When you are finished with the comments for this entry, close the window to return to "What Bill O'Reilly Should Have Told Ann Coulter".
Excellent, Lamovsky!
(#16691)
by F.H. Thomas on August 18, 2003 at 11:24 AM
by F.H. Thomas on August 18, 2003 at 11:24 AM
To Mr. Lamovsky:
Thank you for a thoughtful and well-reasoned contribution. It takes someone with connections to eastern Europe, as I judge from your name you may have, to understand how bloodthirsty the relatively tiny group of soviet Communists really were.
Agreed that while Communism as a state philosophy is essentially dead, "cultural bolshevism" (Lenin's term) as a means of undermining and destroying society from within, is still extremely active.
The principals of cultural bolshevism are proceeding on original plan:
destroy the role of the European Christian male, by accusing them of all ills in society;
destroy the family by granting women disproportionate rights in divorce and financial advantage therefrom;
destroy Christianity by riducule and legalisms;
reduce respect for life by pushing abortion;
infiltrate and undermine education, making the population unaware passive and easy to control;
undermine and infiltrate the law, giving all power to criminals and none to victims;
undermine business by taxes and regulation.
This plan, originally promulgated by a secretive international group called "the 400", in 1888, was adopted as state policy, and renamed by the Bolshevics. It is, as you know, as active today as ever, and has sadly achieved many of its goals here.
RE: Excellent, Lamovsky!
(#16748)
by Jesse Lamovsky on August 19, 2003 at 8:54 PM
by Jesse Lamovsky on August 19, 2003 at 8:54 PM
Thanks for the compliment, Mr. Thomas. My family is from Eastern Europe (present-day Belarus), but my antecedants came here in 1910, when Lenin was still hanging around Geneva. Actually, my experience with cultural Marxism comes from the best seat in the house- from enrollment at an American university!
FDR and Communists
(#16666)
by John Doe on August 17, 2003 at 7:16 PM
by John Doe on August 17, 2003 at 7:16 PM
You wrote:
"Roosevelt could not have been elected governor, hence could not have later been president, without the large Communist party in NY, which gave him 1/3 of his votes."
FDR was elected governor of NY in 1928 for a two year term and re-elected in 1930.
In 1928 the Communist Party of the United States, just recovering from an internal factional struggle, was at a low point with fewer than 10,000 members nationwide. Furthur it was going thru an ultra-left phase where even mainstream socialists (to say nothing of liberals like Roosevelt) were denounced as "social fascists" . By the time FDR was re-elected in 1930 things were looking up for the CP as the Depression settled in, but it was still a pathetically weak organization. And it was still ultra-left and would remain so until the Popular Front era beginning in the mid-1930s. So the CP would have had no interest in seeing FDR elected governor of NY in 1928 or 1930 and would have had only an infinitesmal ability to influence the election in his favor had it wished to do so. It certainly could not have provided one-third of his votes, an allegation I had never seen before reading your post.
"Roosevelt could not have been elected governor, hence could not have later been president, without the large Communist party in NY, which gave him 1/3 of his votes."
FDR was elected governor of NY in 1928 for a two year term and re-elected in 1930.
In 1928 the Communist Party of the United States, just recovering from an internal factional struggle, was at a low point with fewer than 10,000 members nationwide. Furthur it was going thru an ultra-left phase where even mainstream socialists (to say nothing of liberals like Roosevelt) were denounced as "social fascists" . By the time FDR was re-elected in 1930 things were looking up for the CP as the Depression settled in, but it was still a pathetically weak organization. And it was still ultra-left and would remain so until the Popular Front era beginning in the mid-1930s. So the CP would have had no interest in seeing FDR elected governor of NY in 1928 or 1930 and would have had only an infinitesmal ability to influence the election in his favor had it wished to do so. It certainly could not have provided one-third of his votes, an allegation I had never seen before reading your post.
anti-communism and anti-Semitism
(#16808)
by Josh Greenland on August 20, 2003 at 4:38 PM
by Josh Greenland on August 20, 2003 at 4:38 PM
"Communism was not invented in the 19th century by Marx and Engels. One could better trace its precepts of violence and armed taking of property by an elite cadre, as well as its name, to the radical "penitentii" of the 12th and 13th centuries, in Northern Italy, who loved to murder and steal as a means of equalization in society, until they themselves were killed."
This is nonsense.
"But Marx and Engels, and their cohorts, took the earlier concepts and made them even more bloodthirsty. The most foul act in all of history is unquestionably the Soviet "liquidation of the Kulaks", in 1932, in which Kaganovich, head of the Checka, had commissars and troops surround the northeast 1/3 of the Ukraine, enter and take every scrap of food, then withdraw to the perimeter, to shoot any who attempted egress. It only took 2 weeks for all inside to be dead, 12 million souls, men, women and children, their lifeless 50 pound bodies easy to dispose of, this in the name of "progress"."
I'm no expert on starvation, but this sounds wrong. The Ukraine is huge, so 1/3rd of its area would still be huge. How could any government force get rid of every scrap of food, in a place with highly fertile soil and a moist climate? Something would always be growing, perhaps even in winter.
If the water were somehow gotten rid of, I could believe the death figures, but I don't think you can guarantee that all or most people "all inside" would be dead in two weeks if they lacked food but still had water. I'll also note that many people in Czarist Russia and the USSR were ingenious about living off the land, as the Nazis found when they tried to starve out surrounded Soviet military units.
The 12 million number is at the high end of Robert Conquest's range of 6-14 million starved in the collectivization by the Soviets. I understand that most historians familiar with the issue consider Conquest's numbers too high.
"A particular objective for Kangaovich was to reduce the influence of Christianity, which in the Ukraine was still strong desite Communism, and which he, as an apostate Jew, deplored for more than one reason. Many other such real, well documented atrocities followed."
