"Liberals In A Hurry"

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. During the Roosevelt regime, the era when the US President encouraged Soviet communist infiltration of society and government, the phrase 'Liberals in a hurry' was the way folks referred to communists.


a. The major player in the Alger Hiss saga was fellow Communist, Whitaker Chambers. In his book, Witness, Chambers explains is disillusionment as follows. In 1938, he determined not only to break with the Communist Party, but to inform on the Party when he could. The reason was that he was informed that Stalin was making efforts to align with Hitler, in 1939, and “from any human point of view, the pact was evil.” As Hitler marched into Poland, Chambers arranged a private meeting with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelt’s assistant Sec’y of State. Chambers detailed the Communist espionage network, naming at least two dozen Soviet spies in Roosevelt’s administration, including Alger Hiss. Berle reported this to Roosevelt, who laughed, and told Berle to go f--- himself. Arthur Herman, "Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator," p. 60


No action was taken, and in fact, Roosevelt promoted Hiss.
Almost a decade later, Chambers was called before the HUAC and named Hiss as a Soviet agent. Hiss sued Chambers, at which time Chambers presented “… four notes in Alger Hiss's handwriting, sixty-five typewritten copies of State Department documents and five strips of microfilm, some of which contained photographs of State Department documents. The press came to call these the "Pumpkin Papers"
(Whittaker Chambers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
And, of course, all doubt was removed in 1995, when the Venona Soviet cables were decrypted.



2. "The progressive left, and the liberal left, while not themselves communists, share many of the same sympathies, such of redistribution of wealth, and worker’s rights, nationalizations of industry, etc, but are not quite as far left as the communists, and would not go to the same lengths as the communists to achieve their goals. This does not mean, though, that the help of these dupes is not necessary in order for the communists to achieve victory. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!” Dr. Paul Kangor, “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century




3. ‘Moreover, it is obvious that a penetration so complete would have been impossible if the Communists had not been able to depend on the blindness or indifference of many of the far larger number of ordinary liberals who dominated the Roosevelt Administration. As early as the late 1930s, even known Communists in government were often regarded by their colleagues as merely "liberals in a hurry."

And during the war, of course, they could be excused as simply enthusiasts for America's doughty ally, "good old Joe." Small wonder, then, that liberals, after the onset of the Cold War with the Soviet Union in 1946, dreaded so profoundly the disclosure of the appalling degree of governmental penetration that they now began to suspect the Communists had achieved on their watch in the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s.’
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1375/article_detail.asp


...Communists in government were often regarded by their colleagues as merely "liberals in a hurry."




4. Sometimes they even let the cat out of the bag:


 
Now....about those 'Liberals in a hurry'....


5. Whittaker Chambers wrote in his book WITNESS that liberals are/were incapable of ever effectively fighting Communism because they did not see anything in Communism that was antithetical to their own beliefs. In short, Liberals are Communists and Communists are Liberals.


The modern Liberal revisionist is aware of the horrors of Communism; the tortures, the Gulags, the over 100 million persons done to death. And is even aware that the American Communists were taking their orders from Moscow and were attempting to impose the Red Utopia upon the United States. If successful, this would have led to millions tortured, enslaved, starved and murdered. It would have led to the death of human freedom for untold years. As the US was the bulwark of freedom and Democracy, it's communization would have turned the entire world into an abattoir.


Yet, the acknowledgement is met with a shrug.


6. Fifty years of liberal propaganda has left people thinking of Communist Party member as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice. Allowing card-carrying members of the Communist Party to handle classified material after the Alger Hiss case would be like encouraging al-Qaeda members to carry box cutters on airplanes after 9-11.
Coulter, “Treason”


This cultivated blindness is the explanation for Communist infiltration into government, media, education. Cultivated blindness explains how a rapist will have the second most prominent speaking position at the Democrat Convention. Cultivated blindness explains how a radical Leftist has become President of the United States.
 
7. Most get their news, and perspective, not from study or from research, but from the media. Two problems with this approach: most journalists are Left-leaning, and most journalists are none too bright. Essentially, pop culture is the blind leading the blind. So, early on, ‘communism’ received a boost for both above reasons.


Today, much of the dissemination of information is from those very 'Liberals in a hurry.'




"A year and a half after WWII began in Europe, Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease supplied a prodigious amount of war materiel to Russia,.... The temporary congruence of interests was called an alliance, albeit a strange one. For example, when the Americans tried to find a way that long-range American bombers could land in Russia to re-fuel, so as to bomb deep into Germany, the Russians were found to be suspicious, ungrateful, secretive, xenophobic, unfriendly, in short….a great deal of take and very little give.


While American presence in Russia was modest and equivocal, Russian presence in wartime America was so large that they had to set up a corporate headquarters on Sixteenth Street in Washington. One of the executives in the huge staff was Victor Kravchenko, metallurgist, engineer, executive, and captain in the Red Army. And the first Soviet “defector.” Fleming, "The Anti-Communist Manifestos: Four Books That Shaped the Cold War,"p. 182-183
 
Although Franklin Roosevelt was aware of the homicidal nature of his BFF Stalin's regime, his inexplicable calculation was that it would be just peachy keen to fuse that regime with our American one.

Victor Kravchenko was the first high level Soviet Communist to ask for asylum, and reveal what he knew.....

8. On April 1, 1944, Victor Kravchenko left Washington for New York, where, at a press conference arranged by the NYTimes, he revealed the truth about the Soviet Union. Two years later he published “I Chose Freedom,” which played a crucial role in the formation of public opinion in the formation of the incipient Cold War.


The front-page article that began, "Accusing the Soviet Government of a 'double-faced' foreign policy with respect to its professed desire for collaboration with the United States and Great Britain and denouncing the Stalin regime for failure to grant political and civil liberties to the Russian people, Victor A. Kravchenko….” Fleming, Op.Cit.




Both in Europe, and in the United States, communist supporters engaged in a ‘full court press’ trying to deny reports about communism and the Soviet Union. Defectors like Kravchenko faced the same sort of barrage that McCarthy did later…and for the same reasons.


a. World-wide, defenders of communism fought tooth and nail to hide the truth, to discredit Kravchenko. “An attack on Kravchenko's character by the French Communist weeklyLes Lettres Françaisesresulted in his suing them forlibelin a French court. The extended 1949 trial featuring hundreds of witnesses was dubbed 'The Trial of the Century'. The Soviet State flew in Kravchenko's former colleagues to denounce him, accusing him of being a traitor, a draft dodger, and an embezzler….Kravchenko's lawyers presented witnesses who had survived the Soviet GULAG.” Victor Kravchenko (defector) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which side do you think Roosevelt and the other "Liberals in a hurry" chose?
 
Still upset that FDR squashed the Nazis, eh?

Scream all you want, but your besties still lost, courtesy of FDR.


Actually, by his embrace of communism, America lost.

That's the explanation for the Democrat Party espousing the very same aims as the Communist Party did.
 
9. Who taught the American public what a horror the Soviet Union was under Stalin?

"…Victor Kravchenko, one of the first and most influential Soviet defectors to the United States, who had written "I Chose Freedom," a searing account of life under Stalin.

Kravchenko, a mining and steel engineer, was a mid-level official in the Soviet lend-lease office in Washington, D.C., when he sought asylum in 1944. At the time, the Soviet Union was still a U.S. war ally, and many Americans were willing to give the benefit of the doubt to "Uncle Joe" Stalin. Kravchenko wanted to shatter those illusions. His defection was front-page news and prompted debate at the highest levels of government, up to and including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Stalin demanded that he be turned over as a traitor--an automatic death sentence. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover urged FDR to let him stay. On April 13, 1945, the day after Roosevelt died, Kravchenko received notice that his application for asylum had been granted. Searching for Tato


Remember, Roosevelt had lied to the public about the nature of communism...
a. 'A more sinister ' proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crime' is the lies that Franklin Roosevelt told the public in support of Stalin.
Loy Henderson, State Department Russian expert of the time said: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."

Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals!

September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there wasfreedom of religion in the USSR."The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step ina massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137


.... Kravchenko was describing the brutality of collectivization, the madness of Communist Party purges, the inefficiencies of central planning and the atrocities of the gulag. "The magnitude of the horror has never been grasped by the outside world," he wrote. "Perhaps it is too vast ever to be grasped. . . . One can only look into this or that corner, and judge the whole from its parts."
LATimes, Op. Cit.


No wonder the public agreed with Senator Joseph McCarthy about communism.
 
10. Kravcheko revealed that what the Communists did in the Soviet Union is just what today's 'Liberals in a hurry' do in our universities.


"Shamelessly, without so much as an explanation, it revised half a century of Russian history. I don't mean simply that it falsified some facts or gave a new interpretation of events. I mean that it deliberately stood history on its head, expunging events and inventing facts.

It twisted the recent past--a past still fresh in millions of memories--into new and bizarre shapes, to conform with the version of affairs presented by the blood-purge trials and the accompanying propaganda... The roles of leading historical figures were perverted or altogether erased.... More than that, living witnesses, as far as possible, were removed. The directing staff of the Institute of Marx, Engels and Lenin in Moscow, repository of ideological truth, were removed and the more important people among them imprisoned or shot.



The "new history" became possible. To brand the shame more deeply on our minds, "study" of the new version was made obligatory for all responsible Party people. History classes met nearly every night in this period and lecturers from Sverdlovsk came to our town to help hammer home the lies, while most of us fumed inwardly.

Whatever human dignity remained in our character was humiliated.. But even the most gigantic lie, by dint of infinite repetition, takes root; Stalin knew this before Hitler discovered it. As I looked on I could see terrible falsehoods, at first accepted under pressure, become established as unquestioned "facts," particularly among younger people without personal experience to the contrary to bother them."

Text collection



"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." (Attributed to Mark Twain)
 
And here is where the past meets the future:


11. " The Constitution purposefully and carefully set limits on the powers of the federal government. But if government ignores those limits to control more and more aspects of our lives, what prevents this society —oursociety — from descending into the same, nightmarish central planning endgame?

Is there a successful model that Democrats can point to? Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea and the Soviet Union are authoritarian societies that represent the failed “progressive” model taken to its inevitable conclusion.



‘But those models are too extreme,’ the progressive might retort, ‘Democrats would never descend into a totalitarian, unchecked political regime of that sort.’

Fine. Thenwhat are the limits on the Progressive Democrat Party? What amount of taxation would be sufficient? How many people should be categorized as “rich”? How many more aspects of our lives — besides health care, energy, automobile design, carbon dioxide emissions, credit card interest rates, education — must be controlled before Democrats say ‘enough’?

Democrats never have — and never will — offer an answer to that question. And their view into the tragic, failed society of North Korea is a simple error: unintentionally revealing their endgame for all to see.



Ruy Teixeira says that after 2004, “the bigger question is: What do the Democrats stand for?” Here’s a better and bigger question still: What do the Democrats stand against? Tell us, if indeed it’s true, that Democrats don’t want to do for America what social democrats have done for France or Sweden. Tell us that the stacking of one government program on top of the other is going to stop, if indeed it will, well short of a public sector that absorbs half the nation’s income and extensively regulates what we do with the other half.


Explain how the spirit of live-and-let-live applies, if indeed it does, to everyone equally–to people who take family, piety and patriotism seriously, not merely to people whose lives and outlooks are predicated on regarding them ironically.

Until those questions are answered, until Americans have confidence about the limits liberalism will establish and observe, it’s hard to see when the Democratic narrative will again have a happy ending." When ‘Liberals in a Hurry’ Reach the Endzone
 

Forum List

Back
Top