Gosh, “Milton Buckwalter,” you don’t know how to assess things for yourself, so you need “qualified authorities” to tell you how the world works?

Frankly, I’d take critical remarks from anyone — and then assess those remarks myself.

When it comes to American politics and socio-economic thinking about life in America, I’ve heard more wisdom from George Carlin and Bill Hicks than I have from any “qualified authority” on the subjects.

I’d have to say that “Milton Buckwalter” is neither qualified nor authoritative.

What I am calling him is a hypocrite. He’s supposedly all about freedom and personal choice, yet he says moving to where the jobs are is not among the freedoms we possess. Worse, he wants to mount a military attack against immigrants.

He’s also a gay-basher and a moron, as Sasha Cohen will show you.

How long 10,000 years well the next twenty will not be boring trust me on this one.

Sasha Cohen’s Bruno has put Ron Paul to bed. Game over.

The only good thing I have to say about Paul is that he’s probably depriving the KKK of thousands of members. Given the fascist immigration policy he proposes that might not be much of a net gain, though.
#

Michael Kenny said on June 21st, 2009 at 12:59pm #

Sorry, Michael. The only immigration policy Ron Paul advocates is to follow the law. Ron Paul is not anti-immigration. Only anti illegal immigration. He believes that the desirable need for immigration should simply be reflected in a coherent immigration policy determined by a democratic consensus and in accordance with Constitutional provisions. The white supremacist slander is getting really old and has been debunked a million times.

In part 4, she will demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the CIA was behind the assassination of Julius Caesar!

The only good thing I have to say about Paul is that he’s probably depriving the KKK of thousands of members. Given the fascist immigration policy he proposes that might not be much of a net gain, though.

nicely put

The coming period will require creative thinking and action from people who recognize both the tyranny of the centralized state and the fetishized marketplace. Libertarians won’t make the cut.

I

The Reece Committee’s public hearings were abruptly terminated after the first person testified in defense of the foundations. Rowan Gaither pointed out that “The Committee did not allow us to testify” and “has not even published the written statement we submitted under oath.”

So was the Reece Committee a fair and impartial investigation arriving at carefully crafted findings or a partisan attack by persons who had an ax to grind and wanted to shape public debate within the context of the events occurring during their hearings?

The August 20, 1954 Congressional Record includes a speech by Cong. B. Carroll Reece in which he explains how he became interested in the subject of tax exempt foundations. He starts by referring to 3 categories of information he discovered during his service on the Cox committee:

“The first pointed to Communist or Communist sympathizer
infiltration into the foundations; the second pointed to a much
broader condition, namely, foundation support of Fabian socialism in
America; and the third pointed to the financial aspect of the
foundations.”

So, now, we begin to get an idea of what was bothering Reece
and why he described foundations as “a major concern”. Reece then
amplified his concerns about, and objections to, “Fabian socialism”
and, suddenly, we discover something that Reece Committee supporters never reveal.

Quoting from Reece’s speech:

“Fabian socialism is not communism: it is a technique of nonviolent
revolution by the consent of a duped propagandized population. It
is the technique that brought socialism to Great Britain. In the
United States, Fabian socialism has taken the name ‘New Deal’
and ‘Fair Deal’. Of this there can be no doubt…Parenthetically, I
want to say a brief word to those Americans who approve of the New
Deal-Fair Deal-Fabian revolution, and therefore might call this
investigation a tempest in a teapot. It is their privilege to do
so, but it is my privilege to oppose this overt subversion of
traditional American ideals…Although the Cox committee was not
looking for Fabian socialism, the evidence presented before it
disclosed to me what might be an important clue to the location of
the nerve center of subversion in America–the left wing
intellectuals whose prestige and influence seemed to be the product
of the tax-exempt foundation grants. I therefore suggested to the
Congress that the investigation be extended.”

So, now, we can see what truly underlies the Reece Committee “investigation” and subsequent report conclusions.

Contemporary news reports and editorials about the Reece Committee
refer to it as an attack upon the Eisenhower Administration by
disgruntled conservatives who were furious with Eisenhower because
they had expected him to dismantle the FDR-New Deal and Truman-Fair
Deal brick-by-brick and, thus, erase that entire era of Democratic
activism and dominance from our country’s history.

Reece’s comments above reveal how elastic his definition
of “subversion” was. We also can see the political agenda he was
pursuing. We also see his thinly-veiled contempt for intellectuals
and their supposed association with “subversion” (a common theme in
conspiracy arguments).

Today, this all probably seems quite bizarre to most Americans
because very few of us want to repeal Social Security, unemployment
insurance, workmen’s compensation. or a host of other FDR-Truman programs and even fewer of us would accept the notion that such ideas or programs amount to “Fabian socialism” subverting our “traditional American ideals”.

So one must have knowledge of historical context and human
motivations before elevating Congressional “investigations” and
resulting documents to the level of “factual” knowledge about
controversial subject matters—or, at a minimum, before one assigns
the appropriate value to such data.

Reece was a career politician. For most of his 35-year political
career he was a member of the minority party in Congress.

And Reece watched, year-after-year while ideas, values, and policies
that he rejected as “subversion” were nevertheless adopted and while
the proponents of those ideas, values, and policies were elected, re-
elected, and idolized by a “duped” American citizenry.

Conspiracy theory is a problem-solving device. So…let’s pretend we could ask Congressman Reece some questions. Here is the Q & A on this topic:

Question #1. What, Cong. Reece, is the perceived problem?
Answer: Persons, policies, and programs are changing America.

Question #2. What is wrong with that change?
Answer: It violates “traditional American ideals”.

Question #3. OK — so what? Every society (except those in the
midst of civil war) has a prevailing point of view.
Answer: Yes, but the “prevailing point of view” of the FDR and
Truman years subverted “traditional American ideals.” If properly
exposed, the prevailing point of view would be rejected.

Question #4. So, whom is responsible for this “subversion”?
Answer: Left-wing intellectuals and the media and tax-exempt
foundations.

Question #5. So, what can be done about it?
Answer: We can expose leftists and foundations who are subverting
our “traditional American ideals”.

Question #6. So, what if Americans reject your expose?
Answer: Then it must be the result of sinister, hidden forces that
are preventing patriotic Americans (like me) from seeing the truth
behind the matter.

CONCLUSION:

From this perspective, the Reece “conspiracy theory” can be seen as
a problem-solving device to explain why his personal political
preferences did not prevail in our nation’s debates about public
policy choices.

From the Reece perspective, he is absolutely certain that his
personal political preferences represent “traditional American
ideals.”

He is so certain about this, that the only way he can conceive of
voters approving any “subversion” of those ideals is if they are
a “duped propagandized population”.

Incidentally, most conspiracy theories require a belief that the
majority of Americans are dullards who have no capacity to
understand what is in the best interests of themselves and their
country—which is why they are so easily “duped” and manipulated by
cunning, sinister “subversives”.

Thus, the Reece conspiracy theory served to solve the perceived
problem of why Americans adopted ideas and policies which Reece
disapproved.