Ah yes, the evil, satanical Jews always hate Christianity especially, don't they, at least in the telling by inveterate anti-Semites.
"This was worse than the Mongols, worse than the Shoganate wars, or the 100 years war, worse than the black plague, worse than Rome, worse than black or white slavery, worse than anything."
Worse than Nazi Germany's murders? Worse than the Axis's murders? I'm sure your answer is an unqualified Yes, for ideological reason if not for historically truthful ones. Of course you provide no numbers for Axis-caused death.
"Over the course of most of a century, these thugs (socialists, leftists, agrarian reformers, progressives, communists, take your pick) killed almost 100 million people, taking care to kill the smartest first, thus decapitating the culture. Meanwhile, the elite waxed fat, until they collapsed from an excess of murders, leaving Kaganovich's successors to shift smoothly into organized crime in Russia, Coney Island, or Tel Aviv."
Ah yes, the inflated commie death figures, mixed with description of the fat, evil, "cosmopolitan", international Jews. This is classic stuff! (Coney Island?? Weird....)
"How could anyone support Communism with this history?"
I wonder how anyone can BELIEVE this history.
"Roosevelt could not have been elected governor, hence could not have later been president, without the large Communist party in NY, which gave him 1/3 of his votes. Communists formed a big part of both his state government and his national government."
I would LOVE to see some numbers here! How could the Communist Party, even in the 1930s, have been 1/3rd of ANY electorate in the US? I understand that the CPUSA's membership reached a few hundred thousand at tops during the `30s. New York was still the most populous state in the US. The Communists were all around the US, not just in NY state. So how could they have provided 1/3rd of Gov. Roosevelt's voters??
"Given that Europe was essentially out of the depression by 1936, by the usual means of stimulus and tax cuts,"...
What countries are you talking about? The USSR had its own isolated commie economy that wasn't touched by the Depression, and the Nazis got out of the depression with governmental (heavily military) spending. And my understanding is that most of the rest of Europe was still in an economic malaise during the `30s, but I'd be happy to be corrected on that point if I'm wrong.
..."which were not tried here, it is clear that FDR prolonged the depression in the US to assure that he and his leftist allies could survive politically."
I don't think this assertion has any historical credibility whatever.
"His miserable maneuverings to get us into WW II by secret anti-Japanese maneuvers (see Stennit, "Day of Deceit") no doubt had the same intention, and achieved its objective at the cost of 50 million dead."
So somehow that 50 million dead figure (is it for all of WWII?) can be laid at Roosevelt's doorstep? I guess the Axis had nothing to do with it and weren't the aggressors. You live in a STRANGE world....
"Unquestionably, without the US in the war, The Soviet Union would have fallen to Hitler, particularly given that Stalin had had the GRU murder all its top generals, in 1938."
The killing of the generals did happen, one of the few things you got right in your post, but the USSR probably would have prevailed, if in a worse state. The USSR had moved all of its industry out its European cities and behind the Urals, and had moved its government out of Moscow, too, and could have survived the loss of that city and fought on for quite a time. The USSR had 3 times the population of Germany, only slightly less that many times all the Axis countries fighting in the USSR, and with its productive capacity, Germany couldn't have won without some kind of quick knockout punch, which with the USSR's infrastructure, pre-planning for WWII and huge landmass was highly unlikely. Unquestionably, American material aid to the USSR and distraction of the Axis did help shorten the fight.
"So, when McCarthy went after these criminals, who had indeed been protected actively by both FDR and HST,"
I'd love to see some proof for this statement!
"he was fighting evil incarnate. They were real communists, whose job here, in addition to spying, was to make excuses for Soviet mass-murder, in conjunction with the leftist media, including the NY Times, as Coulter so accurately points out, in enough detail to convince anyone who actually reads her book."
Except for hardcore anticommunist conservative like Radosh and Horowitz, and everyone to the left of Attilla the Hun.
"I suggest that those who commented sympathetically to the leftist agenda, and against McCarthy, reconsider their position. The slander against him then was real, done by real murderers and their paid and unpaid American accomplices. The slander against him today is simply the dying whimpers of a dead philosophy, which will, God willing, stay dead."
Give us a break. The guy was an amoral pathological liar who was so alcoholic that you can hear it clearly when you listen to recordings of his voice.
This is nonsense.
"But Marx and Engels, and their cohorts, took the earlier concepts and made them even more bloodthirsty. The most foul act in all of history is unquestionably the Soviet "liquidation of the Kulaks", in 1932, in which Kaganovich, head of the Checka, had commissars and troops surround the northeast 1/3 of the Ukraine, enter and take every scrap of food, then withdraw to the perimeter, to shoot any who attempted egress. It only took 2 weeks for all inside to be dead, 12 million souls, men, women and children, their lifeless 50 pound bodies easy to dispose of, this in the name of "progress"."
I'm no expert on starvation, but this sounds wrong. The Ukraine is huge, so 1/3rd of its area would still be huge. How could any government force get rid of every scrap of food, in a place with highly fertile soil and a moist climate? Something would always be growing, perhaps even in winter.
If the water were somehow gotten rid of, I could believe the death figures, but I don't think you can guarantee that all or most people "all inside" would be dead in two weeks if they lacked food but still had water. I'll also note that many people in Czarist Russia and the USSR were ingenious about living off the land, as the Nazis found when they tried to starve out surrounded Soviet military units.
The 12 million number is at the high end of Robert Conquest's range of 6-14 million starved in the collectivization by the Soviets. I understand that most historians familiar with the issue consider Conquest's numbers too high.
"A particular objective for Kangaovich was to reduce the influence of Christianity, which in the Ukraine was still strong desite Communism, and which he, as an apostate Jew, deplored for more than one reason. Many other such real, well documented atrocities followed."
Ah yes, the evil, satanical Jews always hate Christianity especially, don't they, at least in the telling by inveterate anti-Semites.
