Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ayn Rand, HUAC and the movies.
37 views
Skip to first unread message
William
Jul 5, 2012, 10:40:19 PM7/5/12
to
Rich
Jul 6, 2012, 12:14:04 AM7/6/12
to
William <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote in news:178def02-4ff4-44d0-8ecf-
78a232...@googlegroups.com:
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
>
Agree with the below:
Asked years later about the hearings, Rand said that they were a "dubious
undertaking," "futile," and "nothing but disappointments." She did not
think the government could not legitimately investigate the ideological
penetration of Communism into the movies. It could only show that there
were members of the Communist Party working in the industry. She did
believe, however, that it was acceptable for the committee to ask people
whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party supported
the use of violence and other criminal activities to achieve its
political goals, and investigating possible criminal activities was an
appropriate role of government. "I certainly don't think it's any kind of
interference with anybody's rights or freedom of speech," she said.3
78a232...@googlegroups.com:
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
>
Agree with the below:
Asked years later about the hearings, Rand said that they were a "dubious
undertaking," "futile," and "nothing but disappointments." She did not
think the government could not legitimately investigate the ideological
penetration of Communism into the movies. It could only show that there
were members of the Communist Party working in the industry. She did
believe, however, that it was acceptable for the committee to ask people
whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party supported
the use of violence and other criminal activities to achieve its
political goals, and investigating possible criminal activities was an
appropriate role of government. "I certainly don't think it's any kind of
interference with anybody's rights or freedom of speech," she said.3
notbob
Jul 6, 2012, 7:44:16 AM7/6/12
to
On 2012-07-06, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party supported
> the use of violence and other criminal activities to achieve its
> political goals.....
> whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party supported
> the use of violence and other criminal activities to achieve its
Yeah. American capitalists NEVER resorted to violence to further their
own goals.
What horsepuckey.
nb
--
vi --the heart of evil!
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government." -- Patrick Henry
calvin
Jul 6, 2012, 9:22:22 AM7/6/12
to
On Jul 5, 10:40 pm, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
I intended to quote from the following source, but in
reading it over I see that it would take hours, with little
expected yield here. Anyone who wants to know
the whole truth and context of Rand's participation
in the HUAC hearings should read pages 200-206
of 'Ayn Rand and the World She Made' (2009), by
Anne C. Heller.
Anyone who wants to understand where she was
coming from in all of her writing should read 'We
the Living' (1936), Rand;s first-hand account of
life in Russia after the Revolution of 1917.
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
I intended to quote from the following source, but in
reading it over I see that it would take hours, with little
expected yield here. Anyone who wants to know
the whole truth and context of Rand's participation
in the HUAC hearings should read pages 200-206
of 'Ayn Rand and the World She Made' (2009), by
Anne C. Heller.
Anyone who wants to understand where she was
coming from in all of her writing should read 'We
the Living' (1936), Rand;s first-hand account of
life in Russia after the Revolution of 1917.
tomcervo
Jul 6, 2012, 10:07:39 AM7/6/12
to
calvin
Jul 6, 2012, 10:50:28 AM7/6/12
to
Yes, there's nothing like a hatchet job from a former communist
(which we've all read, by the way) to nullify anything serious that
one might have to say for understanding this writer's actions
and motivations ten years earlier.
Why did you stop there? In the interest of completeness, here
is the second most infamous hatchet job of 1957, from Granville
Hicks for the New York Times, the same who tried to prevent
publication of the above mentioned 'We the Living' 21 years
earlier:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20070915RAND_nyt_atlasreview.pdf
tomcervo
Jul 6, 2012, 8:18:29 PM7/6/12
to
On Jul 6, 10:50 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:07 am, tomcervo <paradisfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 9:22 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 10:40 pm, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
>
> > > I intended to quote from the following source, but in
> > > reading it over I see that it would take hours, with little
> > > expected yield here. Anyone who wants to know
> > > the whole truth and context of Rand's participation
> > > in the HUAC hearings should read pages 200-206
> > > of 'Ayn Rand and the World She Made' (2009), by
> > > Anne C. Heller.
>
> > > Anyone who wants to understand where she was
> > > coming from in all of her writing should read 'We
> > > the Living' (1936), Rand;s first-hand account of
> > > life in Russia after the Revolution of 1917.
>
> > Or this:
>
> >http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you...
>
> Yes, there's nothing like a hatchet job from a former communist
In the National Review? The taint seemed to be washed off enough for
> On Jul 6, 10:07 am, tomcervo <paradisfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 9:22 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 10:40 pm, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
>
> > > I intended to quote from the following source, but in
> > > reading it over I see that it would take hours, with little
> > > expected yield here. Anyone who wants to know
> > > the whole truth and context of Rand's participation
> > > in the HUAC hearings should read pages 200-206
> > > of 'Ayn Rand and the World She Made' (2009), by
> > > Anne C. Heller.
>
> > > Anyone who wants to understand where she was
> > > coming from in all of her writing should read 'We
> > > the Living' (1936), Rand;s first-hand account of
> > > life in Russia after the Revolution of 1917.
>
> > Or this:
>
> >http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you...
>
> Yes, there's nothing like a hatchet job from a former communist
Bill Buckley and his kind. Chambers made a mistake and acknowledged it
publicly.
Did Rand ever make a mistake? There was that one about smoking--she
endorsed it as symbolic of man's conquest of fire--but it ended up
conquering her.
> (which we've all read, by the way) to nullify anything serious that
> one might have to say for understanding this writer's actions
> and motivations ten years earlier.
>
> Why did you stop there? In the interest of completeness, here
> is the second most infamous hatchet job of 1957, from Granville
> Hicks for the New York Times, the same who tried to prevent
> publication of the above mentioned 'We the Living' 21 years
> earlier:
>
Here's another nice hatchet job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8fkdBz2bds
calvin
Jul 6, 2012, 8:53:28 PM7/6/12
to
that explained her testimony. It had nothing to do with Atlas
Shrugged, published 10 years later. You drove by, saw a thread
about Ayn Rand, and threw your stink bomb. But you stink worse
than your bomb. You're a lousy, mean-spirited little lowlife. Your
literary opinions are fine for you, but you can't smear them on
me, not with the help of Chambers or Hicks or anyone else.
Rich
Jul 6, 2012, 11:09:19 PM7/6/12
to
notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote in
news:slrnjvdk12...@nbleet.hcc.net:
> On 2012-07-06, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party
>> supported the use of violence and other criminal activities to
>> achieve its political goals.....
>
> Yeah. American capitalists NEVER resorted to violence to further
> their own goals.
>
> What horsepuckey.
>
> nb
>
>
Sure, if you go back far enough. Meanwhile, communists still do.
news:slrnjvdk12...@nbleet.hcc.net:
> On 2012-07-06, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party
>> supported the use of violence and other criminal activities to
>> achieve its political goals.....
>
> Yeah. American capitalists NEVER resorted to violence to further
> their own goals.
>
> What horsepuckey.
>
> nb
>
>
pest films
Jul 7, 2012, 2:18:57 AM7/7/12
to
On Thursday, July 5, 2012 9:40:19 PM UTC-5, William wrote:
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/06/the-menace-of-the-new-mccarthyism/
Needless to say, McCarthy was drawing much-needed attention to the serious matter of Soviet espionage and Communist penetration in the upper echelons of the federal bureaucracy. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover monitored and issued warnings to lawmakers about the internal security threat posed by fellow Communist travelers and Soviet agents. In some instances, McCarthy was simply pursuing Hoover’s investigative leads.
Ted Morgan, author of Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America, defines McCarthyism as “the use of false information in the irrational pursuit of a fictitious enemy.” In the case of Sen. McCarthy, the accusations were fundamentally accurate, the information was credible—consider the voluminous case files of the FBI, and more recently the Venona documents decoded from Russian archives. The threat to America’s national security was real.
