The CPUSA Should Be Proud Of Him
 

Tw is, on the evidence of his own postings, a communist.

If that wasn't bad enough, he's a crazy communist, prone to misreadings and misinterpretations so intense as to be delusionary. These misreadings come of his communist beliefs, but his seeing things that aren't there when he argues with me can't quite be accounted for as coming from the man being a communist. His inanition springs from some other part of his mind.

He wants to present himself as a great sage -- and is singularly ill-equipped to do so, as the abysmal copyediting, pig-ignorant spelling of about anything of foreign origin -- "Mein Komf" and "Poppa Doc," indeed -- his Klansman level of spelling of English words, all uncorrected in his incompetent final product, show to advantage. Not his, mine.

I can't tell from tw's writing if he takes himself seriously, but I'd bet a nickel he does. When I tell him off for being half baked, he screams his resentment at having it pointed out. The reason I entertain a slight doubt about him taking himself seriously is that he's so consistently an embarrassment to any cause he espouses. In considering tw, I imagine a balding virgin, his remaining hair too long for its current condition, the shoulders of a shirt whose collar does not close about his neck well sprinkled with dandruff, living in a squalid basement apartment perhaps rented from his mother. If this man has ever had a lover, this lover was blind to most of his visible personality traits: intellectual dishonesty, towering pettiness, unfairness to all and sundry, an accumulator of resentments, and his likely poverty: a man this short on people skills never rises very high in any organization that contains him, which includes companies. Nobody counts paid sex as involving lovers -- and tw doesn't sound like a man capable of forming well-founded adult relationships with anyone, not even a commie fellow traveler.

Which fairly seamlessly leads me to what drives the man's beliefs, philosophy, and worldview. Whenever he gets into a donnybrook with me, his arguments always toe the Party line, selected from any point in the last fifty years or so. I asked, "Who mourns for Allende?" and the near-rhetorical question got a facile answer, "The people who voted for him." Or do they? By a stroke of good fortune, today I discovered in the March '06 issue of American Spectator some history relating to just this point, in historian James Whelan's eviscerating panning of The Nixon Administration and the Death of Allende's Chile by a Cambridge professor who seems to have given weight to Communist sources only, and remarkably obscure and minor Communist sources at that.

Salvador Allende Gossens never got a majority of the vote; he came in on a 36.2% plurality, a bit less than 40,000 votes ahead of his nearest rival in the 1970 election. Once in on this less-than-convincing less-than-a-democratic-mandate, he then spent all his time ramming Marxism-Leninism down the throats of the entire country, aided and abetted by a pack of appointees of such radicalism -- the Chilean Socialist Party, for whom Mao and Lenin were too right-leaning -- and some others even farther out, that in the Allende cabinet, the communists were the moderates. The "moderates" did not curb the excesses of the radicals. The combination proved indigestible to any Chilean with common sense, and sentiment for rebellion began to build, not only in the armed forces that eventually toppled Allende by coup, but among civilians. Once the Chilean army and navy moved, the civilians heaved enormous sighs of relief:

". . .the military have saved Chile. . . A civil war was being proposed by the Marxists. And that[,] the world does not know, refuses to know." -- Eduardo Frei Montalva, President of Chile 1964-70. He at the least seems in a position to know. He was also famous for the South American political sport of U.S.-baiting. We Americans still get a sour mouth if and when he's mentioned. Another former president weighed in, ". . .the totalitarian apparatus which had been prepared to destroy us has itself been destroyed. . ." -- Gabriel Gonzalez y Videla.

From the Marxist side, we see this: "A civil war in Chile probably would mean immense loss of life, half a million to one million." -- Communist Voloidia Teitelboim, in remarks dated 1 March 1973, thus right at the beginning of the Allende era, before things really had a chance to deteriorate completely. Chile's population in 1970 was 9.3 million. Blandly contemplating killing one Chilean in nine to cement political power in that country? And no apparent clue that something like this might be not just unpopular, but a wasteful and impoverishing way to do anything? But then, this is the way of Communist thought, and there has never been a Communist regime without horrendous massacre, proved soon or late. I don't have to "invent" massacres -- they are par for the communist course, a routine concomitant of furiously hyped class hatred. Get unpopular with a ruling Communist, and he will kill you unless you kill him first. That is communist policy. The commies never did figure that after the massacres, things don't actually get any better. The dirty little secret, of course, is that things get pretty good for the communist dictator, until somebody shoots him. Communist takeovers are mostly hostile takeovers -- there might have been as many as two friendly ones, but I couldn't cite them confidently -- Khruschev to Brezhnev? Khruschev retired to unperson status, rather than being summarily shot, but what is the life of an unperson?

(Get unpopular with a democrat, and he might diss you in his memoirs.)

And that is the kind of thing tw perennially champions -- only a convinced communist would do that, rationalize that, gloss that over, in the way he does.

The death count laid at the feet of the Pinochet regime for all its seventeen years' span was 2,279. Contrast that with a million deaths to push Marxism-Leninism. No wonder somebody was alert enough to start a revolution, or counterrevolution if you simply must.

Besides the oppression of Marxism-Leninism, we saw a great deal of activity in Chile of Eastern Bloc operatives from 1973 on: the Soviets immediately offered Allende $300 million worth of military credits, the Cuban embassy's staff ballooned to two hundred people, one of whom was Cuba's number-two man in the Cuban intelligence service, who found himself a bride -- in Allende's daughter. Cozy commies. Then there were the 633 Cubans zipping in and out of Chile with no formalities like customs and immigration documentation and the luggage proven to comprise crates of small arms -- 472 assorted guns and 40,000 cartridges to go with. And this was just a fraction of other goodies arriving through Cuban diplomats, like heavy machine guns, antitank weapons of varied vintage, and munitions cited as being 106mm -- sounds like recoilless rifles, such being available in the early seventies in some profligacy. Might this come under the heading of diplomatic-pouch porn?

