About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 4:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
King was an avowed Marxist Socialist who was totally controlled by the Communist Party USA. He was aiming for all an powerful FedGov that would tell you whom you can sell to, serve, hire and fire which is why Ayn Rand labeled the two main provisions of the 1964 Civil Wrongs Act, public accomodations and EEOC, the worst infringements on property rights in the sorry of America to date (1963) and Rand also opposed the 1968 Fair Housing Act for the same reasons.
On King's Marxian beliefs and Communist associations see books by Alan Stang and Lionel Lokos among several others.
King went way beyond the welfare state.
This is the most inane piece I've seen on King in a very long time.
King supported affirmative action and black reparations.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, January 28, 2013 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some historical context might be appreciated here. Remember when this was happening? (Most of what I've written below is just summarizing data from Wikipedia articles.)
----

J. Edgar Hoover directed the FBI to investigate Southern Christen Leadership Conference and Martin Luther King starting in 1957. There were some in the South who wanted to keep segregation and Jim Crow laws and they were upset with any form of activism towards equal rights for blacks. In the South there were laws that required separate bathrooms, schools, drinking fountains, public transportation, and public schools for blacks. The U.S. Military was still mostly segregated. Those Southerners claimed that the blacks were being stirred up by Northern agitators, some of whom, they said, were communists.

Hoover, at this time, was fiercely focused on communist influence in a number of areas - including civil rights... like unions and Hollywood (remember that Senator McCarthy was holding hearings in the fifties and there was the House on Un-American Activities Committee).

There were real communist spies and real attempts to influence America thought and politics - the cold war was real. It wouldn't surprise me to find that there were people of all different far-left stripes that were pushing for Civil Rights, but I don't believe that King had any agenda beyond the ones he openly advocated for. And even though the communist influence in this country was real, there were also the nut cases who saw them under every bed, like the then president of the John Birch Society who said that Eisenhower was a Communist (to which William F. Buckley replied, "No, he is a golfer," One of the more delightful non-sequiturs).

The FBI investigations were taken to a higher level in 1962 when the FBI learned that one of King's advisers, a New York lawyer, had been a member of the Communist Party in earlier years. After King's "I have a Dream" speech, in 1963, the FBI publically accused King of "knowingly, willingly and regularly cooperating with and taking guidance from communists." Testimony from FBI agents makes it clear that Hoover had an agenda of disrupting, ridiculing, and diminishing King's civil rights work. Meanwhile, King declared that he was not a communist and stated that the false accusations were coming from Southern Racists who wanted to keep segregation in place.

The FBI's own investigation would reveal that the NY lawyer had left the Communist Party years earlier, and was no longer associated with Communists. Another King associate had been linked to the Communist Party by testimony before the House on Un-American Activites Committee. But by 1976 the FBI stated that despite the lengthy and thorough investigation it had no evidence that King or the SCLC were actually involved with any communist organization.

I and any other Objectivist or Libertarian would disagree with Affirmative action, with King's desire for an "Economic Bill of Rights," and his support of the welfare state. He opposed the War in Vietnam, but not for the same reasons Rand did. He opposed the draft and supported the "Peace Movement" which was a confused collection of organizations with different agendas and political roots. The far left, including the communists, were fired up at this point in history over the war in Vietnam, in which they were on the side of Hanoi - like Jane Fonda. I'd say that King was more of a liberal populist whose focus was primarily on civil rights. He was familiar with Marxism but had explicitly rejected it for religious reasons. In his words, he rejected it because it "denied religion" and embraced "ethical relativism" and because of its "political totalitarianism."

King wasn't a communist. But that really isn't the point. The point is that King was courageous in his fight to complete the battle to see all people stand equal before the law regardless of the color of their skin. I don't think that any Objectivist would oppose any of the Civil Rights Act's provisions but for those two that violate private property. Segregation in public schools and Jim Crow laws were an abomination we needed to get rid of. Remember, some state laws required owners of private property to abide by segregation rules, including who they could sell their house to - those too were violations of property rights.