"This was worse than the Mongols, worse than the Shoganate wars, or the 100 years war, worse than the black plague, worse than Rome, worse than black or white slavery, worse than anything."
Worse than Nazi Germany's murders? Worse than the Axis's murders? I'm sure your answer is an unqualified Yes, for ideological reason if not for historically truthful ones. Of course you provide no numbers for Axis-caused death.
"Over the course of most of a century, these thugs (socialists, leftists, agrarian reformers, progressives, communists, take your pick) killed almost 100 million people, taking care to kill the smartest first, thus decapitating the culture. Meanwhile, the elite waxed fat, until they collapsed from an excess of murders, leaving Kaganovich's successors to shift smoothly into organized crime in Russia, Coney Island, or Tel Aviv."
Ah yes, the inflated commie death figures, mixed with description of the fat, evil, "cosmopolitan", international Jews. This is classic stuff! (Coney Island?? Weird....)
"How could anyone support Communism with this history?"
I wonder how anyone can BELIEVE this history.
"Roosevelt could not have been elected governor, hence could not have later been president, without the large Communist party in NY, which gave him 1/3 of his votes. Communists formed a big part of both his state government and his national government."
I would LOVE to see some numbers here! How could the Communist Party, even in the 1930s, have been 1/3rd of ANY electorate in the US? I understand that the CPUSA's membership reached a few hundred thousand at tops during the `30s. New York was still the most populous state in the US. The Communists were all around the US, not just in NY state. So how could they have provided 1/3rd of Gov. Roosevelt's voters??
"Given that Europe was essentially out of the depression by 1936, by the usual means of stimulus and tax cuts,"...
What countries are you talking about? The USSR had its own isolated commie economy that wasn't touched by the Depression, and the Nazis got out of the depression with governmental (heavily military) spending. And my understanding is that most of the rest of Europe was still in an economic malaise during the `30s, but I'd be happy to be corrected on that point if I'm wrong.
..."which were not tried here, it is clear that FDR prolonged the depression in the US to assure that he and his leftist allies could survive politically."
I don't think this assertion has any historical credibility whatever.
"His miserable maneuverings to get us into WW II by secret anti-Japanese maneuvers (see Stennit, "Day of Deceit") no doubt had the same intention, and achieved its objective at the cost of 50 million dead."
So somehow that 50 million dead figure (is it for all of WWII?) can be laid at Roosevelt's doorstep? I guess the Axis had nothing to do with it and weren't the aggressors. You live in a STRANGE world....
"Unquestionably, without the US in the war, The Soviet Union would have fallen to Hitler, particularly given that Stalin had had the GRU murder all its top generals, in 1938."
The killing of the generals did happen, one of the few things you got right in your post, but the USSR probably would have prevailed, if in a worse state. The USSR had moved all of its industry out its European cities and behind the Urals, and had moved its government out of Moscow, too, and could have survived the loss of that city and fought on for quite a time. The USSR had 3 times the population of Germany, only slightly less that many times all the Axis countries fighting in the USSR, and with its productive capacity, Germany couldn't have won without some kind of quick knockout punch, which with the USSR's infrastructure, pre-planning for WWII and huge landmass was highly unlikely. Unquestionably, American material aid to the USSR and distraction of the Axis did help shorten the fight.
"So, when McCarthy went after these criminals, who had indeed been protected actively by both FDR and HST,"
I'd love to see some proof for this statement!
"he was fighting evil incarnate. They were real communists, whose job here, in addition to spying, was to make excuses for Soviet mass-murder, in conjunction with the leftist media, including the NY Times, as Coulter so accurately points out, in enough detail to convince anyone who actually reads her book."
Except for hardcore anticommunist conservative like Radosh and Horowitz, and everyone to the left of Attilla the Hun.
"I suggest that those who commented sympathetically to the leftist agenda, and against McCarthy, reconsider their position. The slander against him then was real, done by real murderers and their paid and unpaid American accomplices. The slander against him today is simply the dying whimpers of a dead philosophy, which will, God willing, stay dead."
Give us a break. The guy was an amoral pathological liar who was so alcoholic that you can hear it clearly when you listen to recordings of his voice.
RE: anti-communism and anti-Semitism
(#16843)
by Jesse Lamovsky on August 21, 2003 at 12:52 AM
by Jesse Lamovsky on August 21, 2003 at 12:52 AM
Mr. Thomas does seem to put peculiar emphasis on the role of Jews in the Communist movements of the 20th century, which was a bit discomfiting to me as well. But when you add in the deaths caused by the Red Chinese, as well as by Pol Pot and other Marxists, his numbers are pretty close to the mark- Communist governments really did kill about one hundred million of their own citizens during the 20th century. And in defense of Mr. Thomas, he didn't argue the point I made in my reply- that Communist governments were equally hostile to pious Jews as they were to pious Christians.
Also, I don't find it such a stretch that Roosevelt was elected governor of New York with some assistance from Communist voters. Remember, Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party (basically a CPUSA front) took New York in the 1948 election.
Also, I don't find it such a stretch that Roosevelt was elected governor of New York with some assistance from Communist voters. Remember, Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party (basically a CPUSA front) took New York in the 1948 election.
Mr. Lamovsky's Alternate Universe
(#16896)
by John Doe on August 21, 2003 at 6:52 PM
by John Doe on August 21, 2003 at 6:52 PM
Mr. Lamovsky wrote:
"Also, I don't find it such a stretch that Roosevelt was elected governor of New York with some assistance from Communist voters. Remember, Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party (basically a CPUSA front) took New York in the 1948 election. "
Mr. L. must live in one of those science fiction alternate universes like the ones in all the stories where the Confederacy won the Civil War or the Axis won World War 2.
