Monday, 8 December 2008

Frank Marshall Davis: the polite, un-intrusive and unfairly wronged Commie.














"Follow the Stalinist Line, Comrade, follow the Stalinist Line!" Comrade Mathias.

"No way man. That's not my scene! I'm only here to politicise racial relations and for the sandwiches..I've got no power in my coldwater bedsit!" Comrade Davis.

"No more Mister nice Commie! Power to the people!" Comrade Mathias. [The bad Commie.]




“The CPUSA promoted only the utopian vision of a workers paradise, not the stark reality of the Soviet gulag”. Mark Davis. Well they would. It’s very hard to attract members to meetings with threats of the firing squad, no matter how good the buffet.

“You know, Rick, I have many a friend in Casablanca, but somehow, just because you despise me, you are the only one I trust.” Peter Lorre as Ugarte in the 1941 film, Casablanca.


Dear sports, as I vowed to Davis Junior on my son’s copy of ‘Colour In Marx and Lenin!’, I have partly waded through Mark’s damning indictment of the evil that is AIM, and the criminal mastermind of Kinkaid.

“He walks when other men run”. Thunderball theme tune, from the James Bond film of the same name.

And in the next exciting post after this rubbish, I’ll make a feeble attempt at crushing Mark Davis’s Disinformation 105 thang. No, really.

And man, Mark has opened so many cans of worms with his other comments and links, that it really is an analytical avalanche, but all rather pivotal, fundamental and often fascinating. The problem is where to begin and even end? I may just fail miserably in this Sysiphis-like task. No, really. And I’m no Sissy!

Apart from Marky saying I’m a stinker etc, he’s been a pretty good sport. I've grown fond of Junior. "Stink?" How did he know my parents were English? But even the rude stuff is fine by me, in fact I welcome it. Mere polite discourse about serious things between opposite sides, [or apposite?] can often be pure bunk. No, really.

Psst. Don’t mention anything, but I think Junior may be lacking a sense of humour a little, especially in the irony and satire department. Now dig, what percentage of people know, care or are influenced by AIM getting so ah, world shatteringly wrong, not just a handful of easy to check sequential facts and attributions, but several sloppy and pointless exaggerations over several posts regarding a boring Commie teacup meeting? Maybe a lot. Percentage wise, maybe ‘eff all. What do I know?

But even a loony should be reported on accurately in the average straight and dreary news piece, if only for extra laughs. Hey, if AIM blew their own acronym, throw grapes at their ankles. That'll show 'em.

Now AIM did get things wrong. Oh yes. Not a Himalaya per se, but more of a cow pile. It put a damper on the whole evening. Just don't step in it! And they didn’t need to at all. You silly sausages! Why lower yourself to dreaded MSM level?!

"You're a liar!" Liar. The Sex Pistols.

Mark seems correct to me, in saying AIM either exaggerated or bungled the said meeting/s etc. The most likely reason being to either bicycle pump the Obama and Davis Show, or bad editing. You be the judge.

And after all, there is no radical or subversive behaviour at Communist meetings! Hahahahahaha!

No.

What AIM don't get wrong though, is the overall reality of who Frank Davis was and who Obama is.

There's really no need or reason to add or rearrange anything, beyond stupid, either deliberately or by error, to the staggeringly empirical reality of either Frank or Barry’s life long pattern of behaviour and attitude. For Barry, a background of a radical Marxist and Muslim family, relatives, in-laws, a serial pattern of radical friends, school chums, supporters associates and influences. No need to exaggerate about Frank. I find it teensy bit hard to believe that there would not be other curious events if only we knew.

And I’m sure Mark as Frank’s son, would let us know about anything that he was privy to...hmmmm? Because that would be gosh, fair.

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling going on here!

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.

Renault: Oh, thank you very much.
Casablanca.

And on fair, I haven’t been entirely fair myself, have I? I should have done everything in reverse and first waded into the PDF’s etc, etc. And some of my responses were messy, messy I say! Even, gasp, Logical Fallacy prone and naff. Gulp!

In my meagre defence, one must get the old posts out and I am an eager fellow, but always entertaining, eh? But I stand by most of it, even the crap.

But then, I’m not running for President, and neither am I paid or have a single friend who “pushes the Stalinist line”. Not that’s there’s anything wrong with that... Like the following aside.

Cult: "What Kiyosaki is really doing is operating a cult of personality. Anna Quindlen had an excellent article about such cults in the 8/14/00 Newsweek. She was talking about politicians and said they seek to elicit the words, “I don’t know why. I just like the guy.” Politicians want to be judged by their personalities, not their character or policies. To members of Kiyosaki’s cult, it matters not how many false or probably-false statements I find in Kiyosaki’s writings. They just like the guy.

Personality is an appropriate criterion for selecting someone to hang around with. But it is a highly inappropriate criterion for evaluating Kiyosaki’s advice, because he’s not going to let you hang around with him and your family’s finances are serious business”.
John T. Reed.


Marky Marx: “Did you read the pdf file containing Berman's testimony? For your convenience, Berman testified that he was at one of the election meetings at which Davis suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii. He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii.

Comrade Davis was supported by others who recently “sneaked” into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line. These others were the same party liners who tried to take over and dominate an organization known locally as the Hawaii Committee for Civic Unity. The organization collapsed, due to their tactics. Having destroyed that organization they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP.

You can easily see of each of the four AIM fabricated version misrepresents Berman's testimony. Once again: a painstakenly thorough analysis of AIM's misrepresentation is posted on my blog.

Each of the fabricated versions severely exaggerates my father's radical involvement in the NAACP problem. The combination of all four fabricated versions is only a small part of the overall AIM disinformation campaign to exaggerate my father's radical influence on Barack Obama.

Any questions?”


Colonel Neville: Questions. Well, yes. How do you keep on being so er, helpful per se, and a fairly pleasant opponent sans the “stinker” thing?

Oops. I find the logic of the following jarring: "...disinformation campaign to exaggerate my father's radical influence on Barack Obama". How exactly does one exagerate or even measure, the influence Frank had on someone like Obama the Leftard Liberal?

So maybe you want to accentuate Barry's Conservative credentials, of which he has zero? If Frank had zero influence on Barry, so what? A singularly unique parade of many others freaks did, from his Marxist Mommy onward.

Rick: “So Yvonne's gone over to the enemy”.

Renault: “Who knows? In her own way, she may constitute an entire second front”.Casablanca.

Let’s imagine AIM AKA SCHMERSH/KAOS, was indeed entirely deicated to a disinformation campaign against poor old closet Conservative Frank Davis, and we call that the Vast Right Wing AIM Conspiracy.

Well, that wouldn’t change the fact that Frank WAS a radical and he did, by Barry’s own admission influence Obama.

Virtually BO’s ENTIRE history, persona, behaviour, associates and stated policy’s empirically show that Frank Marshall Davis fitted in rther PERFECTLY to the Barry lifestyle, and the shared ideological bent. In fact, Frank and Barry were often totally bent together. Kind of like a prototype of Barack’s University Brain Salad Days Choof Gang, but for two.

Dig, the older hipster head and poetry pamphleteer, just hangin' with the handsome teen beanpole with the thousand yard stare, digging Coltrane and Kerouac, while just hanging out for the revolution “that will not be televised”.

With the availabale resources and AIMS' own posts, Mark is as far as I can see, correct about the actual errors that AIM made. Sadly, they’ll need to make far more mistakes plus rachet up the ommissions, if they ever want to ever be taken seriously as part of the MSM. AIM made easily checked errors. I don't know. Write to 'em and they might fix it.

Now dig, as far as “I can see for miles and miles and miles...”, Mark is NOT entirely correct about what this means, or what and who this could possibly exonerate.

If AIM never existed and the meeting never took place or did, so what? What does it all come down to?

Imagine. AIM misrepresented how much of a Commie radical Frank Davis was, but not his pals, who were merely doing the “Stalinist line” at a meeting of earnest bleeding good hearted squares and er, a bunch of Commie geeks.

And this was apparently done to smear poor innocent Barack Obama, a life-long Leftard Marxist rat and Muslim Fathered Democrat male model and con-artist? Got it. Check. Nuance.

Sadly, Frank and Barry are both still very fine examples of the road to Hell being paved with laughably alleged good intentions while absurdly denying their obviously very, very, very baaaaad intensions.

Hey, Marky Mark is conversely INCORRECT about...well, he says it best here: Jnr Marx: “...you are asking if anything about my father or President-Elect Obama strikes me as suspicious. No, because I believe I understand them”.

How does that work? Ain't this a Logical Fallacy of perception and effect? You understanding A does not and cannot change A at all, unless perceiving A changes you, and then you change A by doing um, something.

[Listens....] Not a sausage.

Or in Obama’s case, anything. Neither understanding, which the intelligent Mark admits to, or being wilfully oblivious of Barry and Frank renders their true natures above suspicion. The psychological term for such a line of unreasoned wishful thinking is "utter balls", from the Latin "E tu Balls?" To look at Barry Hussein and Frank and see nothing suspicious, is the kind of disingenuous raw power that could possibly power a small planet. Forget your dreams of being a Detective, sport.

Rick: But it's still a story without an ending. What about now?

Ilsa: Now? I don't know. I know that I'll never have the strength to leave you again.

Rick: And Laszlo?

Ilsa: Oh, you'll help him now, Richard, won't you? You'll see that he gets out? Then he'll have his work, all that he's been living for.

Rick: All except one. He won't have you.

Ilsa: I can't fight it anymore. I ran away from you once. I can't do it again. Oh, I don't know what's right any longer. You have to think for both of us. For all of us.

Rick: All right, I will. Here's looking at you, kid.

Ilsa: I wish I didn't love you so much.
Casablanca.

Now maybe millions were swayed by AIM’s plan for world domination? Er, no. This may even end the election hopes of Obama! Oh, it didn’t? Thus it can seem that every second B.O lover has amazingly never heard of Ayers, Khalidi, Rezko, Alinsky or Davis and Son ad nauseum. And what's more, they don't want to know! What percentage of people know or care abut AIM getting this meeting wrong either through editorial neglect or intention? I don’t think you could measure it.

I mean, it was Berman, not Wilkins! What were they thinking those wacky conspirators?!

If you believe Berman, there was only ONE meeting that Frank attended. Frank was not apparently the pushy kind of Commie. Frank was just happy to “propagandise racial” relations. And we all know what that means? Er, no. Maybe the same as Mark saying Obama and “Rebel Black” Davis merely discussed “poetry” and “views”.

What kind of poetry and views? Welsh comic poet Pam Ayers or American comic Marxist Bill Ayers?

Here’s a laugh. “In a 1959 interview with the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Obama Sr. described the absence of racial prejudice in Hawaii as "unique." No one, he marvelled, "seems to be conscious of color." Obama Sr’s perceptions of race relations in Hawaii were that he thought it "rather strange ... even rather amusing, to see Caucasians discriminated against here." Atlas shrugs.

From memory, Robert T. Kyosaki, the previously mentioned Hawaiin born semi-phony, and author of the rather absurd bunko tome Rich Dad Poor Dad, maybe speaks of a similar experience.

And now look at how much tedious reading and typing I now have to do. Damn you! Damn you all to Hell! [Shakes fist at wet beach sand in impotent rage.]

Anyhoo, I still find AIM good value. I often think as a humble and shabby blogger, than when I hear say Murdoch and indeed many a media owner, big biz guru and so on speak, I often find them seemingly oddly unaware of their boring limits of perception that appear to wait just outside their specialties. No, really. And they have how much influence over their empires? Who knows, maybe everything and nothing.

Individually, the MSM has many great people, but overall, no. And on most any serious reality or fantasy, the MSM consistently sucks shit.

There is no AIM conspiracy, and if there was, that would make the MSM a 9 to the power of whatever conspiracy. The MSM is more a kind of phony, incompetent, groupthink, mediocre, dull, censorious, failing, liar filled, idiot employing, boring, irrelevant and an often crippling and stunted diversion. Sure, it has it’s bad side too. It's a largely self-regulating and agreed upon stupidity.

"If I want madness, violence and sodomy, I can get plenty of that at home". Peter Cook.

"The [MSM] would rather die than write". Mark Steyn.

Most ALL media is incomplete, evolving and flawed by nature. Did AIM deliberately lie? I doubt it, or they could have used better material on Frank of which there is plenty. Hell, anyone can check up and see the inconsistencies via AIM's own links and references, as Mark did. So go figure.

AIM should either improve their editorial policy, or change their name to Accuracy In Media But Not Always, or AIMBNA. Folks like me ask only for competence and reliability, cos' I certainly don't have any.

“I am shocked! Just shocked”. Captain Renault.

It's all like aminiature Bond Film. Kinkaid, with the help of Mr Mellon or “The Enigma” as he’s known, with his vast unsuccessful newspaper empire of one collapsed publication, are the team who singlehandedly destroyed Obama’s chances at the Presidency?! No. Ok, he has more stuff, but that's funny.

Their evil scheme involved presenting typical Shriner and family man, Rotarian and hardware store owner Frank Marshall Davis, as some kind of a radical, pot head Commie, when he was clearly none of those things! They did this through the massively influential AIM website. Er, no.

“He used to cut the grass!” Frank Zappa.

Kinkaid, thwarted again by the man who may one day even see Communism for what it really is and view fellow travellers accordingly. Mark finds Marxist totalitarianism worthy of repugnance, doesn’t he? Course he does. Hmmmm?

Oh, Frank was a Commie radical pot head and BO is Prez Elect now? Thus it’s all rather moot then. The Master Plan failed.

“Monsieur Rick, what kind of a man is Captain Renault?” Anna.

“Oh, he's just like any other man, only more so.” Rick.

Here’s a funny thing. It’s not possible for me to buy a SINGLE edition of any Australian daily, watch a single news or affairs program either public or privately owned, and not find a large part of it to be utterly FABRICATED DISINFORMATION and stuffed with MISINFORMATION.

And that’s after they have filtered out the realities they don’t want, via beyond belief ideological bias, rampant PCism, incompetence, hackery and their very natural mediocrity and yes, out and out LIES. So AIM makes some relatively weiner-like errors of reportage, what now then?

Well, maybe as Chopper Reid once said, maybe "harden the fuck up, mate".

The Age newspaper, the ABC, SBS, 7, 9 and 10 and most every other MSM outlet lie to me, and about my fellow Conservatives EVERYDAY.

Being completely and actually “misrepresented” and slandered is something we Conservatives Libertarians have to go through 24/7. There’s little to no Conservative voice of platform here in Australia. It’s a million laughs. Hey, I must be a minority too!

If AIM lied, bugger 'em. I’m sorry, but by any measure, your Dad was still a Commie fink and a weirdo and Obama is a Left Liberal Marxoid freak, and even the best AIM-like “FABRICATION 105” of all time couldn’t change that.

So here are some equally pointless and futile answers to Marks entirely valid points. And not all are on our respective heads.

Hey, do you know if I admit to AIMS counter revolutionary guilt and imperfections, Mark promises to damn Communism, objectively critique Obama’s Marxist, Islamist and assorted creeps fellow traveller pals and repudiate his own Father’s murky and startling radical past...Er, no dice.

A Mark Davis email to me:

“YOU WROTE: Um, who else was in a 1950's Commie closet but Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and some black African despot failures to be? So there was good Pinko and bad Pinko influences? Again, let me know of the Marxism with Quality Control...the one Frank apparently favoured, the one with optional caveats. Ah, freedom of choice, totalitarian style.

RESPONSE: Stalinism was only one faction of communism. Some people, such as my father, joined the CPUSA even though they didn't even believe in collectivism, much less Stalinism, because membership provided OTHER advantages such as professional and social opportunities. Frank Marshall Davis considered membership in the CPUSA as a vehicle and tool because, according to "The New Red Negro" (cited by AIM's Cliff Kincaid as a source)...ONLY the Communist left had any significant institutional impact on African-American writing during the 1930s and 1940s”.

Colonel Neville: Hey, I understand the belief in the nuances, but I don't fucking care myself. I despise it all equally. I'm funny that way.

Oh, maybe you mean the Conservative Communist Left?! NOT the Radical Communist Left then? Since when have Leftist Communists been the good guys? Only a stupid and eternally tenured Leftard academic, a fellow Commie squirrel nut or a teenage Che the child killer t-shirt wearer could take such hare brained hair splitting seriously. Ah, thus the absurd obsession’s with a few barely relevant AIM claim errors.

Mark Davis: The bottom line is that communist ties were the NORM for African American poets and civil right activists during that period”.

Colonel Neville: Then they were all stupid dopeheaded and clueless fucking boobs then, weren’t they? Including drear old Dad, I’m afraid.

Mark Davis: “...Such ties did not mean that they internalized Marxist values, much less Stalinist values, even if they were aware of the distinction. To them, the CPUSA provided safe harbor from the ravages of Jim Crow America”.

Colonel Neville: Right. I went to the Nuremberg Rallies but I externalised it. Considering that the Democrats were pro-Crow, it shows that the average black and Red activist was a deluded pinhead and pefectly defined the term “useful idiot”.

Mark Davis: “...Vilifying a writer for continuing to publish in CPUSA-supported publications, when they provided his only available institutional support, is completely unfair. Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and Frank Marshall Davis all took advantage of this institutional support”.

Colonel Neville: "Villify". Well, yes, I do. Ah, the "writer" as sacred cow. Right. “Vilify”, eh? Left Liberalspeak for pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Yep, I guess that’s why so many Untermensch in Hitler’s Germany decided to write for the Daily Nazi and Gestapo Gazette. It was the only thing going. What was the name of Solzhenitsyn's Sovietpublisher's again?

So selling out to the totalitarian man, if at all feasable, would be a reasonable and good thing and without unpleasant consequences? The end justifies the means, an’ all that. Ok. I'm hip. Funny how up Commies can be on the very un-revolutionary and rather Democratic art of politeness, when it suits them.

Funny how in a real Commie state, everything from truth, freedom, decency, morals and humanity and so on is entirely up for grabs, and to the most cunning and ruthless users of raw power.

Rick: Don't you sometimes wonder if it's worth all this? I mean what you're fighting for.

Laszlo: You might as well question why we breathe. If we stop breathing, we'll die. If we stop fighting our enemies, the world will die.

Rick: Well, what of it? It'll be out of its misery.

Laszlo: You know how you sound, Mr. Blaine? Like a man who's trying to convince himself of something he doesn't believe in his heart. Each of us has a destiny - for good or for evil.

Rick: I get the point.

Laszlo: I wonder if you do. I wonder if you know that you're trying to escape from yourself, and that you'll never succeed.

Rick: You seem to know all about my destiny.

Laszlo: I know a good deal more about you than you suspect.
Casablanca.

Mark Davis: “almost every CPUSA unit, often serving as the vehicle for the expression of a wide range of "unorthodox" political beliefs (ranging from social democratic to anarcho-syndicalist."

Colonel Neville: Riiight, wide. Sure. From Leftard, to as much Leftard Marxist as you can go without actually murdering someone. The only “vehicle of expression” in all the states that practiced their bankrupt ideology, involved the vehicle that picks you up at 2am.

“In the Communist system everyone is free to express their opinion. In fact, it's encouraged. Then they are shot”. Colonel Neville.

Mark Davis: “...the CPUSA placed the issue of race and the fight against Jim Crow near the centre of all its work”.

Colonel Neville: What a coincidence! The Democrats made supporting Jim Crow a part of their policy, until it became useful to not support it as part of their policy. Very much like how the Democrats formed the KKK after the Civil War to fight Republican Abolitionists. Nuance. But they meant well, eh?

Why do so many black American's dig the Democrats again? I don't get it. Oh, people like Martin Luther King and Lincoln maybe? Both Republican’s. So if folks can get the measure of the Democrats so wrong, then gee, maybe they’re wrong about totalitarian Communism being so golden an opportunity for black folks too?

And Islam is to put it mildly even worse, baby. Especially how in Arabic, the word for black is “abeed”, meaning "slave" or "filth". No, really. Horrible, innit? And the Left has aligned with Islamists! Go figure.

But I digress.

So Conservatives are sworn to destroy decent non-radical, non-Commie and non-pervs for no good reason. I'm hip. But why not focus on misrepresenting the underage child porn novel and prurient faux confessions, drugs and other radical indoor sports of Frank? You know, twist underage sex novels to make them look bad?

AIM sure chose a rather dull and obscure area for their black arts of destroying the good name of a man who thought America “...needs more Communist’s”.

I’m sorry. The errors shown are not massive lies that once exposed, will somehow show Frank Davis to be a wronged non-Commie and a just a regular fellow. Even if AIM was utterly bogus tripe and I never have anything to do with them again, how does this negate the startling Diary of Annenberg Frank and Barry? Hey, I still like AIM and yet I still don't like Frank and Obama. Go figure.

Ok, I can ignore the fact that Frank Marshall Davis was a Commie radical, [or ComRad] a pot headed pervert and a beatnik misfit. No really, I can.

All that is cleansed into the Current Truth by focusing on errors and failings of a single website called AIM, about a single square song and dance attended by a bunch of boring Commies and the often very decent people of the NAACP. Tra la la.

I’ll alert the Daily Worker. So Kinkaid's a bad man who won’t play by the agreed on rules and he’s not a Commie, and Commies alway's play by the rules. Frank Davis was a good guy and he’s only a Commie sometimes. Ah, the comic tragedy of a sadly pathetic and miserable meeting in Hawaii circa 1949.

