Elia Kazan and Edward Dmytryk: Heroes

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,963
60,336
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Elia Kazan was known as a director, producer, writer and actor, and director Edward Dmytryk,....known in entertainment circles.

But they were courageous, and made headlines in politics, too.





1. "Fifty years of liberal propaganda people to 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


2. Most of Moscow's devotees acceded to ' Omertà' and invoked the Fifth Amendment, against self-incrimination, before Congress. But not all. Famed Hollywood director Elia Kazan decided to testify fully and frankly, including 'naming names' before HUAC.
"I wanted to break open the secrecy... There was no way I could go along with their [the Communists'] crap that the CP was nothing but another political party, like the Republicans and the Democrats. I knew very well what it was, a thoroughly organized worldwide conspiracy."
Elia Kazan, "A Life," p. 464,459.





3. Any perusal revealed that the claim that the Communist Party was just another political perspective was easily seen by any who cared to look. It was just another false cover story. Historian Paul Kengor noted that in the early days, CPUSA leaders were "surprisingly open about publishing Moscow's instructions to them."
Kengor, " Dupes: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century," p. 521.

a. The Commintern, the Communist International, was founded in Moscow in March, 1919. Not far behind it, the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) was founded in Chicago in September, 1919. While the archives are rich with their literature, they are rarely studied, as most academic historians are on the left and have little interest in revealing or discussing the revelations or machinations therein. Further, Yeltsin had declassified many documents in the 1990’s which proved that everything the anti-communists said, was true!

4. In 1950, CPUSA claims of kinship with all other American political parties, past and present, was eruditely debunked by Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, wherein he distinguishes between the Communist Party and all other political parties, noting that no other parties are secret, disciplined organizations. "The party is a secret conclave. Members are admitted only on acceptance as reliable and after indoctrination in its policies...Moreover, each pledges unconditional obedience to party authority..."
See NYTimes, May 21, 1950, "Justice Jackson on Communism in America." http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/2003/ms003002.pdf





5. Due to Liberal acquiescence, the party line became accepted as truth.
This was the mantra: "There was no 'conspiracy' overseen and funded by Moscow to overthrow the USA. American Communists were just a bunch of harmless, idealistic and homespun 'progressives.' Freedom of conscience and all that. Of course they deserved to be left alone in peace and privacy (and secrecy). Have you no sense of decency???"
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p.222.

6. One must marvel at how this echoed the writings of Whittaker Chambers, 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.





7. No clearer exposure of the scam can be found than that of a member of the Hollywood Ten, director Edward Dmytryk, who, later, wrote, “The presumption that there is an immutable, unwritten law against informing is sheer nonsense,” Dmytryk writes. “What thousands of confused liberals have believed … is that one must allow a seditious Party to destroy one’s country rather than expose the men or women who are the Party. In other words, naming names is [considered] a greater crime than subversion.” ONE OF THE ?MARTYRS? WILL APPLAUD | New York Post


To Liberals, “informing” on or about the Party is the ultimate crime. Dmytryk rightly rejects what he calls “the Mafia Syndrome” that commands silence at all costs.

America was truly lucky to have had a handful of brave souls who exposed those Americans who couldn't wait to see gulags, and the massacre of their fellow citizens.
 
Ah yes another Nazi, you must be they were anti-communist fanatically, just as yourself.




"Ah yes another Nazi, you must be they were anti-communist fanatically, just as yourself."

Now....just hold on while I retrieve my Captain Midnight secret decoder ring.....


Where the heck did you learn to write English, a government school????





"...anti-communist fanatically, just as yourself."

They were communists, you dunce.



Coulter had you in mind when she wrote this:
'In general, I’m against big government, but I would support a massive emergency federal program to teach logic to liberals.'
 
