Saturday, December 3, 2016

THE VENONA SECRETS SADLY ARE STILL SECRET TO MANY

(To All, the part of this review concerning Steve Nelson is a repeat from another of my reviews, but the rest of this is original.-HM)

THE VENONA SECRETS: THE DEFINITIVE EXPOSE OF SOVIET ESPIONAGE
IN AMERICA (Regnery History, 2001) by
HERBERT ROMERSTEIN and ERIC BREINDEL
Rev. by Hugh Murray
            Why review in 2016 a book published in 2001?  Because there is need for another look at this important volume.  The main reason for that need is that schools, universities, and media, all ignore the explosive findings presented in this and in similar works.  Thus, Marquette U., founded as a Roman Catholic institution by the Jesuits over a century ago, in 2016 invited Angela Davis as a featured speaker for 2017.  Ms. Davis, once a prominent member of the Communist Party, USA (hereafter, CP) and who in 2014 sent greetings to that year’s CP convention, will not have to contend with opposition speakers invited to the platform.  Her usual fee for such speeches begins at $25,000 = a pittance compared to Hillary Clinton, but a sizable sum for a once most controversial figure, and one probably still very close to the CP.
            In November 2016 former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on Fox News praised the appointment of Breitbart News’s Stephen Bannon as President-elect Trump’s Chief Strategist.  Gingrich, who earned a doctorate in history from Tulane U. and who taught history himself at the university level, on television extolled Bannon’s appointment, and compared Bannon to FDR’s chief advisor for many years, Harry Hopkins.  Hopkins was so close to Pres. Roosevelt, he literally lived in the White House.  Had Gingrich read the Venona book, he surely would have avoided the Bannon-Hopkins comparison, because in Venona on learns that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet agent.
            One of the most popularly assigned books in high schools and universities is A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn.  Although Wikipedia quotes Zinn’s description of himself as an “anarchist,” “socialist,” maybe a “democratic socialist,” Robert McCain in The American Spectator argued that Zinn had been a member of the CP, at least beginning in the 1940s, that Zinn lied about his membership to the FBI, and he made clear that he would not identify any comrades he might have known.  This was his attitude in the early 1950 at the height of Stalinism.  Might such views be reflected in Zinn’s history of America – his most influential history of America, today?
            To reinforce a pro-Communist approach to American history, Public Broadcasting in some cities has shown “American Reds,” a 90-minute documentary on the American CP.  A distributor of the film reports it raises “a number of key issues concerning social change, idealism, ideology and the nature of our economic and political system…”  Bill Moyers deemed the film “an important addition to public television’s mission to throw light on obscured corners of our history…”  Moyers fails to expose how that film omits, distorts, and spins.  This is another reason why we should read, and re-read The Venona Secrets.
            Here is an example of how the Venona volume of 2001 can shed light on the pro-Communist propaganda spinning in the schools and on PBS-TV.
            One activist interviewed at length (perhaps more than any other in this film) was Steve Nelson, who was born in what is today, Croatia in 1903 to Hungarian parents.  He arrived in America in 1919, and was soon working in Pennsylvania slaughter houses and other non-professional jobs.  He looks and sounds like a typical American blue-collar worker.  For the documentary Nelson describes his efforts to organize laborers into various unions at times when unions were barely legal.  Nelson relates one incident when, after his  arrest, he was interrogated by police.  They beat him.  One hit his jaw so hard that Nelson passed out with that question.  A cartoon recreated the scene.  In the late 1930s Nelson, along with 3,200 other radical Americans, joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, part of the Communist-sponsored International Brigades to defend Republican Spain against Francisco Franco and his fascist rebels.  Nelson expresses sorrow at the loss of comrades who fell in the fight.  The narrator even interviews Nelson’s adult daughter, who remembers that as a child she was told not to discuss certain topics at home because the family was aware that their home was bugged.  No word is said, but the implication is – how horrible that in America children were not free to discuss things at home because the government was listening in.
            In the case of Steve Nelson, the government was indeed listening in.  But never does the documentary indicate what the government heard in Nelson’s Oakland abode.  Thanks to the release of various government documents, we now know, and thanks to authors like Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel (hereafter R & B), we can readily discover the workings of the Nelson household.  For example, in March 1943 the FBI bug revealed that Nelson met with atomic scientist Joseph Weinberg.  Nelson instructed Weinberg to gather and send him information from other Party members working with him on the atomic bomb project at the Univ. of California, Berkeley.  Nelson also told Weinberg to inform the comrades working there to destroy their CP membership books, and refrain from using liquor.(p. 255)
            In April 1943 Nelson received another visitor, a member of the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC.  The Soviet official instructed the America Communist to establish an espionage network in the American atomic program.  The Soviet counted out specific amounts of cash to fund the project, and told Nelson where he should place reliable Communists for this “special work” in conveying to the Soviets what the Americans were discovering in the US atomic program.(p. 259)
            When in 1980 Nelson was interviewed by two sympathetic academics, Nelson assured them, “I never had any links with Soviet espionage in the United States.”(p. 259)  And what about any such links in Spain?  Because of the release of the Venona documents, we now know that Nelson lied.  We have known this for over a decade.  But the 2016 documentary ignores Nelson’s treason to portray a poster-boy worker and sympathetic CP activist whose privacy was invaded by an oppressive FBI.
            If you read Venona you will learn that the Rosenbergs were not the only atomic spies.  That there was good reason to suspend the security clearance of Dr. Robert Oppenheimer in the 1950s, and wonder why it was not suspended earlier.  One learns of the power of Harry Hopkins, who lived in FDR’s White House, and that he was a Soviet agent.  Even Eleanor Roosevelt sought to close down the Venona project of recording and trying to decipher messages sent to the Soviets.  One learns that leaders of the American CP vetted members to find who would best serve as Soviet agents.  One learns of Soviet agents in the White House, the State Dept. the Treasury Dept., the Attorney General’s Dept., the Agricultural Dept. etc.  These agents probably hastened the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and delayed a possible German surrender to the western Allies in WWII by publicizing the draconian Morganthau Plan to turn a defeated Germany into a backward, impoverished, agricultural land.  One learns that Alger Hiss, of the American State Dept., received a Soviet medal on a trip to Moscow for his service to Soviet intelligence.
            And after reading Venona, one can conclude that the CPUSA was probably the 3rd most influential political organization in 20th century America.  It may have influenced the Communist take-over in China, the Korean War, and Soviet atomic bombs and industrial development as when an American CP member developed the first Soviet computer.
            While many on the Left stress the halcyon days of the popular front, the Venona volume reminds us of Communist rhetoric during the Hitler-Stalin Pact.  Thus, in 1940 Milt Wolff addressed a convention of the Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in Chicago, in which he damned President Franklin “Demagogue” Roosevelt as a “red-baiting, union-busting, alien-hunting, anti-Negro, anti-Semite.”(285) 
One cannot discuss the CP rallies, its skills and bravery in union organizing, and in defying segregation, etc., without discussing how American CP leaders took Moscow money, how the leadership scouted Party members seeking a right fit to place “reliable” Party members in “special work” to supply Soviet intelligence with information. 
Those Americans involved in spying for the USSR were so dedicated that “not one broke with Soviet intelligence as a result of the alliance with the Nazis.”(37)  Far from being just another left-wing party, the CPUSA provided a pool from which the Party leadership would recruit agents to serve Moscow.  “Although any American Communist would have been proud to have been chosen to spy for the Soviet Union, only a small number of Party members had the jobs or other qualifications that the Soviets needed.”(11)
 Here I think the authors exaggerate – if every Party member desired to spy, why bother to vet?  Part of the leadership’s duties was to choose only those willing to spy; and determine those who, if asked to spy, would not go to American authorities and expose the system.  One duty of the CP leadership was to keep the spy system hidden.  Even R & B admit few members of the CPUSA were directly involved in such activities.  Furthermore, if none of those already involved in spying quit because of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, that was not true of the general membership.  The CPUSA lost about one fourth of its members during that period.  The film ‘American Reds” notes that about one million Americans joined the CP at some point.  Yet, at its high points, the CP had only 100.000 members.  Not all Party members were spies-in-waiting.  During the popular-front period, some Blacks quit the Party because the Soviets were supplying Mussolini with oil in his invasion of Abyssinia.  While many left the Party with the announcement of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, some joined during this period because the CP was opposed to intervention in Europe’s wars and created the American Peace Mobilization.  Bayard Ruston, who would later organize the 1963 March on Washington, quit the Party when after June 1941 it abandoned its peace policy in favor of intervention against Nazi Germany.  A few years later Richard Wright quit the Party.  Of the million who joined at some point, perhaps 850,000 quit the CP because they disagreed with its policies.  I would suggest that 85% were not willing to mindlessly follow any orders given to them.  Clearly, not all members of the CP were so enamored of the Soviet Union.

