Why I believe Van Jones is a Leninist

Firstly— and we'll need to both agree on satisfactory definitions of these governmental forms before we can adequetly proceed beyond this; (from http://open-site.org/Society/Government)

Communism: a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single – often authoritarian – party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

Socialism: a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.

Marxism: the political, economic, and social principles espoused by 19th century economist Karl Marx; he viewed the struggle of workers as a progression of historical forces that would proceed from a class struggle of the proletariat (workers) exploited by capitalists (business owners), to a socialist "dictatorship of the proletariat," to, finally, a classless society – communism.

Leninism / Marxism: Marxism-Leninism: an expanded form of communism developed by Lenin from doctrines of Karl Marx; Lenin saw imperialism as the final stage of capitalism and shifted the focus of workers' struggle from developed to underdeveloped countries.

And, just to have in there: Fascism. Fascism is a political ideology that advocates totalitarian and authoritarian rule. Fascist governments forbid opposition groups and parties, and advocate a single-party system.

If we can agree to those slight variations to your original stipulations— for example, your exposition of Communism shares far more with Fascism than then we're good to go.

Would you be able to differentiate the propaganda of Lenin and that of Alinsky in any meaningful way? I don't see it.

Quite literally every tenet of Alinskyanism is found in Leninism. If you want to object to that claim, find me a Rule which was not used by Lenin. Self evidently, Alinsky was a marxist, and we can assume he studied the writings of those who had succeeded in implementing Communism

As far as the word Communism, can you name me one self identified Communist regime which has not fit that profile during what we might call their "doctrinaire" phase? China and Vietnam and some others have become perhaps more Fascist than Communist–tolerating, for example–limited and controlled Capitalism, but to the extent they do so, the deviate from the Communist ideal.

As far as Freedomworks reading "Rules for Radicals", they are doing it for the same reason I read it: to understand my enemy.

Watch Glenn Beck. He is carefully documenting every claim he makes, and even if you disagree with his conclusions, you cannot accuse him of not even making an effort at context. One can accuse most leftists of this. I see it every day.

In your longer text preceding addressing Mr. Jones, you stipulated Marxists' insouciance with morality, as a byway of introducing several sleeper Marxists in the US government. I'm just serving forewarning that an attempt to use the same tactic to disavow Mr. Jones as someone whose 'honesty cannot be ascertained'— will not readily be accepted.

And as evidence defeating it, from your first source: ""There is a green wave coming, with renewable energy, organic agriculture, cleaner production," he said in an interview. "Our question is, will the green wave lift all boats? That's the moral challenge to the people who are the architects of this new, ecologically sound economy."… "Jones started his first environmental program, Reclaim the Future, only six months ago. Notably, it wastes little time critiquing the negative aspects of society, but rather accentuates the positive. As such, it exemplifies the new concept of environmentalism's so-called third wave – a movement refocused on neither conservation nor regulation, but investment. "

I'd like you to focus on that last sentence: a movement refocused on investment. Investment. That's capitalism.

Per Pulitzer-Prize winning fact-check firm Politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/08/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-says-van-jones-avowed-communist/):

"This, from his book, The Green Collar Economy , released in October 2008:

"There will surely be an important role for nonprofit voluntary, cooperative, and community-based solutions," Jones writes on page 86. "But the reality is that we are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither the government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.

"So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world — and everyone else."

Or how about this, from an address before the Center for American Progress on Nov. 19, 2008 (well before Jones was brought into the Obama administration):

"Everything that is good for the environment, everything that's needed to beat global warming, is a job," Jones said. "Solar panels don't manufacture themselves. Wind turbines don't manufacture themselves. Homes don't weatherize themselves. Every single thing that we need to beat global warming will also beat the recession. And the challenge is, how do we get the government to be a smart, and limited, catalyst in getting the private sector to take on this challenge?"

That doesn't sound Marxist to us."

end quote

That's a far cry from the angry black man who helped found STORM. Also from Politifact: "According to the article, "He took an objective look at the movement's effectiveness and decided that the changes he was seeking were actually getting farther away. Not only did the left need to be more unified, he decided, it might also benefit from a fundamental shift in tactics. 'I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs,' he said.""

Further in the quote from fact-checking organization Politifact.org:

"Or how about this, from an address before the Center for American Progress on Nov. 19, 2008 (well before Jones was brought into the Obama administration):

"Everything that is good for the environment, everything that's needed to beat global warming, is a job," Jones said. "Solar panels don't manufacture themselves. Wind turbines don't manufacture themselves. Homes don't weatherize themselves. Every single thing that we need to beat global warming will also beat the recession. And the challenge is, how do we get the government to be a smart, and limited, catalyst in getting the private sector to take on this challenge?"

That doesn't sound Marxist to us."

end quote

And then you lose reason entirely. Based on his facial expression he's a Marxist? Because he was critical of Bush, he's a Marxist? Democracy and Republic are in NO way "codespeak for Communist tyranny" — they are OUR form of government.
We are a democratic Republic. Period. "And to the Republic, for which it stands". Period. http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

Your entire page 5 is a missive about anti-capitalisms, summarily denounced by the quote I supplied earlier, in which Mr. Jones decided LOOKS TO the capitalist free market for innovation as the way to move forward environmental concerns:

From his book, "The Green Collar Economy"

"So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world — and everyone else."

I've yet to hear evidence— 1 shred of evidence, that Van Jones is, today, a Marxist. A communist. Only that he is an environmentalist, and a harsh critic of George Bush. And last time I checked, that's a whoooole lotta people; not a pre-requisite to Communistic allegiance.

As for Freedomworks? Far from Sun Tzu. They use it for the same reasons it was written: as a political playbook:

From Politico: "“CONSERVATIVES USE LIBERAL PLAYBOOK”, September 18, 2009, Andie Coller and Daniel Libit

"The logo for the Sept. 12 protest in Washington, which organizers called the “March on Washington,” featured an image that looked so much like those associated with the labor, communist and black power movements that some participants objected to it — until they found out that’s what the designers were shooting for.

“As an organization, we have been very closely studying what the left has been doing,” explains FreedomWorks press secretary Adam Brandon, who says he was given a copy of “Rules for Radicals” when he took his current job . Brandon describes the Sept. 12 rally in D.C. as the “culmination of four years worth of work” and says that organizers were “incredibly conscious” of the symbols they chose.

With the logo, he explains, they were “trying to evoke the imagery of the counterrevolutionary protests of the 1960s that captured the imagination of the world.” And as for the phrase “March on Washington,” Brandon says, “this is something people said in the office. If we had been alive back in the 1960s, we would have been on the freedom bus rides. It was an issue of individual liberty. We’re trying to borrow some from the civil rights movement.”

Let's start here: "I'm willing to forego the shallow satisfaction of the radical pose, for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."

You did not address this comment, made around 2005, after he had supposedly changed.

The reason I noted so many examples of wolves in sheeps clothing–the emblem of the Fabian Socialists, by the way–is that no serious student of history, of any history, can possibly get away with simply looking at what people say. You have to place them into patterns of people whose history we know.

With respect to his environmentalism, this is the key quote: "That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them."

What he has in mind here is Obama. The intent is to use the APPEAL of environmentalism to get legislative support for their people and their programs. He keeps talking about the importance of private enterprise because he knows that's what people want to hear. Yet, in "large part", the end solution looks like electing the right people, who can then funnel public moneys in the right direction.

Listen to this audio all the way through: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-to-van-jones.html

He says quite clearly that a move to what he calls "ecocapitalism" is not enough, and that we have to "end systems of exploitation and oppression altogether."

That is Leninist code-speak. He is very clearly saying that Capitalism and his goals are inconsistent.

Further, in the Berkeley video he says repeatedly that when Bush was in office, we were not a democracy. How can this claim be made? Were people unable to vote? Were they unable to call their elected officials?

I will find the two spots, and post them. Beck has the audio, and if you read the transcript, he repeats what's on the video.

I will not deny that with determined effort it is possible to believe that someone whose formative years were devoted to a political revolution in which the Constitution was overthrown and tyranny was imposed could become a moderate.

Yet, he both says that he has retained those goals–those "radical ends"–AND in unguarded moments admits what he intends.

If you add to this the long and unbroken history of Leninist duplicity, to deny the obvious amounts to what can only be called willful ignorance.

As I said, I will find those comments, both the one about "democracy" and the one in which he asks the questioner "how is that Capitalism working for you/" three times, in response to the comment that his views sounded Marxist.

"With respect to his environmentalism, this is the key quote: "That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them.""

With Jim Inhofe in the Environmental Committee? Joe Barton, apologizing to BP? That quote is far from a radical idea.

Plus— that's near to exact copy of Beck's quote regarding the ultimate purpose of the 8/28 Rally. Saying that if he could unite all Conservatives behind thinking that they were the sole inheritants to Honor, Charity, and — whatever the third virtue was he threw at a dartboard—

But showing that to the people who believe God and practice their religion are fellow citizens who share political and economic values with majorities of Americans is a crucial step.
Beck is creating positive themes of unity and patriotism and freedom and independence, which are above mere political or policy choices but not irrelevant to them. Political and policy choices rest on a foundation of philosophy, culture, self image, ideals, and religion. Change the foundation and the rest will flow from that. Defeat the enemy on that plain and any mere tactical defeat will always be reversible.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/45215/

Let's start here: "I'm willing to forego the shallow satisfaction of the radical pose, for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."

Could you again provide the source on that? (btw— in the interests of transparency, I'm cooking a Shepherd's Pie in the other room, while quieting the baby in the bedroom, while dashing back & forth trying to see new messages. If we can pause til, say 8 or so, I can more fully read your newest posts & address all raised concerns in due order.

as a funny aside in the meanwhile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans

Could you actually provide a source stipulating that "radical" in political terms belongs solely to the realm of Socialism?

"He keeps talking about the importance of private enterprise because he knows that's what people want to hear. "

That's exactly what I was talking about earlier— you are insinuating that his platform of an engaged democracy through investment in environment— the change he's looking for through capitalism— if your claim is, like Gingrich's comment about Muslim "stealth jihad" by employing taqyyia; if your point is that anything he says cannot be trusted—

Then our debate goes almost no further.

Further, in the Berkeley video he says repeatedly that when Bush was in office, we were not a democracy.

Again: a critique on the Bush Administration, when so much legislation was pushed through on "imperative national emergency"— so many times when the bill of rights was patently eroded— that political criticism is socialism.

Listen to this audio all the way through: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-to-van-jones.html

OK— I've listened to the audio, with the right-wing overlays— did you LISTEN to what was said? He did not advocate any single one of those positions: he was talking about the difference between coming to the bargaining table asking for the bare minimum and asking for MORE than you actually want, so that you have something to bargain away and wind up with a middle ground.

In that same audio: "that meant that from 1964 to 1968, radical change was opportune"— Well, that's just factually true. Given the explosivity of race in the 60's, the possibilities available in finally addressing race in the country were monumental in changing the course of the country— in terms of rights for all her citizens. And framing the importance of an environmental shift— from fossil fuels to renewables— in terms of our energy grid– in terms of how we power our very civilization— is paradigm shifting in very similar ways.

If you add to this the long and unbroken history of Leninist duplicity, to deny the obvious amounts to what can only be called willful ignorance.

You've not established a "long and unbroken history of Leninist duplicity"– and again: if you're going back to the "sleeper cell" camp, then no. Not at all. That's absolutely inadmissible as proof of anything.

"To deny the obvious amounts to what can only be called willful ignorance". There is no such thing as willful ignorance. It's a contradiction in terms: willful ignorance is prejudice – against truth. And no; you've not established by any means that "right wing obvious" is anything more than a convenient waving of the hand, dismissing his embrace of Capitalism. You call that embrace of Capitalism a "secret ploy". And that's patently ridiculous— and up to you to prove.

The smear against the President I won't address, because it's not germaine to our discussion.

From my understanding, this is where we stand:

I've provided ample sources detailing Mr. Jones' conversion to a capitalist pursuit of societal change in terms of environmental policy. And you offer disbelief in that proffered change, thinking it a Leninist ploy.

Are there any nuances I'm neglecting to reflect where we now stand?

Here is your fundamental problem: you cannot use the words of someone who lies as evidence of his moderation.

He said, 3 years after STORM broke up–and we are in agreement that STORM was a group dedicated to the overthrow of the United States government and implementation of Maoist tyranny–that he was switching from a radical pose to radical ends. That quote was from the piece here, which I cited in my original piece: http://www.truth-out.org/article/eliza-strickland-the-new-face-environmentalism

The reason I mentioned Communist history is that context is everything. In the leadup to World War 2 Chamberlain cited what Hitler said in order to justify the Munich accord. Churchill said Hitler was lying, because this is what people like him do. Churchill was right.

Likewise, you are asking an intelligent, well read man to agree with you that someone who was literally trying to organize the overthrow of the United States government in 2002 was, by 2005, a willing and enthusiastic champion of Capitalism, and you are asking me to do so even when Jones himself SAID he never abandoned the radical ends, and that his primary problem with STORM was that it was inefficatious.

My children are in junior high, and I would be highly disppointed in them if they were willing to buy such patent nonsense.

You do agree, in principle, do you not, that people lie? That they can lie convincingly, charmingly, often, and to your face?

You do agree that deception is and always has been a principle tool of Leninist subversion? I've provided a number of examples of it. You could add Mao's Nationalist pose to it as well. Had he told the truth, he never could have defeated Chiang Kai Shek.

The pattern, everywhere and always, is to say what people want to hear until you get control, then impose your program, whether they want it or not. Read history, if you don't believe me. Start with "The Black Book of Communism", which, along with "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", should be required reading for all high school seniors.

As far as the video, the first part, about "democracy", is right at 20 minutes. Let me be clear: all Leninists use the rhetorical device of "democracy". The fundamental claim is that no capitalist nation can be a democracy. This is basic. This is ineluctable, and historically irrefutable.

Now, Jones is not claiming that the United States is more democratic under Obama. He is making the radical claim that democracy was on hiatus under Bush, which is simply indefensible, unless you also believe that only political radicals like Obama can "free" you, which is standard leftist fare. They eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. You want me to dig up some examples let me know.

As far as the video: http://www.pakistan.tv/videos-van-jones-hows-that-capitalism-workin-%5B59d42nLfyKA%5D.cfm

The questioner comments that his ideas sound Marxist, and he goes uh huh, at which the whole audience erupts in laughter. Most psychologically normal adults would interpret that as a clear awareness that the question was silly. Then in response he does not deny the claim, but rather asks "how is that Capitalism working for you?", three times.

Someone who was genuinely commited to Capitalism would not ask a question like this.

Finally, I will comment that questions of interpretatin depend largel on the sincerity of those concerned. It is possible to deny the sky is blue, even if we are looking at it together. All I can do is build what I believe is a well balanced case, relying on someones own words and actions, contextualize them within a considerable historical knowledge, and reach what I see as and have argued to be reasonable conclusions.

Net: 1) said he was a communist in 1992, and founded a group dedicted to the overthrow of the United States government.

2) Said he had renounced a radical pose for radical ends in 2005.

3) Said in 2009 that we had to go beyond Capitalism, even ecocapitalism, and also denied that America was a democracy when run by Republicans and refused to deny being a Marxist.

4) All Leninists lie.

5) It is reasonable to conclude he did in fact renounce his radical pose for radical ends, and that self evidently you can't use radical rhetoric to achieve radical ends, which means that all his speech about free enterprise is as deceptive as Mao and Ho's talk about nationalism and democracy.

MountainGoat— if you wish to present that people lie as THE evidence that proves that Van Jones' repudiation of Marxism for Capitalism— then you cannot rely on the history of lies in America as your proof.

You're pinioning your entire case upon an unproveable— but even if it WEREN'T an unproveable, what you would NEED to evidenciarily show, is a concerted history of lying on the part of Van Jones. If you wish to establish that he is a liar, ABOVE being a Marxist/Leninist— then you have to show a history of his employing lies.

You have not done so. You argued, early on, that Leninists were without morals, and so not bound by morals, and could lie to suit their whims.

I told you then— sensing where you would go with it– that you were employing the same faulty tactics that Newt Gingrich does with his horrid xenophobic "Taqiyya" line. I told you then that that line of argument would be inadmissible— think about it: you are arguing, in attempting to prove that he is a Leninist, that BECAUSE he is a Leninist, Jones's word cannot be trusted. You are taking as a presumption the very end of what we are fighting to establish. So no– you cannot assume Jones's Leninism to establish his Leninist "incapacity to be honest". That's implausible, and would have you laughed out of any court.

Let me see what else you've written since I've looked last.

Per your 6:42 AM, 10/1:

"You do agree that deception is and always has been a principle tool of Leninist subversion? "

I make no such claim, and it is not germaine to our argument. ALL politicians lie. Are you saying that Eric Cantor and John Boehner are Leninists because they employ obfuscation and lie in order to distort to their political benefit?

That's a heady argument you're unleashing if that's what you're saying—-

but again: if your entire argument rests on "Jones's word cannot be trusted because he is a Leninist"— then you are canceling the debate as untenable.

Per your "pakistan.tv" video— it is not a video— you do as Glenn Beck does: you provided a video out of context, in which you do not supply the larger context. The video clips the response. If you can find it in its uncut source— from a source that's not "DefendGlenn.tv" (you really thought that that would be acceptible as a non-partisan source?)

then present it in its fuller context. Til then? It doesn't exist.

Your #5, is, again, to that end, malarky.

To be specific: your argument rests on :

1. for all x, P(x)
2. and since Q is x, Q(x)
3. Therefore, Q(x).

But the entirety of our argument rests in whether Q(x) exists. You cannot take it as an assumed quanity, thereby, it is fallicious logic, and not presentable.

Let alone the fact that your "for all x, P(x)" is a secondary fallacy of Petitio Principii. Your base assumption that "all Leninists lie" is a fallacy, despite your attempt to enter it into the registry as fact.

Fallacy of Circular reasoning:

(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.
(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.
Therefore:
(3) The Bible is inerrant.

(1) All Leninists lie
(2) Jones is lying about conversion to Capitalism
Therefore:
(3) Jones is a Leninist

If you can make a case not based on a logical fallacy— we can continue.

"You have not addressed the fundamental point that when it was pointed out that he sounded like a Marxist, the audience laughed, and he replied with "How is that Capitalism working for you?"

Question: are you a Marxist?

Response: Why are you a Capitalist?:

The response was not "Yes, I'm a Marxist; why are you a Capitalist?" But rather, asking the questioner to examine her own stance.

As for radical— your assumption is that "radical" equates to Socialism. By no means does it or has it ever been understood to uphold that synonymnity. That's not evasion: it's practicality. If you're aiming to show as evidence, as you most certainly have, that his stating that "radical means" and "radical ends" equate to proof of his Socialist-hood, then you certainly have to show that "radical" anything proves Socialism. And you haven't done that. You've just supplied the insinuation.

There's nothing disingenuous of Thomas Paine's being a radical— the dude was staunchly OUT there. Fire-breathing. OUT there. Anybody who'd say that "Priests and conjurors are of the same trade", or that "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. "

That right there's some radical stuff.

And then you prove my very point: This phase ended in 2002. He ended his relationship with STORM. He never said he "wasn't" a Marxist— that's a matter of public record. But it has absolutely no relation to whether he still is .

It boils down to one simple question: do you have any proof that A: he is, or ever was a liar; and B: that his Capitalist work is done as a sham?

Because you'd have to discredit the work that, in April, caused TIME to recognize Van Jones as one of the 100 most influential people on the planet for the work he did with Green for All and the U.S. government.

Can you prove that the Capitalist work that Green for All engaged in was the work of a "Socialist sleeper cell"?

That question is very simple.

For example:

In an earlier day, David Roberts even calls Jones the green Jack Kemp:
“Indeed, when Jones talks about targeting jobs and economic development at struggling urban areas, he sounds like nobody so much as the late Jack Kemp. I once saw him deliver a short talk to a crowd of largely white, middle-aged, besuited businessmen at a Wall Street Journal business conference; he was sandwiched in the middle of a long line of droning talks. Within 10 minutes, he had the executives on their feet in a standing ovation. They don’t do that for communism.”

You can find some of the fact-checking at this link (which I actually just found) which debunks MOST of every single insinuation Beck wrote about the man.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-02-cleaning-some-of-the-fox-off-of-van-jones/

from pages 4 – 6 of the same 2005 source:

"Jones began transforming his politics and work in the aftermath of a crisis that coincided with the primary election in March 2000. He was campaigning hard against California Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that increased the penalties for a variety of violent crimes and required more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults. Several activist groups united to organize young people into sit-downs, rallies, and protests. But Jones said the coalition ultimately imploded "in the nastiest way you can ever imagine.""

"I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs," he said.

First, he discarded the hostility and antagonism with which he had previously greeted the world, which he said was part of the ego-driven romance of being seen as a revolutionary. "Before, we would fight anybody, any time," he said. "No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. … I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."

His new philosophy emphasizes effectiveness, which he believes is inextricably tied to unity. He still considers himself a revolutionary, just a more effective one, who has realized that the progressive left's insistence on remaining a counterculture destroys its potential as a political movement. "One of my big heroes is Malcolm X, not because I agree with Malcolm, but because he wasn't afraid to change in public," he said.

Devising a new strategy for the left went hand-in-hand with finding a new approach in his personal life and relationships. Jones said he arrived at that by harking back to his roots. Although he had spent many childhood summers in "sweaty black churches," and in college had discovered the black liberation theology that reinterprets the Christ story as an anticolonial struggle, he had pulled away from spirituality during his communist days. During his 2000 crisis, he looked for answers in Buddhism, the philosophy known as deep ecology, and at open-minded institutions such as the East Bay Church of Religious Science.

Jones has since become known as a guy who actually can get things done, a guy whom the mayor will take meetings with. For instance, last June he worked with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom on the UN World Environment Day conference about green cities. Some environmental groups boycotted the event, which was heavily underwritten by Pacific Gas & Electric, a perennial environmental nemesis. Jones sidestepped this controversy while pursuing his own goal, the inclusion of a series of events highlighting the environmental issues faced by the poor and people of color."

He took flak from folk on the "more radical" side of environmentalism by helping structure and engage with energy leader PG&E for constructive dialog. The idealog "radical environmentalists"? They lambasted him for "sitting with the enemy"— and held their own event cross-town. Yet his event? Actually progressed conversation across the aisle.

from pages 4 – 6 of the same 2005 source:

"Jones began transforming his politics and work in the aftermath of a crisis that coincided with the primary election in March 2000. He was campaigning hard against California Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that increased the penalties for a variety of violent crimes and required more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults. Several activist groups united to organize young people into sit-downs, rallies, and protests. But Jones said the coalition ultimately imploded "in the nastiest way you can ever imagine.""

"I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to fairly significant change in the economy, and were having bigger impacts than me and a lot of my friends with our protest signs," he said.

There's a great video at the tail end of this article, too; though, topping out at over an hour, much as yours did, I'm not offering it for anything in particular besides an entertaining watch about how Jones is calling on the government to provide business incentives to make environmentalist changes worthwhile. Or… y'know… Capitalism. Tax credits, even.

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-30-van-jones-is-a-communist-intent-on-creating-private-sector-jobs/

Answer this question, and this question only: what enabled Churchill to perceive the truth about Hitler, when Chamberlain did not?

They had access to the same information, yet one of them was proven right, and the other wrong, resulting in the death of the latter a short time later from the sheer horror at the extent of his mistake.

What was the difference? They were reading the same words.

On page xxii of the Prologue, he quotes John Adams: "This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affections of the people was the real American Revolution".

Throughout the foundation of the book, he speaks of the need not to be a hot-headed idiot, but a reason-minded thoughtful smart person who cares about the people who disagrees with him in political discussion. Again. No socialism there. He instead advocates working inside the system to effect change democratically.

In a pointed part, he tells the more hotheaded reactionaries that they have 3 choices when concerned that their politicians are not heeding the voice of We The People: "Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing–but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home, organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates ." (Prologue xxiii) It's quite obvious which of the 3 he advocated.

Prologue (xxiv) "The democratic ideal springs from the ideas of liberty, equality, majority rule through free elections, protection of the rights of minorities, and freedom to subscribe to multiple loyalties in the matters of religion, economics, and politics rather than to a total loyalty to the state. The spirit of democracy is the idea of importance and worth in the individual, and faith in the kind of world where the individual can achieve as much of his potential as possible"… "

On Chapter 1, Page 3: "The Purpose:– "to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life."

And here is precisely where you need to look to defeat your statement that it is Leninism, or ideological ANYTHING of any bent: page 4: "In this book I propose certain general observations, propositions, and conceptions of the mechanics of mass movements and the various stages of th cycle of action and reaction in revolution. This is not an idological book except insofar as argument for change, rather than for the status quo, can be called an ideology; different people in different places, in different situations, and different times will construct their own solutions and symbols of salvation for those times. This book will not contain any panacea or dogma; I detest and fear dogma. I know that all revolutions must have ideologies to spur them on. That in the heat of conflict these ideologies tend to be smelted into rigid dogmas claiming exclusive possession of the truth, and the keys to paradise, is tragic. Dogma is the enemy of human freedom."

So— really, once again, we're in the exact same situation with both:

• your insinuation that the term "Radical" is solely relegated to Socialism

and also that:

• "Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is patent Socialism.

You've yet to provide a single source of evidence for either tertiary contention.

The reason I am asking the question about Churchill and Chamberlain is really quite simple: in my view Chamberlain assumed that unless he had overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that people could be taken at their word. Churchill, with his broad and deep understanding both of history and human psychology, knew that Hitler had told the truth in Main Kampf, and that everything subsequent to that was subterfuge.

Let me ask you this: have you ever committed yourself to organizing secret revolutionary cadres, and spent your days and nights for the better part of a decade dreaming of overthrowing the United States Constitution and implementing a tyranny modeled on that of your idol, Mao Tse Tung?

Have you worked tirelessly to demonize Capitalists and Capitalism for ten years, speaking out to everyone who would listen that revolution was the only solution?

If not, can we not agree that that "stance" is far, far beyond the pale of normal American political activity, and that people doing such work have in the past actually succeeded in the overthrow of governments?

I am looking for sincerity, not pedantry.

2/many:

Per your October 5, 2010 5:24 AM:

"Let me ask you this: have you ever committed yourself to organizing secret revolutionary cadres, and spent your days and nights for the better part of a decade dreaming of overthrowing the United States Constitution and implementing a tyranny modeled on that of your idol, Mao Tse Tung?" No. And that's yet one more question asked by you, responded to by me.

"Have you worked tirelessly to demonize Capitalists and Capitalism for ten years, speaking out to everyone who would listen that revolution was the only solution?" Again, no. And yet another question not evaded.

You've already been on record at having registered disbelief at the conversion to Capitalist. Again repeating that recalcitrant doubt does no more in your argument to disprove its veracity.

Which of the actions of Green For All have been Marxist in orient? Yet ONE MORE question I pose of you to be ignored.

