[lit-ideas] Dmytryk, HUAC, Warmongers & Liberal-Leftists
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:18:48 -0800
During the watching of Winds and War and War and Remembrance I read about
how underrated an actor Robert Mitchum was; so I decided to order several
Mitchum films from Netflix. I watched the first one this evening,
Crossfire. In the "Special Features" is a commentary by the director Edward
Dmytryk. I don't know when the commentary was recorded - whenever the DVD
was made of this movie, but what is interesting is that Dmytryk was one of
the "Hollywood Ten" that HUAC prosecuted. Dmytryk said that HUAC at first
had twenty but narrowed it down to those who were or had been in the
Communist Party.
Dmytryk ended up spending some time in jail. It was four years before he
was back making money again. He said he could understand the Communist
point of view and the point of view of Anti-Communists. What he couldn't
understand was the point of view of the "Liberal Leftists" (his term) which
he thought would support his freedom of speech. When he was most in need
of their support they "did nothing." That is what Liberals are best at,
Dmytryk said, "doing nothing."
After he got out of jail he need some financial help to get back on his
feet. His Leftist Liberal friends however, wouldn't support him. Do you
know who helped me, he asked? It was Liberal Republicans. I don't know if
he made a verbal mistake or if there were "Liberal" Republicans but I found
that interesting. Back in the days when it was risky to stand up for your
Leftist beliefs, the Liberal Leftists did nothing (according to Dmytryk),
but non-Liberals helped him.
I see this as relating to Geary's implied view of the non-Warmonger. Far be
it from them to aggressively stand up for someone about to be sent to jail
by HUAC. Only the warmongering Republicans would do it. Read the
following excerpt from Geary's latest note and you will see that Geary fits
Dmytryk's view of a "Leftist Liberal." Don't see it? Read it again and you
will see that what Geary advocates doing (by implication) about the modern
enemies of our freedom, or indeed past enemies in any war we've ever
discussed is . . . as Dmytryk says "nothing."
From Geary's latest note: "My definition of a warmonger is one who
forcefully advocates the killing of however many people it takes to ensure
that one's self-interest is served. Such advocacy is usually clothed in
appeals to patriotism or religion or racial superiority or economic
necessity or some noble ideal such as 'democracy'. As a cultural ethos in
the West, warmongering typically expresses itself in glorification of those
who excel as executives of killers and for whom public statues are erected,
and in generic glorification of those who paid the ultimate price for the
warmongers' self-interests -- almost always someone of a lower
socio-economic class to whom posthumous medals are given and in whose name
public speeches are made though the names forgotten. Abstract heroism is
preached to the young. Always the buying and selling of human life for the
interests of the wealthy and powerful. "A few good men." "A holy
jihadist." True believers all, aren't we? It's been that way for forty
thousand years. The time has come for some kind of "truth in advertising
law" to be passed, or at least the posting of a warning label: "Caveat
milites: The life you're about to take or give up is not for the reasons
you've been told." Yes, indeed, the time has come long since to put an end
to that old lie "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"."
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
Other related posts:
