Slashdot Mirror


The FBI Feared Communist Infiltration of EPCOT (muckrock.com)

v3rgEz writes: In 1981, Walt Disney World was getting ready to unveil a new gem in its crown of amusement parks, the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow, or EPCOT. Revolving around a massive sphere called "Spaceship Earth" and a lagoon that initially called for cultural installations from nine countries, EPCOT was intended to be the ultimate harmonious international village, a shining example of global unity. Naturally the FBI had a problem with it. FOIA'd documents recently released to MuckRock show that as early as December 1979, almost three full years before the October 1, 1982 opening of EPCOT, the bureau was concerned with possible Soviet involvement in the endeavor. And even after Soviet involvement was ruled out, the FBI began to worry about Chinese influences.

112 comments

  1. That explains a lot. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 5, Funny

    All those asian families taking pictures? Who takes that many pictures?

  2. The only thing to fear... by GrahamCox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is fear itself. Seems these wise words have been largely forgotten. As a nation, the USA is the most lily-livered scaredy cats out there. I'm not talking about individuals, just the national characteristic. Why else spend such vast sums on a military that has more or less nothing to do? (and for which idle hands the devil makes plenty of work, starting wars it can't finish and general meddling). Why else are guns so fetishised? Why else is so much effort being put into monitoring everyone's trivial business? Why else are fingers pointed at harmless scapegoats like ordinary muslims? My country, right or wrong? Think about it.

    1. Re:The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You just made the list

    2. Re:The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know, maybe 1981 - height of the cold war, maximum million-fold-apocalypse MAD, Star Wars SDI fantasy that meant actual warfare, recent history of Vietnam and Cuban soldiers sponsored by the Soviets to fight in Angola, dozens of ongoing and major conflicts around the world between the super powers, active spy rings on both sides. Everything you could imagine and more.

    3. Re:The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scared? no.

      Paranoid, yes.

    4. Re:The only thing to fear... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      They know others through knowing themselves and what they'd do.

    5. Re: The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck were you poking around in all those places to start with? You can't use those as a reason when you first decided to involve yourselves. Get the hell out of the rest of the world. Go hide in your own mountains and deserts and leave the others alone.

    6. Re:The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Scared? no.

      Scared? Yes.

      We have politicians trying to eliminate cryptography while crying about brown people who haven't even used it. These politicians will be re-elected, because brown people.

      We're sexually molested and divested of snowglobes if we try to fly. Because scary brown people.

      We lose our shit over "assault rifles" in spite of the fact that they're the cause of an absolutely tiny fraction of gun deaths.

      We scream and cry about dead soldiers when we lose less than we have in single battles in prior wars over the span of an entire bloody conflict.

      We keep our kids indoors because of stranger danger, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of abductions/horrible things are instigated by family.

      Home of the Atlanta Braves, but not much else.

    7. Re:The only thing to fear... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The only thing to fear is fear itself.

      Hence its supreme usefulness to government agencies.

    8. Re: The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This posts, and most replies to this article in general, directly reflect the growing level of disconnect from the Cold-War era.

      I won't say that the USA is "perfect" or even "good" by nature. As a "superpower", there is a general expectation from the world community that the country steps in to prevent genocide, render aid, and so on. There's also a strong desire for oil and the resources that go along with the mass of industry from manufacturing large capital goods and vast agriculture.

      The cold war began at the end of WWII - a war that started with Russia and Germany against the allies, and rumors and/or actual plans to carve Europe into large Empires - not exactly unsurprising you'd have people a little bit worried about Russia continuing the same. Various communist parties had arranged for overthrow of multiple governments - peaceful and not. Not to mention the whole period of "helping" in Czechoslovakia by the Soviets... While the US still maintained political ambitions for control and intervention, naked landgrabs had largely diminished after WWI.

      While WWII had ended, the desire to build vast empires (communist and otherwise) as well as the perception that such empires could become very real threats to democracy not just capitalism in other countries created fear in the US. The US engaged in most of the military actions with the publicly stated goal of preventing new empires from forming and/or destroying allied countries - see Domino Theory.

      It's easy to bring up many sins of the country in a discussion, especially with the benefit of modern hindsight and morality. Still, it's difficult to say how things would have played out had the country ignored events in the East with Russia, Korea, Vietnam, China, etc... On the whole, that history is messy and not nearly so easy to say "the US should have been out of it". Had the US been an isolationist country as desired by many in modern politics, I highly suspect we'd be in the middle of a rather nasty WWIII, with battles spanning on both continents. A future potentially darker than the world of Philip K. Dick. Or maybe, we'd have figured out how to make the whole communism thing work and be living in a grand utopia. I find the prior more likely.

      In summary, "Leave the others alone" - perhaps a good idea, but chances are most of Europe (and the entire middle east) would be speaking Russian & German right now. It's not nearly as simple as "wanting oil".

    9. Re: The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the US hasn't been overthrowing governments by any means they can ?

    10. Re:The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US government uses the Boogey Man to scare it's people into going along with whatever laws they shove down our throats. First it was communists and now it is terrorists. Americans are far, far more likely to die falling in their bathtub than by terrorist attack.

      So where is the war on bathtub slips? Sounds absurd doesn't it? So why let them take away all of our rights for something far less dangerous? We put up with massive risk in terms of getting into automobiles, yet people just ignore it totally. It makes me wonder if that is why there is no campaign to reduce innumeracy. If the people could understand the relative risks they wouldn't walk blindly into the pens anymore.

      To quote Rage Against the Machine: Land of the Free? Whoever told you that is your enemy.

    11. Re:The only thing to fear... by evilviper · · Score: 2

      Why else spend such vast sums on a military that has more or less nothing to do?

      Because we finally learned a lesson, after two world wars... And we've successfully avoided a third one. The US military acts as surrogate for numerous other nations with little or none. And the world has been far more peaceful for more than half a century, as a result.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:The only thing to fear... by StillAnonymous · · Score: 1

      How about "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", or "For evil to succeed, good men need only do nothing."

      Seems you have forgotten those wise words as well.

    13. Re:The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and of course you have been doing it out of the goodness of your hearts with no benefit to your government.

    14. Re: The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so full of shit.

      The Soviets weren't going to do anything of the sort. There was never going to be a third world war. Nobody was ever going to use nukes.

      But the paranoid fantasies of people like J. Edgar Hoover caused military buildups that cost the world a fortune that could have been used for real progress, and got us into wars that should never have happened, killing millions.

      We should have stayed out of it. The world would have been better off.

    15. Re: The only thing to fear... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Right. They were so totally satisfied with the situation at the end of WW2 that they didn't try to starve Berlin into submission three years later. Prague spring? Hungary 1956? I must have imagined them.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re: The only thing to fear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. Those who didn't live through it as well as those who do not know history are so easily misled. Every time talk to someone in the US who spouts extreme leftist nonsense I find they are totally ignorant of history.

    17. Re:The only thing to fear... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Having lived in 1981 with a memory of the events of that era, I can say you are clueless about what ordinary Americans thought about such things. It certainly wasn't the "height of the Cold War", which could best be used to describe the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis some twenty years earlier. The Vietnam War was over. The Soviet Union was going through "Perestroika" and frankly was even seen as somewhat hopeful that perhaps the Soviet states would actually get some much needed freedoms they lacked in the past. There were also SALT talks where some real progress about the use of nuclear weapons were finally being discussed on a global level, and for the most part the Soviet Union was a dead horse in terms of trying to rally Americans to fight against it.

      Yes, there was conflict going on in Afghanistan (Russia invaded around 1981), but the big evil country that got people all riled up in redneck country was Iran and their capture of the U.S. embassy. Libya was also seen as something useful to see drop into the sea and drown.

      There certainly were super conservative groups that talked about the Soviet Union and Russia in particular as an "evil empire", and perhaps some of these FBI agents were caught up into that too. The major conflicts between the Soviet Union and the USA were largely done by 1981 and certainly didn't even remotely approach the levels of what happened in Vietnam or Korea.

    18. Re:The only thing to fear... by fatboy · · Score: 1

      Perestroika is 1981? I think not. As someone that remembers the time well, I never hear the word Perestroika until Gorbachev was President. That was sometime in 1985 IIRC. Most definitely the later half of the 80's, under Regan. Definitely not during the Carter era or early Reagan.

      --
      --fatboy
    19. Re:The only thing to fear... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      ...is fear itself. Seems these wise words have been largely forgotten. As a nation, the USA is the most lily-livered scaredy cats out there. I'm not talking about individuals, just the national characteristic. Why else spend such vast sums on a military that has more or less nothing to do? (and for which idle hands the devil makes plenty of work, starting wars it can't finish and general meddling). Why else are guns so fetishised? Why else is so much effort being put into monitoring everyone's trivial business? Why else are fingers pointed at harmless scapegoats like ordinary muslims? My country, right or wrong? Think about it.

      What sets apart the men from the boys is the cost of their toys. And once you have a toy budget, you have to spend it or lose it. War games does not consume battleships or submarines and very few aircraft. Now draw your conclusions.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    20. Re: The only thing to fear... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Soviets were cautious in aggression, but they did do things that were either in their stated sphere of influence or had plausible deniability. They supported North Korea and North Vietnam, and other places. Granted that Khruschev's "We will bury you" was misunderstood, it's hard to misunderstand the Brezhnev doctrine that countries would go from capitalism to Communism but not back again.

      The Soviet Union also liked to demonstrate its military might, which was probably exaggerated to make the Soviets more impressive, but was intended as a display of a potential threat to the rest of the world. Conventional wisdom at the time in the West was that, should the Warsaw Pact attack Western Europe, NATO didn't have the conventional forces in theater to stop them, and so the plans were based on either massive US help or nukes.

      It wasn't obvious at first that there wasn't going to be a WWIII, particularly in the early part, when each side considered its nuclear bombers unstoppable in the sky but vulnerable on the ground. A lot of us were seriously worried about a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

      I'm not completely sure what is meant by staying out of the Cold War. Should we have resisted outright invasions like the Korean War? Helped against infiltrators? Soviet-paid Cuban mercenaries in Africa? If we'd done nothing, the Soviets would have been happy to nibble their way to domination. We did some things seriously wrong, such as preferring approximately every right-wing regime to any left-wing one in other countries, and allowed our actions to be forced by the Soviet Union too much, but there was a real threat.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. What were they smoking? by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    If the average person had been smoking whatever it was, they'd have been locked up!

    1. Re:What were they smoking? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Your tax dollars at work.
      Drooling idiocy.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    2. Re:What were they smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same people who helpfully bought us MK Ultra.

    3. Re:What were they smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "same people" you mean the US Government, then yes, I suppose so. But the CIA and FBI are two different organizations, with very different spheres of operation.

      But you probably knew that.

  4. So how much has the FBI changed since then? by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    Trick question.

    They're much worse now.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:So how much has the FBI changed since then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. Basically since its conception the FBI has been nothing more than America's version of the secret police. Throughout its history the FBI has been used to suppress dissent. It may have had noble goals at its creation, but hoover and his successors along with high-level govt officials from both parties, over the past ~100 years, have shaped it into an organization which is a fundamental threat to basic freedom.

      Today its baiting ignorant people into "islamic terror plots" which they clearly have no capability to do on their own. (FYI to wannabe terrorists: Bombs are super easy to make. Like insanely easy. Seriously, you don't need help from potential informants; FYI to panicky american public: Bombs are super easy to make. Someone could also stab you in the Piggly Wiggly parking lot. Or maybe just run you over. You're never safe, this is not new, this is not a bad thing. Oh, plus your govt is FAR more likely to kill you than a terrorist - do the math). What will tomorrow bring?

    2. Re:So how much has the FBI changed since then? by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Hoover wanted his personal army, nothing more.

    3. Re:So how much has the FBI changed since then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amusingly, anything a terrorist would need to know is offered up free in PDF form by the US army.

    4. Re: So how much has the FBI changed since then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry, our secrets are safe... The user has to click through an agreement that their activities may be monitored while viewing the pubs. Scared me away, and I'm sure many terrorists too!

    5. Re:So how much has the FBI changed since then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone could also stab you in the Piggly Wiggly parking lot. Or maybe just run you over.

      And these are things that happen a lot more often than being blown up by the Allah Akbar crowd.

      Although in the USA, even more likely at Piggly Wiggly is that someone simply shoot you. 'Cause you disrespected them.

    6. Re:So how much has the FBI changed since then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The documentary Quantico shows how the current FBI is a mixture of Nancy Drew, Glee and Cleanskin. They will surely find all the remaining communists out there.

  5. So what? by Jiro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This doesn't indicate that the FBI listened in on any private conversations, blacklisted anyone, tried to get anyone fired, spread lies about anyone, or otherwise did the bad things that people usually think of when they complain about the FBI. And they feared the Soviets and Chinese would infiltrate because, you know, EPCOT has national pavilions run by those countries and staffed by their citizens. And when they found out that pavilions were not allowed to be political, they then decided the Soviets were not a threat. They don't seem to have thought the Chinese were a threat for very long, either.

    Basically, this whole thing is just a complaint about the FBI doing their job.

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This doesn't indicate that the FBI listened in on any private conversations, blacklisted anyone, tried to get anyone fired, spread lies about anyone, or otherwise did the bad things that people usually think of when they complain about the FBI. And they feared the Soviets and Chinese would infiltrate because, you know, EPCOT has national pavilions run by those countries and staffed by their citizens. And when they found out that pavilions were not allowed to be political, they then decided the Soviets were not a threat. They don't seem to have thought the Chinese were a threat for very long, either.

      Basically, this whole thing is just a complaint about the FBI doing their job.

      Preventing political messages?
      yep... they where doing their cold war job.

    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You forgot about the part where they stop white, right wing terrorists who take over federal facilities. Oh wait, they do not do that. Almost forgot. They would rather sit around and speculate about Disney then do their fucking jobs.

    3. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 2

      Basically, this whole thing is just a complaint about the FBI doing their job.

      Would you mind explaining exactly what you think the FBI is expected to do as part of their job?

      Last I heard, having a political philosophy, of just about any kind, was protected by the Constitution. Can you imagine the uproar we would see if the FBI targeted the entire conservative bloc in this country? Conversely, when the FBI went after the left, no one seemed to care enough to do anything about restricting these actions.