4/many:

He wasn't writing that— as is your default response— as evasion, as subterfuge. It was the pointed, stated premise– the "Purpose" of the book. The foundation of its structure from which all points permeated. If you can point to a section hidden deep in the book where he says "OK, now that the Capitalists aren't looking, here's my really real purpose:" Doesn't happen.

What he writes of is the methodology for anyone looking to revolt to actively do so. It's perfectly fine to disagree with the means he advocates; but it's a stretch to demand that it obligingly synopsize an ideology you wish to make it adhere to, when he so pointedly disavowed adhering to ANY ideology.

And heck, I don't agree with several of his contentions, that "for the cause", individuals should utilize methods personally condemnable for the greater overarching. Sam Adams, he argues, took the same approach. I personally think a person shouldn't do a thing that'd cause him shame in front of his mother. But then, that's just me.

In the matter of the Boston Massacre (p.30), Alinsky details how one survivor, Patrick Carr, in his deathbed confession, testified that "the townspeople had been the aggressors, and the soldiers had fired in their self defense." Samuel Adams, in the radical revolutionists' need to decisively divorce the British from culpability on any count (in order to effect perfect sympathy with the Revolutionary movement, instead of recognizing that a wave sympethetic to the colonialists' pleas was, in point of fact, moving through the British House of Commons). Adams discounts that death-bed testimony "by pointing out that he (Carr) was an Irish 'paist' who had probalbly died in the confession of the Roman Catholic Church". (Sam Adams, Pioneer In America, by John. C. Miller). It was political strategy effected to further the cause of Revolution. From the British point of view, unjustified; from the American Revolutionary cause's: most certainly justified in the larger cause.

The point being: Alinsky in that example is providing argument that "ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times"; (also including LIncoln's suspension of habeus corpus as evidence of the same).

You have claimed to've read it cover to cover. Yet you refrain from supplying one single line of text in which he says, "Yay Lenin! Go Socialism! Got Engels?"

6/many: Then you go haywire in your last paragraph: let me try to pull the intestines of reason back into the yelping corpse: "If I have stated your criterion correctly: an unambiguous admission of bloodthirst to be expressed in political revolution, issued while in office, obviously I can't provide that; nor would a reasonable, sincere person ask for it."

No— you have not in the slightest stated 'my criterion correctly'. But again: nice try hyper-politicizing what is mere pragmatism.

What you need to do, if asserting that "someone's honesty holds no veracity and is unable to be trusted as a point in an argument"– is to show a history of their having lied. You have not done so.

That's just rudimentary common sense.

You have not addressed ONE SINGLE bit of the work that Jones has done in the Capitalist realm, let alone refuted it. You've ignored it.

Your entire case rests on the notion that no Marxist (which you have not proven that he is) can be taken at their word that they are honest. Therefore, even if all evidence points to him having fully engaged in Capitalist pursuits, that would not count– because his honesty has been impugned.

We're really exactly at the same spot were we were when I wrote you saying that we are at an impasse, no?

"Person X, with goals the same as Jones"? You've proven no such thing— which person X was an environmentalist working to change United States environmental policy? Your "Person X to Jones Y" relies on the self-admittely Marxist Jones from years passed. Not now. Which "Person X" are you submitting as a foil to Contemporary Jones?

You've included notice of several Marxists who've lied— and I rebutted that before you even had the chance to twist a spindley moustachio and say ah-HAH!

How do you prove your case? I've given you the keys to the kingdom, and you're complaining that the windows are shut: prove he's the liar you claim that he is, then show that the Capitalist work that he has done is Marxist by extremis.

Fallacies and insinuation will never congeal into the adamantium platform you seek to establish. You can't make a Porsche from a Gremlin. You can make a bad-ass Gremlin, but you'll be no nearer to Porsche-hood for the effort.

Plus— as an aside: and, with the caveat that you may just be playing one wickedly fantastic devil's advocate (which I often do, and charge to political opponents as a practice to combat prejudicial personal biases from holding sway)

If, as you say, it is so difficult to prove something beyond smears and insinuation— then why do you reserve so rigidly to believing what you are incapable of finding proof of— when that proof is all that you are working so hard to obtain?

Occam's Razor cuts a close shave– but the most obvious conclusion is that: it's improvable because it's not true.

"Frankly undignified"? Project much? I cast 2 challenges toward you— GRANTING YOU the very method by which to prove your charge: 1) prove that he is a liar, to substantiate your "he is a Marxist, so one cannot take his saying that he is a converted Capitalist" as truth; thereby proving that he is a Marxist.

And 2: prove that the work that he has done AS a Capitalist was: either, not Capitalist, or, obviously your preference: that it was a covert Marxist cover.

You've done neither. You ignore the request for proof, preferring insinuation. In so doing, you do yourself the dishonor of tipping your king, refusing to actually debate.

And yet once more I am left with the very obvious revelation that your only case is insinuation. In short: you have none.

Why don't we do this? As one human being to another, why don't you tell me what you think? I have made my own views clear, and you have spent a lot of time sniping at them.

When he said "I was a communist.", what do you think it would be reasonable to suppose that meant, for him?

What do YOU think he meant with the term "radical pose"?

I have no interest in playing games. Tell me what you think and we can compare notes.

What do "I" think? Outside of all the sourcing? Just my personal opinion?

I think the radical had a "come to Jesus" moment– he realized that, using the volatile tactics from his youger starting days, he would never— EVER— be able to affect the large-scale changes he felt were so necessary for the country to be on a better environmental path. So he decided to make the personal change. To work– as is Alinsky's central tenet– to make that change WITHIN the system. WITHIN democracy.

That's my personal thought. And when that room of CEOs stood and gave him a standing-o, after talking about the tax breaks and incentives FOR businesses to go green— the man made the change.

But what "I think" doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the facts show.

Simple insinuation that he's incapable of being sincere because he's a liar? Without establishing that he's a liar? It's weak sauce.

My over-arching point is that thatadvocation— of vast environmental and energy policy shift, is the reason Van Jones got slapped upside the head with the hurt locker. Big Business, and the CoC and Republican pundits don't want to effect those changes; that much is understood— but the reason against it has nothing to do with the science; only the profits of businesses (and, arguably, the difficulty of getting China and India likewise aboard).

THAT is the reason Van Jones was smeared and "scalped"; it had nothing at all to do with his Marxist past. That was just the convenient "out" by which the Right could circle their wagons; and yet another in a long line of de-legitimization campaigns was underway.

I understand the story you are trying to tell, but you haven't answered my question. Leaving aside a discussion of his current beliefs–or even the extent to which his goals even touched on global warming remediation (they publicly revolved around "green jobs", as far as I could tell): when he WAS a Marxist, when he was a leader of the group "Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement", what do you think his beliefs were?

This is a basic starting point. From there, we will be in a better position to evaluate his subsequent evolution.

Obviously relevant is what he meant by "radical pose". We have, in his own words, a movement from "pose" to ends. Logically and inescapably, in determining what ends he had in mind, we need to understand what he meant by pose.

What do you think he meant?

That's fine. I'll wait.

Just got back in— long long weekend of work; and I'll have to delay responding to the initial query til tomorrow— but to your latest: "what do Communists believe"; we covered that in our foundation structure for the debate;

If Communism is: a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single – often authoritarian – party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

Then Communists believe that "a higher social order can be established in which all goods are equally shared by the people, in a classless society". As was described elsewhere, absolute Communism is an abstract impossible to execute. But, it's arguable, "Communists believe" that with purely honorable intention and the productive labor of a virtuous people can lead to a "classless society".

Do they believe in Constitutional government? Good question— I don't see how the 2 must be mutually exclusive, but it's worth looking into.

As for "when someone says they're a Communist, and follows that proclamation up with action'— what then when they stalwartly repudiate Communism?

Per "The New Face of Environmentalism"— a link I provided faaar earlier in the debate, per page 6: "he believes the down-and-out neighborhood could be a model of urban sustainability through investment, technology, and job creation. Concrete plans for Oakland include a job-training program at a biodiesel company that is starting up a production and wholesale facility this January, and the construction of the "green-designed" Red Star Housing project on the former site of a polluting yeast factory. Developers have promised to include a job-training component to teach environmentally friendly construction techniques to prisoners reentering society.

"We're really curious; we're all watching to see where it goes," said Peter Teague of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, which is funding the center's environmental work. "It's moved from that giddy, imagining stage to trying to make something happen on the ground, which is a lot tougher. But I think Van is making a huge contribution in just showing us what's possible.""

Job training, business— the building up of the broken down decrepit neighborhoods through capitalist innovation and job creation.

Oh, good God, the Fabians. Beck pulled that drek straight out of nowhere. It has no bearing to do with anything.

Tony Blair is a Fabian, and their window is still on prominent display at the London School of Economics.

Regardless, what I am asking is what Fabian policy was, who their recruits were. They stated their methods and objectives quite openly. You don't even really need to connect the dots. The pattern is all there. They were proud of what they were trying to do, and their converts foolishly assumed that since the leaders were genteel and well bred, that they couldn't possibly mean what they said.

Even there, if you choose you can answer the question with regard to Ho, Lenin, Mao or Castro, all of whom used one rhetorical set to get power, and who only revealed their real stripes once they had the power to make sure nobody could do anything about it.

Just as a side note, were you aware that Che Guevara enjoyed watching executions so much that he had part of a wall removed in his office, so he could watch them while he worked? Wonderful man. It's easy to see why sociopaths would love him. It's less clear why anyone else would want to associate with a bloodthirsty sadist.

Actually— wait; before you side-tracked into Beck's Fabians, you had advocated a look at Jones's precise purported pathway in repudiating Marxism as the method toward which achieving his goals.

Then…. whoop. Off to left field with the Fabians, yet again pursuing the "no one's word is trustworthy because all Marxists lie"— and again, I'll say it one last time: if that is the only argument you are capable of making, then our discussion is done.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw7DtjO4V6c&feature=related

Hitler had the favor of the Fabians. They just thought he was killing the wrong people. His methods were fine by them.

I say that "your fascination about Fabians is solely because they were the evil guy du jour of Glenn Beck" and to dispute that assumption you send me to a Glenn Beck video from Fox News?

Are you even attempting to be serious– or has that flown out the window?

"Social pruning projects"— and no, I will not accept it as evidence of existence if it came out of Glenn Beck's mouth– but OF COURSE racist genocidal xenophobia is as disgusting as of course it is.

You neglect to consider that TWICE I have displayed contempt for Alinsky's claim that Samuel Adams' adoption of immoral means to satisfy his over-riding political aims. Twice.

You are attempting, still, to lay the groundwork that "Marxist individuals are incapable of being taken at face value because they are liars who will do or say anything to achieve their Marxist goals"—

You have advanced NO further than where we were before: you cannot take "Jones's being a Marxist" as a tentpole of that argument, when it is the very thing you are trying to prove. You continue the fallacy I brought to your attention over a week ago.

I even then TOLD you the very method by which you could prove the very thing you wish to prove:

1) Show that Jones is or has an established history of lying to achieve his short- or long-term political goals.

You have done no such thing, and have only deflected towards the over-arching insinuation.

2) Show that ANY of the capitalist work done by Jones and his environmental work has, indeed, been NOT capitalism, but rather, Marxism in sheeps' clothing.

You've not bothered to address that either.

You seem incapable or unwilling to move your argument from the fallacy; now pivoting to Beck's new evil demon, "The Scary Fabians".

I really think we're done here.

You can't not be seeing my point; I could just as easily say that "you, yourself" are a liar. And when you then say "2+2=4" I would then say "Ah HAH! You see? I was right— you're cleverly planting by insidious means your attempt to be taken as a truth-teller, when it's lies– lies, that you're only capable of uttering," and at no point in any forseeable future could I ever, in any instance, take any thing that you say as potentially true, because I had already laid the foundation stone that because I assume you are a liar (as so many different nefarious groups are) then nothing at all that you say or do can be trusted.

it is not a serious position to take in argument, and you refuse to let it go. If you refuse to let it go, then yes. Yes, then we can debate the topic no further.

Case in point— the very end of that video— "the ARROGANCE" Beck says with barely concealed acrimonious hatred— that's a buzzword, and a very obvious one, meant to subconsciously link that which was just heard to the present Administration. Beck doesn't spend month after month saying "the ARROGANCE of Barrack Obama"— and have it become a pounded flesh meme on Fox— and then just use the term "ARROGANCE" like that happenstantially. It's pure Fox, and it's absolutely disgusting.

"In 1959 Nikita Khrushchev boasted to a US cabinet member “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

This sort of thing is ubiquitous.

Perhaps this is the question I needed to ask long ago: would it BOTHER you if you knew irrefutably that Jones was in fact still committed to overthrowing our government and implementing a Maoist tyranny?

You have, you know, global warming, income gaps, the Bush recession, the failure of Capitalism and all that, right?

Actually— no: one last: "You have, you know, global warming, income gaps, the Bush recession, the failure of Capitalism and all that, right?"

1. Global warming;
2: income gaps
3: the Bush recession
4: "the failure of Capitalism"?

You betray your suppositions and over-reliance on generalities by lumping each and every one of those things in, as hyper-partisan Republicans do, as "Socialism", when they are, most definitely, NOT. You do so to try to invent the illusion that this whole great big list of things, all together, creates a cement wall of condemnation— failing to recognize that each and every brick you lay into that wall is a faulty assumption based on hyper-partisan Republican rhetoric, not truth. That "wall" is made of wet, crumbling paper mache; it is NOT the Great Wall of China– it's the pathetic wall of the International House of Pancakes. Buttressed by sausage links. Overridden and soggily rent asunder by a cavalcade of poured saccharine maple syrup.

