John Simkin Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 This is how Tim Gratz responded to a thread I started on Thomas Buchanan’s book, Who Killed Kennedy? (1964). John, I assume when you posted you did not know that Buchanan had been a member of the Communist Party since at least 1948 (or you certainly would have so informed us). Since the Communist Party is an obvious suspect in the assassination, Buchanan is hardly a "disinterested" observor. As the article notes, he could have written the book under Communist discipline. We know that the KGB did circulate false information about the assassination, including a cleverly forged letter from Leo Harvey Oswald. Remember, not all liars are communists, but all communists are liars (it's their philosophy!). As Robert Charles-Dunne has pointed out on the thread on Enrico Mattei (Thomas Buchanan claimed that the same people were responsible for the deaths of Mattei and JFK) this kind of logic could be applied to any political party. For example: Changed your tune a bit. When I originally posted information from Thomas Buchanan you responded by saying you did not believe anything said by a member of the American Communist Party. (John Simkin)John, you understated it a bit. I said one could not believe anything written by a Communist (not just American communists). By that I meant a person willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party. Because a Communist member must be willing to subvert the truth to the "party line". (Tim Gratz) Rather like being a Republican, then. You must remember the Ziegler-ism that the truth in the Nixon White House is "no longer operative?" Or, how about "Saddam's been trying to get uraniam from Niger?" Or, "Saddam has WMD?" Or, what about my personal favourite, "Saddam could launch a warhead against us in only 45 minutes?" Good thing Republicans said those things, or I might have moments of doubt about their veracity.... (Robert Charles-Dunne) This simply means you must verify everything a Communist says. A Communist could make a true statement if it is consistent with the then-current party position. My point is that one ought not accord a Communist writer a presumption of honesty as one would accord, say, a socialist or a Republican. (Tim Gratz) Why extend it to either of them? Why not just presume that it's all propaganda to advance a cause until it resonates within your head and heart? Or do you simply put your brain on auto-pilot because you're listening to one of your own? If so, it would help explain a whole lot about the naivete behind your posts here. (Robert Charles-Dunne) A person political philosophy obviously has an impact on your views on the JFK assassination. The point is, will your political philosophy influence every thing you say. Is Tim right that some people are “willing to subject himself or herself to the discipline of the party”. That everything they say is guided by the party line. This is of course possible. Some communist reporters went along with Stalin’s view that in the 1930s that the supporters of Leon Trotsky were really agents of Western fascists and therefore needed to be executed. (The vast majority of journalists in the UK and the US also agreed this was true at the time.) Others went along with the idea in 1956 that it was necessary to send the Red Army into Hungary to defeat a “fascist counter-revolution”. Although some Communist Party journalists went along with the Soviet line, large numbers resigned from the party over these two issues. In fact, the second of these two issues virtually destroyed the Communist Party in the UK. The important question concerns the following: "Is a communist any different from any other supporter of a political party?" It is obviously true that any partisan political supporter is vulnerable to this kind of mind set. It is one of the reasons I am not a member of any political party. I dislike the idea of having to take into account what the party line is on any given subject. It is interesting that Tim first brought this subject up as he is the most partisan of all our members. In several areas of the forum I have criticised the policies of George Bush. Not on one occasion has Tim agreed with me (even when I pointed out that Bush was providing financial backing to the communist dictator in Uzbekistan). Instead, he only defends Bush. It is because of Tim’s partisan views that most members do not take his postings seriously. Tim always follows the party line. Sigmund Freud had something to say about this. It was his theory of “projection”. This is the tendency to see your own unacceptable attitudes in other people. According to Freud’s theory, Tim knows he is morally wrong to accept everything that George Bush says is true (probably something to do with being a born again Christian). Therefore, he projects this irrational feelings on the people he sees as the "enemy". When he was growing up in the 1950s and the 1960s he was constantly being told that the communists were evil. In fact, it was a form of brainwashing that resulted in a large proportion of the American population endured. Tim obviously got it worse than most. This is not to say that all members of the Republican Party are not to be trusted (after all, then I would be guilty of Tim’s offence). However, it does mean that anyone who accepts the discipline of the party line, is a useless historian or an ineffective JFK researcher. It also raises the question, if Tim is asked questions about his past, will he tell the truth, or will he follow the party line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now