History Reveals Progressives as Dupes!

[Kaleokualoha]

It seems that critics misrepresented Davis as Obama's "mentor" based on circumstantial evidence, despite explicit primary source evidence to the contrary (Obama's words), just as critics misrepresented Davis as being an "avowed communist" or having "communist values" based on circumstantial evidence, despite explicit primary source evidence to the contrary (Davis's words).

Although Obama's book indicates "Frank" was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis "fell short" and his views were "incurable." Although Obama may have been fond of him, Obama's book proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a "wise and trusted counselor," which is the standard definition of "mentor." By what creative definition can Davis be considered his "mentor"?

Further, according to "Dreams," Obama visited Davis only twice on his own after visiting with Gramps: once to discuss his grandmother's bus stop incident, and three years later before leaving for college. When did Davis's alleged "communist training" of Obama occur?

By exaggerating evidence that Davis advised Obama, yet ignoring evidence from the same source that Obama did NOT Frank to be a wise and trusted advisor, those who spread the urban myth Davis was Obama's "mentor" may be as dishonest as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong. The "Nifong Syndrome" is the stacking of evidence by ignoring evidence that does not fit one's agenda. By portraying Davis as Obama's mentor, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, fraudulent "opposition research" by Cliff Kincaid and others permeates the blogosphere. Their travesty of journalistic ethics, like their "AIM Reports," demonstrates that they are unreliable sources of information on the Davis-Obama relationship. As the epitome of contemporary propaganda, Cliff Kincaid may be a worthy successor to Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels.

Such rhetorical deception was highlighted in the story of Alice's adventures in "Through The Looking-Glass,"

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

It is indeed regrettable that so many honest people have been hoodwinked by Kincaid's ironically named "Accuracy In Media" (AIM). Fraudulent memes, unwittingly propagated by well-intentioned bloggers, have spread throughout the blogosphere, which proves the effectiveness of viral disinformation campaigns. Even the title of Kincaid's initial attack, "Obama's Communist Mentor," is itself a masterful deception. Through the "fallacy of equivocation*," it implies three enduring falsehoods:

- That Davis was an avowed or known communist who advocated collectivist principles. The evidence, however, indicates that Davis was a closet communist who never advocated communism. In fact, he rejected the "horror of socialism" in his writing.

- That Davis had a continuing mentorship with teenage Obama, "almost like a son." Evidence, however, indicates that Davis was an occasionally visited family friend whom Obama visited only once in the three years before Obama left for college.

- That Davis taught communism to young Obama. The evidence, however, supports nothing of the sort. "Dreams" indicates that although Davis offered advice on racial issues, Obama did not even trust that advice.

(*The "fallacy of equivocation" is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense, by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. It occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. It deceives through ambiguity.)

This misrepresentation of Frank as Obama's mentor was only the first deceptive step in building a house of cards against Obama. Their scam misrepresented Frank as a virtual Dr. Frank-enstein who created a Marxist Obama. In doing so, opponents may have thought they had a silver bullet. After all, who would bother to defend an obscure dead black poet? The Dead Poets Society? Not likely, so the scam developed. Slander ensued.

"Piety requires us to honor truth above our friends."
- Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC),

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems that critics misrepresented Davis as Obama's "mentor" based on circumstantial evidence, despite explicit primary source evidence to the contrary (Obama's words), just as critics misrepresented Davis as being an "avowed communist" or having "communist values" based on circumstantial evidence, despite explicit primary source evidence to the contrary (Davis's words).

Although Obama's book indicates "Frank" was a family friend who offered him advice on racial issues, Obama wrote that Davis "fell short" and his views were "incurable." Although Obama may have been fond of him, Obama's book proves that Obama did not consider Davis to be a "wise and trusted counselor," which is the standard definition of "mentor." By what creative definition can Davis be considered his "mentor"?

Further, according to "Dreams," Obama visited Davis only twice on his own after visiting with Gramps: once to discuss his grandmother's bus stop incident, and three years later before leaving for college. When did Davis's alleged "communist training" of Obama occur?

