The Left Corrupts and Steals a Culture, It Doesn’t Convince

Just a sort of homily for today…

I was recently reading an article about the folk music scene as it developed in the 30s and 40s and it hit me that these people were yet another example of how leftists take a culture and corrupt it to push their political schemes instead of merely presenting their philosophies and legitimately winning converts.

The article on the folk music scene noted that the nationalized folk scene started in the early 30s with people like Alan Lomax, Woody Guthrie, and later Pete Seger and ultimately Bob Dylan–the latter of whom turned his back on the genera after undermining its legitimacy with his protest against it.

Folk music, as the nation came to know it, was not an organic creation, but essentially a leftist propaganda program built on the music of the common folks of the Appalachians, a generation before. But instead of crying about politics, the backwoodsie originators of the sound were singing about life, love, and family, they weren’t singing about the workers, capitalism, or the proletariat–subjects that most people equate “folk music” with today.

The fact is, these leftists dreaming their dreamy Soviet-inspired dreams in the 30s and 40s invented folk music as we think of it as a propaganda effort to push leftism, not a celebration of truly American folk music as created by the hillpeople.

In fact, folk music initially celebrated both Stalin and Hitler until Hitler turned on Russia and invaded that frozen land. Once Hitler became the anti-Stalin, folkies turned against Nazism in support of their more favored dictator, Stalin.

Then, as the Cold War began, the lefties began to angle their music toward undermining the US as much as possible.

So, what does this all mean? Only that “folk music” as we know it today, the protest song of “We Shall Overcome” ideals, your Joan Baez singing about left-wing murderer Joe Hill at Woodstock, all this is a fabrication called “American art” by leftists and based on the cultural theft of a previously generation’s truly American musical art form.

Leftists cannot simply put their ideas out there and see if they stand or fall on the strengths of their argument, they have to steal a nation’s soul, corrupt it with their political ideology, and then repackage it, blatantly claiming that they have revealed a true national art form in the doing. Liberals cannot create beauty. They can only steal it and present it as their own.

Now, just so ya’all know, I am leaving for a week in Washington DC tomorrow morning, so I am not sure how much posting I’ll be able to do until I get back on March 10. Just in case I am sporadic, you’ll know why.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Obama Sues to Allow Illinois Muslims to Skip Work W/O Being Fired
  • Brucehenry

    Well it definitely seems you could use a break, judging from this completely fullofit article.

    Many folk songs throughout the centuries have been about the imbalance of power between the haves and have nots, starting way way before the 1930s. I have no idea where you get this stuff.

    And all one has to do is check the Wikipedia page on Joe Hill to realize you are talking about a subject you know nothing about. Phoned this one in.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Joe Hill was guilty of the murder the left claims he did not commit. But I do need a break from the lies coming from your pie hole… as do the rest of the visitors to this site… and likely everyone in your life.

      • Brucehenry

        Hill was railroaded and likely innocent.

        Prove that I’ve told a lie. You can’t do it. Because it ain’t so.

        • jim_m

          Yeah, I’ll bet the whole bullet through the lung thing was just a coincidence. If he wasn’t guilty he could have proven his innocence by ponying up the names of the people that shot him and the woman he claims they were arguing about. Seems to be a heck of a lot simpler than letting yourself be executed when you could have proven your innocence so easily.

          Bruce will believe any bullshit that he thinks will advance his ideology. What a dumbass.

          • Brucehenry

            Hill did not testify as was his Fifth Amendment right. Why do you hate the Constitution, Jim? Lol.

