The Political Views of Tim Gratz

[Terry Mauro]

FWIW some of ... My opinions on a choice to take the stance against Tim in general as any sort of credible argument against Tims stand on Piper and anti semitism fails to make a significant distinction or analysis that recognises that it's not unusual for reactionaries to take essentially progressive positions on individual issues. Where they do so it must be applauded.

Further applauding same should not be seen as a general endorsement.

BTW I have noted over time a gradual change in a number of people including myself that comes from participation here and should not be, sans evidence, written off as opportunism.

This episode has allowed Tim to do what I think is sane, and I am not surprised of Tim being capable of it, namely :

"The above is not the only political matter that I was wrong on, but perhaps the most significant.

And Terry I agree that many socialists do indeed care for the betterment of people of all races in all countries in the world, a noble concern that all should admire."

This is progressive and should be noted.

The ability to see the subtle distinctions are important in this investigation.(IMO)

***************************************************

"This is progressive and should be noted.

The ability to see the subtle distinctions are important in this investigation.(IMO)"

It sure would be neat if we could all meet on a common ground of progressivism whilst blurring the distinctions between our socialistic vs fascistic, conservative vs liberal, right vs left, democratic vs republican, lines of battle. I specifically omitted "communism" which I believe to be a bastardized version of the "left" line of philosophy much as I view "nazism" as a bastardized hybrid of the "right" attempting to pass itself off as a sheep-dipped [for lack of a better metaphor] version of Mussolini's and Hitler's "brown-shirted" brigades.

[Terry Mauro]

Argues facts not in evidence. Ex-counsellor, here's the way it works. When you make the assertion, you offer the proof. You don't get to simply pretend that the case has already been made, and then extrapolate from there. I have given you the name of the "main opponent" you claim was murdered by Arbenz. Perhaps from that first clue, you could actually Google up a prima facie case. Unless and until you can do so, please cease and desist from this hair-splitting bullxxxx about what constitutes a "legitimate" government. I mean, for God's sake, by your rule of thumb, Richard Nixon's election wasn't legitimate because somebody killed his "main opponent" Bobby Kennedy.

___________________________________________

Robert,

Great post. Unfortunately, this seems to be Gratz's modus operandi whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often.

FWIW, Thomas

___________________________________________

********************************************************

"whenever he feels on the defensive, which, given his untenable position and his apparent need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking, is understandably (and frustratingly) all too often."

But, seriously Thomas. I don't think T.G. exhibits any need to try to "convert" others to his way of thinking. After all is said and done, I haven't really noted any vitriolic outbursts, nor any overly condescending verbal abuse coming from his quarter. In fact, I've learned quite a bit from reading the exchanges between T.G. and Robert Charles Dunne. They're both truly gifted in the art of debate. It's an education in, and of, itself. Wouldn't you agree?

___________________________________________________

Hi Terry,

OK, they are both "truly gifted in the art of debate," but they are different. Robert is a true debater whereas I would put Gratz in the category of a smooth-talking salesman. Gratz is always saying things like "Of course,..." or "Clearly,..." or "You do, do you not...?" or "You would agree, would you not...?" Jeez, reminds me of Joseph McCarthy asking someone on TV, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?" LOL

I do think Gratz is trying to "convert" others to his way of thinking on this Forum. Otherwise, why would he post so goshdarn often?? Hell, I know when someone is trying to "convert" me. One of my relatives is a Bircher and when I was younger that person was continually trying to get me to "see the light," so I know what a "converter" does-- they just keep hammerin' away! It's their "mission" in life, their "calling," if you will.

I've never accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts" (that I can remember). I just don't like his slippery tendency of making an assertion without offering proof of that assertion modus operandi (see Robert's post #7 again, if necessary) coupled which the above-mentioned "McCarthey" style and the fact that he posts so damn often and, as John says in post #14, he often suggests or even claims that those who disagree with him on this Forum are anti-American or unpatriotic.

I think Gratz is here to stay, however. He seems to enjoy being on the defensive....

FWIW, Thomas

___________________________________________________

*******************************************************

"I do think Gratz is trying to "convert" others to his way of thinking on this Forum. Otherwise, why would he post so goshdarn often?? Hell, I know when someone is trying to "convert" me. One of my relatives is a Bircher and when I was younger that person was continually trying to get me to "see the light," so I know what a "converter" does-- they just keep hammerin' away! It's their "mission" in life, their "calling," if you will."