I've explained above that the Communist party was practically an impotent force in US (and NY)politics when FDR won the NY governorship in 1928 and 1930. Now let's look at Henry Wallace's triumph in NY in the 1948 Presidential election. The actual figures for THIS universe (which it took me all of about 3 minutes to find) are as follows:
CANDIDATE PARTY VOTE PERCENTAGE
Thomas E. Dewey Republican 2,841,163 45.99%
Harry S. Truman Democrat 2,780,204 45.01%
Henry Wallace American Labor 509,599 8.25%
Norman Thomas Socialist 40,879 0 .66%
All Others 5,532 0.09%
I should explain that the American Labor Party was an already existing Communist front party in NY. (It was founded as a democratic left of center party by anti-Communist labor leaders in 1936 and infiltrated and taken over by Communists during the early 1940s. Instead of fighting for their party the labor leaders simply withdrew and formed the New York Liberal Party in 1944.) So Wallace did not have to set up a Progressive Party in NY, they just used the ALP line. Now Wallace was not a Communist himself, but he was a dupe of Communists. It's unfortunate that he won any votes, much less 8.25% But he came in a very distant third, not first and 90% of NY voters chose either Thomas Dewey or Harry Truman, both of whom were, in their own very different ways, committed to American Constitutional democracy.
"Also, I don't find it such a stretch that Roosevelt was elected governor of New York with some assistance from Communist voters. Remember, Henry Wallace of the Progressive Party (basically a CPUSA front) took New York in the 1948 election. "
Mr. L. must live in one of those science fiction alternate universes like the ones in all the stories where the Confederacy won the Civil War or the Axis won World War 2.
I've explained above that the Communist party was practically an impotent force in US (and NY)politics when FDR won the NY governorship in 1928 and 1930. Now let's look at Henry Wallace's triumph in NY in the 1948 Presidential election. The actual figures for THIS universe (which it took me all of about 3 minutes to find) are as follows:
CANDIDATE PARTY VOTE PERCENTAGE
Thomas E. Dewey Republican 2,841,163 45.99%
Harry S. Truman Democrat 2,780,204 45.01%
Henry Wallace American Labor 509,599 8.25%
Norman Thomas Socialist 40,879 0 .66%
All Others 5,532 0.09%
I should explain that the American Labor Party was an already existing Communist front party in NY. (It was founded as a democratic left of center party by anti-Communist labor leaders in 1936 and infiltrated and taken over by Communists during the early 1940s. Instead of fighting for their party the labor leaders simply withdrew and formed the New York Liberal Party in 1944.) So Wallace did not have to set up a Progressive Party in NY, they just used the ALP line. Now Wallace was not a Communist himself, but he was a dupe of Communists. It's unfortunate that he won any votes, much less 8.25% But he came in a very distant third, not first and 90% of NY voters chose either Thomas Dewey or Harry Truman, both of whom were, in their own very different ways, committed to American Constitutional democracy.
Table of NY Vote in 1948 Election
(#16898)
by John Doe on August 21, 2003 at 6:54 PM
by John Doe on August 21, 2003 at 6:54 PM
I had the table of the vote in NY in 1948 nicely laid out, but the software this site uses bunched everything up.
Mea Culpa
(#16923)
by Jesse Lamovsky on August 22, 2003 at 5:48 AM
by Jesse Lamovsky on August 22, 2003 at 5:48 AM
Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I appreciate getting set straight.
Stretching a Point
(#16987)
by F.H. THOMAS on August 23, 2003 at 4:47 PM
by F.H. THOMAS on August 23, 2003 at 4:47 PM
Dear John Doe,
I noticed you became a little over-enthusiastic in jumping on our young colleague Lamovsky, who has added, in my view, much to our discussions.
Please remember that FDR came from New York, which had the largest communist party in the United States. Agreed? Also remember that FDR was known for successfully switching the base of the democratic party from right, rural, and Southern, to left, urban, and Northern. Are we together so far?
The way he did it was to incorporate Communist (or whatever lefties) to vote for the democratic party, using appeals not heard since his cousin Teddy. So when members of a party switch their votes, but not their allegiance, it does not mean that they do not exist. It is just that they are hidden. In this case, thanks to the HUAC, (not McCarthy), these same Commies registered democratic and have been there since.
Now, FDR did this switcheroo in New York before he did it in Washington. He already had Communist allegiance when he ran for president. So were they Commies when they voted Democratic? I grant they may be considered otherwise, but I called em as I saw them, when Iused the figure of 1/3 of Rooseveldt's gubernatorial vote.
I am sure you are a good person, but you do not seem so when you put on your "hysterical leftie" persona. I would lead more with reason, and less with emotion, to get a better hearing. I also suggest that you be pround of your positions, and use your actual name.
You may want to read my note to Greenland.
enjoy!
Shame in the 20th Century
(#16986)
by F.H. Thomas on August 23, 2003 at 4:24 PM
by F.H. Thomas on August 23, 2003 at 4:24 PM
Hello Josh,
When you begin and end with ad hominem attacks, that is simply a way you tell the reader that you do not have much of an argument. I am responding to help you have a better one.
Those who assert that movements in history have no ethnic or ciltural implications at all, or that their favorite ethnic group is mysteriously the only one which is innocent, are fooling themselves as well as others. Can you imagine the Mongol invasions done by anyone else? Culture is a part of it.
May I quote an observer, Winston Churchill, in 1920?
"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people."
(Josh, that "intense passion for revenge" manifested itself in 1941, when Ukranians, Belorussians, Russians, etc flocked to join the Einsatzgrueppen so they could freely take vengeance on the bloodthirsty killers who had massacred them. Last year I interviewed a former Swabian Wehrmacht corporal who served on the Eastern Front. Every time they overran a Soviet unit, the SS liason asked in Russian "Who is the Kommissar"? All of the captives, who presumably spoke no other German, turned and pointed, saying "Da ist der Jued". The commissars were quickly tried and shot. That's revenge as Kaganovich deserved to get it.)
