Glenn Beck: W. Cleon Skousen, the John Birch Society, the NWO and the 5000 Year Leap

[oldhat]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...sen/print.html

Quote:

Anyone who has followed Beck will recognize the book's title. Beck has been furiously promoting "The 5,000 Year Leap" for the past year, a push that peaked in March when he launched the 912 Project. That month, a new edition of "The 5,000 Year Leap," complete with a laudatory new foreword by none other than Glenn Beck, came out of nowhere to hit No. 1 on Amazon. It remained in the top 15 all summer, holding the No. 1 spot in the government category for months. The book tops Beck's 912 Project "required reading" list, and is routinely sold at 912 Project meetings where guest speakers often use it as their primary source material. At one 912 meet-up I attended in Florida, copies were stacked high on a table against the back wall, available for the 912 nice price of $15. "Don't bother trying to get it at the library," one 912er told me. "The wait list is 40 deep."

What has Beck been pushing on his legions? "Leap," first published in 1981, is a heavily illustrated and factually challenged attempt to explain American history through an unspoken lens of Mormon theology. As such, it is an early entry in the ongoing attempt by the religious right to rewrite history. Fundamentalists want to define the United States as a Christian nation rather than a secular republic, and recasting the Founding Fathers as devout Christians guided by the Bible rather than deists inspired by the French and English philosophers. "Leap" argues that the U.S. Constitution is a godly document above all else, based on natural law, and owes more to the Old and New Testaments than to the secular and radical spirit of the Enlightenment. It lists 28 fundamental beliefs -- based on the sayings and writings of Moses, Jesus, Cicero, John Locke, Montesquieu and Adam Smith -- that Skousen says have resulted in more God-directed progress than was achieved in the previous 5,000 years of every other civilization combined. The book reads exactly like what it was until Glenn Beck dragged it out of Mormon obscurity: a textbook full of aggressively selective quotations intended for conservative religious schools like Utah's George Wythe University, where it has been part of the core freshman curriculum for decades (and where Beck spoke at this year's annual fundraiser).

...SNIP...

Skousen laid low for much of the '60s. But he reemerged at the end of the decade peddling a new and improved conspiracy that merged left with right: the global capitalist mega-plot of the "dynastic rich." Families like the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, Skousen now believed, used left forces -- from Ho Chi Minh to the American civil rights movement -- to serve their own power.

In 1969, a 1,300-page book started appearing in faculty mailboxes at Brigham Young, where Skousen was back teaching part-time. The book, written by a Georgetown University historian named Carroll Quigley, was called "Tragedy and Hope." Inside each copy, Skousen inserted handwritten notes urging his colleagues to read the book and embrace its truth. "Tragedy and Hope," Skousen believed, exposed the details of what would come to be known as the New World Order (NWO). Quigley's book so moved Skousen that in 1970 he self-published a breathless 144-page review essay called "The Naked Capitalist." Nearly 40 years later, it remains a foundational document of America's NWO conspiracy and survivalist scene (which includes Skousen's nephew Joel).

In "The Naked Communist," Skousen had argued that the communists wanted power for their own reasons. In "The Naked Capitalist," Skousen argued that those reasons were really the reasons of the dynastic rich, who used front groups to do their dirty work and hide their tracks. The purpose of liberal internationalist groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, argued Skousen, was to push "U.S. foreign policy toward the establishment of a world-wide collectivist society." Skousen claimed the Anglo-American banking establishment had a long history of such activity going back to the Bolshevik Revolution. He substantiated this claim by citing the work of a former Czarist army officer named Arsene de Goulevitch. Among Goulevitch's own sources is Boris Brasol, a pro-Nazi Russian émigré who provided Henry Ford with the first English translation of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

[dudalb]

Quote:

It lists 28 fundamental beliefs -- based on the sayings and writings of Moses, Jesus, Cicero, John Locke, Montesquieu and Adam Smith -- that Skousen says have resulted in more God-directed progress than was achieved in the previous 5,000 years of every other civilization combined

Most of whom would be aghast at how they are being used by Skousen.
And explain again why the Super Rich would want a Socialist society,even if they were pulling the strings?
Skousen was a nutjob who turned religious fanatic. Even the JBS more or less moved away from him because of his relenteless pushing of Mormon theology in the Society.