The late 1940s was the time of the Second Red Scare, and Dmytryk was one of many filmmakers investigated. Summoned to appear before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), he refused to cooperate and was sent to jail. After spending several months behind bars, Dmytryk made the decision to testify again, and give the names of his fellow members in the American Communist Party as the HUAC had demanded. On April 25, 1951, Dmytryk appeared before HUAC for the second time, answering all questions. He spoke of his own Party past, a very brief membership in 1945, including the naming of twenty-six former members of left-wing groups. He explained how John Howard Lawson, Adrian Scott, Albert Maltz and others had pressured him to include communist propaganda in his films. His testimony damaged several court cases that others of the so-called "Hollywood 10" had filed. He recounted his experiences of the period in his book, Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996).

Edward Dmytryk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The late 1940s was the time of the Second Red Scare, and Dmytryk was one of many filmmakers investigated. Summoned to appear before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), he refused to cooperate and was sent to jail. After spending several months behind bars, Dmytryk made the decision to testify again, and give the names of his fellow members in the American Communist Party as the HUAC had demanded. On April 25, 1951, Dmytryk appeared before HUAC for the second time, answering all questions. He spoke of his own Party past, a very brief membership in 1945, including the naming of twenty-six former members of left-wing groups. He explained how John Howard Lawson, Adrian Scott, Albert Maltz and others had pressured him to include communist propaganda in his films. His testimony damaged several court cases that others of the so-called "Hollywood 10" had filed. He recounted his experiences of the period in his book, Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996).

Edward Dmytryk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Shall we continue with the education of our pal, Drop-Draws?


Ex-communist Hollywood director Edward Dmytryk wrote, in his memoir "Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten," that the party listed anti-Communist books that members were forbidden to read.

He tells of conversation with producer Adrian Scott, in which he mentioned that he was reading Koester's "Darkness at Noon," "Adrian stopped short, and as I turned to face him, he spoke in a subdued voice, 'Good God!' he said. 'Don't ever mention that to anyone in the group!' 'Why not?' I was honestly puzzled. 'It's on the list! Koestler is an anti-Communist, and no member of the party is allowed to read him.'"
Dmytryk, "Odd Man Out," p. 14.
 
"Fifty years of liberal propaganda people to thinking of Communist Party member as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice...."

^^^^ You guys ACTUALLY can understand what the heck that means?

For the life of me, I can't. Maybe I'm just some commie, idiot ... .


What's really confusing is the sarcasm ... It's laid on so thick that it kind of smothers you.

I don't know what to even comment on.

????
 
"Fifty years of liberal propaganda people to thinking of Communist Party member as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice...."

^^^^ You guys ACTUALLY can understand what the heck that means?

For the life of me, I can't. Maybe I'm just some commie, idiot ... .


What's really confusing is the sarcasm ... It's laid on so thick that it kind of smothers you.

I don't know what to even comment on.

????



1. "I don't know what to even comment on."

Bet that never stopped you before.



2.The point about which you seem oblivious ....indicative of government schooling.....is that those who exposed Stalin's infestation of the FDR administration.....to the extent of controlling government policy were marginalized and/or destroyed.

That continues to this day.....e.g., Sarah Palin.





If you would actually like to be informed....and it would be a long and arduous road to same....here is a starting point:

3. "William Albert Wirt (1874–1938) was a superintendent of schools in Gary, Indiana. Wirt developed the Gary Plan for the more efficient use of school facilities, a reform of the Progressive Movement that was widely adopted in other cities.... After his testimony against the Roosevelt Brain Trust, he was denounced as a reactionary by Democrats and those on the left,..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wirt_(educator)


4. You see, Roosevelt's New Deal was riddled with communists....paid agents of Stalin. At a dinner party, a number administration officials spilled the beans, spoke openly about the plans to cause a revolution so they can rebuild America in the Soviet's image.

"Wirt claimed he had "discovered" evidence of a plot within FDR's administration to launch a Bolshevik takeover of the United States..... garnering all kind of media attention, and even testifying before Congress about his evidence of a "concrete plan" for the overthrow of the U.S. government crafted by members of FDR's "Brain Trusters."

