Slashdot Mirror
Einstein's 1,427-Page F.B.I. File
meow meow cat chow writes: "Fred Jerome of the Gene Media Forum has recently written a book called "The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover's Secret War Against the World's Most Famous Scientist." The book talks about how the FBI spied on Einstein and identifies some of the people who said he was a spy. Jerome sued the government to obtain access to the 1,427 page file which can be found at (http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.htm)
The New York Times has an article about the book."
After all Einstein was for banning all nuclear weapons and against the development of the H bomb.
Keep in mind that these were the hard times in the cold war against the communists. Some people wrongly thought that all anti nuclear weapons guys were pro communist. Ironically their preceptions that the spending of more and more money into the military sector would bring down communism has turned out correct after all. Einstein was in fact unwillingly helping Stalin and Breshnev.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
You forget sakharow. His struggle, the same as einstein's in this matter, desserved the urss government.
urss would have gone down anyway, would the money have been put in something else than nuclear weapons , as it was unable to stand a long economical war against the usa. Wich is what it was all along.
The fact that both systems chose the weapon area to compete the most is a moral standpoint and shows both system as being bad from this point of view. This is the battlefield that einstein and sakharov chose to fight in.
Ethics. Responsability. not politics and power.
...yes, it's scary.
It also sounds like a joke if you didn't live through the fifties. I did, and believe me, it was no joke.
I'm also scared by a lot of current rhetoric following 9/11. The words "terrorism" and "terrorist" seem to be taking on a lot of the baggage that "communism" and "communist" had in the fifties. If you're harboring terrorists, you're a terrorist... if you're associating with terrorists, you're a terrorist...
And "terrorist" doesn't seem to have a well-defined meaning, it's anyone the U. S. government wishes to attack.
And every time things settle down, the government announces some new warning about a possible terrorist attack and urges us to be vigilant and keep an eye on our friends and neighbors for suspicious activities--whatever they might be.
Does ANYONE seriously believe that NORTH KOREA had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Or shares any fundamental views with Al-Quaida? No, yet somehow they're part of the International Terrorist Conspiracy.
More to the point, where's the file on Erdos, the famous Hungarian communist (or mathematician, depending on who you ask)? There was a lot of government harrasement talked about in his autobiography.
Communism isn't an inherently evil and nasty system.. The communist governments of Russia and China were/are vicious and corrupt, but that's more a statement about the people that lead them than of the basic systems themselves. It's not like the US is a whole lot better with it's support of people like Agusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden -- all in the name of so-called 'democracy'. We sometimes forget that these 'evil nasty people' are a product of our own government's support system.
Einstein 'agitated' for peace. He had ideas that were different than those who were in power at the time. These should never be considered crimes in a truly democratic system. The idea behind democracy is that an idea should either stand or fall on it's own merits -- not based on the fact that someone hates the label that some intolerent extremist attaches to it (like Hoover, McCarthy or even Nixon).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Ah yes. Here we go again:
login: slashdotid
pass: slashdot
Sometimes I wonder if my commitment to try and ensure my privacy is worth the hastle. Reading this has reminded me exactly why. Having a 1247 page FBI file because of pure speculation and rumer is incredible. And this is before the ever higher big brother force of 2002.
Doesn't it?
If The United States were a true democracy, then being willing to look at communist principles shouldn't be considered a crime. The people who liked some of the principles of communism should have been allowed to speak those ideas freely. Being able to hear and discuss those ideas, we the people should be able to accept or reject them freely, and based on their true value.
To reject an idea simply because someone attached the name 'communist' to it is not the pinnacle of democracy. Nor is destroying the lives of people simply because they are friends of such people and possibly shared belief in the value of some of those ideas an expression of the concept of free speech.
As the bible says, "What good does it do a man to rule the world if he loses his own soul?". What good does it do to have a 'democracy' where the only idea that are allowed to be held are those which are in agreement with those in power? What good is 'free speech' that is only free for the wealthy (or, for that matter, the poor)?
