From "George Orwell: Fugitive From the Camp of Victory" by Sir Richard Rees (So. Ill University Press 1961):

[Orwell's wife] had come to Spain to work in the party offices of Barcelona of the Trotskyist party in whose militia Orwell was fighting. This party was the POUM and it was, in fact, not Trotskyist although it was bitterly anti-Stalinist. It was led by a group of doctrinaire Marxists and was liquidated when the Communists became the strongest party in the goverrnment in June of 1937. Its suppresion was accompanied by murders and wholesale arrests and imprisoments, while the Communist press in Spain, and in London, Paris and New York assailed it with accusations of treachery and even of being a Fifth Column in the pay of Franco. At this crisis Orwell, who was recovering from a wound (he had been shot by a fascist sniper while working in "Franco's Fifth Column") and his wife behaved with extraordinary courage and selflessness--postponing their escape to France in spite of the imminent danger of arrest and attempting the release of an imprisoned comrade.

Orwell thus found himself in the position of being one of the very few articulate people who were able to disprove from personal knowledge the slanderous lies written about his fellow militiamen by Communist journalists in newspaper offices thousands of miles from Spain. No doubt his experiences in Barcelona in 1937 contributed importantly to the preoccupation about the falsification of history which he developed so elaborately in "1984". [Emphasis supplied.]

Proving my point, of course, that the primary objective of Communist journalists is to advance the Party line and they will, in Sir Rees' words, commit "slanderous lies" and falsify history, if necessary, to support the Party line. Any journalist who would write contrary to the Party line would not be a good communist.

Anyone wanting to understand Communist might want to read Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" (and "1984").

I do not think a truthful Communist would dispute that the Communists would place the greatest priority on achieving victory over capitalism and were prepared to do what it took to accomplish that--including violence. Is it John's position that Communists would murder if necessary but would stop short of lying?

Edited June 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Dolva]

.

Edited May 14, 2007 by John Dolva

[Tim Gratz]

Good post, John, and I agree with your points.

Your links are fascinating! I commend them to our Members.

[Mark Knight]

John, Tim has praised one of your posts...now just wait for the dagger that will inevitably follow the praise.

Watch your back.

[John Simkin]

Proving my point, of course, that the primary objective of Communist journalists is to advance the Party line and they will, in Sir Rees' words, commit "slanderous lies" and falsify history, if necessary, to support the Party line.  Any journalist who would write contrary to the Party line would not be a good communist. 

Anyone wanting to understand Communist might want to read Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" (and "1984").

Orwell would turn in his grave if he knew you were using his writings to claim that all “communists are liars”. It is true that Orwell did become strongly opposed to Soviet communism during the Spanish Civil War. After all, the communists tried to kill him because he was a member of the Lenin Division in Barcelona, a unit under the control of the Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM). You can read about it in some detail on my page on Orwell:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jorwell.htm

Orwell was of course far to the left of Stalin. That is why the governments of the US and the UK supported Stalin’s purges in the 1930s. The reason for this was Stalin was trying to kill off Trotsky’s supporters who still believed in world revolution. At this time Stalin supported the doctrine of “socialism in one country”. This of course had the full approval of capitalist countries whose main fear was that the Soviet Union would use its resources to help create communist revolutions throughout the world. That is what Orwell wanted. When he fought in Spain he realised that Stalin hated the left more than the right. By this stage Stalin was a right-wing conservative.

You tell people to read Homage to Catalonia and 1984. I agree they are two of the greatest books ever written. Have you read them? If so, you don’t seem to have understood them. That is not uncommon on the far right. Did you know that under Operation Mockingbird the CIA paid for a cartoon version of Orwell's Animal Farm (commissioned by Frank Wisner). The CIA thought it was anti-communist. In fact, it was a critique of how power works in all societies. It is probably Orwell’s greatest book. It was one of the first books I ever read to my daughter.

Of course it is true that communist journalists were sometimes guilty of lying. Or to be more correct, selective in the truth that they tell. This is no different to what the Bush supporting journalists do in the US today. All writers are influenced by their political beliefs. Some feel so strongly about it that they are willing to lie in order to achieve certain objectives. But that is true of all political groupings. It does not support the absurd notion that Thomas Buchanan was a xxxx because at sometime in the past he had been a member of the American Communist Party.