Ayn Rand reflected on the so-called “ruined careers” of alleged Communist actors, screenwriters, and directors in her published Q&A sessions, edited by Robert Mayhew:
I do not know of any red blacklisted in Hollywood. I do know, if the newspaper stories can be trusted, that many of those “blacklisted” people, including the Hollywood Ten (who went to jail for a year, for contempt of Congress), were working in Hollywood thereafter under assumed names. They had enough friends in the industry to be able to sell stories under phony names; and today, most of them are back in business. But have you ever inquired into what happened to the friendly witnesses? Before we left for Washington [to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities Committee], we were put under every possible pressure, short of physical force, by the heads of the Hollywood studios, who did not want us to testify. Why not, if we were opposing Communists?
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2012/06/the-menace-of-the-new-mccarthyism/
Needless to say, McCarthy was drawing much-needed attention to the serious matter of Soviet espionage and Communist penetration in the upper echelons of the federal bureaucracy. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover monitored and issued warnings to lawmakers about the internal security threat posed by fellow Communist travelers and Soviet agents. In some instances, McCarthy was simply pursuing Hoover’s investigative leads.
Ted Morgan, author of Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America, defines McCarthyism as “the use of false information in the irrational pursuit of a fictitious enemy.” In the case of Sen. McCarthy, the accusations were fundamentally accurate, the information was credible—consider the voluminous case files of the FBI, and more recently the Venona documents decoded from Russian archives. The threat to America’s national security was real.
Ayn Rand reflected on the so-called “ruined careers” of alleged Communist actors, screenwriters, and directors in her published Q&A sessions, edited by Robert Mayhew:
I do not know of any red blacklisted in Hollywood. I do know, if the newspaper stories can be trusted, that many of those “blacklisted” people, including the Hollywood Ten (who went to jail for a year, for contempt of Congress), were working in Hollywood thereafter under assumed names. They had enough friends in the industry to be able to sell stories under phony names; and today, most of them are back in business. But have you ever inquired into what happened to the friendly witnesses? Before we left for Washington [to testify before the House Committee on Un-American Activities Committee], we were put under every possible pressure, short of physical force, by the heads of the Hollywood studios, who did not want us to testify. Why not, if we were opposing Communists?
tomcervo
Jul 7, 2012, 8:55:06 AM7/7/12
to
On Jul 5, 10:40 pm, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
"Chairman Thomas: All right. The first witness tomorrow morning will
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
be Adolph Menjou."
There a link to that? I'm sure it's more of the same, but delivered
with far more panache.
A Moose in Love
Jul 7, 2012, 9:23:32 AM7/7/12
to
On Jul 6, 12:14 am, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote in news:178def02-4ff4-44d0-8ecf-
Republicans/Democrats use violence to further their agenda as do
Canadian/British Conservatives/Liberals. The British monarchy got to
rule by using violence etc.....
> William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote in news:178def02-4ff4-44d0-8ecf-
Canadian/British Conservatives/Liberals. The British monarchy got to
rule by using violence etc.....
Neill Massello
Jul 7, 2012, 10:36:41 AM7/7/12
to
William <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
A recent article in The Atlantic deals with Kirk Douglas's "role" in
breaking the blacklist.
<http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/07/how-kirk-dougl
as-overstated-his-role-in-breaking-the-hollywood-blacklist/259111/>
> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
A recent article in The Atlantic deals with Kirk Douglas's "role" in
breaking the blacklist.
<http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/07/how-kirk-dougl
as-overstated-his-role-in-breaking-the-hollywood-blacklist/259111/>
calvin
Jul 7, 2012, 10:45:36 AM7/7/12
to
On Jul 7, 10:36 am, nmasse...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
Your chopped-in-half long URL doesn't work (at least not
in Google Groups). I made a 'TinyURL' of it which works:
http://tinyurl.com/7qohuwm
in Google Groups). I made a 'TinyURL' of it which works:
http://tinyurl.com/7qohuwm
notbob
Jul 7, 2012, 1:04:40 PM7/7/12
to
On 2012-07-07, Neill Massello <nmas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> William <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
>
> A recent article in The Atlantic deals with Kirk Douglas's "role" in
> breaking the blacklist.