Or another, David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, in January 1918?
"The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution."
Or the Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, in 1919:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
But Vorwaerts, the American Jewish newspaper, said
"The Bolshevik Revolution was largely the product of Jewish thinking, Jewish discontent, Jewish effort to reconstruct."
To be fair, the Russian revolution should be described as a democratic revolution which was overthrown in by a jewish coup.
Regarding the actual numbers murdered by Kaganovich, neither of us knows exactly what they were, or exactly how long it takes a man in the Russian November to starve, but you seem to agree they were horrendous, and in any case far higher than, for example, anything claimed to date for the holocaust. The other little holocausts going on included a well-documented but little mentioned one in all of the eastern states of Germany, in 1945 as the Red Army commissars, cheered on by the bloodthirsty Illa Ehrenberg, who counselled mass rapes and shootings, in that order, killed 3.5 million and ethnically cleansed 13 million German civilians. (Check those figures with the UN, bubba)
You seem to think that telling the truth about gross criminality by a number of Jews constitutes anti-semitism (a word which loses steam every time it is used). However, I have a great deal of respect for many of the Arabs, who are mostly full Semites, and you should recongize that most American Jews are very low in their Semite content. In fact they are mostly German. On the other hand I have great respect and love for many Jews. Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, and Norman Finkelstein come to mind for their integrity.
I got involved with this exchange to remind you to remember The morality of Thucidides: What a historian does is not to pander myths to achieve the adulation of the crowd, but to create a thing of lasting value for all generations.
Don't pander myths, Josh. The Jews can stand the truth just as can everyone else who mass-murdered in our bloody history.
By the way, you said "nonsense" to my lead paragraph on the penitentii, without really knowing what you were about. Look up Fra Dolcino. His group killed around 20,000 up and down the Po valley, in the name of equality, before he and 5000 followers were themselves done in. He was only one of many. Although the links are a little stretched, at least one link to him goes back to the patron of poverty himself, Saint Frances of Assisi. The middle ages did more to make modern times than we sometimes give them credit for.
RE: Shame in the 20th Century
(#16990)
by Jesse Lamovsky on August 23, 2003 at 5:39 PM
by Jesse Lamovsky on August 23, 2003 at 5:39 PM
Mr. Thomas, I'm basically in agreement with your ideas on Communism, and the Jewish component in the Bolshevik movement can't be argued. But I do have an issue with this paragraph in your post:
"...that "intense passion for revenge" manifested itself in 1941, when Ukranians, Belorussians, Russians, etc flocked to join the Einsatzgrueppen so they could freely take vengeance on the bloodthirsty killers who had massacred them. Last year I interviewed a former Swabian Wehrmacht corporal who served on the Eastern Front. Every time they overran a Soviet unit, the SS liason asked in Russian "Who is the Kommissar"? All of the captives, who presumably spoke no other German, turned and pointed, saying "Da ist der Jued". The commissars were quickly tried and shot. That's revenge as Kaganovich deserved to get it."
I must confess to being uneasy about the tone that manifests itself in this passage. I'm not going to stoop so low as to accuse you of anti-Semitism (which, I agree, is an abused term). Yet, unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be at least implying that the murder by German mobile killing units of more than a million people was in some way justified simply because of the crimes of Jewish Communists. And whether or not the admittedly mistreated Ukrainians, Belorussians, Ruthenians, et al were motivated by vengeance, the fact remains that the vast majority of those murdered by the Einzantsgruppen were not "Commissars". They were old men, babies, women, children, rabbis, craftsmen, artisans, the Orthodox, Zionists, Bundists- human beings who certainly were not guilty of any crime that justified being robbed, humiliated, physically molested, lined up in anti-tank ditches and butchered. Trotsky, Kaganovich, Ehrenburg, and Dzerzhinsky were criminals. I sincerely hope that you don't believe it was acceptable to use a million human beings as stand-in scapegoats for the crimes of a relatively small group of men. No offense intended, but there is a moral equivalence expressed in this post that I find objectionable, to say the least.
The starvation of Ukrainian kulaks and the existence of the gulags cannot be justified as "revenge" for the abuse of Jews by the Czars. Nor can Babi Yar or Kovno be justified as "revenge" for the abuse of the Russian people by the Bolsheviks, many of whom were apostate Jews. A man's crime is his own. To suggest otherwise is to think the same way as the mass-murdering, collectivist left has thought since 1789.
Also, you single out Russian Bolshevism, with its Jewish component, as the worst example of Communist tyranny. But what about the Chinese Communists, who murdered fifty million people? What about Pol Pot? What about Mugabe? They weren't Jews. There is no discernable "Jewish influence" in the crimes perpetrated by these men and their associates. Is Communism and collectivism bad, or is it only bad when it is practiced by atheists of Jewish ethnicity?
I have no problem acknowledging the Jewish ethnicity of many of many Bolsheviks. I don't deny that their experience as Jews in Czarist Russia probably had a good deal to do with their animus toward the Russian people, their religion, and their institutions. I have no problem acknowledging this because their crimes were their reponsibility, not mine, not any monolithic bloc ("the Jews")- and not the responsibility of the innocents murdered by the Einzantsgruppen or their Slavic flunkies, either.
(By the way, I can scarcely believe that you singled out a socialist and Pol Pot apologist like Noam Chomsky for praise. Why, because he's anti-Zionist? Come on. Are you anti-Communist or not?)
I intended no personal aspersions or offense in this post, sir. Just seeking a little bit of clarification!
"...that "intense passion for revenge" manifested itself in 1941, when Ukranians, Belorussians, Russians, etc flocked to join the Einsatzgrueppen so they could freely take vengeance on the bloodthirsty killers who had massacred them. Last year I interviewed a former Swabian Wehrmacht corporal who served on the Eastern Front. Every time they overran a Soviet unit, the SS liason asked in Russian "Who is the Kommissar"? All of the captives, who presumably spoke no other German, turned and pointed, saying "Da ist der Jued". The commissars were quickly tried and shot. That's revenge as Kaganovich deserved to get it."