Mark is taking a bit of an aim at AIM and now me. And I only attended the ONE meeting and I never saw him there! Man, crisis meetings or in this case one, sadly strike me as often ridiculous. Even the NAACP with its image of the slightly earnest and very well meaning.

“Hi honey. I’m home”.

“Darling, did you advance any coloured people today?”

“Sure did! And I would’ve done more if that Frank Marshall Davis hadn’t suddenly appeared to propagandize the membership about our racial problems”.

“Never mind dear. It’s only ONE meeting. At least he didn’t have an avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line!”

“I suppose your right. But his pals wanted to do just that. Just ask Berman!”

"I thought it was Tidwell?"


Mark Davis: Do drugs impair your ability to concentrate and focus on what I actually posted? Why so many red herrings?

Colonel Neville: Who ordered the red herrings? Nope, I asked for the pasta. Er, drugs? Not me. I neither drink nor smoke. Maybe look for Pop’s secret buried stash. If anyone is going to be affected by drugs mate, it would be the son of a Honolulu pothead.

Mark Davis: “...you are asking if anything about my father or President-Elect Obama strikes me as suspicious. No, because I believe I understand them”.

Colonel Neville: Well that’s just ‘effing great and tells me so much about ones true mindset and values. Like Pops, an apologist and “useful idiot” to the tedious end.

Mark Davis: But my posts are primarily about the lies regarding the Davis-Obama relationship,”

Colonel Neville: Kinkaid’s or Obama and Davis? Or the MSM or academia or the Democrats?

Mark Davis: “...not extraneous issues such as the alleged "deep and wide sub-world and nest of radical Marxist and Leftist politics over decades and decades." Inability to focus on issues suggests mental impairment. Fewer red herrings, please.

Colonel Neville: That’s the way the chef makes it pal. Ah, finally you let me know that there is not much of a problem at all with Communism domestic, or foreign? Not if no one is really a member and anyway, they made it nice. I know why “extraneous issues” interest you not at this point. Stay laughably focused on a single website’s errors of judgement and intent, and appear pretty damn clean and perfectly indignant.

Mark Davis: Another critical factor to consider when evaluating pre-Cold War political judgment is that very few Americans were aware of the hideous brutality of Stalinist Russia.

Stalin's atrocities became common knowledge only after WWII. The CPUSA promoted only the utopian vision of a workers paradise, not the stark reality of the Soviet gulag. Russia was our ally, and there was no information superhighway”.

Colonel Neville: Riiight. Balls. The phone was out, eh? The lousy Left either agreed it was "necessary", or didn’t want to know and STILL don’t. And anyone that mentioned the endless war of Communism against the people, was and is attacked as "mistaken", "unspophisticated", or right wing and “fascist!”.

Over 100 million human lives destroyed by Communism and still counting, and still not a movement. Au contraire! Celebrity, MSM and academic acceptance and avid, rabid endorsement is the fashion.

As far as I can tell, you and they ain’t really interested NOW. There has been no mass movement to expose or condemn the crimes of Communism either past OR very present.

Cuba, North Korea etc, are cool with the Left and Communism is considered suitable as light banter and all a bit of a joke really, and in a way that Nazism is not. Why?

Many are naturally pig ignorant or indoctrinated to accept the Left's version of it, and many more agree with it. That’s fellow travelling, folks. The West is NEVER good enough but a Commie state is just grand and anyway, it’s all the West’s fault. Funny how the West doesn’t blame Communism for it’s massive economic and social success’s.

It’s why you seem unashamed of your Father’s useful idiocy. That’s why Universities are crawling with anti-Semite Left Marxists and assorted convicted criminals, Islamist bedfellows and variations on an ugly treasonous theme. That’s why so much evil Marxist, Communist and Socialist lies and methods of infection are so perversely commonplace.

And why Barack Davis Wright Ayers ACORN Khalidi Farrakhan Rezko Grove Parc Annenberg Alinsky etc, etc Barry Sotouero Hussein Obama, is now President Elect. Yes, but the failures of of AIM are the most important thing, I know.

Can I ask your clear candid views, Mark? Say on either Frank, Obama, Communism, the Western Canon and Capitalist Democracy, free markets and innovation, truth, God, humour, the First, Second and Third Amendments, freedom and free speech, the MSM, academia, radicalism, maturity, principles and so on. If I know where you “stand and deliver” Mark, all the rest is rather moot to pointless, innit?

Mark Davis email to me number 18B/29C:

“YOU WROTE: Obama and your Pater stink to high Heaven. You either know it, are stupid or a liar. You tell me which one.

RESPONSE: The only stink I smell comes from your continuous evasion of the issues at hand, regarding the SPECIFIC MISREPRESENTATION outlined in my blog. If you were a real man, much less a "Colonel," you would stop pussyfooting around and debate these specific issues rather than calling names. Pussyfooting is for pussies. Unless you are willing to stand and deliver, the only stink comes from yours (or your red herrings)”.

Colonel Neville: Ah, a fish joke. Very good. A salmon swims into an uptown fish bar and the bartender asks “What brings you uptown?” The salmon says “I just had this incredible urge!” It killed ‘em in Canada. “Calling names” eh?

That’s MR Pussy to you, fellah! As I said, harden the fuck up.

Mark Davis: I never dismissed them as "total liars and conspirators." All disinformation campaigns take a kernel of truth and build upon the truth with their lies. Some AIM statements are totally true, some are half-truths, and some are complete lies. The purpose of the disinformation campaign was to exaggerate my father's radical influence on Obama.

The central lie was "“His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” The minor lies were apparently created to support this big lie".