By exaggerating evidence that Davis advised Obama, yet ignoring evidence from the same source that Obama did NOT Frank to be a wise and trusted advisor, those who spread the urban myth Davis was Obama's "mentor" may be as dishonest as ex-D.A. Mike Nifong. The "Nifong Syndrome" is the stacking of evidence by ignoring evidence that does not fit one's agenda. By portraying Davis as Obama's mentor, despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, fraudulent "opposition research" by Cliff Kincaid and others permeates the blogosphere. Their travesty of journalistic ethics, like their "AIM Reports," demonstrates that they are unreliable sources of information on the Davis-Obama relationship. As the epitome of contemporary propaganda, Cliff Kincaid may be a worthy successor to Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels.

Such rhetorical deception was highlighted in the story of Alice's adventures in "Through The Looking-Glass,"

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

It is indeed regrettable that so many honest people have been hoodwinked by Kincaid's ironically named "Accuracy In Media" (AIM). Fraudulent memes, unwittingly propagated by well-intentioned bloggers, have spread throughout the blogosphere, which proves the effectiveness of viral disinformation campaigns. Even the title of Kincaid's initial attack, "Obama's Communist Mentor," is itself a masterful deception. Through the "fallacy of equivocation*," it implies three enduring falsehoods:

- That Davis was an avowed or known communist who advocated collectivist principles. The evidence, however, indicates that Davis was a closet communist who never advocated communism. In fact, he rejected the "horror of socialism" in his writing.

- That Davis had a continuing mentorship with teenage Obama, "almost like a son." Evidence, however, indicates that Davis was an occasionally visited family friend whom Obama visited only once in the three years before Obama left for college.

- That Davis taught communism to young Obama. The evidence, however, supports nothing of the sort. "Dreams" indicates that although Davis offered advice on racial issues, Obama did not even trust that advice.

(*The "fallacy of equivocation" is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense, by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time. It occurs when an equivocal word or phrase makes an unsound argument appear sound. It deceives through ambiguity.)

This misrepresentation of Frank as Obama's mentor was only the first deceptive step in building a house of cards against Obama. Their scam misrepresented Frank as a virtual Dr. Frank-enstein who created a Marxist Obama. In doing so, opponents may have thought they had a silver bullet. After all, who would bother to defend an obscure dead black poet? The Dead Poets Society? Not likely, so the scam developed. Slander ensued.

"Piety requires us to honor truth above our friends."
- Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC),

How about an answer to post #64?

What the dilio?

 

[Kaleokualoha]

Here is the extent of my research on just one card in the house of cards disinformation against the Davis-Obama relationship:

DISINFORMATION 105:

HONOLULU NAACP PILIKIA (TROUBLE) IN 1949

Just as an effective cover story requires consistency, so too does an effective disinformation campaign. Trying to convince people that your target is an atheist Muslim probably won’t work, nor would trying to convince them that he is a gay womanizer. According to conventional wisdom, certain traits are mutually exclusive. Internal consistency is the key to creating a credible illusion.

Inconsistency is always a threat to crude disinformation campaigns. Because illusions are often built by stacking lies upon other lies, the slightest misstep may cause the illusion to crumble. Although an illusion may not survive serious scrutiny by an objective analyst, it should still be plausible to those with the appropriate predisposition to believe. It should make sense to the casual observer. This is a cardinal rule of effective disinformation.

In the series of disinformation claims regarding Frank Marshall Davis’s encounter with the Honolulu Branch of the NAACP in 1949, Accuracy In Media (AIM) may have violated this cardinal rule. Perhaps Cliff Kincaid’s theoretical “mentor,” the head of the Soviet KGB’s “active measures” department, may be rolling over in HIS grave due to AIM’s mutually exclusive messages:

SYNOPSIS: By 1949, Roy Wilkins had become a vocal opponent of communist influence within the NAACP. According to board member Edward Berman, the Honolulu branch was also in conflict due to the infusion of purportedly “Stalinist” new members from the recently defunct Hawaii Association for Civil Unity (HUAC). Berman stated that Frank Marshall Davis appeared at ONE meeting to “propagandize the membership about our ‘racial problems’,” and was supported by the “Stalinist” group. Based on Berman’s one letter to the NAACP describing the situation, AIM fabricated four different versions of Davis’s encounter with the Honolulu NAACP:

Fabricated Version #1 (“Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army&#8221: In this version, Berman criticized Davis for allegedly sneaking into NAACP meetings, while allegedly having the “avowed intent” of converting the same meetings.