Who cares!? I jes wanna hear about how Kirk had his way with
> William <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
>
> A recent article in The Atlantic deals with Kirk Douglas's "role" in
> breaking the blacklist.
Elizabeth Threatt, the totally awesome babe in The Big Sky.
"American actress who made an impression in her only film. The
daughter of an English father and a Cherokee mother, Threatt grew up
in South Carolina. At 19, she went to New York and began a successful
modeling career. In 1952, director Howard Hawks saw her photograph and
cast her as the Blackfoot princess Teal Eye in his acclaimed frontier
film The Big Sky (1952). Although she was a notable part of this
successful film, Threatt left the picture business and never acted again."
I've been tracing her life, on and off, not obsessively (well, not
too...), fer yrs. Hot babe. Apparently, Kirk brags about how he did
her in his book, The Ragman's Son, and allegedly claims she was a bit
"kinky". I've not confirmed this, but sounds fun. ;)
tomcervo
Jul 8, 2012, 12:21:28 AM7/8/12
to
On Jul 7, 10:36 am, nmasse...@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) wrote:
though they're deathless works of art. (At least The Ten Commandments
is fun to watch, and yes, deMille got EGR's career back on its feet,
but he never ran around bragging about how he broke the graylist.)
God and William know I love old Hollywood, but not completely, and
I've never seen a movie written by Trumbo where the writing didn't
seem glib and facile. His current brief for sainthood is "Johnny Got
His Gun", but the brief doesn't mention how quickly DT tried to get it
out of bookstores after June 22 1941, or how he told the FBI about
some pacifists who were trying to get it back into print during the
war.
Oh, and most people who have read both books prefer Koestler's
"Gladiator" to Fast's "Spartacus". No prizes for guessing which was
published (10 years) earlier.
calvin
Jul 11, 2012, 12:33:37 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 6, 10:07 am, tomcervo <paradisfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just so you know, there was nothing original in your posting
of the savage Whittaker Chambers hatchet job on Atlas
Shrugged. In nearly every defense of that book, some jerk
will post the Chambers piece, as if it negates whatever
positive thoughts anyone has about the book.
What was different in this case was that the topic had
nothing to do with the book, but was about an event that
took place ten years before the book was published. All
you were doing was making a gratuitous attack on Ayn
Rand, simply because her name was in the subject line.
However, your slime attack should not be let stand unopposed..
Here is the immediate response to Chambers by the then-young
Leonard Peikoff.
http://tinyurl.com/bp5mvt6
Of course you will not accept it. You will sneer like you
always sneer. But hopefully there is a fair mind somewhere
which will read both the 'review' and the immediate response,
and think for himself or herself about it.
madar...@gmail.com
Jul 11, 2012, 1:17:41 PM7/11/12
to
On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:50:28 AM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> On Jul 6, 10:07 am, tomcervo <paradisfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 9:22 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 10:40 pm, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
> >
> > > I intended to quote from the following source, but in
> > > reading it over I see that it would take hours, with little
> > > expected yield here. Anyone who wants to know
> > > the whole truth and context of Rand's participation
> > > in the HUAC hearings should read pages 200-206
> > > of 'Ayn Rand and the World She Made' (2009), by
> > > Anne C. Heller.
> >
> > > Anyone who wants to understand where she was
> > > coming from in all of her writing should read 'We
> > > the Living' (1936), Rand;s first-hand account of
> > > life in Russia after the Revolution of 1917.
> >
> > Or this:
> >
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you...
>
> Yes, there's nothing like a hatchet job from a former communist
> (which we've all read, by the way) to nullify anything serious that
> one might have to say for understanding this writer's actions
> earlier:
>
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20070915RAND_nyt_atlasreview.pdf
Thanks for that link to Granville Hicks' review. That's when reviewers sure knew how to write! We don't see reviews like that anymore.
> On Jul 6, 10:07 am, tomcervo <paradisfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 9:22 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Jul 5, 10:40 pm, William <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
> >
> > > I intended to quote from the following source, but in
> > > reading it over I see that it would take hours, with little
> > > expected yield here. Anyone who wants to know
> > > the whole truth and context of Rand's participation
> > > in the HUAC hearings should read pages 200-206
> > > of 'Ayn Rand and the World She Made' (2009), by
> > > Anne C. Heller.
