[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The “shift” you speak of never occurred at all.
[/quote]
Really? You mean blacks are still largely Republicans?
“It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks.”
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
The “gang rape” thread in PWI was something else.[/quote]
I understand you don’t like Muslim feminists like Samira Bellil and that you think they should remain quiet. I also understand that you are very upset about how badly Sandra Fluke has been treated. Good for you. BTW, didn’t someone try the “you don’t live in that country - you don’t know nothin’” thing in that thread as well? Getting a little old.
Haven’t read any of this thread. Hope this fits here!
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Once again I’m not sure why an Aussie guy is focusing on events in other countries though. Heck, now I understand why Chushin got so annoyed by that libertarian dude. lol [/quote]
Why? Why not, do u actually think that these issues only happen in the US and do not influence and shape attitudes here in Australia.
Now I understand why the rest of the world gets so annoyed by that view.[/quote]
I used to see things that way man. But there just comes a point where you realize that without extensive local knowledge, you’re just looking at things in an anthropological sense. Perhaps it comes from living in other countries, idk, but I have “come around” to this idea lately.
Racism in the US is VERY different than racism in Japan and (I assume) from racism in Aussie-land or Europe.
Eh, my 2 cents.[/quote]
I was more on the track of ‘‘events’’ and not having input because I am not in the states and not a American.
For example with the shooting of Trayvon, the goup of young Sudanese men that i help weight training with, the only topic that they wanted to discuss was this shooting. These young men wanted to know about it so we sat down and discussed the thread in GAL and the posts in it, it was good ton discuss it esp in re to being in racially profile and the pros and cons of that issue.
In re to racism, racism is racism, when u see it or hear it u know what it is irrespective of where u r, just my 2 cents.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t know what Soviet disinformation “them” you’re talking about squattie.
[/quote]Conspiracy theories in general. It may not be your actual stance, but I’ve seen you dismiss a bunch of conspiracy theories as “Soviet disinfo” and it made me laugh - I was wondering if you do that regularly because of that piece from Kay
(not sure if you do that regularly anyways - but I was wondering)
[quote]
And I also pointed out the history of conspiracy theories and how they are used - in response to your question.[/quote]Yea I know… that was exactly the thing - you didn’t answer my question
My question had nothing to do with the history of conspiracy theories. Nor “how they are used”, but whatever
squating_bear[quote]
Conspiracy theories in general. It may not be your actual stance, but I’ve seen you dismiss a bunch of conspiracy theories as “Soviet disinfo” and it made me laugh - I was wondering if you do that regularly because of that piece from Kay.
[/quote]
I only came across that reference from Kay and his book a few days ago. I have been interested in and have known about conspiracy theories for more than a decade.
I have only labelled certain theories Soviet disinformation when that’s what they are. The Soviets had a “disinformation department” that made stupid people believe all kinds of stuff - that J. Edgar Hoover was a cross dresser; that the U.S. government created the AIDS virus to kill black people - all sorts of stuff. A fair bit is mentioned in the Mitrokhin archive that came out a few years after the fall of the Soviet Union:
Not sure why it “made (you) laugh” - because you didn’t believe it? Because those old anti-Communist movies from the 50’s look whacky? Well, it’s all true. Joe McCarthy was not delusional.
Part of the Soviet disinformation campaign revealed in the Mitrokhin archive:
Promotion of false John F. Kennedy assassination theories, using writer Mark Lane.
Forged letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to E. Howard Hunt, attempting to incriminate Hunt in the Kennedy assassination.
Discrediting the CIA using the ex-CIA case officer and defector Philip Agee.
Spreading rumors that the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was a homosexual.
Attempts to discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. by placing publications portraying him as an “Uncle Tom” who was secretly receiving government subsidies.
Stirring up racial tensions in the United States by mailing bogus letters from the Ku Klux Klan, by placing an explosive package in “the Negro section of New York” (operation PANDORA), and by spreading conspiracy theories that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination had been planned by the US government.
Fabrication of the story that the AIDS virus was manufactured by US scientists at the US Army research station at Fort Detrick. The story was spread by Russian-born biologist Jakob Segal.
Sabotage prepartions:
A plan for sabotage of Hungry Horse Dam in Montana.
