Slashdot Mirror
Read Einstein's FBI File
testcase writes: "... along with Mickey Mantel's, Elvis Presley's, William Faulkner's, Bertoldt Brecht's, the American Friends Service Committee's, etc. here. Of course the 'new FBI' doesn't collect this kind of info on citizens any more. Right? " I wonder what my file looks like.
Of course the 'new FBI' doesn't collect this kind of info on citizens any more. Right?
Of course not. That's the NSA's job now.
Look down the list: William Faulkner, Bertoldt Brecht, the American Friends' Service Committee. They're all leftists. Are you people seriously trying to claim that it is not the role of the FBI to keep tabs on people who are fundamentally at war with the United States? Hello?! These files are relics of a nearly-forgotten time when the FBI defended this nation. The FBI you see through these files is not the degenerate radical group now laboring to abolish the sacred liberties for the sake of which our nation was founded.
Can any rational person doubt that the American Friends Service Committee is a radical leftist organization? The so-called "Society of Friends" (better known as the Quakers) have managed to disinform the American public to the point where most of us get them mixed up with the Amish (to whom they bear no resemblance, believe me), but that's just clever propaganda. Look at their web site. Follow the link above and see for yourself. They describe themselves as "committed to social justice". I think we all know enough about left-wing cant to recognize that as a committment to paternalistic big-government interventionism, a managed economy, affirmative action, gun-control, and all the other crap the left wants to chain us with. Not only that, but it looks like they're in pretty good with Iraq, huh? They're in pretty good with the UN, too.
The AFSC has been involved in more left-wing causes in the last century than any other known group, including the infamous Students for a Democratic Society -- another deviously misnamed radical left-wing cabal.
The Quakers pose as Christians, but they're not. They're a cult. They reject the Biblically-based doctrine of salvation by faith alone. I'm sorry, but if you reject a basic tenet of the Christian religion, you're not a Christian. I don't care if you accept the divinity of Christ and all that: It's all or nothing. Now, I'm not a Christian myself and I really don't care if they worship John Belushi, it's all the same to me -- but they are lying when they claim to be Christian, and lying is a problem for me. What are they trying to hide? It's clear enough from their web site.
As for the others, Brecht was a well-known, life-long German Socialist and a professional propagandist through the medium of his plays. He's a favorite of left-wing academics to this day, for that reason alone. His work is utterly worthless except as left-wing propaganda. None of his plays were produced in his lifetime, and none have been produced since except in left-wing drama departments of Eastern colleges. When he was alive, he languished in utter (and well-deserved) obscurity.
William Faulkner was a leftist as well. Throughout his whole life he was involved in liberal and "progressive" causes such as integrationism and Federal intervention in the domestic affairs of the States.
All of these people posed (and the AFSC still poses) a clear threat to the welfare of this nation. Had the FBI neglected to maintain files on them, that agency would have been sorely remiss.
None of this, of course, has any bearing on the rogue agency which the FBI has since become. Nowadays they have entirely given up their legal and moral obligation to monitor (and occasionally neutralize) threats to this nation. Instead, they spend their time harrassing and killing innocent, law-abiding citizens at Ruby Ridge and elsewhere. The FBI of today is not the FBI which kept a close eye on Bertolt Brecht. The FBI of today is itself a danger to this nation.
Times have changed.
This is unless, of course, everyone on slashdot requests their FBI file, in which case you throw their data way off. But just to warn you.
David E. Weekly
David E. Weekly
Code / Think / Teach / Learn
h4x0r for
Glad to see some of this stuff is becoming available online. But I have a bigger question (only applicable to folks in the US, of course):
As a US citizen, how do we find out what all information is legaly available to us from our government? Is there any kind of faq, detailing the ways you can get types of info like this from the government (electronic, or not)? Like where to research declassified documents, and anything else that can be gotten under the foia? It is kind of sad--I'm a legal, voting, US citizen, but I have no idea what I am entitled to in terms of information.
Can some informed individual help me out here?
This sig is false.
Yes, it failed. The reasons for its failure, however, extend far beyond just corruption and greed. Despite popular opinion, your entire communist country could be composed of people who're every bit as benevolent as mother theresa, and you'd still fail. The reason is quite simple: Central Planning doesn't work. No matter how nice the people in power (nor, for the matter, the workers) are, it doesn't mean they're going to (or capable of, even) allocating resources half efficiently.
You might very well find some who romanticise Communism. However, they're generally outsiders who don't know diddly about economics, and less yet about history (read: the actual realities of communism). I've known a few people who've survived communism, and damn few have happy tales to tell, from both inside and outside the US (including IN some of those ex-communist countries). Thousands lost their lives trying to flee countries like this, how many truely capitalist/republic-democratic nations have this hanging on them? Furthermore, have you ever travelled to any one of these communist countries? Virtually everyone I know, including myself, has been struck by one thing, the utter lack of vitality. Yes, they're poor, everyone knows this, but that can't be it. You don't see the same thing in Mexico, India, or other even poorer societies. Nor can the argument be made that it's just the cultures, that it'd be the same without communism. But witness East/West Berlin, there was (and still is to some extent) a night and day difference. In other words, there is something about communism that sucks the life right out of a society, and it ain't just economic failure!
The "witchhunt", although "bad", was not just a figment of McCarthy's imagination. There is TONS of evidence (read more FOIA documents if you dont believe me, or KGB interviews, etc) the KGB setting up shop in the US, with the intent to disrupt the US economy, and many other things. They did, in fact, have a massive number of important people in their pockets, spies, informers, etc. McCarthy represented a very real fear, and not totally unconfirmed fear either. Congress, the FBI, etc, had evidence then, which the general public is just beginning to some of it lately (from sources such as FOIA, ex-kgb, etc). McCarthy, despite his abuses, was, atleast in part, allowed as much slack as he was, because of the danger.
That being said, McCarthy was wrong, he went too far, by trampling on far too many innocent lives, and violating certain constitutional rights. But in the desire to smear McCarthy, you're doing no one, other than perhaps card carrying communists, any favors by forgetting (or ignoring) these simple facts. The bottom line: McCarthy was more than just a product of some minor (or even major) distrust of Communist/Socialist philosophy, it was fear of the USSR--don't confuse the two.
Also, remember: The mere fact, that, there is SOME irrational fear of Communism, doesn't make it benign. There is very strong empirical evidence, and intellectual, economic, philosophical, etc. arguments against it.
This link (connected with Amelia Earhart's dissappearance) is especially amusing:
http://foia.fbi.gov/earhart/earhart1.pdf
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
since I checked last, the main tenet of communism is the *violent* overthrow of capitalist systems, even democratic ones.
Um, no. Contrary to what opposing propaganda may claim, communism is about economic equality. It isn't about violence. Bolchevism (not sure of the English spelling), the doctrine of the original Soviets, did advocate the violent and immediate overthrow of the old Russian regime, but that has nothing to do with scientific socialism as originated by Marx.
Maybe it's fairer to say that he was a socialist, or had socialist tendencies, without any of the violence inherent in either.
There is no violence inherent in socialism. From where did you pull this out?
Those of you who claim you are communists... Either you don't know what you are claiming, or you are very frightening individuals who should be locked up.
Well, it's nice to see that there are still good people like you advocating that those "frightening" deviants be shut up and locked up. God knows what might happen if people were allowed to hold the ideologies of their choice!
(Disclaimer: I am a libertarian, not a communist. Do not flame.)
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
In the end, there will have to be people with guns to enforce any sort of procedure of eliminating private property.
In the beginning, in the US at least, it was violence that did away with a form of communism. The native americans didn't have any concept of land ownership, until homesteaders put fences around their farms and solidiers with guns kept the natives away.
Also, couldn't democracy be considered violent in this respect, as in, "you'll have to come at me with guns before I start obeying your democratically derived laws against doing what I want to do?"
Or capitalism: "You'll have to come at me with guns before I'll stop using warez and pay full price on this crappy shrink licensed software."
Any society, whether founded on capitalism, communsim, socialism, etc, eventually has to enforce it's agreed upon rules. I imagine the level of violence involved in accomplishing this varies, but it would exist at some level in any system.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
This may have happened, or it may just be just an urban legend. All I can do is cite my own experience: When I asked for my own FBI file a couple of years ago, they told me they had no files matching my name. Maybe they did, and were lying, or maybe they started a file based on my letter, and lied about it. Or maybe FOIA requests out of curiosity are common enough these days that making one is no longer considered suspicious behavior.
I have to admit being a little disappointed about not having a file (though I'm currently appealing the CIA's refusal to confirm or deny the existence of any files on my grandfather). The implicit meaning of this, of course, is that the FBI thinks I'm powerless enough as to not bother monitoring -- I'd almost rather be considered a threat.
Francis Hwang
Do domain names matter?
First, type up a letter to both your Local FBI office, as well as FBI Headquarters.
