Featured Post

WHITE SLAVES IN AFRICA - STOPPED!

THOMAS JEFFERSON AND THE TRIPOLI PIRATES: THE FORGOTTEN WAR THAT CHANGED AMERICAN HISTORY (New York: Sentinel, 2015) by BRIAN KILMEADE ...

Monday, October 15, 2018

PC HYPOCRISY AT GREAT AMERICAN READ

    On American public television, there is now a series aimed to encourage reading, The Great American Read.  100 novels by authors from all over the world were chosen, and the general public can vote on their favorite.  On the weekly program, some of the novels are discussed by fans of those novels nominated.
   When I was young, many considered Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn as the great American novel.  In recent decades, it has been banned in schools and even some libraries because one of the main characters in the novel is N_____ Jim, and for decades now, whites and polite society are not permitted to use the n word to describe Black people.  Just last week in a suburb of Milwaukee, the high school theater department had to cancel, on opening day, a production of "To Kill a Mocking Bird" because of the n word, which some found offensive, and they threatened protest!  So even if ten people out of 1,000 are offended, the school caves in, and the play is canceled!  I suspect they found the play "racist"!
     Angry about how pc is destroying American culture, I just posted the following on the PBS Great American Read's website discussion/comments;  I tried to copy my comment and wasted half an hour trying to paste it on my blog, so I will rewrite a comment, which may not be exactly as the one I posted:  Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer is on the list of the 100 for which you can vote, but NOT Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  I suspect the reason that Huck Finn is not included is because one of the main characters is "N____r Jim" and though it is a funny and fabulous novel, the pc police will not consider its greatness.  It is often banned in schools now.  Apparently the word Injun is still allowed according to the pc crowd, as Injun Joe is a major character in Tom Sawyer.  Injun is ok, for now, anyway.
   The irony is that one book discussed on the program and among the 100 is Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None," published in the US in the early 1940s.  What goes unmentioned is that the same novel was first published in the UK under the title "Ten Little N____rs," and I saw paperbacks of the novel in British Woolworths with that title displayed on the metal, turnable racks, in the late 1960s.  But few Americans are aware of that fact.  So Christie's fine mystery novel is allowed, but Twain's great classic is barred.  PC is destroying American culture, and history, and thought.  Even the well-meaning attempt to promote reading, restricts thought and appreciation of our great culture.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

JFK ASSASSINATION - NEW MATERIAL- COUP, COUNTER-COUP, SILENT COUP


THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
(2018) Kindle edition
By JERRY KROTH
Rev. by Hugh Murray

In his latest book on the JFK assassination, Jerry Kroth tries to include as much as possible of the most recent downloads of Kennedy documents by the Trump Administration. Originally, they were to be kept secret for 75 years, and then the law was changed so many records could be released earlier. Some were, but each time various agencies like the CIA urge continued secrecy. While the major media has generally ignored the most recent opening of files in spring 2018, Kroth read as many as he could and includes some of the surprising findings in his kindle book.

1. Thanks to Kroth, we now know that there were 2 American servicemen stationed in Europe in the fall of 1963 when they overheard electronic chatter. In late October and early November, one stationed in Metz, the other in Scotland, unknown to each other, both heard encrypted chatter about the forthcoming assassination of Pres. Kennedy. One heard that it would occur in Texas in late November, and the accused murderer would be either a Negro or a communist. One of the soldiers heard reference to Guy Banister, then in New Orleans, with ties to the FBI, CIA, and other agencies. (In the summer of 1963 in New Orleans Oswald ran his Fair Play for Cuba outfit from Banister's office.) The two soldiers did not know each other. When both, in different ways, sought to warn higher-ups of what they had heard, both were taken to mental hospitals where they remained for the following 6 months.

2. Kroth's detective work. A letter allegedly written by Oswald in early November 1963 to a Mr. Hunt, asked Hunt about Oswald's role in the operation. Some questioned the authenticity of the letter. However, by finding Oswald's previous unusual misspelling of a word, Kroth is convinced the letter is genuine, and later discusses who the Mr. Hunt might be and Oswald's connection to him.

3. Kroth notes that Oilman H. L.. Hunt's security chief had warned him there might be some trouble along the presidential parade route in Dallas. Kroth thinks that this would make little sense if Hunt were involved in the assassination plot.
4. Kroth believes the Oswald letter was sent to E. Howard Hunt, a man later to be arrested in the Watergate operation.

5. Kroth weaves the deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt with that of James Files, whom Kroth has often interviewed. Files maintains he was the shooter on the grassy knoll. Kroth also presents a list of the likely assassins in Dallas on the 22 November. Interestingly, he does not include Malcolm Wallace, who some believe was a sniper on the 6th floor of the Texas State School Depository Building, and was a known henchman of Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson.
6. In one long paragraph, Kroth indicates how Lyndon Johnson intervened in planning the parade route and in disposing of the limousine following the murder. I shall quote that paragraph near the conclusion of the review.

7. Important for us all in the days of Trump and the media – Kroth indicates how NBC and Dan Rather (CBS), and major media worked to bolster the official line on Oswald, the lone, nut, communist, assassin. Rather, one of the few permitted to view the Zapruder film of the assassination, told America how Kennedy's head was thrust forward with Rather bringing his head down to his chin to illustrate what he had “seen” (visually emphasizing how the shot had come from behind). Years later, 1975, when the American public could see the Zapruder film for themselves, they could also understand how Rather had lied (if they would have remembered).

8. It was not merely the media that may have been pressured to follow the official line. LBJ wanted the special commission to be the final authority on the investigation of the assassination. When he asked Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren to lead the commission, Warren declined and wanted nothing to do with it. LBJ demanded that they meet. Before that meeting, Johnson, from his next-door neighbor FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, received a file on Warren. When Warren arrived and again refused to head the commission, LBJ reminded the Chief Justice of a little incident in Mexico City, described in the file. Warren began to cry and conceded, I will do whatever you want. The black-robed justice yielded to Lyndon's black mail. Apparently Lyndon told this story to Sen. Richard Russell on a taped telephone conversation. We still refer to it as the Warren Commission. Kroth adds that the conclusion of the Commission, while officially endorsed by most political leaders of that time, was often questioned by them off-the-record, such as Representative Hale Boggs (father of Cokie Roberts) and Sen. Richard Russell (the Senate Bldg. Is named for him). Kroth adds that the American public, when polled, also reject the official version of the Oswald, lone-nut, communist assassin. Indeed, he notes that the public usually rejects the Warren Commission version by wide margins.

9. When New Orleans District Atty. Jim Garrison sought to reopen the case and prosecute conspirators involved in the assassination, the FBI sent agents to trail Garrison and his detectives, while the CIA sought to infiltrate Garrison's investigation and sabotage it. On his YouTube discussion, Kroth asserts that many of Garrison's files have still NOT been released by Trump.

10. Kroth provides examples of the media colluding with the federal government to discredit Garrison and even to bribe and turn his witnesses. He could have added that GOP Governors Ronald Reagan of California and James Rhodes of Ohio refused to extradite witnesses Garrison sought for his trial against the conspirators in Louisiana.
11. I am 20th century and had never before used a kindle. Buying a devise and then borrowing a library book on how to read a book, I found frustrating and expensive. I also felt like a 3rd grader. Buying a book to learn how to read at my age and such a price! This book should be in paperback.

12. There are numerous errors of grammar where a word or 2 is missing. On 2 occasions, Kroth identifies George de Mohrenschildt as Oswald's friend in New Orleans. The successful, white Russian had befriended the poor Oswald in Texas, not New Orleans. Because this is an electronic book, there are no page numbers to cite. I also feel that it was rushed to publication, perhaps because of the importance of the newly revealed documents. But is this book that much more informative than Kroth's YouTube discussion of the same material?

Bottom line, this would be an essential book for all interested in the assassination of President John Kennedy, showing how the US government has manipulated the media to cover up questions and accept the official line of the Warren Commission, the FBI, and the CIA. This should be a paperback. As a kindle, its impact is restricted.

Kroth's interesting long paragraph on Lyndon Johnson's activities around the case, can be found at 62%.
“There are still a few academics that believe Johnson should be held above suspicion, but it is hard to develop empathy for their position. When we have such a long history of redacted, censored, and destroyed documents which began in earnest under his watch; when we recall the unsolved execution style murder of Mary Meyer ten months after the assassination – who was about to go public, or Dorothy Kilgallen who planned to do the same; when we learn attempts were made to bribe individuals so they would testify they saw Oswald in Mexico City; when we think of the plethora of witnesses (n=61) who said the shots came from the grassy knoll whom the Warren Commission generally ignored;61 when we recall the suspicious motorcade route which forced the presidential limousine to enter a triangulated killing zone and slow to an almost complete stop; when we reflect on the instantaneous removal of the limousine to Detroit and destruction of evidence of the crime scene, and when we review abject paranoia – every last soul who might have dissented from the Warren Commission conclusions, like Jim Garrison or Mark Lane, it is impossible to see the man who presided over all these events – and who gained so much from them- should be held blameless.”

In his YouTube discussion, Kroth criticizes various mainstream historians. Thus Arthur Schlesinger wrote hundreds of pages about “John Kennedy's Thousand Days” in the White House, and never discussed the President's many trysts with women. Schlesinger contended, they were not important. Kroth retorted that when JFK was bedding a woman who at the same time was mistress to a powerful Mafia boss, that is important. (And J. Edgar Hoover thought it important that Kennedy had a fling with a woman thought to be an East German spy.) Helen Kearns Goodwin, another “court” historian who used to frequent PBS and other television newscasts, may have been too close to some of the subjects of her biographies to be objective. Indeed, like most popular historians, they treat presidents with great respect if not awe.

It is unlikely that the mainstream historians will recognize that in 1963 America experienced a coup d'etat, killing President John Kennedy and covering up the crime with the patsy of Oswald. A Deep State – intelligence officials, high military figures, the Mafia, and Vice-President Lyndon Johnson, with varied motivations, were all in on the plot.

A counter-coup occurred beginning in June 1972 with the arrest of the Watergate burglars at the offices of the Democratic National Committee. The robbery, in itself, meant little. However, those arrested included some linked to the White House and some whose names had already been heard in connection to Dallas. Soon the Deep State was on the defensive; was its lawlessness indicative of utter contempt for law. Democrats began investigating this, probing that. Now, the media took the side of the counter-coup. It seemed that the President was involved in the cover up. Support for Nixon, who had been reelected with an overwhelming majority in 1972, plummeted. Finally, Republican Senators informed him, they did not have enough votes in the Senate to stave off an impeachment vote to remove him from office. In August 1974 Nixon resigned. The counter-coup had partially succeeded.  Nixon was removed, but he was replaced by Gerald Ford, a former member of the Warren Commission.

In the 21st century there were changes – in the world, in America, and in the Deep State. In 1990 the Soviet Union unraveled, defeated by Pres. Reagan's hard-line policies against “the evil empire.” While one academic proclaimed “the end of history,” Pres. George H. W. Bush had a chance to restart history with unrivaled power. The Bush family had CIA connections going back decades. He would lead America into a new global era, the New World Order, making alliances of an expanded NATO in both western and eastern Europe, and, following an alliance against the Soviets in Afghanistan with the Muslim Mujaheddin, new possibilities opened. But some of those Muslims also saw new opportunities; they defeated the Soviet Communists in Afghanistan, and beyond. Now they would attack the decadent West. Several illegal aliens flew passenger planes into the World Trade Center, demolishing them, and into the Pentagon, destroying part of it. Another target was spared when passengers fought with the hijackers, leading to the death of all on that plane. But Pres. George W. Bush did not blame Islam. He even walked, hand-in-hand (meaning friendship) with a Saudi prince. On the other hand, Bush led the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

With the election of Pres. Barack Hussein Obama, the pro-Muslim aspects of the new era continued. An Arab Spring led to changes in governments, which brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt. The Obama Administration overthrew Libya's government, had subrosa intervention in Syria, helped overthrow Ukraine's pro-Russian leadership, and sought rapprochement with Iran. Obama also tried to defeat Israel's Netanyahu at the polls. Obama had been a boy in a Muslim country, in Hawaii had been mentored by a Black who was a member of the Communist Party, USA, and when he resided in Chicago, was befriended by former terrorists from the Weather Underground. It is not so surprising that under Obama, John Brennan, was promoted to CIA chief, even though (or because) he had voted in 1976 for Gus Hall, candidate of the CPUSA. Indeed, by the close of the Obama Administration, the new Deep State was composed of the old Left, Brennan, anti-Vietnam War veteran John Kerry, and other high officials in the State Dept., FBI, and military.

This Deep State is the enemy of Donald Trump. They went after his advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to destroy someone who would contribute to dismantling their New World Order. They would use a story of Trump hiring prostitutes to piss on the bed where the Obamas had slept in Moscow to promote media reaction against Trump and stories of Russian collusion. I need not go on, as it is a continuing story. The new Deep State is determined to sabotage the nationalist, populist administration of Pres. Trump. The question is, how far will they go to prevent him from changing course, from withdrawing from global warming treaties, from opposing Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and such groups while supporting Israel and other Muslim groups. From closing the borders to invaders. Will the new Left Deep State and its media minions merely obstruct, merely “resist?” Or will it redefine resist?


Wednesday, September 19, 2018

MORE WOMEN COME FORWARD TO ACCUSE KAVANAUGH



     Christine Blasy Ford is not alone! The woman who has accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct may have support from other victims.
     Democrats are in luck. More women are coming forth to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. First, there is Crystal Mangum, whom you may recall from the incident at Duke University. She maintained she was assaulted by members of the Duke U. men's lacrosse team. Because of her, the team was disqualified for the rest of the season and members of the team were charged under various forms of sexual misconduct. Surely, she is a credible witness. She is courageous enough to add her voice against nominee Kavanaugh.
     Second, Tawana Brawley has resurfaced to say she seems to recall an incident in a trash bag in some state some years ago; her memory is fuzzy about the details, but she is sure the attacker was Brett Kavenaugh. She is willing to testify, and thinks that civil rights activist Al Sharpton, and host on CNN, will again be beside her when she makes her charges.
     A surprise note came from the elderly Victoria Price. She said she was raped on a freight train in 1931 near Scottsboro, Alabama, by several Blacks, and after the first trials, 8 were sentenced to death. (Those verdicts were overturned and the cases went on for years). Price is older now, but is certain the man who accosted her about 20 years ago in some state was Kavanaugh.  The details she "disremembers."
     And when visiting Washington, DC a few years ago, Anita Hill ordered a can of Coke in a restaurant. She spotted a pubic hair on the can. She is certain the hair was that of Judge Kavanaugh's. He was humiliating her in a sexual way, even though he was not visible at the restaurant at that time.
     Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Dem., Cal.) is urging a delay in the Judiciary Committee hearings until testimony can be heard from these courageous women to tell how they were victimized.
     By Hugh Murray
For those outside of the US who may not be familiar with the back stories, this is satire.  In these cases the charges made by the women proved to be lies (or at best, unsubstantiated) and the men were the victimes.

Monday, August 27, 2018

HOLLYWOOD COMMUNIST PARTY


HOLLYWOOD PARTY: HOW COMMUNISM SEDUCED THE AMERICAN FILM
INDUSTRY IN THE 1930s and 1940s (Roseville, CA.: Forum, an Imprint of Prima Pub., c1998)
Written by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley
Rev. by Hugh Murray

There is much interesting material in Billingsley's party book, but after reading it, I am convinced it should have covered much more. For example, Billingsley practically begins his account with the creation of the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League (HANL), a communist-front group in 1936. However, the Depression began in 1929, and by the early 1930s, the Communist Party made strident efforts to organize sharecroppers in the South; to organize the unemployed into councils that would restore the furniture of evicted tenants into their former homes; to organize unions beyond the AFL's craft associations; and especially to appeal to Blacks to end lynching and racist “justice” in the South. One case illustrated the Party's new militancy regarding Southern injustice – the Scottsboro, Ala. rape cases that began in 1931. The Communist-front International Labor Defense (ILD) wrestled the liberal National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to defend the 9 “boys” accused of raping two young white women while riding a freight train, on which they were all hoboing. Eight of the 9 were quickly found guilty and sentenced to death; the 14-year-old merely received a long sentence. ILD attorneys appealed to the US Supreme Court, and when they won new trials, the ILD hired Samuel Leibowitz, a Democrat and noted attorney to defend the youths.

At the same time they provided a high-powered legal defense, the ILD and the Communist movement turned the case into a world-wide cause celebre, even having the mother of 2 of the boys tour Europe to expose America's racist justice. In 1932 Mother Wright addressed radical gatherings in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Britain, and Moscow, urging support for the young Blacks who might again face the death penalty. Petitions demanding freedom for the defendants were signed by many of the leading literary figures of the time, as well as Albert Einstein, Mme. Sun Yat Sen, and in America, Chief Red Cloud. Poetry from Muriel Rukeyser and Langston Hughes celebrated the Scottsboro boys. A play, “They Shall Not Die!” almost recreating one of the court rooms with testimony, ran on Broadway with a lengthy, rave review from the New York Times. But there was no Scottsboro movie.

At the 2nd trial, one of the 2 white women “victims,” recanted her accusations of rape against the Blacks; now maintaining that the jazz found in her by the doctor was the result of a tryst with her white boy friend the night before the train ride, in a hobo camp in Chattanooga. The other woman stuck to her story that she had been raped by 6 of the Blacks. She proclaimed she was a victim, even when Atty. Leibowitz tried to punch holes in her story. When pressed under oath about certain details, Victoria Price simply “disremembered.”

During the trial, the attending physician asked to speak with the judge in private. While officers held the door to the men's room shut, the doctor explained to the judge why he thought that the 2 women had not been raped. They had semen in them, but during the examination they were giggling and laughing, not the normal reaction after being raped by 6 strangers each. The judge, James Horton, instructed the doctor to repeat this on the stand under oath. The doctor explained that to do so would ruin his reputation and his practice. He would not so testify, and if called to the stand he would lie about it. The doctor was not called. The jury found the Black defendant guilty. However, Judge Horton voided the verdict, and there would have to be a 3rd round of Scottsboro trials. The government found a new judge, and Judge Horton was defeated in his bid for re-election, undoubtedly a consequence of his voiding the popular guilty verdict.

The new judge was not as lenient as Judge Horton. He would not allow any probing into the past history of the women or any implied insults against their character. Modern feminists might cheer his shielding of the female accuser from the harsh questioning by Atty. Leibowitz. The Daily Worker had a less favorable view of the judge who upheld the chivalrous notion of the “victim” - the DW called him Judge Ku Klux Callahan. Leibowitz was limited by the judge's rulings as to how far he could delve into Ms. Price's statements that sometimes contradicted other evidence. And the other woman, Ruby Bates, did not want to return to the hostile atmosphere in Alabama, so her previous testimony denying any rape was merely read into the record. In the summary before the jury, the new prosecutor of the case, Alabama's Atty General made the issue clear, “Don't sell Alabama justice to Jew money from New York.” The jury did not, and found the Blacks once again guilty. More appeals to the US Supreme Court, which the defense won. More trials. The case went on for years. But still no movie was made.

This was the major Communist issue from 1931 through 1934 and beyond. Billingsley quotes Communist screen writer Dalton Trumbo writing in 1946 that while communists usually had the power to veto production of films critical of the Party, they did not have sufficient power to have their own pro-communist films produced. (p. 92-93) The notion of a film where 2 white women falsely accuse 9 young Blacks of rape, and the Blacks are defended by Communists, - who would have made such a film in the 1930s? And who would watch such a film? Even around 1961 in New Orleans, “Raisin in the Sun” did not play the large white movie theaters, and when a white friend and I went to the Carver, a Black theater, to see it, they would not sell us tickets to enter.

However, Scottsboro and films would have wider repercussions. Hollywood was the center of the most popular films world-wide, but especially after the arrival of the talkies, national studios produced films for their constituents in their native languages, and dialects. Germany's Babelsberg had created some of the most important films of the silent 1920s, but continued into the sound era with “Three Penny Opera,” “Blue Angel,” and others. They continued to make startling films even after many from their film colony fled Germany for Hollywood. France and Britain were centers of the world's largest empires, and they both sought to quench the thirst for films about and in the languages of empire.

And on to the London stage, and shortly after, the British film stages, appeared the American All-American foot ball player from Princeton, valedictorian there, a man with a law degree from Columbia U. with a deep baritone voice he used to sing Negro spirituals amid his blossoming acting career. The Black American, Paul Robeson, would now star in British films about Africa. He would also befriend some of the extras in these movies, often young Africans studying at British universities. In this way Robeson encountered Nnamdi Azikiwe and Johnstone Kenyatta, and later in different contexts, Kwame Nkrumah and the Indian, Jawaharlal Nehru. It was the 1930s, the Scottsboro rape cases dragged on, and to publicize the injustice, a Scottsboro Defence Committee was organized in Britain, with 2 co-chairs: Paul Robeson and Johnstone Kenyatta.

In 1935 the Hollywood musical “Show Boat” would hit the screens. Robeson had been popular enough so that the character of Joe was written into the stage version and then the film version just for Robeson. He had played it on the New York and London stages, and now in the movie in which he sang “Old Man River.” In 1939 Robeson returned to the US, and in the early 1940s, starred in Othello, which proved to be the longest-running Shakespearean play on Broadway till that time (and that record may stand today). However, because of the Hollywood blacklist of Reds, when MGM remade “Show Boat” in 1954, Robeson the radical was replaced by another baritone. When Orson Welles produced a filmed version of Othello in 1951, the Moor Wells played was quite light skinned. A very black Robeson would have been as out of place in this production as his politics. A Soviet version of 1956 also de-emphacized the racial aspects of the play. In 1965 the British did make a filmed version of the play with a Black Othello, but the Black was Laurence Olivier in make-up. If Robeson was being denied movie opportunities because of the anti-red Blacklist, he was seeking for other opportunities.

When Robeson returned to America in 1939, he was quite popular. He sang a patriotic cantata, “What is America to Me?” (“The House I Live In” is the official title) on CBS to a wide audience. He was acting in Othello. And he was speaking to young Blacks recently organized as the Southern Negro Youth Congress (the first “snick”), which aimed to increase civil rights. (In 1949, SNYC would be placed on Pres. Truman's Atty General's list of subversive organizations.) During WWII Robeson's sympathies for the Soviets, who were fighting and finally defeating the German Nazis, was often warmly received. President Roosevelt rhimself eferred to Stalin as “Uncle Joe,” and FDR's Vice President, Henry Wallace, along with many others in FDR's administration were openly friendly to the USSR. For the presidential election of 1944 conservative Democrats demanded that FDR replace Wallace on the ticket, and after a struggle at the Democratic convention, Harry Truman won the nomination for vice-president on the ticket. Wallace was demoted to Sec. of Commerce. Soon after the election, Roosevelt died and Truman became president. Then VE day, followed a few months later by the atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities and the entrance into the war of the USSR; Japan sued for peace.

Billingsley points out, that the cold war began almost immediately. Billingsley connects the article by French Communist leader Jacques Duclos, echoing the thoughts of Stalin, that American CP leader, Earl Browder, had erred when he dissolved the CPUSA, and Browder was wrong when he implied that the friendliness of the wartime alliance would continue. Browder was ousted, and William Z. Foster, a hardliner replaced him as head of the American party. America was now viewed as incipiently fascist, and more determined Ccommunist struggle was required. So the Communist controlled unions in Hollywood looked for jurisdictional overlaps, where the red unions could push for open disputes with the non-communist organizations. The Cold War in Hollywood was evident by spring 1945 when the red-led CSU began a strike with picket lines to gain power in the film industry.

And in Europe, things were not returning to the pre-war era. Winston Churchill, who had led Britain throughout the war, was defeated at the polls by the Labour Party which discussed dismantling the British Empire! The chastened Churchill in 1946 visited the US and gave a speech asserting that an “iron curtain” had been thrust down by the Soviets, dividing Europe from Stettin to Triest. While many like Truman listened with interest, others like Sec. Wallace thought Churchill was simply trying to bolster the British Empire and promote rearmament at the expense of peace.