Fabricated Version #2 (“Obama Plays Reagan In Berlin, Al-Jazeera Journalist Funds Campaign&#8221: Davis allegedly tries to take over meetings instead of sneaking into them.

Fabricated Version #3 (“Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists&#8221: Roy Wilkins supposedly criticized Davis directly when he “rightly noted of Davis and his comrades: they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP."

Fabricated Version #4 (“AP Lies About Obama’s Red Mentor&#8221: In this account Davis tried to take over the NAACP itself!

Obviously not all accounts can be true. Even without reviewing the testimony, it should be readily apparent to an objective observer that some must be misrepresentations. In fact, ALL are misrepresentations.


BACKGROUND:

In a report of Hearings Before The Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, April 17, 18, and 19 April 1950, page 2065 contains the testimony of Edward Berman, who testified [1]:

1. The Hawaii Association for Civic Unity (HACU) was organized back around 1946. It was supposed to be a liberal organization for the purpose of civic unity. He learned in 1947 that a lot of people had moved into the organization who were repugnant to the original membership. He was invited to see if something could be done to neutralize the group that entered into the organization, who had practically taken it over. As a result of the conflict between the left-wing and right-wing groups of the HACU, the organization just collapsed.

2. Sometime in 1948, he got a call from Mrs. Catherine Christopher (acting president of the Honolulu NAACP), and from Miss Mary Noonan, who was secretary of the local Republican Club, and they asked him if he would join the NAACP. The same elements who had once controlled HACU had moved into the NAACP.

3. He went to the first NAACP meeting, and found that the same group that had been in the HACU meeting had now moved over and had practically taken over the organization. They got a few more people in and were soon in a position where their groups strength was about equal to the other group. Both groups were trying to bring in people to offset each other.

4. He wrote a letter date September 26, 1949 TO Roy Wilkins, Acting Secretary, NAACP, which said:

a. He is a member of the executive committee, Honolulu Branch. He believes Mrs. Catherine Christopher, acting president of Honolulu Branch acted in good faith by not holding an election under prevailing circumstances.

b. He was at one of the election meetings at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii. He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii. Comrade Davis was supported by others who recently “sneaked” into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.

c. “These others were the same party liners who tried to take over and dominate an organization known locally as the Hawaii Committee for Civic Unity. The organization collapsed, due to their tactics. Having destroyed that organization they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP.”

d. “I am Caucasian.” “There is no segregation here.” “The point I am making is that the Communist Party was deliberately trying to stir up racism in an area where there is fine racial unity and harmony. It is better to have no organization than to have these tactics continue. Mrs. Christopher acted in good faith. She knew what was going on and it was her method of checking them. Already, scores of Negro members were frightened away from these meetings because of the influx of this element.”

Mr. Berman read the response of the NAACP to the Honolulu Branch: The board on November 14, 1949 voted to revoke the charter of the Honolulu branch for the following reasons:

“The officers of the Honolulu branch have, by their failure, refusal or neglect to complete the holding of the election of officers as required by the constitution and bylaws for branches and as ordered by the national office, been guilty of conduct inimical to the best interest of the NAACP.

The difference in the problems of racial discrimination in the continental United States and their solution as contrasted with the problems of the Territory makes difficult the applicability of techniques and methods used by branches and the national office to effect the policy of the association in the Territory.


SALIENT FEATURES OF BACKGROUND:

1. Berman was white, joined the NAACP the previous year, and believed there was NO segregation in Hawaii.

2. Berman was involved in an NAACP power struggle with “left-wing” members who had once controlled HACU. Both groups were trying to bring in people to offset each other. As a result, the acting president did not hold elections.

3. Berman wrote a letter to Wilkins, which stated:

a. Berman was at an election meeting at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii.” “He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii.”

b. Davis was SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who “recently “sneaked” into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.