            “On January 10, 1914, John G. Morrison and his son Arling were shot and killed in their Salt Lake City Grocery store by two armed intruders masked in red bandanas. The police first thought it was a crime of revenge, for nothing had been stolen and the elder Morrison had been a police officer, possibly creating many enemies. On the same evening, Joe Hill appeared on the doorstep of a local doctor, with a bullet wound though the left lung. Hill said he had been shot in an argument over a woman, whom he refused to name. The doctor reported that Hill was armed with a pistol. CONSIDERING MORRISON’S PAST AS A POLICE OFFICER, SEVERAL MEN HE HAD ARRESTED WERE AT FIRST CONSIDERED SUSPECTS. 12 PEOPLE WERE ARRESTED IN THE CASE BEFORE HILL WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED with the murder. A red bandana was found in Hill’s room. THE PISTOL PURPORTED TO BE IN HILL’S POSSESSION AT THE DOCTOR’S OFFICE WAS NEVER FOUND. Hill resolutely denied that he was involved in the robbery and killing of Morrison. He said that when he was shot, his hands were over his head, and the bullet hole in his coat — four inches below the exit wound in his back — seemed to support this claim. Hill did not testify at his trial. but his lawyers pointed out that FOUR OTHER PEOPLE WERE TREATED FOR BULLET WOUNDS IN SALT LAKE CITY THAT SAME NIGHT, and that the lack of robbery and Hill’s unfamiliarity with Morrison left him with no motive.

            The prosecution, for its part, produced a dozen eyewitnesses who said that the killer resembled Hill, including 13-year old Merlin Morrison, WHO SAID “THAT’S NOT HIM AT ALL” upon first seeing Hill, but later identified Hill as the murderer.

            So we have a guy who was possibly set up by the authorities who hated and feared him. A guy who had no motive, a guy who had no murder weapon, and a guy whose story seemed to be supported by the forensic evidence in the case. Of course there was the bullet in the lung, but FOUR OTHER GUYS HAD BULLET WOUNDS THAT NIGHT in Salt Lake City.

            Jim missed those parts and also the fact that 100 years ago chivalry wasn’t as dead as it is now. One might indeed refuse to publicly name an unmarried woman with whom one had been sleeping even if it cost one one’s own life. Not to mention one might not rat out a fellow Wobbly.

            Jim has never heard of a case where the authorities got a capital case wrong, or refuses to consider the possibility, and he calls others “fascists,” hilariously. He has never heard of a case of someone being railroaded, especially a member of a group hated by authorities.

          • Brucehenry

            Also, as to who will believe any bullshit that will advance his agenda, would that be like believing that Ted Kennedy “absolutely” met with the Soviets in the 1980s? Or that one had “independent corroboration” of that “fact” because several wingnut sites all reported it? Or believing that, because Warner claims it in a Wizbang headline, that some Muslim crank wants the police to stop teenagers from making out in the park means he is “demanding a separate police force to enforce Sharia”? L O freaking L.

          • jim_m

            For WIkipedia’s descripton of the incident”

            On the same evening, Joe Hill appeared on the doorstep of a local doctor, with a bullet wound through the left lung. Hill said that he had been shot in an argument over a woman, whom he refused to name. The doctor reported that Hill was armed with a pistol…

            I also found this comment revealing

            In a biography published in 2011, William M. Adler concludes that Hill was probably innocent of murder, but also suggests that Hill came to see himself as worth more to the labor movement as a dead martyr than he was alive,

            I do not believe that because he was convicted that he was guilty. I believe that he was convicted and that if his story were true that he was shot in an argument over a woman that he had proof of his innocence that he could have provided and could have provided that without having to testify. Only an asshole like you thinks that he would have had to testify to prove his story.

            And only a complete lunatic ideologue would allow himself to be falsely convicted for the purpose of advancing his agenda. In either case (he was guilty or he was ideologically driven) he deserved to die.

          • Brucehenry

            He could not have provided that evidence without revealing a sexual relationship which would have brought scandal and shame on his secret lover. As I said, in 1914 chivalry wasn’t as dead as it is in 2014. You may find that farfetched but I don’t.

            And it is hilarious to me that a guy who routinely calls others “fascists” suggests that a man “deserved to die” at the hands of the state not for committing an actual crime but for holding sincere ideological views you find repugnant. I didn’t know wanting to be a martyr was a capital offense.

          • jim_m

            He deserved to die for his desire of being a martyr. I merely advocate fulfilling his desires. Why do you hate people so much that you refuse to give them what they want? And here the state is giving him what he wanted, so you win all the way around.

          • Brucehenry

            Says the “person of education and intelligence” LOL.

          • jim_m

            One less lefty ideologue is always a good thing. If he is voluntarily exiting, who am I to stop him.