Some people might (with good cause) consider the principles behind the Open Source and Free Source movements communistic in nature (just listen to the rantings of the RIAA and MS). Should this, by itself, be just cause to persecute and jail people like RMS and Linus?
I think not.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Seems like a little?
Seems like a lot?
Glad an unbiased police is there to protect the citizens huh?
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
Ku Klux Klan - 91,800 pages
Aryan Brotherhood - 2,630 pages
Adolph Hitler - 34,600 pages
Adolf Hitler - 195,000 pages
Hell's Angels - 21,300 pages
Martin Luther King Jr. - 613,000 pages
Black Panther Party - 21,100 pages
Gay Activists Alliance & GLA - 549,621 pages
Abbie Hoffman - 19,800 pages
Albert Einstein - 481,000 pages
Waitaminit -- these people are leftists, right? You'd think they'd be for welfare, wouldn't you? ;-)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Just because Einstein associated with a lot of socialists and communists does not establish that he believed in ALL of the tenants of these organizaions. Just as a person who votes Republican may be in favor of the "pro-choice" stance on abortion.
I have read some stuff written by Einstein and he was, I believe, merely scared to death that there was going to be a nuclear war. And he, as someone who could well imagine the implications, and as someone with a good moral compass, decided to use his celebrity status to try and save the world from destruction.
Its more srprising to me that after the slaughter of WW1 and WW2, that someone like Einstein, who was plainly looking for a novel solution to the problem or war, was under investigation by the government, instead of being supported by the government.
I think the root of this investigation is that governments like to have a ready pool of kids to send off to their death. Anyone that interferes with that ability touches on how government leaders define their power, and probably their manhood.
It is also interesting that 25 or so years later people would be practising what Einstein was proposing, to end the Vietnam vs. the USA war.
He may not have founded it, but he sure did create it. It was named the "Bureau of Investigation" in 1909, the first person to be called the "Director" was Flynn in 1919, the thing was a big mess and a general embarrassment until Coolidge's attorney general appointed Hoover in 1924. (Not to say it wasn't an embarrassment, but it was an embarrassment in a different way.) Hoover is quite responsible for everything that the FBI became until his death (1972?) and for a while beyond. I have no compunction agreeing with the poster who suggests that Hoover 'founded' the organization that the FBI became.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
On the other hand, proving Martin Luther King Jr is the spawn of Satan is quite difficult, it takes about 100 times as much research!
As for the Aryan Brotherhood I figure a lot of it is "see article on Adolph Hitler" so they can save duplicate research.
Nathan's blog
Sounds reasonable. So, you're basically an anarchist libertarian then ? Or, are there any laws you do agree with. For instance, do you approve of laws demanding that you pay taxes in order to fund a police force and an army. You may object to paying taxes to pay welfare recipients, while others may object to funding an army and subsidising the tech/engineering industrial complex.
Then there are secondary questions - should roads be maintained by government, or should they all be build and tolled by private companies ? How about broadcast frequencies, should they be managed or just left as free for all ?
Just curious, where would you draw the line ?
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Yes, the freedom of themselves and their people from oppression by the racist American government and people of the time. For an alternative to the propaganda you've been exposed to, you might try reading this, or this (the latter with a good and honest summary of pros and cons). Search Google for plenty more.
Are you saying that in similar circumstances, you would just suck it up? When a people's pride, dignity and survival is at stake, in an unjust society and under unjust laws, conventions and law enforcement, some may claim that they would not choose violence as a solution - and a few might follow through, like King and Gandhi. Others may choose the coward's path, and suffer in silence.
But in these circumstances, violent rhetoric and violence is a very understandable and natural (as in human nature) course of action, and if you condemn the Black Panthers for that, it's only because you've never remotely been in a similar position.
You're probably a white male (as am I), and you probably grew up in an environment in which the closest you ever came to "oppression" was being grounded for not doing your homework.