Nah, I don't think he's trying to convert anybody to anything. He's simply stating his case, yet welcoming all comers to challenge it, possibly in the event their point of view might coincidentally change his, if anything. Who knows, maybe we'll be able to find a common ground on Simkins' forum from which to alter the course of party politics, by brain-storming our way to a greater "democratic republic" coalition, of sorts?

"I've never accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts" (that I can remember). I just don't like his slippery tendency of making an assertion without offering proof of that assertion modus operandi (see Robert's post #7 again, if necessary) coupled which the above-mentioned "McCarthey" style and the fact that he posts so damn often and, as John says in post #14, he often suggests or even claims that those who disagree with him on this Forum are anti-American or unpatriotic."

I never meant to say that you accused Gratz of "vitriolic outbursts", I was merely drawing an analogy between T.G.'s and R.C.D.'s excellent debating skills, as opposed to some of the other debaters on the different threads of the assassination section of The Education Forum, myself included. Remember the Foster threads? I'm excessively guilty of extreme vitriolic outbursts, when presented with blatant stupidity! Whereas, T.G. and R.C.D. exhibit exceptionally well-constructed, thoroughly researched data, and counter one another with equal adeptness. At least, it appears that way, IMHO. I'm also of the impression that T.G. sometimes laces his statements with quite a bit of drollery, and if one isn't aware of the subtley of his humor may, in fact, take it as an affrontery. This is how I've come to understand T.G., and therefore changed my approach, as well as, support of him. Whenever he's been countered for calling someone anti-American, or unpatriotic, I have to laugh because I don't take it seriously. And, when he's been called out for buffoonery, I consider that even more laughable. I really believe he takes it all in stride, and still remains a gentleman. Plus the fact, there are far less worthy, possibly more insidious, and even dangerous individuals lurking on the internet, and on this forum, than T.G., IMO.

[John Dolva]

I guess we're stuck with some of it. Personally I find the left right concept a bit offputting. There was a poll some weeks ago that the results of are grouped here (but with an orientation and labeling that I prefer. Just about all were grouped around Ghandi.

[Terry Mauro]

I guess we're stuck with some of it. Personally I find the left right concept a bit offputting. There was a poll some weeks ago that the results of are grouped here (but with an orientation and labeling that I prefer. Just about all were grouped around Ghandi.

*********************************************************

"Just about all were grouped around Ghandi."

And, I couldn't think of a more finer human being. Right up there with JFK, MLK, and those who've paid the price for freedom of the human spirit.

"Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground. Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."

[Mark Stapleton]

Terry,

I agree with you about Tim being a decent person. As for a good debater, nope. Watching Tim's debates with RCD is just watching Tim run away. The list of questions Tim leaves unanswered is long.

However, the problem is that this is also an investigation as well as a debate. While the investigation makes slow progress, the collective knowledge grows and the true picture might start to be seen. Why would anyone interested in seeing that picture object to the growth of that knowledge in any area, however unlikely?

There's some areas which I think are a waste of time--like Castro--but Tim's the only one who regularly claims that some areas are immoral and off-limits. If Tim really wants to know who killed JFK why would he say this?

Edited February 17, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Pat Speer]

Well let us start off with #1.

If Arbenz caused the murder of his main opponent, can you consider his election to be legitimate?

I would say no.

You keep making this same point, without even mentioning the name of the murdered "main opponent," suggesting that you know little about this matter. His name was Francisco Javier Arana. He and Arbenz had been among those who toppled the previous dictator to bring about the first democratic elections in Guatemala, won by their candidate Dr. Juan José Arévalo, a philosophy professor who had lived in exile in Argentina.

When Arevalo's government stalled, both Arana and Arbenz emerged as candidates for the Presidency, the former representing the extreme right, the latter the more extreme left. Based on past track record, Arana had little chance of winning the election, a fact that made Arana's demise virtually irrelevant to Arbenz's ascension to the Presidency.

While it is true that Arana was murdered, you've yet to offer a single source or citation claiming that Arbenz was responsible for his demise.

I don't know if it's true but I found this in Wikipedia

Arana tried to prematurely hasten the process of Arévalo's descent in a failed coup which brought about Arana's death in a controversial arrest-gone-wrong.

If this is true and if Arbenz was involved in Arana's death then it would be hard to argue this deligimitized his victory. If Arana led a coup attempt he brought about his own death.

Tim you repeatedly complain that people through around accusations of various peoples involvement in the JFK without citing any evidence. Aren't you guilty of that in your accusation against Arbenz?

You could try to argure that eliminating a political rival was an obvious motive but you have stated repeatedly that MM & O are no sufficiet to make an accusation.