          • jim_m

            I have heard of many cases where the police got it wrong and got it wrong deliberately. I grew up in Illinois after all where the democrats run Chicago.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet you insist that because Hill was convicted he must be guilty. Surely in your expensive education there must have been some study of the history of the labor movement in America. Hill’s was not the only case of railroading union organizers.

          • jim_m

            Once again Bruce reveals himself as a jealous, hateful person who despises people of education and intelligence because he finds the fact of their ability to think for themselves and provide for themselves threatening.

            People don’t have to have an education or wealth to live with dignity. Obviously you haven’t learned that lesson, you self-loathing moron.

          • Brucehenry

            Jealous? Yeah, maybe, a little, of the opportunities you had that I didn’t. Wouldn’t trade my current life for yours, though.

            But I don’t despise people of education and intelligence. That would be your comrades who constantly whine about “elitists.”

          • jim_m

            A little jealous? You bring up my education constantly. You hate the fact that some people get chances that you didn’t. It eats you up that people got what you didn’t and deep down you want to make sure that doesn’t happen in the future.

            The lefty elite is not intelligent. They are credentialed but not educated. They are ignorant ideologues who believe themselves to be superior in every way to the rest of society, including (especially including) uneducated imbeciles like you, Bruce. I despise the leftist elite because they despise everyone else and think that they know better than everyone else how we should all run our lives and demand to have the power to force us to live as they see fit. Morons like you follow them in ignorance because you’re too damn stupid to think for yourself.

          • Brucehenry

            I see. Yes, I see how I can come across that way to someone who has a martyr complex of his own.

            The only hatred I feel for those “of education and intelligence” is reserved for those who want to pull the ladder up behind them. I have many friends, relatives, and acquaintances who have become quite successful and who DON’T espouse such a view, and I’m on quite good terms with them.

            But if it makes you feel better, Jim, I’ll try to stop snarking about your parent-given advantages. It was irrelevant to this thread anyway.

          • jim_m

            Leftist policies are all about pulling up the ladder behind them. There is a reason why income inequality grows faster under obama than under Bush or Reagan. There is a reason why the left stands against people getting out of failing schools. There is a reason why the left demands that school loans be impossible to discharge through bankruptcy and therefore having them become lifelong burdens to people.

            There is a reason why mega rich lefties like Warren Buffett think that we should have higher inheritance taxes and that is because their wealth has risen to the point that such taxes are irrelevant and they can afford to get around them.

            The whole reason that leftist cronyism works is to keep anyone else from gaining success.

            I could go on and on. All of leftist policy is predicated on keeping people poor and uneducated and preserving education for the well heeled. After all, Bruce, the parents who gave me such a good education are wealthy, radical lefties.

          • Brucehenry

            And perhaps your political views are colored by some family resentments that are none of my business. But that would explain your frequent mouth-frothing at stuff that some would call run-of-the-mill political disagreements.

          • jim_m

            No family resentments. Like most people I was raised to think as my parents do. It was when I went to college and started to think on my own that my views diverged. Politics doesn’t separate us, there are still points where we can find agreement. They aren’t unthinking ideologues like some people.

          • Brucehenry

            Glad to hear it.

            Guess there’s some other reason for your lunacy. Chemical imbalance? Molested by a lefty as a teen? Who knows?

          • jim_m

            It’s called common sense

          • Brucehenry

            I assure you your mindset is hardly common. Yes many people have similar political opinions but few arrive at them from such a place of paranoia.

          • jim_m

            I’m less paranoid that any idiot lefty who thinks that Hill was railroaded and chose to die rather that besmirch the honor of a woman. Please. When the left stops treating women like possessions and of value only for sex let me know. Your claim is ridiculous on its face.

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t claim that my “chivalry” explanation for why he didn’t name his shooter is Gospel but it is one possible explanation. If you think that someone born in 19th century Europe could not possibly have old fashioned and exaggerated ideas about besmirching the honor of a woman you are free to continue to think so.

            Whatever his motive for not naming the alleged shooter was it was up to the state to prove him guilty, which they achieved by parading 12 “eyewitnesses” whose testimony could have been coerced or paid for (and besides eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable). And also one of the “eyewitnesses” first reported “That’s not him at all,” but only later identified Hill as the murderer.