The point is that King should be remembered for that speech in 1963 and the courage the man showed. And our nation still needs to hear that we should be judged by the content of our character rather than the color of our skin.

Post 2

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 6:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here goes again. Stanley Levinson, the NY attorney and top King adviser that Wolfer is referring to, was a member of the Communist Party USA till his dying day. King trained at the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, a totally Communist operation. Hunter Pitts O'Dell a top King aide was a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party USA while he was associated with King. Bayard Rustin, another top King aide, was a member of the Communist Party USA for many years, and had only recently resigned when he met King. Rustin described the 1956 CPUSA Convention as very 'democratic.'
Actually the Communists' democratic centralism has nothing to do with democracy as it is normally understood so Rustin was as usual carrying water for the Communists.
See It's Very Simple:The True Story Of Civil Rights by Alan Stang, 1964 and House Divided:The Life and Legacy of Martin Luther King by Loinel Lokos, 1969.
On the vindication of McCarthy see Blacklisted By History by M. Stanton Evans, 2007 and on HUAC see The Committee And Its Critics, edited by William F. Buckley, Jr., 1962.
King's banal, trite 1963 speech was a warmup to get the statist Civil Rights Bill passed, those 'only two sections' that Wolfer refers to are the heart of the bill as MLK was an avowed Marxian Socialist who wanted Big Gov to tell you whom you could serve to, sell, hire or fire. Rand also opposed the 1968 Fair Housing Law AND there is plenty else to object to in the 1964 law besides the two sections explicitly violating individual property rights as the whole law is an assault on the federal system. King's April 1967 speech on Vietnam could have been written by Ho Chi Minh, it was a down the line Communist tirade. Though much more interesting than the trite 'dream' speech. By the way no one is disliked merely for skin color, it's always behavior that enters in the reasons for disliking some people more than others. King favored affirmative action and black reparations, his only libertarian stand was his belief in the right to carry concealed guns of which he owned quite a few.
Good for him there but only there.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 - 9:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I can only point out that the FBI started out thinking that King was a Communist and after more than a decade of in-depth investigation they said that he was not. It was the FBI who ended up reporting that Stanley Levinson, that NY lawyer, had left the Communist Party years before joining with King and no longer associated with them.

Ms. Goddard thinks that King's dream speech was banal and trite. I don't.

She writes, "no one is disliked merely for skin color, its always behavior..." Sorry, but that is nonsense as anyone who has met a few bigots in their time will confirm. And it is a very strange idea given even the most simplistic look at history. Were Blacks enslaved because of their behavior and it had nothing to do with their race? Nonsense!

As to Alan Stang, the author she recommends... Well, after reading this on-line column of his, I have no interest in reading anything else he's written. This man is a raving loon.

Stanton Evans doesn't seem as bad... but he clearly is a social conservative (with some Libertarian leanings). Here is a quote of his: "The conservative believes that ours is a God-centered, and therefore an ordered, universe; that man’s purpose is to shape his life to the patterns of order proceeding from the Divine center of life; and that, in seeking this objective, man is hampered by a fallible intellect and vagrant will. Properly construed, this view is not only compatible with a due regard for human freedom, but demands it.

I'm sure that he's right in many ways about the McCarthy period, that much is taught about McCarthyism needs to be corrected due to Progressives rewriting history. But not all of it.

Ms. Goddard, if I might ask, are you an Objectivist? Do you find yourself in agreement with Ayn Rand? I just ask because some of the authors you mention were dedicated enemies of Rand.
----------

Ms. Goddard states that MLK was "an avowed Marxian Socialist." That's just not so - what he avowed was his religious convictions and his civil rights beliefs and welfare statism. I quoted MLK on his disavowal of communism in my post above. He was very explicit - it offended his religious beliefs and it was totalitarian and he would have nothing to do with it.

King didn't pass any of the legislation that Ms. Goddard goes on about - he wasn't in congress, or a senator, or the president. He just spoke out for what he believed in - so I don't understand why she keeps going on and on about the various bills that were passed in the 60's. And I took another look at the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As I said to start with, there are two of the eleven provisions that diminish rights, others that are neutral and the rest of them force the government to get out of the business of being segrationists or racists. It barred unequal application of voter registration. It prohibited state or local governments from denying access to public facilities based upon race. It encouraged the desegration of public schools. It prohibited racial discrimination on the part of government hiring practices. Maybe Ms. Goddard isn't old enough to have seen what things were like in the deep South back in the good old days before civil rights were enforced.

I'm not here to speak in favor of all of Kings political beliefs because I disagree with them. I'm a avowed Capitalist. But the man was a courageous opponent of racism and back then, that was needed.

Post 4

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 1:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
She should watch Mississippi Burning.

Post 5

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 9:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolfer's statement that Levinson had left the Communist Party before meeting King is simply not true nor did the FBI report same and the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was very explicit on that point, conveyed the documentation of same to the Kennedys and they took it seriously enough to authorize wiretaps on King because the CPUSA was a Soviet operation.
Furthermore King grew more openly radical towards the end, not only the inflammatory Riverside speech of April 4, 1967 where he accused the US Government of being the 'greatest purveyor of violence in the world' and this was at a time when Mao was killing tens of millions of Chinese during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, but King went out of his way to praise the longtime Communist defector to the Soviet Union, Paul Robeson, and King always specifically brought up Robeson's Communist Party membership as if it were something to be proud of ! King also started an open alliance with Stokely Carmichael, an advocate of Black Power violence and an avowed Marxist-Leninist. There was a front page picture of them shaking hands on The Washington Post as they collaborated to promote Resurrection City in the middle of DC which turned to be about as civilized as the Occupy encampments of last year.
King's sit-in tactics at both private businesses and government facilities were a per se initiation of force
and when they were properly arrested for trepassing King would cry that their were being violated !
King was the last thing that was needed as he was a Black racist as his advocacy of affirmative action and black reparations proved. He also agree with Carmichael and Malcolm X on Black Power. Met with both of them on very friendly terms.
Every time a legal action against state segregation took place the particular Jim Crow law was annulled.
King's explicit advocacy of forced integration by the Feds was counter-productive to race relations and we can see the results of that legacy today.
When King was assassinated the Soviet Embassy lowered their flags to half-staff and they had never done that before to any but their own.
If you can read only one book read the Alan Stang work.
I don't get my history and my politics from trashy Hollywood films. The Left bias is 99.99% in Hollywood and
many people across the political spectrum had problems with Mississipi Burning.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 1:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wolfer's statement that Levinson had left the Communist Party before meeting King is simply not true nor did the FBI report same and the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was very explicit on that point...
I'm only reporting what the FBI said, and I know that J. Edgar Hoover was powerful, but not enough to speak from his grave. He died in 1972 and the final report on the FBI investigation of MLK was in 1976. That was after all the extensive wire-tapping of King and associates found nothing.

The Wikipedia article on Stanley Levison says, "According to the FBI, Levison's CPUSA activities ended in 1957." And further, "Although there was no evidence of Levison having further ties to the CPUSA, the FBI used his earlier CP history to justify wiretaps and bugs on his offices and the offices and hotel rooms of Martin Luther King. FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, did not consider King to be a communist, but did consider the possibility that Levison might use or manipulate King to stimulate political unrest within the United States."

But I don't think that any of those details are important.
-----------------

Ms. Goddard continues to miss these points that are important:
1.) Just because King associated with some people who were or had been Communists does NOT make King a Communist.
2.) King could not be a communist and a deeply religious man in traditional terms - he could be quite liberal, even progressive, and a welfare statist, but not a Communist. His own words make that clear. A person can't be an avowed Communist and an avowed non-communist at the same time.
3.) I said before, what I celebrate is his courage in fighting against the entrenched racism of the South in those days and his clear and ringing endorsement of judging men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
4.) Alan Stang is not anyone I would ever read after reading just one of his on-line columns (I'll copy-paste some parts of it below).
------------

As I've said, I disagree with affirmative action, but I would NOT call someone a "black racist" as Ms. Goddard did, because they advocated it. That is a gross misunderstanding of the term racist.