The Black Panthers originated partly in response to police brutality in Oakland, CA. Police brutality against blacks in American cities is hardly a solved problem, but today, it gets dealt with much more effectively by society and the government. That wasn't the case in 1966. You can thank the Black Panthers directly for the relatively peaceful society you enjoy today, because they clearly demonstrated what can happen if you don't deal with issues such as police brutality and discrimination in a fair and open manner.
As an aside, I just helped organize a little local debate last Thursday on the proposition "American is a Rogue State". This was in Richmond-upon-Thames (west London) which boasts an American University among other institutions.
Rather than have a bunch of aging British lefties whinge about US imperialism, we thought we'd invite some students down from the college and get a more balanced opinion. You can guess the outcome - we couldn't get anyone to present the pro-US case at all, and the students were considerably more critical of US policy than our resident revolutionaries.
Point is that, the war on terror not withstanding, if the US cannot carry mainstream opinion in allied countries for its general foreign policy direction, the effect will be cataclysmic for its interests and the wider world's. No Blair or Berlusconi will be able to hold a line of international support for the US while the US is not seen as supporting international interests.
Second to last line of the parent of the parent to this comment: "The FBI of today is itself a danger to this nation."
Parent to this comment: I am thinking the FBI is about to start a file on you.
Exactly. No one should think that the FBI's actions always make sense. Probably no organization with a lot of money and a lot of secrecy is able to keep things in control. It is extremely difficult to keep everyone in an open organization contributing sensibly. It is impossible to manage an organization in which secrecy is part of the organizing philosophy.
I wrote a book about the hidden violent activities of the U.S. government. It is entirely free. Most of the explanation comes from links to articles at some of the most respected news agencies in the world: What should be the Response to Violence?
Your comments leave me with the impression that any efforts backed by a right-wing and/or "Christian" agenda are outside the realm of criticism. The hard right is no more desirable than the hard left. They BOTH have their agendas, and they are both vying for the power, influence, and control of the masses. Maybe you can explain what you find so endearing about the history of religion and religious persecution, and why trading a leftist direction for something of this nature would be any better.
Censorship is an all-or-nothing thing. There is physically no difference between you wanting to imprison people for holding KKK views to me wanting to imprison you for holding democratic or capitalist views.
It's like matter/antimatter - the only way you tell which is "right" and which is "wrong" is by saying that if you're right, everyone else must be wrong.
The US wants to wiretap communists? Fine, but let us wiretap conservatives as well then.
taking the distribution of wealth as a function, the amount of discontent is a function of it's gradient
I think you mean "slope," not "gradient." The slope of a function of one variable is the time rate change of that function over an interval.
"Gradient," on the other hand, is the idea of slope applied to multivariable calculus. A function of two variables defines a surface, and the gradient of the surface at a given point is represented by a vector. The magnitude of the vector corresponds to the greatest rate of change of the surface away from that point, and the direction of the vector is the direction of greatest change.
property laws and morals should benefit human beings, not the other way around.
But that's not right at all. Morality is assumed to be an absolute system that dictates what people should and shouldn't do. Different moral systems are based on different fundamental assumptions-- rules handed down by a deity, or something else entirely-- but they're all considered to be absolute.
Basically you're taking the opposite position from mine. You're trying to say that economic systems should be rational, based on such-and-such criteria. I'm saying that a perfectly rational system with a flawed moral foundation-- communism-- can't work, and should not be implemented. Any benefits gained from that system would be "poisoned."
In your post you implied-- although you didn't say, so I may be reading you wrong-- that wealth should be a reward for productivity: "that's what wrong with your assumption: you own what you produce + what father produced, hence the 'equity lords' don't need to produce anything, they'll still get richer." Therefore-- again, I'm inferring here-- you believe that the wealthiest individuals should be the most productive individuals.
That's where pure rationalism breaks down. If my father had left me one billion dollars when he died, then I would have inherited that one billion dollars and become very wealthy having produced nothing. According to your evaluation, that would be bad.
So your answer is taxation: the government should take from my inheritance to reduce the degree to which I gain wealth without being productive.