Say in the letter you want to request any information being held on you on behalf of the Freedom of Information Privacy Acts. Word it professionally, so it's easily understood.
Within 4 weeks you should get a confirmation paper that they've received your request:
[X] This acknowledged your Freedom of Information-Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request submitted to the FBI.
After 6 to 8 weeks (maybe sooner) you'll get a packet (if applicable) with your info.
Unfortunately, the FOIPA doesn't apply to certain information, so anything they don't want you to see gets blacked out.
Some facts (From the FBI FILE FACT SHEET) BEFORE you send off for your file:
- The primary function of the FBI is law enforcement.
The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States.
- An FBI identification record or "rap sheet" is NOT the same as an FBI "file" - It is simply a listing of information taken from fingerprint cards submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests, federal employment, naturalization, or military service.
Oh, and another thing to remember: If FBI HQ doesn't have a file on you, check with the field offices near you, or where you've lived.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I'll try to pose a question here. An... ethical (cue ominous music) question.
:-)
Is it ethical to investigate people apart from their connection in some crime? I "suspiciousness" enough cause to warrent a full-scale investigation, or does a government agency need more focus to perform such operations and remain in the ethical right?
The immediate reaction is often "no! just because somebody looks sort of suspicious is no reason to invade their privacy (and perhaps trample their rights)!"
OTOH, what is the harm in a little investigation, assuming no overt action is taken? Isn't it better to "know" that so-and-so is either a criminal or not? If the investigator believes that some (suspicious) person *might* pose a threat to Society At Large(tm), AND the investigation is to be carried out discreetly, such that if nothing is found to be wrong, nobody will ever know, should s/he investigate or not?
More importantly - why?
I'm really not sure. That's why I ask.
And yes, I know where rec.philosophy.ethics is.
I know that under the Freedom of Information Act we have the right to request any documents that They (TM) have on us, and They (TM) have to give them to us. I assume that you'd have to talk to the agency who was keeping the files, but I've never tried it out... Has anyone out there done this/know how it might be done?
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Found this under Josephine Baker
The famous nightclub entertainer was thought to be involved in communist activities, however, no evidence was ever found that proved otherwise.
I've read it again, and again, and I still see something that baffles the constitution.
Murphy(c)
Or maybe it's just me....
You've got to read pages 22 and 23 of the first Einstein document. To get to page 22 you read 21 pages of wild, filed accusations, more or less to the effect that Einstein is sort of a super-Lenin who could conceivably destroy this Fair Republic should he ever step foot across the border, so no, NO, NO he must NEVER be permitted admission to these blessed United States. There's a letter from a mad professor at Princeton which claims that Relativity has a (left-wing) "metaphysical factor and if that is the case it can have no physical validity whatsoever." 21 pages thus far of 92 in document number one of twelve. Them's a lot of pages, folks.
OK! On Page 22 the Sheriff of Ventura County California send a letter to J. Edgar Hoover, asking for reassurance:
Several of (Einstein's) admirers in this County have approached me and asked me to establish if possible definitely whether or not there is any basis for these statements (that Einstein is a Communist). These particular people are very good Americans and do not care to allow their children to idolize him if he is of this character."
To which the Director replied:
Dear Sheriff:
I am in receipt of your letter dated April 24, 1934, with reference to Communistic activities to this country on the part of Dr. Einstein.
There is no Federal legislation in effect at the present time under which so-called radical or Communistic activities are subject to investigation on the part of this Division, and the files of this Division, therefore, contain no information relative to the activities of Dr. Einstein in the United States in connection with the Communist Party.
I regret that I am unable to furnish you with the information desired. Inasmuch as Communist activities are handled by local law enforcement agencies, it is possible that the New York City Police Department may have some information concerning the subject matter about which you inquire.
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoover
Director
Now wasn't that a lovely lie? God Bless America.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
UNITED STATES CONFIDENTIAL FILE:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
PERSONAL FILE OF: ROBERT MALDA (A.K.A. CMDR TACO)
BORN: GRAND RAPIDS GENERAL HOSPITAL, APRIL 1, 1976
IMPLICATED IN: CONSPIRING TO OVERTHROW GOVERNMENT BY SUBVERTING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM.
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES:
CONCLUSION: Probably conspires with Osama bin Laden and uncaptured Unabomber (not scapegoat Kaczinsky) to undermine and overthrow U.S. Government. EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. Proceed with caution as to not throw target into hacking fit. Possible revelation to public of location of ECHELON HQ.
- passion