Colonel Neville: Big Lie? Wasn't he in Hawaii Five O? So there was some radicalism to "exaggereate" then? “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” Is this a direct quote? Of course not, “...it should still be plausible to those with the appropriate predisposition to believe. It should make sense to the casual observer”.

“The minor lies were apparently created to support this big lie”. How ironic, cos you and every Commie and apologist merely does the opposite. The big lies are apparently created to support the smaller lies. You know, Frank is not a Commie, and anyway, if he was, he’s not a serious one and if he is a serious one, Communism ain’t so bad.

And he definitely didn’t influence Obama at all. They just smoked and discussed “poetry” and “views”. Ok, the poetry was radical Marxist tropes and relentless grievance tripe extrapolated to the surface of Mars and the smoking was Jazz cigarettes...And Obama was not influenced at all right, cos' just look at him now!

He’s a regular middle of the road Socialist Marxist Democrat Party elitist phony poo-poo face.

Mark Davis: The only facts they have about the relationship are details from Obama's book. Everything else AIM prints about the relationship is fabricated, based on my father's background decades earlier.

Colonel Neville: So in what year approximately did your Father make a change and in what way? Republican, Quaker or Teamster?

Mark Davis: Since actual evidence regarding his background was not radical enough to support the central lie.."

Colonel Neville: Do you mean Obama or Davis or Santa? Gee, lucky Commie's are not into lying then. Jesus H. Fucking Christ! Are you shitting me? I can’t tell whose background is more radical!

Amazingly maybe your Dad is less radical than Barry, cos' so far unlike Obam, I haven’t been able to find anywhere in your Pop’s Pinko past, any Islamist PLO fundraisers or farewell dinners with Muslim dance groups simulating beheadings yet. And Frank does lack a paranoid race bating Opus like B.O's Screams from My Fudder.

Junior Davis: “...AIM fabricated the Stalinist values meme, and fabricated the "passing them to Obama" meme. The complete series of small lies, including the NAACP stories and the Stalinist concept, exaggerated my Father's radical background. I have therefore taken great pains to debunk their series of small lies".

Colonel Neville: Hmm. “Stalinist” is a phony tactic to make out that Stalin spoiled Marxism by falsely introducing totalitarian conformity via mass murder and propaganda. Er, that IS Marxist Communism. Stalin was NOT an anomaly of Communism, but the natural result of it. The only way to power in totalitarianism is through utterly ruthless last man standing tactics, behaviour and strategy. There is no false “meme” here.

The core ideas of Marxist Communism after mass murder, lies, conformity, spite, envy and madness, are collectivism and faux altruism. Collectivism is the exact opposite of Conservatism and Constitutional Democracy, which states clearly that the individual is always the most important human value above the group.

Collectivism states that the individual is nothing compared to the group and therefore expendable.

Ah, and the absurd canard that people do things merely if something is deemed to be the allegedly right or even the perceived moral thing to do. After love and kindness etc, to say that people are not motivated by enlightened self-interest and reward is simply not true. People ARE individuals and any system that denies this is totalitarian and fascistic by default and nature. Such inhuman conformity and enforced mediocrity ALWAYS hates human beings either one at time or en masse.

“That which is common to the greatest number receives the least care”. Aristotle.

Commo definition slicing and harebrained splitting is ALL bullshit. It sickens me. However you slice a turd pie, it’s still always full of shit.

Annina: We come from Bulgaria. Oh, things are very bad there, Monsieur. The devil has the people by the throat. So, Jan and I we - we do not want our children to grow up in such a country.

Rick: So you decided to go to America.

Rick: Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Here's looking at you, kid.
Casablanca.

5 comments:

Mark said...

YOU WROTE: Hey, Marky Mark is conversely INCORRECT about...well, he says it best here: Jnr Marx: “...you are asking if anything about my father or President-Elect Obama strikes me as suspicious. No, because I believe I understand them”.

How does that work? Ain't this a Logical Fallacy of perception and effect? You understanding A does not and cannot change A at all, unless perceiving A changes you, and then you change A by doing um, something.

[Listens....] Not a sausage.

Or in Obama’s case, anything. Neither understanding, which the intelligent Mark admits to, or being wilfully oblivious of Barry and Frank renders their true natures above suspicion. The psychological term for such a line of unreasoned wishful thinking is "utter balls", from the Latin "E tu Balls?" To look at Barry Hussein and Frank and see nothing suspicious, is the kind of disingenuous raw power that could possibly power a small planet. Forget your dreams of being a Detective, sport.

RESPONSE: I understand “suspicious” to mean a slight trace, hint or suggestion of something. When you understand something, you move beyond the vague into the concrete. Comprehension replaces suspicion. I believe I understand their motives, and therefore do NOT consider them suspicious. For example, if I know my wife is meeting secretly with someone, then her activity may be suspicious. Once I understand the purpose of the meetings, it is no longer suspicious.

YOU WROTE: There is no AIM conspiracy, and if there was, that would make the MSM a 9 to the power of whatever conspiracy. The MSM is more a kind of phony, incompetent, groupthink, mediocre, dull, censorious, failing, liar filled, idiot employing, boring, irrelevant and an often crippling and stunted diversion. Sure, it has it’s bad side too. It's a largely self-regulating and agreed upon stupidity.

RESPONSE: If all of the AIM falsehoods were innocent mistakes, then they would randomly exaggerate and minimize my father’s radical background. Unfortunately for your theory, they all exaggerate his radical backgrounds. In addition to misrepresenting others’ statements, such as Edward Berman, some of them are absolute lies.

