HARRY J. DEAN

[Ernie Lazar]

Popper's essential principles were as follows:

"1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.

2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory.

3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.

5. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

6. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability; some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

7. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

8. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status."

Popper is an interesting one. I once passed a thesis of a Popper user to demolish Marxist Dialectics to someone well versed in the topic. The response to his quite reasonable ''analysis'' was a tirade of expletives and veiled insults covering some two pages.

As I understand it, Popper is a kind of replacement for Hegelian Dialectics as an alternative to Dilaetical Materialism a la Marx. IOW palatable to elements. Yet he does seem to do that very thing which he rails against.

[John Dolva]

Presumably that includes his own contributions

[Ernie Lazar]

Of course and nobody claims Popper was infallible -- but just about everyone engaged in scientific inquiry acknowledges the contributions he has made to the philosophy of science and rational thought.

Presumably that includes his own contributions

[John Dolva]

I suppose so. He has made contributions. That list didn't strike me as particularly insightful in all. His more serious stuff is prob beyond me.

[Ernie Lazar]

Me too...I am not conversant in all the scientific principles he discusses ... but his general observations about how evidence should be interpreted are very compelling.

I debated someone a few months ago who told me that his contentions about Jacob Schiff "financing the Bolshevik Revolution" could be "proven" if I googled "Jacob Schiff" and "Bolsheviks".

In other words, this guy actually believed that indisputable truth about some historical matter could be ascertained simply by relying upon whatever "hits" come up when entering search terms into Google!

I then pointed out that one of the sources my critic recommended as reliable (Dr. Antony Sutton) had carefully researched the matter and had declared the contentions about Schiff were FALSE -- and Sutton quoted State Dept cables which revealed Schiff's hostility toward the Bolsheviks. Needless to say, my critic had no reply to that -- but it illustrates what Popper tried to explain -- i.e. "confirmations" are ALWAYS available in the universe of available data. It is how we candidly acknowledge, and then process and refute the CONTRADICTORY evidence that is more important.

I suppose so. He has made contributions. That list didn't strike me as particularly insightful in all. His more serious stuff is prob beyond me.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

Yes, it's easy to avoid that, but it is a fundamental scientific principle. One could consider DeBono, Peter Dale Scott perhaps. It still doesn't strike me as a contribution but rather a rephrasing of a given.

But still, a look at 20th century philosophy necessarily involves a look at Popper, I agree with that.

Edited June 26, 2010 by John Dolva

[Ernie Lazar]

You and I may agree upon what is a "fundamental scientific principle" or what are fundamental rules regarding evidence and logic --- but, trust me, there are MANY people in our country who do NOT accept such "rules" or "principles".

The most acrimonious debates I have participated in on-line (in Yahoo conspiracy groups) have always devolved into epistemological disputes. When I asked obvious questions regarding what methodology should apply to everyone's assertions, I usually was ridiculed for raising that question.

One of my most vivid memories is from a couple years ago when a critic of mine told me to view the video "In Plane Sight" because he insisted that ONE video would explain EVERYTHING I needed to know about the events of 9/11 and the alleged "conspiracy" surrounding that day's events.

Some people actually believe that ONE video or ONE book or ONE document constitutes everything one needs to review in order to make rational, informed judgments about complex matters. When I also told this person that I do not possess the technical knowledge (for example: physics, mechanical and aeronautical engineering, chemistry, etc.) which would enable me to evaluate assertions made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I was again ridiculed for suggesting that any sort of specialized knowledge was required.

This sort of reductionism, and dumbing-down of all complex matters as well as using lowest-common-denominator reasoning is very typical -- which is why raising questions regarding applicable principles of evidence and logic are typically met with ill-concealed ridicule and hostility.

Yes, it's easy to avoid that, but it is a fundamental scientific principle. One could consider DeBono, Peter Dale Scott perhaps. It still doesn't strike me as a contribution but rather a rephrasing of a given.

But still, a look at 20th century philosophy necessarily involves a look at Popper, I agree with that.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[Greg Parker]

No, Greg, you have not "demonstrated the falsehood" of the second "premise".

Once again, you are picking ONE incident and elevating it to a generalization about Bureau practices. Furthermore, you keep ignoring the single most important factor: JURISDICTION.

The FBI had no jurisdiction to investigate or become involved in matters which are the responsibility of local police departments.

Yes Ernie, but that did not stop them inserting themselves immediately into the assassination of JFK or the murder of JD Tippit.It was not until Oswald was murdered that the FBI had a pretext for involvement: Oswald’s murder was apparently a breach of his civil rights. But in any case, jurisdiction is not the issue here.

You don't think the assassination of a President (and all events pertaining thereto) legitimately fall under FBI jurisdiction?

Read my lips, Ernie. It was not a federal offence. See p 667 of the Warren Commission Report:

The word to get involved had come down from Hoover about one hour after the shooting “jurisdiction does not matter now--to react as if it were ours....” His agents knew him all too well and pre-empted that order. So much for jurisdiction being the be all and end all for the FBI in deciding whether or not to get involved in a case.

Once it was established that there was no conspiracy, which from memory, the officials came to “believe” early Saturday, there was no reason for the FBI to be further involved, except perhaps in the role of evidence examination upon request of the locals. The murder of Oswald finally gave a pretext to investigate: his “civil rights” had been denied by virtue of his death in custody.

In the case of Tippit, it becomes even more curious. Dallas police have always maintained they did not know or suspect that the Tippit killing was connected to the assassination at the time it happened. Despite that, the FBI was in the thick of the action in that investigation as well. Does that mean they knew something the cops didn’t?

The premise was encapsulated in this remark by you: “there was not much factual evidence that right-wing groups (despite their often crazy ideas) advocated, or encouraged, or condoned or promoted illegal activities---particularly violence; the major exception being, of course, KKK-groups." You said nothing about “jurisdiction”, only that “there was not much factual evidence” suggesting right-wing groups did the type of things that routinely got the left wing attention from the feds. You named those things as advocating, promoting, condoning or encouraging illegal activities.

So yes, I did demonstrate the falsehood of that.

Jurisdiction is the required predicate for FBI involvement -- I didn't think it was required to mention the obvious.

Try and focus, Ernie. I said the Left was targeted to a greater degree than was the Right. In response, you said that was because there was little evidence the Right was involved in certain actions including protests and violence. By inference, you are saying here that Leftist violence and protests draws FBI attention. I have shown that the JBS and WCC were also involved in similar actions. Following your logic, the Left is within the jurisdiction of the FBI when they engage in such things, but the Right is not.

By the way, neither Hatfield nor Fredrickson were charged over what they did to Stevenson because he refused to have charges pressed. He shouldn’t have needed to.

FALSE! Hatfield went on trial 5-21-64 and was convicted. He was fined $200. [see NYT, 5-22-64, p17 "Texan Convicted of Spitting During Stevenson Protest"]. He subsequently resigned from the JBS after a bitter quarrel with Robert Welch. In a letter to Welch he referred to the “Jewish-UN campaign to put me behind bars."

No Ernie, again, you need to focus. I said they were not charged over what they did TO Stevenson. Hatfield was charged and convicted for spitting at a cop. See the difference?

Go to:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/the-stevenson-incident-and-the-assassination-t51.htm

and http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/gallery/ASSASSIONATION/JFK-WITNESSES-SUSPECTS/ROBERT-HATFIELD-pic_10.htm

Cora Fredrickson was not charged (at Stevenson's request) because (1) she apologized and (2) she claimed someone pushed her hand. There probably was no possibility of convicting her so why bother charging her?

I know you may not like it, but the fact is Stevenson refused to press charges in EITHER of the cases.

With respect to your "he shouldn't have needed to" comment -- unlike yourself, most Americans are not mean-spirited and always seeking opportunities to use our legal system to punish their perceived political opponents.

Ah, here we go. The Uber-Patriot within emerges. Well, I guess the cop who got spat on was just a rare exception and was just plain mean spirited! Or maybe he was one of them thar mean ol’ filthy subversive type foreigners!

A little anecdote to explain my comment. Many years ago I was king hit by a complete stranger outside a shopping center who then began flailing into me with a fistful of keys. The fellow was also talking through the whole assault and it was pretty obvious he had psychiatric problems. The cops asked if I wanted to press charges. I declined because I did think he would receive appropriate treatment through the court system. However – since assault is a crime and this was committed in front of multiple witnesses, I expected the cops would charge him anyway. They did not.

What this example illustrates is that we cannot rely upon you for factual statements even if the facts are readily available through cursory research and even if you present your comments as unqualified certitudes.

Yes, indeed the facts are readily available and as you hopefully realize by now, I have them at my website. Your comments do apply to you however.

And how about Fulton Lewis, Jr. who advocated the lynching of Earl Warren (see TIME, Nov 24, 1961). This was a more extreme view than the JBS who just wanted Warren impeached. Was Lewis prosecuted for advocating and encouraging the murder of a federal official? No. The fact is that Hoover USED HIM AS A MOUTH-PIECE via leaked documents. So how can you claim Hoover’s statements were not self-serving when it came to politics? On the one hand, he criticized the JBS as “lunatic” and “extreme” while in bed with Fulton who was even more extreme!

Hyperbolic comments by political pundits who are expressing anger (not serious intent)

You know that how? Mind reading?

are not what I had in mind. What is your ultimate point? You want the FBI to open investigations of millions of Americans because of their political views if/when they express them in certain kinds of language?

A threat is a threat and it is not up to you any more than it should have been up to J Edgar Hoover to dismiss it as mere hyperbole. If this had been say a Marxist saying this about Ford, the FBI would have been all over it.

Incidentally, Fulton Lewis Jr. was not "more extreme" than the JBS. In fact, he distanced himself from comments made by Welch/JBS as noted in a February 1962 editorial comment in National Review magazine.

I suspect what you mean by “more extreme” is “more kooky”. I am talking about “more extreme” in say foreign policy issues

Incidentally, in what ways do you think he functioned as a "mouthpiece" for Hoover?

You surely do not seriously doubt that Hoover had a stable of media mouthpieces he leaked selective information to?

He definitely DID NOT say or believe that Communists were "bumblers, incapable of putting a dent in National Security"

Of course not! If he did, his whole gig is up.

Yet he was adamant they had made no impression in their efforts to subvert. What is that, if not “bumbling”?

Totally wrong. Scores of FBI files made it clear just what "impression" they had. I note for the record that your routine debate tactic is to always use vague or ambiguous generalities. What constitutes an "impression"?

And I note for the record your inability to yet again pay attention. My use of “made little impression” is interchangeable with the term used by Hoover.

--------------------------------------

So your interpretation that Hoover ignored a question and went off on a tangent specifically to have a rant about the JBS is off base.

My point was that Hoover was testifying about the JFK assassination and he was asked a specific question about one specific article concerning the assassination written by Revilo Oliver but instead of answering the question (about that specific article), he chose to make a general denunciation of the entire JBS world-view and to characterize the JBS viewpoint as right wing "extremist".

He was asked in general terms, how to handle the types of claims being made – so again your point is, well, pointless.

In his answering, he tried to give the impression of treating both sides with equal dollops of skepticism. No doubt, he did disagree with the statements about Warren and Eisenhower, but to zero in on those shows he was looking for ways to distance himself from accusations of bias. In short, his statements were self-serving. As was most of his trstimony.

Hoover mentions the JBS views about Chief Justice Warren and Eisenhower -- neither of which were related to JFK's assassination and neither of which are discussed in the Oliver article. He obviously wanted to make a larger point about extremist rhetoric -- just as he did in numerous other articles and speeches and in replies to thousands of individuals who wrote letters to the Bureau..

It was spin. And in some cases it was written for him by people we would now know as spin doctors. This was in the form of the standard response letters you have referred to on occasion.

Again – Hoover’s comments here are self-serving, and that holds true whether or not Hoover was being entirely honest. What probably betrays his true feelings is that he makes a point of claiming the Left labeled everyone who disagreed with them as Fascists. Yet the Right made the charge that anyone not an ultra conservative was a “pinko”, or “un-American” or “unpatriotic”. Those charges were far more prevalent – yet he only makes a point of bringing up the Fascist charge, which to me indicates he was comfortable with the “pinko” label being applied… er… liberally.

Have you reviewed Hoover's handwritten comments on FBI memos? He routinely describes Birchers and other extreme rightists in very derogatory terms.

Yeah. The kooks. When they were coming out with the kooky stuff. But strip the genuine kooks away, and what was left was not anything that would make Hoover hurl.

Incidentally, Hoover’s charge that such extremists would not deal with facts is ironic considering the sheer number of facts ignored or contorted by the FBI in the investigation of the assassination.

3) 10/9/62 J. Edgar Hoover speech, “An American’s Challenge” at National Convention of American Legion, Las Vegas Nevada, page 12:

“However, communism remains an intense subversive threat. Our Nation’s efforts to deal effectively with this menace are not enhanced by those of the extreme right who tend to affix the communist label without intelligent analysis, or by those of the extreme left who endeavor to minimize the real danger of communism.”

The Legion? That fun group who modeled its thinking on Mussolini? Who were involved in a plot to take control of the White House by force? I thought Hoover was against such extremists?

Oh please stop.

Stop what? Are you disputing that history of the Legion?

Is this now reduced to a contest to see who has been cited the most?

No--I was just trying to demonstrate the falsity of your premise. However, as usual, you chose to misrepresent my point so you could construct yet another straw man argument to divert attention from your own defective conclusions and your defective reasoning ability.What premise was that?

I would "lose"? You think so?

Yes.

Please share with us a list of the historians and scholars who have utilized material they got from you -- i.e. material which you discovered that was not previously available.

I told you, I’m not going there. It is childish, to say the least.

Please list a few books or articles which cite you as a source for documentation not available from any other source.

You have obtained an impressive amount of FBI files and you deserve kudos for sharing them with, for all I know, anyone and everyone who asks. But you are stretching a point suggesting that your files are not available anywhere else. Clearly, anyone can obtain them through FOIA.

Sorry, Greg, this is yet another example of how you arrive at conclusions without having a factual basis for them. Many of the files I acquired during the 1980's and 1990's have now been destroyed which means I am the only person who has them. In addition, many other files have been transferred to NARA and the duplication costs at NARA (75 cents per page) means that only the wealthiest individuals could afford to obtain them. For example, the HQ main file on the JBS (12,000 pages) is now at NARA, so unless you can afford to pay $9000, you won't be obtaining a copy anytime soon.

Okay. I stand corrected. And I reiterate the fact that you share them is to your credit.

I remain confused however, as to why you believe your being cited for being essentially, an archivist somehow endows you with knowledge above and beyond. Anyone with a collection of anything can be an archivist. All I’ve seen so far is your unerring ability to take every word Hoover uttered or wrote as holy writ. I would rather look at the actions of the FBI and compare and contrast to what it said.

Your failure to comment on the FBI document showing they used a Bircher in a Cointelpro op against the New Left is noted.

The FBI used anyone they thought would be helpful. Rev. Delmar Dennis was a JBS member (before and after he was an FBI informant).

Cool. Then since Hoover called the JBS extremist, you are admitting he would use extremists against the Left DESPITE claiming they were equally dangerous to the nation.

2 Questions O Wise One:

Did the JBS or the WCC ever infiltrate Leftist groups?

Did the JBS or the WCC ever set up faux Leftist groups?

Edited June 27, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Ernie Lazar]

MY REPLIES ARE IN BLUE FONT

No, Greg, you have not "demonstrated the falsehood" of the second "premise".

Once again, you are picking ONE incident and elevating it to a generalization about Bureau practices. Furthermore, you keep ignoring the single most important factor: JURISDICTION.

The FBI had no jurisdiction to investigate or become involved in matters which are the responsibility of local police departments.

Yes Ernie, but that did not stop them inserting themselves immediately into the assassination of JFK or the murder of JD Tippit.It was not until Oswald was murdered that the FBI had a pretext for involvement: Oswald’s murder was apparently a breach of his civil rights. But in any case, jurisdiction is not the issue here.

You don't think the assassination of a President (and all events pertaining thereto) legitimately fall under FBI jurisdiction?

Read my lips, Ernie. It was not a federal offence. See p 667 of the Warren Commission Report:

The word to get involved had come down from Hoover about one hour after the shooting “jurisdiction does not matter now--to react as if it were ours....” His agents knew him all too well and pre-empted that order. So much for jurisdiction being the be all and end all for the FBI in deciding whether or not to get involved in a case.

Once it was established that there was no conspiracy, which from memory, the officials came to “believe” early Saturday, there was no reason for the FBI to be further involved, except perhaps in the role of evidence examination upon request of the locals. The murder of Oswald finally gave a pretext to investigate: his “civil rights” had been denied by virtue of his death in custody.

In the case of Tippit, it becomes even more curious. Dallas police have always maintained they did not know or suspect that the Tippit killing was connected to the assassination at the time it happened. Despite that, the FBI was in the thick of the action in that investigation as well. Does that mean they knew something the cops didn’t?

Greg, you are partially correct here but an argument could be made that jurisdiction in the assassination (or any attempted murder) of our President could be assumed from a liberal reading of other statutes -- including (but not limited to) conspiracy statutes.

The President is the leader of our nation and his murder (or attempted murder) rises to an order of importance which vastly exceeds a local crime. For one thing, it strikes at our form of government; if it involves other countries it could be considered an act of war.

Lastly, the resources required to promptly determine the culprits are more readily available at the national level than the local level. Consequently, I don't think your argument has much weight. An ordinary local murder (or attempted murder) does not assume the potential grave significance for our nation. Consequently, I think a rational case can be made for immediate FBI involvement. Furthermore, Texas was hostile territory for the Kennedy administration. One could even argue that there would be less than robust interest by local law enforcement in finding all of the parties who facilitated or participated in such a crime.

The premise was encapsulated in this remark by you: “there was not much factual evidence that right-wing groups (despite their often crazy ideas) advocated, or encouraged, or condoned or promoted illegal activities---particularly violence; the major exception being, of course, KKK-groups." You said nothing about “jurisdiction”, only that “there was not much factual evidence” suggesting right-wing groups did the type of things that routinely got the left wing attention from the feds. You named those things as advocating, promoting, condoning or encouraging illegal activities.

So yes, I did demonstrate the falsehood of that.

Jurisdiction is the required predicate for FBI involvement -- I didn't think it was required to mention the obvious.

Try and focus, Ernie. I said the Left was targeted to a greater degree than was the Right. In response, you said that was because there was little evidence the Right was involved in certain actions including protests and violence. By inference, you are saying here that Leftist violence and protests draws FBI attention. I have shown that the JBS and WCC were also involved in similar actions. Following your logic, the Left is within the jurisdiction of the FBI when they engage in such things, but the Right is not.

No Greg, the JBS (as an organization) was not involved in, nor did it advocate or condone, "protests and violence".

Incidentally, "protests" is not even an issue. The WCC is more murky because some individual chapters were populated or controlled by Klan members.

The point which you continue to ignore is that prior involvement in violence (or other illegal acts) by persons known to be or suspected of being Communist Party members (or other radical leftists) or by KKK/white hate group members is what triggered Bureau interest. In addition, many times such individuals belonged to groups which were on the Attorney General's list of subversive organizations.

Furthermore, these folks often subscribed to ideology which justified or encouraged violent acts --- and in the case of Communists, their official ideology described the ultimate necessity for a "dictatorship" and the elimination of Constitutional rights for entire categories of our citizens.

Obviously, if you are in law enforcement you are going to be most concerned with people who have a long history of involvement in illegal activities (e.g. labor union violence, violent anti-government protests, espionage, bombing buildings, inciting people to commit illegal acts etc) than you are going to be concerned with people/groups who condemn such actions even if some of those groups had admittedly crazy/bizarre ideas.

The FBI used a standard form [FD376] to forward information to the Secret Service (and to FBI field offices) about persons considered to be a security concern. I am going to type the entire form here because it describes the type of persons which triggered FBI interest. Contrary to your argument, these categories do not apply to the JBS as an organization. I will add supplementary comments in italics.

"1. Has attempted or threatened bodily harm to any government official or employee, including foreign government officials residing in or planning an imminent visit to the U.S., because of his official status."

Doesn't apply to JBS. The JBS protested the proposed visit of Khrushchev to the U.S. by taking out full page ads in newspapers and by establishing a front group (Committee Against Summit Entanglements) to make the case against President Eisenhower's invitation to Khrushchev. It organized a major campaign to impeach Earl Warren -- and it has similarly advocated that trials for "treason" should be initiated against several Presidents --- but it has not advocated or threatened bodily harm to anyone.

2. Has attempted or threatened to redress a grievance against any public official by other than legal means.

The JBS never utilized other than legal means. In fact, one of their main arguments against MLK Jr was that he encouraged civil disobedience which inevitably led to violent incidents. The JBS as an organization DID mount petition drives, it also encouraged its members to deluge their members of Congress with letters, and of course it encouraged members to vote people out of office if they violated what the JBS considered the correct principles of our Constitutuion.

3. Because of background is potentially dangerous; or has been identified as member or participant in communist movement; or has been under active investigation as member of other group or organization inimical to U.S.

No state or federal agency ever designated the JBS (or WCC) as a subversive organization or anything remotely close to it. In fact, the Internal Security Division of the Justice Dept explicitly stated in answer to inquiries about the JBS that it had no actionable information to justify punitive measures against the JBS.

No JBS member was "potentially dangerous" merely by the fact of their association with the JBS (as would be the case, for example, with KKK members). In fact, there are only a handful of known JBS members who have ever been suspected or convicted of anything illegal which could possibly be connected to their ideology (I can think of 5 or 6 off the top of my head) whereas, by contrast, there are HUNDREDS of Klan members and CPUSA (or other radical leftists) that fall into such a category.

4. U.S. citizens or residents who defect from the U.S. to countries in the Soviet or Chinese Communist blocs and return.

Not applicable to JBS or WCC.

5. Subversives, ultrarightists, racists and fascists who meet one or more of the following criteria:

a. Evidence of emotional instability (including unstable residence and employment record) or irrational and suicidal behavior.

b. Expressions of strong or violent anti-U.S. sentiment

c. Prior acts (including arrests or convictions) or conduct or statements indicating a propensity for violence and antipathy toward good order and government."

This is the most elastic category which the FBI used because, obviously, it requires such a subjective judgment regarding at what point one's general political views (expressed with anger) were worthy of FBI (or Secret Service) attention.

However, unlike left-wing activists and groups -- the official ideology of the JBS was so profoundly anti-violence and so profoundly supportive of local law enforcement AND unlike left-wing groups of interest to the FBI (such as SDS, SNCC, etc) the type of persons who joined and became leaders of the JBS were so profoundly conservative (and were so frequently extremely prominent and respectd members of their communities who never had any sort of arrest records or any blemish of any kind in their personal history), --- the Bureau knew that the JBS did not belong in category 5.

By the way, neither Hatfield nor Fredrickson were charged over what they did to Stevenson because he refused to have charges pressed. He shouldn’t have needed to.

FALSE! Hatfield went on trial 5-21-64 and was convicted. He was fined $200. [see NYT, 5-22-64, p17 "Texan Convicted of Spitting During Stevenson Protest"]. He subsequently resigned from the JBS after a bitter quarrel with Robert Welch. In a letter to Welch he referred to the “Jewish-UN campaign to put me behind bars."

No Ernie, again, you need to focus. I said they were not charged over what they did TO Stevenson. Hatfield was charged and convicted for spitting at a cop. See the difference?

AGAIN FALSE! Here is the relevant passage from the 5/22/64 article, "Texan Convicted of Spitting During Stevenson Protest" I underline two words for emphasis:

"He was accused of spitting on both the policeman, R.L. Larsen and Mr. Stevenson, U.S. delegate to the United Nations, during a melee outside Dallas Memorial Auditorium last October 24th."

But what was your ultimate point in bringing up this matter? Your reply to me was in the context of making this point:

You said nothing about “jurisdiction”, only that “there was not much factual evidence” suggesting right-wing groups did the type of things that routinely got the left wing attention from the feds. You named those things as advocating, promoting, condoning or encouraging illegal activities. So yes, I did demonstrate the falsehood of that. By the way, neither Hatfield nor Fredrickson were charged over what they did to Stevenson because he refused to have charges pressed. He shouldn’t have needed to.

So, apparently, you think that the Stevenson incident is "evidence" of how "right-wing groups did the type of things that routinely got the left wing attention from the feds"? And you think Hatfield and Fredrickson should have been charged with a serious offense and presumably you believe they should have been investigated by the FBI?

First, there was no "right wing group" which advocated spitting on or hitting Stevenson. It was a spur-of-the-moment impulsive incident by two idiots (although Fredrickson claims someone pushed her sign and she never deliberately hit Stevenson)

Second, the feds gave left-wing groups and persons "attention" not for something as petty as spitting on someone but because of a long history dealing with people who frequently showed up at all sorts of demonstrations and protests which resulted in violence or other kind of incidents. There was no comparable history with respect to the JBS.

Third, the leftists involved in those incidents often belonged to groups listed by the AG as "subversive" OR they had associations with persons who were on the FBI Security Index or Reserve Index OR they fell into one of the categories discussed above with respect to data sent by the FBI to the Secret Service.

Go to:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/the-stevenson-incident-and-the-assassination-t51.htm

and http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/gallery/ASSASSIONATION/JFK-WITNESSES-SUSPECTS/ROBERT-HATFIELD-pic_10.htm

Cora Fredrickson was not charged (at Stevenson's request) because (1) she apologized and (2) she claimed someone pushed her hand. There probably was no possibility of convicting her so why bother charging her?

I know you may not like it, but the fact is Stevenson refused to press charges in EITHER of the cases.

Why do you say "I know you may not like it"? What makes you think I care one way or the other whether he did or did not press charges? The issue we are discussing is much larger than whether or not he chose to press charges.

With respect to your "he shouldn't have needed to" comment -- unlike yourself, most Americans are not mean-spirited and always seeking opportunities to use our legal system to punish their perceived political opponents.

Ah, here we go. The Uber-Patriot within emerges. Well, I guess the cop who got spat on was just a rare exception and was just plain mean spirited! Or maybe he was one of them thar mean ol’ filthy subversive type foreigners!

Oh please Greg -- get a grip. Police often use the most flimsy or minor infractions to establish their authority. What we are discussing, however, is something much more serious, i.e. what type of behavior should be punished in our country if it originates from political beliefs? Would YOU be comfortable if every person (left or right) who expressed anger toward a policeman or any public official was hauled into court? Police have discretion. They realize that the heat of the moment can result in acts which are not really intended to cause harm---which is why they often give stern warnings and just file a report for future reference. You sound like you would be more comfortable living in a police state where the smallest infractions are punished severely.

A little anecdote to explain my comment. Many years ago I was king hit by a complete stranger outside a shopping center who then began flailing into me with a fistful of keys. The fellow was also talking through the whole assault and it was pretty obvious he had psychiatric problems. The cops asked if I wanted to press charges. I declined because I did think he would receive appropriate treatment through the court system. However – since assault is a crime and this was committed in front of multiple witnesses, I expected the cops would charge him anyway. They did not.

I had a similar experience when I worked at a store. All of us (including policemen) can elect to exercise prudence and not resort to immediate or drastic punitive measures. There is no overarching lesson in such matters regardless of the political motivations of the persons involved.

What this example illustrates is that we cannot rely upon you for factual statements even if the facts are readily available through cursory research and even if you present your comments as unqualified certitudes.

Yes, indeed the facts are readily available and as you hopefully realize by now, I have them at my website. Your comments do apply to you however.

Addressed above by quoting from NYT article

And how about Fulton Lewis, Jr. who advocated the lynching of Earl Warren (see TIME, Nov 24, 1961). This was a more extreme view than the JBS who just wanted Warren impeached. Was Lewis prosecuted for advocating and encouraging the murder of a federal official? No. The fact is that Hoover USED HIM AS A MOUTH-PIECE via leaked documents. So how can you claim Hoover’s statements were not self-serving when it came to politics? On the one hand, he criticized the JBS as “lunatic” and “extreme” while in bed with Fulton who was even more extreme!

Hyperbolic comments by political pundits who are expressing anger (not serious intent)

You know that how? Mind reading?

Because of his history. Greg -- what, exactly, are you saying? You want EVERY expression of anger by political columnists or commentators to be PUNISHED? Is that it?

are not what I had in mind. What is your ultimate point? You want the FBI to open investigations of millions of Americans because of their political views if/when they express them in certain kinds of language?

A threat is a threat and it is not up to you any more than it should have been up to J Edgar Hoover to dismiss it as mere hyperbole. If this had been say a Marxist saying this about Ford, the FBI would have been all over it.

OK --then you DO want every "threat" (even if nothing more than written political commentary) to be investigated and the person charged with a crime. That is a huge difference between you and me. As previously mentioned, you would be MUCH more comfortable living in a police state such as North Korea.

Incidentally, Fulton Lewis Jr. was not "more extreme" than the JBS. In fact, he distanced himself from comments made by Welch/JBS as noted in a February 1962 editorial comment in National Review magazine.

I suspect what you mean by “more extreme” is “more kooky”. I am talking about “more extreme” in say foreign policy issues

I have no clue what you mean

Incidentally, in what ways do you think he functioned as a "mouthpiece" for Hoover?

You surely do not seriously doubt that Hoover had a stable of media mouthpieces he leaked selective information to?

Yes---the Bureau frequently used "friendly media" to present its point of view in order to shape public debate. But I was asking you how you think Fulton Lewis was specifically used -- not as one of your incessant generalities.

He definitely DID NOT say or believe that Communists were "bumblers, incapable of putting a dent in National Security"

Of course not! If he did, his whole gig is up.

Notice your "reasoning": if he did not say it or anything comparable -- then that means nothing. So either way, you win the argument!

Yet he was adamant they had made no impression in their efforts to subvert. What is that, if not “bumbling”?

Totally wrong. Scores of FBI files made it clear just what "impression" they had. I note for the record that your routine debate tactic is to always use vague or ambiguous generalities. What constitutes an "impression"?

And I note for the record your inability to yet again pay attention. My use of “made little impression” is interchangeable with the term used by Hoover.

No Greg -- it is NOT "interchangeable". Again, however, it is difficult to address your comment with generalities (your preferred debate tactic). More importantly, one does not ignore potential security problems just because one believes they currently are not achieving their stated goals.

--------------------------------------

So your interpretation that Hoover ignored a question and went off on a tangent specifically to have a rant about the JBS is off base.

My point was that Hoover was testifying about the JFK assassination and he was asked a specific question about one specific article concerning the assassination written by Revilo Oliver but instead of answering the question (about that specific article), he chose to make a general denunciation of the entire JBS world-view and to characterize the JBS viewpoint as right wing "extremist".

He was asked in general terms, how to handle the types of claims being made – so again your point is, well, pointless.

Pointless? I guess this is an example of how you "weigh" evidence, i.e. you just ignore anything you don't like. Maybe I should follow your lead and just characterize everything you write from this point forward as "pointless".

In his answering, he tried to give the impression of treating both sides with equal dollops of skepticism. No doubt, he did disagree with the statements about Warren and Eisenhower, but to zero in on those shows he was looking for ways to distance himself from accusations of bias. In short, his statements were self-serving. As was most of his trstimony.

Why were they self-serving? I still don't understand your reasoning. You think he was genuine with respect to his comments about Ike and Warren. Why? Based upon what?

Why don't you think he was genuine in his expressions of opinion about other matters? Again, have you read his handwritten comments on FBI memos which reveal his innermost thoughts--especially about persons he liked and disliked? Why don't you write an article to substantiate your theory -- and use Hoover's handwritten comments to show what he really believed as opposed to what you consider his "self-serving" public comments?

Hoover mentions the JBS views about Chief Justice Warren and Eisenhower -- neither of which were related to JFK's assassination and neither of which are discussed in the Oliver article. He obviously wanted to make a larger point about extremist rhetoric -- just as he did in numerous other articles and speeches and in replies to thousands of individuals who wrote letters to the Bureau..

It was spin. And in some cases it was written for him by people we would now know as spin doctors. This was in the form of the standard response letters you have referred to on occasion.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Please provide specific details. Obviously, you despise Hoover. Do you think your animus against him could be affecting your ability to make fair judgments about his actual beliefs?

Again – Hoover’s comments here are self-serving, and that holds true whether or not Hoover was being entirely honest. What probably betrays his true feelings is that he makes a point of claiming the Left labeled everyone who disagreed with them as Fascists. Yet the Right made the charge that anyone not an ultra conservative was a “pinko”, or “un-American” or “unpatriotic”. Those charges were far more prevalent – yet he only makes a point of bringing up the Fascist charge, which to me indicates he was comfortable with the “pinko” label being applied… er… liberally.

Have you reviewed Hoover's handwritten comments on FBI memos? He routinely describes Birchers and other extreme rightists in very derogatory terms.

Yeah. The kooks. When they were coming out with the kooky stuff. But strip the genuine kooks away, and what was left was not anything that would make Hoover hurl.

I don't understand your comment. You seem to be saying that he genuinely was concerned about "kooks". But what do you mean by "strip the genuine kooks away"? Does that mean you expected him to adopt views more like your own -- and THAT is the ONLY way he could be considered genuine? It appears that what you are saying is that YOU are the template against which all ideas and positions should be judged. Consequently, to the degree that someone departs from what YOU believe (your personal political preferences) -- then to that same degree, those persons are NOT genuine and when they express their views it amounts to self-serving spin. But, of course, you exempt yourself from any such evaluation.

Incidentally, Hoover’s charge that such extremists would not deal with facts is ironic considering the sheer number of facts ignored or contorted by the FBI in the investigation of the assassination.

3) 10/9/62 J. Edgar Hoover speech, “An American’s Challenge” at National Convention of American Legion, Las Vegas Nevada, page 12:

“However, communism remains an intense subversive threat. Our Nation’s efforts to deal effectively with this menace are not enhanced by those of the extreme right who tend to affix the communist label without intelligent analysis, or by those of the extreme left who endeavor to minimize the real danger of communism.”

The Legion? That fun group who modeled its thinking on Mussolini? Who were involved in a plot to take control of the White House by force? I thought Hoover was against such extremists?

Oh please stop.

Stop what? Are you disputing that history of the Legion?

Is this now reduced to a contest to see who has been cited the most?

No--I was just trying to demonstrate the falsity of your premise. However, as usual, you chose to misrepresent my point so you could construct yet another straw man argument to divert attention from your own defective conclusions and your defective reasoning ability.What premise was that?

I would "lose"? You think so?

Yes.

Please share with us a list of the historians and scholars who have utilized material they got from you -- i.e. material which you discovered that was not previously available.

I told you, I’m not going there. It is childish, to say the least.

Please list a few books or articles which cite you as a source for documentation not available from any other source.

You have obtained an impressive amount of FBI files and you deserve kudos for sharing them with, for all I know, anyone and everyone who asks. But you are stretching a point suggesting that your files are not available anywhere else. Clearly, anyone can obtain them through FOIA.

Sorry, Greg, this is yet another example of how you arrive at conclusions without having a factual basis for them. Many of the files I acquired during the 1980's and 1990's have now been destroyed which means I am the only person who has them. In addition, many other files have been transferred to NARA and the duplication costs at NARA (75 cents per page) means that only the wealthiest individuals could afford to obtain them. For example, the HQ main file on the JBS (12,000 pages) is now at NARA, so unless you can afford to pay $9000, you won't be obtaining a copy anytime soon.

Okay. I stand corrected. And I reiterate the fact that you share them is to your credit.

I remain confused however, as to why you believe your being cited for being essentially, an archivist somehow endows you with knowledge above and beyond. Anyone with a collection of anything can be an archivist. All I’ve seen so far is your unerring ability to take every word Hoover uttered or wrote as holy writ. I would rather look at the actions of the FBI and compare and contrast to what it said.

Your approach is to disbelieve everything Hoover said if it contradicts something you prefer to believe about him. It becomes a circular argument. Any contradictory evidence is immediately de-valued or dismissed as worthless "spin" or "self-serving". That relieves you, in perpetuity, of having to address anything which might serve to falsify ANY conclusion you make.

I do not understand your comment about me being "essentially an archivist". I am not cataloguing anything. I am presenting primary source evidence which disputes your conclusions. You do not think of yourself as an "archivist" -- correct? So why is that the case? What is DIFFERENT about your approach to evidence? As far as I can tell, you just dismiss anything which you don't like and that is how you dispose of inconvenient data.

I certainly AGREE with your comment that actual FBI behavior should be compared to whatever words are on paper or spoken. But I don't understand why you think that I believe every word from Hoover's mouth or pen amounts to "holy writ".

The documents I use to substantiate my point of view were written at a time when there was no FOIA. And those documents were classified "secret", "confidential" etc. The principals had no idea that their thoughts (or their actions which were memorialized in memos) would EVER become public knowledge---in fact, they were certain that they would NOT be made public (unless someone inside the FBI or a recipient of FBI information leaked information). Consequently, these primary source documents provide an unvarnished window into their thought processes. Most of the adverse info about FBI behavior and practices which has been revealed through the Church Committee hearings along with research by scholars has been based upon those very same FBI documents!

Your failure to comment on the FBI document showing they used a Bircher in a Cointelpro op against the New Left is noted.

The FBI used anyone they thought would be helpful. Rev. Delmar Dennis was a JBS member (before and after he was an FBI informant).

Cool. Then since Hoover called the JBS extremist, you are admitting he would use extremists against the Left DESPITE claiming they were equally dangerous to the nation.

There you go again -- a broad generalization which is totally false.

Delmar Dennis was used because he was in a unique position to assist the Bureau in resolving the murders of civil rights workers in Mississippi as well as other violent crimes by the White Knights of the KKK -- our nation's most violent Klan. Dennis's personal political views (whether extremist or mainstream or whatever) were, in the larger scheme of things, totally irrelevant.

Incidentally, you are mis-applying Hoover's quote.

Hoover referred to extremists being equally dangerous because they "don't deal in facts". The FBI's use of informants was NOT based upon their personal political beliefs nor did they rely upon information provided by merely ONE informant.

For example: the single most important informant the Bureau had with respect to the White Knights of the KKK was not Delmar Dennis. It was a police officer inside the Meridian MS police dept. Dennis's information was compared to the information provided by several other informants and it was found to be 98% accurate. And, of course, his testimony was instrumental in convicting numerous Klan members.

However, if I understand your point correctly you are saying that ANY INFORMANT (whether FBI or local police dept or ATF or INS or whatever agency is involved) must never have any sort of involvement with ANY group considered "extremist" nor may the informant have ANY political viewpoint which someone might consider suspect or derogatory.

If our law enforcement agencies (local, state, or federal) adopted your rule -- then there probably would be NO informants anywhere.

2 Questions O Wise One:

Why don't you stop your childish snotty sarcasm?

Did the JBS or the WCC ever infiltrate Leftist groups?

JBS: I presume you mean people who were JBS members at the time they infiltrated the "leftist" groups and apart from their informant status for any government agency? Then, yes. WCC: I can't recall anything specific off the top of my head but since the WCC was working with the State Sovereignty Commissions -- and they did infiltrate "leftist" groups -- the answer is probably yes.

Did the JBS or the WCC ever set up faux Leftist groups?

Not that I am aware of although Welch did originally discuss the possibility of that idea which is one of the reasons the Bureau initially became interested in him because they thought he might encroach upon Bureau responsibilities.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Ernie Lazar

[John Dolva]

an aside :

I think it is important to unerstand ''dictatorship'' in the context it is used here.

Karl Marx formulated a theory that explains social evolution.

For example in the 1600's the Monarchy in England, and its selected aristocracy, dictated the rules under which the general population lived.

These dictates inhibited the emerging merchant class.

With promises of greater freedoms to peasants, but aimed at opening up trade routes and freeing serfs so that they could move to the emerging manufacturing centres, Cromwell led the first of the Bourgeoisie revolutions, to pass the dictator-ship to the emerging Capitalists.

The serfs became the Proletariat that were now dictated to by the new ruling class.

Therefore, in a successful Proletarian, or wage slave, revolution there would be again a time when the new ruling class would dictate to the old one. This is what is called ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'' meaning the workers would be the dictators instead of the capitalists.

As the ruling class is concerned with being the ruling class its organs of defense necessarily compatmentalises its enemies and part of this ongoing war against its enemies is propaganda.

I don't believe that this understanding of dictatorship could possibly be so lost on the ruling class in capitalist nations but I certainly believe that as propaganda the false understanding of this is foisted on and believed as presented to non politicised members of the non capitalist class by the owners of the means of production.

[Ernie Lazar]

John: Can you give me an example of any Communist or Marxist country in the 20th century that implemented what you describe below i.e. a successful "proletarian revolution" where the the new "ruling class" became ordinary "workers" whose political will and economic interests were paramount?

In other words, can you specify one or more countries where you think Marxist ideas were put into actual practice and the "dictatorship" served the interests of the "workers"?

an aside :

I think it is important to unerstand ''dictatorship'' in the context it is used here.

Karl Marx formulated a theory that explains social evolution.

For example in the 1600's the Monarchy in England, and its selected aristocracy, dictated the rules under which the general population lived.

These dictates inhibited the emerging merchant class.

With promises of greater freedoms to peasants, but aimed at opening up trade routes and freeing serfs so that they could move to the emerging manufacturing centres, Cromwell led the first of the Bourgeoisie revolutions, to pass the dictator-ship to the emerging Capitalists.

The serfs became the Proletariat that were now dictated to by the new ruling class.

Therefore, in a successful Proletarian, or wage slave, revolution there would be again a time when the new ruling class would dictate to the old one. This is what is called ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'' meaning the workers would be the dictators instead of the capitalists.

As the ruling class is concerned with being the ruling class its organs of defense necessarily compatmentalises its enemies and part of this ongoing war against its enemies is propaganda.

I don't believe that this understanding of dictatorship could possibly be so lost on the ruling class in capitalist nations but I certainly believe that as propaganda the false understanding of this is foisted on and believed as presented to non politicised members of the non capitalist class by the owners of the means of production.

[William Kelly]

John: Can you give me an example of any Communist or Marxist country in the 20th century that implemented what you describe below i.e. a successful "proletarian revolution" where the the new "ruling class" became ordinary "workers" whose political will and economic interests were paramount?

In other words, can you specify one or more countries where you think Marxist ideas were put into actual practice and the "dictatorship" served the interests of the "workers"?

BK: You mean other than Cuba?

an aside :

I think it is important to unerstand ''dictatorship'' in the context it is used here.

Karl Marx formulated a theory that explains social evolution.

For example in the 1600's the Monarchy in England, and its selected aristocracy, dictated the rules under which the general population lived.

These dictates inhibited the emerging merchant class.

With promises of greater freedoms to peasants, but aimed at opening up trade routes and freeing serfs so that they could move to the emerging manufacturing centres, Cromwell led the first of the Bourgeoisie revolutions, to pass the dictator-ship to the emerging Capitalists.

The serfs became the Proletariat that were now dictated to by the new ruling class.

Therefore, in a successful Proletarian, or wage slave, revolution there would be again a time when the new ruling class would dictate to the old one. This is what is called ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'' meaning the workers would be the dictators instead of the capitalists.

As the ruling class is concerned with being the ruling class its organs of defense necessarily compatmentalises its enemies and part of this ongoing war against its enemies is propaganda.

I don't believe that this understanding of dictatorship could possibly be so lost on the ruling class in capitalist nations but I certainly believe that as propaganda the false understanding of this is foisted on and believed as presented to non politicised members of the non capitalist class by the owners of the means of production.

[William Kelly]

John: Can you give me an example of any Communist or Marxist country in the 20th century that implemented what you describe below i.e. a successful "proletarian revolution" where the the new "ruling class" became ordinary "workers" whose political will and economic interests were paramount?

In other words, can you specify one or more countries where you think Marxist ideas were put into actual practice and the "dictatorship" served the interests of the "workers"?

