W. CLEON SKOUSEN: "Expert" on Communism??

[_ernie1241]

The writings of former FBI Special Agent W. Cleon Skousen are often cited as reliable and authoritative commentaries -- particularly with respect to communism-related topics -- because of his 16 year career within the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

However, what impact should there be on our evaluation of Mr. Skousen's writings when we discover that he had very little exposure, while in the FBI, to internal security-related cases?

In fact, it turns out that Mr. Skousen's Bureau assignments and experiences were primarily administrative -- not investigative.

For a detailed report on Mr. Skousen which is based upon his recently released FBI personnel file (1500+ pages), see:
http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/skousen

[_Droopy]

It doesn't take any special FBI experiene to be an expert on communism.

All you have to do is put in the time and focus and do the reading and the study.

[_ernie1241]

Droopy: I think you miss the point. Cleon Skousen and his admirers used his FBI experience to validate his personal viewpoints expressed in his writings and speeches. However, it turns out that he had no significant investigative experience within the FBI.

Furthermore, your comment is not really correct. Internal security matters often require access to classified data in order to make informed and reliable conclusions.

For example: WHOM would you prefer as your source of information in order to arrive at an accurate and fair conclusion regarding following question?

1. Did Communists and/or Communist sympathizers have any significant role in the August 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles?

Your choices:

(a) A former employee of the FBI who spent years assigned to studying Communist Party matters -- and that employee had access to confidential secret data derived from numerous security informants within the Communist Party in southern California OR

(b) A former employee of the FBI whose assignments were predominantly in administrative matters and who did not have access to any classified data or informant reports?

(c) An individual who has read a lot of public source material (books, magazine/newspaper articles, legislative committee hearings and reports, etc.) -- but who has no ability to determine whether or not the data in those sources is accurate and truthful?

[_Kishkumen]

Don't expect Drippy to come back with the answer almost everyone would accept as obviously correct.

[_moksha]

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/skousen

In Mr. Skousen's defense, he is not the only one who has ever lied about his credentials. Happens everyday on business resumes and on dating sites. That is not to say that it is not dishonest, but it is one way of making yourself stand out from the crowd when you are selling something. It happened and I forgive him. However, his product did hurt the lives of many that his group branded as traitors, communists and unamerican. Extreme products should come with a distinct warning label.

.

[_ernie1241]

You are, of course, correct ---- more correct, in fact, than you probably know. In the course of my research, I have acquired the FBI files on numerous individuals who were associated with the FBI either as employees (Special Agents) or as informants. After they left the FBI these folks earned a lucrative living giving speeches, writing books and articles, publishing their own newsletters, etc.

The Bureau referred to this group as "professional anticommunists" because they earned their living from exploiting the fears of Americans about communism --- but without much regard for the accuracy of the information they disseminated.

Now, Moksha, here is the real problem: it is NOT the "padding" of their credentials. Frankly, that could easily be forgiven.

Instead, the problem is that these "professional anticommunists" often made horrific assertions about the loyalty and patriotism of fellow Americans and the people who listened to these alleged "experts" speak or read their writings BELIEVED those assertions---primarily because of the purported "expertise" which these people claimed for themselves. Sometimes, lives and reputations were ruined.

Very few of the victims had the stomach or the resources to sue for libel -- and, understandably, they did not want to give more publicity to the "experts" who made the charges.

However, some brave souls pursued libel lawsuits. One, in particular, produced a historic precedent-setting result, namely, Chicago lawyer Elmer Gertz who was the subject of a vicious article in the Birch Society magazine, American Opinion. After 14 years of litigation which included 2 different trials, several appeals, and review by the U.S. Supreme Court -- Gertz prevailed. The Birch Society paid him $100,000 in compensatory damages, and $300,000 in punitive damages. Punitive damages are only allowed when malice can be demonstrated, i.e. a reckless disregard for the truth.

Cleon Skousen chose to associate himself with the Birch Society -- not as a member, but as an endorser -- plus he spoke under the auspices of the Birch Society's Speakers Bureau. And many thousands of people believed what he had to say.

The next edition of my report on Skousen will include a detailed analysis of some of Skousen's writings which will show how, by selective use of evidence, and suppression of inconvenient data, he used his phony credentials to misinform the American public -- and in the process, he harmed civil discourse in our nation.

http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/skousen

In Mr. Skousen's defense, he is not the only one who has ever lied about his credentials. Happens everyday on business resumes and on dating sites. That is not to say that it is not dishonest, but it is one way of making yourself stand out from the crowd when you are selling something. It happened and I forgive him. However, his product did hurt the lives of many that his group branded as traitors, communists and unamerican. Extreme products should come with a distinct warning label.

.

[_bcspace]

So ernie1241, are you a communist or do you sympathize with communism?