YOU WROTE: All that is cleansed into the Current Truth by focusing on errors and failings of a single website called AIM, about a single square song and dance attended by a bunch of boring Commies and the often very decent people of the NAACP. Tra la la.

RESPONSE: You will find that the vast majority of the thousands of negative references to my father can all be traced to AIM. In addition, the NAACP incident is only a small part of AIM’s Body of Lies. I thought you understood this point. Perhaps I should post more of their Specific Misrepresentations right here for your review.

YOU WROTE: Mark Davis: But my posts are primarily about the lies regarding the Davis-Obama relationship,”

Colonel Neville: Kinkaid’s or Obama and Davis? Or the MSM or academia or the Democrats?

RESPONSE: The vast majority came from Kincaid’s AIM. I am unaware of any such lies from Obama, Davis, MSM, academia or the Democrats? Please enlighten me.

YOU WROTE: Can I ask your clear candid views, Mark? Say on either Frank, Obama, Communism, the Western Canon and Capitalist Democracy, free markets and innovation, truth, God, humour, the First, Second and Third Amendments, freedom and free speech, the MSM, academia, radicalism, maturity, principles and so on. If I know where you “stand and deliver” Mark, all the rest is rather moot to pointless, innit?

RESPONSE: If you read my blog, you would know how much I despise communism. I support the constitution, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to write about your other topics.

YOU WROTE: Colonel Neville: Big Lie? Wasn't he in Hawaii Five O? So there was some radicalism to "exaggereate" then? “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” Is this a direct quote? Of course not, “...it should still be plausible to those with the appropriate predisposition to believe. It should make sense to the casual observer”.

RESPONSE: Yes, his ideas were radical for the era. Civil rights was a radical concept back then, which is the reason that J Edgar Hoover targeted Martin Luther King Jr. as a “communist.” On the other hand, the quote IS a direct quote (from http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-excuse-obamas-false-advertising). It is in the fourth paragraph down from the heading “Another Cover Up”:

[QUOTE]
In fact, his white grandfather helped raise Obama by selecting Frank Marshall Davis, a black communist writer and poet, as a father-figure and role model while he was growing up in Hawaii. His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.
[END QUOTE]

YOU WROTE: Colonel Neville: Hmm. “Stalinist” is a phony tactic to make out that Stalin spoiled Marxism by falsely introducing totalitarian conformity via mass murder and propaganda. Er, that IS Marxist Communism. Stalin was NOT an anomaly of Communism, but the natural result of it. The only way to power in totalitarianism is through utterly ruthless last man standing tactics, behaviour and strategy. There is no false “meme” here.

RESPONSE: There are many other types of communists than Stalinists. Kincaid’s expert, Edgar Tidwell, dismisses the Stalinist claim. It is a false meme unless you contend that all communists are Stalinists. Is THAT your position? Even Kincaid does not make such an absurd claim! Were Trotsky, Lenin, Gorby and Yeltsin “Stalinist”? Is the PRC today “Stalinist”?

As posted on my blog, Kincaid said my father was a “Stalinist,” because “He stayed with the Communist Party even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. That's why I refer to him as `a Stalinist agent.’ In reality, Davis could not have “stayed with” the party after the pact when he was not even a member of the party before WWII.

Also: Perhaps you did not pay attention when I wrote that he did not believe in collectivism. He, like many others, joined the party for other reasons. Must I repeat it yet again? He was a capitalist. He owned his own businesses in Hawaii.

Mark said...

You seem to jump to conclusions rather often, Sir! To assume someone is a Stalinist by virtue of membership in a Communist Party is deductively invalid. It is a Fallacy of Hasty Generalization:


[QUOTE]
INDUCTIVE REASONING (from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances.[1] It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is employed, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

This ice is cold. (or: All ice I have ever touched was cold.)
This billiard ball moves when struck with a cue. (or: Of one hundred billiard balls struck with a cue, all of them moved.)
...to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold.
All billiard balls move when struck with a cue.
Another example would be:

3+5=8 and eight is an even number. Therefore, an odd number added to another odd number will result in an even number.
Inductive reasoning has been attacked several times. Historically, David Hume denied its logical admissibility. Sextus Empiricus questioned how the truth of the Universals can be established by examining some of the particulars. Examining all the particulars is difficult as they are infinite in number. [2] During the twentieth century, thinkers such as Karl Popper and David Miller have disputed the existence, necessity and validity of any inductive reasoning, including probabilistic (Bayesian) reasoning [3]. Scientists still rely on induction nevertheless. That, however, is exactly what Popper and Miller dispute: Scientists cannot rely on induction simply because it does not exist.

STRONG INDUCTION

All observed crows are black.
Therefore:
All crows are black.
This exemplifies the nature of induction: inducing the universal from the particular. However, the conclusion is not certain. Unless we can systematically falsify the possibility of crows of another colour, the statement (conclusion) may actually be false.

For example, one could examine the bird's genome and learn whether it's capable of producing a differently coloured bird. In doing so, we could discover that albinism is possible, resulting in light-coloured crows. Even if you change the definition of "crow" to require blackness, the original question of the colour possibilities for a bird of that species would stand, only semantically hidden.

A strong induction is thus an argument in which the truth of the premises would make the truth of the conclusion probable, but not definite.


WEAK INDUCTION

I always hang pictures on nails.
Therefore:
All pictures hang from nails.
Assuming the first statement to be true, this example is built on the certainty that "I always hang pictures on nails" leading to the generalisation that "All pictures hang from nails". However, the link between the premise and the inductive conclusion is weak. No reason exists to believe that just because one person hangs pictures on nails that there are no other ways for pictures to be hung, or that other people cannot do other things with pictures. Indeed, not all pictures are hung from nails; moreover, not all pictures are hung. The conclusion cannot be strongly inductively made from the premise. Using other knowledge we can easily see that this example of induction would lead us to a clearly false conclusion. Conclusions drawn in this manner are usually overgeneralisations.

Many speeding tickets are given to teenagers.
Therefore:
All teenagers drive fast.
In this example, the premise is built upon a certainty; however, it is not one that leads to the conclusion. Not every teenager observed has been given a speeding ticket. In other words, unlike "The sun rises every morning", there are already plenty of examples of teenagers not being given speeding tickets. Therefore the conclusion drawn can easily be true or false, and the inductive logic does not give us a strong conclusion. In both of these examples of weak induction, the logical means of connecting the premise and conclusion (with the word "therefore") are faulty, and do not give us a strong inductively reasoned statement.


VALIDITY

Main article: Problem of induction
Formal logic, as most people learn it, is deductive rather than inductive. Some philosophers claim to have created systems of inductive logic, but it is controversial whether a logic of induction is even possible. In contrast to deductive reasoning, conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning do not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial premises. For example, a conclusion that all swans are white is false, but may have been thought true in Europe until the settlement of Australia or New Zealand, when Black Swans were discovered. Inductive arguments are never binding but they may be cogent. Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid.
[END QUOTE]

REPEAT: "Inductive reasoning is deductively invalid." It is an example of "weak induction." "The conclusion cannot be strongly inductively made from the premise. Using other knowledge we can easily see that this example of induction would lead us to a clearly false conclusion. Conclusions drawn in this manner are usually overgeneralisations."


HASTY GENERALIZATION (from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Hasty generalization is a logical fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence. It commonly involves basing a broad conclusion upon the statistics of a survey of a small group that fails to sufficiently represent the whole population.[1] Its opposite fallacy is called slothful induction, or denying the logical conclusion of an inductive argument (i.e. "it was just a coincidence").

Repeat: To assume someone is a Stalinist by virtue of membership in a Communist Party is deductively invalid. It is a Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. People often join organizations without internalizing their core ideology, from joining the YMCA to joining the Nazi Party, because membership has its privileges. While jumping to such conclusions is understandable, it is deductively invalid. When empirical evidence contradicts such conclusions, ignoring such evidence constitutes intellectual dishonesty.

Expert testimony from Edgar Tidwell concludes Frank Marshall Davis was not a Stalinist. He criticized Stalin by name and ran capitalist enterprises. Although he criticized the excesses of capitalism, none of his voluminous writing advocated the replacement of capitalism with collectivism, much less Stalinism. Accuracy In Media's Cliff Kincaid appears to have originated the "Stalinist" viral rumor sometime between February and June 2008. In Kincaid's original (February 2008) attack against Davis (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor), he does NOT call Davis a "Stalinist." Kincaid reports that Davis joined the CPUSA during WWII, according to Edgar Tidwell, "an expert on the life and writings of Davis."

In June 2008, however, Kincaid starts the "Stalinist" falsehood (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_571431.html). This is where Kincaid explains that he calls Davis a "Stalinist" because "he stayed with the CPUSA after the Hitler-Stalin pact" (1939). This contradicts Kincaid's February 2008 column, which states Davis did not even JOIN the CPUSA until later. Obviously Davis could not have "stayed with" the CPUSA before he even joined the CPUSA. Obviously, Kincaid's stated reason is invalid. Obviously, something else changed between February and June 2008, when Kincaid suddenly starts calling Davis a "Stalinist." Davis suddenly became a "Stalinist" because Cliff Kincaid said so??

Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly-regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.

It's a pity that blogosphere researchers and commentators are not held to similar high standards of accuracy. It's a pity that their fans consider clearly documented misrepresentation to be insignificant as long as it confirms their biases. It's a pity that such predisposition to believing disinformation can be exploited just as easily by Accuracy In Media (AIM) editor Cliff Kincaid as it was by the Bush administration in selling the Iraqi threat. Even today, when all of the false evidence supporting Iraqi WMD stockpiles has been clearly debunked, Bush loyalists may insist their conclusions were true despite the lack of evidence.

[Read more about jumping to conclusions in the right-wing fantasyland at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG59cf#extended]

Mark said...

Now if you would care to discuss the points I actually made, instead of refuting straw man points that I did NOT make (such as an "evil" AIM or "criminal mastermind" Kincaid), we can have a rational discussion! But I understand it might not be as much fun for you . . .

BTW: Remember that the NAACP falsehoods were just the tip of the AIM iceberg. I would like to disabuse you of the illusion that his Body of Lies could just be "innocent mistakes."

Don't get me wrong. He does his job rather well. It's tough being a professional prevaricator when your stock in trade is easily disprovable lies. His disinformation campaign might have actually derailed the Obama campaign if voters were more gullible.

Colonel Robert Neville said...

Ah, Mark, over five years have passed and as several books, thousands of articles, data, photos and other evidence have now massively shown, you are either unbelievably incompetent, or like your treasonous commie and pervert father and mirror image creep son Obama, you are an extreme yet typically leftist liar. Take your pick. No, really.

Colonel Robert Neville said...

Yes Mark, YOU are a liar and a fraud. Gee, what happened to your link to the official Obama website? It's no longer working. Why is that, you phony leftist creep? Hmmm? No, really.