I must confess to being uneasy about the tone that manifests itself in this passage. I'm not going to stoop so low as to accuse you of anti-Semitism (which, I agree, is an abused term). Yet, unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be at least implying that the murder by German mobile killing units of more than a million people was in some way justified simply because of the crimes of Jewish Communists. And whether or not the admittedly mistreated Ukrainians, Belorussians, Ruthenians, et al were motivated by vengeance, the fact remains that the vast majority of those murdered by the Einzantsgruppen were not "Commissars". They were old men, babies, women, children, rabbis, craftsmen, artisans, the Orthodox, Zionists, Bundists- human beings who certainly were not guilty of any crime that justified being robbed, humiliated, physically molested, lined up in anti-tank ditches and butchered. Trotsky, Kaganovich, Ehrenburg, and Dzerzhinsky were criminals. I sincerely hope that you don't believe it was acceptable to use a million human beings as stand-in scapegoats for the crimes of a relatively small group of men. No offense intended, but there is a moral equivalence expressed in this post that I find objectionable, to say the least.
The starvation of Ukrainian kulaks and the existence of the gulags cannot be justified as "revenge" for the abuse of Jews by the Czars. Nor can Babi Yar or Kovno be justified as "revenge" for the abuse of the Russian people by the Bolsheviks, many of whom were apostate Jews. A man's crime is his own. To suggest otherwise is to think the same way as the mass-murdering, collectivist left has thought since 1789.
Also, you single out Russian Bolshevism, with its Jewish component, as the worst example of Communist tyranny. But what about the Chinese Communists, who murdered fifty million people? What about Pol Pot? What about Mugabe? They weren't Jews. There is no discernable "Jewish influence" in the crimes perpetrated by these men and their associates. Is Communism and collectivism bad, or is it only bad when it is practiced by atheists of Jewish ethnicity?
I have no problem acknowledging the Jewish ethnicity of many of many Bolsheviks. I don't deny that their experience as Jews in Czarist Russia probably had a good deal to do with their animus toward the Russian people, their religion, and their institutions. I have no problem acknowledging this because their crimes were their reponsibility, not mine, not any monolithic bloc ("the Jews")- and not the responsibility of the innocents murdered by the Einzantsgruppen or their Slavic flunkies, either.
(By the way, I can scarcely believe that you singled out a socialist and Pol Pot apologist like Noam Chomsky for praise. Why, because he's anti-Zionist? Come on. Are you anti-Communist or not?)
I intended no personal aspersions or offense in this post, sir. Just seeking a little bit of clarification!
Fra Dolcino and communist myths
(#20337)
by Jerry Pierce on October 15, 2003 at 8:06 PM
by Jerry Pierce on October 15, 2003 at 8:06 PM
Hello,
I realize that this comment is a bit late, but I didn't come across this thread until recently.
Considering the 'mission statement' of the HNN ("To point out bogus analogies. To deflate beguiling myths.") I too must deflate some myths about medieval heresy and violence, particularly that regarding Fra Dolcino in Italy in the early 14th century (which, I should point out, is the subject of my dissertation "Creating the Apocalyptic Community: Gerard Segarelli, Fra Dolcino and the Legitimization of Deviance Among the Order of Apostles, 1260-1307").
Leaving aside the major part of the debate regarding the spread of communism in the 19th and 20th centuries, I wish to take issue with the comment(s) made by F.H. Thomas regarding Fra Dolcino, the "penitentii" and violence.
First, I'd like to ask what source(s) the author used for the "information" about Dolcino and his activities? Since the execution of Dolcino in 1307, many so-called histories of the Order of Apostles (Apostolici, Apostolic Brethren...in this thread referred to as 'penitentii'), including the inquisitorial account penned by Bernard Gui around 1316, have obscurred the history of Dolcino and his order by falsely referencing their violence against the pious people of northern Italy. Though it is true that supporters of the Apostolici (and perhaps some members themselves) took up arms in their rebellion, it was NOT directed at the unsuspecting and innocent peasants (or the rich for that matter). Instead, the violence was between the Apostolici and successive crusading armies headed by the bishop of Vercelli and approved by the papacy. However, according to F.H. Thomas:
"Communism was not invented in the 19th century by Marx and Engels. One could better trace its precepts of violence and armed taking of property by an elite cadre, as well as its name, to the radical "penitentii" of the 12th and 13th centuries, in Northern Italy, who loved to murder and steal as a means of equalization in society, until they themselves were killed."
And from a follow-up post:
"Look up Fra Dolcino. His group killed around 20,000 up and down the Po valley, in the name of equality, before he and 5000 followers were themselves done in. He was only one of many. Although the links are a little stretched, at least one link to him goes back to the patron of poverty himself, Saint Frances of Assisi. The middle ages did more to make modern times than we sometimes give them credit for."
I don't take issue with the idea that communism originated prior to Marx and Engels. However, I do believe that the connection between violence and communism has been overstated, especially if Dolcino's group is being used as an example.
Instead of taking the inquisitorial documents at face value or any of the subsequent historical works (in English) which repeat the same errors (Gordon Leff, Marjorie Reeves, Malcolm Barber) some contextual analysis helps expose the biases and misrepresentation that originated with Gui's "On the Sect of the Pseudo-Apostles" and have been perpetuated ever since.
Let me briefly supply some facts that have been lacking in the scholarship and have been repeated recently in this forum by F.H. Thomas.