A detailed plan to destroy the port of New York (target GRANIT). The most vulnerable points of the port were determined and recorded on maps.
Large arms caches were hidden in many countries to support such planned terrorism acts. Some were booby-trapped with “Lightning” explosive devices. One such cache, identified by Mitrokhin, was found by Swiss authorities in the woods near Fribourg. Several other caches in Europe were removed successfully.
Disruption of the power supply across New York State by KGB sabotage teams, which were to be based along the Delaware River in Big Spring Park.
An “immensely detailed” plan to destroy “oil refineries and oil and gas pipelines across Canada from British Columbia to Montreal” (operation “Cedar”) was prepared; the work took twelve years to complete.
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Haven’t read any of this thread. Hope this fits here!
EXCLUSIVE: Chris Rock Attacks Conservative Author Over Tea Party Question - YouTube [/quote]
fixed
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Haven’t read any of this thread. Hope this fits here!
EXCLUSIVE: Chris Rock Attacks Conservative Author Over Tea Party Question - YouTube [/quote]
fixed
[/quote]
Chris needs a Haircut.
Comedian.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
Chris needs a Haircut.
[/quote]
done[/quote]
See that is Comedy…not great comedy but its still comedy.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The “shift” you speak of never occurred at all.
[/quote]
Really? You mean blacks are still largely Republicans?
“It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks.”[/quote]
Don’t bullshit me. When you use the term “Democratic party” the clear implication is that you are referring to the party itself, as in Democrats who are elected politicians. The implication of your whole post that I referred to is equally clear: the civil rights movement was spearheaded by Republicans and it wasn’t until Democrats got involved that things got fucked up.
Don’t come in here with your thinly-veiled agenda and then start to backtrack once someone smart enough to see through your bullshit calls you on it. It’s ugly, as is this whole thread.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The “shift” you speak of never occurred at all.
[/quote]
Really? You mean blacks are still largely Republicans?
“It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks.”[/quote]
“And just to show I’m not a partisan hack, there were and are plenty of racists in the Republican party. And as always things are more complicated than that. Many people with legitimate concerns about increasing federal power and states’ rights are are connected with that faction.”
This quote from you proves that you are in fact a partisan hack. Like I’m supposed to believe that Strom Thurmond fillibustered in the Senate for more than 24 straight hours to prevent the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from reaching a vote because he was worried about states’ rights. Do you really believe that the political opposition to that particular bill, which was almost entirely from politicians in the South, was due to a concern about increasing federal power? You don’t think that it’s just a little coincidental that it was only Southern politicians who voted against that bill? Are you really so fucking naive as to believe that those politicians opposed the bill on some sort of Constitutional grounds and that they just happened to have all been from the South and were both Democrats and Republicans?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Don’t bullshit me. When you use the term “Democratic party” the clear implication is that you are referring to the party itself, as in Democrats who are elected politicians. The implication of your whole post that I referred to is equally clear: the civil rights movement was spearheaded by Republicans and it wasn’t until Democrats got involved that things got fucked up.
[/quote]
That was not the implication. That’s not what I said. I said the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. I’m going to use a couple of wikipedia quotes to save time. I thought this stuff was widely known:
'Historian Eric Foner:
In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.
To that end they worked to curb the education, economic advancement, voting rights, and right to keep and bear arms of blacks. The Ku Klux Klan soon spread into nearly every southern state, launching a "reign of terror against Republican leaders both black and white. Those political leaders assassinated during the campaign included Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, three members of the South Carolina legislature, and several men who served in constitutional conventions.’ -
Then there was the second Klan of 1915-1944:
‘Director D. W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation glorified the original Klan. His film was based on the book and play The Clansman and the book The Leopard’s Spots, both by Thomas Dixon, Jr. Dixon said his purpose was “to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!”’
The Birth of a Nation included extensive quotations from Woodrow Wilson’s History of the American People, as if to give it a stronger basis. After seeing the film in a special White House screening, Wilson allegedly said, “It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”
Actually, you have misunderstood most of what I have written. As I said, I don’t have any “agenda.” Do you?
[quote]
It’s ugly, as is this whole thread.[/quote]
Oh, you’re breakin’ my heart DB. I taught it were purdy.