If you have any evidence of Arbenz's involvement in Arana's death let hear it.

Len

I double-checked the death of Arana in the best source on the Guatemalan operation, Bitter Fruit. Bitter Fruit says that Arana was causing trouble for Arevalo, and was killed while resisting arrest by men loyal to Arbenz. While one might take from this that Arbenz was behind the killing, the writers note that Arevalo was in control of the country and it was Arevalo who prevented the death from being investigated. So, at the very worst, Arbenz was a party to a political assassination. There is no evidence that Arbenz planned on doing anything more than arresting Arana, however. SO, Tim might be correct in that Arbenz may very well have arranged Arana's death. On the other hand, there is no concrete evidence for this.

I think Tim's pre-dispositon against leftists has blinded him once again. Arbenz was democratically elected and he was NOT a communist. The cache of weapons he brought in from Europe, supposedly to export revolution, was not purchased (if indeed it was purchased) until AFTER we'd already planned his overthrow. The U.S. had no legitimate reason to orchestrate the overthrow.

That said, Arbenz himself is not nearly as sympathetic figure as Allende. But that's really not the issue. The U.S. played footsie with Somoza, Trujillo, Duvalier, etc, for decades, and yet we overthrew Arbenz. The U.S. had a stated policy of supporting murderous right wing dictatorships in exchange for their help in overthrowing non-murderous left-wing socialists, for fear that the left-wingers might fall pray to the C word. It's truly hideous. It's probably not a coincidence that the Kennedy brothers were attempting to reverse this policy, and that both of them were murdered in front of their wives.

[John Dolva]

It's probably not a coincidence that the Kennedy brothers were attempting to reverse this policy, and that both of them were murdered in front of their wives.

Interesting point in considering the assassination/s. Technically it could happened anywhere, by any means. The public, violent, filmed, full stop nature has a purpose in itself. It draws the line in the sand and dares anyone to cross. In a way it serves to cause people to freeze in their despair and allow things when otherwise the courage might be there to resist the purpose. What I mean is I think the shock to the living, as well as the removal of the individual, is deliberate. Perhaps another thing that indicates the assassinations have a political basis, and not 'lone nuttery'.

[Terry Mauro]

Terry,

I agree with you about Tim being a decent person. As for a good debater, nope. Watching Tim's debates with RCD is just watching Tim run away. The list of questions Tim leaves unanswered is long.

However, the problem is that this is also an investigation as well as a debate. While the investigation makes slow progress, the collective knowledge grows and the true picture might start to be seen. Why would anyone interested in seeing that picture object to the growth of that knowledge in any area, however unlikely?

There's some areas which I think are a waste of time--like Castro--but Tim's the only one who regularly claims that some areas are immoral and off-limits. If Tim really wants to know who killed JFK why would he say this?

*********************************************************88

"I agree with you about Tim being a decent person. As for a good debater, nope. Watching Tim's debates with RCD is just watching Tim run away. The list of questions Tim leaves unanswered is long."

But, that was the beauty of the art. Convincing someone of the other possibilities, yet bringing the correct observations into view. The word here is "correct" which I believe R.C.D. to be masterful at this task. As I stated in another thread, I foolishly believed that we somehow could all reach a common ground through the art of constructive debate exhibited by R.C.D.'s rebuttals and corrections of Gratz's perceptions, with the distinct possibility of a positive response or understanding eventually emanating from Gratz's position. When Gratz expounds about Castro, I can't believe anyone could actually take him seriously, but if people find him to be so annoying and irritating, why not choose to enable the "IGNORE" function this forum has provided for that specific purpose. Personally, yet foolishly, I had believed that Gratz was simply "that-fascist-everybody-just-loved-to-hate", and found him to be alot more amusing and witty, than an actual perceived threat, pest, or annoyance. His avoidance of the members' pointed questions should've been taken for what it was, "blowing smoke out his ass". Which is how another member of this forum has taken to castigating an opponent of his regarding the Zapruder Film of that thread.

And, as I've stated to Robert Howard in another thread. Since my outside studies have bitten into the amount of time I used to be able to spend going over the threads here, at The Education Forum, I've voluntarily chosen to limit my opinions, if not keep them to myself, in order to avoid any more alarmed observations, of which a few of my friends have pointed out to me, seemed as "unwarranted support" of Tim Gratz.

So carry on without my verbal input, my friend. Apparently it will be greatly appreciated.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I double-checked the death of Arana in the best source on the Guatemalan operation, Bitter Fruit. Bitter Fruit says that Arana was causing trouble for Arevalo, and was killed while resisting arrest by men loyal to Arbenz. While one might take from this that Arbenz was behind the killing, the writers note that Arevalo was in control of the country and it was Arevalo who prevented the death from being investigated. So, at the very worst, Arbenz was a party to a political assassination. There is no evidence that Arbenz planned on doing anything more than arresting Arana, however. SO, Tim might be correct in that Arbenz may very well have arranged Arana's death. On the other hand, there is no concrete evidence for this.

I think Tim's pre-dispositon against leftists has blinded him once again. Arbenz was democratically elected and he was NOT a communist. The cache of weapons he brought in from Europe, supposedly to export revolution, was not purchased (if indeed it was purchased) until AFTER we'd already planned his overthrow. The U.S. had no legitimate reason to orchestrate the overthrow.

That said, Arbenz himself is not nearly as sympathetic figure as Allende. But that's really not the issue. The U.S. played footsie with Somoza, Trujillo, Duvalier, etc, for decades, and yet we overthrew Arbenz. The U.S. had a stated policy of supporting murderous right wing dictatorships in exchange for their help in overthrowing non-murderous left-wing socialists, for fear that the left-wingers might fall pray to the C word. It's truly hideous. It's probably not a coincidence that the Kennedy brothers were attempting to reverse this policy, and that both of them were murdered in front of their wives.

From what I've been able to gather, Arbenz committed two key cardinal sins, according to Washington.

First, he legitimized the right of the Communist Party to partake in the electoral process, a position apparently anathema to US interests who only seem to cheer for democracy when the end result suits them. ["I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." - Henry Kissinger on Allende in Chile.]

Second, when he sought to nationalize land owned, but left fallow, by the United Fruit company to the benefit of his own peasantry, Arbenz offered UFC compensation based upon the very same rate at which they had previously under-valued it for calculating [i.e. dodging] their taxes. Apparently, paying US interests what they falsely claimed it to be worth wasn't considered cricket. Gee, what a nerve this guy had, huh?

I've been trying for some days to upload a few pertinent CIA docs on this topic, but without success [exceeding global limits, etc.] I will try again to append them to this post, for they make fairly clear the plans that the US had for the Arbenz administration, and the rationales concocted to justify them.

Golly-gosh. The "Global Space" left is a mere 6.6k. Since I am a world-class moron about such matters, is there something I could/should do to circumvent this technical limitation?

[Frank Agbat]

Golly-gosh. The "Global Space" left is a mere 6.6k. Since I am a world-class moron about such matters, is there something I could/should do to circumvent this technical limitation?[/color]

Robert,

You can go into "My Controls" (in the "Manage Attachments" function) and delete attachments from older messages to reclaim space. Alternatively, you can request additional space from Mr. Simkin, although I do not know how strapped for space the overall forum might be...

Edited February 19, 2006 by Frank Agbat

[Len Colby]

His avoidance of the members' pointed questions should've been taken for what it was, "blowing smoke out his ass". Which is how another member of this forum has taken to castigating an opponent of his regarding the Zapruder Film of that thread.

Terry,

Just curious who do you think is "blowing smoke out his ass" on the Z-film debate?

Len

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Thanks to tutorials from Tim C. and Frank A., I now know how to click on the thingamajiggy and make the old whatsits evaporate. As a result, below should be some CIA docs of interest.

They disclose that CIA at no point made mention of salvaging democracy from a power-mad Commie leader who slew his chief electoral opponent. On the contrary, CIA's mission was to overthrow a government under whose agrarian land reforms "large Guatemalan landholders and the United Fruit Company would be victimized." Yet, all Arbenz wanted from United Fruit was for them to pay their fair share of taxes [heaven forbid!], and that it sell to the Arbenz regime the land that it allowed to lie fallow solely to keep it from the hands of its own commercial competitors, thereby giving it a monopoly control of the means of production.

By pretending that its concern for United Fruit's right to continue generating unfettered profits was really a concern about the effect of Commies on the geo-political landscape, CIA could rationalize overthrowing this democratically elected government and even assassinating those who stood in the way.

In a different thread, a Pollyanna-ish post from Tim Gratz asked if CIA had ever actually overthrown a democratically elected government, and then insisted this one wasn't actually democratically elected because Francisco Javier Arana had been assassinated prior to the election. That may be a concern to Tim today, though he's yet to substantiate the claim, but it surely wasn't a concern for CIA. One can xxxxx through all the various declassified docs and find nary a mention of either Arana, or any characterization that the Arbenz regime was illegitimate because of Arana's death.

Edited February 19, 2006 by Robert Charles-Dunne

[Terry Mauro]

His avoidance of the members' pointed questions should've been taken for what it was, "blowing smoke out his ass". Which is how another member of this forum has taken to castigating an opponent of his regarding the Zapruder Film of that thread.

Terry,

Just curious who do you think is "blowing smoke out his ass" on the Z-film debate?

Len

*********************************************

To tell you the truth Len, I was attempting to use that expression as an example of how threads may eventually fall into deterioration when posters of opposing views begin using metaphors as a way of describing what they perceive to be their opponent's ineptitude at explaining their methodology, especially coming from the photographic analysis sector of the assassination. And, let me make this perfectly clear that I'm in no way trying to absolve myself of being guilty of the very same said tactics, either. As far as whom I think is "blowing smoke out his ass", I believe most of us, not all, but a sizable grouping, could be held accountable if we took the time to scrutinize our assertions and responses, especially when taken in the heat of battle. I specifically omitted using "in the heat of debate" because once we've resorted to slinging barbs and arrows such as the proverbial, "blowing smoke out his ass", there's no longer any viable form of debate taking place. As I stated yesterday to John Simkin, as well as in a couple of other threads, I'd prefer to educate myself by observing the techniques employed while observing Gratz and Dunne in action. I don't need the ulcers brought on by the Zapruder free-for-all, anymore. So, you can stick a fork in me. I'm done.

[Len Colby]

No fork jabs Terry, just a thumbs up!!

[Terry Mauro]

Thanks to tutorials from Tim C. and Frank A., I now know how to click on the thingamajiggy and make the old whatsits evaporate. As a result, below should be some CIA docs of interest.

They disclose that CIA at no point made mention of salvaging democracy from a power-mad Commie leader who slew his chief electoral opponent. On the contrary, CIA's mission was to overthrow a government under whose agrarian land reforms "large Guatemalan landholders and the United Fruit Company would be victimized." Yet, all Arbenz wanted from United Fruit was for them to pay their fair share of taxes [heaven forbid!], and that it sell to the Arbenz regime the land that it allowed to lie fallow solely to keep it from the hands of its own commercial competitors, thereby giving it a monopoly control of the means of production.

By pretending that its concern for United Fruit's right to continue generating unfettered profits was really a concern about the effect of Commies on the geo-political landscape, CIA could rationalize overthrowing this democratically elected government and even assassinating those who stood in the way.

In a different thread, a Pollyanna-ish post from Tim Gratz asked if CIA had ever actually overthrown a democratically elected government, and then insisted this one wasn't actually democratically elected because Francisco Javier Arana had been assassinated prior to the election. That may be a concern to Tim today, though he's yet to substantiate the claim, but it surely wasn't a concern for CIA. One can xxxxx through all the various declassified docs and find nary a mention of either Arana, or any characterization that the Arbenz regime was illegitimate because of Arana's death.

************************************************************

"On the contrary, CIA's mission was to overthrow a government under whose agrarian land reforms "large Guatemalan landholders and the United Fruit Company would be victimized." Yet, all Arbenz wanted from United Fruit was for them to pay their fair share of taxes [heaven forbid!], and that it sell to the Arbenz regime the land that it allowed to lie fallow solely to keep it from the hands of its own commercial competitors, thereby giving it a monopoly control of the means of production.

By pretending that its concern for United Fruit's right to continue generating unfettered profits was really a concern about the effect of Commies on the geo-political landscape, CIA could rationalize overthrowing this democratically elected government and even assassinating those who stood in the way."

I am so ashamed to be an American, I'm ready to ex-patriate to Cuba.

Aren't there any international laws against the tactics employed by the CIA and the United Fruit Company? What about these large Guatemalan landholders? How were they able to acquire this property, by ancestral occupation, or by eminent domain? And, the CIA documents are outrageous! Were there no international monitors in place to oversee what was about to transpire? No international tribunals in effect to address plans of premeditated murder about to be carried out against a democratically elected government official in a foreign country, by U.S. employed mechanics? No laws to protect the sovereignty of a nation-state? Am I the only one appalled by this blatant act of aggression perpetrated against the democratically elected government and the people of Guatemala? Corporate profiteering, piracy, and murder, allowed to be bought and paid for with the taxes of, and [to add insult to injury] in the name of, the people of the United States?

No fork jabs Terry, just a thumbs up!!

******************************************

Yippee!!!