[Brainster]

Heheh, I remember the hoopla over the "pickaninny" term in that one textbook; our idiot governor of the 1980s Ev Mecham tried to get that book into schools IIRC.

Sounds like the guy's a basic New World Order conspiracy theorist; I'd have to look but I'd guess that Alex Jones pimps Skoussen as well.

[dudalb]

Yeah, Skousan was NWO guy who was also selling a heavy religious angle that only the Mormon Church could save us from the NWO; this sort of lessened the appeal of his second book.
In later years he also begun including the Catholic Church as part of "THEM", this is what led to the Birchers turning their backs on him;a lot of Birchers were Catholic.

[Cleon]

All I have to say is: No relation. At all. None.

[Praktik]

My first exposure to Skousen was through debates on the Tom Delay blog comment section.

People were posting the "45 goals of the Communist Takeover of America". After some intergoogling, I came up with some answers.

[Random]

So, the rich are secretly working together to bring about worldwide communism? Yeah, good luck with that theory dude.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Random

So, the rich are secretly working together to bring about worldwide communism? Yeah, good luck with that theory dude.

It all makes sense when you realise that the rich are doing it for the lulz.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by oldhat

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...sen/print.html

A conspiracy theory about conspiracies?

Did you actually have a point?

Have you read the book (or skimmed ) in question?

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Have you read the book (or skimmed ) in question?

Im assuming from this that you have. WHat are your thoughts?

[mhaze]

I have not, but have no problem with perusing it to see if the allegations are real. Maybe the thing is at B&N.

The tone of the accusations are, rather ridiculous, frankly.

[Praktik]

Not so ridiculous, if you've read his "45 goals"...

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Not so ridiculous, if you've read his "45 goals"...

1963: You know much about those years? Ridiculous in that context? Absolutely not.

[Praktik]

I admittedly haven't read much of Skousen. Just the goals and stuff about him. That being said, the Tom Delay devotees referred to the goals and then proceeded to nod sagely to each other and mention how the goals were either realized or on their way to being realized in contemporary America.

The section in the article of the OP where Beck was astounded to see how everything in Skousen's 1981 work was coming true showed the same mechanism at work.

Which in my view, gave credence to the article and its characterizaiton of Skousen.

I don't know what reading that list of goals provoked in your mind but in mine it was clearly the work of someone working assiduously to demonize a target and ascribe a list of evils to them that match curiously well with the laundry list of concerns of Christianist social conservatives of the time.

It's an interesting socio-cultural artifact from a strange, strange man - whose influence rises far above his capacity to describe reality.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Praktik

My first exposure to Skousen was through debates on the Tom Delay blog comment section.

People were posting the "45 goals of the Communist Takeover of America". After some intergoogling, I came up with some answers.

I can see how most of those points would actually be useful steps if one's goal were to take over the U.S., but these two seem a bit out of place:

Quote:

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

Was art really that powerful of a force in the early sixties?

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Praktik

.... I don't know what reading that list of goals provoked in your mind but in mine it was clearly the work of someone working assiduously to demonize a target and ascribe a list of evils to them that match curiously well with the laundry list of concerns of Christianist social conservatives of the time.

It's an interesting socio-cultural artifact from a strange, strange man - whose influence rises far above his capacity to describe reality.

Respectfully, you are completely wrong. It reflects pretty mainstream 1963 thought patterns.

Dr. Stranglove!

Further, try to understand that in that time, common linguistics -grammer - contained much more extensive Christian references than today. Just as in Spanish, some constructs are referential to a Deity but in fact are nothing more than expressions of feelings. We see this much less in contemporary English.

So one must be careful not to read yesterday by today's standards, and certainly not with the goal of postulating the smear of the moment, lest one be exposed as an ignorant fool (Salon writer, not you).