It was determined that the peace-loving Americans should take a stand, and to lead them, Henry Wallace showed his willingness. Truman fired Wallace from the Cabinet, and Wallace sought to create a new Progressive Party (PP), that would opposed the imperialisms of Britain, France, the Dutch, etc. It would strive for racial harmony, economic justice, even mild socialism. Above all, it would strive for peace with the USSR and hailed new “reform” elements fighting for power in China and elsewhere in Asia. To co-chair the new PP (which had the full support of the older, smaller, Communist Party, noted entertainer Paul Robeson accepted that post. The left-wing CIO unions supported Wallace, while the majority of the CIO stuck with Truman. Wallace gained the support of many civil rights organizations, the ILD, the National Negro Congress, SNYC, Robeson's Council on African Affairs, the Southern Conference on Human Welfare, etc. The NAACP, by contrast, had Democratic Pres. Harry Truman address its convention. When the only Black founder of the NAACP, W E B Du Bois, announced he was supporting Wallace rather than Truman, the NAACP fired Du Bois. With this purge, the NAACP essentially became a Democratic Party front group but it still pretends to be a non-partisan organization for tax purposes. Du Bois, openly Progressive, hostile to Western imperialism, supportive of anti-colonial revolutions, found that he was not even rehired at Atlanta U. The Progressive Party candidates campaigned in the South; it was the civil rights movement before the official movement. Many names of people involved in civil rights activities of the mid-1950s and 60s first came to prominence by partaking in civil rights connected with the campaign for Wallace and the PP. Even the enemies of civil rights. When PP Vice-Presidential candidate, Sen. Glenn Taylor visited Birmingham to campaign, he was scheduled to address a meeting of the SNYC, but Police Commissioner Bull Connor had him arrested when he entered the colored entrance of the building. Wallace, Taylor, Robeson were defying segregation laws when they campaigned in the South.

However, in November 1948 Wallace and the PP performed much below their expected vote (as did the anticipated winner, Thomas Dewey). Originally some thought Wallace might receive 5 to 8 million votes; he received only 1.1 million or 2.4%. Unions and organizations that supported the PP were now classified as subversive, and, especially in the South, jobs were lost. When Robeson scheduled a concert in a park outside of NYC, state troopers looked on as anti-Communists threw stones at the cars, blocking traffic, injuring many, and serving notice that Robeson, or any who sympathized with the Communists, would not be allowed to perform. The irony is that as Robeson thus began a period of isolation and lack of influence, blacklist, and denial of a passport, some of those whom he mentored were on the rise. Nkrumah was active in the Gold Coast, and when it declared independence from Britain in 1957, Nkrumah would become the first leader of the new nation of Ghana. Similarly, Robeson's friend, Azikiwe would soon be the leader of the new independent nation of Nigeria. It would take longer for Johnstone. He returned to Africa and was soon involved in a major uprising against British rule. But Johnstone, now known as Jomo, would give something back to the English – a new word, Mau Mau. When Hollywood made a film in 1957, “Something of Value,” it pitted 2 native Kenyans against each other – one, Rock Hudson, son of a white landowner, and the other, Sidney Poitier, a Black Kenyan who grew up on the land. Raised as brothers, they will end in a deadly struggle, one for Britain, the other for the Mau Mau. Of course, in the Hollywood film, the revolutionary Mau Mau leader looses. Yet, reality does not always follow Hollywood scripts. In time, Mau Mau leader Jomo Kenyatta would be recognized as the leader of an independent Kenya.  (In the 1950s and 60s, with the collapse of colonialism, most assumed that the newly independent nations would soon rise from the Third World to the prosperity and democracy of the First. However, for many of the new nations, independence would soon mean corruption, starvation, return to slavery, and slaughter.)

Just as Robeson had nurtured African students in Britain in the 1930s, the CPUSA had nurtured Black artists in New York and beyond. Richard Wright was encouraged to write by the CP, and included real Communists, like Mary Dalton, in some of his fiction. The party would review his books, help in finding publishers, etc. But by the end of WWII, Wright had turned against the CP, and one of his essays was included in the anti-communist volume, “The God that Failed.” Claude McKay had earlier left the CP for the Roman Catholic church. George Padmore had left the CP for a more Black Nationalist approach. C L R James, author of the important history of the slave rebellion in Haiti, was a Trotskyist, a heretic, and the CP sought to isolate and destroy his influence. But in New York there were those in the CP or close to it who would become influential – Lorraine Hansberry, Lena Horne, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier. Some of these would shoot to stardom with the Civil Rights Movement of the late 50s and 60s. Did the CP have such a group to encourage Blacks in Hollywood? I suspect they must have had special outreach for Blacks and Hispanics, but there is no mention of this in Billingsley.

There were 2 films “inspired” by the Scottsboro case, but they they were not produced until the 1950s, and the case was camouflaged to the point of distortion. In the Southern Gothic “To Kill a Mockingbird” (1962), which centers on the white attorney, appointed by a local Alabama judge, to defend a Black man accused of raping a white woman. Gregory Peck played the attorney. Alabama in the 1930s and long after was a segregated society. At one point, Peck must sit guard at the jail, as local townspeople want to lynch his client. With some ice breaking by his young daughter, Peck is able to get the crowd to leave, and leave his client alone. But there are threats against Peck, too, for defending the Black. Peck's skills in court readily expose the contradictions in the woman's story. But when on the stand, the accused Black admits that she kissed him when he had helped her chop wood, a taboo was broken. The Black was found guilty. Soon Peck is informed that when being transferred to another jail, the Black was shot dead while trying to escape. Soon thereafter, at Halloween, Peck's children, in costumes, are attacked, by one, and then another man intervenes to help them. The father of the accusing woman is later found dead in that area of the forest; presumably he was trying to harm the children, while a mentally crippled neighbor came to their defense and saved them. This was a good story, set in 1930s Alabama, but a long way from the Scottsboro case. Though the Harper Lee novel is often assigned in schools, though it avoids many of the issues raised by Scottsboro, it does show the difficulties of achieving justice in the deep South of the 1930s.

A closer rendition of the Scottsboro case was made earlier, in 1955, when “Trial” starred Glenn Ford. The scene is 1947 California and a Mexican, Angel Chavez, who attends the same school as an Anglo sees her on the beach and they talk. She has rheumatic heart problems, and when his hands wander onto her, she collapses, dies. Chavez is charged with felony rape and murder. As she was underage, even if she had consented, it would have been rape, and she died, so felony murder. The locals want to lynch the Mexican, but authorities assure the crowd he will be executed after his trial. Meanwhile, Ford, a professor of law, is now required to gain court-room experience to retain his teaching post. The naive professor is hired by a small law firm led by Atty. Castle to defend the young Chavez. Castle enlists Chavez's mother to help in raising funds for the cause. He even demands Ford come to New York to appear at a rally. It is a large rally for the Peoples Party (Progressive Party), and a W E B DuBois character makes a rare appearance in a Hollywood film – as the senile de la Farge who is to keep the crowd awake droning the party line before the main event and while most are still finding their seats. The cynics then make pleas for this cause and that. Angel Chavez's is a new cause, so Ford's speech and the mother's will bring in the cash. Ford is suddenly aware he is dealing with Communists. Castle's secretary explains that Castle's goal is not to save Chavez, but to maximize the publicity when he is convicted, to show the world America's murderous, racist judicial system. Too complex to reveal the maneuvers here, but to summarize, Ford is able to foil the communist plot by preventing Chavez's execution. Both films are quite interesting, but in one, there are no Communists; in the other the Communists are the villains. In reality, the Communists saved the Scottsboro boys from execution.

It is noteworthy that in the US, Hollywood has never produced a film directly about the Scottsboro case. It would be as unacceptable today to Hollywood values as it was in the 1930s, though for different reasons. The case was built upon the lies of 2 white women. But as early as the 1991 Senate hearings to confirm Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, and Anita Hill's allegations of sexual harassment against him, National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg assured listeners “Women do not make up stories.” In the era of “Me2!” women accuse, and men are considered guilty until proven innocent. For a man to challenge a woman on the issue, these days, only provides further proof of his guilt. Scottsboro is as politically incorrect today as it was in 1931.

