Tuesday, May 19, 2009

New book lays out the evidence that left-wing journalist I. F. Stone was a KGB agent

Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, the new book that lays out the evidence that left-wing journalist I. F. Stone was a KGB agent, is now available. (Amazon link here.)

Joseph Goulden has a review in the Washington Times including this info:
... I was not surprised in the 1990s when former KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin revealed that the Soviets had worked so closely with Stone in the 1930s that they gave him a codename, "Blin," the Russian term for "pancake." (The term showed up later in the Venona papers as well.) The hateful hounds of the far left, several of whom had worked for Stone's newsletter) brayed loud denials.


But "Spies" documents that Mr. Kalugin was on target concerning Stone. He first appears in KGB files in a 1936 report from Frank Palmer ("Liberal"), identified as "part of the same New York community of pro-Communist radical journalists as Stone." Palmer had been a KGB agent for years, and he was given the OK to recruit Stone. He succeeded, for as he reported a month later, "Relations with 'Pancake' [Stone] have entered the channel of normal operational work." Those last three words denote that Stone had crossed an important Rubicon, from source to spy.


As Mr. Haynes and Mr. Klehr report, based on numerous KGB reports, "Stone assisted Soviet intelligence on a number of tasks, ranging from doing some talent spotting, acting as a courier by relaying information to other agents, and providing journalistic tidbits and data the KGB found interesting."


Pop quiz: guess which McClatchy bigwig admits to being a big I. F. Stone fan.
.
.
.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Omigish! Kim Philby, Izzie Stone, Jon Walcott -- They're all in it together!

IT'S A COMMUNIST PLOT!

I have a theory about all the socialist/Marxist namecalling. I think it takes the rightwingers back to a happier, simpler time. One simple enemy, one simple idea for one simple bunch of folks.

Anonymous said...

pstiondr
The above, minimally paid, useful idiot intern is a perfect example of the left's, and newspapers, inability to understand the world, history, or their potential readers.

John Altevogt said...

5:54 Is the perfect example of a troll. No argument, no attempt to refute the story, just insults. Wasted space from someone incapable of even simple thought.

Anonymous said...

And John, what was your 7:22 post?

McClatchy Watch said...

John Walcott, McClatchy's DC bureau chief: "I can imagine no higher honor for anyone in our profession than to be compared to I.F. Stone." (link)

John Altevogt said...

Good question. One of our posters yesterday had referred to himself as a troll, assuming that I use that term for anyone on here who disagrees with me. Not the case. And so I used the initial post to demonstrate what I have in mind when i use the term troll.

I enjoy a dialog. People who simply come here to annoy and distract from that dialog are the ones I have no use for. Thanks for asking.

John Altevogt said...

Let me add another comment on what constitutes being a troll.

Not every post will be filled with great meaning. In the course of any conversation there are comments that contribute to the dialog that simply move discourse along. The nodding of a head, a smile, a frown all provide feed back that can further the dialog, but the point here is that they do further dialog.

I notice that a couple of the folks are adding signatures to their post to distinguish themselves from the other anonymous posters and I think that's a good idea.

It's one thing to offer up a snide comment if you've already contributed something of interest to the conversation, and identifying yourself uniquely helps to indicate that.

However, some of these folks never contribute anything but snide comments. They're completely useless and I treat them as such. Old age as it were.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
McClatchy Watch said...

8:40 was deleted for violating the comment rules.

Anonymous said...

///John Walcott, McClatchy's DC bureau chief: "I can imagine no higher honor for anyone in our profession than to be compared to I.F. Stone."///

Guilt by association. McCarthy's spirit lives on.

Truth Hurts said...

To 5:54...

Sarcasm only works when it's actually witty, instead of just angry/bitter/hateful.

Your mindless vitriol is excruciatingly unfunny and witless, and I'm pretty sure you know this.

Anonymous said...

@ 8:43

Beliefs are so much easier when you don't have to confront their implications. Or do you, like Pilate, wash your hands of this?

Anonymous said...

***One of our posters yesterday had referred to himself as a troll, assuming that I use that term for anyone on here who disagrees with me. Not the case. And so I used the initial post to demonstrate what I have in mind when i use the term troll.***

Thanks for your reasoned 8:14 and 8:24 response, with no name calling and no stereotyping. But how did your 7:22 post advance the argument or refute the story? And who appointed you to do this instructing on how a blog should be run, instead of the moderator, or even better, letting readers decide for themselves which posts are worth considering and which aren't?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
McClatchy Watch said...

11:13 deleted for violating the rules.

Anonymous said...

Its a shame you deleted this advertures of shark girl, ithought it was my best one yet. oh well.

It was fun while it lasted, i got the message and will move along. it should make some folks happy here.

P:

John Altevogt said...

9:41 It is part of a dialog in which we as a group are discussing what is, and what is not, a troll. You are now participating in that dialog, so ask yourself the same questions you just asked me. I suspect that same answers apply.

Anonymous said...

A troll or weasel? Take your pick, sad human beings either way. The Urban Dictionary has many troll descriptions that illustrate what is happening on this blog now.
***
Weasel- New Urban Dictionary
A cunning, sneaky person. On internet forums they are often a liar, fake or poser.

Troll- New Urban Dictionary
1. A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject…

2. One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

John Altevogt said...

An excellent contribution to the dialog. Certainly clarifies who is, and is not, a troll on this blog. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

MNI WATCH SAID:

John Walcott, McClatchy's DC bureau chief: "I can imagine no higher honor for anyone in our profession than to be compared to I.F. Stone."
===================================
Amazing, simply amazing. The admitted depth of Marxism, liberalism, anti-Americanism, this admitted useful idiot is to his "profession."

Anonymous said...

9:41 here again. John, thanks for your civil answer, although you didn't convince me why you need to instruct us all on how a blog should be run, instead of the moderator, or even better, letting readers decide for themselves which posts are worth considering and which aren't, and who is and isn't a troll. But you've replied with no name calling or stereotyping, so thanks again. Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

2:25 PM
Why are you so worried about what John writes? You have become like a broken record. Try writing something about the subject and forget other posters. Your intent to disrupt this blog is rather transparent to me. Blogs that allow trolls to go on and on, usually lose their more serious readers. That is the object of the liberal’s mindless attacks, and it is sad it works sometimes.

Anonymous said...

4:31, why don't you let John speak for himself, stop worrying about what other posters write, and stop jumping to conclusions about others' motives. John and 2:25 had a civil exchange. You're the one who sounds like a troll.

Anonymous said...

I certainly have found it amusing that anyone who disagrees with his "highness" King John is labeled a "troll". Sad and pathetic you right wing folks are. But you stay in line. You follow the same name calling, blame everyone but yourselves mantra that those who have preceded you did.
"Oh my, it's not our fault, it's those liberal bastards." It's so nice you have this little "fan" club to keep yourselves occupied.

Anonymous said...

Notice how the libs try extra hard on this particular post to change the subject.