Whenever anybody says a sentence of the form, "The government should do X," I replace "the government" with "Joe Smith." If what's being proposed would be morally or ethically wrong for a person-- Joe Smith-- then it's wrong for the government.
So let's try that: "So your answer is taxation: Joe Smith should take from my inheritance to reduce the degree to which I gain wealth without being productive."
Taking something that rightfully belongs to me is tantamount, in my mind, to stealing from me. So that's wrong.
(Before you get all excited, the same argument doesn't apply to taxation in general. In that sense, the government [Joe Smith] is providing me with certain services in return for my money. That's a morally sound transaction. But I don't get anything in return for paying inheritance taxes. So that's morally unsound.)
Would you be asking "is terrorism OK" if you found yourself living in a place where your basic rights were virtually nonexistent, where you were being subject to continual harrassment, and you were unable to live in peace and go about your own business without continual interference and oppression from powerful government and social forces?
Terrorism is a weapon most commonly used by the oppressed against the strong. The targets of terrorism don't usually think it's OK, but they're obviously biased.
There's a big difference, though, between terrorism by citizens against their own state, and terrorism by external agents against another state, as on 9/11. The latter is much more like a traditional war, in many respects.
A clearer example of traditional terrorism was the Oklahoma City bombing. That was executed by a misguided and disgruntled American citizen. If there were millions of such citizens attempting to take such actions, you can be sure that their grievances would not be taken lightly. Happily, Timothy McVeigh was a kook, and can't be defended the way the Black Panthers can. It's fairly unlikely that large internal terrorist organizations will arise within a fair and just state, but if and when they do, there's probably a serious problem that needs to be looked at, that goes beyond the symptom of terrorism.
assumed (absolute) by who ?
I suggest you do some reading on the subject of morality and ethics. The existence of moral or ethical systems is predicated on the assumption that the actions of people are either right or wrong, just or unjust, virtue or vice. Moral systems attempt to provide a framework for deciding which actions are right and which are wrong. People can argue about the various pros and cons of the various moral systems if they want to, but frankly that kind of debate bores me. I have a set of values that I try to live by. If yours are different, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that my system is absolute for myself, just like yours is (should be!) absolute for yourself.
so there can be no "absolute" set of values.
What you're describing is what I was taught to call "moral relativism." And I believe it's fine in the abstract; if you're an anthropologist or a philosopher, it's important to put your own opinions and values aside in the process of studying your subject. But in practice, that is in actual interactions between people, I think "moral relativism" is dangerous and wrong.
to be a moral person, in my view, is to balance the good of society and fellow citizens with your family, and act to the better interest of all.
Fine. I have a different view. My view is basically, "I'll take care of mine. You take care of yours." If someone truly needs help, I believe the right thing to do is help them if you can. That's called charity, and it works on a person-to-person level. But I put absolutely zero stock in "the better interest of all."
You also cannot (legally) choose not to be taxed, it is an inforced bargain.
Oh, that's not literally true. I could choose to leave my city, county, state, or country. And I know people who have done that very thing (on the county, not national, level) over property taxes. Their opinion was different from mine, but I respect them for making a tough choice.
But in general, you're right. I can't opt out of paying my taxes in any direct way. The justification for this is that I am entitled to a voice in my government-- either simply through voting or through holding office myself-- that I can use to influence these policies. So while it's definitely not perfect, it's at least fair.
Actually, praise of the Taliban freedom fighters used to occur often in this country; for example look at Reagan's speech marking Afghanistan Day.
Maybe nobody is afraid of the FBI but I bet nobody is afraid of the moderator either. You have to admit that this administration has very successfully instituted an atmosphere of paranoia and fear which suits their purposes just fine. They are able to shut down all dissent on all topics. Like the attorney general said "if you disagree with us you are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists". People are afraid to critize the govt and that should scare you.
War is necrophilia.
Read a capsule summary of his views here, if you want to know where the man himself stood.