I stumbled across this story in the June 29, 1928 edition of the Clearwater Tribune.
The Clearwater Tribune is published in Orofino Idaho which is in Clearwater County. The advocacy for the nationalization of natural resources is interesting to me. So how did that work out for Venezuela and their oil recently? Or maybe the farm land in the USSR at the time of this article?
This entry was posted in Home Life, Politics by Joe. Bookmark the permalink.
What is depressing is how much of the platform is now reality.
That was my first impression also. They got a LOT of what's on that list. Also notable is that, then then as now, New Yorkers were shoving their noses and their resources and political pull into Northwest politics. My next observation was how they, as progressives do now, regard the U.S. Constitution as antiquated.
Whether an actively anti-constitution (anti human rights) political party should be legal in the U.S. is a question that needs to be asked, and often. If they'd been openly calling themselves Nazis, which in effect they were, and are, they'd have been shut down right quick. It is at best sedition.
Actually I'm totally wrong with that last statement. There was plenty of pro Nazi sentiment openly expressed in the U.S. as soon as they declared themselves as such. I meant to say, if they'd called themselves Nazis around 1942-45 they'd have been shut down quick.
Sure, but that's because FDR trampled the Constitution at every opportunity. In a free country, unpopular parties are NOT shut down, and indeed in the US recently they have not been. Contrast that with Europe, where that is done routinely; Europe, in spite of popular myth, is not free and does not have freedom of speech. In Holland some years ago in a government speech spoken by the queen this was stated explicitly: "there is no right to offend".
I have no problem with people speaking against liberty. I do object with people taking action against liberty. It's not the socialist mouthpieces that are the big problem, it's the ones that practice socialist policies while pretending to be honest Americans.
As for "how much of this is reality", you can go back further and see that. Read the Federalist Papers — which is a collection of op-ed pieces advocating adoption of the Constitution, with sweeping statements about all the good that would result and why all the worries of its opponents were misguided. Look at what it says will happen and what will not happen, then look at the reality. Sigh.
It helps to keep in mind that the primary author (Hamilton) actually wanted something very different from what he said the Constitution ended up saying. Read his proposal from the Convention, it actually looks a lot like what we have. One wonders if he planned on that.
They all migrated over the pass into Missoula Montana and became Democrats, Wobblies, and college professors. Also community activists.
My comment went into spam!
Socialism was all the rage, all very popular and "advanced" among socialites at that time, here. In the U k, and in Europe. World War II was a fight between Socialists for the most part. Socialists in the U.S., socialists in England and socialists in Russia fought against the National Socialists in Germany and the Fascists (another variation on socialism), all while the Imperialists in Japan (which could be seen as a more antiquated form of socialism) wanted a piece of the pie.
I note that during WW II the U.S. was called the "Arsenal of Democracy" rather than the Arsenal of Liberty. Democracy was OK to the socialists so long as it was a socialist democracy, but the U.S. was not founded as a democracy.
The American founders would not have approved of the term "socialism", preferring to call it something more honest, like tyranny or treason.
None dare call an affront to all the principles upon which America was founded treason, even if said affront specifically and openly targets said principles as enshrined in our constitution, as the posted article shows.
Probably true– I am nobody and I dare call it treason, or sedition at a minimum.
This has been a thesis of mine lately, that if we cannot even positively identify an enemy, we cannot possibly defeat it. That concept is born out in the aftermath of several jihadist attacks, wherein they are called "workplace violence" or the actions of "an armed man" and so on. Such denials, in that case, are deliberate, and they serve to embolden and facilitate the jihadist actions and weaken the targets. But that's just one example. There are countless others.
Oh, I agree. We need to respond to this, and soon.
The socialists of the 20s, didn't fly back to their home planet.