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."

18 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Re:No surprising. by Spoing · · Score: 3, Funny
    Did you even bother to read the article? He wasn't being investigated becuase he was against nuclear weapons. And they just didn't "assume" he was a communist. He, in all actuality, was a communist. If you read the article, you would know that he was affiliated with 34 communist front groups between 1937-1954, and was a chairman in three of those groups. The government had every right to be suspicious about him. Read the article before you rant about something you have no clue about.

    Yeah, Communism is so obviously an effective threat against Capitalism that it was...erm...never mind.

    --
    A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
  2. Re:No surprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Communists? Who cares? Yes, communism ultimatly failed, but, in a perfect world without corruption and greed, it would make for a perfect system. The average person now knows that extreme left communism just does not work. However, at a time earlier in this century, people were not confident in the capitalistic economy, and had not seen communisms failures firt hand yet. They had, on the other hand, experienced the shortcomings of capitalism. Remember the great depression? It was a _major_ failure of extreme right capitalism. Furthermore, many people were distraught at the mistreatment of the working class. Communism was one answer (opinion: it was a step in the right direction, but the step was much to large). While I'm on the subject, to this day I can show you probably hundreds of millions (billions?) of people around the world who would certainly disagree with capitalism, and embrace socialism or even communism. I guess my point is, the whole communist witchhunt thing was (and still is to an extent) unfair and that capitalism is not perfect either. We must also remember that communist "propaganda" was also met with anti-communist "propaganda", so it's especially hard to judge either side from an unbiased viewpoint.

  3. Fifties flashbacks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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.

    1. Re:Fifties flashbacks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is precisely the point.

      The issue at hand is the development of an international legal system which has teeth. A system which will might cause a mass-murderer, for instance, to think twice before killing a village full of innocent people.

      Such a system must have extraterritorial jurisdiction over any signatory state as far as some very particular cases are concerned. In the absence of this power the court is meaningless. While I'm no fan of the current administration, I respect their concern that the court could become a forum for politically-motivated prosecutions. The wise solution to this is not to actively subvert the court itself, but to become a serious party to the system, and to work to make it fair and balanced.

      Are you seriously proposing that the blessed state of being "An American" should trump prosecution for mass murder? You might argue that the American legal system itself should handle this prosecution, but that ain't gonna help make some warlord in South Berzerkistan think twice before levelling a village with his black-market Soviet gunship. This is the missing element of vision in the American policy. The rest of the world can go hang, it seems to be saying.

      The USA is in the process of withdrawing itself from what little connection it had with international law. It is becoming a rogue state. Right now the Europeans are looking quietly at one another, and at the Russians, and the Chinese, and thinking... If the USA chooses to make itself the singular enemy of all mankind, where does one stand for security?

  4. His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Nuclear weapons are a horrid and nasty thing. We've been lucky that they haven't been used since Nagasaki -- and that's probably at least partly due to the face that Einstein was both willing and able to speak out about the horrors that nuclear weapons were capable of producing.

    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.
    1. Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. by PatientZero · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The fact of the matter is that there has never been a non-corrupt communist regime

      And there has never been a non-currupt democratic regime, nor a republic or totalitarian regime, so what's your point? You think you are arguing that communism must be corrupt, yet all you're saying is that every government set up by humans has been corrupt. And the sky is blue. So what?

      --
      Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
      I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
    2. Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think. by Permission+Denied · · Score: 4, Insightful
      even if you are an absolutely brilliant person in physics, perhaps one of the smartest people who ever lived, you can be a complete ignorant moron when it comes to politics and human relations.

      A LOT of Slashdotters could learn this lesson. Just because you are a good programmer (or pick your geek subject) doesn't mean you know beans about how the world should be run.

      I'm a good programmer. Does that mean I shouldn't be passing on my opinions about how the world should be run?

      Well, let's be fair - that's not what you're saying. You're saying that I shouldn't participate in political discussion unless I know how "the world should be run." There is no other possible conclusion from your post: you're saying that Einstein shouldn't have experimented with Marxism because he obviously didn't understand how people work (and this, in turn, is obvious from his Communist associations). You're saying that sympathizing with socialists shows just how utterly incapable Einstein was to participate in political actions.

      Now, you wrote clearly, so there's no need to paraphrase; we can see what you're saying through your own words:

      If you are a socialist, then you have no clue about how the world should be run, and should just stay away.

      In short, you're telling me to shut the fuck up because I disagree with you. Now, which one of us is "intrinsically anti-freedom?"