Communists nurtured Black artists and intellectuals in the Harlem Renaissance and during the Depression in New York. Billingsley mentions nothing about such groups in Hollywood. I suspect they existed. Same with Hispanic groups. During the Progressive Party campaign of 1948 for the Wallace-Taylor ticket, there was a group organized, Bachelors for Wallace. Harry Hay, a Communist and a Progressive was a part of this. After the election, he wanted to organize a homosexual group. To do so he dropped out of the CP and founded the Mattachine Society, one of the first gay rights groups. While some communists might have welcomed such outreach, others probably deemed it more an embarrassment than an opportunity.

The point is, Billingsley fails to mention any of this kind of organizing in his book. He does mention several times the comedienne and actress Lucille Ball. But even this is deficient. When Ball registered to vote in California in 1936, she registered as a Communist. She did it again in 1938. Now, in Billingsley's volume, we learn that Lucille Ball was one of the first to cross the picket lines established by the communist run union the CSU in 1945. Billingsley also lists Ball voting in 1948 for Truman and the Democrats rather than Wallace and the PP. In 1951 “I Love Lucy” became the most popular program on television, and in 1953 members of HUAC quietly interviewed her at her home. She explained her grandfather had been a Eugene V Debs Socialist, and he was living with her in the mid 1930s and to keep the old man happy, she so registered. A party education program was held at her home, but she was not there at the time. Her husband said the old man might read editorials in the Daily Worker. Had she been a member of the CP, she would not have crossed the picket line in 1945 nor voted for Truman in 1948. Around 1953, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover pronounced “I Love Lucy” his favorite program.

But there is another aspect to the story. Lucille Ball is married to Desi Arnez, in real life, and in the comedy series. In 1948 when at least 30 of the 48 states forbid interracial marriages, there was Lucy and Desi. Most of the laws were to prevent black-white marriages, but in some states; Asian-white or Amerindian white. Most states had no category of Hispanics – they would be deemed black or white. Nevertheless, the Desilu production was pushing the envelop. Desi had a strong accent on the program. He did not look or sound regular American. And in an era when they could not even use the word “pregnant” on television, that couple was unique for the 1950s and long after. One of the surprises of when I moved to New York City in the early 1970s was encountering married, interracial couples. These were rare, so rare in I my experience, that I don't want to over-generalize, but in each case, the couples were Party members or in the Left-wing circles (and may have been in the Party when they married). Might the left-wing background of Lucille Ball have allowed her to open to the possibility of having a beau who was a Desi? Might that couple appearing weekly on the most popular television program of the early 1950s have changed the nation's attitudes on marriage?  Of course, in 1961 in Hawaii an interracial couple married, Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr.

When the Hollywood 10 Communists were blacklisted, they raised funds to create their own movie. With the help of a progressive union, Herbert Biberman directed the 1954 film, “Salt of the Earth,” about a union strike in New Mexico. When the miners of a zinc company are forbidden by a court injunction to man the picket lines, their wives “manned” the lines instead. This caused some marital conflicts, as the men thought it inappropriate for women to do the men's protest. Most of the strikers are Mexican Americans, and they believe they are not treated equally with the Anglo miners. Eventually, the zinc mining company negotiates with the striking miners. The International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, that had supported Henry Wallace in 1948 and was subsequently expelled from the CIO, sponsored the film. Paul Jarrico produced it. He is mentioned in Billingsley's book as one of the alleged Communists. Another blacklisted actress was considered for a leading role, Gale Sondergaard, the wife of Biberman, but instead the leading roles went to Mexican Americans. Most of the cast were non-actors, and some had partaken in the strike that formed the bases of the plot. The female lead, Rosaura Revueltas, was even deported. The film was blacklisted and few saw “Salt” in the 1950s. It was not Hollywood, but New Mexico. Yet, it was the Hollywood Party that made the film, and should have been discussed more by Billingsley. It also demonstrates the Party willingness to spotlight racial as well as class issues.

The Party also viewed “Salt of the Earth” as a pro-union response to Elia Kazan's “On the Waterfront.” Kazan had been a member of the CP in New York in the mid 1930s, but broke with it. And when called before the House Un-American Activities Committee after WWII, Kazan was a friendly witness and named the names of former comrades. Kazan went on to make some of the best films of the era (some would judge, of all time). The Communists and their supporters despised Kazan, not just in the 1950s, but decades later. Billingsley writes that the Academy Aware organization had a special program, Hollywood Remembers the Blacklist, some 50 years after the investigation of Communists in the film industry. In effect, it was a celebration of the defiance of the HUAC, a condemnation of “McCarthyism” (though the blacklist preceded Sen. McCarthy's investigations). At the event the elderly who had been blacklisted won applause, and major stars read some of the defiant statements of the blacklisted who had since died. Almost no one mentioned that the many of the (if not all) blacklisted had indeed been Reds. So by 1997 the blacklisted could feel vindicated.

Kazan also directed a labor film released in 1954, “On the Waterfront.” This concerns corruption in the International Longshoremen's Assn. (ILA), the union for dockers on America's east and southern coasts. In the film, a government crime commission is investigating the union, and Marlon Brando entices a worker into an ambush, and leaves. The union thugs, Brando thinks, are going to “teach the guy” a lesson, not to testify the next day. Instead of beating the dissident, the union squad kills him. Brando had been an aspiring boxer, but his brother, determined to make more money by betting against Brando, convinced Brando to throw the fight. Brando moaned lingering resentment to the brother in a car, “I coulda been a contender.” His brother works for the corrupt union boss. Brando meets and begins to fall for the sister of the slain docker, Eva Marie Saint. Karl Malden plays a priest who knows something is wrong on the docks and presents a terrific sermon on a ship. Brando tells the priest and Eva about his role in the death of her brother, ups, downs, another murder, beatings, Brando is shunned when word gets out he may testify. The priest gets Brando to testify and Eva reconciles, and though beaten up, Brando returns to work. Kazan said that this film was his justification for testifying before HUAC.

The left's hatred of Kazan, whom they deemed an informant, a snitch, a rat, was on display before a huge television audience. During the Academy Award telecast of 1999, the Academy presented Kazan with an Honorary Award, and while many stars in the audience stood and applauded like Meryl Streep, the legacy of the Left's hatred continued with some remaining seated, some standing and turning their backs to show their contempt for the many who would whistle blow on Communists. Among the dissenters – Nick Nolte, Ed Harris, and Ian McKellan. Kazan had directed numerous films, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Gentleman's Agreement, Panic in the Streets, Streetcar Named Desire, East of Eden, Splendor in the Grass, and many more. Many had received awards. One of the better parts of Billingsley's book is his contrasting the audiences of the 2 remembrances of the Blacklist era.

In the early 1930s the Communist movement was in one of its ultra-left periods, when it could have no alliance with Social Democrats because they were “social fascists,” and liberals were imperialists and defenders of oppression. However, events in Germany would revise the outlook of the Comintern. Assuming the appointment of Hitler as Germany's Chancellor in January 1933 would be short-lived, and the slogan, “Nach Hitler uns” (after Hitler, us) would be quickly fulfilled, events did not go as predicted. Following the burning of the Reichstag, Hitler was granted extra powers; he banned the powerful Communist party, organized concentration camps for dissidents, forced all unions into the Nazi approved organization, restricted the media, and prepared for rearmament. Stalin, viewing Germany as a potential threat, began a new policy for the Comintern, - to woo liberals; work together in the “popular front” against fascism and Nazism.

As part of the new Party strategy, the CP established the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League (HANL) in 1936. Billingsley describes its success in organizing rallies, relief efforts, producing radio programs, to expose the oppression of Hitler's regime. The HANL rallied protestors to condemn the leader of the Italian film industry when he visited Hollywood. This film chief happened to be Vittorio, the son of Benito Mussolini. The HANL also did what it could to demonize and blacklist (p. 70) another visitor, who was probably the most innovative woman in films in the 20th century. Her Olympic film is unsurpassed. But Leni Riefenstahl was a friend of Hitler, and arriving soon after the anti-Jewish violence of Kristalnacht, Riefenstahl's reception in Hollywood was less than spectacular. The HANL led protests against her.