    4. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 2

      Preventing political messages? yep... they where doing their cold war job.

      Are you actually admitting that we no longer hold the FBI to working within the framework of the Constitution? If so, why do we incarcerate Americans for any crimes if we allow treason (as defined by the intentional undermining of our Constitution) to operate with impunity?

    5. Re:So what? by swb · · Score: 1

      There is no Russian pavilion. There have been rumors and plans of one, but it has never been built.

      I keep waiting for the SJWs to complain about the lack of an African pavilion. There's kind of a pit stop space that could house one, but it's never been built. I suppose the counter argument might be that they instead built an entire theme park for Africa, Animal Kingdom, but a fair amount of that park isn't specifically set in Africa although the Tree of Life and the safari part of it give it an African dominated theme.

    6. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Doing what job? Making sure Americans aren't exposed to ideas from elsewhere? Especially ideas that might make them question the non-stop pro-capitalist propaganda we're all fed by our corporate media?

      The FBI was a joke then and it's a very dangerous joke that isn't very funny now. They only know how to threaten dissent and dissenters, protect the rich and powerful, and of course how to manufacture terrorists so they can arrest them to justify their continued existence.

    7. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I heard, having a political philosophy, of just about any kind, was protected by the Constitution.

      Turns out a piece paper doesn't make a very good protection.

    8. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep calling anyone who has a gun terrorists. Keep using name calling as your primary debate tactic. Know this. If you take away rights that I firmly believe are mine, I will make you suffer.

    9. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that you focus on firearms when nothing about that was said. Keep using your need for phallic enhancing weaponry as an excuse to change the subject as your primary debate tactic. Know this, if you illegally invade a federal facility I will call for the government to arrest you. If you break the law you should be willing to accept the punishment for doing so, even if you believe your cause is righteous you should still have to accept the consequence for your actions.

    10. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, that's not how treason is defined. You would know if you actually looked IN the Constitution.

    11. Re:So what? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine the uproar we would see if the FBI targeted the entire conservative bloc in this country? Conversely, when the FBI went after the left, no one seemed to care

      The FBI went after the KKK, and plenty of other far-right wing organizations.

      Conversely, while right-wing terrorists are demonized, left-wing terrorists get hired as professors to spread their influence on the next generation:

      http://theothermccain.com/2013...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ih, Africa isn't a country....

    13. Re:So what? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Check out Amendment 1. Now if the FBI was to say they were keeping an eye on these folks because they had intel they were up to nefarious purposes, then yes.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    14. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The KKK is an extreme left-wing organization led by democrats, and has been since its inception. White democrat politicians from the south are almost universally racist even today.

    15. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Africa isn't a country

      Then where do tigers come from smart guy?

    16. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, this whole thing is just a complaint about the FBI doing their job.

      Maybe that's why it's news. ;)

    17. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Africa isn't a country

      Then where do tigers come from smart guy?

      Tigers come from countries in Africa and Asia primarily. Africa is a continent. South Africa is a country in Africa.

    18. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check it yourself. that only applies to US citizens, not foreign nationals.

    19. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't read your copy very well, since the Constitution doesn't apply to the "citizens" it applies to the government, and provides a complete and exhaustive list of everything it is allowed to do.

    20. Re: So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opening soon - the Nigeria Pavilion. Come early to claim your money!

    21. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      The FBI went after the KKK, and plenty of other far-right wing organizations.

      Indeed. And in those cases, they went after violent assholes who lynched people, bombed churches and generally broke the law with impunity as no jury in their locations would ever convict them.

      Conversely, while right-wing terrorists are demonized, left-wing terrorists get hired as professors to spread their influence on the next generation

      Oh, you mean like when the FBI tried to force Martin Luther King to commit suicide? Or when they went after people like Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, or John Lennon?

      No, you're talking about protesters from a time when the FBI routinely invented evidence against people. Of course, common sense should have told you that people convicted of felony murders usually spend a lot of time in jail.

      And that is quite the source you provided. Do you usually read sites where "journalists" write in potato quality English?

      While it may be ironic that Boudin received a teaching position at a university she was plotted to bomb...

    22. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      The KKK is an extreme left-wing organization led by democrats, and has been since its inception. White democrat politicians from the south are almost universally racist even today.

      There is an extreme level of willful ignorance shown in your comment that makes me wonder if you are trolling or actually that misinformed.

      Fucking Poe's Law - How does it work?

    23. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      Check out Amendment 1.

      I'm very familiar with the document. In fact, I am very fond of it.

      Now if the FBI was to say they were keeping an eye on these folks because they had intel they were up to nefarious purposes, then yes.

      And yet, after all this time, we do know that they FBI routinely acted against people like Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and John Lennon among many others without "intel" of any kind other than a gut feeling by Jedgar himself.

    24. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are hereby tagged an FBI apologist.

      Good luck with that in the future.

    25. Re:So what? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is an indication that they are paranoid and insane. You know, the kind of people that should be professionally evaluated whether they are a danger to society.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    26. Re:So what? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      you're talking about protesters from a time when the FBI routinely invented evidence against people.

      Sorry, but no. Most, if not all those named have admitted their guilt.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    27. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      you're talking about protesters from a time when the FBI routinely invented evidence against people.

      Sorry, but no. Most, if not all those named have admitted their guilt.

      Yes. I have no doubt that you believe what you posted given the level of credibility for the sources where you get your information.

      I love the fact that it actually makes sense to you that people who were convicted of felony murder are walking around free in our country. If only Charles Manson had been a liberal, he'd undoubtedly be president of a university by now, right?

    28. Re:So what? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      And yet, after all this time, we do know that they FBI routinely acted against people like Martin Luther King, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger and John Lennon among many others without "intel" of any kind other than a gut feeling by Jedgar himself.

      And we know that Benjamin F read the mail of suspected Tories... I guess the Amendments may have been tongue in cheek?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    29. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      And we know that Benjamin F read the mail of suspected Tories... I guess the Amendments may have been tongue in cheek?

      The FBI saw that these people were blacklisted and in MLK's case the FBI deliberately tried to drive him to commit suicide.

      But even if we were to accept that Franklin did break what would eventually become our law of the land, the argument that two wrongs make a right is an absurd proposition.

    30. Re:So what? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      By all means, provide your source that supports your ridiculous claims.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    31. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 2

      By all means, provide your source that supports your ridiculous claims.

      If I had made any ridiculous claims, I would be glad to supply sources. But since everything I brought to your attention is in the public record, maybe you should shun those moronic sites you have been reading and try reality for a while.

      FBI's "Suicide Letter" to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of Unchecked Surveillance

      Pete Seeger

      Woody Guthrie

      John Lennon

      Even more black people were lynched in the U.S. than previously thought, study finds

      The Murder of Emmett Till

      There's the short list detailing everything you've worked so hard to ignore. So, how about if you do a little reading and see if you can find out how many people went to jail for those thousands of lynchings history has recorded. And while you're at it, how about if you show me where in the FBI's charter authorizes surveillance on lawful folk singers, non-violent rock stars as well as religious men who preached peaceful assembly to redress what they believed to be illegal grievances.

      Ignorance can be unlearned while willful ignorance is an inexcusable state of mind.

    32. Re:So what? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It might just be that the people you call SJWs are just normal, reasonable people who point out your glaring mistakes in reason and knowledge. A good example is you complaining that some people you made up are going to complain that a continent is not represented in a showcase of countries.

      Hint: labelling people you don't like with some throwaway, nebulous term doesn't make you look particularly intellectually honest. It makes you look lazy, and relegates your argument to the same level of the people you appear to despise... Strange, huh? Your desire to despise "them" has turned you into one.

    33. Re:So what? by swb · · Score: 1

      It's funny how this same block of made-up people also pushes a made-up holiday called Kwanzaa that claims to represent a made up African culture. You might even argue I'm taking their pan-Africanism at face value.

      Of course, we both know that it's perfectly logical to consider the Moroccan pavilion representative of "Africa" because, well, Morocco is in Africa, but we also know perfectly well that my made-up group of activists would object that Morocco is no more "African" than Africa-born Boer leader Paul Kruger is African, because, well they're not black Africa.

      So really what I suspect they would want is a country pavilion representing Black Africans. One for Nigeria where you embezzle government funds. Or one for Somalia, with a pirate ride where you hijack shipping for ransom. Or maybe one for Zimbabwe where the gift shop prices increase by 10% every day thanks to hyperinflation.

    34. Re:So what? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      My cheeky comment was more to open a discussion on one aspect that always troubled me - the founders talked a good game, but they certainly didn't walk it. This well known violation seems at odds with their ideals.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    35. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      My cheeky comment was more to open a discussion on one aspect that always troubled me - the founders talked a good game, but they certainly didn't walk it. This well known violation seems at odds with their ideals.

      As I mentioned previously, what Franklin did does not excuse anyone else from committing the same act. Yes, I agree with you. The founders touted the "All men are created equal" line but then ensured that slaves were not defined as men.

      However, and let's be clear on this point, none of this has any relevance of the topic of the moment. We have laws in place which dictate how our government is allowed to operate. And if we can prosecute and then jail Americans for breaking many of our laws where no tangible victim can be found, we can damn well prosecute and then incarcerate those who break our laws regardless of their claim that they were simply following orders.

    36. Re:So what? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The founders touted the "All men are created equal" line but then ensured that slaves were not defined as men.

