Diana West and "McCarthyism" refuted.

[Seth]

Stan happens to be a friend of mine

You don't have friends, just people who share fantasies about murdering people with and if the world went to shit would just turn on each other

Go fuck yourself.

[Seth]

It's kind of like religion!

No, it's kind of like inconvenient but long-concealed facts coming out and slapping every fuckwit who ever said anything bad about McCarthy right in the chops.

[Hermit]

In other news: Wladislaus Dragwlya exonerated.

A very good friend of mine has written a book about it. After studying thousands of historical documents for many decades he proves in his book that Wladislaus was without a shadow of a doubt nothing but a freedom fighter who protected Wallachia from the Islamic threat to its freedoms. In an attempt to blacken his reputation, the enemies of freedom have destroyed many records and replaced them with others consisting of nothing but scurrilous slander. My very good friend, however, succeeded in finding copies of the former and thoroughly debunking the latter. If you read the book, you'll have to conclude, along with all of us lovers of freedom and enemies of tyranny, that Dragwyla should never have become known as Vlad the Impaler.

[Seth]

In other news: Wladislaus Dragwlya exonerated.

A very good friend of mine has written a book about it. After studying thousands of historical documents for many decades he proves in his book that Wladislaus was without a shadow of a doubt nothing but a freedom fighter who protected Wallachia from the Islamic threat to its freedoms. In an attempt to blacken his reputation, the enemies of freedom have destroyed many records and replaced them with others consisting of nothing but scurrilous slander. My very good friend, however, succeeded in finding copies of the former and thoroughly debunking the latter. If you read the book, you'll have to conclude, along with all of us lovers of freedom and enemies of tyranny, that Dragwyla should never have become known as Vlad the Impaler.

Good to know. You got an ISBN for it?

[Svartalf]

Beside the fact it's likely in Romanian or Austrian German?

[piscator]

In the early months of l962, there was restiveness in certain political quarters of the Right. The concern was primarily the growing strength of the Soviet Union, and the reiteration by its leaders of their designs on the free world. Some of the actors keenly concerned felt that Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona was a natural leader in the days ahead.

But it seemed inconceivable that an anti-establishment gadfly like Goldwater could be nominated as the spokesman-head of a political party. And it was embarrassing that the only political organization in town that dared suggest this radical proposal—the GOP’s nominating Goldwater for President—was the John Birch Society.

The society had been founded in 1958 by an earnest and capable entrepreneur named Robert Welch, a candy man, who brought together little clusters of American conservatives, most of them businessmen. He demanded two undistracted days in exchange for his willingness to give his seminar on the Communist menace to the United States, which he believed was more thoroughgoing and far-reaching than anyone else in America could have conceived. His influence was near-hypnotic, and his ideas wild. He said Dwight D. Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” and that the government of the United States was “under operational control of the Communist party.” It was, he said in the summer of 1961, “50-70 percent” Communist-controlled.

Welch refused to divulge the size of the society’s membership, though he suggested it was as high as 100,000 and could reach a million. His method of organization caused general alarm. The society comprised a series of cells, no more than twenty people per cell. It was said that its members were directed to run in secret for local offices and to harass school boards and librarians on the matter of the Communist nature of the textbooks and other materials they used.

The society became a national cause célèbre—so much so, that a few of those anxious to universalize a draft-Goldwater movement aiming at a nomination for President in 1964 thought it best to do a little conspiratorial organizing of their own against it.

n January of that year I had a telephone call from William Baroody. It was, he said, a matter of great national importance that I spend Tuesday and Wednesday of the following week with Senator Goldwater in Palm Beach, Florida. I would be one of three—along with Russell Kirk, the philosopher and author of the seminal 1953 text The Conservative Mind, and public-relations man Jay Hall, who had represented General Motors in Washington. I said I could be there up until 5 p.m. on day one and all of day two. I had a speaking date in St. Augustine on the first night. Baroody simply repeated that the meeting was very important.

Baroody was the head of the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank founded in 1943. We had met only cursorily, though I knew him to be an influential figure in behind-the-scenes conservative politics. He was invigorated by meetings with small groups, which he much enjoyed dominating. It was clear that he greatly aspired to be important to Goldwater, and perhaps to a Goldwater White House.

...

Goldwater was in Palm Beach visiting, incognito, with a sister-in-law who was resident there. He arrived at our hotel suite at about 11:00 in extravagantly informal garb, cowboy hat and dark glasses, a workman’s blue shirt, and denim jeans, together with his beloved Western boots. He did bring along a weather-beaten briefcase, though I never noticed his opening it the whole day.

What followed was an hour of general discussion on the policies of President Kennedy and the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Baroody noted Kennedy’s surprising drop in the polls: 61 percent of the public thought he spent money too freely, a third thought him unduly weak in opposing Soviet challenges in Berlin and elsewhere.

Moving on, Baroody brought up the John Birch Society. It was quickly obvious that this was the subject Goldwater wished counsel on.

Kirk, unimpeded by his little professorial stutter, greeted the subject with fervor. It was his opinion, he said emphatically, that Robert Welch was a man disconnected from reality. How could anyone reason, as Welch had done in The Politician, that President Eisenhower had been a secret agent of the Communists? This mischievous unreality was a great weight on the back of responsible conservative political thinking. The John Birch Society should be renounced by Goldwater and by everyone else—Kirk turned his eyes on me—with any influence on the conservative movement.

But that, Goldwater said, is the problem. Consider this, he exaggerated: “Every other person in Phoenix is a member of the John Birch Society. Russell, I’m not talking about Commie-haunted apple pickers or cactus drunks, I’m talking about the highest cast of men of affairs. Any of you know who Frank Cullen Brophy is?”

I raised my hand. “I spent a lot of time with him. He was going to contribute capital to help found National Review. He didn’t.” Brophy was a prominent Arizona banker.

Goldwater said he knew nothing about that, but added that Brophy certainly was aware of Goldwater’s personal enthusiasm for the magazine and especially for its Washington editor, Brent Bozell. “Why isn’t Brent here?” he turned to Baroody.

“He’s in Spain.”

“Well, our—my—Conscience of a Conservative continues to sell.” Bozell, who was also my brother-in-law, had ghostwritten the book, which had given Goldwater a national profile.

Kirk said he could not imagine Bozell disagreeing on the need to excommunicate the John Birch Society from the conservative movement.

But this brought another groan from Goldwater. “You just can’t do that kind of thing in Arizona. For instance, who on earth can dismiss Frank Brophy from anything?”

_____________



Time was given to the John Birch Society lasting through lunch, and the subject came up again the next morning. We resolved that conservative leaders should do something about the John Birch Society. An allocation of responsibilities crystallized.

Goldwater would seek out an opportunity to dissociate himself from the “findings” of the Society’s leader, without, however, casting any aspersions on the Society itself. I, in National Review and in my other writing, would continue to expose Welch and his thinking to scorn and derision. “You know how to do that,” said Jay Hall.

I volunteered to go further. Unless Welch himself disowned his operative fallacy, National Review would oppose any support for the society.

“How would you define the Birch fallacy?” Jay Hall asked.

“The fallacy,” I said, “is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence: we lost China to the Communists, therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists.”

“I like that,” Goldwater said.

What would Russell Kirk do? He was straightforward. “Me? I’ll just say, if anybody gets around to asking me, that the guy is loony and should be put away.”

...
In the next issue of my magazine, National Review, I published a 5,000-word excoriation of Welch:
"How can the John Birch Society be an effective political instrument while it is led by a man whose views on current affairs are, at so many critical points . . . so far removed from common sense? That dilemma weighs on conservatives across America. . . . The underlying problem is whether conservatives can continue to acquiesce quietly in a rendition of the causes of the decline of the Republic and the entire Western world which is false, and, besides that, crucially different in practical emphasis from their own."

In response, National Review received the explicit endorsement of Senator Goldwater himself, who wrote a letter we published in the following issue:
"I think you have clearly stated the problem which Mr. Welch’s continued leadership of the John Birch Society poses for sincere conservatives. . . . Mr. Welch is only one man, and I do not believe his views, far removed from reality and common sense as they are, represent the feelings of most members of the John Birch Society. . . . Because of this, I believe the best thing Mr. Welch could do to serve the cause of anti-Communism in the United States would be to resign. . . . We cannot allow the emblem of irresponsibility to attach to the conservative banner."

The wound we Palm Beach plotters delivered to the John Birch Society proved fatal over time. Barry Goldwater did not win the presidency, but he clarified the proper place of anti-Communism on the Right, with bright prospects to follow.

-- William F. Buckley, Jr.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1977847/posts

[Hermit]

In other news: Wladislaus Dragwlya exonerated.

A very good friend of mine has written a book about it. After studying thousands of historical documents for many decades he proves in his book that Wladislaus was without a shadow of a doubt nothing but a freedom fighter who protected Wallachia from the Islamic threat to its freedoms. In an attempt to blacken his reputation, the enemies of freedom have destroyed many records and replaced them with others consisting of nothing but scurrilous slander. My very good friend, however, succeeded in finding copies of the former and thoroughly debunking the latter. If you read the book, you'll have to conclude, along with all of us lovers of freedom and enemies of tyranny, that Dragwyla should never have become known as Vlad the Impaler.

Good to know. You got an ISBN for it?

Oh, I'm sure an ISBN is equivalent to vouching for The Truth.

[mistermack]

McCarthy was a lying bullshitter. Everyone knows it except Seth.
This is just one tiny extract from wikipedia :

He would leave the Marines with the rank of captain. It is well documented that McCarthy lied about his war record. Despite his automatic commission, he claimed to have enlisted as a "buck private". He flew twelve combat missions as a gunner-observer, earning the nickname of "Tail-Gunner Joe" in the course of one of these missions.[23]

He later claimed 32 missions in order to qualify for a Distinguished Flying Cross, which he received in 1952. McCarthy publicized a letter of commendation which he claimed had been signed by his commanding officer and countersigned by Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, then Chief of Naval Operations. However, it was revealed that McCarthy had written this letter himself, in his capacity as intelligence officer. A "war wound" that McCarthy made the subject of varying stories involving airplane crashes or antiaircraft fire was in fact received aboard ship during a ceremony for sailors crossing the equator for the first time.[22][24]

Just what you would expect from one of Seth's heroes.