Overall, Romerstein and Breindel have written a book as pertinent today as when it was first published in 2001.  It is a book needed to counteract the propaganda still emitting from the academy and the media.

Monday, November 21, 2016

WHY TRUMP TRIUMPHED!

ANN COULTER’S IN TRUMP WE TRUST
Rev. by Hugh Murray
            Ann Coulter’s most recent book was christened amid a storm.  On p. 3 she wrote, “…there’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven.  Except change his immigration policies.”  The very day following release of her book, adoringly titled In Trump We Trust, E Pluribus Awesome!, Trump seemingly changed his immigration policy!  A day or so later, Trump was again campaigning in his familiar style, “We are going to build a wall.  And who’s going to pay for it?”  “Mexico!”  Coulter could breathe more easily.
            This is not one of her deeper books, but Coulter does expose the media, and especially that which most required exposure – Fox News.  She discusses the actions of the Fox News “moderators” at the first Republican debate among the major presidential contenders.  The debate is memorable with one of the first questions coming from Fox’s Bret Baier, asking if the candidates would take an oath to support the eventual nominee of the GOP convention.  All raised their hands except Donald Trump.  His evasive response put him on the spot, especially with the Republican audience.  Then Megyn Kelly ripped into Trump by quoting his earlier remarks on various women.  Though Trump attempted to deflect the thrust by joking that all he was referring to was Rosie O’Donnell, Kelly pressed the women’s issue harder.  Coulter contrasts the grilling that Trump received, with the pass that the moderators gave to Marco Rubio.  Rubio had run for election as an opponent of amnesty for illegal aliens, but once elected, he joined the “gang of eight” in proposing an amnesty bill.  Rubio’s flip on this important issue was not deemed important enough to elicit a question by the Fox staff.  “Indeed there was no question but that Fox News was trying to take out Trump at that first debate.  One of the moderators, Bret Baier, later admitted as much…”(62)
            Coulter emphasizes, what made Trump’s candidacy stand apart from his 16 rivals for the GOP nomination was his stance on immigration.  The Democratic Party had long ago become a party of expanded immigration, especially after Sen. Ted Kennedy had led the fight for the 1965 Immigration Act.  That law effectively reversed American immigration policy set in the 1920s, which had greatly restricted immigration.  Major elements of the Democratic Partyat the time, like trade unions and the Ku Klux Klan, favored restriction.  Republicans, suspicious of the anarchists and Bolsheviks among the newcomers, also favored the restrictionist policies of the 1920s law.  However, in the more liberal 1960s, symbolized by the rise and martyrdom of two Kennedy brothers, it seemed natural that Sen. Ted Kennedy would become a major spokesman of the new immigration law that sought to end racial quotas of the old one.  In the debate for the 1965 law, Sen. Kennedy assured Americans that millions of immigrants would not enter New York each year, and the proposed legislation would not alter the ethnic population of the US (Kennedy’ assurance was similar to Pres. Obama’s decades later: - you can keep your doctor and keep your plan and save about $2,500 a year on your insurance with Obamacare).  Like Obamacare, the 1965 Celler-Hart immigration bill passed and became law.  Despite Kennedy’s assurances, the 1965 greatly changed the racial and ethnic composition of the US.
But America was changing in other ways too.  While trade unions remained a major constituency of the Democratic Party, the unions were changing.  As trade policies caused the closing of ever more factories, the high-wage union jobs in those factories evaporated over the years.  The factory belt became the rust belt, and a depressed belt.  Those unions had usually opposed widespread immigration realizing that it would depress their wages.  The law of supply and demand meant that vastly increasing the numbers of low-skilled workers meant lower wages.  But members of those unions were in decline due to trade policies.  Meanwhile, the unions that grew were often those for government workers, teachers unions, office workers, and service workers.  Many more of these were ideologically on the left, and some were illegal aliens themselves.  By the 1990s, union leaders changed their positions and became favorable to immigration and in line with the general thrust of the Democratic Party.  They also hoped that these new Americans would vote Democrat once they became citizens (if not before).
            Meanwhile, in the Republican Party, while many on the ground level were not happy about the changes they saw in “Dial 1 for English,” different languages, customs, religions, there appeared no intensity on the issue.  The media comforted their fears showing how the immigrants were really just like us.  And Republican businessmen were quite happy to have more potential workers to compete for lower wages.  Farmers found this to be a good solution too.  Though Republican Pres. Eisenhower had permitted a round-up and deportation of many illegal Hispanics in the 1950s, Reagan actually signed an amnesty for about 2-3 million illegal aliens.  In theory, the Reagan approach was a compromise, a one-time amnesty followed by strict border controls.  The amnesty happened, but no one was willing to enforce strict border controls.  So now we had what is said to be 11 million invaders in the nation.
While some Republican aspirants for the nomination spoke of roads to citizenship, paying taxes, some minor penalties, they all amounted to amnesty for the invaders.  Jeb Bush, who had raised over $100 million for his campaign chest, was considered the presumed nominee by many.  To Jeb, the invader is not committing a crime by entering the nation illegally; he is committing “an act of love.”  The Bush family is married into one of the wealthiest families of Mexico.
Into the fray of 17 Republican aspirants for the Presidential nomination, only Trump made it emphatically clear, he planned to end illegal immigration.  And he said it in a most politically incorrect manner – he would deport the Mexican drug dealers and rapists.  The media were horrified, as was most of the GOP political flock.  But Trump rose in the polls.
Coulter presents (162-63) a case of how immigration costs America – a case one would never see spotlighted on the major TV networks.  A Mexican illegal had 13 children, and all receive welfare and other services that American citizens must pay for to support them.  The parents have been in the US for over 20 years, but neither they nor their teen-age children speak English.  Our taxes must support the translators too.
Coulter is also excellent at exposing how the major media cover up for Muslim terrorists.(134)  “While at Walter Reed Medical Center, Major Nidal Malik Hasan gave what was supposed to be a medical lecture on how non-Muslims should be decapitated, set on fire, and have burning oil poured down their throats…He shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ before gunning down soldiers at Ft. Hood.”  Yet, Pres. Barack Hussein Obama’s Administration concluded Hasan’s shooting and killing was a case of work-place violence – not Muslim terrorism – and the major media went along.  Coulter provides other examples of the liberal media attempt to obfuscate, distort, lie, excuse, anything but admit to the real threat of Muslim terrorism in the US.  Coulter quotes Jeh Johnson, Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security (143-44) on why the US cannot ban Muslim immigration.  Coulter’s point – without a ban (or proper vetting, which is currently impossible in areas like Syria), we will be importing more terrorists.
Coulter’s final chapter, “Geniuses,” is a compilation of quotations by media figures revealing why Trump’s race for the nomination is a joke, why he is a clown, why Trump has no chance, why he cannot win, etc.  Coulter exposes the bias and errors of the media.