[Fishstick]

Let me get this straight. When Glenn Beck called the birthers un-American and hung up on them and then blew them off again last month, they ignored it.

Beck being the good Mormon that he is, tithes a percentage of his earnings to the Mormon church (he mentioned 10% in one show). That means that Glenn Beck is by proxy, getting Southern Baptists to contribute to a religion/sect that they despise, and furthermore their "donations" (buying his books, watching his shows) are going to build more temples and helping fund more missions to spread the Mormon word. Beck is a huge Mormon and he's convinced the Baptists and others to completely ignore that aspect.

He openly mocked and criticized the families of 9/11 victims for using 9/11 for commercial purposes, and within a short time of that criticism, was using 9/11 for his own commercial purposes (9/12, selling his book, etc.).

He did in a relative short time what Alex Jones has been trying for well over a decade to do - build a base out of fringe types into a nice little radio and then TV empire. In six-seven years, Beck went from a shock jock in Florida to his own TV show on CNN. Along the way he ran dead pools on his radio show that revolved around Ronald Reagan, Bob Hope, and other people that older conservatives worshipped. He was at one point providing links on his website for people to buy a copy of the Qur'an and he was running plenty of tinfoil hat stories on his site and in his show.

Glenn Beck: Currently the best troll in politics and not afraid to use and abuse his own followers.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Respectfully, you are completely wrong. It reflects pretty mainstream 1963 thought patterns.

Its still crazy. Its still a guy packing all his pet peeves into a laundry list he ascribes to his enemy.

Its still paranoid. And where this had traction was simply people buying into the conspiracy theory, which Im sure the cold war made it easier for people to do.

I do have a little bit more faith in the American public though, to have seen this BS for what it is.

I daresay calling it "mainstream" might be a step too far but I guess that depends on where you were.

Perhaps other ancients on the board could enlighten us as to how many people seriously believed this ridiculous list.

[Peephole]

Originally Posted by mhaze

1963: You know much about those years? Ridiculous in that context? Absolutely not.

So, it's ok to be crazy when everone is else is too?

[Praktik]

What I find most fascinating is how many people, nearly two decades after the end of the cold war, are passing around that list of 45 goals and considering it credible, and looking around them and truly thinking the communists have been making progress on the list.

Its really astounding when you think about it.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Its still crazy. Its still a guy packing all his pet peeves into a laundry list he ascribes to his enemy.

Its still paranoid. And where this had traction was simply people buying into the conspiracy theory, which Im sure the cold war made it easier for people to do.

I do have a little bit more faith in the American public though, to have seen this BS for what it is.

I daresay calling it "mainstream" might be a step too far but I guess that depends on where you were.

Perhaps other ancients on the board could enlighten us as to how many people seriously believed this ridiculous list.

No, again I use the word "respectfully". You didn't live in those times, and you would have to do some research to understand that era. First of all you have to understand - factually - that in 1963, the Soviets and the Chinese were considered by major Western powers and the US to be "the enemy". There is no discussion necessary whatsoever on this except to clarify that issue.

I leave aside the remainder of your posts for discussion until we get this point right.

POSTSCRIPT: Out of curiousity I went and found the "Glenn Beck Book list"

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/books/

Here is Beck's comment on the book in question.5000 Year Leap: The 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World
by W. Cleon Skousen
Description: All about the philosophies of the founders of our government and why this country needs to be a virtuous country.
Glenn's Comments: Amen to that. One of those books that you pick up and read a chapter here and there.

Wait.....
One of those books that you pick up and read a chapter here and there. (????)

Is the OP and the direction of this thread even factually accurate? OP links to Zaitchek's Salon article which says:

Beck has been furiously promoting "The 5,000 Year Leap" for the past year

Let's just call it like it is, shall we?

Zaitchek is a liar, and the OP premises smearing Beck based on that lie of Zaitchek is false.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Zaitchek is a liar, and the OP premises smearing Beck based on that lie of Zaitchek is false.

Maybe you can draw this out. How did you just prove that he is a liar?

And any other AARP members want to comment on how many people would have found the list of 45 goals credulous in 1963??