There are members of the far right in our country who are obsessed with Communisim more than they are advocates of liberty and they employ peculiar logic. For example, "if someone shakes hands with a Communist, then they too must be a Communist." (One wonders, what would they make of a photo of Reagan shaking hands with Gorbachev?)

I asked Ms. Goddard if she was in agreement with the principles espoused by Ayn Rand. No answer. Ms. Goddard, are you unwilling to answer that?
------------------------

Here is some the stuff from Alan Strang who Ms. Goddard has twice now recommended as someone we should read:
LARRY CRAIG: HOMOSEXUAL?


by Alan Stang
August 30, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

Now that Minneapolis cops have finally nailed Idaho Senator Larry Craig, let it be said that his proclivity is stale news. Craig has routinely been accused of sodomy for at least twenty five years. In fact, Craig’s reputation as a predatory sodomite is so well-established and redundant that I did not bother mentioning him in my new book, Not Holier Than Thou, about the homosexual takeover of the Republicrud Party. Instead, I focused on Republicruds whose homosexual résumés were not so well known.

We are talking about a species of satanic insanity, because buggery means spitting in God’s face, “improving” His work. Consider first Craig’s explanation. It was a “misunderstanding.” He normally assumes a “wide position” with his feet when evacuating. That was why his foot accidentally got into the next stall and touched the policeman. Because he “foolishly” tried to wrap the thing up without counsel, he made the “mistake” of pleading guilty.

...

You know what a homosexual is. A homosexual is a bugger who buggers other males and is buggered. A homosexual is a male who, in effect, plunges his penis into a pail of excrement. A homosexual is a scumbag who often gives his unsuspecting wife serious diseases. And a homosexual is a male who gets himself arrested propositioning policemen in airport men’s rooms.

A “homosexualist” is an individual of either gender, who may or may not be a sodomite or a lesbian, but who does what he or she can to advance homosexuality. For instance, el presidente Jorge W. Boosh’s predecessor, the man who raped that lady in Arkansas while he was attorney general – I can’t recall his name – and then conducted presidential business in the Oval Office while an intern had sex, is obviously a homosexualist.

So is Jorge W. Boosh himself. Boosh has done at least as much as the rapist to advance the cause of sodomy. Boosh named Republicrud leader Mary Matalin, a ferocious homosexualist, as a top adviser. Mary is a heroine to the sodomite Log Cabin Republicans, whose mission is to do to the Republicruds what flaming faggots like Barney Frank of Taxachusetts have done to the Democruds. She has threatened to demonize anyone who opposes homosexuality and calls religious opponents “the Leviticus crowd.” It would be no surprise at all to learn that Mary Matalin is a secret bull dyke.

Again, Mitt Romney is a flaming homosexualist. You will find many pages documenting his homosexualist activities as governor of Taxachusetts in my new book, Not Holier Than Thou: How Queer Is Bush? Since he eagerly collaborated with Taxachusetts queers, there is every reason to believe that as President Romney would do the same on a bigger scale. Here from the book are some examples of Mitt’s homosexualism in action.

...
It goes on, but who would want any more of that?


Post 7

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 12:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We both typoed Levison's name, not Levinson. He never left the CPUSA in 1957 as is inaccurately reported on Wikipedia.
Even Wiki acknowledged that Levison was a top official in the CPUSA and 1962 Levison was subpoened to testify about Communist Party USA activity by the Senate Internal Security
Subcommitee, this a full five years after he allegedly left the Party. That testimony is still classified today !
Also James Dombrowski, head of the Southern Conference Educational Fund, was a longtime CPUSA member and close supporter of King's as was Myles Horton, founder of the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee and a longtime member of the Communist Party USA. There is a famous photo of King at Highlander during Labor Day weekend, 1957, sitting right behind Abner Berry, a top member of the CPUSA Central Committee. Rosa Parks is sitting near Horton and Aubrey Williams, a longtime Communist since the 30s (and confidant of LBJ) is sitting between Horton and King.Williams was also very close to King.
Another top King associate, Hunter Pitts O'Dell, was also a member at that time of the CPUSA Central Committee.
King did acknowledge O'Dell's Communism but claimed he had just left the Party and was not affiliated with the SCLC, King's group anymore, but then a reporter called the SCLC NYC office and O'Dell answered the phone there !
O'Dell decades later became President of the leftist Pacifica Radio Network which sponsors Amy Goodman who is now
on PBS TV too.
There is a website devoted to uncovering Wikipedia's unreliability in many areas. Readers can look it up.
Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wiki, is a Rand fan but otherwise Wiki is very PC and tilts towards the Left.

Post 8

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 3:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ms. Goddard,

1.) It appears you are choosing not to answer my question about whether or not you agree with the principles of Ayn Rand.

2.) And you are also not addressing the issues I raised. So, I'll repeat them:
  • Just because King associated with some people who were or had been Communists does NOT make King a Communist.
  • King could not be a communist and a deeply religious man in traditional terms at the same time - he could be quite liberal, even progressive, and a welfare statist, but not a Communist. His own words make that clear. A person can't be an avowed Communist and be an avowed non-communist at the same time.
  • I said before, what I celebrate is his courage in fighting against the entrenched racism of the South in those days and his clear and ringing endorsement of judging men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. Do you believe there should be any laws at all that are different for blacks than for whites?
  • Alan Stang is not anyone I would ever read after reading just one of his on-line columns. Do you agree with Strang's positions taken in that article?
Arguing about whether Stanley Levison left the Communist Party at this date or that is not the issue at hand.
------------

There are a number of people on the far right whose politics are made of only one or two issues... Like being anti-communist and anti-gay, as if those two, stacked on top of religion, could somehow make a political system that would allow one to understand or implement or safeguard liberty.

Post 9

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Let's see the Wolfer epistemology in action. Stang wrote several books and hundreds of articles, Wolfer picks one of them on another subject that is not germane to the subject here. Stang's column was written after the arrest of a Republican Senator for homosexual solicitation of an under cover police officer at the Minneapolis Airport.
What does have to do with King or the statist civil rights movement or Stang's great work, The Actor, on John Foster Dulles ? I supplied the names of several Communist associates including Levison was more than usually important because he was a point of contact between the Soviet Union and their delivery of funds to the Communist Party USA.
Stang wrote an article titled The King And His Communists, which was published near or at the end of 1965 in American Opinion. You can look it up on online.
The notion that a religious man can't be a Communist is beyond absurd. The McCarthy Committee brought out that over 7,000 Methodist Ministers were Communists. There were Catholic Communist priests in France. US Communists heavily infiltrated the Unitarian and Friends (Quaker) Churches, there were Marxist Muslims in Iran going back to the 50s and my own group, the Jews, had several Communist Rabbis.
In fact as Rand noted when Khrushchev was here in 1959 he pointed out that the Bible laid the basis for Communism.
On Rand I have very mixed views, I agree with most of the philosophy but not the cult whether NBI or ARI. I think Karl Popper was a greater philosopher and I think Rand was indebted to far more people than just Aristotle, Isabel Paterson to a huge, unacknowledged extent as just one instance. I do find myself defending Rand 99.99% of the time from the utterly stupid criticism of the Left and the Religious Right but she wrote some very emotional stuff that taken out of context equals the Stang piece on homosexuality, not that I agree with the PC line there either. Readers, just check out my references here.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck. That's the lesson of MLK.