      Normally, I would tell rabid anti-socialists to form an opinion on Marxism by not by reading anti-Marxist literature but by reading Marx himself, but only after understanding the proper historical framework, by reading John Stuart Mills' On Liberty, Tocqueville's Souvenirs of the Revolution of 1848, and perhaps some of the proceedings of the English parlement on factory workers during 1846-1847. That's normally what I would ask of the rabid anti-socialist. However, I don't ask this of you, since you've already formed an opinion that "Socialism is intrinsically anti-freedom."

      I'm neither a communist, a socialist, nor a Marxist - but I know the difference between the three. Economically, I'm more likely to agree with Adam Smith than with Engels. However, unlike you or M. Le Pen, I realize that there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about studying and sharing the teachings of Marx, or even forming political associations based upon Marxist ideology.

      I believe my Anonymous Comrade said it best: "You, my friend, are a facist bastard."

  5. Commitment stregthened by Mattygfunk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    For many years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies spied on him, acting on suspicions as disturbing as a tip that he had been a Russian spy in Berlin; as vague as an unease with his support of civil rights and pacifist and socialist causes; and as goofy as claims that he was working on a death ray or that he was heading a Communist conspiracy to take over Hollywood.


    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.

  6. And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Ah, yes.. the Nixon thing. But Nixon was the president of the United States of America. That makes him the next best thing to god ...

    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.
    1. Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) by dj28 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who said America was a Democracy? Last time I checked, it was a Republic. The Will of the people decides what is right and wrong in a Republic with strong Democratic ties. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will. To think that the government should be some outside entity not influenced by the public opinion of the people it serves is insane. Get a grip with reality and don't resort to childish idealism that so many people here do.

    2. Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.) by Permission+Denied · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You:

      If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will.

      Some other people:

      Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      So, what's the point here? Why were these words spoken?

      If you read Rousseau, you'll see that he says almost exactly what you're saying: nobody can go against the will of the sovereign whole.

      However, the writers of the above words also dealt with another issue, an issue that Rousseau didn't touch: the so-called "tyranny of the majority."

      Perhaps I may quote someone to better express what I mean by this trite concept:

      Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

      Now, in an ideal democratic society, I wouldn't be afraid to attribute this citation, and the idea would be considered on its own merit rather than on preconceived ideas of the author; however, I'm afraid I'll lose all credibility if I mention the author of this quote, so I'll leave it to you to research google if you're interested.

      The point? We don't live in a perfect representative republic; the founders of our republic realized that a perfect representative republic would be disasterous. We have limits on what we can vote on (for a more in-depth analysis, I would recommend Tocqueville's Democracy in America). Whether or not these limits have been respected is another debate, but I believe they were added for good reason.

  7. More FBI files by Iamthefallen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems like a little?

    • Ku Klux Klan - 588 pages
    • Aryan Brotherhood - 141 pages
    • Adolph Hitler - 734 pages
    • Hell's Angels - 233 pages

    Seems like a lot?

    • Martin Luther King Jr. - 55,896 pages
    • Black Panther Party - 2,895 pages
    • Gay Activists Alliance & GLA - 1,647 pages
    • Abbie Hoffman - 13,262 pages

    Glad an unbiased police is there to protect the citizens huh?

    --
    Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    1. Re:More FBI files by Iamthefallen · · Score: 3, Informative

      At http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex.htm, where you'll also find Einsteins and various others FBI acts.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    2. Re:More FBI files by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Consider the FBI's page count as a measure of perceived threat to the current regime. It will then come as no surpise to find out that the best and brightest of all people are targeted for monitoring.

      Make sense? Martin Luther King was an incredibly charismatic public speaker. He had the ability to sway the hearts and minds of millions of people, whether they were black, white green or purple. Grass roots movements always pose the greatest threat to a body in power, thus they are always first to be targeted, destabilized and squashed. Look at any movement, right or left, and you will begin to see a subtle trend. It takes an incredible amount of human inertia to change or supplant an existing power base, but it is possible.

      Coronation, n.:
      The ceremony of investing a sovereign with the outward and visible signs of his divine right to be blown skyhigh with a dynamite bomb. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

  8. Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? by Thing+1 · · Score: 3, Funny
    Emphasis mine:
    All of these people posed (and the AFSC still poses) a clear threat to the welfare of this nation.

    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.
  9. Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay? by TheLastUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. In defense of the Black Panthers by alienmole · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Erm, the Black Panthers should not be put in the same cattegory as Martin Luther King or the Gay Activists... That's just wrong, do you know what the Panthers really stood for?

    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.

  11. Re:The FBI is nothing compared to Google by PD · · Score: 3, Funny

    Precious Bodily Fluids : 5810