Rendezvous w/Death

[Tim Gratz]

Nathaniel wrote:

We won the cold war because the U.S. gov is MUCH MUCH better at lying to its people than was the U.S.S.R.

Yipeeeee!

I am stunned--literally--that anyone can espouse such an opinion. Unbelievable!

The fact that you are a history teacher is downright scary.

I bet you have not read a single darn book about the evils and brutality of Communism. If I am wrong, please advise me.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Please see this review of the film:

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/r...0106?view=Light

I look forward to viewing it. Please note I have not reached the "I told you so" stage--yet.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Nathaniel wrote:

We won the cold war because the U.S. gov is MUCH MUCH better at lying to its people than was the U.S.S.R.

Yipeeeee!

I am stunned--literally--that anyone can espouse such an opinion. Unbelievable!

The fact that you are a history teacher is downright scary.

I bet you have not read a single darn book about the evils and brutality of Communism. If I am wrong, please advise me.

Hi Tim: Thats right, I believe that we had and have a much more intelligently designed propaganda system

that does its job much more efficiently than that of the former U.S.S. R.

Now, what criteria would YOU USE to define "the mo worthst effective propaganda system" ?

Here is the criteria that I think is most looking at : To what extent does the state propaganda system prevent the development of a widespread alternative point of view.

In the U.S.S.R, there was one source of poitical narrative that was monistically forced on the population. Eventually the majority of the population was able to realize "this mass-murderer Stalin is lying to us!"

Hence, as a propaganda system,the Soviet monistic variety really sucked!

Here in the U.S. the political class has mastered the golden rule of propaganda; the best way to control

public opinion is with false opposites. False opposites like Bush (War) and Kerry ("I would have supported the War even had I known there were no WMD's" ) False opposites like the Dems and Republicans, 406 of whom voted to approve the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which, would you believe it. was based on a lie!!!

Effect,on TV viewer: Gee these dems and republicans who seem to disagree so much (like over gay mariage and other "issues" that will never be mentioned again the day after the election) AGREE that we should go attack Iraq, so it must be true, Sadam is linked with Bin Laden."

Using these two false opposites (positions that really have much more in common than they have points of diffence) an opposing point of reference can never form in the general population. For example, almost nowhere in the U.S. media around 1950 could you read a challenge to the preposterous argument that the Soviet Union "caused" the Chinese Revolution of 1949. Today, no employable historian in any American University, save perhaps Georgetown, would support this argument, but it was challenged by nobody in the McCarthyite atmosphere of 1950. The whole "loss of China " lie went virtually unchallenged. Result: the Democrats and Republicans competed to see who could get the taxpayer to buy most weapons from the Military Industrial Complex, with the winner called "stronger" by TV networks whose CEO either played tennis with Allen Dulles, or just happened to also own a defense contracter.

As for reading a book specifially on the evils of Communism, no I havent. I read History books. Any book called the evils of communism, or with any other similar title could only be a political tract. Have I read of the actions of governments that called themselves Communist? Sure.

Have you read histories of countries like Indonesia, Guatemala, and El Salvador, whose governments call their regimes allies of the U.S.?

Since you have pronounced me unqualified to teach, without having a single exchange , I'd like to invite you to come and take over my classes on Monday. Its best if you dress in loose clothing that lets you move around comfortably, sort of

[Tim Gratz]

Whoa, Nathaniel! I never called you "unqualified to teach". It is scary, however, that you are no doubt propagandizing your students with your POV. I do think you ought not do so since you forthrightly admitted you have not read a single book about what really happened under Communism--a rather amazing admission, after all, considering the generalization you made a few posts ago.

How can you label any such book a "political tract"? Wew the books that demonstrated the evils of Naziism "political tracts"? Are you a holocaust denier?

Edited January 7, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

Granma weighs in with a lengthy overview of the assassination:

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2006/enero/vie...3kennedy-i.html

[Tim Gratz]

Thanks, Ron. An interesting post.

Does anyone have a basis to support or refute the article's claim that Odio was visited by the Novo brothers?

Obviously this is incorrect if the visitors were in fact Murgaudo and deTorres.

[Thomas Graves]

Thanks, Ron. An interesting post.

Does anyone have a basis to support or refute the article's claim that Odio was visited by the Novo brothers?

Obviously this is incorrect if the visitors were in fact Murgaudo and deTorres.

_______________________________________

Gratz,

Maybe you should ask Cuban Security.