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Wolfer has simply evaded the points that I made in regard to King.
Obviously Communists have infiltrated religion, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Muslim. Also Buddhist and Hindu in Asia.
King was an avowed Marxist Socialist who was a pawn of the Communist Party USA. Whether he paid Party dues or not is not the question. That he closely with and endorsed and what was endorsed by Communists is the real point here.
If someone had similar close associations with the Nazi Party or the KKK or David Duke we all know what Mr. Wolfer's conclusion would be.
Wolfer condemns Stang en toto because of one obscure piece he wrote late in life. Would he condemn Rand on the woman President issue or a late 1965 Objectivist Newsletter article in which she seemed to imply that all Africans were cannibals ?
My view of Objectivism has nothing to do with the issue here.
I happen to agree with Rand on the essentials of philosophy and I would deny it is her philosophy alone.

As far as 'gay' or 'straight' I find both irrelevant agit-prop terms. There's no need for me to go into my views on homosexuality here as they are irrelevant to the King issue. All of King's associates except Bayard Rustin were heteros.

Nothing wrong with anti-communism and Stang & 99.99% of anti-communists were positive advocates of limited government, something alien to King and the whole statist civil rights movement.

I invite readers to check out my refs and go from there.

To paraphrase Galt I'm weary of repeating myself to those committed to non-perception. I am satisfied that I have made my points and I thank this forum for the opportunity to do so.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm happy that Ms. Goddard is done because this hasn't been a disagreement I've enjoyed participating in. Her "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck" argument when joined to the argument that many people have found rationalizations that let them join communism and still be religious were actually pretty good arguments.

BUT, I pointed out that there is no real evidence that King was a communist. He took support from anywhere as long as it addressed ending racism. Yes, there is evidence that he hung around with some who were communists, and, yes, he shared some of their views, but that isn't the same as being a communist. If a KKK member believed in smaller government, I'd agree with him on that, but it wouldn't make me a KKK member. I have hung out with religious people in the past, but I was still an unrepentant non-religious person. And again, King specifically and explicitly rejected communism because of his religious views. He was not one of those who reconciled communism with his brand of Christianity.

BUT, even all of that is beside the point. I despise racism and I applaud every move forward from that ugly history of our nation that started with slavery. I was only celebrating King's brave fight against racism (try to remember what it was like in the South in the 50's and 60's). But Ms. Goddard's agenda has been to ignore that context, and to ignore any of the successes or attempts in that direction by King, so that she could fixate exclusively on her idea that King was a Communist (and on his statist positions).

Is my writing so unclear that that simple point remains invisible? The point that in times where blacks could be hung from a tree for dating a white woman, King fought bravely against racism. To me that it is strange that a person cannot acknowledge that. I can see someone saying, "Yeah, King did move things forward towards ending racism, and it took courage, but I hate him for his statist views." But Ms. Goddard hasn't even come close to that.

If there were some communists who were opposed to racism (in an honest fashion and not just as an intellectual Trojan horse to serve some uniquely communist agenda) then good for them - at least in that very limited degree. If that were so, then I'm glad they weren't totally wrong all the time. (And it should be remembered that there were evil communists, and there were stupid dupes who accepted evil beliefs because they were too muddle-headed to see how evil the ideas were.)

Ms. Goddard wrote, "That he [King] closely [identified?] with and endorsed and what was endorsed by Communists is the real point here." NO, that is not the real point here. The real point would be WHAT was being endorsed - and the only endorsements I'm interested in for this thread are an end to Jim Crow laws and equality under the law, and an end to racism written into state laws, and how courageous and effective King was in that realm.

Ms. Goddard was unhappy that I was disrespectful of the author she keeps recommending. All I can say, is that when she spoke highly of him, I went out on the internet and Googled Strang and that was the first, and only piece of his writing I looked at. No way I looked at anything else from him. From the point of view of psychology I was horrified at the mind his article put on display. Ms. Goddard can try to compare Strang's awful piece with a few unfortunate statements or positions by Rand, but no amount of stretching and rationalizing would ever make equivalents of those words from Strang and any thing said by Rand. They just don't compare.

