The Bravery in WWII, Cowardice After...

[PoliticalChic]

"Why is it that people like you, when shown the truth, refuse to accept it? What is it about you that makes you incapable of thinking and understanding?"

That was the question asked by a conservative member of one of our Liberals.

Actually...I don't believe that "thinking and understanding" is the problem....or at least, not the entire problem.

Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Many of liberals' peculiarities are understandable when one realizes that they are a mob, a herd, and going counter to the direction of the herd could be dangerous to one's feeling of well-being.

In short....many Liberals are afraid. They have seen what is in store for those who break away.

A cautionary tale follows.




1. Except among the ignorant, the uneducated, the historically and culturally brain-dead, there is no disputing a) that the Roosevelt administration was infiltrated and directed by communists paid by Stalin, b) Senator McCarthy was absolutely correct in his assertions, and no innocents were injured by his efforts...none, and c) either due to war-weariness, i.e., it was easier to pretend that there were no enemies than to actually fight 'em, or because revealing treachery would actually indict many of their own parties, both Democrats and Republicans worked to still the anti-communist voices.




2. First there was Representative Martin Dies, the House Democrat from Texas, who, in 1938, founded the House Committee on Un-American Activities, often called the Dies Committee.
"Before Joe McCarthy there was Martin Dies. Virtually everything that would later be said about Joe McCarthy was said first of Martin Dies, that he was conducting 'witch hunts,' smearing innocent victims, using the Communist issue to advance his own malign agenda, spreading hysteria about a nonexistent menace.....it was the same routine from start to finish."
M. Stanton Evans, "Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies," p. 49.

a. Should any doubt Evans, note that two years before McCarthy's Wheeling, West Virginia speech in 1950, both Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley had spilled the beans in front of HUAC....and both had been talking to the FBI from 1945.
[ Elizabeth Bentley deposition, 30 November 1945, FBI file 65-14603 ]





3.As the victor, shouldn't this culture have had the confidence to call out the evil, the treacherous? Shouldn't we have been proud of our values, and made it clear that that was what served us and got us through the darkest times? Unfortunately, we were magnanimous, and offered our hand to our erstwhile enemies, and the 'friends' who stabbed us in the back, i.e., the Soviets.

a. Not to be mentioned were blood purge, invasion, show trial assassination, atomic espionage, subversion, deception, treason, Gulags, 'reeducation camp,' genocide,....

4. In fact, the effort extended so far that the mention of the iniquities resulted in more vituperation than the iniquities themselves! The anti-communists received more abuse than the communists!!

a. Whittaker Chambers was attacked by the Liberals more than the spy, Alger Hiss, he had exposed. "I had been warned repeatedly that the brunt of official wrath was directed, not against Alger Hiss as a danger, but against me for venturing to testify to the danger."
Chambers, "Witness," p. 707. Truman dismissed the case against Hiss as a "red herring."


b. FDR himself tried to shut down Rep. Martin Dies investigation into Communist conspiracy.
"Martin Dies Story," Dies, p. 77-83.

c. As President, Eisenhower tried to shut down McCarthy's investigations.
"American Betrayal," West, p. 63.

d. Under President Reagan there was more outrage over his phrase 'evil empire' than there was over the evil of the empire itself.





5. Robert E. Stripling, the Chief Investigator for the Un-American Activities Committee, wrote:
"I want to tell in detail the price that men must pay for the dubious privilege of being reviled in print and on the air" for their labors in "what amounts to a necessary sewer project" of Communist investigations. He goes on to outline "the scope of the Communist conspiracy against the government and people of the United States" although "to do so is to invite the charge of Fascist, Red-baiter, witch-hunter, smear-artist. To fail to do so is to capitulate to a resourceful enemy who can endure any counter-attack except exposure."
Stripling, "Red Plot," p. 23,13.




So, who can blame the lily-livered, spineless, weak-kneed, gutless, pusillanimous Caspar Milquetoasts???


"....shown the truth, refuse to accept it..."




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aq-be7Y_yyY]Clucking Chicken - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jwoodie]

We won WW2 but lost the peace. America's "greatest generation" spawned the most selfish generation in our history. I know. I'm one of them.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Are you compiling an ultra-conservative WWII history book or something?