4. As proof of Berman’s bias, please note that he claimed Davis “had just sneaked here on a boat.”

a. Reality disagrees: “In December 1948, several articles in the Honolulu Star- Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser announced the Davis's imminent arrival, then their delay, and finally their belated arrival. Several were accompanied by photos of the two. The press presented Davis as a successful journalist, and as a poet and 1937 Julius Rosenwald Fellow. There were contradictory reports on the purpose of their trip. "Executive Editor of ANP Is Due Tonight" says that Davis is in Honolulu for a visit that will combine a vacation with business . . . [that he] is planning a story on racial groups in the Islands . . . [and that] Davis also plans to visit army and navy posts" (December 8, 1948). "Negro Press Executive Here" says that Davis "is here on an inspection and vacation tour of the islands . . . [and] will tour army and navy installations and other territorial institutions" (December 14, 1948, 10). "Davis Considers Hawai`i Advanced in Democracy" says the Davises are in Hawai`i "for a visit of not less than four months. Davis will write a series of articles on his observations of the island scene and also will work on a book of poetry which he hopes will capture the spirit of the islands in verse," although the photo caption accompanying the article says the Davises are "in Honolulu for an indefinite visit" (10). Davis's wife was presented as an artist, writer, and executive editor of a national press agency, who planned "to do watercolors of the islands during her stay" (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, December 10, 1948).” [7]

b. Please note that the above reference is from Dr. Takara, and cited in AIM’s initial attack against Davis in Feb 2008. Please note that local newspapers published articles anticipating and reporting his arrival. This is not “sneaking” here on a boat,” as misrepresented by Edward Berman.

c. Because Berman misrepresented the racial situation in Hawaii, and he misrepresented Davis’s arrival in Hawaii, Berman likely misrepresented Davis at the NAACP meeting. Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii” may also be an exaggeration.

d. As a journalist, Davis attended the Honolulu NAACP meeting. From this kernel of truth, three distinct webs of lies were built:
i. Berman exaggerated Davis’s actual actions to implicate Davis.
ii. AIM exaggerated Berman’s testimony to implicate Davis.
iii. AIM exaggerated Davis “actions” to implicate Obama.

5. Although AIM’s misrepresentation is built on Berman’s misrepresentation, Berman did not accuse Davis of sneaking into meetings, trying to take over meetings, or having the “avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.” Berman accused Davis of propagandizing the membership about “racial problems,” which is probably an exaggeration itself.

6. The NAACP revoked the Honolulu branch charter because they refused to hold elections, not to keep them from being dominated by communists.


A.I.M. SPECIFIC MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING 1949 NAACP:

Fabricated Version #1: In his report “Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army,” AIM’s Cliff Kincaid claimed: “The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) took testimony in 1950 from a member of the Honolulu branch of the NAACP, Edward Berman, who referred to "Comrade Davis" as someone who "sneaked" into the NAACP meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."[3] In this version, Berman criticized Davis for allegedly sneaking into NAACP meetings, while allegedly having the “avowed intent” of converting the same meetings.

FACTS:

a. Contrary to Kincaid’s claims, Berman’s testimony did NOT claim:
i. Davis “sneaked” into any meeting
ii. Davis attended more than this one meeting
iii. Davis had “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.”

b. Kincaid’s claim is inherently absurd. If a person has “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line,” they could hardly “sneak” into a meeting.

c. Berman’s letter stated that Davis WAS SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who RECENTLY "sneaked" into meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line. Kincaid misrepresented the others’ purpose as Davis’s purpose.


Fabricated Version #2 In his report “Obama Plays Reagan In Berlin, Al-Jazeera Journalist Funds Campaign,” Kincaid makes a slightly different claim. In this version, he states “We already knew Davis was a Stalinist. NAACP member Edward Berman testified that "comrade Davis" tried to take over meetings of the organization in Hawaii "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."[5] Note that in this version, Davis did not “sneak” into meetings. Instead he allegedly tried to take over meetings.