Coulter includes a share of her funny zingers, but she does not include an index.  Her book provides readers with insight into why Donald Trump won the GOP nomination in the summer of 1916 and the Presidential election later that fall. 

Saturday, November 12, 2016

AMERICAN REDS - DISTORTED DOCUMENTARY

“AMERICAN REDS” – Documentary or Distortumentary?   Shown on PBS 2016
Rev. by Hugh Murray
            The American Communist Party is probably the 3rd most influential political organization of 20th century America.  In October 2016 Milwaukee Public Television telecast a 1 ½ hour documentary produced and written by Richard Wormser.  Its scope was to cover the history of the Communist Party, USA, from its origins at the end of WWI up to the late 1950s and beyond.  Over a million Americans at some point joined the American CP (hereafter, for Communist Party), and the organization had considerable influence on many areas of American life in the 1930s and 40s.  Interviewed are party activists and leaders, some of whom died several years before the film project was completed.  Also interviewed were historians, interspersed with headlines of the day, magazine covers, posters, old newsreels, and even occasional cartoon recreations of incidents described by the participants.  By 1960 it was estimated that the CP had only 10,000 members, and many of them were undercover FBI agents.
            The filmmakers hope that this documentary will be used in schools and universities to help enlighten students about the CP.  I contend that the CP was among the most influential political organizations in American history, which greatly altered American life and world affairs.  But I also maintain that the Wormser documentary distorts history and is essentially dishonest about major aspects of the incredibly influential CPUSA.
            One activist interviewed at length (perhaps more than any other in this program) was Steve Nelson, who was born in what is today, Croatia in 1903 to Hungarian parents.  He arrived in America in 1919, and was soon working in Pennsylvania slaughter houses and other non-professional jobs.  He looks and sounds like a typical American blue-collar worker.  For the documentary Nelson describes his efforts to organize laborers into various unions at times when unions were barely legal.  Nelson relates one incident when, after his  arrest, he was interrogated by police.  They beat him.  One hit his jaw so hard that Nelson passed out with that question.  A cartoon recreated the scene.  In the late 1930s Nelson, along with 3,200 other radical Americans, joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, part of the Communist-sponsored International Brigades to defend Republican Spain against Francisco Franco and his fascist rebels.  Nelson expresses sorrow at the loss of comrades who fell in the fight.  The narrator even interviews Nelson’s adult daughter, who remembers that as a child she was told not to discuss certain topics at home because the family was aware that their home was bugged.  No word is said, but the implication is – how horrible that in America children were not free to discuss things at home because the government was listening in.
            In the case of Steve Nelson, the government was indeed listening in.  But never does the documentary indicate what the government heard in Nelson’s Oakland abode.  Thanks to the release of various government documents, we now know, and thanks to authors like Diana West, Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel (hereafter R & B), we can readily discover the workings of the Nelson household.  For example, in March 1943 the FBI bug revealed that Nelson met with atomic scientist Joseph Weinberg.  Nelson instructed Weinberg  to gather and send him information from other Party members working with him on the atomic bomb project at the Univ. of California, Berkeley.  Nelson also told Weinberg to inform the comrades working there to destroy their CP membership books, and refrain from using liquor.(R & B, The Venona Secrets, p. 255)
            In April 1943 Nelson received another visitor, a member of the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC.  The Soviet official instructed the America Communist to establish an espionage network in the American atomic program.  The Soviet counted out specific amounts of cash to fund the project, and told Nelson where he should place reliable Communists for this “special work” in conveying to the Soviets what the Americans were discovering in the US atomic program.(p. 259)
            When in 1980 Nelson was interviewed by two sympathetic academics, Nelson assured them, “I never had any links with Soviet espionage in the United States.”(p. 259)  And what about any such links in Spain?  Because of the release of the Venona documents, we now know that Nelson lied.  We have known this for over a decade.  But the 2016 documentary ignores Nelson’s treason to portray a poster-boy worker and sympathetic CP activist whose privacy was invaded by an oppressive FBI.
            The documentary shows old newsreels of American CP leader Earl Browder addressing large crowds at Party conventions.  The narrator even interviews Browder’s granddaughter.  What the filmmakers overlook is that Browder, leader of the CPUSA from 1931 until 1945, was also vetting American party members to provide spies for Soviet intelligence agencies.  Even after Browder’s expulsion from the CP (when French CP leader Jacques Duclos wrote criticizing Browder’s policies, undoubtedly at the behest of Stalin), Browder continued his connections with the Soviet spy groups.  But expelled from the CP as a heretic, he quickly lost his old dentist, his accountant, and others.  Clearly, they were members of the CP.  Realistically, the CP was like a cult, and anyone expelled, any heretic, was to be shunned, ostracized, smeared.  Of course, in the USSR, heretics were gulaged or executed.  While the film stresses the pressure on Communists during the McCarthy era to quit the Party and become “regular Americans,” it does not emphasize enough the same  conformist pressure by the CP upon its own members to be politically correct (a phrase invented by the Communist movement), and avoid all heresy and heretics.
            In their book on the Venona files, Romerstein and Breindel  drew conclusions relevant to Browder and all CP leaders.  Breindel and Romerstein write: “It might have been ‘common sense’ not to use CPUSA members and leaders in espionage, but that is precisely what happened.  Venona shows that most of the agents working for the NKVD during WWII were members of the Communist Party, some were Party officials.  The top leadership…not only was aware…but it also provided the Party members to the Soviets.”(259)
            The telecast does mention espionage and the anti-Communist feeling that rose following WWII.  But the filmmakers de-emphasize the former while exaggerating the latter.  Just watching the film, one might conclude that the Rosenbergs were executed in 1952 because of anti-Communist hysteria.  The narrator interviews Bettina Aptheker, daughter of Herbert, who was a prolific author, noted historian of Black history, and fierce defender and open member of the CP.  Bettina tells the camera she recalls how her parents took her – she was about 8 - to Union Square where she thought about 100,000 stood, hoping there would be a reprieve for the convicted atomic spies.  But when news of their electrocutions rippled through the crowd, she saw her father cry for the first time, and her mother turned ashen.  But we now know the Rosenbergs were guilty.  They were convicted, and, even in our Constitution, the punishment for treason is death.  So why the emotions?  Did the crowd really believe the Rosenbergs innocent?  Or did they believe it was moral and proper to give atomic secrets to the Soviets?  And therefore, the Rosenbergs should not be punished.
            What is missing from the film are the conclusions of historians like Breindel and Romerstein, based on revelations of the Venona codes and the opening of some files in Moscow.  The R and B interpretation is far less flattering to the American CP.  Those authors maintain that the American CP, like all CPs, was established with a legal and an illegal organization, and that the Soviets were to use the various CPs to recruit those who could provide intelligence and/or those powerful enough to influence major decisions to favor Soviet policy.  This very important aspect of all CPs tends to be skipped over in Wormser’s docufilm, except when discussing anti-Communist hysteria.
            This documentary is more influenced by the title of Vivian Gornick’s 1979 book, The Romance of American Communism.  The film dwells on struggles to organize unions and build the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the struggle to save the Scottsboro boys and end lynching of Blacks in the South in the 1930s, the struggle to prevent evictions during the Depression with the Unemployed Councils, the struggle for higher wages, for women’s rights to equal pay, even to help consumers through a consumers’ union.  By the mid-1930s, the CP often led groups in the fight against fascism, opposing Hitler’s expansion, opposing Franco’s rebels in Spain, opposing Mussolini’s invasion of Abyssinia.  The American CP helped fill the Lincoln Brigade in Spain.  But with Franco’s victory, Italy’s victory, the Western appeasement of Hitler at Munich and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, Stalin had second thoughts.
            In August 1939 The non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union was signed.  Thereafter, the Communists maintained the chief threat to peace came from the imperialist nations, Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, all with empires.  Germany and the USSR would be peaceful neighbors.  Of course, in September 1939 Germany invaded Poland from the West with its blitzkrieg, and a few weeks later the Soviets invaded from the East.  Soon after, there was no more Poland.  And the non-aggression pact allowed Stalin to aggress against Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and part of Romania.  The Wormser film skips over this period when the American CP suddenly opposed Pres. Roosevelt and his pro-Allied, pro-war policies.  The Almanac Singers with Pete Seeger sang, mocking those who feared Japanese “spies.”  For the film to stress the CP’s opposition to war during this period would tarnish the image of the CP as a leader in anti-fascism.  So the film ignores the CPs attacks on Roosevelt, Churchill, and American re-armament.  When Hitler’s Germany led a European attack on the USSR in summer 1941, the CP changed its line overnight.  One day the Communists were picketing the White House with signs, “The Yanks Are Not Coming,” and the next day they were urging FDR to intervene in the European war against Nazi Germany.
            Strangely omitted from the documentary is one of the most important and lasting of the CPs contributions to American society.  This was the Progressive Party (hereafter PP) campaign of Henry Wallace for President in 1948 – especially its campaign in the South.  I have argued elsewhere that the PP of 1948 was the civil right movement of that decade.  The campaign manager was Paul Robeson, a Black who had been an all-American football player at Rutgers in the 19teens, an attorney, a baritone soloist, a star of several British films, and finally a star of Broadway playing Othello.  In the early 1940s, he was one of the most famous Blacks in the US.  He encouraged young Blacks in the South to change things through organizations like “snick,” the Southern Negro Youth Congress.  In 1948 at a SNYC conclave in Birmingham for the PP, Police Commish. Bull Connor arrested the VP candidate of the PP, US Sen. Glen Taylor of Idaho, because Taylor entered through the Negro entrance of the building.  Henry Wallace himself, a former VP under Pres. Roosevelt, campaigning in the South that year, refused to speak at segregated venues.  When he spoke at open-air rallies,  Wallace was sometimes greeted by segregationists hurling rotten tomatoes.  W E B Du Bois, a founder of the NAACP decades before, was a prominent supporter of the PP.  When he made his view public, the NAACP fired him, and thereafter that organization essentially became a Democratic Party front- group.  The PP made strenuous efforts in the South to get Blacks registered to vote and even run for office.  Many of the names promoting the PP in the South would re-emerge a decade later, people like Daisy Bates.  This does not mean that all involved in the PP campaign were Communists, but the CP provided many of the resources and skills for the new PP.  These included what the Truman Administration would label as front groups, like the SNYC, the Civil Rights Congress, the Southern Conference on Human Welfare, etc.  Most of these organizations would dissolve by the early 1950s because once on Truman’s Attorney General’s list of subversive organizations, members could be fired, isolated, and persecuted.
But some of the people who were Progressives would emerge again in the next decade or so.  Everyone knows the story of Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott.  But few are aware that she trained to protest before she refused to yield her seat on the bus.  Parks had trained at Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, which was a popular-front institution.  Communists were welcome.  Indeed, photos were taken of leading Communists with Parks and others at the school like Rev. Martin Luther King.  King would later hire a Communist in King’s Southern Christian Leadership Council, and King was very close to Stanley Levison, whom the FBI assumed was a financial leader and secret member of the CPUSA.  And “snick” was reborn as the Students Non-violent Co-ordinating Committee (now SNCC).  Why does the film eschew discussion of an area where the CP did contribute to American history?  I suspect Wormser did not want to tarnish the image of the civil rights movement.