"Roosevelt is only the Kerensky of this revolution," he quoted them. (Kerensky was the provisional leader of Russia just before the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.) The hoodwinked president would be permitted to stay in office, they said, "until we are ready to supplant him with a Stalin." The Washington Monthly



5. On April 10, 1934, Wirt was brought before a select committee of two Republicans and three Democrats.

"Contrary to custom, Wirt wouldn't be allowed to read his 10-minute opening statement (3-2 party line vote), would not be allowed counsel (3-2 party line vote), wouldn't be allowed to rebut charges against him (3-2 party line vote), even the false accusation that he had been jailed for German sympathies (Democrat chairman admitted they were false five days later).
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p.2.

a. The committee (guess the vote) refused to call any of the administration officials Wirt cited, including the Agriculture Department who told Wirt about retarding economic recovery to speed the revolution, and the housing officials planning to collectivize American workers in government planned communities.
West, Op.Cit.



6. Care to know what happened to Wirt? See Starr. See Palin. And Romney.

"It is hard on the good Dr. Wirt....A nation needs a good laugh now and then....Laughing again, the country can resume its march, not to revolution, but to prosperity."
"Laughing Through," Miami Daily News, April 15, 1934.


BTW....in "The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev confirm that KGB records reveal the dinner party officials named by Wirt were spies. (p. 220, 528.)


Get that? Wirt was correct.

Such is the fate of good people who attempt to impede the Left.
 
I recently watched a very old movie based upon the life of a man who spent a few years undercover for the FBI in the Communist Party.

Even considering the usual exagurations and over simplicifactions that are needed to make a movie, his life was hell. Everyone in his family, even his son, had turned against him.

His parents had died thinking he was Communist. They were Italian immigrees who were escaping the facism of the time in Italy.

One thing struck me as I watched that movie.. The left of that day ridiculed those who against Communism as they do today.

The Left hasn't changed a bit.
 
Last edited:
The commie parties around the world were paid for by USSR and the mafia structure of those was designed by НКВД
 
The late 1940s was the time of the Second Red Scare, and Dmytryk was one of many filmmakers investigated. Summoned to appear before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), he refused to cooperate and was sent to jail. After spending several months behind bars, Dmytryk made the decision to testify again, and give the names of his fellow members in the American Communist Party as the HUAC had demanded. On April 25, 1951, Dmytryk appeared before HUAC for the second time, answering all questions. He spoke of his own Party past, a very brief membership in 1945, including the naming of twenty-six former members of left-wing groups. He explained how John Howard Lawson, Adrian Scott, Albert Maltz and others had pressured him to include communist propaganda in his films. His testimony damaged several court cases that others of the so-called "Hollywood 10" had filed. He recounted his experiences of the period in his book, Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996).

Edward Dmytryk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Shall we continue with the education of our pal, Drop-Draws?


Ex-communist Hollywood director Edward Dmytryk wrote, in his memoir "Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten," that the party listed anti-Communist books that members were forbidden to read.

He tells of conversation with producer Adrian Scott, in which he mentioned that he was reading Koester's "Darkness at Noon," "Adrian stopped short, and as I turned to face him, he spoke in a subdued voice, 'Good God!' he said. 'Don't ever mention that to anyone in the group!' 'Why not?' I was honestly puzzled. 'It's on the list! Koestler is an anti-Communist, and no member of the party is allowed to read him.'"
Dmytryk, "Odd Man Out," p. 14.


Interesting. The forbidden lists were always in all the countries in the Eastern Bloc, but I could never imagine the grip on the people's mind could extend beyond the Iron curtain.

Fahrenheit 451:cool:
 





Shall we continue with the education of our pal, Drop-Draws?


Ex-communist Hollywood director Edward Dmytryk wrote, in his memoir "Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten," that the party listed anti-Communist books that members were forbidden to read.