No. You’ve misunderstood me. I didn’t make myself clear because I didn’t want to get too partisan. I was referring to a particular Republican candidate today who is running and the fact that there are racists associated with his movement but also people with legitimate concerns about states’ rights, increasing centralization of federal power, the economy etc.
To make it quick - from the 1850’s - when slavery became hugely profitable and deeply entrenched, until the modern civil rights era the overwhelming reason for opposing legislation was to keep slavery alive/keep blacks as an underclass or reverse progress made. However at the time of the founding states’ rights and restricting federal power was of paramount importance because they are so necessary to maintaining a free society. They still are. And this is why I said it’s more complicated.
No.
No. See above. Thanks for playing.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Don’t come in here with your thinly-veiled agenda and then start to backtrack once someone smart enough to see through your bullshit calls you on it.
[/quote]
I didn’t bring up the KKK. Someone else brought it up: they expressed dislike of “WASP” culture and told a Texan that the KKK is Texas’s “retarded half brother.” Of course Texas is more of a Western state but I won’t go into all that. So when that was brought up I tried to explain some things and got onto LBJ’s “great society.” Yes, where were we?
LBJ’s “great society” had it origins in the Soviet radicals who set up shop in America late WWII - most prominent the Frankfurt school that established themselves at Columbia university. Soviet/Communist sympathisers and radicals were already rife in FDR’s administration when he died. Truman appointed Alinsky radicals throughout federal government departments.
Robert Kennedy appointed Columbia University sociologist Lloyd Ohlin - an Alinsky acolyte from Chicago university. He co-wrote a book with Richard Cloward. In 1964 Johnson declared a ‘war on poverty’ and appointed Sargent Shriver to the post of “poverty czar.” Shriver funneled much of $300 billion in federal money to Alinskyite radical organisations. One of Alinsky’s proteges was a young Hillary Rodham.
Bobby Kennedy also formed a close relationship with Alinsky acolyte and union boss Cesar Chavez and worked with him on a shakedown of Eastman Kodak in New York - accusing the company of not hiring enough black workers.
The other key players were Richard Cloward(mentioned above) and Francis Fox Piven - they came to prominence in 1966 with an article published in the Nation .
'Much of their strategy was drawn from Saul Alinsky, Chicago’s notorious revolutionary Marxist community organizer. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) succeeded the National Welfare Rights Organization in the execution of the Cloward-Piven grand tactics of using the poor as cannon fodder to tear down the capitalist system. It was low-income, mostly black and Hispanic people, who were used by ACORN guerrillas to take subprime toxic mortgages.
Its supporting tactics include flooding government with impossible demands until it slowly cranks to a stop; overloading electoral systems with successive tidal waves of new voters, many of them bogus; shaking down banks, politicians in Congress, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for affirmative-action borrowing; and, now, pulling down the national financial system by demanding exotic, subprime mortgages for low-income Americans with little hope of repaying their loans. These toxic mortgages are an important source of the foul smell engulfing the entire financial bailout.’ - Washington Times
Example of community organising at work:
'The number of Americans subsisting on welfare - about 8 million at the time - probably
represented less than half those technically eligible for full benefits, the authors noted. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.” Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of the potential welfare recipients to demand their entitledments would bankrupt the entire system. The demands would break the budget and jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock. The result would be a “profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces…for major economic reform at the national level.”
Their article called for “cadres of aggressive organizers” to use “demonstrations to create a
climate of militancy.” Intimidated by black violence, politicians would appeal to federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns carried out by friendly journalists would promote the idea of “a federal program of income redistribution” in the form of a guaranteed living income for all, working and non-working people alike. Local officials would grab hold of this idea like drowning men reaching for a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement the idea. With major cities erupting in chaos like Watts, Washington would have to act…This was the plan detailed in the Nation on 2 May 1966(Cloward and Piven).
Cloward and Piven launched a “Welfare Rights Movement” based on their original plan. They recruited a radical black organizer named George Wiley to lead it.
After a series of mass marches and rallies by welfare recipients in June 1966, Wiley declared “the birth of a movement” - the Welfare Rights Movement. Wiley then set to work putting the “crisis strategy” into effect. His tactics closely followed the recommendations laid down in the Nation article. Wiley’s followers invaded welfare offices - often violently - bullying social workers and demanding every penny to which the law “entitled” them.