Billingsley exposes the about faces of the American CP. Though CP leader Earl Browder scoffed at foolish reports in summer of 1939 that Stalin would make a deal with Hitler, after the deal was made, Browder quickly justified it. The CPUSA was no longer interested in anti-fascism, but anti-imperialism; the main enemies of the world's working class were no longer Hitler, but colonial and imperial nations like Britain, France, Belgium, etc. Although the HANL group had been extremely successful, even working with the local archbishop and with Jewish religious leaders, anti-fascism was now a hindrance. Stalin and Hitler were friends. So the Communist dominated HANL disbanded and elements were reprogrammed as the local chapter of the American Peace Mobilization, meant to prevent re-armament, and to prevent American from entering into any war on behalf of Britain or France. Because of Pres. Roosevelt's moves to aid Britain and entice the US into war, members of the APM picketed the White House with signs: “The Yanks Are Not Coming!”

During this period of German and Soviet non-aggression, there was considerable trade between the two powers. Many raw materials were shipped to Germany, which because of the British navy, could not be easily obtained elsewhere. The former foes sought to get along. After the fall of Belgium, for a time, the only legal political party in the small, German occupied nation was the Communist party. Billingsley reports: “During the Nazi-Soviet Pact the Communist Party was determined to prevent the United States from arming itself or its allies and it spearheaded strikes at defense industries,...(80) Yet Hollywood responded in a very biased way to the two tyrannies redrawing the map of Europe. Hollywood soon produced films about Nazi spies in the US and Nazi oppression abroad. The 1940 Hitchcock spy-thriller, “Foreign Correspondent” would win an Academy Award in 1941. There were also films dramatizing Nazi spies inside the US. But even during the Nazi-Soviet Pact era, Hollywood did not produce films showing Communist spies in the US. Nor were there any exposing the police-state tyranny that was the USSR. We have often heard that Hollywood is a dream factory. However, more important, it is our memory manufacturer. We may recall pictures in our minds from a newsreels or documentaries, but more likely, we will recall the incident with an image from a film that rouses our emotions, connecting that incident to us in the movie theater. So we recall, the Nazi spies of that era, both here and abroad. But there were no films made about the Soviet spies, and the far more influential Soviet agents of influence. There were a number of best-selling books in this era describing Communist spies; but none were transformed into films. The Trumbo crowd prevented such exposes of Communist perfidy. So, there are holes in our nation's memory, because those films were not made to remind us of important aspects to American history. (See Diana West's American Betrayal for her insights into this topic.)

In June 1941 Hitler attacked the USSR. The Comintern policy changed again. Now the CPUSA wanted the US to enter the war to help Stalin's domain. The American Peace Mobilization was suddenly the American People's Mobilization, and now the White House picketers demanded that Yanks be dispatched to Europe! In June 1941 the CP began to sound like other liberals – America should prepare for war and help those already fighting against the Nazi menace. The CP writers could now write war pictures, glorifying those who fought against Nazi oppression. And after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the US was officially in the war.

The Roosevelt Administration asked Hollywood for films promoting the Allied cause, and for some sympathetic to the USSR. Several such films were produced, the most famous based upon the diaries of Joseph Davies, Roosevelt's Ambassador to the USSR. “Mission to Moscow.” justified Stalin's attack on Finland in 1939, and it accepted the Stalinist view of the famous show trials in Moscow that old-time Party leaders, and leaders of the Soviet military, were German spies and Trotskyists. Billingsley includes the quip that the film might better have been titled, “Submission to Moscow.” “North Star” begins with everyone happily enjoying life on a collective farm with no scarcity in the USSR - until the barbarous German sneak attack of 1941.(89) These films were the exceptions, however, for most of the Hollywood glorified the American war effort, and Communists were doing their part in writing or acting to promote an Allied victory over fascism.

There are revisionist historians who argue that both the US and the USSR are responsible for the Cold War, or that the fault lies mainly with the United States. However, we may gain some insight into the origins by reading Billingsley's book. The Soviets controlled the CPUSA, and when in the 1920s the American leaders opposed Stalin's policies, those leaders were quickly removed from office and the Party. As the war in Europe wound down, Jacques Duclos, leader of the French CP wrote an article, undoubtedly at Stalin's behest, criticizing Earl Browder's leadership of the CPUSA. Browder had assumed the close friendly relations between the US and the USSR would continue after the war. Duclos warned that with the oncoming defeat of fascism, the US might take up its mantle; by contrast, the class struggle and the struggle to free colonial peoples would continue under the banner of socialism. When leaders of the American Party realized that Duclos was speaking for Stalin, Browder was expelled from the CPUSA, and a hard-liner, William Z. Foster replaced him.

Even before V-E Day and V-J Day, while war in the Pacific still continued, with the possible loss of millions of lives if the US would have to invade the Japanese home islands, in spring 1945 the Communists launched their effort to take control of the film industry. Hollywood was a dream factory, but Communists emphasized the factory and union workers aspect of the reality. Although there had been a no-strike pledge during the war, and though the war was still a very hot one in the Pacific with no end in sight, the Communist unions initiated labor disputes and jurisdictional conflicts with non-communist unions. On 12 March 1945 began the “Great Studio Strike,” (p. 93, 106) in which the Communist-led Conference of Studio Unions (CSU) took on the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IA). Herbert Sorrell led the CSU, while Roy Brewer, a “New Dealer with socialist leanings,” headed the IA. Sorrell could count on the help of a fellow Communist, (though kept secret at the time to avoid deportation) of Harry Bridges, leader of the West Coast dockers' union, the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen Union (ILWU). At times during this strike, Bridges provided Sorrell with muscle to insure that the CSU could win some of the picket battles. Also important for the CSU, a secret Communist was on officer of the National Labor Relations Board, so his rulings at time could sway things in favor of the CSU.

Sometimes there was considerable violence on the picket lines, and the CSU promised to boycott actors who crossed the lines. Despite the threats, John Wayne, Lucille Ball, Clark Gable, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart, Maureen O'Hara, and others all crossed the Red-led picket lines.(121) There was violence, but the stakes were high. If the Communists could control the Hollywood unions, they could exert enormous pressure to prevent the making of any “reactionary” films, while promoting “progressive” films and insertions of propaganda into general films. Billingsley spends considerable pages on this important strike, but the times were against the CP. When Congress began its investigation of Communism in Hollywood, initially, there was considerable push-back. But when the liberals began to realize that the accused probably were members of the CP, some like Bogart simply felt “used” by the radical groups pretending to be liberals.

The Communists lost the strike, and suffered from the Blacklist. Their hope to control the film industry through their unions failed. But 50 years later, when Hollywood Remembered the Blacklist, the CP stalwarts felt vindicated. When many in another audience disrespected Elia Kazan when he received another award, the CP may have assume it had won the battle in the long run.

Some aspects of Communist activities in Hollywood are unexplored in Billingsley's book. And some of these may have actually been beneficial to America. Others, for example, the films that were not made because the Communists vetoed them, blacklisting ideas deemed anti-Soviet, probably distorted America's national memory of the era. The Communists supported Stalin's expansion in Eastern Europe, Communist expansion in Asia, and anti-colonial movements in Africa. The American CP was subsidized by Moscow, and some members were more interested in advancing Soviet interests rather than America's. I think Kazan and others did the proper thing to name names of the Communists before the HUAC. The Blacklisted suffered, but ultimately, their suffering was on behalf of a cause that was murderous and tyrannical.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

JUDGING PEOPLE BY THEIR LOOKS


HOW TO JUDGE PEOPLE BY WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE
(2018: Edward Dutton) by EDWARD DUTTON
Rev. by Hugh Murray

Edward Dutton has written a short but disappointing book arguing that we do and should judge people by the way they look. The most obvious deficiency is the book's lack of an index. By omitting the index, it is more difficult for the reader to cross-check some of Dutton's seemingly contradictory claims. His bibliography may be useful, but is no substitute for an index.