He tells of conversation with producer Adrian Scott, in which he mentioned that he was reading Koester's "Darkness at Noon," "Adrian stopped short, and as I turned to face him, he spoke in a subdued voice, 'Good God!' he said. 'Don't ever mention that to anyone in the group!' 'Why not?' I was honestly puzzled. 'It's on the list! Koestler is an anti-Communist, and no member of the party is allowed to read him.'"
Dmytryk, "Odd Man Out," p. 14.


Interesting. The forbidden lists were always in all the countries in the Eastern Bloc, but I could never imagine the grip on the people's mind could extend beyond the Iron curtain.

Fahrenheit 451:cool:




If you ever have the time or the interest, try “The Anti-Communist Manifestos,” by John V. Fleming.
 
"Fifty years of liberal propaganda people to thinking of Communist Party member as lovable idealists and the urge to fire them from their government jobs as an irrational anachronistic prejudice...."

^^^^ You guys ACTUALLY can understand what the heck that means?

For the life of me, I can't. Maybe I'm just some commie, idiot ... .


What's really confusing is the sarcasm ... It's laid on so thick that it kind of smothers you.

I don't know what to even comment on.

????



1. "I don't know what to even comment on."

Bet that never stopped you before.



2.The point about which you seem oblivious ....indicative of government schooling.....is that those who exposed Stalin's infestation of the FDR administration.....to the extent of controlling government policy were marginalized and/or destroyed.

That continues to this day.....e.g., Sarah Palin.





If you would actually like to be informed....and it would be a long and arduous road to same....here is a starting point:

3. "William Albert Wirt (1874–1938) was a superintendent of schools in Gary, Indiana. Wirt developed the Gary Plan for the more efficient use of school facilities, a reform of the Progressive Movement that was widely adopted in other cities.... After his testimony against the Roosevelt Brain Trust, he was denounced as a reactionary by Democrats and those on the left,..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wirt_(educator)


4. You see, Roosevelt's New Deal was riddled with communists....paid agents of Stalin. At a dinner party, a number administration officials spilled the beans, spoke openly about the plans to cause a revolution so they can rebuild America in the Soviet's image.

"Wirt claimed he had "discovered" evidence of a plot within FDR's administration to launch a Bolshevik takeover of the United States..... garnering all kind of media attention, and even testifying before Congress about his evidence of a "concrete plan" for the overthrow of the U.S. government crafted by members of FDR's "Brain Trusters."

"Roosevelt is only the Kerensky of this revolution," he quoted them. (Kerensky was the provisional leader of Russia just before the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.) The hoodwinked president would be permitted to stay in office, they said, "until we are ready to supplant him with a Stalin." The Washington Monthly



5. On April 10, 1934, Wirt was brought before a select committee of two Republicans and three Democrats.

"Contrary to custom, Wirt wouldn't be allowed to read his 10-minute opening statement (3-2 party line vote), would not be allowed counsel (3-2 party line vote), wouldn't be allowed to rebut charges against him (3-2 party line vote), even the false accusation that he had been jailed for German sympathies (Democrat chairman admitted they were false five days later).
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p.2.

a. The committee (guess the vote) refused to call any of the administration officials Wirt cited, including the Agriculture Department who told Wirt about retarding economic recovery to speed the revolution, and the housing officials planning to collectivize American workers in government planned communities.
West, Op.Cit.



6. Care to know what happened to Wirt? See Starr. See Palin. And Romney.

"It is hard on the good Dr. Wirt....A nation needs a good laugh now and then....Laughing again, the country can resume its march, not to revolution, but to prosperity."
"Laughing Through," Miami Daily News, April 15, 1934.


BTW....in "The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev confirm that KGB records reveal the dinner party officials named by Wirt were spies. (p. 220, 528.)


Get that? Wirt was correct.

Such is the fate of good people who attempt to impede the Left.

It's all clear now. Thanks.

