Category Archives: Communist Connections

Top Ten Goals in the Communist Manifesto, Accomplished in America. Idea For Federal Income Tax Comes From Karl Marx.

download (14)
Top 10 Goals in the Communist Manifesto, Accomplished in America.

Source: TheDailyBell.com

By Joe Jarvis – May 05, 2018

Plenty of stupid ideas kill people. But one man’s stupid ideas have killed over a hundred million people.

Karl Marx was born 200 years ago today. And despite the utter failure of his communist philosophy in practice, the cult lives on. Still people want to try again… this time they will get it right.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels originally published The Communist Manifesto in 1848. It laid out the beliefs and action plan of the Communist Party. The goal was to get communists of every nationality to rise up and unite to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors.”

Little did they know their words would be used by the likes of Stalin and Mao as justification for over 100 million murders meant to supposedly move society forward.

In America, the goals of the communists have crept their way into society with little fanfare. Many people have no idea that public schools, the graduated income tax, and even a central state-controlled bank (like the Federal Reserve) were tenets of the Communist Manifesto.

The points are boiled down in one section of the manifesto to a list of ten main goals. These are the goals, in Marx and Engels’ own words, followed by an analysis of how deeply they have seeped into the United States governing structure.

“1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.”

Also known as property taxes. Can you really say you own land if you must pay the government every year in order to keep it? Fail to pay your rent, and they will eventually confiscate “your” land. This money is then used for “public purposes” like public schools (just wait for #10) and police, who will remove you from the government’s land if you fail to pay your rent.

And if the local government can fine you for keeping a front yard garden, or backyard chickens, do you really own the land anyway? Sounds like the proletariat traded capitalist oppressors for government oppressors.

The federal government owns outright 28% of all land in the United States, 640 million acres. This includes the Bureau of Land Management’s 248 million acre turf used to control or oppress political dissidents like Cliven Bundy. “The BLM is also responsible for subsurface mineral resources in areas totaling 700 million acres.” That means they control almost three times as much land as they own.

Each state government owns an average of 8.7% of its state’s land. This source claims the feds own over 31% of the U.S. landmass, which brings the combined state and federal total ownership to almost 40% of all land in the USA.

And let’s not forget about eminent domain, where the government can just take your land for “public use” (or public benefit) with “just compensation.” If the compensation isn’t just, simply take the most powerful government on Earth to court–courts that they own. I’m sure you will be treated fairly.

“2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

Even after the latest tax cuts, the federal income tax rates range from 10% to 37%.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 20% of income earners in the U.S. will pay 87% of all income taxes this year. These people who earn $150,000 or more account for 52% of the income earned in the USA, but will pay almost all of the income taxes, 87%.

The top 1% of earners– the evil bourgeois making over $730,000 per year–will actually pay over 43% of all income taxes this year.

So 1% of earners who make 16% of the country’s total income will pay 43% of the total income tax.

Sounds like way more than their “fair share” to me, but the communists won’t be satisfied until everything is owned by the state.

“3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.”

They want to fleece the rich one more time when they die, even though all that wealth was taxed already as income or capital gains.

Estate Tax, or Death Tax, is one of the more egregious oppressions of the federal government.

There is a hefty exemption–the first $11 million is not taxed. While that means few typical people will be affected, it still fits with the communist strategy of demonizing the rich.

And every dollar over that exemption is taxed at 40%.

When you think about it, $11 million is not so much money when you are talking about a business, even relatively small family businesses that might be passed down through inheritance.

If a business is worth $15 million, the family of the deceased would owe $1.6 million. If they don’t have $1.6 million hanging around, they might have to dismantle the business in order to pay the taxes. That could mean a loss of good proletariat jobs and a hit to the economy.

The same could happen to a piece of land or estate that has been in the family for generations.

State level estate taxes add additional costs, sometimes with lower exemptions.

But the communists are smart, they demonize the people they rob. So no one feels bad for “the rich” because they will have plenty left over when the government is done with them. Although that too could change…

“4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.”

Let’s start with the Exit Tax.

Why don’t you just move out of America if you don’t like the taxes?

Well, America taxes it’s citizens worldwide, even if they do not live or work in the USA.

Why not renounce your citizenship then?

That is one option. But it’s actually not free. In fact, the U.S. confiscates a serious percentage of property from emigrants.

It is called the Exit Tax. It gets complicated, but basically, the government is going to tax you on your net worth, as if you just sold all your assets.

If you don’t have the liquid cash to cover that, you would actually have to start selling assets–property, stocks, etc.–in order to pay the Exit Tax. Of course, you would be taxed on the income or capital gains first, and then would have to pay the exit tax with what is left over… The good news (?) is you would have less overall net worth to be taxed upon your renunciation.

Okay, but again, a big part of being a communist is hating rich people. People with less than $700,000 of capital gains in their net worth are much less affected by the exit tax.

So let’s turn to confiscation of rebels’ property that affects the poorest proletariat… civil asset forfeiture.

This is often used against poor people who cannot afford to defend themselves in court. The police simply steal property or cash that they “suspect” was involved in some type of crime, without having to prove anything. You have to prove your innocence if you want your car, house, or cash back.

So if cops think a wad of cash came from selling drugs, it’s theirs. If they think your car was bought with the proceeds of drug sales, maybe because they found an ounce of weed and some baggies, they can take the car, without charging you with a drug dealing.

Police seized over $50,000 from a Christian Rock band that had collected donations for an orphanage. Between 2001 and 2016, “more than $2.5 billion in cash seizures had occurred on the nation’s highways without either a search warrant or an indictment.”

And that’s not even counting the more than $3.2 billion the DEA has seized since 2007 without filing civil or criminal charges.

Just having cash is a pretty low bar to be considered a rebel. Then again, what should we expect from a communist doctrine?

“5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

I wonder if today’s communists are aware of this one. They can’t possibly think the Federal Reserve helps the proletariat, yet that is exactly what the manifesto describes.

Some people might disagree that the Federal Reserve is state owned. Technically it has a private board, although board members are appointed by politicians. I suppose in that sense you could call it more fascist than communist–the government doesn’t own the bank, the bank owns the government.

The Fed sets the interest rates, prints money, and finances much of the debt of the United States government. Without the Fed, it would be much harder for the government to control the people–the homes they buy, the loans they get, the interest on their savings, and even how much of that savings is robbed through inflation.

“6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.”

FCC, FTC, DOT, FAA, TSA, CBP–oh it’s an alphabet soup of communications and transport regulators.

They regulate the phone lines, the roadways, air traffic, rails, mail and package delivery.

This is nothing new. Around the same time, Marx was writing the manifesto, Lysander Spooner was doing something productive with his time. Spooner started the American Letter Mail Company to compete with the U.S. Postal Service. He undercut their prices and provided better customer service, but was fined and cited for breaking laws which protected the government monopoly. He was forced out of business in 1851.

The government doesn’t quite have control over the internet, but they did create the conditions to allow a handful of companies control access to the internet.

The NSA monitors every communication, and the Department of Homeland Security commissioned a database to track all journalists and media influencers who mention the DHSCustoms and Border Protection performs unconstitutional searches at the border, whether you are an American or foreign.

And of course, you can’t go out in public without running the risk of being harassed by local, state, and federal police. You don’t have the right to travel without justifying every action to a police officer, while they often get off scot-free for murder.

“7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.”

The state has certainly dabbled in factory ownership, like the GM bailout. They control utilities like water and power. And they have certainly subsidized their fair share of business from oil and solar panels to sugar and corn.

We can refer back to #1 to see how much land the government controls, often under the auspices of improving soil and protecting wastelands.

Then there are plenty of government contractors which are basically the same thing as a government-owned company. If 100% of their revenue comes from the government, they are not a private company. This is especially prominent in the defense industry, which is where the term military-industrial-complex comes from. And then think about the roads the government contracts out to build.

The government spends about 34% of the GDP every year. That is a significant percentage of the economy which the government owns.

“8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.”

Yes, the Communist Manifesto proposes enslaving all those unwilling to work.

Now, it might not seem like the U.S. government forces people to work. But you have to make money just to park your ass on a plot of land. Local governments want property taxes, which means you must make a certain amount of money just to have a place to live.

Otherwise, you could conceivably save up for a piece of land, and once you buy it outright, you would be done. But even renting has the built-in costs of property tax.

And the fact that the government claims the authority to tax you on everything you earn basically means you have a liability to labor for the government if you want to labor at all.

Most of us cannot go through life without earning something to pay for necessities. But we can’t just earn what we need, we must earn way more than we need because the government will take a huge chunk of our income.

We tend to think about taxes as a percentage of our income. But what about as a percentage of our time? The government forces you to work as its slave from about January through April every year. In a typical career, you will spend in total more than 14 full years working as a slave for the government.

“9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.”

The government helped create factory farming by regulating all the small-scale producers out of business.

Reason reports that USDA regulations have forced small slaughterhouses to close in favor of large factory-style slaughterhouses. This might sound like a good idea at first. But consider that when one infected animal makes its way to a slaughterhouse, it can contaminate so much meat.

Having many slaughterhouses distributed across the U.S. meant that any infections were localized, and affected far fewer people. Plus when the slaughterhouse is local, it is easier to know the owners and see the conditions for yourself. The animals are raised closer to home, also providing more opportunity for market oversight of the process. No hiding away from the consumers on a vast gated factory ranch.

The U.S. government has long subsidized large crop producers, which makes it that much harder for smaller farms to compete.

It started with the Farm Bill in 1933 and continues to this day.

What we get is cheap, but unhealthy products. And even though the products on the shelf look cheap, we already paid for them with our tax dollars.

The problem is, I don’t want to buy unhealthy things loaded with high fructose corn syrup. But my money will pay for that crap whether I like it or not. Then I have to spend my money on healthy items that are more expensive because they have to compete with subsidized products.

That’s where the government incentives for factory farming have got us.

“10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.”

This may be tenth on the list, but it is number one in ensuring all the rest fall into place.

American communists got this goal in place just four years after the Communist Manifesto was published, with Massachusetts enacting the first compulsory public education law in 1852. After that, it was only a matter of time until the population was indoctrinated to believe whatever the government taught them.

The book Teen 2.0: Saving Our Children and Families from the Torment of Adolescence delves in depth into the history and injustice of compulsory schooling.

It was designed so that the state and corporations could work together to train an obedient workforce, with the public footing the bill.

The point was not open minds and a desire to learn. The aim of the education was setting students up for whatever mediocre to low paying jobs the industrialists wanted them to fill.

The communists succeeded in getting exactly what they wanted out of American schools. And today we see the growing gap between what people learn in school, and what skills they actually need for good jobs. The communists have got the American education system stuck in a stagnant philosophy of industrial labor.

Of course, they did it with supposedly the best intentions. Sounds like a good idea to save kids from dangerous work. But in the process, they also robbed children and young adults of their autonomy and choice. They forced kids against their will into a government institution and set the course for their entire lives.

And that is the most important lesson that the communists want to teach in schools. It is all about obedience to government.

Karl Marx is like the anti-Midas. Everything his philosophy touches turns to shit. Is it any wonder that America is stagnating? You cannot grow with a communist philosophy. It doesn’t take into account the beautiful creative independence of individuals. It treats people like cattle. It robs people of the rewards of their labor.

I rue this day, 200 years ago.

Dayton Ohio Shooter Was A Communist Antifa Member Who Worshipped Satan.

050819shooter

OHIO SHOOTER WAS A RADICAL LEFTIST WHO SUPPORTED ELIZABETH WARREN.

Media quiet on Dayton gunman’s motive.

By Paul Joseph Watson |

Source: Infowars.com – AUGUST 5, 2019

While the media has been quick to blame President Trump for the mass shooting in El Paso, they are noticeably quieter about the mass shooter in Ohio, who described him self as a “socialist,” praised Antifa and expressed support for Elizabeth Warren.

Before it was suspended last night, Connor Betts’ Twitter feed made it clear that he was a left-wing fringe extremist. Amongst other things, Betts;

– Described himself as a “leftist”

– Tweeted “I want socialism”.

– Tweeted “Warren I’d happily vote for”.

– Retweeted Bernie Sanders numerous times.

– Retweeted Antifa accounts numerous times.

– Tweeted “kill every fascist”.

– Tweeted “burn the world to the ground to start the new one”.

– Repeatedly tweeted “hail Satan”.

EBJK8wAWsAERMiP

EBJ5_0hXsAE-hRh

– Expressed praise and sympathy for the Antifa terrorist who attempted to firebomb an ICE facility, calling him a “martyr”.

– Used Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “concentration camp” rhetoric.

– Tweeted “vote blue for gods sake”.

– Wore a patch that said “Against All Gods”.

– Expressed support for the “punch a Nazi” meme.

– Retweeted Right Wing Watch’s Jared Holt.

– Advocated for gun control.

Chris Menahan has archived all of this and more right here.

Does any of this mean Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are to blame for the actions of one sick individual. No. But that same courtesy has to be extended to President Trump.

America saw two tragic mass shootings this weekend. One by a right-wing extremist and one by a left-wing extremist.

However, only the motive of the right-wing extremist is being discussed by the media.

Only one side of the political spectrum immediately exploited the bloodshed to push their agenda, and that wasn’t President Trump or his supporters.

For All The Proof You Need Click Link Below.

Ohio Shooter Connor Betts Was A Leftist Antifa Supporter, Praised Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren

People Who Support Gay Pride Movement Also Support Marxist Family Planning Methods.

PROTESTOR MOCKS DEMONSTRATORS SUPPORTING CONSECRATION OF FIRST OPENLY
GAY EPISCOPAL BISHOP.

Americans Buy Into Marxist Family Planning.

Thefederalist.com

By Paul Kengor
JUNE 29, 2015

Marx and Engels’ ten-point plan for imposing Communism includes drastic anti-family measures many Americans support today.

If you’ve never read “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, published in 1848, you should—especially right now.

To be sure, reading this awful screed against human nature can be confusing, let alone unsatisfying and thoroughly unedifying. What do the authors mean, for example, when they screech: “Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists”?

What, precisely, Marx and Engels meant by “abolition” is a subject for debate, which I detail in my book, “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage.” There, I discuss at length the communist founding fathers’ disturbing views of family, marriage, sexuality, and more.

They are but one stop in a long line of leftists such as Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Alexandra Kollontai, Margaret Sanger, Margaret Mead, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Betty Friedan, Kate Millett, the Bolsheviks, the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxists, Mao Tse-Tung, assorted ’60s radicals from Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn to Mark Rudd and Tom Hayden, and on to modern groups like the Beyond Marriage campaign and various gay-marriage activists—all just for starters—who have engaged in a long march to fundamentally transform natural, traditional, biblical marriage and the family.

Although they varied in their beliefs, all bristle at the idea of a God or absolute designer who has devised eternally established standards for male-female marriage and family. Communists today, in places like People’s World, at the website of Communist Party USA, and even in once militantly anti-gay places like Castro’s Cuba, are embracing same-sex marriage as the long-awaited vehicle they’ve sought for centuries to reshape, redefine, and take down natural-traditional-biblical marriage—and to attack religion and religious believers. They are beside themselves in a mix of befuddlement and joy to see the mainstream culture finally with them, at long last, in one of their numerous efforts to redefine family and marriage.

This is not say, of course, that you’ll find support for same-sex marriage in the writings of Marx and Engels. Please. Don’t be silly. No group of radicals ever in the 2,000-year sweep of the Judeo-Christian West ever contemplated that. The mere fleeting contemplation, the mere momentary notion, the slightest passing fancy of a man legally marrying another man (with widespread cultural acceptance) in the 1850s or 1950s, or as recently as the 1980s or 1990s, would have been scoffed at as inanely incomprehensible.

Marx and Engels’ Hatred for Family

Nonetheless, along the road that prodded civilization toward this historically extreme spot, some influential forces emerged on the far Left that cannot and should not be ignored. Among certain elements was a pronounced sexual radicalism that arguably helped surface the road, or at least broke the ground. One such element was the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt School, which had an especially strong impact upon American universities, particularly in the 1960s.
‘Blessed is he who has no family,’ Marx wrote to Engels.

But that would come later, a century after Marx and Engels. For this article, let’s stick with Marx and Engels. I cannot here reiterate what requires many pages to detail, but, in short, Marx and Engels were no great fans of marriage and family. “Blessed is he who has no family,” Marx wrote to Engels, where he was at best joking (funny, eh?).

Their final semi-partnership was an 1884 book published by Engels a year after Marx’s death. Titled, “The Origin of the Family,” Engels in the preface makes clear that the book reflected Marx’s views. Engels there stated that Marx had wanted to undertake this particularly important work and had produced extensive extracts up until his death, which Engels had reproduced in the book “as far as possible.” In fact, many of the ideas in “The Origin of the Family” can be found in the first joint work by Marx and Engels, “The German Ideology,” which was not published during their lifetimes. Scholars of the work are certain that “The Origin of the Family” was essentially a joint work of the two founders of Marxism, one scholar calling it “an impressive unity and continuity over four decades in the basic outlines of their thoughts.”

There, and elsewhere, we see, among other things, a fanatical push to abolish all right of inheritance, to end home and religious education, to dissolve monogamy in marriage, to pursue pre- and extra-marital sex, to foster and “tolerate” (as Engels put it) the “gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse” by unmarried women, to nationalize all housework, to shift mothers into factories, to move children into daycare nurseries, to separate children into community collectives apart from their natural parents, and, most of all, for society and the state to rear and educate children.

As Engels envisioned, “the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not.”

Communists’ Ten-Point Plan for Erasing Families

Some of these ideas were already emerging in “The Communist Manifesto.” There, Marx and Engels included a shocking but telling 10-point plan for their new ideal of humanity. Here it is, in direct quotation:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Confiscation of all property of emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal obligation of all to work….
… gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.

Free education for all children in public schools…

That is what The Communist Manifesto really says, and, worse, desired for not one country but the whole world. It is a prescription, obviously, for despotism, as Marx himself conceded, prefacing his ten points: “Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads.”

Marxism was not hijacked by despots; Marxism demanded despots. Only a fool would not instantly, intuitively realize that implementing this vision would necessarily generate mass bloodshed. This is why, I imagine, most Marxist professors dare not have students read “The Communist Manifesto.” Their students tell me all the time: “‘The Communist Manifesto’ is actually a pretty good book with good ideas if you simply take the time to read it.” My response: “Really, have you read it? I have.” That response always elicits a blank stare.

But back to the point on marriage and family. Note that severalof these ten points in the Marx-Engels plan would directly impact the family. Look at points one, two, three, nine, and ten. Among them, just a few highlights and comments.

How Communism Destroys Families

Note the call in point three to terminate “all right of inheritance.” Marx and Engels saw inheritance as a menace that perpetuated the role of traditional family. How could a classless society guarantee equality of income when some persons at birth were unjustly handed more income from their parents than others?

How could a classless society guarantee equality of income when some persons at birth were unjustly handed more income from their parents than others?

This is ironic, given that both Marx and Engels existed and operated off Engels’ inheritance, which subsidized their work, especially after Marx sucked as much money as he could from his own financially drained parents, who were very bitter at how he exploited them. Marx’s relationship to his parents was plainly parasitic. Marx’s mom openly expressed the wish that Karl stop writing about capital and start accumulating some of it for him and his family. Nonetheless, there was their recommendation: abolish all right of inheritance.

Of course, inheritance was about private property, which Marx and Engels despised. In fact the central goal of “The Communist Manifesto” is just that. The authors summed up: “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

Point nine in the ten-point plan of Marx and Engels called for “gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.” This obviously and painfully affected families. For Communist regimes in nations like Cambodia, this “gradual abolition” took the form of immediate overnight mass deportations at the tip of automatic rifles, a sickeningly drastic action that was vividly captured in the 1984 film “The Killing Fields.”

Separate Children and Parents

Another who took this advice to extremes was Leonid Sabsovich, the leading Soviet urban planner under Lenin and Stalin. In a series of influential writings published by the Kremlin in the late 1920s, Sabsovich argued for a total separation of children from parents starting in the earliest years of child development. Sabsovich excoriated those who disagreed. Those who found his suggestion of full child-parent separation unnatural and unwelcome were unprogressive cretins “soaked in petit bourgeois and ‘intelligentsia-like’ prejudices.” They were bigots. Likewise befitting a diehard leftist, he advocated absolute state power to steamroll those in his way.

Leonid Sabsovich argued for a total separation of children from parents starting in the earliest years of child development.

Sabsovich insisted that because the child should be and was the property of the state, rather than the family, the state had the right to compel parents to turn over their offspring to specially designed “children’s towns.” These towns needed to be built “at a distance from the family.” Such extreme family proposals by this urban communist would be incorporated within his plans for creating the ideal “socialist city.”

Finally, and briefly, look at point ten in the grand plan of Marx and Engels: They wanted “free education” for every child in “public schools.” No more of what they denounced as the “hallowed correlation of parent and child” and “bourgeois claptrap about the family and education.” Overall, stated Marx and Engels, “The communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.”

Yes, no wonder.

Among those ideas, at the epicenter, was natural, traditional, biblical family and marriage. It had to be targeted. Alas, only now, two centuries later, is it finally being redefined. In perhaps the most radical rapture of all, those pushing the redefinition are not crackpot German atheistic philosophers in European cafes but everyday mainstream Americans, Mr. and Mrs. Mainstreet.

What they are not only advocating but vigorously and often militantly pushing is the most radical rupture of traditional relations of all—so radical that Marx and Engels would be dumbfounded at the mere thought of where America and the West stand today on same-sex marriage. We are breaking entirely new ground in the long, long sweep of human history, and the groundbreakers act as if it is no big deal whatsoever; to the contrary, they portray those against gay marriage as the extremists, and, of course, as the “hatemongers.”

This is an especially exciting time for extreme leftists. They are no doubt dizzied by their success and, even more so, by their unexpected allies in the mainstream culture. They are genuinely transforming human nature. And they are doing it with the unwitting support of a huge swath of oblivious citizens. It has been a long time coming.

Proof U.S. Colleges Are Nothing More Than Communist Front Organizations For Youth Indoctrination.

download (17)

College Tries to Destroy “White Privilege” Family — Instead Loses $44 Million Judgment

TheNewAmerican.com

Written by Selwyn Duke

Saturday, 15 June 2019

Chalk one up for the deplorables. Imagine you’re victimized by a criminal who shoplifts from your store and who then, when you intervene, beats you with the help of two other men. Now imagine that though they end up pleading guilty and admitting you did no wrong, you’re targeted by their nearby college with defamation and for destruction. This is precisely what befell the owners of Gibson’s Bakery in Oberlin, Ohio. Yet this story has a happy ending (well, almost an ending): A jury has just awarded the Gibsons $44 million, to be paid by their tormentor, Oberlin College. (Five Gibsons are shown here with their attorney in the foreground.)

Gibson’s Bakery is a fifth-generation business established in 1885 and had long had contracts with the college. But this didn’t stop the institution of “higher learning” from taking the low road after the owner wouldn’t allow himself to be victimized by one of its students. American Greatness relatessome background:

The lawsuit stems from a November 2016 shoplifting incident in which a student tried to buy alcohol with a fake ID and shoplift items. He was chased from the store by Allyn D. Gibson. The two got into an altercation outside, and two more students joined [and beat Gibson]. The students are black, while the Gibsons are white. Following the incident, other students protested, alleging a pattern of racist behavior by the Gibsons….

The students involved in the shoplifting incident all pleaded guilty to misdemeanors, and stated their culpability in court while noting Gibson’s reaction was not racially motivated.

Despite the facts, the “college joined in with the protests against the business [and] severed its catering relationship with the bakery,” American Greatness further relates.