[Seth]

-- William F. Buckley, Jr.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1977847/posts

What's your point? You're not even in the correct decade.

BTW, we lost China to the Communists because of the actions of a very small number of "China hands" in the State Department, who, for ideological reasons, lied to the President (and everybody else) about the Communist character and intent and the character of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang's war to defeat Mao and the Communists, which resulted in the US government withdrawing it's material support for the Kuomintang, leading to it's defeat and the rise of the Red Chinese empire. This is well-documented fact as well, and Stan goes into great detail, supported by official documentation, in proving that the Communist sympathizers in the State Department's China Bureau are directly responsible for the rise of Chinese Communism.

See what some knowledge of history does for one's arguments?

Read the book, you'll be enlightened.

[Seth]

McCarthy was a lying bullshitter. Everyone knows it except Seth.
This is just one tiny extract from wikipedia :

He would leave the Marines with the rank of captain. It is well documented that McCarthy lied about his war record. Despite his automatic commission, he claimed to have enlisted as a "buck private". He flew twelve combat missions as a gunner-observer, earning the nickname of "Tail-Gunner Joe" in the course of one of these missions.[23]

He later claimed 32 missions in order to qualify for a Distinguished Flying Cross, which he received in 1952. McCarthy publicized a letter of commendation which he claimed had been signed by his commanding officer and countersigned by Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, then Chief of Naval Operations. However, it was revealed that McCarthy had written this letter himself, in his capacity as intelligence officer. A "war wound" that McCarthy made the subject of varying stories involving airplane crashes or antiaircraft fire was in fact received aboard ship during a ceremony for sailors crossing the equator for the first time.[22][24]

Just what you would expect from one of Seth's heroes.

Typical Marxist character assassination tactics having nothing whatever to do with the truth or falsity of his claims about Communist infiltration of the US government.

Unfortunately for you, the evidence proving McCarthy's claims still exists, and has been examined by Stan Evans (and others) and is available for you to review...if you have the intellectual capacity to look beyond the propaganda you've been fed all your life.

[piscator]

-- William F. Buckley, Jr.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1977847/posts

What's your point? You're not even in the correct decade.

The point is that the profound anti-Communist wackoff nutjob element have perennially been downplayed by the American Conservative movement near elections, and that your friend, the world's foremost McCarthyite, smells like a JBS nutjob who may one day shoot up a strip mall.

BTW, we lost China to the Communists because of the actions of a very small number of "China hands" in the State Department, who, for ideological reasons, lied to the President (and everybody else) about the Communist character and intent and the character of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang's war to defeat Mao and the Communists, which resulted in the US government withdrawing it's material support for the Kuomintang, leading to it's defeat and the rise of the Red Chinese empire. This is well-documented fact as well, and Stan goes into great detail, supported by official documentation, in proving that the Communist sympathizers in the State Department's China Bureau are directly responsible for the rise of Chinese Communism.

See what some knowledge of history does for one's arguments?

Read the book, you'll be enlightened.

I don't often get the chance to indulge in historic fantasy, but I might give it a look over if I can do so without sponsoring the author or his publisher in any way.

[Seth]

-- William F. Buckley, Jr.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1977847/posts

What's your point? You're not even in the correct decade.

The point is that the profound anti-Communist wackoff nutjob element have perennially been downplayed by the American Conservative movement near elections, and that your friend, the world's foremost McCarthyite, smells like a JBS nutjob who may one day shoot up a strip mall.

More typical Marxist character assassination in lieu of rational discussion. You just can't stand it that your favorite whipping-boy has been vindicated by documentary evidence.

BTW, we lost China to the Communists because of the actions of a very small number of "China hands" in the State Department, who, for ideological reasons, lied to the President (and everybody else) about the Communist character and intent and the character of Chiang Kai-Shek and the Kuomintang's war to defeat Mao and the Communists, which resulted in the US government withdrawing it's material support for the Kuomintang, leading to it's defeat and the rise of the Red Chinese empire. This is well-documented fact as well, and Stan goes into great detail, supported by official documentation, in proving that the Communist sympathizers in the State Department's China Bureau are directly responsible for the rise of Chinese Communism.

See what some knowledge of history does for one's arguments?

Read the book, you'll be enlightened.

I don't often get the chance to indulge in historic fantasy, but I might give it a look over if I can do so without sponsoring the author or his publisher in any way.

Of course, because you are categorically unwilling to be persuaded that your opinion is diametrically opposed to the actual truth. I'm predicting that even if you do read it, which you won't, you'll just dismiss it without bothering to check the footnoted materials yourself because it conflicts with the propaganda you've been fed your whole life by the Marxist machine.

[piscator]

Darn it all. I'm sure I'll regret not having the time.