            And of course there’s the forensic evidence the jury apparently ignored.

            And there’s the fact that prosecutors have very often engaged in misconduct and even when they don’t juries often get verdicts wrong and innocent men have been sent to the gallows, especially troublemakers like Hill.

            But I’M paranoid, sure.

          • jim_m

            Yes, you are paranoid. Pony up some evidence that the 12 eyewitnesses were paid or coerced. And it is not surprising to find that the eyewitness testimony is mixed. Eyewitness testimony is always iffy. Only a moron thinks that eyewitness testimony is some iron clad proof of anything. The circumstantial evidence is what makes most cases and it does so here.

          • Brucehenry

            It does so here? How so? What circumstantial evidence beyond the bandana and the “eyewitnesses”?

            Is it the fact that no murder weapon was found? The fact that the forensic evidence of the bullet wound in the coat matched his story? The fact that there were four other bullet wounds suffered in Salt Lake City that night?

          • jim_m

            Where in the city were those other gun shots? Were they near by? Or were they across town? I don’t know but it seems that we need to know that information before we make any claims about them. We should also know whether or not the circumstances around those incidents could be established.

            Once again it boils down to the fact that he refused to identify who shot him. He doesn’t even have to bring the woman into this but he refuses to name his shooter. When you claim an alibi you need to provide something to confirm it, otherwise it isn’t an alibi at all.

          • Brucehenry

            If you name the shooter (it seems to have been the lady’s former fiance) the lady’s name will come out in the press.

            Many people apparently believe that the circumstantial evidence you have failed to show when asked points more to a guy named Frank Wilson, not Hill.


            But leave it to you, Jim, to say that the circumstantial evidence points to Hill, then when asked how, change the subject. That’s your “intellectual honesty” on display, I guess.

          • jim_m

            The circumstantial evidence did point to Hill as did at least some of the eyewitness (although not all of the eyewitnesses fingered Hill and I have previously commented on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in general).

            I’m not trying to retry the case a century later as you are. I suppose you go out to all the Free Mumia protests as well. There isn’t a lefty convicted of murder that wasn’t wrongly convicted, am I right?

          • Brucehenry

            And AGAIN, besides the fact that there was a red bandana in his room and he had a gunshot wound, WHAT circumstantial evidence pointed to Hill?

            The circumstantial evidence is that the forensic evidence of his wound fits his description of how it was acquired. The circumstantial evidence is that he had no motive, having never met the victim before, and there was nothing stolen. The circumstantial evidence is that the gun the doctor claims to have seen was never found. The circumstantial evidence is that the victim’s son said “That’s not him at all,” when first seeing Hill and only later changed his story at trial.

            On appeal, one of the judges actually seemed to deny Hill his 5th Amendment rights, when he said “The defendant may not avoid the natural and reasonable inferences of remaining silent.” Yet you imply there was no railroading.

            I don’t know anything about the Mumia case beyond the fact that it pisses wingnuts off. I’ve certainly never expressed an opinion on it.

            As to your last question, I know that many many many people have been wrongly convicted and executed over the years. What percentage of those are “lefties” I’m not sure, but I’ll bet it was substantial back in the days of the IWW, yeah.

          • jim_m

            You got me Bruce. Apart from all the evidence that was used to convict him there really wasn’t anything. You are correct, if the court had excluded all the evidence against Hill he probably would have walked free.

            I’d say that you are dumb but it’s probably just a lack of education.

          • Brucehenry

            Well you keep saying there was evidence used to convict him but don’t say what that evidence was. I keep pointing out that there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to support his story but you ignore it and insist there is some invisible evidence beyond the eyewitness testimony.

            I don’t say the court should have excluded anything, but apparently the jury didn’t CONSIDER a few things. And the jury should have been instructed not to draw any inferences from Hill’s exercise of his rights under the 5th Amendment.

          • jim_m

            You said that on the appeal the judge said that his exercise of his 5th amendment rights was suspicious. In an appeal there is no jury so there was no jury instruction of the sort you just claimed. I suppose that had you received an education you would know that appellate hearings are done before judges and not juries.