BK: You mean other than Cuba?

an aside :

I think it is important to unerstand ''dictatorship'' in the context it is used here.

Karl Marx formulated a theory that explains social evolution.

For example in the 1600's the Monarchy in England, and its selected aristocracy, dictated the rules under which the general population lived.

These dictates inhibited the emerging merchant class.

With promises of greater freedoms to peasants, but aimed at opening up trade routes and freeing serfs so that they could move to the emerging manufacturing centres, Cromwell led the first of the Bourgeoisie revolutions, to pass the dictator-ship to the emerging Capitalists.

The serfs became the Proletariat that were now dictated to by the new ruling class.

Therefore, in a successful Proletarian, or wage slave, revolution there would be again a time when the new ruling class would dictate to the old one. This is what is called ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'' meaning the workers would be the dictators instead of the capitalists.

As the ruling class is concerned with being the ruling class its organs of defense necessarily compatmentalises its enemies and part of this ongoing war against its enemies is propaganda.

I don't believe that this understanding of dictatorship could possibly be so lost on the ruling class in capitalist nations but I certainly believe that as propaganda the false understanding of this is foisted on and believed as presented to non politicised members of the non capitalist class by the owners of the means of production.

[John Dolva]

Ernie Lazar, on 27 June 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

John: Can you give me an example of any Communist or Marxist country in the 20th century that implemented what you describe below i.e. a successful "proletarian revolution" where the the new "ruling class" became ordinary "workers" whose political will and economic interests were paramount?

In other words, can you specify one or more countries where you think Marxist ideas were put into actual practice and the "dictatorship" served the interests of the "workers"?

BK: You mean other than Cuba?

John Dolva, on 27 June 2010 - 07:07 PM, said:

an aside :

I think it is important to unerstand ''dictatorship'' in the context it is used here.

Karl Marx formulated a theory that explains social evolution.

For example in the 1600's the Monarchy in England, and its selected aristocracy, dictated the rules under which the general population lived.

These dictates inhibited the emerging merchant class.

With promises of greater freedoms to peasants, but aimed at opening up trade routes and freeing serfs so that they could move to the emerging manufacturing centres, Cromwell led the first of the Bourgeoisie revolutions, to pass the dictator-ship to the emerging Capitalists.

The serfs became the Proletariat that were now dictated to by the new ruling class.

Therefore, in a successful Proletarian, or wage slave, revolution there would be again a time when the new ruling class would dictate to the old one. This is what is called ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'' meaning the workers would be the dictators instead of the capitalists.

As the ruling class is concerned with being the ruling class its organs of defense necessarily compatmentalises its enemies and part of this ongoing war against its enemies is propaganda.

I don't believe that this understanding of dictatorship could possibly be so lost on the ruling class in capitalist nations but I certainly believe that as propaganda the false understanding of this is foisted on and believed as presented to non politicised members of the non capitalist class by the owners of the means of production.

________________

A:

as I understand it, from a socialist perspective:

Communism is the long-term logical extension of an international Socialist revolution.

The october revolution appeared to be successful for a number of yeaars where they implemented Marxs concept of worker cells, or soviets, as a lesson from the paris commune, as a fundamental building block.

Trotsky formulated the concept of permanent revolution, Stalin that of socialism in one country.

So, there is no example of a communist revolution. There are examples of socialist ones. Cuba of course. The early years of Soviet Russia and Nicaragua held promise, Vietnam, China, Laos, Kampuchea.

I could go on, but fundamentally, imo, without Trotskys perm rev, any revolution falters. Hence, I suspect, Cubas success.

Rome wasn't built in a day. The last successful capitalist revolution was the unification of the kingdoms that became Germany in the latter 19th century.

Fascism is the logical extension of capitalism.

Edited June 28, 2010 by John Dolva

[William Kelly]

Ernie Lazar, on 27 June 2010 - 10:35 PM, said:

John: Can you give me an example of any Communist or Marxist country in the 20th century that implemented what you describe below i.e. a successful "proletarian revolution" where the the new "ruling class" became ordinary "workers" whose political will and economic interests were paramount?

In other words, can you specify one or more countries where you think Marxist ideas were put into actual practice and the "dictatorship" served the interests of the "workers"?

BK: You mean other than Cuba?

John Dolva, on 27 June 2010 - 07:07 PM, said:

an aside :

I think it is important to unerstand ''dictatorship'' in the context it is used here.

Karl Marx formulated a theory that explains social evolution.

For example in the 1600's the Monarchy in England, and its selected aristocracy, dictated the rules under which the general population lived.

These dictates inhibited the emerging merchant class.

With promises of greater freedoms to peasants, but aimed at opening up trade routes and freeing serfs so that they could move to the emerging manufacturing centres, Cromwell led the first of the Bourgeoisie revolutions, to pass the dictator-ship to the emerging Capitalists.

The serfs became the Proletariat that were now dictated to by the new ruling class.

Therefore, in a successful Proletarian, or wage slave, revolution there would be again a time when the new ruling class would dictate to the old one. This is what is called ''the dictatorship of the proletariat'' meaning the workers would be the dictators instead of the capitalists.

As the ruling class is concerned with being the ruling class its organs of defense necessarily compatmentalises its enemies and part of this ongoing war against its enemies is propaganda.

I don't believe that this understanding of dictatorship could possibly be so lost on the ruling class in capitalist nations but I certainly believe that as propaganda the false understanding of this is foisted on and believed as presented to non politicised members of the non capitalist class by the owners of the means of production.

________________

A:

as I understand it, from a socialist perspective:

Communism is the long-term logical extension of an international Socialist revolution.

The october revolution appeared to be successful for a number of yeaars where they implemented Marxs concept of worker cells, or soviets, as a lesson from the paris commune, as a fundamental building block.

Trotsky formulated the concept of permanent revolution, Stalin that of socialism in one country.

So, there is no example of a communist revolution. There are examples of socialist ones. Cuba of course. The early years of Soviet Russia and Nicaragua held promise, Vietnam, China, Laos, Kampuchea.

I could go on, but fundamentally, imo, without Trotskys perm rev, any revolution falters. Hence, I suspect, Cubas success.

Rome wasn't built in a day. The last successful capitalist revolution was the unification of the kingdoms that became Germany in the latter 19th century.

Fascism is the logical extension of capitalism.

Captialism isn't going anywhere, and Communism has failed.

Shouldn't these things be disucssed under a different thread dedicated to the subject, as I would like to get back to the subject of Harry Dean and FBI informants.

BK