The liberal historians interviewed for this film obviously dislike Sen. Joseph McCarthy.  These historians give credit to liberal Democrat President Harry Truman  for purging Communists from the federal civil service.  But Truman, and Republican Dwight Eisenhower, both invoked Executive Privilege to expand Presidential powers and deny important records to Congressional committees like that chaired by Sen. McCarthy, investigating Communist influence in government.  The committees were denied access to files that might have provided evidence of treason in the government.  Denied the essential information by Presidential decrees, Congress was frustrated in its investigations, and sometimes Communist agents continued to operate and foil American policy objectives.  Truman and Eisenhower were more determined to expose and fire whistleblowers who were talking to McCarthy’s investigators than in weeding out and firing Soviet agents in the Federal bureaucracy.  Despite Harry Truman’s assurance, Alger Hiss was no “red herring;”Hiss was a Soviet spy.    Eisenhower deflected criticism by firing some 1,200 “security risks,” but almost all were homosexuals; very few if any were engaged in treason.  Truman had used this tactic on a smaller scale.  Furthermore, McCarthy and his aides, Roy Cohn and David Schine, were pilloried by the “tolerant” liberal media, and in Congress itself, liberal Republican Sen. Flanders of Vermont, made a speech comparing McCarthy to Hitler and clearly implying that the Wisconsin Senator and Cohn and Schine were all homosexuals.(M. Stanton Evans, Blacklisted by History, 586)
Were there decisions made in the US State Dept. and Treasury Dept. and possibly other departments by Communists that effectively denied financial and military aid to the legitimate government of China under Chiang Kai-Shek?  Some in the American bureacucracy demanded that before Chiang receive US aid, he would have to join in a coalition government with Mao and the Communists.  Chiang had once tried that, and was determined not to do so again, believing it would inevitably result in a Maoist take-over.  Thus, while the US did little to help Chiang’s Nationalists, at the same time, Stalin was providing materiel to Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communists.  Might the outcome of the Chinese civil war have been different had the US aided Chiang more?  And the related question, might the outcome have been different had there been a purge of Soviet agents from the American State  and Treasury Departments?
At the trial of the Rosenbergs, Judge Irving Kaufman declared that their treason in providing American atomic secrets to the Soviets made the Korean War possible.  There is no doubt atomic spies in the West hastened the development of Stalin’s bombs.  And once he had the atomic weapon, Stalin acceded to North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung’s request to invade the southern half of the peninsula.  A bloody war ensued, a war that might not have occurred if Stalin had not developed (with help from Western spies) a Soviet nuclear weapon.  The Korean War, was a consequence of treason by Western Communists like the Rosenbergs.
A greater purge of Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Branch might have prevented the collapse of Nationalist China on the mainland.  But far from helping, in 1950 Trumans’s State Department urged the assassination of Chiang Kai-Shek!  Indeed, there were 2 plots by the Americans to kill Chiang earlier during WWII under Democrat Pres. Roosevelt.   (M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein, Stalin’s Secret Agents, 153-54)   The old Republican question of “Who lost China?” was not merely political rhetoric.
Communists did try to alleviate the suffering of the Great Depression.  The Unemployment Councils did stop some evictions.  The International Workers Order did help immigrants adjust to American life, while providing insurance policies.  But the CP- dominated IWO also acquired the names, places and dates of birth of its members, and some of this information was later used by Soviet intelligence.  The CIO encouraged unions beyond the narrow skilled and craft organizations of the AFL, and millions of workers benefitted as a consequence.  And the head of the CIO, Miners’ union chief John L. Lewis, credited Communist organizers in forging the CIO.  The CP not only saved the Scottsboro boys, its methods of combining a good court-room defense with agitation and propaganda outside the legal arena, led to two important US Supreme Court victories in the 1930s – when the high court was quite conservative on racial issues.  Moreover, the CPs approach would be adopted and is now commonly followed in today’s racial disputes.  The CP efforts to end segregation and gain civil rights are probably its most successful effort in America.  But its most successful activities internationally were its supplying information to Stalin’s dictatorship.  The atomic spies – and Steve Nelson should be included among them – changed the balance of power in world politics.  It is possible Communist operatives in the American State and Treasury Dept.s helped Mao and Communism win China – another change in the world balance of power.
The American CP vetted its own members to find who could best serve Soviet intelligence agencies.  (They did not have to be atomic scientists.  during WWII, the American Ambassador to the USSR, William Stanley, was stationed in Moscow.  At one point he discussed his views on the USSR with a group of American journalists working in the Soviet capital.  He complained that American aid to the Soviets was being repackaged so Soviet citizens did not know the goods were coming from America.  They were packaged to appear as Soviet-made goods.  Among the American journalists to whom Ambassador Stanley confided was Janet Ross.  Stanley had no idea that Ross was also a member of the American CP.  He revealed his suspicion of Stalin; she forwarded the information to the Sovets who relayed it to the American Reds, who got the word to an operative in Roosevelt’s White House.  Within a few weeks Ambassador Stanley was no longer the American Ambassador to Moscow.[R & B, 441-44] )  It was not all spying; it was also using influence, not to promote American interests, but to expand those of the Soviets.
One cannot discuss the CP rallies, its skills and bravery in union organizing, and in defying segregation, etc., without discussing how American CP leaders took Moscow money, how the leadership scouted Party members seeking a right fit to place “reliable” Party members in “special work” to supply Soviet intelligence with information.  According to Breindel and Romerstein, in the decoded Venona files, when the NKVD refers to an American Red, the NKVD calls the Communist a “countryman.”  By its own terminology, American Communists were no longer “Americans,” but fellow countrymen of the Soviets.  Though Americans, their loyalty was then to the USSR.  This is not really explored in the Wormser film.
The film has been shown on Public Television, and First Run Features advertises the documentary, emphasizing its educational value.  Here are some of the fields that might be interested in the film:” - Educational Interests- African-American StudiesAmerican StudiesBusinessCivil RightsCold War EraCommunicationConflict ResolutionEconomicsGlobalizationHistory (U.S.)History (World)Human RightsJewish StudiesLabor StudiesLaw & Legal StudiesLiteratureMedia StudiesPhilosophyPolitical ScienceReligionUrban StudiesVietnamWorld War II.
The advert continues:” Professors of both U.S. and social history will find a valuable teaching tool in American Reds. The program provides a perspective on the past that few Americans are aware of while raising a number of key issues concerning social change, idealism, ideology, and the nature of our economic and political system that continue to remain vital issues in contemporary America.