          • Brucehenry

            No no I understand that, but apparently the fact that there were no such jury instructions at trial was part of his appeal, else why would the appeals judge address it?

            Again, what circumstantial evidence beside the gunshot wound and the bandana, convicted him? The evidence I have cited would seem to tend to acquit him.

          • jim_m

            I’m not certain that there is an obligation under the law to instruct a jury that there is nothing to be read into the fact that the defendant did not testify in his own behalf.

            You had circumstances and a parade of eyewitnesses. Obviously, that was enough to erase reasonable doubt.

          • Brucehenry

            No, once again, the circumstantial evidence was exculpatory. No murder weapon. No motive. Other suspects, 12 of whom were released when prosecutors pinned this rap on Hill. Four other gunshot victims, attesting to 1914 Salt Lake City as a violent place where gunshot wounds were commonplace.

            No the only evidence seems to be 12 eyewitnesses all telling the same story (evidence in itself of something suspicious) — that they all 12 recognized Hill as the MASKED man who had shot Morrison. And one of them, Morrison’s 13 year old son, had been heard to say “That’s not him at all,” when he first saw Hill. Of course he had changed his story by the time of trial — could that have been at the behest of the authorities who hated and feared Hill?

            Juries in 1914 were not as sophisticated as today’s. A dozen eyewitnesses all saying the same thing probably did erase doubt. That doesn’t mean his conviction was just, now does it?

            And yes, I’m reasonably sure that jury instructions to the effect of “No inference should be made as to the defendant’s guilt solely because he claimed his 5th Amendment rights” IS obligatory — but maybe it wasn’t in 1914.

            EDIT: I’m right about that — but I confess I don’t know how widely recognized this principle was in 1914:


          • jim_m

            Motive is not circumstantial.

            Lack of a murder weapon is significant but not exculpatory. Check out the Aaron Hernandez trial. There is no murder weapon. If the lack thereof were exculpatory they wouldn’t bother charging him.

            I suggest you avail yourself of a dictionary and look these terms up so you know what it is that you are saying. Otherwise you just look, (hmmm what is the term?) uneducated. (Yeah! That’s it!)

          • Brucehenry

            Whether I have the correct legal terminology down is irrelevant since you have yet to name one single piece of circumstantial evidence, other than the bandana and the gunshot wound, to support your statement that circumstantial evidence was what convicted this guy.

            Lack of a murder weapon is one more circumstance that juries must consider. But perhaps I should have said the evidence “tended toward the exculpatory” rather than inadvertently implying (if that’s what I did) that because there was no murder weapon found the case was worthless. The forensic evidence, which is also, I believe, considered “circumstantial,” was also not given its due weight.

            Not to mention that you don’t seem to know what judges are required to tell juries about 5th amendment claims. So your education has availed you little, apparently, beyond an opportunity to lord it over a jealous peon.


          • jim_m

            I did not claim that circumstantial evidence was all that was used to convict in this case. I simply said that there was circumstantial evidence as well as the eye witness testimony.

            Lack of evidence is not circumstantial. It is just a lack of evidence. It makes for a weaker case because it is always easier to convict when you can tie the murder weapon to the accused.

            I am not a lawyer, as you know, but then I have not made the silly claims that you have and I have not tried to retry this case as you have.

            I only bring up the education because it seems to irritate you so. But then I could probably trot out my high school diploma to do that.

          • Brucehenry

            Aaaand again, you are the one who said that circumstantial evidence made this case. But the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence seems to be exculpatory, starting with the bullet hole in the coat and ending with the fact that no motive was shown (whether or not that fact technically qualifies as “circumstantial”).

            As to the education thingie, I made one passing reference to your education being expensive. YOU were the one who got all butthurt and made a big deal of it, not me. But I don’t mind going along for the ride and helping you feel like a big man because someone else bought you something.

            You are not a lawyer, but you HAVE made the silly claim that juries are free to make what they will of the fact of a claim of 5th Amendment rights. They are not. At least not if the judge is doing his job.

          • jim_m

            No the bullet hole only fits his story but does not exclude the possibility that it still could have been gotten in the crime.