You still just don't get it— this is hysterical blindness. I warned you of this when you FIRST attempted to adopt this line of argument. You want me to accept that ALL Marxists lie, so Jones lies. When, in point of fact, what you're trying to PROVE is that Jones is a Marxist. And in that end, you are trying to say that he's a Marxist because since he's a Marxist he lies and all Marxists lie so he's a Marxist.

You quite honestly can't see that?

So— no. I do not cede the point that Jones is a Marxist so that you can proceed then unnecessarily toward the point that he is a liar because he's a Marxist. WHETHER he is a Marxist is the entire damned issue, son! THAT is why it is a logical fallacy! You consistently, repeatedly, incessantly, demand to be able to put the cart before the horse and commit a logical atrocity, and call it common sense.

You want to prove that JONES is a liar? Then it has NOTHING to do with the history of Communism– it has EVERYTHING to do with every word the man has ever uttered compared to HIS actions, and whether you are able to prove that he, the man, himself, has a record of using the methodology of lying when convenient to achieve his "radical ends". Whether Lenin lied, or Shaw lied, or whoever else Beck wants to dredge up lies has NOTHING to do with our issue.

"He literally tells us that he was a Communist".

WAS! WAS, son! That's the issue— that he WAS and no longer continues to be.

I am done here. Good luck, good on ya; God be with ya on yer journey. I've better windmills to raze.

Tough guy. Me, I don't talk trash. No need to, particularly when I'm clearly right.

Well, I will accept your graceless concession. I wish I could say I'm surprised, but of course I'm not.

The future of your child will very definitely be shaped by the policies we pursue over the next five years, in inescapable ways. If you choose to remain blind to the realities around you, you are doing no one any favors.

My example of Chamberlain was quite a propo. What you're asking of me is somewhere where Jones says to the camera "I'm lying, I'm really still a Communist." I don't have that.

Churchill said, in 1938, have you read his damn book? Chamberlain in effect replied that Hitler must not have meant it, since it was so horrible, and therefore must be telling the truth. All he said he wanted was peace.

One of them was right.

I will note, in closing–unless you choose to respond again–that you never answered my question if it would bother you if you did in fact know Jones was still a Communist.

Nor did you offer even the rudimentary bone of agreeing that the mass murder of millions of Americans would be a bad thing, and that anyone who advocated such a thing at ANY time in their life quite clearly should be nowhere near the seats of power.

There are some lines you don't cross. Of course, you won't admit that. I can only assume that Jones' Communism doesn't bother you half as much as the politics of those who oppose him.

There are some lines you don't cross, indeed. I would NEVER have mentioned your child, or your family. You dared go there, and it's beyond deplorable.

I mentioned the future. Presumably, the world will still be intact when your child is an adult.

Grow up, or learn to be silent in peace. I have already posted this debate on my Facebook profile as an example of the intellectual bankruptcy of leftists. I've done this debate a hundred times. It always ends the same way.

You can huff and puff all you want, but the reality is that you are playing games with both facts and logic, and if you had integrity rather than pride you would admit it.

Playing games with both facts and logic? You AVOID logic to make an END be the MEANS by which you ACHIEVE that very end. You stand logic on its head— you do not KNOW how to argue.

"Moderates United"? Laughable.

Don't you see? Your "all Marxists lie" argument— has nothing to do with Van Jones at all; you could substitute any name and be making the same empty McCarthyist argument against anyone: Gumby, Mr. Rogers, PeeWee Herman, Mother Theresa, Francisco Clemente; it doesn't matter WHO it is you claim is a liar, and hence, a lying Marxist— your argument doesn't bear the individual to mind AT ALL.

And hence— it is absolutely vapid. You've proven N O T H I N G about Van Jones— and don't want to.

You have ignored many questions I've asked. I'll repeat the salient one: would it bother you to learn Jones is in fact still a Leninist, and as such still dedicated to the overthrow of our Constitutional form of government?

I'll take that as a "no", you don't care. Typical.

You see, for me it is a matter of vital importance whether or not he is a Leninist. Since only a mouth breathing idiot would expect someone who is trying to overthrow our government to go around saying "I am trying to overthrow our government", and use that as the sole criterion by which he could be evaluated, I think I have in fact demonstrated that you are a mouth breathing moron.

When I think of Communism, I think of parents eating children because they are starving. I think of wonderful old professors being beaten and tortured to death by sociopathic children.

You, you seem to think of it as a sort of adolescent mistake, something between listening to punk rock and coloring your hair.

You are profoundly ignorant, and since this ignorance is CHOSEN you are playing the part, literally, of an agent of evil.

Your child deserves better. We all deserve better.

You also need a new handle. You are nothing approaching honest. You have never shown any desire to evaluate evidence impartially.

In 2009, in response to the question "You sound like a Marxist", Jones repled "Hows' that Capitalism working for you?"

You're an idiot.

The older I get, the deeper and more profound my contempt for people like you gets. I read histories–like that of Doan Van Toai ( http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/032981vietnam-mag.html )–and I see plainly that willfully ignorant self righteous pricks like you have defended at every step the most vicious, evil, horrific doctrine this planet has ever seen. The Thuggees just killed people and took their money. The Mongols did the same thing. They built mountains of skulls–literally–yet they never tried to "reeducate" anyone. They never claimed they were angels of mercy, or acting on the behalf of the people.

Thus the systematic sadism of Communism stands out in every respect: its deceitfulness, the ubiquitous use of physical and psychological torture, and the body count. The some 100 million rotting corpses that can be attributed to men in power who simply did not care how much death they dealt, and who did not care if that death ever amounted to anything good.

I would argue, on the contrary, that the death and pain were and are the POINT of the system.

Jones, in my view, wants to kill white people. He is willing to put on a suit and tie, smile a lot, be witty and charming, shake a lot of hands, and pretend to be working within the system.

But what he wants is mass death. This is what all Leninist/Communists want. That is a matter of ineluctable historical fact. Bill Ayers and the Weathermen figured they needed to kill 25 million Americans, and to set up reeducation camps in the Southwest for anyone else who didn't seem to be "getting it".

You don't seem to be able to grasp that when people like George Bernard Shaw talk about mass murder THEY MEAN IT.

These limp wristed pussies just want to be in charge, because in their own lives they are physical and moral cowards. They are angry at the world, and want to make damn sure they are not forgotten.

And people like you enable them. Churchill always called World War 2 "the unnecessary war". Some 20 million people dead because jackasses like you refused to tell yourselves adult truths.

Regardless of the lies you need to tell yourself to maintain the dream world you live in, I am neither ignorant, stupid, or flippant.

It is you who are making stupid demands that no serious, adult mind would even contemplate.