"'American Reds' is a valuable primer into the tragic turn of events that betrayed the hopes and aspirations of everyday working people during the great confrontation between capitalism and communism in the early 20th century. It's an important addition to public television's mission to throw light on obscured corners of our history and on the forgotten people lost in the shadows." - Bill Moyers
        I totally disagree with Moyers and the website’s ad.  Unfortunately, this documentary distorts, omits, spins.  It omits information that has been available since at least 2002.  This film should NOT be used in classes unless there is additional material or lecturers to counter the film’s one-sided, dishonest presentation.  Not only is the documentary about American Reds, it is an example of American Red propaganda.  Wormser’s film is not a documentary, it is a distortumentary.



Saturday, October 29, 2016

A MUGGY HALLOWEEN


Saturday afternoon, 22 October 2016, in Milwaukee turned into a glorious afternoon - the gloom of the morning was replaced by bright sun.  I left my flat around 3:30pm to walk about 4 blocks to the nearby Starbucks.  I had a backpack on my back, which held a heavy book, a scarf, and other clothing in case it was coldside in the cafe.  I normally walk a certain path, but the usual was shaded, so I took a sunnier, tho slightly longer way.  It is all by Marquette Univ. and pleasant, though because the university classes were on short break, and many students traveled away, so very few people were on the the usually crowded sidewalks.

On the sunny side, I could see a young man approaching me, but walking directly toward me, even tho I was on the right side of the sidewalk.  Generally, in the US folks walk on the right, just as they drive on the right side.  Rather than have a confrontation,  I moved to the left.  He mumbled and asked something.  Many men live in a nearby homeless shelter, and often ask passers-by for money, which I never give.  But he asked where a certain street was.  I pointed south with my finger, and he asked if I would show him.  I said he could get to that street if he turned left at the next corner, and he decided to walk with me that half blockto the next corner.
.
Suddenly he moved very close, placing his left arm above my backpak and round both my shoulders while simultaneously jamming something in his right hand into my belly.  "Give it up or I'll pop you."   I've taught British English and American English, but I do not know criminal English.  I assumed he meant, give me your wallet or I'll shoot you.  But the object in my belly did not feel like a gun.  It was hard and thin, red with small metal circles on it, with perhap a knife inside it.

We struggled.  I was able to shove his hand with the slim object away from my stomach and above our heads, but he got his right hand free from mine and hit me hard.  I fell, trying to pull his dredlocks as I wnt down, and pull him down too.  But my hand did not close round his bleached locks, so he had more of an advantage. I went down.  More punches and struggle.  I was also yealling, “Help!”  He was trying to get into my pocket.  Then I heard a male voice shout, "He's a police," and the thief scrambled to get up and into a waiting car, as a Marquette Univ. policeman and several others rushed to the scene.  The thieves rode off.

 I got up and could see little with blood covering my eye.  I had retained my wallet, and now gave it to the policeman to show ID.  An ambulance came for me and rode me to a nearby hospital.  I received a cat scan, got stitches round my left eye, and was nauseated because of blood dripping from my sinus into my stomach.  But no one would give me water because of the operations.  Instead, I was given crushed ice.  A detedtive from the Milwaukee City Police force interviewed me about the mugging, and even showed me a number of pictures of possible perpetrators.  I was unable to identify any of those shown as the culprit.  The doctor who stitched me up was from Vietnam, a boat person, and we chatted about Saigon.  But he was not able to stitch my eyelid, - that required a specialist =- so I had to be transferred to another hospital for that procedure.  The other hospital was out in the suburbs.  Into another ambulance and more nausea.  It was about midnight when I arrived.  Waiting, more crushed ice, more waiting.  The doctor and a helper stitched the area beside the eye.  Around 4 am a police van drove me back to my apartment building.  I took a pill and slept until about noon Sunday.

The thief got no money from me.  But I face medical bills.

            It was probably a random attack.  But in Starbucks I do show a bookmark stressing Trump (which is not popular in this neighborhood).  Compared to the several shootings over the past month in Milwaukee, my encounter was minor.  But this is Obama's America, where he has made the police into the enemy, and defended the violent criminals.  The result - more violent criminals.

            Sunday afternoon, I woke and decided to wear the very same clothing and go to Starbucks and read – do what I had planned to do the previous day.  I purposely walked by the very spot of the mugging, and saw my blood on the pavement, and knew for certain now in front of which business the mugging occurred.  
 