1. The Order of Apostles had a quite peaceful beginning in the city of Parma c. 1260 under Gerard Segarelli. He preached a message of poverty and penance that appealed to many, both men and women, as a means to free themselves from what they believed was an increasingly corrupt and materialistic world. Under Segarelli, the Order was very much a "communistic" group, as they collectively shared everything from clothes to food to shelter. All of this information can be found in the _Cronica_ of the Franciscan, Salimbene of Parma, who was a contemporary and bitter rival of Segarelli.
2. The Order (it was referred to as such by papal bulls) spread peacefully from Parma to northern Italy, and then beyond to France, Spain and Germany. Adherents, men and women, preached in a variety of locations, from roadsides, to piazzas, and even in episcopal cathedrals (which implies official sanction and acceptance).
3. After the second Council of Lyon in 1274, the Church tried to restrict the number of mendicant movements, including the Apostolici, by encouraging their memebrs to join established orders (such as the Franciscans and Dominicans). The Apostolici, among others, refused to disband, but no official action was taken, even after a later pope (Nicolaus IV) reissued the order to disband. However, the group was NOT considered heretical, nor did they break any laws. And they most definitely did NOT massacre the rich. They preached their message, lived off of the charity of others (including the bishop of Parma) and pressed on with their apostolic lifestyle.
3. Segarelli himself was imprisoned in the bishop's palace in Parma in the 1290's (apparently at the suggestion of the podesta' of Bologna, whose brother had been evicted from the Order for being too worldly). It was not until 1300, almost a half-century AFTER their foundation, that Segarelli was tried by the Domincan-led inquisition and burned as a heretic (for refusing to obey the papal directives). However, membership in the group was not an automatic stigma of heresy because many laypersons continued to leave donations for the Apostolici in their wills.
4. Around 1300, Fra Dolcino took over leadership of the group. But this did NOT result in immediate violence. Dolcino's message was similar to that of Segarelli, but heavily infused with apocalyptic imagery and prophecies. It is true that Dolcino predicted that their enemies would fall to the sword and be wiped from the face of the earth. HOWEVER, a careful reading of his prophecy reveals that Dolcino did NOT advocate violence for his followers. Instead, he expected the German Emperor to come to their aid and fight FOR them against the papal forces. Indeed, Dolcino undertook a peaceful, clandestine preaching campaign throughout northern Italy trying to gather more followers. There is no evidence that he went on a killing spree.
5. Regarding the statement that Dolcino and his followers killed "around 20,000" in the name of equality, this false idea comes from the biased source "History of the Heresiarch Fra Dolcino". This concept has been uncritically repeated by numerous authors from Beneventus da Imola to Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" (in fact, Eco's popular book has almost an entire chapter on the heresy of Dolcino, which is practically a verbatim recitation of the information in the "History"; and this falsehood was again repeated in the film-version of the novel where Sean Connery's character states that the Dolcinites roamed the countryside murdering the rich in order to make everyone equal. However, simply repeating the information does not make it accurate.)
6. Dolcino and his followers retreated to the mountains above Biella, Italy where no less than 4 papal crusades were launched against them. Contrary to the "murderous" characterization of the Dolcinites, the local populace of farmers and artisans actually supported their rebellion. Dolcino and his followers did not raid the countryside and slaughter the inhabitants. In fact, the region near Biella was known for its frequent peasant rebellions against the clerical control (and taxes) of the bishop of Vercelli. It was these very same peasants (and many local lords) who assisted the Apostolici against what they all believed was the unlawful incursion of papal authority. Popular support was so strong that the pope had to issue a special admonition directed towards the inhabitants of the Valsesia region. So many people were aiding the Apostolici (with food, clothing, etc) that the pope threatened excommunication for all those who defied papal authority by assisting the heretics. This outpouring of popular support, from wealthy land owners as well, directly contradicts the image of ravenous, murderous heretics scouring the countryside and killing all those in their path. This new view of the Apostolici as far less violent and receiving much more popular support has been put forth by a number of Italian scholars, including Gustavo Buratti and Corrado Mornese.
So, in conclusion, though the author of the original post might have a point about communism and violence, there is no way that using Fra Dolcino and the Apostolici can help prove that point. They didn't kill 20,000 Italians (in fact, even the number of Dolcino's followers killed [5000] has been found to be far too high). Thus by putting these sources for Dolcino in their historical context (i.e. by recognizing that they were penned by inquisitorial opponents who often stigmatized and demonized their subjects) we can hopefully put to rest the false notion that the Apostolici were bloodthirsty proto-communists.
I realize that this comment is a bit late, but I didn't come across this thread until recently.
Considering the 'mission statement' of the HNN ("To point out bogus analogies. To deflate beguiling myths.") I too must deflate some myths about medieval heresy and violence, particularly that regarding Fra Dolcino in Italy in the early 14th century (which, I should point out, is the subject of my dissertation "Creating the Apocalyptic Community: Gerard Segarelli, Fra Dolcino and the Legitimization of Deviance Among the Order of Apostles, 1260-1307").
Leaving aside the major part of the debate regarding the spread of communism in the 19th and 20th centuries, I wish to take issue with the comment(s) made by F.H. Thomas regarding Fra Dolcino, the "penitentii" and violence.
First, I'd like to ask what source(s) the author used for the "information" about Dolcino and his activities? Since the execution of Dolcino in 1307, many so-called histories of the Order of Apostles (Apostolici, Apostolic Brethren...in this thread referred to as 'penitentii'), including the inquisitorial account penned by Bernard Gui around 1316, have obscurred the history of Dolcino and his order by falsely referencing their violence against the pious people of northern Italy. Though it is true that supporters of the Apostolici (and perhaps some members themselves) took up arms in their rebellion, it was NOT directed at the unsuspecting and innocent peasants (or the rich for that matter). Instead, the violence was between the Apostolici and successive crusading armies headed by the bishop of Vercelli and approved by the papacy. However, according to F.H. Thomas:
"Communism was not invented in the 19th century by Marx and Engels. One could better trace its precepts of violence and armed taking of property by an elite cadre, as well as its name, to the radical "penitentii" of the 12th and 13th centuries, in Northern Italy, who loved to murder and steal as a means of equalization in society, until they themselves were killed."
