| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michael Ejercito" |
| Date: |
25 Sep 2007 01:34:29 AM |
| Object: |
The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
The History Channel Shills For Che Guevara
by Humberto Fontova
The A&E Network recently produced a Biography show on Ernesto "Che"
Guevara. Years back they produced one on Senator "Tail-Gunner Joe"
McCarthy. The depictions contrast sharply.
The second mentioned of these historical figures was a freely-elected
official who campaigned to remove Stalinist agents that had
infiltrated the government of a representative republic. Joe McCarthy
launched his congressional inquiry into Communist penetration of the
U=2ES. government at a time when Stalin's regime had already murdered
more people, conquered more nations, and enslaved more of their
citizens than Hitler's regime had managed at its murderous apex. On
top of this, Stalin's regime had recently developed the Atomic bomb.
In 1950 Senator McCarthy claimed to know of 57 Stalinist agents in the
employ of the U.S. government. Not a single one of these alleged
agents suffered so much as a day in jail, though some lost their cushy
government jobs.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara was second in command, chief executioner, and
chief KGB liaison for a regime that outlawed elections and private
property. This regime's KGB-supervised police - employing the midnight
knock and the dawn raid among other devices - rounded up and jailed
more political prisoners as a percentage of population than Stalin's
and executed more people (out of a population of 6.4 million) in its
first three years in power than Hitler's executed (out of a population
of 70 million) in it's first six.
Can you guess which show The History Channel titled, "Epidemic of
Fear"?
The regime Che Guevara co-founded stole the savings and property of
6=2E4 million citizens, made refugees of 20 per cent of the population
from a nation formerly deluged with immigrants and whose citizens had
achieved a higher standard of living than those residing in half of
Europe. Che Guevara's regime also shattered - through executions,
jailings, mass larceny and exile - virtually every family on the
island of Cuba. Many opponents of the Cuban regime qualify as the
longest-suffering political prisoners in modern history, having
suffered prison camps, forced labor and torture chambers for a period
THREE TIMES as long in Che Guevara's Gulag as Alexander Solzhenytzin
suffered in Stalin's Gulag.
Can you guess which A & E show mentioned, "hundreds of destroyed
lives"?
One week into power the regime Che Guevara co-founded abolished Habeas
Corpus. Guevara commanded his regime's prosecutorial goons to "always
interrogate our prisoners at night. A man's resistance is always lower
at night." He boasted that, "we execute from revolutionary
conviction!" and that "judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois
detail." Edwin Tetlow, Havana correspondent for London's Daily
Telegraph, reported on a mass "trial" orchestrated by Che Guevara
where Tetlow noticed the death sentences posted on a board before the
trial had started.
Can you guess which show had "The Great Inquisitor" in the title?
In case you haven't guessed, the answer to all of the above questions
is: Joe McCarthy's.
One signed his name "Stalin II," professed that "the solutions to the
world's problems lie behind the Iron curtain," and boasted that "if
the nuclear missiles had remained we would have fired them against the
heart of the U.S. including New York City." He also professed that the
victory of socialism was well worth "millions of atomic victims."
Can you guess which show mentioned, "his idealism will rarely be
equaled"?
Immediately upon entering Havana Che Guevara stole and moved into what
was probably the most luxurious mansion in Cuba. The rightful owner
fled the country barely ahead of a firing squad and a reporter who
wrote of Che's new house in a Cuban newspaper was himself threatened
with the firing squad. A year later thousands of Cubans were sent to
forced-labor camps on Che's orders, based on his whim to fashion "a
new man,"
Can you guess which show includes the phrase "he never abused his
power"?
During a 1961 speech in Cuba, Che Guevara denounced the very "spirit
of rebellion" as "reprehensible." Earlier he had cheered the Soviet
invasion of Hungary and the concurrent slaughter of thousands of
Hungarians who resisted Russian Imperialism. According to Guevara,
these freedom-fighters were all "fascists and CIA agents."
Can you guess which show described its subject as: "a potent symbol of
rebellion, liberation and resistance to imperialism"?
In case you haven't guessed, the answer to the above questions is: Che
Guevara's
On his second to last day alive Che Guevara ordered his guerrilla
charges to give no quarter, to fight to the last breath and to the
last bullet. With his men doing just that, a slightly wounded Che
snuck away from the firefight and surrendered with a full clip in his
pistol, while whimpering to his captors: "Don't Shoot! I'm Che! I'm
worth more to you alive than dead!" He then groveled shamelessly,
desperate to ingratiate himself. "What's your name, young man?" Che
asked one of his captors. "Why what a lovely name for a Bolivian
soldier!"
"So what will they do with me?" Che asked Bolivian Captain Gary Prado.
"I don't suppose you will kill me. I'm surely more valuable
alive....And you Captain Prado," Che commended his captor. "You are a
very special person ...I have been talking to some of your men. They
think very highly of you, captain! And don't worry, this whole thing
is over. We have failed." Then to further ingratiate himself, "your
army has pursued us very tenaciously....now, could you please find out
what they plan to do with me?"
Nonetheless The History Channel gushes that Guevara "was valiant until
his last moment alive."
So far, subjective matters. Now on to more objective ones.
Despite numerous attempts, nobody has managed to locate any record of
Ernesto Guevara's medical degree. Shortly after his capture Che
admitted to his captor's commander, Captain Gary Prado, that he (Che)
was not a doctor but "had some knowledge of medicine."
Nonetheless The History Channel refers to Ernesto Guevara as a "newly
qualified Doctor."
It is a matter of historical record that in January 1959 the U.S. gave
diplomatic recognition to the Castro/Che regime MORE QUICKLY than they
had recognized Batista's in 1952. State Department records also show
that the U.S. imposed on arms embargo on the Batista government and
refused to ship arms the Cuban government had already paid for. The
official record also documents that U.S. ambassador Earl T. Smith
personally notified Batista that he had no support from the U.S.
government, which strongly recommended that he leave Cuba. Batista was
then denied political asylum in the U.S.
In 2001 while visiting Havana for a conference with Fidel Castro, the
CIA's "Caribbean Desk's "specialist on the Cuban Revolution" from 1957-
1960, Robert Reynolds boasted that: "Me and my staff were all
Fidelistas."
"Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State were pro-Castro, except
ambassador Earl Smith." This statement is from former CIA operative in
Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.
Nonetheless, The History Channel reports that "Che Guevara helped
overthrow the "U.S.- BACKED" Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista."
"At his (Che's) orders around 50 men were executed," asserts The
History Channel
"The Black Book of Communism," written by French scholars and
published in English by Harvard University Press (neither an outpost
of the vast right-wing conspiracy, much less of "Miami maniacs!")
estimates 14,000 firing squad executions in Cuba by the end of the
1960's. "The facts and figures are irrefutable," wrote the New York
Times (no less!) about "The Black Book of Communism." A Cuban
prosecutor of the time who quickly defected in horror and disgust
named Jose Vilasuso estimates that Che signed 400 death warrants the
first few months of his command in La Cabana. A Basque priest named
Iaki de Aspiazu, who was often on hand to perform confessions and last
rites, says Che personally ordered 700 executions by firing squad
during the period. Cuban journalist Luis Ortega, who knew Che as early
as 1954, writes in his book "Yo Soy El Che!" that Guevara sent 1,892
men to the firing squad.
In his book Che Guevara: A Biography, Daniel James writes that Che
himself admitted to ordering "several thousand" executions during the
first year of the Castro regime. Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American
CIA operative who helped track him down in Bolivia and was the last
person to question him, says that Che during his final talk, admitted
to "a couple thousand" executions. But he shrugged them off as all
being of "imperialist spies and CIA agents."
Historically speaking, documenting regime murders while that murderous
regime remains in power has proven almost impossible. Yet the Cuba
Archive project headed by Maria Werlau and Dr Armando Lago have
already documented 216 firing squad death warrants signed by Che
Guevara, a figure quadrupling The History Channels'. What can possibly
account for such a relentless contempt for the truth by The History
Channel?
We'll see in a minute.
"He studied the evidence in each case (of the "50" executions) with
methodical care. The executed were all torturers and murderers of
women and children," asserts The History Channel in their Che
Biography.
Well, Guevara's judicial methods I've already mentioned, simply by
quoting Che Guevara himself. If "judicial evidence is an archaic
bourgeois detail" if no defense counsel or witnesses are permitted
then just how did Che determine who is "a torturer and murderer of
women and children?" The History Channel provides no clue.
But their main source, Che biographer Jon Lee Anderson who is
interviewed and quoted extensively through the "documentary," does.
This diligent historian got the figure of 50 executed and the accounts
of the sterling judicial procedures preceding the executions, from one
of the Communist prosecutors himself, Orlando Borrego, who features as
major source in Anderson's book and who is a minister in Cuba's
Stalinist government to this day. Indeed, Anderson wrote his book
while living in Cuba using ministers of a Stalinist government as his
primary sources. Other sources such as "Che's Diaries" were edited and
published by Castro's propaganda ministry with the preface written by
Fidel Castro himself. Given the subject, perhaps such a thoroughly
"revolutionary" form of historiography is fitting. Let's step back for
a second and contemplate it.
Adolph Eichmann, Rudolf Hess, Karl Donitz, Baldur von Schirach and
many other Nazi officials were still alive when William Shirer wrote
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Yet these were not Shirer's
primary sources. Therefore, applying contemporary logic as it applies
to Cuban history, Shirer's book should be thoroughly discredited.
Anything and everything former Nazi officials had to say should have
been taken at face value. Instead Shirer relied on sources such as
German exile Fritz Thyssen. This man was "embittered," had an obvious
"ax to grind" against the Nazi regime, and should have been discounted
as biased and not credible by William Shirer and by all right-thinking
people.
Robert Conquest was also derelict in using Ukrainian refugees such as
Marco Carynnyk as sources for his book, The Great Terror. From Leonid
Brezhnev to Yuri Andropov, to Nikita Khrushchev thousands of Stalin's
henchmen were available to Conquest as perfectly reliable sources. For
not relying upon them exclusively in his studies of Stalinism, Robert
Conquest should be laughed off any lectern. His book consists of
nothing but embittered ravings and cheap gossip from people with "an
ax to grind."
Simon Weisenthal, Eilie Weisel and Ann Frank all had obvious "axes to
grind' against the Nazi regime so nothing they said or wrote should be
taken seriously. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Cardinal Mindszenty, Nathan
Scharansky, Vladimir Bukovsky, etc. are all "embittered exiles and
cranks" with obvious "axes to grind" against the Soviet regime. So the
same applies to them.
The above may sound flippant, but it's precisely the methodology
applied in media and "scholarly" circles when it comes to studying
Cuban totalitarianism. The normal rules of historiography - and even
of decency, logic and common sense - get turned on their heads,
resulting in shows like those on The History Channel.
September 25, 2007
Humberto Fontova [send him mail] is the author of Exposing the Real
Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him.
Copyright =A9 2007 LewRockwell.com
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 02:40:48 AM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The second mentioned of these historical figures
was a freely-elected official who campaigned to
remove Stalinist agents that had infiltrated the
government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy? You've GOT to be kidding. I mean, right?
His idea of a "Communist" was anyone who supported
the Spanish Republic against the fascists.
He destroyed so many innocent lives that it was
impossable for him to ever claim a "Success." It
would be like slaughtering an entire city and then
applauding your "Success" at getting the criminals.
"Che" Guevara was insane, true, but that hardly
makes McCarthy a good guy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rhino" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 08:25:28 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190706048.940229.317400@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The second mentioned of these historical figures
was a freely-elected official who campaigned to
remove Stalinist agents that had infiltrated the
government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy? You've GOT to be kidding. I mean, right?
His idea of a "Communist" was anyone who supported
the Spanish Republic against the fascists.
He destroyed so many innocent lives that it was
impossable for him to ever claim a "Success." It
would be like slaughtering an entire city and then
applauding your "Success" at getting the criminals.
You've got strange definitions of "innocent" and "slaughter".
Although they weren't declassified until well after McCarthy's death, which
means he had no official access to them during his lifetime, the Venona
Project proved that many of McCarthy's allegations about Communist
infiltration were accurate. See this article in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona. I draw your attention especially to
this remark by the late senator Moynihan: "the Venona intercepts contained
overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America,
complete with names, dates, places, and deeds."[
For all the criticisms made of McCarthy, during and after his
investigations, the fact is that there WERE genuine Communist efforts to
infiltrate many groups in American life, including the State Department and
various important government agencies. The people who were investigated were
NOT all innocent.
Furthermore, NOT ONE PERSON WAS "slaughtered", if we define "slaughtered" in
the conventional sense of murdered by someone. It is claimed that one or two
of the people investigated committed suicide but I'm at a loss to find any
substantiation for that. A few people had their careers damaged for a few
years - the Hollywood Blacklist comes to mind - but very few people would
agree that this is "slaughter".
In his day, Che Guevara and his ilk were LITERALLY slaughtering, in the
conventional sense of the word, their enemies, just as Stalin and Mao (and
Hitler) slaughtered their enemies.
"Che" Guevara was insane, true, but that hardly
makes McCarthy a good guy.
I think the key question that remains unanswered here is about McCarthy's
sources. Was the Venona material being leaked to him by individuals within
the Venona Project? If not, what evidence did he have and how much has been
substantiated?
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have had unprecendented access to
Soviet archives and I, for one, would be extremely interested in knowing
which of McCarthy's allegations they substantiate. After all, if the Soviet
archives actually say that this or that person was a Soviet agent, that
pretty much eliminates any grounds for dismissing the allegations as "smear
campaigns" or "witch hunts" or whatever.
--
Rhino
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 03:13:50 PM |
|
|
"rhino" <No.offline.contact.ple...@anonymous.com> wrote:
Although they weren't declassified until well
after McCarthy's death, which means he had no
official access to them during his lifetime,
the Venona Project proved that many of
McCarthy's allegations about Communist
infiltration were accurate.
There's two HUGE flaws with this.
First, even you seem to be admitting that not all
of his victims were Communists in any sense of the
word. The majority of his victims were simply
innocent people who were a bit idealistic in their
youth... supporting the Spanish Republic against
the fascists, for example. So my analogy of
slaughtering a city to get the "criminals" holds.
Secondly, it was never illegal to be a
Communist. What he -- McCarthy -- was supposedly
doing was unmasking spies, traitors.
It's really no different then if they had denounced
everyone who supported Germany or the isolationist
movement before Pearl Harbor as Nazi spies.
I draw your attention especially to this remark
by the late senator Moynihan: "the Venona
intercepts contained overwhelming proof of the
activities of Soviet spy networks in America,
complete with names, dates, places, and deeds."
Which is odd, because it didn't contain names....
Even the identity of "positively identified" people
remains in question. Alger Hiss, for example, is
still disputed!
Two really big issues is that the messages don't
just mention operatives, but well placed people,
and people they'd like working for them. Another
quite obvious problem -- one often ignored -- is
counter intelligence.... disinformation. If the
Soviets suspected anyone, anyone at all, on the
sending or receiving end, they likely would have
thrown in some false information.