This is what George Orwell has to say about the role of the writer (Why I Write, September, 1946):

I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:

1. Sheer egotism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in children, etc. etc.

2. Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed.

3. Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

4. Political purpose - using the word 'political' in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.

It can be seen how these various impulses must war against one another, and how they must fluctuate from person to person and from time to time. By nature - taking your nature to be the state you have attained when you are first adult - I am a person in whom the first three motives would outweigh the fourth. In a peaceful age I might have written ornate or merely descriptive books, and might have remained almost unaware of my political loyalties. As it is I have been forced into becoming a sort of pamphleteer.

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects. It is simply a question of which side one takes and what approach one follows.

[John Dolva]

.

Edited May 14, 2007 by John Dolva

[Tim Gratz]

John, loved your quotation from Orwell. I am a great respecter of Orwell as well, as you gathered.

But he illustrates my point about the difference between democratic socialists and communists.

Will individual Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Laborites, lie and cheat from time to time? Yes, of course. But is it the philosophy of their parties that "the end justifies the means" and that lying and even murder are allowed, no, even justified and required, to advance the party line? No, but that was the position of the Communist Party.

I submit Orwell would agree with me about the Communists. As Rees states, he observed first-hand their murders and lies.

I find it hard to understand why you cannot understand that this is the stated position of the Communists, and what they practice. Do you disagree that Communists are expected to do whatever is necessary to advance the party cause? And to shift their position when the party line changes?

Back to Buchanan. Do you suspect that Sen Kennedy had actually introduced him to Katzenbach as he had claimed in his book? Does that sound reasonable to you, or suspicious?

Your opinion that Stalin was a "right-winger" is so far out it does not merit comment. The fact that Trotsky may have been to "the left" of Old Joe does not make Joe a right-winger. Mao was probably "to the left" of Nikita, but Nikita was no Republican!

Edited June 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Thanks, John Dolva. Appreciated that you caught that I do try to correct it, and even apologize, when I am in error. And I also read and respect other people's opinions when they are factually correct and well-reasoned.

It is by respect and dialogue that we may come closer to solving the assassination.

For instance, on the issue of whether the assassination was an internal plot, the one issue that I see that could prove that is the issue of alleged "security stripping in Dallas". But I think that has been ruled out rather conclusively.

As I posted on another thread, I think a clue (perhaps proof) whether the conspiracy's genesis was from the left or from the right is to try to determine the true allegiance of Albert Osborne and the Paines, since it seems likely they were part of the conspiracy. (Although from the Paines' phone call (to the effect "we know who is behind this") it is certainly possible they did not have foreknowledge of the assassination but may have been directed to play a role with Oswald.

Best regards!

Edited June 30, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

Back to Buchanan.  Do you suspect that Sen Kennedy had actually introduced him to Katzenbach as he had claimed in his book?  Does that sound reasonable to you, or suspicious?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim, you seem so skeptical of this. I believe there is nothing suspicious about this at all. The forward to Buchanan's book says that Edward Kennedy arranged for Buchanan to present his findings to Katzenbach, and Katzenbach arranged for him to meet with a representative of the WC (not sure who). What's so odd about this? A man contacts Teddy and he says talk to Nick, and Nick says talk to Rankin, whatever. The WC undoubtedly had Buchanan's material and efffectively debunked much of it. You should be impressed that the man came forward early and gave them the opportunity to investigate his theories. Instead, you're blinded by this thought that he somehow is lying. Why would someone present an easily provable lie in the forward to his book? Why do you think he was lying? Has Katzenbach or Kennedy ever stated that they had no contact with Buchanan?

I don't believe Buchanan lied. As a communist he may have had a pre-disposition to believe that right wing businessman were behind the assassination. But the evidence he cites was real evidence. Although much of it was based on speculation, and easily-debunked, there seems to be no reason to believe that Buchanan was making any of it up. You seem unable to fathom that Buchanan could honestly have believed the right wing was behind the assassination, and Angleton could honestly have believed the KGB was behind the assassination, and that both were telling the truth as they knew it.

[Tim Gratz]

Good post, Pat.

Let me cogitate on it overnight!

Appreciate your thoughts. Well-put.