And from a follow-up post:
"Look up Fra Dolcino. His group killed around 20,000 up and down the Po valley, in the name of equality, before he and 5000 followers were themselves done in. He was only one of many. Although the links are a little stretched, at least one link to him goes back to the patron of poverty himself, Saint Frances of Assisi. The middle ages did more to make modern times than we sometimes give them credit for."
I don't take issue with the idea that communism originated prior to Marx and Engels. However, I do believe that the connection between violence and communism has been overstated, especially if Dolcino's group is being used as an example.
Instead of taking the inquisitorial documents at face value or any of the subsequent historical works (in English) which repeat the same errors (Gordon Leff, Marjorie Reeves, Malcolm Barber) some contextual analysis helps expose the biases and misrepresentation that originated with Gui's "On the Sect of the Pseudo-Apostles" and have been perpetuated ever since.
Let me briefly supply some facts that have been lacking in the scholarship and have been repeated recently in this forum by F.H. Thomas.
1. The Order of Apostles had a quite peaceful beginning in the city of Parma c. 1260 under Gerard Segarelli. He preached a message of poverty and penance that appealed to many, both men and women, as a means to free themselves from what they believed was an increasingly corrupt and materialistic world. Under Segarelli, the Order was very much a "communistic" group, as they collectively shared everything from clothes to food to shelter. All of this information can be found in the _Cronica_ of the Franciscan, Salimbene of Parma, who was a contemporary and bitter rival of Segarelli.
2. The Order (it was referred to as such by papal bulls) spread peacefully from Parma to northern Italy, and then beyond to France, Spain and Germany. Adherents, men and women, preached in a variety of locations, from roadsides, to piazzas, and even in episcopal cathedrals (which implies official sanction and acceptance).
3. After the second Council of Lyon in 1274, the Church tried to restrict the number of mendicant movements, including the Apostolici, by encouraging their memebrs to join established orders (such as the Franciscans and Dominicans). The Apostolici, among others, refused to disband, but no official action was taken, even after a later pope (Nicolaus IV) reissued the order to disband. However, the group was NOT considered heretical, nor did they break any laws. And they most definitely did NOT massacre the rich. They preached their message, lived off of the charity of others (including the bishop of Parma) and pressed on with their apostolic lifestyle.
3. Segarelli himself was imprisoned in the bishop's palace in Parma in the 1290's (apparently at the suggestion of the podesta' of Bologna, whose brother had been evicted from the Order for being too worldly). It was not until 1300, almost a half-century AFTER their foundation, that Segarelli was tried by the Domincan-led inquisition and burned as a heretic (for refusing to obey the papal directives). However, membership in the group was not an automatic stigma of heresy because many laypersons continued to leave donations for the Apostolici in their wills.
4. Around 1300, Fra Dolcino took over leadership of the group. But this did NOT result in immediate violence. Dolcino's message was similar to that of Segarelli, but heavily infused with apocalyptic imagery and prophecies. It is true that Dolcino predicted that their enemies would fall to the sword and be wiped from the face of the earth. HOWEVER, a careful reading of his prophecy reveals that Dolcino did NOT advocate violence for his followers. Instead, he expected the German Emperor to come to their aid and fight FOR them against the papal forces. Indeed, Dolcino undertook a peaceful, clandestine preaching campaign throughout northern Italy trying to gather more followers. There is no evidence that he went on a killing spree.
5. Regarding the statement that Dolcino and his followers killed "around 20,000" in the name of equality, this false idea comes from the biased source "History of the Heresiarch Fra Dolcino". This concept has been uncritically repeated by numerous authors from Beneventus da Imola to Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" (in fact, Eco's popular book has almost an entire chapter on the heresy of Dolcino, which is practically a verbatim recitation of the information in the "History"; and this falsehood was again repeated in the film-version of the novel where Sean Connery's character states that the Dolcinites roamed the countryside murdering the rich in order to make everyone equal. However, simply repeating the information does not make it accurate.)
6. Dolcino and his followers retreated to the mountains above Biella, Italy where no less than 4 papal crusades were launched against them. Contrary to the "murderous" characterization of the Dolcinites, the local populace of farmers and artisans actually supported their rebellion. Dolcino and his followers did not raid the countryside and slaughter the inhabitants. In fact, the region near Biella was known for its frequent peasant rebellions against the clerical control (and taxes) of the bishop of Vercelli. It was these very same peasants (and many local lords) who assisted the Apostolici against what they all believed was the unlawful incursion of papal authority. Popular support was so strong that the pope had to issue a special admonition directed towards the inhabitants of the Valsesia region. So many people were aiding the Apostolici (with food, clothing, etc) that the pope threatened excommunication for all those who defied papal authority by assisting the heretics. This outpouring of popular support, from wealthy land owners as well, directly contradicts the image of ravenous, murderous heretics scouring the countryside and killing all those in their path. This new view of the Apostolici as far less violent and receiving much more popular support has been put forth by a number of Italian scholars, including Gustavo Buratti and Corrado Mornese.
So, in conclusion, though the author of the original post might have a point about communism and violence, there is no way that using Fra Dolcino and the Apostolici can help prove that point. They didn't kill 20,000 Italians (in fact, even the number of Dolcino's followers killed [5000] has been found to be far too high). Thus by putting these sources for Dolcino in their historical context (i.e. by recognizing that they were penned by inquisitorial opponents who often stigmatized and demonized their subjects) we can hopefully put to rest the false notion that the Apostolici were bloodthirsty proto-communists.
When you are finished with the comments for this entry, close the window to return to "What Bill O'Reilly Should Have Told Ann Coulter".
by Jesse Lamovsky on August 16, 2003 at 5:48 PM