The school’s aggressiveness was reflected in the jury finding that “the school and Oberlin’s vice president and dean of students, Meredith Raimondo, [were] guilty of libel after Raimondo allegedly helped pass out flyers claiming that the bakery was ‘racist’ and had a history of ‘racial profiling and discrimination,’” reports Fox News.

This accusation was false. In fact, if it had been true, why would Oberlin have maintained its long relationship with the bakery?

“The jury also found that the college (not Raimondo) was guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress for [sic] the owner, David Gibson, as well as libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress on his son,” Fox continues.

As a result, the jury awarded family members more than $11 million in actual or compensatory damages and, later, added $33.2 million in punitive damages. (Ohio law will likely limit the latter, however, to twice the $11 million figure.) Oberlin will have to pay the Gibsons’ legal fees as well.

If this seems extreme, realize how egregious the school’s behavior was. The Gibsons are hard-working, middle-American people who long woke up, probably in the wee hours, to bake goods for Oberlin’s students. Yet the school treated these victims like victimizers, participating in a pattern of destruction that forced the Gibsons to lay off most of their staff, stop taking salaries for two years, and almost go out of business.

Moreover, Oberlin then used their torments as leverage, at one point telling the Gibsons that they’d renew their lucrative contracts if the bakers dropped the charges against the criminal students (the contracts were eventually renewed, anyway). David Gibson’s post-verdict comments (video below) reflect the emotional distress the school inflicted.

Gibson praised the jury’s bravery, but his family deserves similar recognition. They could have bent to the blackmail but held firm — and beat a Goliath.

The school used every trick in the book, too. “Oberlin argued at trial that it isn’t liable because its students, not the college, were to blame for harming Gibson’s,” wrote Paul Mirengoff of Powerline. “Then, at the damages phase, Oberlin argued that the college shouldn’t be slammed with a big damages assessment because that outcome would harm its students.” (If the school is so concerned about them, perhaps it could lower the attendance costs — $71,330 annually.)

Note also when hearing Oberlin plead poverty that its endowment is $887.4 million and it has more than $1 billion in assets.

Unfortunately, the school is unrepentant and vows to appeal the verdict, in what may “turn out to be a lengthy and complex legal process,” as Oberlin’s president, Carmen Twillie Ambar, put it.

Ambar also states that “none of this will sway us from our core values.” But what might they be? What kind of “values” causes you to torment innocent victims with a hate hoax and seek their destruction? What values are represented by Dean Raimondo who, in emails released during the trial, “attacked her own colleagues who defended the Gibsons and discussed, quote, “unleashing the students on Gibson’s bakery,” as Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson reported Friday evening (video well worth watching below)?

Carlson’s guest, Cornell Law School professor Bill Jacobson, weighed in on those values. “[B]ecause of the crazed … so-called social-justice movement on our campuses,” he said, the Gibsons “were immediately designated an oppressor, in part because of their skin color, in part because they’re the owner of a business.” He said they were thus pigeonholed as “racists” and racial profilers — and no one cared about the facts.

This conclusion is inescapable. When innocent victims are viewed as unquestionably guilty, regardless of the facts — and those judging them aren’t making money off the persecution — prejudice is the only explanation.

Oberlin’s behavior reflected the vile “white privilege” racial ideology now status quo on college campuses. Leftists, who once trumpeted Martin Luther King’s enjoinment to judge others by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, have in their topsy-turvy, morally inverted world turned that on its head. White=guilty/black=innocent was all Oberlin needed to know.

As to what they know now, many commentators believe the jury verdict sends the message that normal Americans are fed up with ivory-tower types’ abuse and that social-injustice-warrior persecution won’t be tolerated. Unfortunately, here’s the message I suspect academia has gotten:

Don’t get caught.

Be more careful.

Don’t detail your malicious machinations in writing.

Also note that while Oberlin will almost assuredly have to pay out, personal accountability is unlikely here. With academia’s phenomenon of “failing upwards,” as Professor Jacobson put it, Dean Raimondo probably won’t be on the unemployment line. After all, Marvin Krislov, president of Oberlin when the Gibson persecution began, is now out of that job.

He’s now president of Pace University in New York City, a bigger institution where, if his predecessor is any indication, he’s commanding a salary of $700,000 a year.

Communist Party USA Is 100 Years Old This Year.

02e285f9eb235db1b9d54bc053b4a8b1_M
Written by Steve Byas
Thursday, 23 May 2019
TheNewAmerican.com

It was in 1919 that a majority of the membership of the Socialist Party of the United States voted to join the Comintern, established by the Bolsheviks who had seized power in Russia in late 1917, as a way of promoting world revolution.

This year, 2019, marks 100 years of the Communist Party USA, founded as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Soviet Union, yet the importation of communist ideas to America precedes even the founding of the United States. The notion that communal, or communist, ownership of property was morally and practically superior to the private ownership of property actually goes back to the earliest days of American history. Both the colonists at Jamestown and the colonists at Plymouth attempted what can best be described as “small c” communism, leading to starvation.

Despite this example of the foolhardiness of such a plan, when the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth, they believed that they could make a communal system work. They couldn’t, of course, and Governor William Bradford explained what happened in his book, Of Plymouth Plantation: “This community … was found to breed such confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.… They deemed it a kind of slavery.”

One would think that such history would have been enough, yet throughout American history there have always been some with sympathy for such a system. For example, Horace Greeley was the publisher of the New York Tribune and a member of the Communist International. He even hired Karl Marx, the author of The Communist Manifesto, as a European correspondent. Another prominent American member of the Communist International was Senator Charles Sumner.

Many such examples could be offered, but it was not until the Bolsheviks staged a violent coup d’etat against the Russian government in 1917 that revolutionary communism had actually captured a country. They quickly formed the Third Communist International (the Comintern), and plotted world revolution. Hungary briefly went communist and Germany almost followed.

Cooking Up Communism in America

But no greater prize could be imagined in the Communist Conspiracy to establish their one-world government than to take over the United States, and this was the avowed goal in the establishment of the Communist Party USA in 1919.

This group was led by John Reed and Benjamin Gitlow, but they were denied admission into the Socialist convention. Reed had been in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, and was so thrilled with what had transpired that he wrote a book about it — Ten Days That Shook the World. (Not surprisingly, Hollywood eventually made a laudatory movie, Reds, based on Reed’s book). Reed, Gitlow, and others then met on August 31 and formed the Communist Labor Party of America (CLP).

Among those who helped swell the ranks of this new fledgling Communist Party were members of the communistic International Workers of the World (I.W.W.). I.W.W. members, sometimes known as “Wobblies,” had used sabotage and violence to protest during the First World War. The Soviet Union’s leaders quickly saw how important an American Communist Party would be to their ultimate goal of world revolution and world government, and dispatched C.A. Martens to give the American communists direction.

Before the new American Communist Party was allowed full membership in the Comintern, however, its officers were required to sign the “Twenty-one Conditions of Admission.” These 21 conditions of admission to the Comintern made it quite clear that the Communists in the Soviet Union would dictate what happened in America’s Communist Party. In 1953, the U.S. Subversive Activities Control Board concluded after several hearings and investigations, “We find upon the whole record that the evidence preponderantly establishes that [the leaders of the Communist Party USA] and its members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their loyalty and obligations to the Soviet Union.”

Among the 21 conditions were the following: “The Communist Party [of the USA] must carry on a clear-cut program of propaganda for the hindering of the transportation of munitions of war to the enemies of the Soviet Republic.” Another said, “All decisions of the Communist International … are binding upon all parties belonging to the Communist International,” while another stipulated that, “The duty of spreading Communist ideas includes the special obligation to carry on a vigorous and systematic propaganda in the Army. Where this agitation is forbidden by exceptional laws, it is to be carried on illegally.”

Labor unions were to be targeted for takeover: “Every party wishing to belong to the Communist International must systematically and persistently develop a Communist agitation within the trade-unions.” Similar agitation was to be employed in rural areas. “Iron discipline” was to be maintained, and “periodic cleanings” of membership rolls were necessary to get rid of dissenters. Finally, any member who rejected these conditions and the “theses of the Communist International, on principle, must be expelled from the party.”