There are typos and deleted words that sometimes make comprehension difficult to impossible. For example, in one paragraph, “...Dutton et al...has argued that until the Industrial Revolution were evolved...::Religiousness, it shows, it about 0.4 genetic.”(p. 73) On the previous page when discussing friendships of the opposite sex, Dutton writes, “...when it comes to opposite sex fiends, the male...”(72) Is this a typo, a Freudian slip, or Dutton's view of men who seek friendships with women?

Sometimes it is not the typos but Dutton's condensed, oblique writing that converts paragraphs into gibberish for the average reader. His description the meanings of the D2:D4 ratios (69) and how criminal faces differ from law-abiding folks (53) is murky.

In a short paragraph, Dutton raises many important issues. “It would follow that by 2018 almost 90% of the population of England wouldn't have existed in 1700; when the population was at its maximum for the agricultural ecology of about 6 million. And this 90% would be the mutants who would be lower in intelligence, lower in GFP (General Factor of Personality), and higher in criminality. So it makes sense that the criminals are more genetically diverse. Genetic diversity is a reflex of the collapse of Natural Selection.”(54) What Dutton ignores is the huge amount of immigration to England in recent decades by people from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, British West Indies, etc., and more recently immigrants from EU countries and beyond. Most of these immigrants – in the millions, have nothing to do genetically with the inhabitants of England of 1700. Beyond that, his argument is also suspect – that living standards rose slowly as did the height and intelligence of the people, geniuses developed new scientific and medical techniques improving the general health and welfare. In 1800 the child mortality rate was about 40%; around 1900, 10%; and today, 1%. The more likely child deaths of the past – the mutants, now survive instead. The mutants generally have lower intelligence and higher rates of criminality.(54, 74) But is this true?

However, in Dutton's presentation, this may not be a problem at all. “...the smarter you are the stronger will be your attraction to evolutionary mismatch...” and thus “in the modern societies, intelligence is effectively maladptation.”(68)

Dutton cites studies to buttress his argument throughout his book, but the number of people cited in each of the studies varies considerably. Thus, a study on p. 28 had a sample of 84; on 38, 20; on 41, 144 and 95; on 46, eight thousand; on 51, one thousand, six hundred sixty. How valid are studies with tiny samples?

Dutton avoids the politically correct attack on common sense that posits that race is simply a social construct. He observes 3 major races that have distinguishing characteristics, though not for each member of the group.

On one area his findings differ from those I read of years ago – left handedness. Dutton argues that a few lefties may be above average in intelligence in narrow fields like math, but overall, they are generally less intelligent than righties. Furthermore, lefties are less mentally stable and more prone to sexual deviancy.(70-71) I find it especially interesting in that to call someone “left handed” was once a euphemism for calling them homosexual. Is there a connection, and what might it be?

For some years I played soccer as a member of the New York Ramblers soccer club, the world's first openly gay soccer group. I find it strange that Dutton, a European, never raised the issue of left-footedness. Almost every male European, indeed, most males throughout the world will be aware of their footedness, because they all play football (soccer). Most Americans do not know their footedness. I played soccer with the Ramblers; I was not there to collect data as a social scientist. But players might want to play one position or another depending on if they were more adept with their right or left foot. Most of our players were right footed. Most of them were also right handed. I too am strongly right handed and footed. But there were a few who were left footed and right handed. At least one said he had been pressured as a child to become right handed. Today, discussing the issue with a dental student from India, as she was about to pull one of my teeth, said she was left footed, but as a child, she too had been pushed to become right handed. Back to the soccer team – some said they were not pressured, they were left footed and right handed. And there ere a few who were right footed and left handed. Presumably, no one would have pressured them to become left handed. Since often the handedness of the individual is an indication of the organization of that person's brain, handedness can be quite important. But does anyone consider footedness? Does this indicate a special brain organization?

I also taught at a university in China. I don't recall with certainty now, but I think there were no desks for left handers in all my class rooms (it is possible my memory is faulty, but if there were none, then only a very few). I don't recall any left-handed students there. Is it genetic or social pressure that seemed to produce an absence of left handers?

Dutton provides a short definition of intelligence – the ability to solve problems fast.(57) He places creativity as a subdivision of intelligence; I suspect this is incorrect. When discussing homosexuals and intelligence, Dutton thinks the more openness of gays to “strange or unusual ways of thinking,” will make them better at problem solving. I suspect that gays, Jews, and other minorities are more likely to think outside the box, and be more creative. But is this really a subdivision of intelligence?

Dutton informs us that larger pupil size indicates a higher IQ.(56) If I take drugs that increase the size of my pupils, will I become more intelligent? Certainly, many writers and artists have taken drugs and appear to believe it enhanced their creativity.

“On average, better-looking people are more intelligent.”(65) Yet, elsewhere Dutton asserts that in general women with large breasts and men who are noticeably muscular are less intelligent than the lesser physically endowed men and women. (He contrasts the K strategy, fast track people with the r-strategy, slower, more nerdy types)(40-44) However, many would deem the large breasted women and muscular men as more attractive. Contradictions.

Overall, Dutton's book is too condensed, seemingly full of contradictions and undeveloped theses. He does make one valid point – if we are pressed for time to catch a plane, which passerby will we ask for information? The unshaven man who smells like he has not washed for days and may be homeless? Or the man dressed as if he's about to attend a business luncheon? At that moment we will judge and act, our decisions based upon the person's appearance.

Sunday, July 22, 2018

TRUMP, PUTIN & THE CIA, past and present

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES:
THE TRUMP-PUTIN PRESS CONFERENCE IN HELSINKI, AUG. 2018;
AND THE RECENTLY RELEASED JFK ASSASSINATION FILES
by Hugh Murray

How could Pres. Trump indicate he would believe Russian leader Vladimir Putin over American intelligence agency reports over Russian meddling in the 2016 American presidential election? How could an American president think the Russians are more truthful than America's own Intel agencies? The New York Daily News gave its judgement of Trump the very next day in a banner headline: TREASON. Former CIA director under Pres. Obama, John Brennan also found Trump's conference in Helsinki with Putin to be treasonous. Former Sec. of State John Kerry deemed Trump's actions there disgraceful. Other Democrats found it shameful. Democrats and the usual Republican fellow-travelers, Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Rubio were equally strong in their condemnation of Trump. How could Trump be so skeptical of American Intel? Perhaps he has been reading some of the recent files that the Trump Admin. has opened to the public, and which the American Intel. agencies wanted kept secret for many more years.

Sometimes, Pres. Trump has had to compromise with this Deep State of Intel office holders against him. When it was time to open up the files on the JFK assassination to the public, CIA and other Intel agencies urged him to keep the files secret. Trump released some of them last year, and about 50,000 more in April 2018. But again, at the request of the Intel groups, some files remained secret.

Happily, Jerry Kroth has scanned many of the most recently opened JFK files. On a Youtube video of about 1 ½ hours, Kroth discusses some of the surprising findings among these files. Thus, in Europe in 2 separate locations, 2 American soldiers came across startling information. Both had security clearance, and both worked with cryptography. In Metz, France, Eugene Dinkin read messages stating that Pres. Kennedy would be assassinated in Texas on 28 November 1963. He heard several names associated with the plot: William Harvey, CIA recruiter of assassins; Guy Banister, then in New Orleans, FBI, CIA, staunch anti-communist; and Jean Souetre, French-Corsican hit-man. He wanted to warn Atty Gen. Robert Kennedy of the conspiracy, but worried that a letter would not reach the brother of the president. So, he left France for Switzerland, went to a UN press room and sought to reveal what he had discovered to the media. The American Army moved in quickly, returned him to France, and placed him in a mental instituion nearby until he could be returned to one in the US. He would be in such an instituion for several months.