About twenty thousand Iron Curtain personnel, Soviets, East Germans, Czechs, and Cubans too, scored some good duty coming to Chile and running terrorist training camps. Soviet monetary contributions to the Allende regime in its first year were five times what the United States had credited to Chile in the entire span 1953 to 1970. Wonder what the Sovs might have been hoping for, to throw such money at this matter?

After a span of three years, Allende was brought down by Chileans, as is heavily documented. Nixon told the CIA station "hands off," and they obeyed. The Chileans (no foreigners were among the coup's forces) who threw down Allende maintained good OPSEC: the Cuban, Soviet, East German, and American governments did not learn of the coup until it was accomplished, and Allende had blown the top of his own head off with an AK. There were Cubans shooting at the coup forces from the Cuban Embassy -- no delicacy about interfering in internal affairs there!

So, where am I going with this? Simple: again I ask, and sardonically: who mourns Allende? Thirty-six months in, they couldn't stand the guy in his own country -- yet tw asks us to believe somebody there is sorry he's gone, tells me I'm inventing massacres or something, and so on, so communistically-ratty on. Tw won't come out and say he's a communist, but then his posts make that declaration unnecessary.

That is absurd. the anti-tw stuff that is. His politics run toward the social democrat nonsense they push in Europe. He is no commie. You however need to consider where you really are on the spectrum of totalitarians.

Griff, that tells me you don't know communists -- nor are you very good on totalitarians, if you honestly (I don't think it's honest) believe that about me. (Libertarians are supposed to be about the freedom to have differences of opinion, and I take an internationalist, not an isolationist, view of libertarianism, small L or big L.) What gave me the first clue about tw was what he said about Vietnam -- it was pure-quill Red. Read his postings elsewhere: they follow Communist themes diligently. Look who he invokes for boogeymen, look at his attitudes about US resistance to Communist machinations anywhere and everywhere this was done. Not knowing his parentage, I couldn't say for sure if I should call tw a red-diaper baby, but he sure is dyed in the wool. My argument stands, on the evidence; yours falls for the same reason. Go ye and look. Why is tw so regular-issue communistically snotty about Augusto Pinochet? For the sin, in communist eyes, of having supplanted their boy Allende. Unforgiveable, no? The commies shrieked to the skies about it for seventeen years, about weekly, in about every language at their command -- bored hell out of the rest of the planet, too, but Marxist speechifying has a way of glazing eyes over anyway. It's like listening to the preaching of a bad religion, which it should be, as that's what Communism is.

You have spent little time on threads other than those dealing with W. We have no idea if you have a libertarian streak. All we see is your soft spot for the power of the state to do good through violence. tw has a long record here. He is known as a solid engineer with a soft spot for the power of the state to be used for the common good. As far as knowns go, I don't see any libertarian thought coming from either of you. You can easily prove me wrong by writing more and in depth on different subjects.

UG's libertarianism: "Give them liberty or give them death."

HM, off the gold as usual, with me anyway: "Give the people liberty; give death to the tyrants as part of it." One of the points of liberty is to no longer suffer oppression. Somebody here would rather yell at me than lift a finger to make liberty!

But somehow, no comment so far on tw's communist beliefs?

There's nothing to comment on. It's just dumb.

You forgot to add "...and all the people who just get in the way."

If you would just read before you type you would see that Griff already addressed that in his post. TW is not a Marxist. You are not a Libertarian. Elvis is still dead. Life goes on.

Will someone please call in The Threadkiller?:worried:

:lurker:

I am a convinced and vigorous libertarian rather than a passivist, tw is a convinced Marxist as his own words tell you, and you are a saltwater bird with a hooked beak and blue, webbed feet, Rich. And Elvis's work, and his banana and peanut butter w/bacon sandwiches, are all done.

The ones who truly "get in the way" get there because they are committed slavemongers, bad for both thee and me -- among others who on this Earth do dwell. Your caricature of my position is as preposterous as it is baseless. You cannot prevail -- not because it's you, but because you're off base. Back off.

Funny how some idjits want to make a thread about tw a thread about me. Ha ha hee ho hoo...

It's not a thread about tw. That screed says nothing about him, and a lot about you.

In the 2 years or so I've been around this board, I have never once seen tw post anything that even remotely approaches communist thought. He can be pendantic at times, but he has a remarkable sense of humor that he slyly inserts here and there on the board. He is obviously quite intelligent and uses facts and logic to back his arguments up, unlike some who post here. He does have a pet peeve against MBA's, but we all have our little quirks, and in many instances, I feel he is correct in his observations even there, as well.

I could post some derogatory thing about what I imagine YOU to be like in real life, UG, but I'm not going to sink to your level. I will say that I think you're just jealous because tw is the Dweller that the most people here voted they'd like to meet. I notice that YOU didn't get a single mention.

If you wish to start a discussion on Allende and Chile, I'd be most happy to give my opinions. I studied Latin American history in college and have quite a few thoughts on the subject. However, I won't dignify this thread with any further reply than what I've already given :eyebrow:

I'm sure UG will be glad to post some quotes, in context, from TW that prove his point. Right, UG?

You starry-eyed dreamer, you! There are better odds that Jr. will apologize to the American people, as well as the rest of the people of the world, step down from office, and give all his shares in Halliburten to the poor! :lol:

lolololololol! I got to crazy communist before the rofl bit. How far did the rest of you get?