            For there to be something exculpatory it has to exclude the defendant from having committed the crime. Simply fitting in with his story doesn’t make it exculpatory. His story is simply an alternative interpretation of the evidence. That certain facts could potentially fit both that story and the crime does not make them exculpatory.

            I only bust your balls on the education thing because it is so dreadfully obvious that you are jealous of people who get one. Sorry that your class hatred runs so deep. But since it is a sore spot you can count on hearing lots more about how stupid you are.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL I guess that’s fair enough.

            And from now on you can count on me only bringing up your expensive private school education when you whine about others not hauling themselves up by their own bootstraps, as you were never required to do. In this case I violated that precondition.

            Thanks for clearing up for me the definition of “exculpatory.” I trust you knew what I meant, even if it wasn’t technically the correct word.

            And exculpatory or not, there is enough evidence on Hill’s side for reasonable people to still argue about the case 100 years later. You have already agreed that cops often get it wrong and, quite often, deliberately so. Why you insist that this could not possibly be the case in the Hill trial is a mystery…oh wait no it’s not.

          • jim_m

            I think because the jury is free to think whatever they wish of the defendant’s decision not to testify and that is the point. You have a right not to testify but the jury can make of that what they will.

            Defendants are always demanding jury instructions that favor them (and their lawyers are always arguing for such instructions. They wouldn’t be doing their job if they did not), but asking for them does not mean that they are correct or that you are not getting justice.

          • Brucehenry

            No. See link.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and I love the claim that he is some chivalric hero when he is mixed up with another man’s fiance. So he is Chivalrously defending her honor by concealing their sexual relationship but he is not so chivalrous that he wasn’t screwing her to begin with.

            A man of honor would not have become entangled in such a relationship and if there was nothing to the accusations then there was no reasonable expectation that she would be dishonored by naming a woman with whom he had no relationship.

            You are trying to have it both ways and it just doesn’t work.

          • Brucehenry

            And yes, I’m sure you do indeed see yourself as a superhero. Of course you do.

            Too funny.

          • jim_m

            NO. I find the image funny and sadly accurate regarding common sense. I do not find it surprising that you fail to understand satire.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so.

          • jim_m

            Perhaps if you were educated…

          • Brucehenry

            Got me.

        • 914

          Nice dead horse, snaggle tooth..

      • LiberalNightmare

        A union rep, implicated in a murder scheme?!? Wow! That almost never happens.

    • 914

      I would call you on your stupidity, but that would be a gross under statement!!

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Typical of Huston, he says folk music becoming popular in the early 30’s, in the USA because of Stalin, and the dreamy inspired Soviet state, but nowhere in the entire post does he mention the Great Depression, which was the real inspiration and subject and revival of folk music and folk artists like the Carter family , “No Depression in Heaven,” by Ap Carter. I’m going where there’s no depression,
    To the lovely land that’s free from care.
    I’ll leave this world of toil and trouble,
    My home’s in Heaven, I’m going there.
    It is hard to write a whole article on the development of the history of folk music in the 20th century in America, without once referring to the great Depression in the 30`s but if there is one person who can do it, it is Huston.

    • 914

      Yes, we all know ‘Huston’ is the threat to life as we know it. How do you suggest we deal with him boldly presenting a topic for your discretionary befuddlement?

  • Paul Hooson

    The famous antiVietnam War song by Country Joe And the Fish, “I Feel Like I’m Fixin’ To Die Rag” was involved in a lawsuit with daughter of Kid Ory accused of ripping off his 1927 “Muskrat Ramble”. But, after failure to renew their copyright for the song, courts ruled in favor of Country Joe McDonald. Despite his antiwar sentiments, McDonald was a former Navy veteran himself but come from a very leftist family in Berkley. Both his mother and father were CPUSA (Communist Party USA) members. They even named their child Joe, after Joseph Stalin, but later renounced the CPUSA. – Country Joe was probably one of the most radical of 60’s protest singers.
    The two songs have a lot of similar features.
    With the writing of Jim Morrison, The Doors also had some of the most radical 60’s songs as well, with “Five To One” and “Tell All The People” even advocating revolution with guns. But, guitarist Robbie Krieger later became a George W. Bush supporter in 2004, helping the president’s re-election campaign.