_______________________________________

[Tim Gratz]

Tom, my point exactly. What does it tell us if the DGI report is wrong about the identity of Odio's visitors?

[John Dolva]

Whoa, Nathaniel! I never called you "unqualified to teach". It is scary, however, that you are no doubt propagandizing your students with your POV. I do think you ought not do so since you forthrightly admitted you have not read a single book about what really happened under Communism--a rather amazing admission, after all, considering the generalization you made a few posts ago.

How can you label any such book a "political tract"? Wew the books that demonstrated the evils of Naziism "political tracts"? Are you a holocaust denier?

the Kraken wakes...

bush in his attempt to hijack reality declares "you're either with us or against us"... smells like McCarthyism mark II. If nothing else it's a rallying call to bigots to dredge up the rhetoric and techniques of 'not with us' baiting. While leaving an indelible blight on 'history' there are few who don't recognise its fallacies today. Truth has a way of percolating to the surface...

Reread the post by Nathaniel before you show your hand in this. Tim. There's a difference between History and Propaganda. This is one area of civil rigths I'm definitely watching big brother on. Attempts to stifle free speech and to use devious means to silence critics in the way that FREE thinkers were hounded in the McCarthy era need to be noted.

___________________________

I'm certainly not with Bush, BECAUSE I'm against terrorism. Even if there is a shred of honesty in him on this, the path of pouring petrol on a fire leads only one way.

Seeing as he is trying to lead in this dance, the fact that there are unwilling partners who wish to sit it out reflects on him and his choice of music, not those who'd rather go next door.

[Tim Gratz]

John, do you consider books by Robert Conquest and Christopher Andrew history or propaganda?

Is the fact that Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler killed Jews merely propoganda to you?

I find it very difficult to understand a mind-set that minimizes the horrors and brutalities of the totalitarian states of the twentieth century.

And who do you contend is stifling free speech by devious means or otherwise? Free speech of course does not include the right to use verbal communications to plan criminal acts. Never has.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Dolva]

John, do you consider books by Robert Conquest and Christopher Andrew history or propaganda?

Is the fact that Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler killed Jews merely propoganda to you?

I find it very difficult to understand a mind-set that minimizes the horrors and brutalities of the totalitarian states of the twentieth century.

And who do you contend is stifling free speech by devious means or otherwise? Free speech of course does not include the right to use verbal communications to plan criminal acts. Never has.

Tim,I knew I should have restrained myself in this one. Hopefully my last word on this, (the xrays beckon)* There are so many ways to present history. For example the fact that 18 times the Nazi arms went against the Soviets than against the West in WWII, that possibly as many as 35 million Russians lost their lives fighting Fascism makes the 'johnny come lately' racing to get a foot hold in Berlin while garnishing the crop of the Nazis to people its own Secret Services somehow makes the US the victor in WWII??? an example of rewriting history?? Sure Stalin was a dictator, he had to wrest the revolution out of the hands of the genuine revoultionaries and they weren't about to give it up that easy.

To call Stalinism 'Communism' is another sample of Opportunism, happily used by Stalins bloodbrothers in the west. The tenacity of the ordinary Russian as a member of humanity has suffered much, much of the world we have today is because of their sacrifices. For Stalin or Bush or anyone else of that ilk to try and take that away from them or from history is typical of the type.

I find all this very interesting. Unfortunately the field is a grab bag of alternatives and spending time flinging snippets at each other begs time I want to spend elsewhere. So a further lack of response doesn't mean not reading or being interested. So please continue

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Please see this review of the film:

http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/currentaffairs/r...0106?view=Light

I look forward to viewing it. Please note I have not reached the "I told you so" stage--yet.

Nor should you, since you haven't seen the film and hence know nothing about it from first hand experience. [Not that this has ever stopped you from making silly assertions in the past.] As for your implied prediction that your Castro-did-it nonsense will somehow be vindicated by a film you've not seen, I'd hold your water, were I you, Tim. The involvement of Russo is enough to raise some large red flags, but it seems that somebody else of questionable veracity [as demonstrated here by Tim Carroll on this very day] may have also lent a hand to this cinematic piffle:

GERRY HEMMING - FEB. 15/2005

"2. Even while I was in the VA hospital, the inquiries kept rolling in. A German Public TV crew couldn't wait for my release (having just finished filming in Cuba); so the VA boss allowed the filming to take place in the luxurious lobby of the hospital -- and which drew a crowd of uniformed military and hospital staff. The Administrator was worried that I was going to "bad-mouth" the VA; but I assured him that this interview was about "Cold-War" issues of long past."