From the very beginning, however, American communists had to contend with factionalism and differences in advancing their cause. A rival to the Communist Labor Party did not believe that the Labor Party was truly communistic, and the CLP responded in kind. The rival group called itself the Communist Party of America. It was led by Charles Ruthenberg (he died in 1927 and his ashes are buried in the Kremlin), and was launched on September 1, 1919.  Yet another splinter group in Michigan was the Proletarian Party.

Another problem was that a strong majority of the “American” communists were not native-born, with some even having difficulty speaking English. The Communist lamented in June of 1920, “The Communist Party, from the very beginning of its existence found its work hampered because it had in its ranks only a few men capable of expressing Communist principles in the English language.”

The Executive Committee of the Com-intern soon ordered the rival parties to consolidate “in the shortest possible time.” In case there was any misunderstanding, the directive was emphatic: “Unity is not only possible, but absolutely necessary. The Executive Committee categorically insists on its immediate realization.”

With a representative of the Comintern present, a “unity” convention was held in May 1920 at Bridgman, Michigan, which resulted in the formation of the United Communist Party of America. Still, some refused to go along with this “united” Communist Party, with some desirous of the right to leave the party, or differ with the Comintern on some issues.

It took another year of bickering, but finally, in May 1921, the United Communist Party and some splinter groups formed the Communist Party of America, at Woodstock, New York. They agreed to work together for violent revolution, as “armed insurrection” was the “only means of overthrowing the capitalist state.” They also reiterated their complete subservience to Moscow.

The party would have both a legal element, which would disseminate communist propaganda in the public arena and run candidates for office (the Workers Party), and an underground aspect to conduct illegal activities, such as operating a spy network for the Soviet Union. In this regard, many American communists — William Z. Foster, Earl Browder, Jay Lovestone, Benjamin Gitlow, and John Reed — made several trips to Moscow.

Foster remarked that a 1921 visit with  Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin “was one of the most inspiring moments” of his life.

Gitlow, who later left the Communist Party, wrote in his book The Whole of Their Lives about the very early days that he was inspired by what Lenin had accomplished in Russia and believed a successful revolution was imminent in the United States. “On September 2, 1919, the communist movement was officially launched. September 9 the Boston Police strike began. September 22, the nation-wide Steel strike led by William Z. Foster started. At the end of October, the soft-coal miners under the leadership of John L. Lewis staged a nation-wide coal strike stretching from the Appalachian coal range to the Pacific in defiance of a government order not to strike.”

Taylor Swift Just Another Anti-Christian, Anti-Family Mouth Piece For Communist Gay Pride Movement.

SwiftBigotry-1
Related Articles From CantonTruth.blogspot.com & Fourhorsemen66.com

Did you know that the ‘Gay-Pride’ Flag Actually Mocks God?

Ben Carson Explains How Gay Marriage Is A Communist Plot To Impose The ‘New World Order’.

 

Dear Taylor: Please stop being a hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian bigot.

By FireBreathingChristian

-April 10, 2019

What once was a crowd of God-hating nutjobs screeching incessantly about “keeping religion out of politics” has interestingly (but not surprisingly) metastasized into a raging mob that’s all too willing to use its religion as a political tool by which to bludgeon, shame, and crush all who dare dissent from their more-obviously-insane-by-the-minute agenda. (Remember: These people actually think that Bruce Jenner is a woman…and that to publicly oppose that flagrantly moronic position is an expression of “hate”.)

In recent weeks we’ve been treated to several examples of this newfound public/political religious zealotry on the Left, including Taylor Swift’s open promotion of hate, intolerance, and anti-Christian bigotry…all in the name of promoting peace, love, and tolerance, of course.

The Washington Post, property of Jeff Bezos (another prominent advocate of marriage/family-destroying “progress”), glowingly covered Swift’s religion-and-politics mingling attack on orthodox Christianity this way:

“Look what you made her do.

Taylor Swift, the pop megastar whose recent political awakening has been something to watch, donated $113,000 on Monday to an LGBTQ advocacy group in her adopted home state of Tennessee.

Swift informed the Tennessee Equality Project of her donation — the equivalent of one year’s operating budget for the organization — in a handwritten note addressed to its director, Chris Sanders.

“I’m writing to you to say that I’m so inspired by the work you do,” Swift wrote. The TEP and a group of Tennessee’s religious leaders are actively opposing bills moving through the state’s Republican-run legislature that specifically target LGBTQ individuals.

In her letter, Swift refers to the “Slate of Hate,” six bills that advocates say are discriminatory. The legislation covers topics such as adoption by LGBTQ parents, transgender students and workplace protections.

For years, Swift kept her politics close to the vest — or sparkly leotard in her case — and critics pounced. But in a piece published last month in Elle magazine, Swift wrote that she had wanted to educate herself before speaking up.”

To get a better sense of Taylor’s infusion of religion into her attack on orthodox Christianity, here’s her letter:

Taylor-Swift-Note-Of-Idiocy

It’s hard to overstate the amount of hate, intolerance, and bigotry flowing through both Swift’s letter/check combo and WaPo’s coverage of it.

For them, openly venting hatred against the most basic of orthodox Christian views on family, sexuality and marriage is…get this: an expression of love.

For them, openly trampling the religion of orthodox Christians is infinitely less significant than “hurting the feelings” of an LGBTQRSTD-type anywhere at any time.

For them, intolerance of orthodox Christianity is essential to…the pursuit of tolerance.

See how that works?

They get to be aggressively intolerant…in the name of opposing intolerance.

They get to use their religion to crush and silence ours…in the name of promoting tolerance.

Neat, huh?

Makes almost as much sense as claiming Bruce Jenner is a woman…

But wait, it gets better:

For them, anti-Christian bigotry is not only a viable option, but a necessity.

Orthodox Christianity and those unenlightened enough to cling to it must be shamed and politically oppressed at every turn.

That’s how “tolerance” works best in the depraved minds of Swift & Company.

Orthodox Christianity must be silenced.

It must be shut down.

That’s what happens when you let satanic worldviews out of the closet (see: Romans 1). Once out, they inevitably strive toward shaming, persecuting, and hating Christianity into silence. They inevitably strive to make evil into good and good into evil.

In this context, the bizarrely hypocritical and destructive actions of programmed slaves to the Progressive agenda like Taylor Swift should come as no surprise, but they should be pointed out for what they are at every opportunity.

Taylor Swift funds and encourages anti-Christian hate groups.

Taylor Swift is passionately intolerant of orthodox Christians.

Taylor Swift is openly hateful toward orthodox Christianity.

These are simple facts.

Taylor Swift is a hateful, intolerant, anti-Christian bigot.

We need not be angry or snarl when we share such truths. We should instead be as gracious and sober-minded as possible as we go about the important business of clearly, calmly, and publicly confronting the likes of Taylor Swift and her many advocates in dinosaur media with the fact that we see them for what they are.

U.S. State Department And U.S. Government Officials Created Present Day Communist China By Backing Mao Tse-Tung With Funding And Weapons.

Mapjpg.

China Betrayed Into Communism

thenewamerican.com

Written by James Perloff

Friday July 24, 2009

Although the mass media present China today as “progressive,” especially after the 2008 Olympics fanfare, it remains among the world’s cruelest regimes.

The term “Red China” is not anachronistic. Though certainly less oppressive than during the Cultural Revolution, when it executed millions, China is still governed by a single regime, the Communist Party, which requires members to be atheists. It imprisons dissidents without due process, oppresses Tibet, and enforces a policy, backed by compulsory abortion, restricting most families to one child. (Since Chinese traditionally prefer male offspring, this has led to disproportionate abortion — even infanticide — of female babies, creating an artificial majority of males in China.) The government directly controls most media, blocking criticisms of itself on the Internet.