And that's assuming that they had no idea that
their messages were being decrypted.
But none of this is relevant to my point anyway.
McCarthy destroyed a lot of innocent lives. His
methods were not successful by any measure.
This may be intentional: You're standard Reich
wing cowardice. Take out a half-dozen innocents
for everyone you have a reason to suspect, and
the Soviets think you're just guessing. They don't
know how good you really are.
I could just see you neo-con cowards now.... "Sure
we'll destroy a lot of innocent people, but as long
as it's not me that has to suffer, I'm willing to
pay that price."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Ejercito" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
26 Sep 2007 09:16:16 AM |
|
|
On Sep 25, 6:25 am, "rhino" <No.offline.contact.ple...@anonymous.com>
wrote:
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190706048.940229.317400@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The second mentioned of these historical figures
was a freely-elected official who campaigned to
remove Stalinist agents that had infiltrated the
government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy? You've GOT to be kidding. I mean, right?
His idea of a "Communist" was anyone who supported
the Spanish Republic against the fascists.
He destroyed so many innocent lives that it was
impossable for him to ever claim a "Success." It
would be like slaughtering an entire city and then
applauding your "Success" at getting the criminals.
You've got strange definitions of "innocent" and "slaughter".
Although they weren't declassified until well after McCarthy's death, which
means he had no official access to them during his lifetime, the Venona
Project proved that many of McCarthy's allegations about Communist
infiltration were accurate. See this article in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona. I draw your attention especially to
this remark by the late senator Moynihan: "the Venona intercepts contained
overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America,
complete with names, dates, places, and deeds."[
For all the criticisms made of McCarthy, during and after his
investigations, the fact is that there WERE genuine Communist efforts to
infiltrate many groups in American life, including the State Department and
various important government agencies. The people who were investigated were
NOT all innocent.
So basically he was railroading guilty people.
Furthermore, NOT ONE PERSON WAS "slaughtered", if we define "slaughtered" in
the conventional sense of murdered by someone. It is claimed that one or two
of the people investigated committed suicide but I'm at a loss to find any
substantiation for that. A few people had their careers damaged for a few
years - the Hollywood Blacklist comes to mind - but very few people would
agree that this is "slaughter".
In his day, Che Guevara and his ilk were LITERALLY slaughtering, in the
conventional sense of the word, their enemies, just as Stalin and Mao (and
Hitler) slaughtered their enemies.
I do wonder why Che Guevera has such appeal among certain circles
in America.
Michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
26 Sep 2007 09:28:15 AM |
|
|
Michael Ejercito wrote:
I do wonder why Che Guevera has such appeal among certain circles
in America.
See Motorcycle Diaries.
Regardless, I don't think he has any more appeal for the general population
other than for rebellious kids who don't have a fucking clue who Che is
wearing him on a t-shirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Invid Fan" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
26 Sep 2007 11:49:51 AM |
|
|
In article <6K2dnWSWWMgY8WfbnZ2dnUVZ_o6knZ2d@giganews.com>, Geoff
<gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Michael Ejercito wrote:
I do wonder why Che Guevera has such appeal among certain circles
in America.
See Motorcycle Diaries.
Regardless, I don't think he has any more appeal for the general population
other than for rebellious kids who don't have a fucking clue who Che is
wearing him on a t-shirt.
I took a quick look at the Wiki article on him, not knowing much about
the guy really, and would say it's mostly because he "fought for
freedom" his own way, not following either the US or USSR. Any rather
nasty things he did are either ignored or not known about, and him
being a young good looking guy certainly helps. So does dying thanks in
part to the CIA: like JFK, if he had lived to an old age he wouldn't
have all that many fans most likely.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total *****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
26 Sep 2007 12:18:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:16:16 -0700, Michael Ejercito
<mejercit@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 25, 6:25 am, "rhino" <No.offline.contact.ple...@anonymous.com>
wrote:
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190706048.940229.317400@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The second mentioned of these historical figures
was a freely-elected official who campaigned to
remove Stalinist agents that had infiltrated the
government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy? You've GOT to be kidding. I mean, right?
His idea of a "Communist" was anyone who supported
the Spanish Republic against the fascists.
He destroyed so many innocent lives that it was
impossable for him to ever claim a "Success." It
would be like slaughtering an entire city and then
applauding your "Success" at getting the criminals.
You've got strange definitions of "innocent" and "slaughter".
Although they weren't declassified until well after McCarthy's death, which
means he had no official access to them during his lifetime, the Venona
Project proved that many of McCarthy's allegations about Communist
infiltration were accurate. See this article in Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona. I draw your attention especially to
this remark by the late senator Moynihan: "the Venona intercepts contained
overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America,
complete with names, dates, places, and deeds."[
For all the criticisms made of McCarthy, during and after his
investigations, the fact is that there WERE genuine Communist efforts to
infiltrate many groups in American life, including the State Department and
various important government agencies. The people who were investigated were
NOT all innocent.
So basically he was railroading guilty people.