In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven had given special attention to New York City, whose masses of urban poor, leftist intelligentsia and free-spending politicians rendered it uniquely vulnerable to the strategy they proposed. Noting that New York City was already expected to shell out $500 million in annual benefits to the 500,000 people on its welfare rolls in 1966, Cloward and Piven calculated that, “An increase in the rolls of a mere twenty percent would cost an already overburdened municipality some $100 million” per year…At the time, city welfare agencies were paying about $20 million per year in “special grants.” Cloward and Piven estimated that they could “multiply these expenditures tenfold or more,” draining an additional $180 annually from the city coffers.
Cloward and Piven had chosen their target shrewdly. George Wiley and his welfare radicals terrorized social workers in cities across the country, but their greatest success came in New
York. New York’s arch-liberal mayor John Lindsay, newly elected in November 1966, capitulated
to Wiley’s every demand…“The violence of the [welfare rights] movement was frightening,” recalls Lindsay budget aide Charles Morris. Black militants laid seige to City Hall, bearing signs saying, “No Money, No Peace.” One welfare mother famously screamed at Mayor Lindsay, “It’s my job to have kids, Mr. Mayor, and your job to take care of them.”
Lindsay answered these provacations with ever-more-generous programs of appeasement in the form of welfare dollars. Soon after taking office in 1966, he appointed Mitchell Ginsberg to the post of welfare commissioner. An associate dean at the Columbia University School of Social Work, Ginsberg was a colleague of Cloward and Piven, who shared their radical views.
By 1968 the rejection rate for applicants had fallen from 40 percent in 1965 to 23 percent. New York’s welfare rolls had been growing by twelve percen per year already before Lindsay took office. The rate jumped to 50 percent annually in 1966. During Lindsay’s first term of office, welfare spending in New York City more than doubled, from $400 million to $1 billion annually.
Outlays for the poor consumed 28 percent of the city’s budget by 1970. “By the early 1970’s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city’s private economy,” Sol Stern wrote in the City Journal.
Crucial to Wiley’s success was the cooperation of radical sympathizers inside the federal government, who supplied Wiley’s movement with grants, training, and logistical assistance, channeled through federal War-on-Poverty programs such as VISTA, as Wiley organizer Hulbert James acknowledged. “Welfare rights organizations in this country were developed primarily by VISTA,” James conceded in 1969. Among other perks, Wiley’s NWRO received free legal aid and free office space from the norotoriously left-wing Legal Services division of the Office of Economic Opportunity. Johnson administration officials awarded NWRO a $435,000 contract in 1968.
The National Welfare Rights Organization…finally clos(ed) its doors in 1972. Wiley’s movement had been an economic disaster for American taxpayers and a social catastrophe for millions of poverty-stricken Americans who, thanks to Wiley’s efforts, became locked in the cycle of welfare dependency. For its radical masterminds, however, the disaster could be (and was) looked on as a triumph. As a direct result of the overloading of its welfare rolls, New York City - the financial capital of the world - effectively went bankrupt in 1975. The entire state of New York was nearly taken down with it. Radicals reveled in their victory. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.
To this day, most Americans have never heard of Richard Cloward or Frances Fox Piven. New York City has not forgotten their achievement, however. In 1998, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani reviewed the effects of their strategy, without naming its authors. Noting that the number of people on welfare in the Big Apple had skyrocketed from 200,000 to nearly 1.1 million between 1960 and 1970, Giuliani said: “This wasn’t an accident, it wasn’t an atmospheric thing, it wasn’t supernatural. It was the result of policies, choices, and a philosophy that was embraced in the 1960s and then enthusiastically endorsed in the City of New York…This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get welfare.”
The New York Times learned that an earlier draft of Giuliani’s speech had identified Cloward and Piven by name, but their names had been edited out of his final speech.
Neither leftist nor mainstream media ever again mentioned the Cloward-Piven strategy. Nor did Cloward and Piven ever again reveal thei intentions quite as candidly or publically as they had in their 1966 article in the Nation. They learned to tailor their message to a more conservative era. Meanwhile, their activism continued, and with it their strategy of overloading the “system” in the hope of causing a breakdown…Their persistence paid off. George Soros and his Shadow Party were waiting in the wings for their distinctive expertise.’ - David Horowitz, The Shadow Party
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I have only labelled certain theories Soviet disinformation when that’s what they are.
