One Degree wrote:Race riots were a destabilizing factor. A goal of the USSR.
Riots are destabilizing, but you have shown no evidence that the KGB were behind them. You have shown no evidence that the KGB affected ongoing American society.
The demands of the Civil Rights movement were to be met through national socialized programs and laws.
I have no idea where you've pulled this from. This sounds like "alternate history".
It was a rising of the lower class. As stated, these were clandestine operations but were barely a secret at the time.
Again, you seem to be confusing some novel you've read with history.
If I wasted my time producing the ‘government findings’ of the time, you would reject them for the same reason I reject yours. They are a product of their time and the only truth they reveal is currently accepted truth.
That sounds paranoid. The government findings that I quote are the statistics for American income. You seem to be saying you reject them because they are modern, and you won't accept anything that comes from our time. Go ahead, however, and produce some "government findings" that back up your contention that the KGB altered American society.
Your arguments are disingenuous and I believe you know that.
My arguments are quoting statistics about American income. No, that is not 'disingenuous'. If the USA has become more socialist, you'd expect to see inequality decreasing, not increasing.
What inequality has increased? I don’t seem to see houses with dirt floors like I did in the 60’s. Are minorities less likely to hold high positions? What exact inequality are you talking about? Your statistics are meaningless if not applied to real life scenarios.
I told you, the Gini index. If that's too complicated for you to understand, then from the same data table: in 1967, the richest quintile of the USA had 42.1% of the country's income, the poorest quintile 5.6% - a ratio of 9.3:1. In 2016, the figures were 50.2% and 3.5% - a ratio of 14.3:1. The rich are getting more and more of the income in the USA. That is the opposite of what socialism should cause.
Edit: when my reasoning shows your evidence is full of shit, then my ‘feelings’ become evidence.
No, that's not how logic works. If you say "inhaling hydrogen sulfide causes malaria", and I reply that the moon is made of green cheese, when you then show that the moon is made of rock, that still hasn't provided any evidence for your initial claim about malaria.
Edit 2: Search ‘Civil Rights movement avowed Socialists’ and see the Civil Rights leaders names all pop up.
Search engine results aren't evidence. What you've written here turns up in search engine results, but that doesn't turn it into 'evidence'. There were socialists in the civil rights movement. But that doesn't mean the KGB were influencing the movement, nor does it mean that increased civil rights means the country has turned more socialist. Martin Luther King was a baptist minister, but more civil rights didn't mean that the country became more Christian, or more baptist.