No he was smearing the reputations of the innocent while helping the
guilty avoid prosecution.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 11:09:10 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:25:28 -0400, "rhino"
<No.offline.contact.please@anonymous.com> wrote:
infiltration were accurate. See this article in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona. I draw your attention especially to
this remark by the late senator Moynihan: "the Venona intercepts contained
overwhelming proof of the activities of Soviet spy networks in America,
complete with names, dates, places, and deeds."[
That Soviet spy networks existed is unquestionable. That McCarthy was
any use at all in stopping them, that he even managed to be something
more than a impediment to American counter-intelligence...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 09:30:06 AM |
|
|
rhino wrote:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190706048.940229.317400@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The second mentioned of these historical figures
was a freely-elected official who campaigned to
remove Stalinist agents that had infiltrated the
government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy? You've GOT to be kidding. I mean, right?
His idea of a "Communist" was anyone who supported
the Spanish Republic against the fascists.
He destroyed so many innocent lives that it was
impossable for him to ever claim a "Success." It
would be like slaughtering an entire city and then
applauding your "Success" at getting the criminals.
You've got strange definitions of "innocent"
Innocent...people were accused of "unAmerican activities" just for belonging
to the Communist Party or even for just associating with members. Last I
looked, guilt by association is not legitimate.
and "slaughter".
You've got a stranger way of interpreting a metaphor.
Although they weren't declassified until well after McCarthy's death,
which means he had no official access to them during his lifetime,
the Venona Project proved that many of McCarthy's allegations about
Communist infiltration were accurate.
Yes, no one is disputing that. What JTEM rightly points out is that many
innocent lives were ruined in the process. This goes against principles of
American jurisprudence allowing for Type II errors in order to minimize Type
I errors.
Certainly, this was a trying time for America. But it's important for us to
hold our principles dear during these times as well as during normalcy. I
think we face a similar crisis of principle today.
For all the criticisms made of McCarthy, during and after his
investigations, the fact is that there WERE genuine Communist efforts
to infiltrate many groups in American life, including the State
Department and various important government agencies. The people who
were investigated were NOT all innocent.
No one is claiming that.
Furthermore, NOT ONE PERSON WAS "slaughtered", if we define
"slaughtered" in the conventional sense of murdered by someone. It is
claimed that one or two of the people investigated committed suicide
but I'm at a loss to find any substantiation for that. A few people
had their careers damaged for a few years - the Hollywood Blacklist
comes to mind - but very few people would agree that this is
"slaughter".
JTEM was using a metaphor to illustrate the carnage wrought by McCarthy in
order to expose spies. How you interpret that he claims that an actual
slaughter took place is beyond me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rhino" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 01:19:26 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RLadndHGLIvphmTbnZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@giganews.com...
rhino wrote:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190706048.940229.317400@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The second mentioned of these historical figures
was a freely-elected official who campaigned to
remove Stalinist agents that had infiltrated the
government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy? You've GOT to be kidding. I mean, right?
His idea of a "Communist" was anyone who supported
the Spanish Republic against the fascists.
He destroyed so many innocent lives that it was
impossable for him to ever claim a "Success." It
would be like slaughtering an entire city and then
applauding your "Success" at getting the criminals.
You've got strange definitions of "innocent"
Innocent...people were accused of "unAmerican activities" just for
belonging to the Communist Party or even for just associating with
members. Last I looked, guilt by association is not legitimate.
and "slaughter".
You've got a stranger way of interpreting a metaphor.
Although they weren't declassified until well after McCarthy's death,
which means he had no official access to them during his lifetime,
the Venona Project proved that many of McCarthy's allegations about
Communist infiltration were accurate.
Yes, no one is disputing that. What JTEM rightly points out is that many
innocent lives were ruined in the process. This goes against principles of
American jurisprudence allowing for Type II errors in order to minimize
Type I errors.
Type I and Type II errors? Sorry, I didn't go to law school and I've never
seen those terms used on any lawyer shows on TV so I have no idea what you
are talking about.
Certainly, this was a trying time for America. But it's important for us
to hold our principles dear during these times as well as during normalcy.
I think we face a similar crisis of principle today.
Which principles are those? That people trying to infiltrate the government
and national institutions to do the work of foreign powers is perfectly
okay?
For all the criticisms made of McCarthy, during and after his
investigations, the fact is that there WERE genuine Communist efforts
to infiltrate many groups in American life, including the State
Department and various important government agencies. The people who
were investigated were NOT all innocent.
No one is claiming that.
Really? Most attackers of McCarthy seem to be implying just that even if
they don't generally come out and say so.
Furthermore, NOT ONE PERSON WAS "slaughtered", if we define
"slaughtered" in the conventional sense of murdered by someone. It is
claimed that one or two of the people investigated committed suicide
but I'm at a loss to find any substantiation for that. A few people
had their careers damaged for a few years - the Hollywood Blacklist
comes to mind - but very few people would agree that this is
"slaughter".
JTEM was using a metaphor to illustrate the carnage wrought by McCarthy in
order to expose spies. How you interpret that he claims that an actual
slaughter took place is beyond me.
Well, if it was a metaphor, it's a pretty damned overwrought one. In my
view, "slaughter" is a very clear, vivid, violent act that results in death.