      It should be noted that while slaves were not defined as "men", neither were: women, anyone under 21, anyone not propertied and self-sufficient, and certainly no convicted felons, IIRC. You might also note that while many assume only white propertied males over 21, that was not exactly the case either.

      ...we can damn well prosecute and then incarcerate those who break our laws regardless of their claim that they were simply following orders.

      I believe this is finally coming round, and we can only hope everyone is held to the same yardstick.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    37. Re:So what? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Your ranting still doesn't detract one bit from what I've said, and fails to disprove one single case I cited.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    38. Re:So what? by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      Your ranting still doesn't detract one bit from what I've said, and fails to disprove one single case I cited.

      Only in your own mind, only in yours.

  6. Who runs the country pavilions? by swb · · Score: 1

    I've always wondered who runs the country pavilions. They have a slightly not-run-by-Disney feel them. Sure, you can use your magic band to pay for stuff in their food stalls and restaurants and gift shops and the employees have Disney nametags on, but it always seems sort of not quite Disney otherwise. The Chinese pavilion even more so. And AFAICT they are staffed almost entirely by nationals of the country.

    I think the Chinese pavilion was there when the park opened (we went as a family in Christmas of '82), so if it was staffed with Chinese nationals, maybe the FBI was being just kind of run of the mill paranoid about a bunch of Party-approved nationals being in the US during a relatively heated part of the cold war a short drive from NASA and all its space technology.

    Overall, it seems kind of paranoid. Were they worried about the Chinese undermining our lead in audio animatronics and Imagineering?

    1. Re:Who runs the country pavilions? by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Chinese pavilion surely used workers from Taiwan or Hong Kong.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Who runs the country pavilions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're mistaken. The US had already recognized the PRC by then. The Chinese pavilion is run by China.

    3. Re:Who runs the country pavilions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand that Epcot center isn't the UN, right?

    4. Re:Who runs the country pavilions? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      When we visited, a long time ago, the salespeople in the Chinese pavilion seemed somewhat lost and bemused at running a store in the US. They had some beautiful stuff for low prices, and seemed puzzled by the cavalier way customers tossed their way through it, apparently valuing it by the price tag rather than observing that it was well-made and very good.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. industrial espionage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, China has engaged in very extensive industrial espionage in western countries. I bet Russia's back in the industrial espionage game. Heck even Israel engages in industrial espionage against the United States.

    1. Re:industrial espionage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That explains why they want to promote something like the Epcot Center. When people bring their families, kids get dirty. When kids get dirty their clothes need washing. When clothes need washing mom and dad do the laundry. When mom and dad do the laundry they use modern american washing machines. That is when those dirty commies strike and steal the inner workings of our modern washers and dryers. Or they could just have waited ten years and go to China and buy one since everything is made there anyway. Stupid commies.

    2. Re:industrial espionage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel engages in industrial espionage against the United States.

      Is it still considered espionage if they copy something from a country they already control?

  8. National exposition by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    in a quickly created amusement part.... With multinational brands shown the visiting public their branded propaganda in public?
    Interactive life size ads?
    Most of the new cash went back to winning coveted US entertainment awards over the years and for more tv shows.
    The internet protection was not active for a while and the wider internet wondered around... using ftp.
    A lot is about staff from other nations selling food... and getting their students into the USA.
    The millions of people moving past would be exposed to other nations staff and politics... and might meet, talk to the non US workers.
    Did the federal gov have enough cleared US staff to cover watching all the new staff from other nations..
    The issues of song and dance staff from China..
    Who got long term areas to show their nations, who got what gift shop...
    Staff faking their English skills as in not understanding much English or pretending to need translation and having great English skills.
    Pages about a $50 sale/overring and the chat down with staff and who took what photo or did no get photo taken...
    Pages on people been offered reading material about travel/study in China.
    Some comment on the role of students from Hong Kong.
    200 pages later and the 2016 news is?
    It takes a lot of gov staff to watch a very few people from other nations. Everyone is been followed in person, every stop, start, look, chat is been logged.
    All US staff interactions get a complex "chat downs". Reading material about study in other nations is of great interest.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:National exposition by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      One final interesting aspect is if a nation's staff could party. Lack of any basic party skills or per person interest in partying resulted more a lot more surveillance.
      So ensure all embassy staff, trade missions and people sent to the USA can party to a US standard.
      The ability of a nations staff to relate to new and popular music, hold witty conversation in English, have an understanding of alcoholic beverages and move quickly to participate in all social events seemed to be an interesting part of US counter surveillance.
      So for the foreign gov staff and embassy staff in training study US party culture for a few years.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. mostly Chinese at EPCOT by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    spitting

  10. EPCOT is anything but harmonious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has to be one of the most depressing theme parks anywhere. The only reason to visit it is because you have a day left on your ticket and you're fed up of the other, better Disney parks.

    1. Re:EPCOT is anything but harmonious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It's a barrel o'laughs. Like all "future" themed parks. All that naive optimism about the 21st Century, remember it? A peaceful world, routine space travel, abundance and prosperity for all. And look where are we now: wars everywhere, heads firmly looking down and poverty on the rise. Orwell got one wrong: the future is not just a boot stomping on a human face forever, it's a screwdriver skewering a human eye forever. And I'm fine with it.

    2. Re: EPCOT is anything but harmonious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It used to be very nice. It's the last park designed mostly by Walt's personally hired staff who remained with the company after he died. Sure, it's pro corporate but that was always one of Walt's minor character flaws. Then again, in his day American companies actually produced useful things and weren't necessarily run by sociopaths.

      There were all kinds of interactive science exhibits, previews of new technologies, museum quality cultural displays, and it was bright, open, and you could hang out there all day and find stuff to see and do in every corner. It was a place to go to be very optimistic about the future.

      Naturally something like that couldn't exist for long, so the people who mismanage the company these days took out most of the science stuff, most anything designed to make you think, remodeled educational things into character-laden sound byte style 'attractions' with no real meaning to them, closed or severely closed off parts of whole buildings and removed lots of the little things to do. Gotta appeal to the churro eating, Starbucks swilling masses who never want to use their brains ever.

      Most of the sweeping vistas are cluttered with outdoor vending and kiosks trying to sell you garbage, and of course the optimism is gone just like the rest of the country. With metal detectors, bag searches, and the requisite fences involved in our national obsession with security theater the beautiful expansive plaza at the front entrance looks like a prison now.

      I'd sarcastically say Epcot has been remade into a perfect representation of the US actually, but I do miss it from when it was really quite great.

    3. Re: EPCOT is anything but harmonious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the heads up. I went to EPCOT in 1987, major highpoint of a cross country road trip, and loved every minute I was there. I always wanted to go back, but I know realize I never thought about how it might have changed.

      Sadly I just took it off my bucket list.

  11. And today... by DewDude · · Score: 1

    The Chinese are essentially broadcasting all their propaganda on a 50kW AM station located just outside of DC; that doesn't disclose they're Chinese; and that no one has done anything about.

    1. Re:And today... by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Since nobody listens to AM radio anyway, who would complain? And more important, why would anyone stop an opponent from wasting money?

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:And today... by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      How primitive. REAL propaganda streams over the internet now.

    3. Re:And today... by DewDude · · Score: 1

      Oh..and also the thing that kicked it all off: http://www.reuters.com/article... I don't think anyone is saying they can't waste their money; it's just we have regulations on station ownership. CRI is "bending" the rules by having majority stakes in the companies that own and lease these stations; and it's just natural they'd use it to spread their propaganda.

  12. Weren't the Japanese supposed to take over then? by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    It's very strange to look back on the Cold War now -- Russia and the US wasted trillions of dollars and built a huge nuclear arsenal basically to stare each other down. If Epcot opened a few years later (mid to late 80s) I wonder if they would be targeting the Japanese pavilion as a possible hotbed of industrial espionage. When you walk through there today, you can feel a little bit of the ghost of the Japanese economic bubble. For those not old enough to remember, this was the time where there were breathless articles published about Japanese takeovers of the US economy. They were also buying up landmarks like Rockefeller Center in NYC basically as "trophies." And it was an interesting time, Japanese car makers had cracked the US car market, their semiconductor and computer industry was going like crazy, and even Marty McFly said "All the best stuff is made in Japan." It's not unlike the Chinese manufacturing takeover we're experiencing. The question is this - Japan's economic bubble popped, but China has much more control over their markets and population...so will this "takeover" last?

    I actually like Epcot, but I know it's not as well loved as the other Disney parks. It kind of represents an ideal science-driven technocratic vision of the future that I'd like to see sometime before I'm dead. It also allows typical Muricans to at least be exposed to a couple of sanitized new cultural ideas here and there -- it's very telling that the population holding a passport is still pretty small. (Yes, yes, I know the US is a huge country, but I've never heard people complain so bitterly about getting a passport to go to whatever Caribbean destination their cruise is stopping at.)

  13. Flip A Coin by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Should we be more frightened by a somewhat insane FBI or a band of rabid communists? I think maybe the FBI is the greater of two evils. Gee whiz! Americans might learn to use chopsticks in an international village. That is a threat to American knife and fork makers and capitalism in general.

    1. Re:Flip A Coin by CyclistOne · · Score: 2

      I just read Betty Medsger's "The Burglary," about the burglary of the Media, PA office of the FBI in 1971 by a group of people who named themselves the Citizens Committee to Investigate the FBI. J. Edgar Hoover went apoplectic over it, but they never found the burglars. The documents stolen led to the revelation of COINTELPRO, among many other things. The book is also a primer on the history of 20th century surveillance by our government. A band of rabid communists isn't going to have millions or billions to spend undermining our democracy - such as it is - but the FBI and the NSA do. So, yeah, I wouldn't worry about those commies ... if there are any left.

    2. Re:Flip A Coin by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      So, yeah, I wouldn't worry about those commies ... if there are any left.

      Nice one :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    3. Re:Flip A Coin by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'd say the FBI are more dangerous because commies are easier to spot, due to their funny accents and pointy beards and all that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  14. Sphere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spaceship Earth is NOT a sphere... *facepalm*

  15. and after the russians, Chinese and martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they started worry about 'muricans being involved otherwise they would have been off the federal gravy train and out of a job.

  16. Re:Weren't the Japanese supposed to take over then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's very telling that the population holding a passport is still pretty small.

    That will change though, once it becomes mandatory to fly domestically.

    We are the Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave, we can all own guns and you will please to present your papers, citizen.

  17. Re:The only thing to fear... addendum... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

    Obligatory Robot Chicken https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLcIAJsaF3o
    Oh, guns are fetishized because for almost all of human existence they would have been considered magic... you point a stick and boom, something dies. While it's not really magic, it is really the power of life or death and many people can not resist owning that...

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  18. Re:Nothing wrong by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Back then it wasn't so clear a free economy would decimate a communist one in productivity and producing health and wealth for the average person. And all that conveniently skips the meme aspect of how communism "sounds good" to people.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  19. Re:The only thing to fear... addendum... by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    a bit of trivia from Jim Butchers The Dresden Files

    Karen Murphy (who is about 5 foot tall and lightly built) has a P90 that she uses as a goto weapon when dealing with the lesser Things That Go Bump In The Night.

    as long as you can hold it and pull the trigger a Gun does not care who you are

  20. Re:The only thing to fear... addendum... by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's silly. When I use a gun, I point it, pull the trigger, and boom, a paper target gets a hole in it. Why would I want something to die? That wouldn't be very nice.

    Claiming that "the power of life or death" is a fetish is ridiculous. Every driver on the road has that power. Every plumber, electrician, and Boy Scout has that power. Every airplane pilot has a lot of that power. The simple truth is that humans are fragile creatures, and the simple safety measures we follow daily can easily be bypassed if one has the motivation to do so. The realization of how close one comes to death every day is terrifying.

    That's what scares people, not a magic boom-stick.

    What distinguishes firearms, though, is that they are themselves an easy target. Politicians, pundits, and concerned citizens can reassign their fear, allowing themselves to think of cars as "safe", because the really scary thing is a tube that makes loud noises. By concentrating all of the fear into one scapegoat, the rest of society seems perfectly livable.

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  21. EPCOT was scaled down form Disney's dream by bkmoore · · Score: 1

    EPCOT as envisioned by Walt Disney was to be an actual city where people would live and work. He designed it in concentric rings, somewhat resembling a wagon wheel with spokes. The inner zone would have towers and was supposed to be where people work. The middle ring was a park and retail area, and the outer-most ring was residential. Walt Disney had the idea that all major American corporations would want to relocate their R&D to EPCOT, so if you could get GM next door to GE and might get an electric or atomic car sooner. So was the thinking. The conceptual designs had a very mid-century futuristic look to them. Walt Disney even proposed covering the city in a dome, so the weather would always be perfect. But I'm a bit skeptical about being able to keep a dome cool and dry in the Florida climate.

    1. Re:EPCOT was scaled down form Disney's dream by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      EPCOT as envisioned by Walt Disney was to be an actual city where people would live and work.

      And coincidently, Walt was also worried that Communists may get into the city. He became a little paranoid about them after the animator's strike.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  22. Re:The only thing to fear... addendum... by tburkhol · · Score: 2

    Claiming that "the power of life or death" is a fetish is ridiculous. Every driver on the road has that power.

    No one sells cars claiming, "The only thing that stops a bad driver with a car is a good driver with a car."

  23. Re:The only thing to fear... addendum... by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

    ...So you've never seen an ad boasting about how this particular vehicle's safety features will protect your children from the bad things on the road?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  24. Hillary for 2016! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton for 2016!

  25. Re:The only thing to fear... addendum... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    That's silly. When I use a gun, I point it, pull the trigger, and boom, a paper target gets a hole in it. Why would I want something to die? That wouldn't be very nice.

    If your fetish is limited to putting holes in paper targets, then why don't you use a BB gun? A blow-gun? A bow and some arrows? A pointy stick? Some well-thrown playing cards?

    Oh, those would take significantly more skill, and that skill cannot easily be transferred to using the same device for easily killing people.

    Note that I am not reasoning with you—That is impossible. I am pointing out your logical fallacies for everyone else.

  26. Soviets? Chinese? Oh my! by Type-R · · Score: 1

    Worse yet, I think the Americans were involved with it to!