[/quote]Cool - that’s specifically what I was asking
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Not sure why it “made (you) laugh” - because you didn’t believe it? [/quote]I don’t know why I laughed either - I don’t remember the context. It was probably unfair though - I think I read it in a way that suggested you could say that about many more things than just those specifics. Should I believe it?
The idea that there was Soviet disinfo is pretty simple and basic, but that doesn’t mean everything in those books was true. It could be 95% true with a carefully planted 5% lies. Or some other combination of percentages. I haven’t read them though, so that’s all I can say
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Because those old anti-Communist movies from the 50’s look whacky? [/quote]Nah, definitely has nothing to do with it
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Well, it’s all true. Joe McCarthy was not delusional.[/quote]That’s what I’ve heard as well, but I haven’t really looked into it.
Curious though - how is what you’ve just said nota “conspiracy theory”?
squating_bear[quote]
I think I read it in a way that suggested you could say that about many more things than just those specifics. Should I believe it?
[/quote]
Well, from memory I think I said that what someone was saying about the Shah’s coup in Iran in 1953 was “Soviet disinfo” - that’s the only instance that comes to mind outside of the AIDS virus conspiracy that a certain presidential candidate or his closest associate perpetuated after it had been exposed as part of a Soviet disinformation campaign.
Not sure what in particular you mean. I’ve posted a lot. If you want to point to something in particular I’ve said I will explain why I believe it.
Many of the quotes above I posted are written by a former Communist/Marxist(Horowitz.) I haven’t read the whole thread but maybe you should have a look at ‘Soviet Russia’ by Dr.Matt. As someone who grew up in the Soviet Union (s)he would know more about what it was like to live there. I don’t really want to get into a debate about the Cold War - nor about Democrats and Republicans. The original post mentions(EDIT: Links to an article that mentions) an incumbent office holder, but that wasn’t the point of the thread. Every article that mentions it takes that line. I was wanting to draw attention to the racially motivated murders which the article goes on to describe - phone taps of the perp talking about killing “crackers” and so on.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
squating_bear[quote]
Curious though - how is what you’ve just said nota “conspiracy theory”?
[/quote]
Not sure what in particular you mean. I’ve posted a lot. If you want to point to something in particular I’ve said I will explain why I believe it.
[/quote]I was talking about what you said about McCarthy. It’s obviously fair to call it a “conspiracy”. Regardless of how much reason you have for believing what you do - you are going against what’s widely considered to be historical fact, so that’s how it can be labeled “theory”.
This is about the label “conspiracy theorist” itself. Rather than looking at any of your evidence, if it were my style, I could just do like you’ve done and sarcastically bring up Bigfoot, Area 51 etc. etc. and dismiss it. Oh, but before that I also gotta call you an anti-Semite, you know - cuz ALL conspiracy theories have a basis in antisemitism. Then I don’t even have to speak on any of your views of McCarthy, I’ve got something so much bigger - I can now take this to any thread that you post in and discredit you as a hateful kook. See what I did there?
[quote]
Many of the quotes above I posted are written by a former Communist/Marxist(Horowitz.) I haven’t read the whole thread but maybe you should have a look at ‘Soviet Russia’ by Dr.Matt. As someone who grew up in the Soviet Union (s)he would know more about what it was like to live there. I don’t really want to get into a debate about the Cold War - nor about Democrats and Republicans. The original post mentions(EDIT: Links to an article that mentions) an incumbent office holder, but that wasn’t the point of the thread. Every article that mentions it takes that line. I was wanting to draw attention to the racially motivated murders which the article goes on to describe - phone taps of the perp talking about killing “crackers” and so on.[/quote]I’m not stuck on “Democrats vs. Republicans” neither. Nor “left” vs. “right”.
I didn’t particularly have a problem with your OP.
I just might actually be your polar opposite. This doesn’t mean that we disagree on EVERYTHING, just on a lot of pretty big stuff - while having a similar perspective (I think)
I’m in the process of reading the ‘Soviet Russia’ thread, but I’m not sure why you pointed me their. Maybe I’m not deep enough into the thread to see why, but I hope you don’t have me confused for a Commie.