If he only meant that some people were investigated and suffered some
scrutiny over alleged acts but were not even beaten let alone tortured or
killed, all the while having full access to lawyers of their own choosing in
a fair court system, then I'd say "slaughter" is a vastly inappropriate
term.
And if you want to argue that "slaughter" was an APPROPRIATE metaphor for
what McCarthy's suspects experienced, then I'd like to know what you'd call
the actual murder of Che Guevera's victims? If calling an investigation of a
suspected Communist a "slaughter" is appropriate, then the actual killing of
at least hundreds of people would have to be similarly overblown to
something like "the mass murder of every living creature on the face of the
earth".
--
Rhino
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 06:17:05 PM |
|
|
rhino wrote:
Yes, no one is disputing that. What JTEM rightly points out is that
many innocent lives were ruined in the process. This goes against
principles of American jurisprudence allowing for Type II errors in
order to minimize Type I errors.
Type I and Type II errors? Sorry, I didn't go to law school and I've
never seen those terms used on any lawyer shows on TV so I have no
idea what you are talking about.
Sorry, it's the scientist in me trying to talk about law. Type I errors are
false positives (i.e. convicting an innocent man). Type II errors are false
negatives (i.e. freeing a guilty man). It is the goal of jurisprudence in
liberal democracies to reduce the risk of Type I as much as possible. For
this reason, criminal convictions typically require a unanimous vote of 12
jurists while an aquittal only requires one dissent.
http://www.intuitor.com/statistics/T1T2Errors.html
Certainly, this was a trying time for America. But it's important
for us to hold our principles dear during these times as well as
during normalcy. I think we face a similar crisis of principle today.
Which principles are those? That people trying to infiltrate the
government and national institutions to do the work of foreign powers
is perfectly okay?
Absolutely not. The United States has every right to protect its secrets and
to protect the citizenry from the actions of hostile governements just as
those countries have the right to protect their own interests from
infiltration by US agents.
The difference is that we are a liberal democracy with rights guaranteed by
the Constitution. We are, to coin a phrase, a nation of laws, not men. Our
adversaries, then as now, are the opposite.
The crisis today, as then, is that we are compromising the rights of all US
citizens (and in the case of today, even non-US citizens) in order to
counter a threat from abroad. The crisis today is compounded by a usurpation
of powers by a unitary executive, powers willingly ceded by a complinat
Congress.
IMHO, in both cases, the threat is/was exxagerated. The famous quote by B.
Franklin is appropriate: "Those who would trade freedom for security
deserve neither." What good does it do us to protect our country if we lose
our freedom in the process?
For all the criticisms made of McCarthy, during and after his
investigations, the fact is that there WERE genuine Communist
efforts to infiltrate many groups in American life, including the
State Department and various important government agencies. The
people who were investigated were NOT all innocent.
No one is claiming that.
Really? Most attackers of McCarthy seem to be implying just that even
if they don't generally come out and say so.
I disagree. regardless, you were responding to JTEM's post and his metaphor
clearly shows that he agrees that perps were uncovered.
Furthermore, NOT ONE PERSON WAS "slaughtered", if we define
"slaughtered" in the conventional sense of murdered by someone. It
is claimed that one or two of the people investigated committed
suicide but I'm at a loss to find any substantiation for that. A
few people had their careers damaged for a few years - the
Hollywood Blacklist comes to mind - but very few people would agree
that this is "slaughter".
JTEM was using a metaphor to illustrate the carnage wrought by
McCarthy in order to expose spies. How you interpret that he claims
that an actual slaughter took place is beyond me.
Well, if it was a metaphor, it's a pretty damned overwrought one. In
my view, "slaughter" is a very clear, vivid, violent act that results
in death. If he only meant that some people were investigated and
suffered some scrutiny over alleged acts but were not even beaten let
alone tortured or killed, all the while having full access to lawyers
of their own choosing in a fair court system, then I'd say
"slaughter" is a vastly inappropriate term.
Do you understand what a metaphor or, strictly in this case, a simile is?
From Merriam-Webster:
sim·i·le : a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often
introduced by like or as
JTEM wrote: "It (uncovering a few foreign agents at the cost of the ruin of
so many innocent lives) would be like slaughtering an entire city and then
applauding your "Success" at getting the criminals."
He's not saying these people were "slaughtered" any more than if someone
said, in describing a rout at a high school football game, "It was like
Little Big Horn out there."
When Faulkner wrote: ""I feel like a wet seed wild in the hot blind earth",
Dewey Dell doesn't actually feel wet or hot or wild.
And if you want to argue that "slaughter" was an APPROPRIATE metaphor
for what McCarthy's suspects experienced, then I'd like to know what
you'd call the actual murder of Che Guevera's victims?
I guess I wouldn't call that a metaphor. I would call that an accurate
description.
If calling an
investigation of a suspected Communist a "slaughter" is appropriate,
Again, that was not the intent.
then the actual killing of at least hundreds of people would have to
be similarly overblown to something like "the mass murder of every
living creature on the face of the earth".
That would be up to the writer to make that parallel if he so chooses. This
is what we call poetic license.