I appreciate Ronald Radosh's comments on "American Betrayal:"

Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis?

It had nothing to do with the Rubik’s Cube of diplomatic and military considerations, a calculus that had to take into account the willingness of the American and British publics to continue to sacrifice and their soldiers to die. No, it was a conspiracy so immense, as West’s hero Joe McCarthy might have said, that it allowed Western policy to be dictated by a shadow army of Soviet agents.

It is unfortunate that a number of conservatives who should know better have fallen for West’s fictions. It is even more depressing that her book perpetuates the dangerous one dimensional thinking of the Wisconsin Senator and his allies in the John Birch Society which have allowed anti anti-communism to have a field day in our intellectual culture.

West has evidently seduced conservatives who are justifiably appalled by the left’s rewriting of history, its denials that Communists ever posed a threat, and its claim that Communist infiltration was a destructive myth created by witch-hunters intent on suppressing dissent. For these readers, West’s credibility derives from her aggressive counter vision.

For those who have not read the important works of Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes, Christopher Andrew, Alexander Vassiliev, Allen Weinstein and others, what she has written may seem a revelation, as she herself claims. But for anyone familiar with the historical literature, the core of what she has written is well known and what is new is either overheated, or simply false and distorted—the sort of truculent recklessness that gives anti-communism a bad name.

Virtually every historian with a political axe to grind, conservative or liberal, has a tendency to distort history. If I were to research the rest of your sources I would likely run into similarly slanted views, if not to such a degree. "American Betrayal" just really stood out as particularly suspect.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Senator McCarthy was absolutely correct in his assertions, and no innocents were injured by his efforts

ALL wars have victims. It is one of the most basic things one accepts about war. There were some legitimate spies and communist underminers on McCarthy's list, certainly, but to refuse to believe that nobody was victimized is just naive.

Bartley Crum was not victimized? By today's conservative standards, particularly the religious right, the man would be considered a hero for his advocacy of the Israeli state, yet was labeled a subversive, phone lines tapped by the FBI, mail opened, and lost most of his clients and eventually committed suicide.

Can you tell me what crimes against the U.S. that warranted blacklisting were committed by Jules Dassin, or Lee Grant, or Burgess Meredith, or Howard Da Silva, or Orson Welles? Either you are simply ignoring that these people were blacklisted or harassed, or you believe that anybody that had opinions outside the right-wing ilk deserved what they got. Or maybe because some of these people had prolific careers despite the era, that they cannot be considered to have been harassed or victimized in any way.

The extent to which McCarthy or Dies' efforts were justified does not erase those that unfortunately happened to be standing in the way. Does the effort to defend their actions necessitate such denials? Whether or not the innocent casualties that necessarily result in the fighting of any major political battle is worth it is a part of any mature discussion about it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you compiling an ultra-conservative WWII history book or something?

I appreciate Ronald Radosh's comments on "American Betrayal:"

Why did the U.S. and Britain not prevent the totalitarian USSR from taking over Eastern Europe after it had defeated the totalitarian Nazis?

It had nothing to do with the Rubik’s Cube of diplomatic and military considerations, a calculus that had to take into account the willingness of the American and British publics to continue to sacrifice and their soldiers to die. No, it was a conspiracy so immense, as West’s hero Joe McCarthy might have said, that it allowed Western policy to be dictated by a shadow army of Soviet agents.

It is unfortunate that a number of conservatives who should know better have fallen for West’s fictions. It is even more depressing that her book perpetuates the dangerous one dimensional thinking of the Wisconsin Senator and his allies in the John Birch Society which have allowed anti anti-communism to have a field day in our intellectual culture.

West has evidently seduced conservatives who are justifiably appalled by the left’s rewriting of history, its denials that Communists ever posed a threat, and its claim that Communist infiltration was a destructive myth created by witch-hunters intent on suppressing dissent. For these readers, West’s credibility derives from her aggressive counter vision.