FACTS:

a. We do not know that Davis was a "Stalinist." He actually criticized Stalin, by name, in his writing. [2]

b. In this version, Kincaid changes his misrepresentation of Berman’s letter from saying that Davis “sneaked” into meetings, to saying that Davis “tried to take over meetings.” In fact, Berman’s letter did not say either of these.

c. Berman did NOT testify that Davis tried to take over meetings at all, much less taking over meetings "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."

d. Berman mentioned Davis at only one meeting, not “meetings,”

e. In Berman's words, the only action Davis took was when he "suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our `racial problems' here in Hawaii." Berman does NOT connect Davis with trying to convert “it into a front for the Stalinist line.”

f. Romerstein's research reveals that Berman said that at ONE meeting, Davis was SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who recently "sneaked" into the NAACP meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line. Kincaid therefore misrepresents the Berman testimony in at least four ways:
i. Berman testified about Davis's presence at one meeting, not "meetings" as falsely claimed by Kincaid.
ii. According to Berman, Davis did not try to "take over" this or any other meeting, as falsely claimed by Kincaid. He only "appeared on the scene to propagandize" about racial problems.
iii. Kincaid completely misrepresents Berman’s assessment of Davis’s purpose. Davis’s purpose, according to Berman, was to propagandize about racial problems. According to Berman, Davis did NOT attend the meeting "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.” Davis was only supported by OTHERS who had RECENTLY sneaked into meetings (not this meeting) with the "avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." In changing the subject from “others” to Davis, Kincaid also changes “avowed intent and purpose” into just “purpose.” With this change, Kincaid completely misrepresents Berman’s assessment of Davis’s purpose.
iv. Further, Kincaid failed to mention the context of Berman's remarks, including the fact that Berman was a rookie member of the Board, and a Caucasian who believed there was NO segregation in Hawaii. Even decades later, some landlords refused to rent to people of certain ethnic groups.


Fabricated Version #3 (“Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists&#8221: The most outrageous version comes from AIM guest columnist Paul Kengor: “Finally, if that doesn't concern liberals, they should understand how communists, including Frank Marshall Davis, used the civil-rights movement, and again and again exploited and undermined the NAACP. Romerstein lays this out at length in his report. He quotes Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, who rightly noted of Davis and his comrades: "they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP." They would do so after having destroyed another good civil-rights organization. "Comrade Davis," wrote Wilkins, "was supported by others who recently ‘sneaked' into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." Wilkins knew well that this was a standard "tactic" by the communists; it was known by everyone involved in the NAACP at the time. Wilkins, like many civil-rights leaders of his time, refused to be duped by Davis and his comrades.”[4] Note that in this version, Roy Wilkins, instead of Berman, allegedly criticized Davis.

FACTS: The letter was written TO Roy Wilkins, not BY Roy Wilkins. Wilkins had a reputation of denouncing communists within the civil rights movement [36]. Falsely attributing these remarks to Wilkins greatly enhanced their credibility. I can find no evidence in this report that Wilkins had any opinion of Davis.

Fabricated Version #4: In his report “AP Lies About Obama’s Red Mentor,” Kincaid give a fourth version: “AP doesn’t note the evidence that Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP in order to transform its Honolulu branch into a front for the Stalinist line.” In this account Davis tried to take over the NAACP itself!

FACTS: In fact, there is no such evidence. Kincaid is AGAIN misrepresenting the testimony of Edward Berman, rookie board member of the Honolulu NAACP! Romerstein’s research only indicates that Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii. According to Romerstein’s research, Davis did NOTHING to take over the NAACP or any of its branches to transform it into a front for the Stalinist line.



References (Add "www" to each url):

#1: usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf
#2: books.google.com/books?id=kt5LMD-OnxoC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22the+new+red+negro%22+communist+davis&source=web&ots=B-HaNJA9HW&sig=ZiOltjxuI1QwdjCAvvEC0f4NnGQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
#3: aim.org/aim-column/obamas-red-mentor-praised-red-army/
#4: aim.org/guest-column/return-of-the-dupes-and-the-anti-anti-communists/
#5: aim.org/aim-column/obama-plays-reagan-in-berlin/
#6: aim.org/aim-column/ap-lies-about-obamas-red-mentor/
#7: 2.hawaii.edu/~takara/frank_marshall_davis.htm

Just curious, I could understand such a spirited defense of President Obama, for example, but what is your attachment to Davis?

Oops, sorry! I missed your question. As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. in 1989, I am familiar with political disinformation. I am familiar with disinformation campaigns, including Pope Gregory's misrepresentation of Mary Magdalene, Russian and German misrepresentation of Judaism, Operation Fortitude protecting the D-Day invasion, Operation Left Hook protecting the coalition drive into Kuwait, and the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat this century. I am also the son of Frank Marshall Davis (see my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha), and you can track my battles against this disinformation by searching for "kaleokualoha." My identity, however, should not affect any rational discussion on this topic.

Thanks for asking!

"Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee." - Immanuel Kant

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is the extent of my research on just one card in the house of cards disinformation against the Davis-Obama relationship:
I am also the son of Frank Marshall Davis (see my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha), and you can track my battles against this disinformation by searching for "kaleokualoha."

Thanks for asking!

Wow, that was a surprise!
A celebrity!

Thank you.

An aside, if I knew you were related to the subect, I would not have included that part of the interview.

 

[frazzledgear]

you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*

Have you never read any history of communism both Soviet and in the US? This isn't new stuff and it IS very accurate. His thesis is simply expanding on the known facts. This isn't "rightwing garbage" but I think your ill-informed comments further prove this guy's point about "dupes"! You haven't read his work, yet you so breezily dismiss out of hand his entire work even though it is based on known facts and existing documents. This isn't a political opinion piece written by some political analyst! Wow, what a monumental statement that is about your own lack of critical thinking skills that you have such hardened preconceived notions you are incapable of even considering, much less absorbing, any information you think MIGHT even contradict the false view you have of the world. Who benefits from your blinders? How truly sad.

I read all sorts of book by all sorts of authors -but I wait until I have before coming to a conclusion about their work since I can't know that until I have read it! Do you think this means anyone writing on the history of communism who doesn't wax rhapsodic and pretend it is a wonderful thing instead of being honest about i - is "rightwing"? And anything written that is critical about communism or expands on the WELL KNOWN FACTS and documented history of communism including the communist movement and sympathizers in this country - is just "garbage"? ARE YOU FOR REAL? This author is writing about known history -a history that closely parallels that of the communist movement in the UK during these same years! Where they had their own share of dupes.

This author calls them "dupes -but Karl Marx had a name for them in his communist manifesto. Marx called them "useful idiots". Which term would you prefer?

Before getting all warm and fuzzy about communism as if it is an honorable and worthy, admirable system, I strongly suggest you read a lot more history books. The fact they tell the truth about communism does NOT make them "rightwing garbage", sorry. Dismissing that history out of hand for no reason but the fact you just don't like those facts won't change the reality that is is one of the most inhumane systems of government ever devised by man -a system that is barely fit for an ant colony. Anyone who wants to impose communism on everyone else should first be forced to experience it firsthand themselves. Assuming they emerge alive.

Only those who CHOOSE to be dangerously ignorant would even try to defend communism which FOR A FACT resulted in gulags, forced labor camps, genocide, bloody purges, deliberate man-made famines, mass murder, show trials and pre-ordained extrajudicial executions and more atrocities like you've never seen. With the Soviet Union one of the world's greatest megamurders in history killing around 61,000,000 people. Communist China is the second greatest megamurder and Pol Pot slaughtered almost 1/3 of the entire Cambodian population in just a 3 year period -surely a record of some sort . Please keep in mind these are their OWN CITIZENS they slaughtered. Do you have any clue why? If not, you haven't read near enough books!

You either have to be one of Marx's useful idiots or have no conscience and pure ice running through your veins to even think of defending such a hideously cruel, brutal, bloody, murderous, inhumane and evil system no matter where it has been imposed -and you did give defend it by suggesting this author's work amounted to nothing but "rightwing garbage". So which is it?

 

[edthecynic]

you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*

Have you never read any history of communism both Soviet and in the US? This isn't new stuff and it IS very accurate. ...

I read all sorts of book by all sorts of authors -but I wait until I have before coming to a conclusion about their work since I can't know that until I have read it!...