I think JTEM's summary was apt and to the point of his post: " 'Che' Guevara
was insane, true, but that hardly makes McCarthy a good guy."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 03:17:26 PM |
|
|
On Sep 25, 3:40 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
And to accuse the History channel of a leftist/communist
Bias...laughable.
They have a clear right wing bias, but unlike Fox, Limbaugh, et
al..they seldomly actively indulge in it(except in "digging for the
Truth" and anything involving Mormons)
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 04:17:08 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:40:48 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The second mentioned of these historical figures
was a freely-elected official who campaigned to
remove Stalinist agents that had infiltrated the
government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy? You've GOT to be kidding. I mean, right?
His idea of a "Communist" was anyone who supported
the Spanish Republic against the fascists.
He destroyed so many innocent lives that it was
impossable for him to ever claim a "Success." It
would be like slaughtering an entire city and then
applauding your "Success" at getting the criminals.
"Che" Guevara was insane, true, but that hardly
makes McCarthy a good guy.
Michael Ejercito is "over the top" insane, and can never be a "good:
guy.
Not ever.
He is a psychopathic genocial monster.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 11:45:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:40:48 -0700, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The second mentioned of these historical figures
was a freely-elected official who campaigned to
remove Stalinist agents that had infiltrated the
government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy? You've GOT to be kidding. I mean, right?
His idea of a "Communist" was anyone who supported
the Spanish Republic against the fascists.
You forgot "anyone who had no one to rat out". Not knowing any
Communists, in McCarthy's eyes, made you a Communist.
Salem witch trials, anyone?
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 10:39:36 AM |
|
|
In article <1190702069.282589.288460@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> writes:
The History Channel Shills For Che Guevara
by Humberto Fontova
The A&E Network recently produced a Biography show on Ernesto "Che"
Guevara. Years back they produced one on Senator "Tail-Gunner Joe"
McCarthy. The depictions contrast sharply.
The second mentioned of these historical figures was a freely-elected
official who campaigned to remove Stalinist agents that had
infiltrated the government of a representative republic. Joe McCarthy
launched his congressional inquiry into Communist penetration
"alleged" communist penetration. In point of fact, the number
of these alleged double agents changed every time Uncle Joe
gave a speech, waving about his little list -- which no
one else was allowed to see.
of the
U=2ES. government at a time when Stalin's regime had already murdered
more people, conquered more nations, and enslaved more of their
citizens than Hitler's regime had managed at its murderous apex. On
top of this, Stalin's regime had recently developed the Atomic bomb.
In 1950 Senator McCarthy claimed to know of 57 Stalinist agents in the
employ of the U.S. government. Not a single one of these alleged
agents suffered so much as a day in jail, though some lost their cushy
government jobs.
Well, yeah, we try not to punish innocent people. That would
be Stalinist.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "rhino" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 01:23:23 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:fdba3o$6uc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1190702069.282589.288460@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Michael
Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> writes:
The History Channel Shills For Che Guevara
by Humberto Fontova
The A&E Network recently produced a Biography show on Ernesto "Che"
Guevara. Years back they produced one on Senator "Tail-Gunner Joe"
McCarthy. The depictions contrast sharply.
The second mentioned of these historical figures was a freely-elected
official who campaigned to remove Stalinist agents that had
infiltrated the government of a representative republic. Joe McCarthy
launched his congressional inquiry into Communist penetration
"alleged" communist penetration. In point of fact, the number
of these alleged double agents changed every time Uncle Joe
gave a speech, waving about his little list -- which no
one else was allowed to see.
Are you aware of the fact that "Uncle Joe" was actually the term coined by
the western media, particularly the US, media to refer to Joseph Stalin?
Using that moniker to refer to McCarthy is ironic to say the least....
of the
U=2ES. government at a time when Stalin's regime had already murdered
more people, conquered more nations, and enslaved more of their
citizens than Hitler's regime had managed at its murderous apex. On
top of this, Stalin's regime had recently developed the Atomic bomb.
In 1950 Senator McCarthy claimed to know of 57 Stalinist agents in the
employ of the U.S. government. Not a single one of these alleged
agents suffered so much as a day in jail, though some lost their cushy
government jobs.
Well, yeah, we try not to punish innocent people. That would
be Stalinist.
-- cary
--
Rhino
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 03:59:30 PM |
|
|
"rhino" <No.offline.contact.please@anonymous.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:fdba3o$6uc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1190702069.282589.288460@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Michael
Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> writes:
The History Channel Shills For Che Guevara
by Humberto Fontova
The A&E Network recently produced a Biography show on Ernesto "Che"
Guevara. Years back they produced one on Senator "Tail-Gunner Joe"
McCarthy. The depictions contrast sharply.
The second mentioned of these historical figures was a freely-elected
official who campaigned to remove Stalinist agents that had
infiltrated the government of a representative republic. Joe McCarthy
launched his congressional inquiry into Communist penetration
"alleged" communist penetration. In point of fact, the number
of these alleged double agents changed every time Uncle Joe
gave a speech, waving about his little list -- which no
one else was allowed to see.
Are you aware of the fact that "Uncle Joe" was actually the term coined by
the western media, particularly the US, media to refer to Joseph Stalin?