For those who have not read the important works of Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes, Christopher Andrew, Alexander Vassiliev, Allen Weinstein and others, what she has written may seem a revelation, as she herself claims. But for anyone familiar with the historical literature, the core of what she has written is well known and what is new is either overheated, or simply false and distorted—the sort of truculent recklessness that gives anti-communism a bad name.

Virtually every historian with a political axe to grind, conservative or liberal, has a tendency to distort history. If I were to research the rest of your sources I would likely run into similarly slanted views, if not to such a degree. "American Betrayal" just really stood out as particularly suspect.

"For those who have not read the important works of Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes, Christopher Andrew, Alexander Vassiliev, Allen Weinstein and others, what she has written may seem a revelation, as she herself claims."


I have read every one of those.
West provides new material, new insights, in one of the most thoroughly footnoted and documented tomes I've seen.
I know. I check the sources, at least as far as their existence.



"It is unfortunate that a number of conservatives who should know better have fallen for West’s fictions."
I have great respect for Radosh, and Conrad Black....

But they are both wrong.

I can prove it: find any errors or 'fictions' in the West-quoted material.


Therefore, the definition of "ultra-conservative," as per your post, is "scrupulously correct and honest."



"...conservative or liberal, has a tendency to distort history."
As the quotes are sourced and correct, the term 'distort' is a misnomer.
I challenge you to find otherwise.




Here is one exchange that I plan to post at a future date:

Wm. C. Bullitt, Jr., was a radical Liberal internationalist.
He helped Roosevelt write the Litvinov agreement, recognizing the USSR.

FDR appointed him the first ambassador to the USSR, 1933.
By 1935, he was writing that it had been a great mistake.

In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590



FDR replied: "Bill, I don't dispute your facts, they are accurate, I don't dispute the logic of your reasoning. I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry [Hopkins, FDR's live in adviser, Soviet agent] says he's not and that he doesn't want anything in the world but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
William C. Bullitt, "How We Won The War and Lost The Peace," Life Magazine, August 30, 1948, p. 94


Bet you haven't read that elsewhere.


On nearly every page of West's book, there is this sort of revelation.
And you say?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Senator McCarthy was absolutely correct in his assertions, and no innocents were injured by his efforts

ALL wars have victims. It is one of the most basic things one accepts about war. There were some legitimate spies and communist underminers on McCarthy's list, certainly, but to refuse to believe that nobody was victimized is just naive.

Bartley Crum was not victimized? By today's conservative standards, particularly the religious right, the man would be considered a hero for his advocacy of the Israeli state, yet was labeled a subversive, phone lines tapped by the FBI, mail opened, and lost most of his clients and eventually committed suicide.

Can you tell me what crimes against the U.S. that warranted blacklisting were committed by Jules Dassin, or Lee Grant, or Burgess Meredith, or Howard Da Silva, or Orson Welles? Either you are simply ignoring that these people were blacklisted or harassed, or you believe that anybody that had opinions outside the right-wing ilk deserved what they got. Or maybe because some of these people had prolific careers despite the era, that they cannot be considered to have been harassed or victimized in any way.

The extent to which McCarthy or Dies' efforts were justified does not erase those that unfortunately happened to be standing in the way. Does the effort to defend their actions necessitate such denials? Whether or not the innocent casualties that necessarily result in the fighting of any major political battle is worth it is a part of any mature discussion about it.

"...but to refuse to believe that nobody was victimized is just naive."

You've been sold a bill of goods, and bought it like it was on sale.


This is very simple: to validate your statement....find any innocent individual who was not a communist supporter or party member, ruined or jailed or punished or incriminated by Senator McCarthy.




I believe you are fair-minded enough to reconsider your view if and when you are unable to find such an innocent.

 

[Moonglow]

political wars? Terrible to fathom much less experience, yet the extreme rights justifies it's cries with Jesus at the end of a refrain.
Amen(so be it)

 

[Moonglow]

Can you please share with me what law in the US at that time made it illegal to be a communist in the USA?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can you please share with me what law in the US at that time made it illegal to be a communist in the USA?

"The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlawed the Communist Party of the United States and criminalized membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defined evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations."
Communist Control Act of 1954 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Do you know why it was illegal?