This author calls them "dupes -but Karl Marx had a name for them in his communist manifesto. Marx called them "useful idiots".

Which term would you prefer?...
You either have to be one of Marx's useful idiots...

I would say you are a "useful idiot" of the GOP propaganda machine. You are definitely more of an idiot than a dupe, but you are a perfect example of the gullibility of a CON$ervative know-it-all who knows nothing.

First of all, the CON$ claim it was Lenin not Marx who coined the term "useful idiots." And Lenin never said it!!!!! It is a complete CON$ervative fabrication. I challenge you to link to any writing or speech of Lenin or Marx that uses the term "useful Idiot."

 

[Kaleokualoha]

Communist governments have run some of the most atrocious nations in history. Untold numbers of well-intentioned people were seduced by the Marxist utopian vision, which could only remain a mirage because it conflicted with the basic human need for material incentive.

I believe that successful (non-coercive) "communist" societies may be possible only in communes small enough for everyone to know each other, which enabled familial relationships, such as in pre-historic tribes. When they grew too large for personal relationships, either the carrot or the stick was necessary.

Anyone who is seduced by deceptive arguments may be considered a "dupe." Americans were "duped" by Iraqi threat claims. German's were duped by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Muslims are still being duped by Al Qaeda.

Those who believe "Accuracy in Media" (AIM) or Paul Kengor's lies about Frank Marshall Davis are also being duped. I hope to expose these lies by offering irrefutable empirical evidence to the contrary.

As a fair-minded thinker, you may be interested in this cordial exchange between myself and Max Friedman, Cliff Kincaid's researcher: pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/05/31/judge-sonia-sotomayor-and-singing-sensation-susan-boyle/#comment-13017. Only the last few comments pertain to this situation. Please note that Max agreed to follow through with Cliff Kincaid regarding the specific misrepresentation I had identified in June 2009. Not a peep was heard from him since then.


"I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant."
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968)

 

[midcan5]

People like PC lead sad lives when the best they can do is make up history, confuse movements and ideas, and just plain ignore reality. For anyone interested in the progressive movement start with the book below, the authors also give further recommendations that are unusually unbiased and cover the real complexity of history and its connection to the modern world. 'Progressive' only became a bad word recently because liberals ran from 'liberal' because of decades of propaganda. PS The author was on cspan yesterday, jeez if you can follow his bizarre 'Alice in Wonderland' connections and conclusions you may as well just make up history.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Progressivism-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/019531106X/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1]Amazon.com: Progressivism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) (9780195311068): Walter Nugent: Books[/ame]


From Amazon review:

"In the history of American society and politics, "Progressivism" was a many-sided reform movement that emerged in the final years of the nineteenth century, flourished from about 1900 to 1920, and faded away by the early 1920s. In national politics, its greatest achievements occurred between 1910 and 1917. In state and local politics and in private reform efforts-churches, settlement houses, campaigns to fight diseases, for example - Progressive changes began appearing in the 1890s and continued into the 1920s. In these social-justice efforts, legions of activist women, despite lacking the suffrage, were enormously effective. Most prominent in national politics were the "big four": William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, and Woodrow Wilson. Mayors Tom Johnson and Sam "Golden Rule" Jones in Ohio led change in their cities, as did governors Hiram Johnson of California and James Vardaman of Mississippi. Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, and the rest of the crusaders (known as "muckrakers") spearheaded what would later be called investigative journalism."

 

[Kaleokualoha]

Back to Paul Kengor, for your consideration: His extensive use of footnotes may just be protective coloring that does not stand up to rigorous scrutiny. When there is a pattern of misrepresentation, then simple statistical analysis should reveal the probability of random occurrence versus intelligent design.

 

[Kaleokualoha]

Here are four significant misrepresentations:

1. Dr. Kengor wrote "I promise you that I’m not misrepresenting that one bit," but analysis of Kengor’s “Dupes” suggests that Kengor is still falsifying evidence against Davis. Contrary to Davis’s actual 1950 “Frank-ly Speaking” column, which has been posted online for years (Frank's Blog 1950), Kengor indicates that Davis SUPPORTED socialism, when in fact this column indicates that Davis REJECTED socialism (i.e., letting “the government own and operate our major industries”). Davis said socialism was a “HORROR”!