Perhaps worst is suppression of religious freedom. Christian churches, though permitted, must submit to government control and censorship — either as part of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement or Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. Independent house churches, comprising some 90 percent of China’s Christians, face persecution. The Voice of the Martyrs reports:

The human rights record in China is one of the worst in the world. Its system of “re-education through labor” detains hundreds of thousands each year in work camps without even a court hearing…. The house church movement (unregistered churches) endures unimaginable persecution, yet stands on its commitment to preach the gospel, no matter the cost. China continued its crackdown against Christians and missionaries in 2008, as they sought to purge the country of religion before hosting the Olympic games…. Church property and Bibles were confiscated. Christians were harassed, questioned, arrested and imprisoned. Christians in prisons are routinely beaten and abused.

Japan and Manchuria

What surprises many Americans: the regime ruling China was largely put there by the United States. In the 1930s, Japan, then militarily powerful, was the main barrier to Soviet ambitions to communize Asia. Benjamin Gitlow, founding member of the U.S. Communist Party, wrote in I Confess (1940):

When I was in Moscow, the attitude toward the United States in the event of war was discussed. Privately, it was the opinion of all the Russian leaders to whom I spoke that the rivalry between the United States and Japan must actually break out into war between these two.

The Russians were hopeful that the war would break out soon, because that would greatly secure the safety of Russia’s Siberian borders and would so weaken Japan that Russia would no longer have to fear an attack from her in the East…. Stalin is perfectly willing to let Americans die in defense of the Soviet Union.

In 1935, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William C. Bullitt sent a dispatch to Secretary of State Cordell Hull:

It is … the heartiest hope of the Soviet Government that the United States will become involved in war with Japan…. To think of the Soviet Union as a possible ally of the United States in case of war with Japan is to allow the wish to be father to the thought. The Soviet Union would certainly attempt to avoid becoming an ally until Japan had been thoroughly defeated and would then merely use the opportunity to acquire Manchuria and Sovietize China.

In the 1930s Japan moved troops into Manchuria (northern China). U.S. history books routinely call this an imperialistic invasion. While there is certainly truth in this interpretation, the books rarely mention that Japan was largely reacting, in its own version of the Monroe Doctrine, to the Soviets’ incursions into Asia — namely their seizure of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia. Anthony Kubek, Chairman of Political Science at the University of Dallas, wrote in How the Far East Was Lost:

It was apparent to Japanese statesmen that unless bastions of defense were built in Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, Communism would spread through all of North China and seriously threaten the security of Japan. To the Japanese, expansion in Manchuria was a national imperative…. But the Department of State seemed not to regard Japan as a bulwark against Soviet expansion in North China. As a matter of fact, not one word of protest was sent by the Department of State to the Soviet Union, despite her absorption of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia, while at the same time Japan was censured for stationing troops in China.

The Chinese Republic

China had been ruled by emperors until 1911, when the Qing Dynasty was overthrown. The revolution is largely attributed to Sun Yat-sen, who sought to make China a constitutional republic, led by the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party of China. However, Sun encountered extreme difficulties in unifying the enormous nation under his idealistic principles. After the emperors’ fall, China was largely ruled by local warlords, and following Dr. Sun’s 1925 death, the task of unifying China fell to Chiang Kai-shek, a Christian and Kuomintang leader.

The Soviets tried infiltrating the Kuomintang, but Chiang Kai-shek eventually saw through their schemes, and by 1928 had deported many USSR agents. That same year, 1928, Foreign Affairs, American’s most powerful foreign policy journal, published its first article criticizing Chiang. From then on, he became the enemy of both the Soviet Union and the American establishment — which had ironically sought to support communism since the 1917 Russian Revolution.

Chinese Reds: Soviet Puppets

The Chinese Communist Party was little more than a puppet of the Soviet Union, which recognized the value for communism’s future in China’s massive manpower. In 1933, the Chinese Communist Party sent this message to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin: “Lead us on, O our pilot, from victory to victory!”

Stalin encouraged the overthrow of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government. However, with Japanese troops’ arrival in Manchuria in 1937, Stalin ordered Chinese communists to ease their attacks on the Nationalists because the latter were repelling the Japanese, whom Stalin considered a barrier to his own ambitions in Asia.

This order was amplified after June 22, 1941, when Germany and its European allies invaded the Soviet Union, and began decimating the Red Army. Stalin feared that Japan — Germany’s ally — would invade Russia from the East, destroying himself and world communism’s center. One may reasonably conclude that proven Soviet agents within the U.S. government — such as Harry Dexter White, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; and Alger Hiss, a leading State Department figure — shared this concern.

This author has documented in The New American that Washington had full foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, but did not warn our military commanders; and also that Washington sought to provoke the attack through such measures as a freeze on Japan’s U.S. assets; a steel and oil embargo; closure of the Panama Canal to Japan’s shipping; and humiliating ultimatums to the Japanese government (see, for example, Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not).

The U.S. war with Japan fulfilled the Gitlow and Bullitt warnings. Since Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists were also fighting the Japanese, official U.S. policy was to support them, especially after President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Chiang at the 1943 Cairo Conference. Stalin ordered the Chinese communists to help against the Japanese too — but in a very limited capacity. Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-tung told followers: “Our determined policy is 70 percent self-development, 20 percent compromise, and 10 percent fight the Japanese.” The Reds spent little energy against the Japanese, mostly attacking the Nationalists, whom they planned to overthrow at the war’s conclusion. This emphasis increased as Japan’s defeat, from U.S. advances in the Pacific, became imminent. Robert Welch, in his study of China’s downfall, Again, May God Forgive Us, wrote: “In Shantung in 1943, just for one illustration, they [the communists] attacked from the south an army of twenty thousand Nationalists, simultaneously with a Japanese attack from the north, and helped to slaughter the whole force.”

Roosevelt’s Betrayal

But China’s destruction came not only from communists. Fateful decisions resulted when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Teheran Conference (late 1943) and Yalta Conference (February 1945). Stalin, though our ally against Germany during World War II, maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan. This suited Stalin, as he wished the Japanese to wear down China’s Nationalist forces.

At the Teheran and Yalta wartime conferences, however, Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his pact with Japan and enter the Far East war. Stalin agreed, but attached conditions. He demanded that America completely equip his Far Eastern Army for the expedition, with 3,000 tanks, 5,000 planes, plus all the other munitions, food, and fuel required for a 1,250,000-man army. Roosevelt accepted this demand, and 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease material were convoyed to the USSR for the venture. Stalin’s Far Eastern Army swiftly received more than twice the supplies we gave Chiang Kai-shek during four years as our ally.

General Douglas MacArthur protested after discovering that ships designated to supply his Pacific forces were being diverted to Russia. Major General Courtney Whitney wrote: “One hundred of his transport ships were to be withdrawn immediately, to be used to carry munitions and supplies across the North Pacific to the Soviet forces in Vladivostok…. Later, of course, they were the basis of Soviet military support of North Korea and Red China.”

But Stalin didn’t just want materiel in return for entering the Asian war. He also demanded control of the Manchurian seaports of Dairen and Port Arthur — which a glance at the map shows would give him an unbreakable foothold in China — as well as joint control, with the Chinese, of Manchuria’s railroads. Roosevelt made these concessions without consulting the Chinese. Thus, without authority, he ceded to Stalin another nation’s sovereign territory. The president made these pledges without the knowledge or consent of Congress or the American people.

The State Department official representing the United States in drawing up the Yalta agreement was Alger Hiss — subsequently exposed as a Soviet spy. General Patrick Hurley, U.S. Ambassador to China, wrote: “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta.”

The decision to invite and equip Stalin — a known aggressor — into the Far East must go down among the worst acts of U.S. foreign policy. Stalin’s divisions entered China to fight the already-beaten Japanese on August 9, 1945 — five days before Japan’s surrender. The atom bomb had already pounded Hiroshima.

After barely firing a shot, the Soviets received surrender of Japan’s huge arsenals in Manchuria. These, with their American Lend-Lease supplies, they handed over to Mao Tse-tung’s communists to overthrow the Nationalist government.