            I entered Starbucks with my half-closed eye, my black/blue eye area, my stitches, and, on my light green sweat shirt, a large blood stain.  When the servers looked at me, I stressed that I was simply wearing my Halloween costume early

Hugh Murray.

Monday, September 26, 2016

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – ANOTHER LOOK

By Hugh Murray
            [This is a discussion of James E. McClellan III and Harold Dorn’s Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999]
This is not a traditional review, certainly not typical of my controversial discussions of books.  I came to this book because I was confused by several other works I had recently read.  I enjoyed reading Ian Morris’s Why the West Rules – For Now, and reviewed it.  Though he expands his history to include much of the world, his approach to Western Europe is rather conventional.  There is a high point with ancient Rome about 2 millennia ago, but with the fall of Rome and the Empire in the West, Western Europe is so crippled that when Morris compares the top Western cities to compare them to those of China, he chooses cities Constantinople, Cairo, and Baghdad.
By contrast, Rodney Stark viewed the fall of the Roman Empire in the west as a turning point, freeing Europe to thrive, making great advances in the so-called “Dark Ages” so that the average west European lived healthier, longer, and more comfortably than most people on earth of that era.  Stark maintained that many essential inventions were made in Europe in the Dark Ages or shortly thereafter, and if not invented by European, adapted by them and improved by them so they were technically superior to those in the lands of the original inventors.
Another view was presented by Charles Freeman in The Closing of the Western Mind.  He describes the growth of Christianity and its intolerance toward other religions and other philosophies and sciences.  After Christianity gained power under Emperor Constantine, his successors eventually closed pagan temples and destroyed pagan culture – even closing the Olympic Games.  Christian hostility, even to pagan mathematics, was exemplified when a devout mob kidnapped Hypatia, then beat her, flayed her, and killed her.  With her murder the end of pagan math coincided with the end of the first female mathematician of antiquity.  Not only did the Christian Roman Empire persecute pagans, it also persecuted Christian heretics.  The older, pagan culture, more tolerant and open-to-speculation on varied topics – that era ceased.  Ideologically, religiously, the European mind had closed.  So how could there be invention and innovation in Dark Age Europe?
The more I read, the more confused I became.  If the minds of Europeans were so closed, how could their lives so improve in the Dark Ages?  Did they improve?  If Europe was so closed-minded, why would the scientific revolution eventually occur in Europe?  And not in China?  Or India?  Or the Islamic world?
Helping me answer these question is this textbook published in 1999, Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction, by James McClellan and Harold Dorn.
This review is not typical, but I shall use the authors’ own words to make their points.  In early civilizations based upon flooding and irrigation agriculture, knowledge of when the floods might occur, how high, the building and maintenance of irrigation and canals, storage of foods, the seasons, all became very practical items and governments and or temples would subsidize these engineering and climatic studies.
“Again and again, higher learning with practical applications was supported by state and temple authorities [in Egypt and other early hydraulic societies] and deployed to maintain the state and its agricultural economy.  Knowledge became the concern of cadres of professional experts employed in state institutions whose efforts…to service of sustaining society rather than to any individualistic craving for discovery…the scribal experts were anonymous, not a single biography of the individuals who over hundreds of years contributed to science in the first civilizations has come down to us.”(46)
The authors note a weakness in Greek science.  In Greece theoretical speculation rose on many topics, from the origins and composition of the world to the best forms of government to what might be deemed a good life.  “…on the whole Hellenistic science at Alexandria and elsewhere in the ancient world was not applied to technology, or…, pursued for utilitarian ends…It remained isolated, not in any direct way connected or applied to the predominantly practical problems of the age.”(86) 
“Aristotle marked a watershed in the history of science.  His work, which encompassed logic, physics, cosmology, psychology, natural history, anatomy, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, represents both the culmination of the Hellenic Enlightenment, and the fountainhead of science and higher learning for the following 2,000 years.  Aristotle dominated scientific traditions in late antiquity, in medieval Islam, in early modern Europe where his science and his world-view defined scientific methodology and the research agenda up to just a few centuries ago.”(71)
Not only did the ancients look to scientists for guidance on numerous issues, but the authors remind us that Ptolemy was not only the greatest astronomer of the ancient world, he was probably the best astrologer.(85)  There was overlap with alchemy, astrology, and other mystic areas with science at that time and much later.
“Historians of technology have asked why no industrial revolution developed in antiquity.  The simple answer seems to be that there was no need, that contemporary modes of production and the slave-based economy of the day satisfactorily maintained the status quo.  The capitalist idea of profit as a desirable end to pursue was completely foreign to the contemporary mentality.  So too, was the idea that technology on a large scale could or should be harnessed to those ends.  An industrial revolution was literally unthinkable in antiquity.”(94)  Here I disagree.  Heron developed a steam engine in first century Alexandria, and there were many other “modern” type inventions.  There are always some people who want more – I suspect that is a human trait.  Were ancients really oblivious to the profit motive?  Slavery may well have inhibited willingness to invest time and resources in new invention, as the cheap labor of slavery may have competed with more expensive industrial produce.  But the industrial revolution could co-exist with slavery as when Europe’s colonies had slaves during the official Industrial Revolution.  I think it a perfectly proper question to ask, - why did not the Industrial Revolution occur in the ancient world, in China, in India, etc.
McClellan and Dorn do pay credit to other civilizations.  “A unified sociocultural domain, Islam prospered as a great world civilization, and its scientific culture flourished for at least five centuries.”(103)  “The success of Islam depended as much on its faithful farmers as on its soldiers.  The former took over the established flood plains of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and in what amounted to an agricultural revolution, they adapted new and more diversified food crops to the Mediterrean ecosystem: rice, sugar cane, cotton, melons, citrus fruits, and other products.  With rebuilt and enlarged systems of irrigation, Islamic farming extended the growing season and increased productivity.  That Islamic scientists turned out an uninterrupted series of treatises on agriculture and irrigation,…specialized treatises on camels, horses, bees, and falcons,..”(103)
Yet, the authors are not oblivious to the weaknesses of that civilization.  Muslims of that era seemed to have much larger libraries than their European contemporaries.  This “was also dependent on paper-making, a new technology acquired from the Chinese in the 8th century which allowed the mass production of paper and much cheaper books.  Paper factories appeared in Samarkand after 751, in Baghdad in 793,…and in Spain in 1150…  Ironically, when the printing press appeared in the 15th century Islamic authorities banned it for fear of defiling the name of God and to prevent the proliferation of undesirable materials.”(109)