 

[PoliticalChic]

political wars? Terrible to fathom much less experience, yet the extreme rights justifies it's cries with Jesus at the end of a refrain.
Amen(so be it)

Your post is neither coherent nor true.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Senator McCarthy was absolutely correct in his assertions, and no innocents were injured by his efforts

ALL wars have victims. It is one of the most basic things one accepts about war. There were some legitimate spies and communist underminers on McCarthy's list, certainly, but to refuse to believe that nobody was victimized is just naive.

Bartley Crum was not victimized? By today's conservative standards, particularly the religious right, the man would be considered a hero for his advocacy of the Israeli state, yet was labeled a subversive, phone lines tapped by the FBI, mail opened, and lost most of his clients and eventually committed suicide.

Can you tell me what crimes against the U.S. that warranted blacklisting were committed by Jules Dassin, or Lee Grant, or Burgess Meredith, or Howard Da Silva, or Orson Welles? Either you are simply ignoring that these people were blacklisted or harassed, or you believe that anybody that had opinions outside the right-wing ilk deserved what they got. Or maybe because some of these people had prolific careers despite the era, that they cannot be considered to have been harassed or victimized in any way.

The extent to which McCarthy or Dies' efforts were justified does not erase those that unfortunately happened to be standing in the way. Does the effort to defend their actions necessitate such denials? Whether or not the innocent casualties that necessarily result in the fighting of any major political battle is worth it is a part of any mature discussion about it.

"...but to refuse to believe that nobody was victimized is just naive."

You've been sold a bill of goods, and bought it like it was on sale.


This is very simple: to validate your statement....find any innocent individual who was not a communist supporter or party member, ruined or jailed or punished or incriminated by Senator McCarthy.




I believe you are fair-minded enough to reconsider your view if and when you are unable to find such an innocent.

No, my dear, that's what you have done. I already provided you with a few above. So, clearly, you feel that they deserved what they got, and that every single one of them was part of a force of Soviet shadow agents. Mr. Radosh's assessment appears perfectly fitting IMHO. The sooner you accept that innocent casualties occur in war the sooner you can have a mature discussion about the McCarthy era.

 

[Moonglow]

communist control act of 1954

However, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act "outlawing" the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party of the USA continues to exist in the 21st century.

seems to me that the act would sabotage the entire political spectrum by those in power by it's abuse to include other parties as well, and significantly weaken the democracy/republic we live under.

The problem we live with today is that the two major parties have fixed it to where no other parties can vie for power.Thus creating a system of abuse of power as we have seen since the 1960's.

 

[Moonglow]

political wars? Terrible to fathom much less experience, yet the extreme rights justifies it's cries with Jesus at the end of a refrain.
Amen(so be it)

Your post is neither coherent nor true.

I would or do not think you can understand it because you have welded yourself to the extreme right and are blind as a person of neutrality such as I.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I have read every one of those.
West provides new material, new insights, in one of the most thoroughly footnoted and documented tomes I've seen.
I know. I check the sources, at least as far as their existence.

I never said there was a lack of sourcing or that they exist.

But they are both wrong.

I can prove it: find any errors or 'fictions' in the West-quoted material.

Most historical works have sources. Most of them are factual and correct in their quotations. What authors with an agenda do with those quotes, and how they are represented, is what constitutes bias and slant. Conservatives and liberals do this all the time. It's nothing new.

As the quotes are sourced and correct, the term 'distort' is a misnomer.
I challenge you to find otherwise.

Redundant.

I do not detract in any way any fresh insights that may be offered in the text. I treat with caution any historical author, liberal or conservative, with an agenda. Sorry if that upsets you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

ALL wars have victims. It is one of the most basic things one accepts about war. There were some legitimate spies and communist underminers on McCarthy's list, certainly, but to refuse to believe that nobody was victimized is just naive.

Bartley Crum was not victimized? By today's conservative standards, particularly the religious right, the man would be considered a hero for his advocacy of the Israeli state, yet was labeled a subversive, phone lines tapped by the FBI, mail opened, and lost most of his clients and eventually committed suicide.

Can you tell me what crimes against the U.S. that warranted blacklisting were committed by Jules Dassin, or Lee Grant, or Burgess Meredith, or Howard Da Silva, or Orson Welles? Either you are simply ignoring that these people were blacklisted or harassed, or you believe that anybody that had opinions outside the right-wing ilk deserved what they got. Or maybe because some of these people had prolific careers despite the era, that they cannot be considered to have been harassed or victimized in any way.

The extent to which McCarthy or Dies' efforts were justified does not erase those that unfortunately happened to be standing in the way. Does the effort to defend their actions necessitate such denials? Whether or not the innocent casualties that necessarily result in the fighting of any major political battle is worth it is a part of any mature discussion about it.

"...but to refuse to believe that nobody was victimized is just naive."

You've been sold a bill of goods, and bought it like it was on sale.


This is very simple: to validate your statement....find any innocent individual who was not a communist supporter or party member, ruined or jailed or punished or incriminated by Senator McCarthy.




I believe you are fair-minded enough to reconsider your view if and when you are unable to find such an innocent.

No, my dear, that's what you have done. I already provided you with a few above. So, clearly, you feel that they deserved what they got, and that every single one of them was part of a force of Soviet shadow agents. Mr. Radosh's assessment appears perfectly fitting IMHO. The sooner you accept that innocent casualties occur in war the sooner you can have a mature discussion about the McCarthy era.

No....you didn't give any.

Did you not understand this:
This is very simple: to validate your statement....find any innocent individual who was not a communist supporter or party member, ruined or jailed or punished or incriminated by Senator McCarthy.


This is the problem when folks, you, post about subjects about which you know almost nothing.



"In fact, most of what people ordinarily mean when they talk about the "red scare" — the House Un-American Activities Committee; anti-Communist probes into Hollywood, labor unions, and America's schools and universities; the Rosenberg trial; blacklisting in the media and schoolteachers fired for disloyalty — had nothing to do with McCarthy and he had nothing to do with them (although when asked, he generally approved of them, as most other Americans did). McCarthy's own committee in the Senate, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which he chaired for less than two years, had a specific duty to investigate communism in the federal government and among government employees."
Joseph McCarthy
Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator
By ARTHUR HERMAN
Joseph McCarthy




Since you are unable to find any such names, as were in question.....are you about to change your view of the American hero, Joseph McCarthy?


Or...would you care to try again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

political wars? Terrible to fathom much less experience, yet the extreme rights justifies it's cries with Jesus at the end of a refrain.
Amen(so be it)

Your post is neither coherent nor true.

I would or do not think you can understand it because you have welded yourself to the extreme right and are blind as a person of neutrality such as I.

Everything I say is true.

Your bloviation is simply a way of agreeing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have read every one of those.
West provides new material, new insights, in one of the most thoroughly footnoted and documented tomes I've seen.
I know. I check the sources, at least as far as their existence.

I never said there was a lack of sourcing or that they exist.

But they are both wrong.

I can prove it: find any errors or 'fictions' in the West-quoted material.

Most historical works have sources. Most of them are factual and correct in their quotations. What authors with an agenda do with those quotes, and how they are represented, is what constitutes bias and slant. Conservatives and liberals do this all the time. It's nothing new.

As the quotes are sourced and correct, the term 'distort' is a misnomer.
I challenge you to find otherwise.

Redundant.

I do not detract in any way any fresh insights that may be offered in the text. I treat with caution any historical author, liberal or conservative, with an agenda. Sorry if that upsets you.

Why would you pretend that it upsets me?

My role here is education.

I provide it...you may ignore it.
But you can't deny it.


And, I never believed I could force anyone to be right; it's one of the reasons I never use the neg function for those who disagree.

 

[westwall]

"Why is it that people like you, when shown the truth, refuse to accept it? What is it about you that makes you incapable of thinking and understanding?"

That was the question asked by a conservative member of one of our Liberals.

Actually...I don't believe that "thinking and understanding" is the problem....or at least, not the entire problem.

Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Many of liberals' peculiarities are understandable when one realizes that they are a mob, a herd, and going counter to the direction of the herd could be dangerous to one's feeling of well-being.

In short....many Liberals are afraid. They have seen what is in store for those who break away.