Vinegar Joe

Another means of destroying the Nationalists: U.S. personnel assigned to China. Among the worst was Army General “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell. Though generally respected as a strategist, Stilwell became notorious for hatred of Chiang Kai-shek — whom he nicknamed “the peanut” — and admiration for the communists. Stilwell wrote in a letter: “It makes me itch to throw down my shovel and get over there and shoulder a rifle with Chu Teh.” (Chu was commander-in-chief of the Chinese communist armies — as he was later in the Korean War, overseeing the killing of GIs.)

Because Japan controlled China’s ports, the Nationalists had to receive supplies by air lift from India. Stilwell oversaw a campaign of Chinese troops against the Japanese in Burma, attempting to open a land supply route. When the effort failed, Stilwell demanded the operation be tried again, using 30 Nationalist divisions.

At this, Chiang balked: diverting 30 divisions south into Burma would facilitate further conquest of China by both the Japanese and the Chinese communists. General Claire Chennault, commander of the famed “Flying Tigers,” agreed with Chiang. Significantly, Stilwell did not request use of communist forces — whom he so vocally admired — for his envisioned Burma campaign.

Stilwell complained to Washington, and received a message from President Roosevelt directing Chiang to place Stilwell in “unrestricted command” of all Chinese forces, and send troops to Burma. After jubilantly handing this message to Chiang, Stilwell wrote in his diary:

I’ve long waited for vengeance —
At last I’ve had my chance.
I’ve looked the Peanut in the eye
And kicked him in the pants…
The little b*****d shivered
And lost the power of speech.
His face turned green and quivered
And he struggled not to screech.

But Stilwell’s scheme backfired. Chiang refused the directive and asked Roosevelt to replace Stilwell. Otherwise, he said, he would go it alone against the Japanese — as he had for the four years preceding Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was forced to concede. To his chagrin, Stilwell was relieved by General Albert C. Wedemeyer, who saw eye-to-eye with Chiang.

Chiang Kai-shek wrote: “Stilwell was in a conspiracy with the Communists to overthrow the Government” — an opinion shared by General Hurley, who stated: “The record of General Stilwell in China is irrevocably coupled in history with the conspiracy to overthrow the Nationalist Government of China, and to set up in its place a Communist regime — and all this movement was part of, and cannot be separated from, the Communist cell or apparatus that existed at the time in the Government in Washington.”

State Department Junta

What “cell” did Ambassador Hurley refer to? In China, he was surrounded by a State Department clique favoring a Chinese communist takeover. Dean Acheson, who as a young attorney had represented Soviet interests in America, became Assistant Secretary of State in 1941. As such, he ensured the State Department’s Far Eastern Division was dominated by communists and pro-communists, including Alger Hiss (subsequently proven a Soviet spy); John Carter Vincent, director of the Office of Far Eastern Affairs, later identified by Daily Worker editor Louis Budenz as a communist; John Stewart Service, Foreign Service Officer in China who turned State Department information over to the Chinese communists, and was arrested by the FBI in the Amerasia spy case (about which more later); Foreign Service Officer John P. Davies, who consistently lobbied for the communists; Owen Lattimore, appointed U.S. adviser to Chiang Kai-shek but identified as a communist by ex-communists Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley; and several others.

“The Communists relied very strongly on Service and John Carter Vincent,” said Budenz, “in a campaign against Ambassador Hurley.” Hurley, an honest statesman, was shocked by the maneuverings of those under him. “The professional foreign service men,” he reported to President Truman, “sided with the Communists’ armed party.”

Hurley was compelled to dismiss 11 State Department members. Upon return from China, however, they were mysteriously promoted, and some became Hurley’s superiors — after which he resigned. “These professional diplomats,” he wrote, “were returned to Washington and were placed in the Far Eastern and China divisions of the State Department as my supervisors.”

Pro-communist Stratagems

This State Department clique employed several tactics to advance Chinese communism. Among the chief: claiming Mao’s followers weren’t communists, but merely “agrarian reformers.” Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto had commanded: “Workers of the world, unite!” But since China had little industry, Chinese communists made farmers their focus.

Professor Kenneth A. Colgrove testified that Owen Lattimore informed him that “Chinese Communists under Mao Tse-tung were real democrats and that they were really agrarian reformers and had no connection with Soviet Russia.”

The aforementioned John Carter Vincent referred to Mao and his followers as “so-called Communists.”

Raymond Ludden, another in the State Department clique, reported that “the so-called Communists are agrarian reformers of a mild democratic stripe more than anything else.”

In 1943, T. A. Bisson wrote in Far Eastern Survey: “By no stretch of the imagination can this be termed ‘communism’; it is, in fact, the essence of bourgeois democracy applied mainly to agrarian conditions.”

The State Department’s John P. Davies told Washington: “The Communists are in China to stay. And China’s destiny is not Chiang’s but theirs.” An additional tactic: portraying Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists as “fascists,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.” General Wedemeyer conveyed this matter’s reality:

Although the Nationalist Government of China was frequently and derisively described as authoritarian or totalitarian, there was a basic difference between it and its Communist enemies, since the Kuomintang’s ultimate aim was the establishment of a constitutional republic, whereas the Communists want to establish a totalitarian dictatorship on the Soviet pattern. In my two years of close contact with Chiang Kai-shek, I had become convinced that he was personally a straightforward, selfless leader, keenly interested in the welfare of his people, and desirous of establishing a constitutional government.

While some corruption undoubtedly existed in the Nationalist regime, Wedemeyer insightfully noted that corruption existed in all governments, including ours. For China, a conspiracy on the U.S. side compounded this. Their government offices displaced by Japan’s invasion, the Nationalists had to rely on paper currency. Runaway inflation threatened China’s economy. To stabilize the situation, Chiang Kai-shek requested a loan of U.S. gold. President Roosevelt approved, but the gold shipments were delayed and withheld by Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White, long since proven to be a Soviet agent. This collapsed China’s currency. One can understand why some Chinese officials, forced to accept salaries paid in worthless money, turned to corruption.

Walter S. Robertson, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, informed the
National Press Club in 1959: “We stood by and saw China drift into a state of complete economic collapse. The currency was worthless…. In China, we withheld our funds at the only time, in my opinion, we had a chance to save the situation. To do what? To force the Communists in.”

As a final tactic, State Department leftists demanded the Nationalists form a “coalition government” with the communists.
This was an old communist trick. By forcing the postwar governments of Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia to form coalitions with communists, the Marxists seized control of those nations; Mao Tse-tung envisioned the same strategy for China. In his report “On Coalition Government,” made in April 1945 to the Seventh National Convention of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao predicted that a coalition would destroy both Chiang and “reactionary American imperialism.”

The State Department’s China clique echoed this call. John P. Davies wrote in 1944: “A coalition Chinese Government in which the Communists find a satisfactory place is the solution of this impasse most desirable to us.”

A more realistic assessment of coalition government — which meant combining constitutional freedom with totalitarian gangsterism — was provided by Douglas MacArthur, who said it would have “about as much chance of getting them together as that oil and water will mix.”

In fact, Chiang Kai-shek wanted a postwar government representing all Chinese parties. In November 1946, he convened a National Assembly that met for 40 days, with 2,045 delegates representing diverse views from all over China; it adopted a national constitution. However, despite their clamoring for “coalition government,” Mao’s communists refused to participate: they knew that, lacking popular support in China, they could only take power by violence.

Marshall Mission

At World War II’s close, Mao’s troops, armed by the Russians — both from American Lend-Lease and captured Japanese arsenals — began a full assault on the Nationalist government. Mao’s rebellion would have undoubtedly failed if not for interventions by George Marshall, whom President Truman designated his special representative to China.

Marshall had a remarkable penchant for being in “the wrong place at the wrong time.” President Franklin D. Roosevelt had advanced him over dozens of senior officers to become U.S. Army Chief of Staff. In that capacity, on December 7, 1941, he absented himself from his office on a notoriously long “horseback ride,” while junior officers sought his permission to warn Pearl Harbor of the impending attack. During the Korean War, he was conveniently named Secretary of Defense; as such he overruled General MacArthur, saving the Yalu River’s bridges from destruction by the U.S. Air Force, and thus permitting Communist Chinese soldiers to invade Korea, which precluded victory by MacArthur, guaranteeing the stalemate that ultimately occurred. Regardless of where Marshall served, his actions fortified communism and defeated American interests — a record summarized by the wrongfully maligned Senator Joseph McCarthy in his book America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett Marshall.