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Maybe you can draw this out. How did you just prove that he is a liar?

And any other AARP members want to comment on how many people would have found the list of 45 goals credulous in 1963??

Sure. Only a liar would translate "One of those books that you pick up and read a chapter here and there" into "Beck has been furiously promoting "The 5,000 Year Leap" for the past year".

And by the way, you now seem to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, so instead of digging your hole deeper, why not go get educated and come back and talk about it? I note you did not respond to my simple statement.

First of all you have to understand - factually - that in 1963, the Soviets and the Chinese were considered by major Western powers and the US to be "the enemy". There is no discussion necessary whatsoever on this except to clarify that issue.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Sure. Only a liar would translate "One of those books that you pick up and read a chapter here and there" into "Beck has been furiously promoting "The 5,000 Year Leap" for the past year".

And by the way, you now seem to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, so instead of digging your hole deeper, why not go get educated and come back and talk about it? I note you did not respond to my simple statement.

First of all you have to understand - factually - that in 1963, the Soviets and the Chinese were considered by major Western powers and the US to be "the enemy". There is no discussion necessary whatsoever on this except to clarify that issue.

Oh - so the communists were considered "the enemy" in the cold war? Thanks for clearing that up chief.

Of course, my issue wasn't with that concept, but the idea that people would accept that "the enemy" had goals like the following:

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce

So its your assertion that there would be wide agreement in the America of 1963 that these were legitimate communist goals?

What about people fighting against censorship because they believed in freedom?

The people fighting against school prayer cause of separation of church and state?

Civil Rights organizers would agree that they were furthering the communist agenda?

I dont doubt there was a healthy degree of paranoia, but the target market for this absurd list of communist goals were Christianist, socially conservative isolationists - and I would think that among the wider public, most would see at least a few points in there that didn't jive with their outlook - things that would obviously show them that this list was the product of a paranoid American putting as much of his personal political preferences into a list he ascribes to a phantom enemy.

You don't have to tell me there was a genuine Red Scare going on. I know about McCarthy. I know that there were likely millions that gave this list credence.

I am saying there were likely millions more that could see it for the BS it was.

And I'm waiting for other codgers of the era to tell me I'm right.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Sure. Only a liar would translate "One of those books that you pick up and read a chapter here and there" into "Beck has been furiously promoting "The 5,000 Year Leap" for the past year".

Unconvincing.

The author of the piece actually linked to segments where he was hawking the book on air. Read the article without skimming:

-At one 912 meet-up I attended in Florida, copies were stacked high on a table against the back wall, available for the 912 nice price of $15 "Don't bother trying to get it at the library," one 912er told me. "The wait list is 40 deep."
- Albert Herlong Jr., whom Beck identifies as the author. Beck asked readers of "The Real America" to ponder Skousen's list, then "check off" those goals already achieved by America's new enemies within. Replacing communists in Beck's view: "liberals, special-interest groups, [and] the ACLU."
-The first brief mention of Skousen in the online archives of Beck's radio show is Sept. 24, 2007.
-Less than two months later, Beck interviewed conservative pundit David Horowitz on his radio program. He asked him, "Have you ever read any Skousen? Have you read -- do you remember 'The Naked Communist'? I went back and reread that, it was printed in the 1950s. I reread that recently. You look at all the things the communists wanted to accomplish. It's all been done." Horowitz agreed.
-The very next week, Bill Bennett appeared on Beck's radio program and received the same question. "Are you familiar with Skousen?" asked Beck. When Bennett replied yes, Beck gushed. "He's fantastic," he said. "I went back and I read 'The Naked Communist' and at the end of that Skousen predicted [that] someday soon you won't be able to find the truth in schools or in libraries or anywhere else because it won't be in print anymore. So you must collect those books. It's an idea I read from Cleon Skousen from his book in the 1950s, 'The Naked Communist,' and where he talked about someday the history of this country's going to be lost because it's going to be hijacked by intellectuals and communists and everything else. And I think we're there."
-The first thing you could do," he said, "is get 'The 5,000 Year Leap.' Over my book or anything else, get 'The 5,000 Year Leap.' You can probably find it in the book section of GlennBeck.com, but read that. It is the principle. Please, No. 1 thing: Inform yourself about who we are and what the other systems are all about. 'The 5,000 Year Leap' is the first part of that. Because it will help you understand American free enterprise … Make that dedication of becoming a Sept. 12 person and I will help you do it next year."
-According to James Pratt of PowerThink Publishing, publishers of the new 30th anniversary edition of "Leap," which has the Beck foreword, it was intended to replace the version that the Beck show was already touting via links on its Web site. Pratt claimed in an e-mail to Salon that the previous version was not authorized by the family. "It was presumed by Mr. Beck and staff that copyright authority was in effect with that edition, and as an author I must say, I had also assumed the same thing ... I was more than a little surprised this was going on, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of copies."

So here is a lot of evidence. Beck writes the foreward for a new edition of the book. His popularizing of the book means the publisher has to clear some copyrights and is putting out "hundreds of thousands of copies"

The quotes above show effusive and enthusiastic support for the book.

You have one line from his website.

Insufficient to call the salon author a liar - quite laughable and weak actually. So I can only assume you are getting defensive because you actually identify with Skousen or Beck and the movement of which they are a part. You can do better than that.

Like seriously, appallingly weak counterpoint. Appalling.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Oh - so the communists were considered "the enemy" in the cold war? Thanks for clearing that up chief.

Of course, my issue wasn't with that concept, but the idea that people would accept that "the enemy" had goals like the following:
...... You don't have to tell me there was a genuine Red Scare going on. I know about McCarthy. I know that there were likely millions that gave this list credence.

I am saying there were likely millions more that could see it for the BS it was.

Apparently you don't. The phrase "Red Scare" does not describe and is not roughly equal to "Cold War". And "McCarthy" has about as much relation to "Cold War" as an ant crawling across a playground.

However, you have very set opinions about a book that you have not read (and which I have also not read), based on an alleged excerpt from said book. Which said book, Beck has described as "One of those books that you pick up and read a chapter here and there.", and for which somehow a smear campaign is founded by that grand shrine of outstanding journalism, Salon.

Why not find more solid ground for your little smear factory? For example, go down the entire list of books on Beck's list. I'm sure you can find some common thread of conspiracy, tin foil hattery or such there? Some really nutcase religious viewpoint, maybe?

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by mhaze

However, you have very set opinions about a book that you have not read (and which I have also not read), based on an alleged excerpt from said book. Which said book, Beck has described as "One of those books that you pick up and read a chapter here and there.", and for which somehow a smear campaign is founded by that grand shrine of outstanding journalism, Salon.

So that one quote from his site invalidates all the evidence that he was hawking the book he wrote a foreward to?

How so? Please elabourate.

[ksbluesfan]

"I beg you to read this book filled with words of wisdom which I can only describe as divinely inspired. You will find answers to questions plaguing America, and more importantly you will find hope. I know I have!"

—Glenn Beck, Nationally Syndicated Radio and Television Host

http://www.5000yearleap.net/

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by Praktik

So I can only assume you are getting defensive because you actually identify with Skousen or Beck and the movement of which they are a part. You can do better than that.

He's a very sensitive guy with very sensitive feelings. Like Glenn Beck. :sob:

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Praktik

So that one quote from his site invalidates all the evidence that he was hawking the book he wrote a foreward to?

How so? Please elabourate.

Invalidates, what exactly? You are trying to get to a smear on Beck, by misrepresenting his relation to Skousen, and in turn likely misrepresenting Skousen's book.

That last part, maybe, maybe not since we both acknowledge not having read it. But as I understand the book from a brief look at google, it is a "3x5 card" book - primarily a collection of quotations - those being by others, not Skousen. So I'm genuinely not sure you have the facts right, and the overall tone and drift of the Salon article is obviously Smearville.

Here is one guy's take on the book (I have no idea who this guy is, just came up in google. I've provided this because it has actual excerpts, with page numbers).

http://jimmysmithblog.blogspot.com/2...t-changed.html

I'm not seeing a lot of alarming, radical stuff there unless of course you are opposed to the US Constitution and advocacy of adherance to and understanding of it.