2.

“That document ordered American comrades (like Davis, who, at that point, lived in Chicago), to go to Hawaii.”

The full text of the document is here []Articles Main. It advises the “Hawaiian revolutionary movement” about political slogans and suitable demands.

Would you be shocked to learn that there are NO INSTRUCTIONS ANYWHERE for the readers to move to Hawaii, i.e. Kengor is a barefaced liar?
It begins with a preamble about “The growing discontent of the masses of the population in the Hawaiian Islands…” How, you might wonder, does Kenger distort this into “The document ordered American communists to claim there was a American communists to claim there was a ‘growing discontent of the masses of the population…’”? I guess he lied again. It seems to be a compulsion, even about things that are easily checked with the Google.
[END QUOTE (Whiskey Fire: D'Souza Revsionism, Already)

3. In his June 2008 column (Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists), Kengor fraudulently misrepresents the Congressional testimony of Honolulu NAACP board member Edward Berman. Kengor falsely claimed that Berman testified that the NAACP's Roy Wilkins criticized Davis, when Berman's transcript (Exhibit 4A of http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf) proves that Berman made no such testimony. In reality, the NAACP shut down the Honolulu NAACP due to misconduct of its BOARD members! (See Organizing for America | Mark Davis's Blog: Honolulu NAACP Pilikia (Trouble) in 1949 (10 Aug 08)).

4. In his latest book Dupes, Kengor fraudulently claims "Soon after Frank Marshall Davis appeared in Hawaii, members of the local branch of the NAACP grew weary of him,” historian Paul Kengor writes in Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century. “Some NAACP members called him ‘Comrade Davis’ and were irritated at how he ‘sneaked’ into their meetings ‘with the avowed purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.’” (Academics Ignore Obama Mentor :: Accuracy In Academia). This comment also grossly misrepresents Berman's testimony (link above).

I encourage everyone to compare the original source material with Kengor’s misrepresentation of that same source in each case. Proof of misrepresentation is irrefutable.


"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
- Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642)

 

[jillian]

you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*

Oh, shucks....I guess that means you won't want a copy for Chanukah...??

But...you don't doubt every historical reference in the tome, do you?

(If you change your mind, Amazon: DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century [Hardcover]
Paul Kengor
$19.77)

it is very easy to manipulate "historical reference". i see wingnuts do it every day.

just try looking at any of the israel threads to see the extremes.

you and yours just do it because it enables you to blather on about lefties.

 

[Kaleokualoha]

you read too much rightwingnut garbage. it's rotting your brain. *shakes head*

Oh, shucks....I guess that means you won't want a copy for Chanukah...??

But...you don't doubt every historical reference in the tome, do you?

(If you change your mind, Amazon: DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century [Hardcover]
Paul Kengor
$19.77)

it is very easy to manipulate "historical reference". i see wingnuts do it every day.

just try looking at any of the israel threads to see the extremes.

you and yours just do it because it enables you to blather on about lefties.

I'm a newbie around here, but I haven't seen PoliticalChic blather. On the other hand, I'm glad you brought up the issue of "historical references." It allows me to close the loop:

I've identified four areas (above) where historical references do not support the claims of Dr. Kengor, not to mention the three other misrepresentations published by AIM on the NAACP issue. These references were manipulated by "wingnuts" through extreme misrepresentation, despite the denials of Dr. Kengor.

A disinformation campaign is like a house of cards, or an illusion fabricated over a framework of falsehoods. When enough support is withdrawn, the disinformation reveals its true colors. I've asked a number of times, but nobody yet has stepped forth to refute my analysis, or provide a plausible explanation for AIM researcher Max Friedman's sudden silence at Chesler Chronicles Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Singing Sensation Susan Boyle.

Nothing is perfect, so your critique would enable me to polish my arguments. Thanks!

 

[Kaleokualoha]

Most of my research is now published by a neutral host at Kaleokualoha2878577.newsvine.com - Kaleokualoha-2878577