Jump to content
The Education Forum

JFK Researchers: Communists as Sources


Recommended Posts

I will not label you a Communist but it certainlly appears you are a defender of Communists.  I think you just need more education.

Could you name the communists I am defending? Then I will explain why I am defending them. If I am defending "communists" it will be defending what they have done and said, not the fact that they are a "communist".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do you defend Castro's killing, without a trial of the 59 Batista supporters?

Do you defend Stalin's murder of millions of Soviet citizens?

Do you defend the Communist's murder of Stephen Bandera?

With as many people as Communists have murdered in the last century, is it unfair to compare their tactics with those of the Mafia?

Have you read the book that is titled (to the effect) "The Black Book of Communist Atrocities"?

Have you read Robert Conquest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

Source: Ronald Reagan.

"Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal."

Source: that McCarthyite reactionary, Adlai Stevenson.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you read the book that is titled (to the effect) "The Black Book of Communist Atrocities"?

Have you read Robert Conquest?

Tim, I bought a book today that would be right up your alley. It had an autographed picture of its author, Robert Welch, as a bookmark. On second thought, I'm sure you've already read it... Just kidding.

The problem I have is your lumping all communists together into one big club. That was THE mistake the U.S. made in SE Asia, and elsewhere. This misguided and completely WRONG perception that all commies took orders from some evil mastermind led to the unnecessary deaths of hundeds of times as many people as Castro has ever killed. And yet the Americans who created the Vietnam war weren't evil to you because they were the good guys, and the civilian casualties we created in Vietnam and elsewhere are not to be mourned because they died in a just war against the bad guys.. Considering all commies to be part of an "international communist conspiracy" is just as wrong as considering all capitalist nations, including Russia, to be part of an "international capitalist conspiracy." It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. I think you'd be well off to ban the word "communist" from your language. You seem to use it the same way children use the word "boogeyman."

That said, I don't consider your presence here by itself a distraction. To my mind, what we are doing is sharing information and trying to develop scenarios that are both factually accurate and plausible. Conspiracy researchers tend to have a left-ward slant. Right-wing viewpoints are needed. I do think you should learn to back-off, however, on certain threads where people are wanting to discuss certain scenarios without having you question their patriotism. Once you tell them you disagree with their interpretation of the facts, that should be enough.

And for the record, I agree that Rodriguez was probably not involved in the assassination. His book is more balanced than most would think. He has some nice things to say about Che Guevara, for example, and is highly critical of the CIA's handling of the Bay of Pigs, as I recall. While he fumes about the John Kerry-led investigation into his activities in Central America, he nevertheless acknowledges that Kerry publicly apologized to him when he couldn't come up with the evidence to prove Rodriguez' involvement (in drug-running).

I expect you to apologize to Castro when Dillon's son joins the Forum and admits his dad killed Kennedy. (a joke.)

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you defend Castro's killing, without a trial of the 59 Batista supporters?

Do you defend Stalin's murder of millions of Soviet citizens?

Do you defend the Communist's murder of Stephen Bandera?

With as many people as Communists have murdered in the last century, is it unfair to compare their tactics with those of the Mafia?

Have you read the book that is titled (to the effect) "The Black Book of Communist Atrocities"?

Have you read Robert Conquest?

I condemn all political murders whether ordered by communists or capitalists. What is more, I have spent most of my adult life doing so in print. See for example, my biography of Stalin and my books on The Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik Government.

Since starting my website in 1997 I have continued my campaign against political murders. See for example my pages on the Kronstadt Uprising, Stalin, Great Purges, Hungarian Uprising, Prague Spring, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

However, I do not only condemn political murders carried out by communists. I have also written extensively about the political murders committed by American-backed military dictatorships. I have also criticised the deaths of thousands of civilians caused by America’s anti-communist foreign policy in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, El Salvador, etc. (see index here):

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

I have also condemned the killing of thousands of Americans killed as a result of their attempts to obtain equal civil rights.

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

I have never defended communist leaders accused of ordering the deaths of their opponents. However, I am proud to say that I have defended those Americans who suffered as a result of McCarthyism.

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

That is why I defended Thomas Buchanan and Jean-Guy Allard from your smear tactics. As expected, you are now doing this against me.

Yes, I have read Robert Conquest? I have no argument with his condemnation of Stalinism.

Now address the question I set you. How can you intellectual defend your comment that “all communists are liars”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, you refer, of course, to "The Politician" in which Welch called Dwight David Eisenhower a Communist. I think I may have read it as a kid. As I recall, it was not well-written and its logic was atrocious.

When I was eight years old I liked Ike and that helped make me a Republican. I was never, of course, a fan of the John Birch Society, the organization that wrongfully accused a great American hero of being a Communist.

I remember when William F. Buckley, Jr. essentially read the Birchers out of the conservative movement. You can imagine, however, that I did meet some pretty far right people in the sixties.

Thanks for the information on Rodriguez. I have skimmed his book. I did not want to start another controversy with John but it is not my understanding that Rodriguez ordered his execution. And I do remember reading that Rodriguez and Gueverra "bonded" before Guevera's death. If I recall right, Rodriguez attempted to help Guevera's suffering. Compare this, of course, with Howard Hunt's recent (2004) remarks about the death of Guevera.

Think I said before that Hemming has defended Guevera and stated that Guevera was always a man of his word.

Now remember that was Hemming talking--not me!

Your comparison of Communists to boogeymen was interesting. Wasn't there a quote attacking some right-winger because he found communists "under every bed"? Remember who said that? If anyone would, you would!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat wrote:

I expect you to apologize to Castro when Dillon's son joins the Forum and admits his dad killed Kennedy. (a joke.)

Pat, I don't think there is any danger of that, since I believe (someone can correct me if I am wrong) that the Dillons had no children.

But I expect that some day my last post on this forum will be but four words:

I told you so!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

Count the Commies...

World War one

World War two.

The slave trade.

Vietnam (yes I know!)

Near genocide of native Americans.

Near genocide of native Austrialians.

The rape and pillage of the Indian sub Continent.

Early Capitalist land clearences (over 300,000 deaths in Scotland alone.)

Jim Crow.

Over 1,000,000 deaths in Ireland, due mainly to absentee landlords.

Hiroshima, Nagosaki.

East Timor.

Cortez

The Spanish inquisition.

Apathied.

Chile Sept 11 1973.

I could go on, but I hope you get the point, it isnt only Commies who need to hang their heads in shame. nor are they the only ones to tell lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your comparison of Communists to boogeymen was interesting.  Wasn't there a quote attacking some right-winger because he found communists "under every bed"?  Remember who said that?  If anyone would, you would!

The first time I heard the phrase used was by left-wingers in the Labour Party in the early 1960s. It was used against Harold Wilson, the British prime minister, who was accused of acting like there was a communist under every bed. It later turned out he felt this way because of false information that he had been given by MI5 about the number of communist in the Labour Party. It was in fact an attempt to destablize the Labour government (this conspiracy is explained in Peter Wright’s book Spycatcher).

However, one website claimed that the phrase was first used in America:

“And then there was Senator Joseph McCarthy and his band of dedicated Communist hunters. Almost single handedly, Senator McCarthy engineered a life of fear for anyone with even slightly left of center views. Senator McCarthy believed there was a Communist under almost every bed, and that they must be hunted down relentlessly. Union members, professors, writers, actors, musicians, anyone who did not toe a very straight political line of his choosing, were targets of his wrath. People who were called before his committee were strongly pressured to admit their guilt, and to name names of others with similar views. In fear, many did inform on their neighbors, their coworkers, their friends, even members of their own families. The net spread wider and wider, and no one was immune from suspicion. Even President Eisenhower, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren came under public scrutiny. Suspected "communists" were harassed in their homes, fired from their jobs, and blacklisted so that future employment was not possible. Teachers were not allowed to teach; actors were not allowed to act; writers were not allowed to publish their work. Families were torn apart. Lives were ruined.”