Instead, the problem is that these "professional anticommunists" often made horrific assertions about the loyalty and patriotism of fellow Americans and the people who listened to these alleged "experts" speak or read their writings BELIEVED those assertions---primarily because of the purported "expertise" which these people claimed for themselves. Sometimes, lives and reputations were ruined.

If I recall correctly, PBS fairly recently did a special that featured McCarthy not too long ago. I think they matched it up with the topic of the Rosenbergs. In a stunning admission for the likes of PBS, it was admitted that McCarthy was more correct than anyone thought and actually might have saved our bacon early in the Cold War.

[_ernie1241]

So, bc, are you so feeble-minded that you think J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI were "communist" or comsymps?

More importantly, WHY are people like yourself ALWAYS INCAPABLE of presenting a rational fact-based counter-argument and, instead, you folks ALWAYS prefer malicious ad hominem insinuations or innuendos? Are you so intellectually dishonest that you would prefer to SUPPRESS or IGNORE FACTUAL data that is inconvenient to your personal political preferences? Isn't that one of the singular characteristics of ALL totalitarian mentalities--including communists? Try looking in a mirror.

So ernie1241, are you a communist or do you sympathize with communism?

Instead, the problem is that these "professional anticommunists" often made horrific assertions about the loyalty and patriotism of fellow Americans and the people who listened to these alleged "experts" speak or read their writings BELIEVED those assertions---primarily because of the purported "expertise" which these people claimed for themselves. Sometimes, lives and reputations were ruined.

If I recall correctly, PBS fairly recently did a special that featured McCarthy not too long ago. I think they matched it up with the topic of the Rosenbergs. In a stunning admission for the likes of PBS, it was admitted that McCarthy was more correct than anyone thought and actually might have saved our bacon early in the Cold War.

[_ernie1241]

Incidentally, with respect to Senator Joe McCarthy:

One of our nation’s foremost scholars about the McCarthy period (Dr. John Earl Haynes) has written several articles which compare McCarthy’s assertions to newly available data including, for example, the Venona papers and KGB archives. See for example:

(1) Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Lists and Venona
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page62.html
(2) Exchange with Arthur Herman and Venona book talk
http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page58.html

Whittaker Chambers summed it up pretty well in his 1/14/54 letter about McCarthy to conservative book publisher Henry Regnery, when Chambers observed that....

"All of us, to one degree or another, have slowly come to question his judgment and to fear acutely that his flair for the sensational, his inaccuracies and distortions, his tendency to sacrifice the greater objective for the momentary effect, will lead him and us into trouble. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that we live in terror that Senator McCarthy will one day make some irreparable blunder which will play directly into the hands of our common enemy and discredit the whole anti-Communist effort for a long while to come."

FBI security informant Herbert Philbrick told a Boston newspaper reporter that:

"He [McCarthy] harmed the cause of anti-communism more than anybody I know."

And in 1952, Philbrick observed:

"According to the Communist leaders, McCarthy has helped them a great deal. McCarthy's kind of attacks add greatly to the confusion, putting up a smokescreen for the Party and making it more difficult than ever for people to discern who is a communist and who is not."

FBI Supervisor, Robert J. Lamphere, supervised the investigations of some of the biggest espionage cases of the cold war, including those of the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs and Kim Philby plus he was intimately involved, in conjunction with Meredith Knox Gardner of the Army Security Agency, in using deciphered Soviet cables to build espionage cases.

Lamphere wrote in his personal memoir that:

"McCarthy's approach and tactics hurt the anti-Communist cause and turned many liberals against legitimate efforts to curtail Communist activities in the United States, particularly in regard to government employment of known Communists."

He also said: "McCarthy's star chamber proceedings, his lies and overstatements hurt our counterintelligence efforts."

So ernie1241, are you a communist or do you sympathize with communism?

Instead, the problem is that these "professional anticommunists" often made horrific assertions about the loyalty and patriotism of fellow Americans and the people who listened to these alleged "experts" speak or read their writings BELIEVED those assertions---primarily because of the purported "expertise" which these people claimed for themselves. Sometimes, lives and reputations were ruined.

If I recall correctly, PBS fairly recently did a special that featured McCarthy not too long ago. I think they matched it up with the topic of the Rosenbergs. In a stunning admission for the likes of PBS, it was admitted that McCarthy was more correct than anyone thought and actually might have saved our bacon early in the Cold War.

[_The Nehor]

If I recall correctly, PBS fairly recently did a special that featured McCarthy not too long ago. I think they matched it up with the topic of the Rosenbergs. In a stunning admission for the likes of PBS, it was admitted that McCarthy was more correct than anyone thought and actually might have saved our bacon early in the Cold War.

Saved us from what exactly?