[lit-ideas] Re: Dmytryk, HUAC, Warmongers & Liberal-Leftists
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:03:46 -0600
LH:
>>...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."<<
Not quite true. I believe World War II was necessary against the warmongers
Hitler and Hirohito. And I think we were justified in going after the
warmongers of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, I don't know why we quit that. But
those are about it. From what I know of all the rest of our military
adventures (with the possible exception of the Gulf War), they've all been
unjust wars promoted by our warmongers. I'm open to new information, however,
and I know that things get muddy, but on the face of it, that's what I'd say.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: Lit-Ideas
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:18 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Dmytryk, HUAC, Warmongers & Liberal-Leftists
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:
