I hope the bastard loses. Damn Nazi bastard.

Good thing you guys can point out — publicly — that Mr. Gillespie is both a liar and an illiterate.

Isn’t Gillespie a super, super, super senior? How can he still attend the UO and run for president? I thought people had to graduate at some point.

or

Cimche from OC circa 2010

“Isn’t Gillespie a super, super, super senior?”

I believe Mr Gillespie is the proud holder of the Don Goldman fellowship for interminable studies.

Strategy-wise, not saying anything seems to be a good play though. How does the saying go, “better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”…

See you at Country Fair, Cims!

Jay, who knows. Cim is, in all purposes, a complete fucknut. He wouldn’t know fascism if it gave him a colonic irrigation.

Cims does not take 8 credits. Therefore, he cannot be a candidate. He pulled this stunt 3 years ago. He does it every once and a while when he wants more attention, because, he is a fucknut.

Consensus seems to be building in the comment section that Cims is a fucknut.

P.S. Jay, you’re a fucknut, too. We have exposed your forum’s crap — several times. Here’s just one example. If you’re interested, you can read our full PF archive Here. Or, y’know, you can just go jump off a cliff of something. Either way.

Sorry, CJ. It’s one thing to point out the accomplishments of Martin Luther King Jr. or to show admiration for him. It’s quite another to mindlessly demean someone who’s done his or her homework on the details.

Reporters and journalists have an obligation to do more than just mindless blogging. For you to write off documented information as “crap” written by a “fucknut,” seriously compromises your own opinion. In the time it took you to write your entry you could have begun a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Don’t you guys have a David Irving conference to go to or something?

Find me one, just one, valid historical source (reviewed journal, article from an academic database instead of a home made website, thesis, something beyond rense.com) that cites MLK as a communist.

If your response to this is something about the corruption of information that we’re academically exposed to instead of an actual response, don’t bother responding.

Was MLK Jr. a communist? A Pacifica Forum speaker allegedly said he was a ‘communist dupe’. I have not read the actual documents from the Soviet Union and the FBI, cited by Forum speakers, which apparently show his cooperation with the Communist Party of the USA, because I don’t care. In Western Europe in the 60′s and 70′s, it was no big deal for moralizing, godbothering, reformist do-gooders to play footsie with the USSR’s useful idiots.

‘Dupe’ is an opinion. “Co-operation” is a matter of empirical research. We live in times where the latter is subordinated to political correctness. I don’t care about whether allegations about Saint MLK co-operating with the commies makes people feel bad. What I do care about is the use of feelings politics to support the genocide of the Palestinians.

I could say Theodore Kaczynski “cooperated” with Mohandas Ghandi, because some guy told me so and its based on some FBI that I haven’t read “because I don’t care,” but that’s not empirical research, Jay. That’s not even close to empirical research. That’s worse than wikipedia research– it’s not even research, really, at all. It’s hearsay.

You said it yourself, you haven’t read it. You’ve heard it [from really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad sources]. You’re lazy. Read. It improves your mind.

Funny. Just when I want to make sure flying saucers haven’t landed…

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/mlking.asp

That’s because real empirical evidence doesn’t come from one page where one person tells you one “fact.” It comes from an understanding of the period, the mixture of history, the application of context. Knowledge about segregationists and how they used communism as a pretense for an argument that claimed blacks were actually happy in their state and the revolution was just a communist front. Evidence that shows high ups in certain FBI bureaus were segregationists and that their biased “proof” of communist influence was actually disregarded by the FBI, and then the very same bureau attempted to discredit him by proving an adulterous lifestyle, and contributed to propagandizing him by PUBLICIZING their “proof” (which is not something the FBI does). But the “proof” was, AGAIN, discarded by its own agency. You can find FBI memos where the content of the memo states that the agency is has a specific plan that they want to prove, and discussing the best methods to prove that plan without embarrassing or discrediting the FBI — this is backwards of how investigations work. Investigations with an agenda are not viable, which is why they were discarded.

And then you have to read history from the perspective of the African Americans, which is something I’m sure Pacfica Forum hasn’t done. You look at the socialist parties and their appeasement of the working class and african americans. You can read about how blacks easily fell into socialism based on their platform but then promptly rejected it when socialism was unmoving with tangible work against racial discrimination. You look at MLK’s acceptance to democratic socialism, mainly based on his religious roots that comprised of his ethical system, and rejection of radical thought. You look at how Catholicism and Communism were virtually at idological war in the civil rights/Vietnam era. Then you look at how American communists actually REJECTED statements made by Lenin in the 1920 about communism being involved with all underprivileged revolutions including African Americans, because most American communists were segregationists! There are actually documents of far-lefters angry at other far-lefters for rejecting this ideology!

I don’t need to leave you a specific document that gives you all the answers because you don’t seem to understand that there isn’t one.