Thomas Buchanan was one of the victims of McCarthyism. After losing his job on the Washington Evening Star he went to live in France. But he was not safe from the smears of the McCarthyites.

Now, once again, I will attempt you to return to your statement: "all communists are liars".

Also, any comments about my record of "anti-communism". Or am I still in your eyes a "communist".

Link to post
Share on other sites

John wrote:

Or am I still in your eyes a "communist".

My gosh, John! I never called you a Communist. The fact that you take offense at being called a Communist gives me hope that you have some conception of the evils of Communism.

Let's look at two quotes. The first is from Felix Dzerhinsky, head of the Soviet Cheka:

"We will make our hearts cruel, hard and immovable. . . We will not quiver at the sight of a sea of enemy blood. Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of thousands; let the drown themselves in their own blood! Let there be floods of blood of the bourgeois--more blood, as much as possoble."

Here is a Guevera quote from "Motorcycle Diaries": "Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join with the proletariat with a bestial howl."

I assume you will not defend these statements. The question is whether you will agree that most communist governments had to seal their grip through atrocities and violence. I agree that fascist dictatorships would use the same tactics but I can assure you that I also think Nazis are liars.

The distinction, I think, is those who put morality over the advancement of their ideology and those totalitarians who believe that anything that advances their ideloogy is justified. A true communist is prepared to be a butcher as well as a xxxx. So is a nazi. A democratic socialist or a democratic reactionary believes in basic tenets of morality e.g. truth-telling. That is the distinction. Does not mean that every word out of a Communist's mouth is a lie. But a true Communist is willing to subvert the truth to advance Communism. Which is why one can initially assume a statement made by a democrat is the truth while one must assume a statement by a Communist may very well be a lie.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try to simplify this.

Let's substitute Nazis for Communists. As I pointed out before, the totalitarians of the far right are as bad as the totalitarians of the left.

Now let's go back 65 years.

John, I assume you would accept a statement by Winston Churchill as presumably truthful.

But I assume if a statement came from Adolf Hitler you would not take it to be presumptively truthful. You would have to investigate it. Not every statement Hitler made was a lie. But he would lie as necessary to support the Nazi cause.

There is a difference between statements of Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitlers.

Similarly, there are differences between statements of John Simkin and Jean-Guy Allards. I presume you are a truth-teller but I will not accept any statement from a Communist unless it has been verified by independent sources.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites
I will not label you a Communist but it certainlly appears you are a defender of Communists.  I think you just need more education.

My gosh, John!  I never called you a Communist.  The fact that you take offense at being called a Communist gives me hope that you have some conception of the evils of Communism.

I have never been a defender of the atrocities committed by communist dictators. In fact, as my record shows, I am a fierce opponent of communist dictatorships. For example, I have made several attempts to raise the issue of President Karimov, the communist dictator of Uzbekistan on this forum. Karimov has killed far more of his citizens that Castro. Could it be that you are uninterested in Karimov because he remains in power because of the funding and political support given to him by George Bush? Or is it only anti-Bush communists you are interested in?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3847

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3776

I am not a defender of communist dictators. However, I am a defender of the civil rights of communists. We are old fashioned in Western Europe. We are interested in civil rights for all citizens. That includes communists and ethnic minorities. As you know, both these groups were denied these rights in the United States during most of the 20th century. Many former members of the Communist Party were sacked and blacklisted and had to flee to Europe to seek employment (a bit like the democrats fleeing from the Soviet Union). In the case of Paul Robeson, you took away his passport and would not even let him leave the country.

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

Thomas Buchanan was someone who was forced to flee his country. But that is not enough for McCarthyites. They claim that because he was once a member of the Communist Party he is automatically a “xxxx”. You have yet to intellectual defend this statement. Of course you cannot.

It is this intellectual dishonesty that has caused you to be criticised by so many members of the Forum. It is clear you have an agenda. It was the one first started by General Walker’s friend, Billy James Hargis, in 1964 (The Far Left).

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

It might work in far right groups in America but it will not convince serious researchers in the JFK assassination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John wrote:

It might work in far right groups in America but it will not convince serious researchers in the JFK assassination.

John, do you mean "all serious researchers" or "most serious researchers"?

Re your statement that it will only convince "far right groups in America" tell me what evidence you have associating Michael Kurtz, Gus Russo, Victor Marchetti, Joseph Trento and Joseph Califano with "far right" groups? The statement is facially absurd. I have no idea what Kurtz's political persuasion is but I believe the politics of Russo, Marchetti and the two Josephs are left-oriented. I should also add that my friend Mark Howell (who is another example of how generous and good-hearted many liberals are) also believes that Castro probably did it. Clearly, many intelligent people who have studied the assassination and concluded there was Cuban involvement are not aligned with the "far right" as you put it, but are rather center or left-oriented.

A 2004 poll conducted by the Discovery Channel found that the greatest percentage of respondents (over 40% as I recall) believed that Castro did it.

Would this not, then, be a fairer statement:

"Most assassination researchers dismiss the 'Castro did it theory' but it is widely accepted by many members of the American public and by certain assassination investigators of various political persuasions."

That sentence, I think, accurately summarizes the current situation. Your statement would be closer to the truth if it said the "castro did it" theory does not convince most assassination researchers. But it also ignores the broad public support of the Castro scenario.

Re your attempt to link my scenario to the early "the Commies did it" theories of the far right, here is where I question your intellectual honesty (I guess that is far since you have questioned mine). You must be intellectually sophisticated to see this distinction: in 1963-1964 many right-wingers claimed a Communist conspiracy primarily because (1) they thought the Communists were terruble; and (2) Oswald was linked to both the Soviet Union and Cuba. I believe, to the contrary, that Oswald was most likely an agent of American intelligence. If Castro killed Kennedy, he did so out of desperation to stop the continued American efforts against his life. I certainly have no respect for Castro as a champion of civil rights in Cuba but I have repeatedly stated that if he did it his action was understandable and came close to being in the nature of "self defense". Why then did you claim that my efforts to show possible Cuban connection to the assassination are part of some right-wing agenda?

My analysis is different in kind than the analysis set forth by certain right-wingers in the immediate wake of the assassination, and it has nothing to do with Castro being an evil Communist. The analysis would be the same, for instance, if Trujillo had killed JFK in the spring of 1961 because the CIA was trying to kill him.

It is not just right-wingers who think Castro did it. There are many intelligent people of various political persuasion who believe Castro is the most likely suspect because the evidence points in that direction.

You ought to be fair enough to allow people who have studied the evidence to come to conclusions different than your own without stooping to question their intellectual honesty. This is called TOLERANCE. It is a principle that I am afraid is sometimes espoused more by the left in rhetoric than it is embraced in practice.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites
A 2004 poll conducted by the Discovery Channel found that the greatest percentage of respondents (over 40% as I recall) believed that Castro did it.

If this is true, it only shows that the Discovery Channel's polls are as politically skewed and dishonest as their specials on the assassination. I believe that all the credible polls done on the assassination since the early nineties have shown that between 67 and 80 percent believe there was a conspiracy, and that over half of those believe it was the CIA who did it. I'd be surprised if Castro was even in the top 3, as LBJ, the military and the mafia are considered better suspects by the vast majority of researchers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, the poll results did surpise me. I am not sure if they were dishonest but it is possible they were skewed. Any poll taken in which the respondents initiate their response rather than being passively called tends to have reliability issues, I believe.

But I do not think an accurate poll would support John's theory that only the far right believe Castro killed Kennedy. As I noted above, many of the authors who support that scenario are left-of-center.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...