Ms. Goddard has come across to me as too angry and to fixated on an anti-communist crusade and far to unaffected by that period of America's struggle against racism for me to want to continue this. I'm not the one who matches the insulting description of "committed to non-perception."

Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 12:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On a related note, it is interesting to see how people view others who are morally imperfect. As it happens, I don't know of anyone in the history of humanity who was perfect. This has come up in other forums recently, including how people view Thomas Jefferson, MLK, and Lance Armstrong. It seems to be very common for people to store a simplistic view of people, either focusing on their good deeds or their bad deeds. Perhaps Steve has more insight into this phenomenon, but in my experience it's very common.

Using Steve as the example here, he chooses to remember the heroic actions of MLK's life rather than demonizing him for his negative qualities. He then condemns Stang based on a short sample of his writing. Of course I could chastise Steve for this outrageous hypocrisy, except that I agree with him ;)

The sample from Stang is enough to make a sane man nauseous. Unless you have a mental disorder, your beliefs generally build off each other and are at least somewhat holistic, in that your individual beliefs are related to your philosophy as a whole. It is nearly impossible to listen to anything this man says, just based on this piece alone.

Regarding MLK, the difference I see here between Mr. Wolfer and Ms. Goddard is one of rationality. Steve readily and specifically admits the shortcomings of MLK's philosophy. However, you don't see Caryn have anything good to say about MLK. The man was pretty obviously heroic, at least in some ways. His goals and actions appeared to be aimed much more pro-life than anti-life, which I think is a good standard to judge any person.

In addition, I would recommend to Ms. Goddard that she try to be a bit more effective when making such a controversial argument. Her typing style is unordered and hard to read and she makes a few too many, "You're stupid, you should read this!" arguments. Those arguments fly on a lot of sites, fortunately this is not one of them!

Post 13

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 1:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank You, Dan! I was starting to feel invisible.

Somewhere else here on RoR I wrote about the ugly psychological tendency to tear down anyone- like Thomas Jefferson - that has earned heroic stature. I think that it is childlike to demand moral perfection and condemn people that fail to be perfect, and there are some people who will even make up some shortcoming, if need be, because their desire is to trash that which is heroic. [That isn't what Ms. Goddard was doing - she was just fixated on Communism, as far as I could see.] I like being able to separate out what is good and what is bad and lavish praise where due, and criticism where appropriate. Sometimes it is the person who deserves the praise, and ideas that need to be criticized.

Post 14

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 6:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Honestly, Steve, while I appreciate Caryn's attempt to argue her point, I don't appreciate intrinsic arguments.  Great people throughout history carried around some pretty flawed ideas. Whether or not they knew they were flawed is an important question.  Again, I can see how a group of systematically oppressed people could find something like Marxism superficially appealing. People unfamiliar with the world of ideas still, to this day, find it appealing, so the war, obviously, isn't over.   

King's personae is one of Justice, not collectivism. He never made a point of making public statements promoting collectivism.  Honestly, I don't care so much what he thought in private. I care much more about what he promoted in public.  



Post 15

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 7:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

When you started your post with, "Honestly, Steve..." I thought you were going to send some stinging criticism my way (and maybe you did, but I'm just not seeing it)

I agree with what you said. King, in my opinion, held his collectivist beliefs honestly and somewhat innocently - he thought that affirmative action and reparations and welfare would be a temporary thing that would finish off racism and equal things out (He was wrong, but that's not what we are discussing.)

Where you said, "I don't appreciate intrinsic arguments" I'm not clear if those were my arguments you were referring to or Ms. Goddard's.

I'm happy that King will live on in history for his Dream Speech and the bravery of his fight against racism. Seems right to me.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Honestly, Steve. I'm trying to make you visible!  I came to the party kinda late. No criticism your way. Now I'm off again. Bye!

Post 17

Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 7:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Teresa. I feel much more visible :-)

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see you Steve!

Post 19

Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Jules :-)

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.