I don't normally read this kind of stuff or have any interest in it, would rather read constitutional law case histories for fun and to understand the issues. But you asked for it, so there it is.

Actual excerpts. Start your criticism of the content.

GO!!!

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Invalidates, what exactly? You are trying to get to a smear on Beck, by misrepresenting his relation to Skousen, and in turn likely misrepresenting Skousen's book.!

Let's not change the subject here. You posted a quote that you purported was evidence that Beck wasn't so hot on the book.

Myself and ksbluesfan disagreed that your one cherry-picked quote was enough to support your claim that he was only mildly interested in the skousen work - pointing back to evidence in the article and on the site for the book where a much more enthusiastic quote is provided by Beck on the front page (saying the Skousen book was "divinely inspired").

And how is this even a "smear" on Beck? It's an exploration of Skousen and Beck's attachment to him... I don't even see how that qualifies as a smear, perhaps you can elucidate?

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by mhaze

I'm not seeing a lot of alarming, radical stuff there unless of course you are opposed to the US Constitution and advocacy of adherance to and understanding of it.

Wow, a mini-McCarthyite.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Let's not change the subject here.....

Actual content from the book is a change of subject?

How can that be? It is important to work with actual facts, which are established from original ("primary") sources. I've simply provided some.

[Praktik]

So you retract your cherry-picked assertion that Beck was only lukewarm on the book?

[oldhat]

Originally Posted by mhaze

Actual content from the book is a change of subject

Yes. How come you're completely ignoring the reporting in the Salon article about Skousen's character? And why is someone like Glenn Beck promoting him and his conspiracy theories? If it's such shoddy journalism, it should be easy to refute.

I haven't read The 5000 Year Leap, I never will. Just like I haven't read Dianetics. You don't have to read a crackpot's book to understand why someone like Skousen or L. Ron Hubbard is a crackpot.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I can see how most of those points would actually be useful steps if one's goal were to take over the U.S., but these two seem a bit out of place:

Was art really that powerful of a force in the early sixties?

I know that the anti-communists certainly believed that the communists were promoting mediocrity in art and elsewhere; see Ellsworth Toohey in Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead for an example.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I know that the anti-communists certainly believed that the communists were promoting mediocrity in art and elsewhere; see Ellsworth Toohey in Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead for an example.

Although Ayn Rand blasting somebody for mediocrity is the funniest thing ever.
I don't buy it. I despise Communism, and think the attempts to whitewash it we are seeing a good example that PT Barnum was right about the birth rate of suckers, but to say that Communsim delibertly wanted mediocirty is a huge stretch. You might say that Communism with it's Total state control of the arts caused mediocrity and I would agree,but that is not to say it was deliberate.
Any way, Ayn Rand went a long way beyond just accusing communism of promoting mediocrity. She accused just about anybody who was a "collectivist" or an "altruist" of doing that, and in the wonderful world of Objectivism that meant just about anybody who disagreed with Ayn Rand.

[kellyb]

How would crappy art further communism?

[oldhat]

Ayn Rand's blatant Mary Sue-ism with her female seductress characters was always the most amusing thing about her ****** writing.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by oldhat

Wow, a mini-McCarthyite.

Wow, the ad hominem argument.

Originally Posted by oldhat

Yes. How come you're completely ignoring the reporting in the Salon article about Skousen's character? ...

Wow...I didn't.... I defined it as poor quality smears and challenged the likes of yourself to do better, more creative smears. My mistake; I overmisestimated.

Originally Posted by oldhat

Y.....And why is someone like Glenn Beck promoting him and his conspiracy theories?....

Wow, gee, I don't know. Guess that's why I posted actual excerpts from the book, to which you regressed to infantile sniveling. Sorry, I didn't mean to upset your grudge with facts.

Wait...Yes, I did. Go to the link I provided, and come back with an excerpt that supports your little smear. Otherwise, what are we discussing, exactly?