Democratic Individuality: A Theory of Moral Progress by Alan Gilbert
Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Laws that Changed America by Nick Kotz
American Communist History (peer reviewed journal).
Composing Martin Luther King Jr by Keith Miller
Martin Luther King Jr as a Democratic Socialist by Douglas Sturm
The Reemerging Revolutionary Consciousness of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr by William King
Beyond Critical Legal Studies: The Reconstructive Theology of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr by Anthony E. Cook
Martin Luther King, The Theology of Social Action by John Rathbun
Toward the Rights of the Poor, Human Rights in Liberation Theology by Mark Engler

And then you have to read history from the perspective of the African Americans, which is something I’m sure Pacfica Forum hasn’t done.

We’ll we held many consecutive January sessions in honor of King, and heard retellings of OE’s and others first hand experiences of their activities in the Civil Rights movement, facts that you–an outgrowth of the Frankenmob, are likely not aware of. And –we have had African American speakers as well as attendees, who were able to incorporate an AA perspective into the mix.

But no, you are correct in your “surety” that the Forum AS A WHOLE, has not attempted a read of history from the perspective of African American people. I doubt we ever will, as illegal war, current events, Foreign policy, genocide and other crimes have been our primary interest.

Your newest post just came up, you haughty little twirp. May you stew in your own ignorance, in bliss.

“That’s because real empirical evidence doesn’t come from one page where one person tells you one “fact.”

“I don’t need to leave you a specific document that gives you all the answers because you don’t seem to understand that there isn’t one.”

Interesting statements from the usually well-versed Evan P. Thomas, who originally requested, ” one, just one, valid historical source (reviewed journal, article from an academic database instead of a home made website, thesis, something beyond rense.com) that cites MLK as a communist,” and who now “isn’t going to continue this conversation.”

This is unfortunate. Martin Luther King, Jr need not be an unsung hero because some research looks under the rug and finds inconvenient truths and implications.

Sorry, Evan. I quoted them for the exact opposite reason.

Yeah well, you’ll spit too when the z-crew starts a swarmin’ you!

At least we stood upright and did not give in, under the weight of their manipulative, supremacist tactics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTtj9Mc000&feature=player_embedded
REAL HATE ON CAMPUS

Be well all.

http://www.fbi.gov/foia/electronic-reading-room/stanley-levison

CJ asked: “don’t you guys have a David Irving conference to go to or something?”. Portland, May 1st. If you defend freedom, be there.

As for Evan P. Thomas, he’s a smart guy. Look at how he subjects the Pacifica Forum to demands for the highest academic standards. Does he do the same for the Office of Multicultural Academic Success, the Center on Diversity and Community, and the Center for the Study of Women in Society, all of which are official parts of the University? No – his scholarly standards are selective. He’s like the editors of the Atlantic magazine, who suddenly discovered the concept of peer review when presented with a paper critical of the Israel Lobby. The appearance of Western intellectual rigour disguising grovelling to Jewish power.

You don’t need to write two paragraphs to determine that I’m calling you wrong and credible resources right. It’s kind of a one-sentence statement.

Extremist thought, from any source, is always more worthy of a rigorous standard. You’re confusing yourself, though: the burden of proof for extremist thought is in the hands of the subscriber to such thought. It’s not my fault I can refute everything.

The most notable logical flaw with extremists or conspirators is their misunderstanding of logical educational integrity in an educated society. Factual information inherently takes the path of least resistance; collective knowledge determined over time eventually reaches a mean as a means of efficient distribution (and money flow– which information is always connected to). For conspirators, the “truth” takes a path of extreme resistance: there are so many variables that must align in order for their truth to be accepted (IE: Jay just went on a tirade that requires Atlantic Mag editors to be collectively corrupt and biased toward Jewish thought, two variables not present in the educated normalcy that takes the path or least resistance).
With more variables comes more burden of proof for the subscriber, and less aptitude for being able to successfully prove the ending product based on shaky and ill-founded variables. This his how conspiracies traditionally collect support: one variable alone is easy for a perspective believer to swallow, because by itself, one variable maintains the path of least resistance– it is just a claim (like: it’s easier to swallow “look at this picture of a bomb exploding in the North Tower,” than it is to rationally prove that the US government was responsible for the attacks overall, because that requires proving so many other variables). Eventually, however, the conspiracy reaches the ears of a person incapable of assigning their own critical hierarchy of variables, so they take each individual variable at face value as it’s presented to them. Without a critical ability to find the mean path of least resistance, that person easily accepts variables individually as true, and therefore accept the product claimed from the collection of all variables without further exploration.

There are lots of tests regarding people like this. Cross references of a person’s core beliefs with independent variables (some completely made up, others true, others subjective), to test a persons ability to establish that critical hierarchy to determine the path of least resistance. A test like this was performed on the guy who wrote loose change, I think. And I think he failed miserably, by academic standards. I’d be curious to see if the psychology department at UO would be willing to administer these types of tests to some willing Pacifica members, in comparison to some history professors.