The older I get, the deeper and more profound my contempt for people like you gets. I read histories–like that of Doan Van Toai ( http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/032981vietnam-mag.html )–and I see plainly that willfully ignorant self righteous pricks like you have defended at every step the most vicious, evil, horrific doctrine this planet has ever seen. The Thuggees just killed people and took their money. The Mongols did the same thing. They built mountains of skulls–literally–yet they never tried to "reeducate" anyone. They never claimed they were angels of mercy, or acting on the behalf of the people.

Thus the systematic sadism of Communism stands out in every respect: its deceitfulness, the ubiquitous use of physical and psychological torture, and the body count. The some 100 million rotting corpses that can be attributed to men in power who simply did not care how much death they dealt, and who did not care if that death ever amounted to anything good.

I would argue, on the contrary, that the death and pain were and are the POINT of the system.

Jones, in my view, wants to kill white people. He is willing to put on a suit and tie, smile a lot, be witty and charming, shake a lot of hands, and pretend to be working within the system.

But what he wants is mass death. This is what all Leninist/Communists want. That is a matter of ineluctable historical fact. Bill Ayers and the Weathermen figured they needed to kill 25 million Americans, and to set up reeducation camps in the Southwest for anyone else who didn't seem to be "getting it".

You don't seem to be able to grasp that when people like George Bernard Shaw talk about mass murder THEY MEAN IT.

These limp wristed pussies just want to be in charge, because in their own lives they are physical and moral cowards. They are angry at the world, and want to make damn sure they are not forgotten.

And people like you enable them. Churchill always called World War 2 "the unnecessary war". Some 20 million people dead because jackasses like you refused to tell yourselves adult truths.

Regardless of the lies you need to tell yourself to maintain the dream world you live in, I am neither ignorant, stupid, or flippant.

It is you who are making stupid demands that no serious, adult mind would even contemplate.

The older I get, the deeper and more profound my contempt for people like you gets. I read histories–like that of Doan Van Toai ( http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/032981vietnam-mag.html )–and I see plainly that willfully ignorant self righteous pricks like you have defended at every step the most vicious, evil, horrific doctrine this planet has ever seen. The Thuggees just killed people and took their money. The Mongols did the same thing. They built mountains of skulls–literally–yet they never tried to "reeducate" anyone. They never claimed they were angels of mercy, or acting on the behalf of the people.

Thus the systematic sadism of Communism stands out in every respect: its deceitfulness, the ubiquitous use of physical and psychological torture, and the body count. The some 100 million rotting corpses that can be attributed to men in power who simply did not care how much death they dealt, and who did not care if that death ever amounted to anything good.

I would argue, on the contrary, that the death and pain were and are the POINT of the system.

Jones, in my view, wants to kill white people. He is willing to put on a suit and tie, smile a lot, be witty and charming, shake a lot of hands, and pretend to be working within the system.

But what he wants is mass death. This is what all Leninist/Communists want. That is a matter of ineluctable historical fact. Bill Ayers and the Weathermen figured they needed to kill 25 million Americans, and to set up reeducation camps in the Southwest for anyone else who didn't seem to be "getting it".

You don't seem to be able to grasp that when people like George Bernard Shaw talk about mass murder THEY MEAN IT.

These limp wristed pussies just want to be in charge, because in their own lives they are physical and moral cowards. They are angry at the world, and want to make damn sure they are not forgotten.

And people like you enable them. Churchill always called World War 2 "the unnecessary war". Some 20 million people dead because jackasses like you refused to tell yourselves adult truths.

Regardless of the lies you need to tell yourself to maintain the dream world you live in, I am neither ignorant, stupid, or flippant.

It is you who are making stupid demands that no serious, adult mind would even contemplate.

"Mouth breathing moron"? Go screw yourself, extreme Marxist.

And with that, eternal adieu.

1 of 3:

Actually—- laughably— one final last remark, and then I will be eliminating this bookmark and will never return to this page. Anything you then write will be just written solely for your fawning Facebook crowd.

I don't want to part here on the same hyberbolic volatile amplitude as you— with ad hominem personal attacks divorced from reason and aimed solely as personal jibes against the other's patriotism. That's filth. I want nothing to do with that.

What I will say is this: you're obviously quite passionate in your resolute hatred of Communism. That's absolutely admirable; and in your research on the topic, you've amassed quite a thorough background into why Communism is so deplorable. THAT, I respect, and applaud.

But you fail to recognize that that zealous passion blinds you to the requirements and framework of argument. You simply use that passion as a cudgel, and assume that you can batten down the walls of evidenciary responsibility with brute force. You cannot. The requirements of formal logic are impenetrable, and they defeated you at the very outset of your framing of your argument— as I warned you even then that they would. Yet you decided to ignore me, and ever continue onward on the same, fallacious path.

As I explained in the recent previous message, your argument is— quite fairly, reduced to those 5 points. 1. He's a Marxist. 2. All Communists are Liars. 3. As a Marxist, he is therefore a liar. 4. As a liar, nothing he says is trustworthy. 5: He therefore is a Marxist, thereby proving that which we aim to determine in this debate.

3 of 3, the last thing you will ever receive from me.

You neglected to bother to enter the realm of TRUE debate, and wrote that you consider it childish, naive, "open-mouthed" idiocy:

• You did not refute— or even bother to CITE any of the Capitalist work that he did, to disprove it. I doubt you read any of my sources to even have learned of one bit of Jones beyond your hyper-partisan assumptions. All you know of him is what Beck and your hatred of Communism tell you; and you think you need no more knowledge than that to condemn him. You are wrong.

• You did not bother to cite ANY instances in which he told a lie— let alone whether he developed the practice of adopting lies as his manner to get what he wanted (as, you argue, ALL Communists do). You did not introduce witnesses of EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN OF CHINA— to back up your assertion that EVERY SINGLE COMMUNIST IS A LIAR.

• You neglect to recognize, through your McCarthyist examples, that all those men throughout history exposed as Marxists were attempting to be covert. That IS NOT the case with Jones. He ADMITTED FREELY to having been Marxist. You've provided ZERO cases in which that is true— to serve as a basis to disprove the veracity of his chosen repudiation of Communism.

• You did not provide a SINGLE piece of evidence showing that the term"radical"— "radical" anything— "radical means", "radical ends", "radical pepperoni" — exists solely in the province of Communism, rather than as extreme politics in general, a heightened momentum or velocity for change, as I earlier stipulated. You ignored that, yet still claim that as evidence. You are wrong.

You hate Communists. Good on ya. Go you. But that zeal does not grant you special powers. It does not get you out of traffic tickets. It does not grant you the ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound. It does not grant you immunity from needing to actually be responsible enough to forge an argument in debate. Your pedantic complaints about the need to provide anything more substantial than insinuation, and later, your personal attacks, show the weakness of both your case and your character.

Take this knowledge with you in the next few hundred times you try to argue this debate; because, apparently, you have never even legitimately tried before.

You did NOTHING but rest on your laurels in your hatred of Communism, and you've proven nothing more than that you hate Communism. You've failed at debating this topic because you never even tried.