If you go back and check Gerry's very first posts here, you'll note that even he acknowledges his reputation for veracity and consistency is not all that one might hope for, as per his admission:

GERRY HEMMING - FEB. 11/2005

"Thus we gained the fabulous reputation of being liars/bullxxxx artists - as shown in the thousands of their declassified files since 1992."

I will withhold judgement on the flick until having watched it, but the advance data we've seen floated thus far doesn't give one much reason to expect it will solve anything. It does, however, seem to offer additional employment opportunities for the small cottage industry of Castro-did-it flakes and flunkies. I'm sure you know these usual suspects, Tim: the ones who claim Pulitzer nominations that never were, or insist that they know everything about the Plumlee service records when they clearly don't have a clue.

If you're ever going to have the chance to promenade your "I told you so" gloat, I wouldn't expect this film to deliver you that opportunity.

[Tim Gratz]

Anthony Summers' review of "Rendezvous with Death" gives additional information on the movie:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...74173_2,00.html

Robert is correct to reserve judgment before viewing it but I hope (although I doubt it) that members will view it with an open mind.

At least one of the earlier reviews indicated that Escalante was evasive. I note agin that although Escalante claimed to have a written confession from Tony Cuesta, when Gordon Baldwin pressed him to produce it, Escalante stonewalled.

The Summers review notes that four people with connections to Cuban intelligence were interviewed and confirmed Cuban involvenent.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Anthony Summers' review of "Rendezvous with Death" gives additional information on the movie:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11...74173_2,00.html

Summers's review seems extremely sympathetic to the limp and long-discredited theory he describes as forming the basis of this Gus Russo-inspired documentary.

Summers's final paragraph is most interesting:

"While at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico, the Cuban leader reportedly twice told visitors, Oswald had indeed talked of shooting the President. In an impromptu conversation with a British reporter, Comer Clarke, the Cuban leader, is said to have made an astonishing admission: “Yes, I heard of Lee Harvey Oswald’s plan to kill President Kennedy. It’s possible I could have saved him. I might have been able to — but I didn’t. I never believed the plan would be put into effect.”

As I noted in another thread not too long ago, the HSCA checked into Comer Clark's credibility and found it to hover somewhere between zero and minus 100%.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

John, do you consider books by Robert Conquest and Christopher Andrew history or propaganda?

Is the fact that Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler killed Jews merely propoganda to you?

I find it very difficult to understand a mind-set that minimizes the horrors and brutalities of the totalitarian states of the twentieth century.

And who do you contend is stifling free speech by devious means or otherwise? Free speech of course does not include the right to use verbal communications to plan criminal acts. Never has.

Tim,I knew I should have restrained myself in this one. Hopefully my last word on this, (the xrays beckon)* There are so many ways to present history. For example the fact that 18 times the Nazi arms went against the Soviets than against the West in WWII, that possibly as many as 35 million Russians lost their lives fighting Fascism makes the 'johnny come lately' racing to get a foot hold in Berlin while garnishing the crop of the Nazis to people its own Secret Services somehow makes the US the victor in WWII??? an example of rewriting history?? Sure Stalin was a dictator, he had to wrest the revolution out of the hands of the genuine revoultionaries and they weren't about to give it up that easy.

To call Stalinism 'Communism' is another sample of Opportunism, happily used by Stalins bloodbrothers in the west. The tenacity of the ordinary Russian as a member of humanity has suffered much, much of the world we have today is because of their sacrifices. For Stalin or Bush or anyone else of that ilk to try and take that away from them or from history is typical of the type.

I find all this very interesting. Unfortunately the field is a grab bag of alternatives and spending time flinging snippets at each other begs time I want to spend elsewhere. So a further lack of response doesn't mean not reading or being interested. So please continue

re: above mentioned opportunism. True dat.

I find it interesting that in all U.S. high school and most U.S. college textbooks, Stalin is described as Communist (read: blame it on Karl Marx) When we read histories of the Spanish Inquisiton in same texts do we find it described as a christian instituion (read: blame it on Jesus Christ)?

When we read in same text descriptions of Nazi Germany, is it ever, ever called capitalist?

Where, oh where is the American canary, for the ideology in our minds?!