A cautionary tale follows.




1. Except among the ignorant, the uneducated, the historically and culturally brain-dead, there is no disputing a) that the Roosevelt administration was infiltrated and directed by communists paid by Stalin, b) Senator McCarthy was absolutely correct in his assertions, and no innocents were injured by his efforts...none, and c) either due to war-weariness, i.e., it was easier to pretend that there were no enemies than to actually fight 'em, or because revealing treachery would actually indict many of their own parties, both Democrats and Republicans worked to still the anti-communist voices.




2. First there was Representative Martin Dies, the House Democrat from Texas, who, in 1938, founded the House Committee on Un-American Activities, often called the Dies Committee.
"Before Joe McCarthy there was Martin Dies. Virtually everything that would later be said about Joe McCarthy was said first of Martin Dies, that he was conducting 'witch hunts,' smearing innocent victims, using the Communist issue to advance his own malign agenda, spreading hysteria about a nonexistent menace.....it was the same routine from start to finish."
M. Stanton Evans, "Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies," p. 49.

a. Should any doubt Evans, note that two years before McCarthy's Wheeling, West Virginia speech in 1950, both Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley had spilled the beans in front of HUAC....and both had been talking to the FBI from 1945.
[ Elizabeth Bentley deposition, 30 November 1945, FBI file 65-14603 ]





3.As the victor, shouldn't this culture have had the confidence to call out the evil, the treacherous? Shouldn't we have been proud of our values, and made it clear that that was what served us and got us through the darkest times? Unfortunately, we were magnanimous, and offered our hand to our erstwhile enemies, and the 'friends' who stabbed us in the back, i.e., the Soviets.

a. Not to be mentioned were blood purge, invasion, show trial assassination, atomic espionage, subversion, deception, treason, Gulags, 'reeducation camp,' genocide,....

4. In fact, the effort extended so far that the mention of the iniquities resulted in more vituperation than the iniquities themselves! The anti-communists received more abuse than the communists!!

a. Whittaker Chambers was attacked by the Liberals more than the spy, Alger Hiss, he had exposed. "I had been warned repeatedly that the brunt of official wrath was directed, not against Alger Hiss as a danger, but against me for venturing to testify to the danger."
Chambers, "Witness," p. 707. Truman dismissed the case against Hiss as a "red herring."


b. FDR himself tried to shut down Rep. Martin Dies investigation into Communist conspiracy.
"Martin Dies Story," Dies, p. 77-83.

c. As President, Eisenhower tried to shut down McCarthy's investigations.
"American Betrayal," West, p. 63.

d. Under President Reagan there was more outrage over his phrase 'evil empire' than there was over the evil of the empire itself.





5. Robert E. Stripling, the Chief Investigator for the Un-American Activities Committee, wrote:
"I want to tell in detail the price that men must pay for the dubious privilege of being reviled in print and on the air" for their labors in "what amounts to a necessary sewer project" of Communist investigations. He goes on to outline "the scope of the Communist conspiracy against the government and people of the United States" although "to do so is to invite the charge of Fascist, Red-baiter, witch-hunter, smear-artist. To fail to do so is to capitulate to a resourceful enemy who can endure any counter-attack except exposure."
Stripling, "Red Plot," p. 23,13.




So, who can blame the lily-livered, spineless, weak-kneed, gutless, pusillanimous Caspar Milquetoasts???


"....shown the truth, refuse to accept it..."




Clucking Chicken - YouTube

A good post PC but Gustave was the second to bring up mass psychology, the first "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" was published in 1841 and was written by the Scottish journalist (back when they actually did real journalism) Charles Mackay, which exposed mass psychosis for the first time.

 

[daveman]

...a person of neutrality such as I.

I'm sorry, I can't hear your claims of neutrality over the sound of your user title:


Moonglow
liberal soldier
Member #30820

 

[Moonglow]

...a person of neutrality such as I.

I'm sorry, I can't hear your claims of neutrality over the sound of your user title:


Moonglow
liberal soldier
Member #30820

Yes I am a liberal democratic republican. I have voted for both parties and still do. I have even voted third party.