> >
> > > Anyone who wants to understand where she was
> > > coming from in all of her writing should read 'We
> > > the Living' (1936), Rand;s first-hand account of
> > > life in Russia after the Revolution of 1917.
> >
> > Or this:
> >
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you...
>
> Yes, there's nothing like a hatchet job from a former communist
> (which we've all read, by the way) to nullify anything serious that
> one might have to say for understanding this writer's actions
> and motivations ten years earlier.
>
> Why did you stop there? In the interest of completeness, here
> is the second most infamous hatchet job of 1957, from Granville
> Hicks for the New York Times, the same who tried to prevent
> publication of the above mentioned 'We the Living' 21 years
>
> Why did you stop there? In the interest of completeness, here
> is the second most infamous hatchet job of 1957, from Granville
> Hicks for the New York Times, the same who tried to prevent
> earlier:
>
> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20070915RAND_nyt_atlasreview.pdf
Thanks for that link to Granville Hicks' review. That's when reviewers sure knew how to write! We don't see reviews like that anymore.
calvin
Jul 11, 2012, 1:39:35 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 1:17 pm, madara0...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:50:28 AM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> ...
> On Friday, July 6, 2012 10:50:28 AM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> >http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20070915RAND_nyt_a...
>
> Thanks for that link to Granville Hicks' review.
Unlike tomcervo, I trust people to make up their own minds.
> Thanks for that link to Granville Hicks' review.
> That's when reviewers sure knew how to write!
Review long ago, before I ever read any of Rand.
> We don't see reviews like that anymore.
are all too common. Probably he was assigned the task by
the New York Times because it surely knew about Hicks'
efforts to prevent publication of Rand's 'We the Living'
21 years earlier.
madar...@gmail.com
Jul 11, 2012, 1:49:00 PM7/11/12
to
On Saturday, July 7, 2012 10:36:41 AM UTC-4, Neill Massello wrote:
> William <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
>
> A recent article in The Atlantic deals with Kirk Douglas's "role" in
> breaking the blacklist.
>
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/07/how-kirk-dougl
> as-overstated-his-role-in-breaking-the-hollywood-blacklist/259111/>
Great piece--thanks for linking it! (And your URL worked just fine for me.)
Amazing how the survivors get to tell their version over and over again until it becomes the defining narrative. I remember when Otto Preminger was alive, it was common knowledge that HE broke the blacklist with EXODUS, well before SPARTACUS, and that Douglas remained upset that he wasn't first. I don't remember if ol' Otto ran around claiming credit. I'm sure he mentioned it in interviews and probably in his memoir, although I don't have a copy so I can't confirm it. Once Preminger was gone, though, it was easier for Kirk to rewrite history.
> William <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/huac.html
>
> A recent article in The Atlantic deals with Kirk Douglas's "role" in
> breaking the blacklist.
>
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/07/how-kirk-dougl
> as-overstated-his-role-in-breaking-the-hollywood-blacklist/259111/>
Great piece--thanks for linking it! (And your URL worked just fine for me.)
Amazing how the survivors get to tell their version over and over again until it becomes the defining narrative. I remember when Otto Preminger was alive, it was common knowledge that HE broke the blacklist with EXODUS, well before SPARTACUS, and that Douglas remained upset that he wasn't first. I don't remember if ol' Otto ran around claiming credit. I'm sure he mentioned it in interviews and probably in his memoir, although I don't have a copy so I can't confirm it. Once Preminger was gone, though, it was easier for Kirk to rewrite history.
Neill Massello
Jul 11, 2012, 7:44:17 PM7/11/12
to
<madar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Amazing how the survivors get to tell their version over and over again
> until it becomes the defining narrative.
Yes, one by one they stand up and yell "I broke the blacklist!" It
> Amazing how the survivors get to tell their version over and over again
> until it becomes the defining narrative.
reminds me of a scene from a movie.
0 new messages