David Christensen worked at a CIA listening base inside a RAF base in Scotland. In late October early November 1963 he too learned of the plot to kill Kennedy. When he told some of his fellow soldiers, he too was then discovered to be mentally insane and instituionalized for at least 6 months. Kroth asks, if they were simply nut cases, why were the files kept in secret for over 50 years? (Kroth Youtube video is called, “The Kennedy Assassination: What Really Happened? Beginning around 11 minutes into video. Also, 21st Century, Jerry Kroth, “The Released JFK File After Half a Century.”) [I certainly do not agree with him on everything, basically labeling Pres. Kennedy as mentally ill simply because he had 33 sexual liasons in a year while married. I am a nerd, and laugh when fellow nerds jealously condemn alpha males because they are successful at bedding many mates. Kroth seems almost as bad as the army that found Dinkin and Christensen mentally ill because they wanted to warn Kennedy about the plot! Would Kroth have sought to institutionalize Kennedy because of the number of his girl friends?)

In the 46th minute of the Youtube, Kroth discusses an important finding of the late Harold Weisberg. During a meeting of the Warren Commision, former CIA head Allen Dulles remarked that there had been reports of a document showing Lee Oswald was a paid FBI informant. Dulles adds, we took care of that; we destroyed it. The CIA was not only involved in the plot, it was involved in the cover-up.

In the 49th minute of the video, Kroth discusses a meeting in September 1963 in Dallas between a major CIA figure, David Atlee Phillips, Antonio Veciana (leader of militantly anti-Castor Alpha 66, and Lee Oswald. The audio is poor, but I think Kroth asserts that Phillips was paying Veciana over $270,000. (Meanwhile Oswald would soon land a job at the school depository building earning $1.25 and hour. Assuming Phillips was Oswald's handler, too, he must have been giving him some funds, but probably off the books. If there were any easy record, Allen Dulles would have sought to destroy them.)

On 19 April 1996 Marina Oswald Porter wrote to the AARB, the Assassinations Review Board with a number of requests. In one she notes that the FBI had prior warning of the assassination of Pres. Kennedy. This is from her letter:

The full particulars and original of the teletype received by Mr. William Walter in the New Orleans FBI office on the morning of November 17, 1963, warning of a possible assassination attempt on President Kennedy in Dallas. I now believe that my former husband met with the Dallas FBI on November 16, 1963, and provided informant information on which this teletype was based.” During the Garrison Investigation in New Orleans, Walter appeared on local television to discuss the teletype that warned of an impending attempt, but he said the message never seemed to go out on the national wire.

It does not come from the recent files, but a soldier was viewing the Kennedy procession in Dallas when he heard a shot fly by his shoulder and his left ear. He hit the dirt to get out of the way. He was standing on the grassy knoll, and thought the shots came from behind him. Gordon Arnold had taken some photographs, but police approached him and took them. He did not have to be assigned to a mental ward, because he was already under order to go to Alaska on the 24th.

The point of this is to emphasize that elements of American Intelligence were involved, crucially, in the overthrow of the elected government of the United States on 22 November 1963. And the hostility of some elements of American Intel to Pres. Trump is obvious. They sought to prevent him from becoming president, and they have sought to hobble him after he was elected. There is good reason for Trump to be skeptical of major elements of American Intel. Just think again about Dallas.

And though Kroth does not mention it in his video, Dallas was not the first CIA coup during November 1963. On 1 November the military in South Viet Nam began to move against its President, Ngo Dinh Diem. On 2 November, in a Catholic Church in Saigon's China Town, Diem called for help. The army promised to send relief. The armed vehicles came, but they were there to kill Diem, and his brother and advisor, Ngo Dinh Nhu was also killed. The CIA, which had supplied the rebels with money, could be happy with the new leader of government, Duong Van Minh. But as the victorious coup in Vietnam was being celebrated, the chatter on the secret encripted lines were already discussing another coup – in Texas later that same month. Two coups in one month led to a very costly war in SE Asia, and a disaster on the American home front. In November 1963 the CIA had a few problems. Two soldiers in Europe; problems solved when they are declared 2 coo-coos. Later two successful coups, and this history of America and Vietnam is changed. But for the better, or worse?

At the press conference that followed the Trump-Putin summit meeting on 16 July 2018, a correspondent asked Trump a pointed, difficult question. It went: according to Pres. Putin, the Russians did not meddle in the 2018 presidential election in the US, but according to all of the American intelligence agencies, the Russians did indeed interfere. Pres. Trump, whom do you believe? Russian Pres. Putin or American Intelligence agencies? This question put Trump on the spot – as the hostile media meant it to do. Should he call Putin a liar, or imply that American intelligence agencies lies? Put on the spot by the enemy media, Trump waffled. He did not really answer the question.

Trump's non-answer brought down an avalanch of hostile criticism. The American President should have supported American Intel and either implied or openly denounced Putin as a liar. Anything less was treasonous! Almost all Democrats denounced Trump in this manner. Many of the former “Never Trumpers” were trotted out for their daily TV comments, all to denounced Trump for caving to the Russians. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan and other pro-amnesty for invaders also had another opportunity to criticize Trump, also.

Pres. Obama's former head of the CIA, John O. Brennan, a man who had voted in 1976 for Gus Hall for president, the candidate of the Communist Party, USA, now unleashed increasingly vindictive comments to categorize Trump's performance in Finland. Brennan, in 2014, was criticized for allowing CIA operatives to hack into Congressional computers to gather information on Congressmen and their staffs. It was illegal, and tyrannical, but Brennan was head of the CIA under Obama. Indeed, Brennan may have be selected for that post because of his left-wing background. Obama had a mentor as a teenager in Hawaii who wrote for the CP newspaper on the islands, and who was a member of the American Communist Party. In Chicago, he was friends with former Weather Underground terrorists. Brennan, who had voted for the Communists, and who may have even been a Communist, was a natural for Obama to select to head the CIA.

In the 2018 election, there were some who saw Russian attempts to meddle. But under Pres. Obama, little was done. When the Democratic National Committee computers were hacked, the Democrats would not permit the FBI to examine those computers. The DNC had been involved in rigging the primaries for Hillary Clinton and against her challenger, Bernie Sanders, and Podesta and Rep. Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, Posesta preferred to hide their guilt away from FBI's. Indeed, W-S had hired a Pakistni who absconded the country with many of the files from the Democratic computers, and also files on many of their Congressional representatives.
During the campaign, members of the FBI colluded with Brennan and others using fake files paid for by the Hillary campaign, in order to plant spies in the Trump campaign. FBI leader James Comey during the campaign read to the press a long list of violations of law committed by Hillary Clinton with her private server, and then Comey, on his own, reinterpreted the clear words of the law to let Hillary off the hook. Other FBI agents asserted that they would not let Trump become president. Their hatred of Trump was clear, even toward his voters who had the stench of Walmart on them.

After Trump was elected Pres. In November 2016, to the shock of the liberal media and the American Intel groups, a new plot to prevent him from achieving the power of his office was plotted. When Trump rightly fired Comey, Comey reacted in a way hoping a special prosecutor would be appointed. Rod Rosenstein almost immediately appointed Robert Mueller to that special post. The media lauded Mueller, despite his ruthless past in twisting prosecuting into persecution. Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, all had a past together. And they would work to undermine and destroy Trump's presidency during the next 2 years.

They continue to do so. They now think calling Trump a traitor and tool of Putin will drive him from power. But will it? The New York Daily News that bannered the headline TRAITOR the day after Helsinki, one week later fired half its staff, as the newspaper declined. Some liberal network reporters are stunned when they interview Trump voters who remain Trump supporters after Helsinki. Americans will have a chance to vote for a new Congress in November 2018. I hope Trump will remain healthy for a long time, and despite calls for violence, there will be no replay of Dallas.

I am not asserting that the American Intel groups are the worst. Not at all. All powerful nations have intel agencies, some better, some worse. Ours is not the worst. Yet, it is time we realize these agencies were involved in the assassination of an elected president, and partook in the coverup, amounting to a coup. Most times, they can be law-abiding, but they can go rogue, they can lie about weapons of mass destruction and other things. They have overthrown at least one elected president! They can have utter contempt for the American people, even if we do smell of Walmart! The CIA can have a lean and hungry look. When Trump supports the US Constitution first, he champions the best of America. He should be wary of extremely powerful groups.