Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spooked By His Sci Fi, FBI Looked Into Asimov As Possible Communist Tipster

Posted by timothy on from the state-wasn't-your-friend-then-either dept.

v3rgEz writes "By September 14, 1960, Isaac Asimov had been a professor of biochemistry at Boston University for 11 years, and his acclaimed "I, Robot" collection of short stories was on its seventh reprint. This was also the day someone not-so-subtly accused him of communist sympathies in a letter to J. Edgar Hoover. They ominously concluded that "Asimov may be quite all right. On the other hand . . . . ." The "tip off" wasn't given much credit, but it didn't matter since Asimov's science fiction writing alone was enough to warrant FBI monitoring, particularly as the FBI hunted for the mysterious ROBPROF, a communist informant embedded in American academia. MuckRock has Isaac Asimov's FBI files in full, and a write up of the more interesting bits."

10 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Used to this yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    See this, then remember that the NSA is currently monitoring us all. Your phone is a gps tracker. They have access to your mail. They are reading your personal papers without a warrant (Google Drive). Orwell's vision of the future seems more accurate.

    1. Re:Used to this yet? by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. Today's NSA makes J. Edger look like an amateur.

    2. Re:Used to this yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your point is both correct and of limited use.

      First of all, we'll never know how many people were intimidated into silence by Hoover. It is widely believed to be a lot, and Hoover himself was virtually untouchable because of the dirt he knew about and the dirty tactics he was willing to employ. Even the President would have thought twice (or more) before tackling J. Edgar.

      Second, the U.S. set a higher standard for itself. The consequences of McCarthyism and Hoover were more disappointing and jarring because that stuff wasn't ever supposed to get as far, rise as high, or last as long as it did. The Soviet Union had little illusion about itself and the thuggery and repression there wasn't terribly surprising.

      Third, calling some of the worst-behaving government insiders in U.S. 20th century history amateurs, isn't just inaccurate. It belittles the threat they held to freedom, democracy and human rights. If they were 'amateurs', why take them on? The people who risked careers, futures, safety and security, did their actions mean so little?

  2. Typos by Princeofcups · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Typos in both headline and submission. Well done slashdot, well done.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  3. Same story, different time by surfdaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In those days, everybody was in danger of being a "Communist" and the government went crazy against civil liberties.

    Today, it's all about being labeled a "Terrorist", and the government continues to go crazy against civil liberties -- only with much more ability to snoop.

    What the FUCK is going on with this country?

    1. Re:Same story, different time by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the FUCK is going on with this country?

      As much as we let them get away with.

    2. Re:Same story, different time by asmkm22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Same thing that happens with any form of government. Freedoms and information begin to erode their grip on power (which is what the individuals in charge live for), and the government has to do what it can to limit the bleeding. Some governments will outright make the dissenters disappear, others just make sure that there are so many layers to the bureaucracy that nothing short of a concerted, long-term effort to bring about change will make a dent. Syria would be an example of the former, and the US (and many allies) the later.

      Look back at any civilization throughout history and you'll see the same patterns. The tools may be different (money, oppression, religion, etc), but the results are always the same.

    3. Re:Same story, different time by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's all in the name of fighting evil.

      Unless you're on the other side, then you are the evil.

      If you ever find yourself uttering:

      "We are the free ones."
      "We are the good ones."
      "We are the peaceful ones."

      Remember that you're saying exactly what the other team believe about themselves. And I'm sure you'll be able to explain how that's not true, and in fact you REALLY ARE the Chosen Team. Just like the other team will be able to explain that. But you're wrong. Because it's the same as it's always been, no matter which side you're on: man exploiting man, with the powerful minority fucking over everyone else.

      And, if you're part of the powerful minority, you're the problem, and you're the cunt - no matter where you are. No, being part of "this team" doesn't mean that your power is more legitimate than if you were part of "that team".

    4. Re:Same story, different time by meerling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really. It's either elect fuckwit A or fuckwit B, or don't vote for any of them and let some deluded idiot choose the fuckwit of the term.

      Blaming the person caught in that trap since before they were even born, is rather insensitive.
      (There are other things I would say, but I'm assuming you just really haven't thought about what's actually going on. Here's your chance.)

    5. Re:Same story, different time by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      everyone's a loser in a two party system