Using that moniker to refer to McCarthy is ironic to say the least....
Yeppers. Both ironic AND intentional.
-- cary
of the
U=2ES. government at a time when Stalin's regime had already murdered
more people, conquered more nations, and enslaved more of their
citizens than Hitler's regime had managed at its murderous apex. On
top of this, Stalin's regime had recently developed the Atomic bomb.
In 1950 Senator McCarthy claimed to know of 57 Stalinist agents in the
employ of the U.S. government. Not a single one of these alleged
agents suffered so much as a day in jail, though some lost their cushy
government jobs.
Well, yeah, we try not to punish innocent people. That would
be Stalinist.
-- cary
--
Rhino
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
25 Sep 2007 06:20:04 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
"rhino" <No.offline.contact.please@anonymous.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:fdba3o$6uc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1190702069.282589.288460@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> writes:
The History Channel Shills For Che Guevara
by Humberto Fontova
The A&E Network recently produced a Biography show on Ernesto "Che"
Guevara. Years back they produced one on Senator "Tail-Gunner Joe"
McCarthy. The depictions contrast sharply.
The second mentioned of these historical figures was a
freely-elected official who campaigned to remove Stalinist agents
that had infiltrated the government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy launched his congressional inquiry into Communist
penetration
"alleged" communist penetration. In point of fact, the number
of these alleged double agents changed every time Uncle Joe
gave a speech, waving about his little list -- which no
one else was allowed to see.
Are you aware of the fact that "Uncle Joe" was actually the term
coined by the western media, particularly the US, media to refer to
Joseph Stalin? Using that moniker to refer to McCarthy is ironic to
say the least....
Yeppers. Both ironic AND intentional.
See how it works rhino? That is called a metaphor...a damned clever one. At
least you recognized the irony.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rhino" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
26 Sep 2007 12:29:16 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:wfmdnSsnMNQ2CmTbnZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@giganews.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
"rhino" <No.offline.contact.please@anonymous.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:fdba3o$6uc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1190702069.282589.288460@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> writes:
The History Channel Shills For Che Guevara
by Humberto Fontova
The A&E Network recently produced a Biography show on Ernesto "Che"
Guevara. Years back they produced one on Senator "Tail-Gunner Joe"
McCarthy. The depictions contrast sharply.
The second mentioned of these historical figures was a
freely-elected official who campaigned to remove Stalinist agents
that had infiltrated the government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy launched his congressional inquiry into Communist
penetration
"alleged" communist penetration. In point of fact, the number
of these alleged double agents changed every time Uncle Joe
gave a speech, waving about his little list -- which no
one else was allowed to see.
Are you aware of the fact that "Uncle Joe" was actually the term
coined by the western media, particularly the US, media to refer to
Joseph Stalin? Using that moniker to refer to McCarthy is ironic to
say the least....
Yeppers. Both ironic AND intentional.
See how it works rhino? That is called a metaphor...a damned clever one.
At least you recognized the irony.
Park your patronizing smartass attitude where the sun don't shine. You're
not impressing me.
--
Rhino
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
26 Sep 2007 09:29:56 AM |
|
|
rhino wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:wfmdnSsnMNQ2CmTbnZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@giganews.com...
Cary Kittrell wrote:
"rhino" <No.offline.contact.please@anonymous.com>
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:fdba3o$6uc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1190702069.282589.288460@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> writes:
The History Channel Shills For Che Guevara
by Humberto Fontova
The A&E Network recently produced a Biography show on Ernesto
"Che" Guevara. Years back they produced one on Senator
"Tail-Gunner Joe" McCarthy. The depictions contrast sharply.
The second mentioned of these historical figures was a
freely-elected official who campaigned to remove Stalinist agents
that had infiltrated the government of a representative republic.
Joe McCarthy launched his congressional inquiry into Communist
penetration
"alleged" communist penetration. In point of fact, the number
of these alleged double agents changed every time Uncle Joe
gave a speech, waving about his little list -- which no
one else was allowed to see.
Are you aware of the fact that "Uncle Joe" was actually the term
coined by the western media, particularly the US, media to refer to
Joseph Stalin? Using that moniker to refer to McCarthy is ironic to
say the least....
Yeppers. Both ironic AND intentional.
See how it works rhino? That is called a metaphor...a damned clever
one. At least you recognized the irony.
Park your patronizing smartass attitude where the sun don't shine.
You're not impressing me.
Not my intention. That would be like trying to make an impression on a
bowling ball.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William December Starr" |
|
| Title: Re: The History Channel Shills for Che Guevara |
30 Sep 2007 10:48:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1190702069.282589.288460@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Michael Ejercito <mejercit@hotmail.com> quoted somebody named
Humberto Fontova:
The A&E Network recently produced a Biography show on Ernesto
"Che" Guevara. Years back they produced one on Senator
"Tail-Gunner Joe" McCarthy. The depictions contrast sharply.
[ deleted: historical info about the two men's accomplishments ]
Can you guess which show The History Channel titled, "Epidemic of
Fear"?
The one that was about a person who'd created a lot of fear in
the nation which, today, is the home of the large majority of the
network's viewers?
--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