Concerning China, the authors write, “Learned culture in traditional China was largely separate from technology and the crafts…economic, military, and medical activities were, on the whole. carried out on the strength of traditional techniques that owed nothing to theoretical knowledge or research.  Craftsmen were generally illiterate and possessed low social status; they learned their practical skills through apprenticeship and experience, and…without…scientific theory.”(121-22)  “Rather, the starting point for any investigation of Chinese technology must be…the totality of its advanced technologies, regardless of their originality or priority, made China a world leader in technology through the Sung era (AD 960) and beyond.”(122)
The McClellan/Dorn evaluation of Aztec civilization is noteworthy.  They praise Aztec pharmaceutical medicines and conclude that life expectancy among them exceeded that of Europeans by a decade or more.(164)  The authors do mention that the Aztec religion might require the sacrifice of fellow Amerindians (others report up to 35,000 killed in one religious ceremony, blood running down the steep steps of the high temples, and the priests wearing cloaks made of human skins).  It may not have been all waste, for McClellan/Dorn suggest cannibalism among the Aztecs.(163)  I wonder, if those sacrificed are included when calculating life expectancy.
The authors provide a brief summary of the world of science and technology in the year 1000.  “…briefly consider the state of science and systems of natural knowledge on a world scale at roughly the year AD 1000.  Plainly, no cultural group was without some understanding of the natural world.  [From the most primitive]…to the centers of urban civilization in the Islamic world, classical India, Sung China, Mesoamerica, and Peru.  What distinguishes the science and scientific cultures of these latter civilizations is that they institutionalized knowledge and patronized the development of science and scientific expertise in order to administer the comparatively huge social, political, and economic entities that constituted their respective civilizations.”(172)
The traditional view is that with the fall of Rome, Western Europe entered “The Dark Ages.”  The mind of Europeans closed.  Cities were no longer sustainable, repairs to infrastructure ceased, fountains dried up.  The population of the city of Rome declined from about 1 million in the time of August to a mere 40,000 around AD 600.  But McClellan/Dorn assert that the population of Europe rose by 38% between 600 and the year 1000.(177)  “The impressive array of technological innovations that led to the transformation of European society and culture owed nothing to theoretical science, in large measure because science had little to offer…none of it had any application in the development of the machines and techniques for which medieval Europe became justly famous.:(181)  While McClellan/Dorn acknowledge that some innovation occurred during the Roman Empire, such as the heavy plow, but they maintain it was not until after the fall of Rome that that plow was used on a large scale.  With a modification of the horse collar, and development of the horse shoe, the horse could pull heavier loads and had greater traction, and began to replace oxen in European agriculture.  The Asian-invented stirrup was modified in Europe, providing far more stability for a rider so he might use weapons of thrust, like a lance, without falling from the animal.  With such applications, Europe would specialize in heavy cavalry, the knighthood was in flower.
Water mills had been used in the ancient world, but Europe had many rivers and mills were used increasingly for various chores.  Windmills were invented, too, - another labor-saving machine.  “European engineers developed a fascination for new machines and new sources of power…Indeed, medieval Europe became the first great civilization not to be run primarily by human muscle power.”(180, emp. Mine)
Yet, the authors’ write that during that era “Almost no original research took place.”(182)  Nevertheless, European craftsmen and engineers began to forge bigger and better cannon, even smaller, more powerful cannon that in time would be mounted on ships to create floating fortresses.  Slowly, in the Dark Ages and then after, Europeans were crafting better weapons than the rest of the world.  European dominance was proved in the early 1500s with the easy victories by a few hundred Spaniards over the huge empires of the Aztecs and the Incas and by the victory of the small Portuguese fleet over the combined Muslim and Indian fleets.  Though the following quotation comes from a century later, it illustrates what was happening in Europe: The book by Galileo was published in the Netherlands in 1638 and includes discussion  at the Arsenal in Venice, famous for technology, “the largest and most advanced industrial enterprise in Europe, where craftsmen and artisans built ships, cast cannon, twisted rope, poured tar, melted glass, and worked at a hundred other technical and industrial activities in the service of the Venetian Republic.”(235)  In the 1600s McClellan/Dorn see a new ideology evolving on  “the conviction that science and scientific activities can promote human welfare and should therefore be encouraged.  The Ideology was activist and contrasted with the Hellenic view of the practical irrelevance of natural philosophy and the medieval view of science as the subservient handmaiden to theology.”(245)
Yet, though some may have thought of a marriage of science and technology, “contemporary technology seems to have had a greater effect on science than the other way around.”(269)  “All the technological innovations that formed the basis of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and the first half of the 19th centuries were made by men…craftsmen, artisans, or engineers.  Few were…university educated, and all without scientific theory.”(287)  Even that late, science was often useless.(292)  McClellan and Dorn state clearly, “The main thesis of this book has concerned thehistorically limited degree of applied science prior to the 19th century.”(308)  Indeed, when viewing the whole of human history, “In the beginning, there was only technology.”(355)  Now, things have changed.  The old divide between science and technology is reshaped – pure science on one side, applied science and technology on the other, or the difference between a scientific paper and a patent.(358-59)  The authors’ do discuss the impact of pure science upon the world with the development of the atomic bomb.
But the thrust of this book is important.  And again, I let the authors speak for themselves, “…a more accurate historical appreciation of technology will place proper emphasis on independent traditions of skilled artisans whose talents crafted everyday necessities and amenities throughout the millennia of human existence.  Such a historical reappraisal will also show that in many instances technology directed the development of science rather than the other way around.”
I think I learned a great deal from this book, and suspect that many of you may learn from it also.
What I had viewed as contradictions may not have been so.  For example, the closing of the European mind with the rise of monotheistic religion may have stifled science and theorizing, but not smiths who shod horses.  Totalitarian nations too can make great strides in science and technology.  I still have many questions, but now realize my notion that science and technology are wedded, is simply part of 20th century ideology.  For most of human history, they were unlinked, generally dwelling in different locales, one near the earth, the other in the clouds.  But after Einstein, we all know mushroom clouds from pure scientists can change the worlds of everyone.