Now, please open your mind ... just a tad:


THE FAMILIAR TALE OF WILLIAM A. WIRT.... The LA Times' Michael Hiltzik had a terrific item yesterday on a footnote of history named William A. Wirt, who garnered some notoriety in 1934. His claim to fame? Wirt claimed he had "discovered" evidence of a plot within FDR's administration to launch a Bolshevik takeover of the United States.

As silly as this was, this was an era when Roosevelt's New Deal was blasted by the Teabaggers of the day as radical socialism. With that in mind, Wirt became a Republican cause celebre for a while, hooking up with right-wing astroturf groups of the day, garnering all kind of media attention, and even testifying before Congress about his evidence of a "concrete plan" for the overthrow of the U.S. government crafted by members of FDR's "Brain Trusters."

"Roosevelt is only the Kerensky of this revolution," he quoted them. (Kerensky was the provisional leader of Russia just before the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.) The hoodwinked president would be permitted to stay in office, they said, "until we are ready to supplant him with a Stalin."

Those words caused an immediate sensation. Wirt hedged on naming the treasonous "Brain Trusters" -- which only intensified the public mania. Into the vacuum of information poured supposition masquerading as fact (certainly a familiar phenomenon today).

Wirt's provocative tale soon after fell apart; his "evidence" crumbled; and Republican leaders decided they didn't want anything to do with the guy. He quickly vanished from the public spotlight.

And that, of course, highlights a difference between then and now. William A. Wirt sounds quite a bit like Glenn Beck, Betsy McCaughey, Dick Armey, and assorted other right-wing personalities that litter the American landscape in the 21st century, spreading nonsense. Indeed, they're spreading almost identical nonsense, claiming to have evidence of President Obama launching a nefarious Nazi/Soviet/Marxist/Illuminati scheme.

But when their tales fall apart, there are no consequences.

Indeed, the main reason not to chuckle condescendingly at Wirt is the thought of what might happen were he to walk the Earth today.

Rather than being disowned in embarrassment, he'd be lionized as a purveyor of an alternate truth -- "Bill the teacher," perhaps -- given a gig on cable news and touted as a presidential contender for 2012. He'd have a blog, a Facebook page and a Twitter account.

In today's world, the more outlandish his accusations the better. For while America has made great strides since 1934 in science, civil rights and many other fields, our ability to recognize humbug for what it is seems to have gotten much, much worse.

The Washington Monthly
 
The guy made a big stink back when doing so was unheard of - YOU lionize him as some sort of prophet ... nice work.


No, not really.
 
Shall we continue with the education of our pal, Drop-Draws?


Ex-communist Hollywood director Edward Dmytryk wrote, in his memoir "Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten," that the party listed anti-Communist books that members were forbidden to read.

He tells of conversation with producer Adrian Scott, in which he mentioned that he was reading Koester's "Darkness at Noon," "Adrian stopped short, and as I turned to face him, he spoke in a subdued voice, 'Good God!' he said. 'Don't ever mention that to anyone in the group!' 'Why not?' I was honestly puzzled. 'It's on the list! Koestler is an anti-Communist, and no member of the party is allowed to read him.'"
Dmytryk, "Odd Man Out," p. 14.


Interesting. The forbidden lists were always in all the countries in the Eastern Bloc, but I could never imagine the grip on the people's mind could extend beyond the Iron curtain.

Fahrenheit 451:cool:




If you ever have the time or the interest, try “The Anti-Communist Manifestos,” by John V. Fleming.

Thanks, I will look it up.
I know all about the other side of the pond, not that much about this one ( on the matter of commies)
 
As John Fleming writes in this absorbing book, “We say that seeing is believing; in fact it is just as true that believing is seeing. Many early reporters and visitors [to the USSR] were partisans of the socialist ideal who filtered what they saw through the fine mesh of their own hopes and desires.”

so true, just to name one scumbag Duranty :evil:
 

Forum List

Back
Top