Before leaving for China, Marshall revealed he already accepted the communist propaganda line. Five-star Fleet Admiral William Leahy reported: “I was present when Marshall was going to China. He said he was going to tell Chiang that he had to get on with the Communists or without help from us. He said the same thing when he got back.” And when told Mao Tse-tung and his followers were communists, Marshall remarked: “Don’t be ridiculous. These fellows are just old-fashioned agrarian reformers.”

When Marshall first arrived in China, the Nationalists outnumbered the communists 5-1 in both troops and rifles, and were successfully driving them back. Marshall, however, imposed a total of three truces — which the communists violated, allowing them to regroup, bring up Soviet supplies, and further train their guerillas. This expanded their control from 57 Chinese counties to 310. General Claire Chennault recounted the impact of Marshall’s truces:

North of Hankow some 200,000 government troops had surrounded 70,000 Communist troops and were beginning a methodical job of extermination. The Communists appealed to Marshall on the basis of his truce proposal, and arrangements were made for fighting to cease while the Communists marched out of the trap and on to Shantung Province, where a large Communist offensive began about a year later. On the East River near Canton some 100,000 Communist troops were trapped by government forces. The truce teams effected their release and allowed the Communists to march unmolested to Bias Bay where they boarded junks and sailed to Shantung.

Marshall’s disastrous 15-month China mission ended in January 1947. Upon his return to the United States, President Truman rewarded his failures with appointment as Secretary of State. Marshall imposed a weapons embargo on the Nationalists, while the communists continued receiving a steady weapons supply from the USSR. Marshall boasted that he disarmed 39 anti-communist divisions “with a stroke of the pen.” This doomed Chinese freedom.

The Media Role

Critical to the China sellout was manipulation of U.S. public opinion. A plethora of books and news reports perpetuated the myth that Mao’s communists were “democratic agrarian reformers,” even though, once in power, they established a totalitarian communist dictatorship, executing tens of millions of Chinese, in an orgy of atrocities that reached its height during the bloody Cultural Revolution. Chiang Kai-shek and the nationalists were portrayed as “fascist,” “reactionary,” and “corrupt.”

Soviet Prime Minister Vyacheslav Molotov outlined this strategy:

Who reads the Communist papers? Only a few people who are already Communists. We don’t need to propagandize them. What is our object? Who do we have to influence? We have to influence non-Communists if we want to make them Communists or if we want to fool them. So, we have to try to infiltrate in the big press.

The most influential U.S. writers fulfilling this were probably Edgar Snow, author of the pro-communist book Red Star Over China, and Owen Lattimore, author of Thunder Out of China, a Book-of-the-Month selection that attacked Chiang Kai-shek. Writing in the Saturday Review, Snow audaciously told readers, “There has never been any communism in China.” And he reported in the Saturday Evening Post that Chu Teh, Mao’s military commander, possessed the “kindliness of Robert E. Lee, the tenacity of Grant and the humility of Lincoln.”

In his monumental book While You Slept, John T. Flynn exposed the media bias favoring Chinese communists. Between 1943 and 1949, 22 pro-communist books appeared in the U.S. press, and only seven pro-Nationalist ones. Also, reported Flynn:

Every one of the 22 pro-Communist books, where reviewed, received glowing approval in the literary reviews, I have named — that is, in the New York Times, the Herald-Tribune, the Nation, the New Republic and the Saturday Review of Literature. And every one of the anti-Communist books was either roundly condemned or ignored in these same reviews.

One reason the pro-communist books received such favor: reviews were written by writers of other such books. Flynn documented that 12 authors of the 22 pro-Red Chinese books wrote 43 complimentary reviews of the others’ books. This cozy “in-house” system guaranteed laudatory reviews. It left the American public — which generally knew little of Asian affairs — with indelible impressions. So severe was the bias, Flynn noted, that New York Times reviews were barely distinguishable from those in the communist Daily Worker.

Overt Betrayal: The IPR

Perhaps the most sinister influence on America’s Far East policy and opinion was the now-defunct Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). The recipient of grants from the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, the institute published hundreds of thousands of pamphlets on China for U.S. public schools and the military. These pamphlets extended the myth that the communists were “agrarian reformers” and the Nationalists “fascists.” The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee eventually found IPR included 54 persons connected with the communist world conspiracy. Among them were such communists or pro-communists as Alger Hiss, Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Owen Lattimore, and John Stewart Service. Alexander Barmine, a brigadier general who defected from the Communist Army, testified IPR was “a cover shop for military intelligence work in the Pacific.”

The IPR organized a magazine, Amerasia. In 1945, U.S. officials were shocked when Amerasiapublished an article reprinting — almost word-for-word — a top-secret government document. Agents of the OSS (the CIA’s forerunner) invaded Amerasia’s offices and discovered 1,800 documents stolen from the American government, including papers detailing the disposition of Nationalist army units in China. The magazine had been a cover for Soviet spying.

Although the FBI arrested numerous Amerasia employees for espionage, all the cases were either completely dismissed or dispensed with fines. John Stewart Service, despite arrest for giving stolen government documents to Amerasia editor Philip Jaffe, was rewarded by Dean Acheson, who put Service in charge of State Department placements and promotions. This was not the only time powerful “hidden hands” have conspired against American interests.

“Aid” to China

With Japan’s 1945 defeat, Lend-Lease aid, sitting in India and slated for the Nationalists, was either destroyed or dumped in the ocean. By 1948, due to Marshall’s weapons embargo, the Nationalist government faced nearly inevitable defeat by the communists, who continued receiving unlimited weapons from Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador William C. Bullitt testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs in March 1948:

The American government has not delivered to China a single combat plane or a single bomber since General Marshall in August, 1946, by unilateral action, broke the promise of the American Government to the Chinese Government and suspended all deliveries of planes…. As a means of pressure to compel Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to take Communists into the Chinese Government, General Marshall stopped all fulfillment of this program and dishonored the pledge of the United States.

Although Dean Acheson deceptively told Congress the Nationalists had received over $2 billion in U.S. aid, most was non-military or unusable. Colonel L. B. Moody, U.S. Army Ordnance Corps, clarified the realities:

1. The inevitable defeat of the Nationalist army was due to their deficit in items of infantry weapons and especially ammunition, and the Communist superiority in these items.

2. Military aid to the Chinese meant infantry weapons and ammunition above all else and it is “precisely these items which the United States has consistently denied, delayed or limited. Only passing reference will be made to the billions of mouldy cigarettes, blown-up guns, and junk bombs and disabled vehicles from the Pacific Islands which have been totalled up with other real or alleged aid in various State Department, Communist and leftist statements to create the impression that we have furnished the Nationalist government with hundreds of millions or billions of useful fighting equipment.”

In April 1948, Congress, apprised of the desperate situation, granted $125 million in military assistance to save Chiang’s government. However, the first of this aid did not reach the Nationalists until seven months later (when China had become an issue in the 1948 elections). By contrast, after the British defeat at Dunkirk, U.S. ships needed only eight days to be loaded with munitions bound for Britain. Anthony Kubek describes the first shipload reaching the Nationalists in late 1948:

Of the total number, 480 of the machine guns lacked spare parts, tripod mounts, etc. Thompson machine guns had no magazines or clips. There were no loading machines for the loading of ammunition belts. Only a thousand of the light machine guns had mounts, and there were only a thousand clips for the 2,280 light machine guns.

China Collapses

The embargo and subsequent sabotaging of congressionally mandated aid to the Nationalists spelled their doom. In 1949, the communists completed conquest of China. Chiang Kai-shek and approximately two million followers escaped to Formosa (now called Taiwan), where they maintained the Republic of China’s government, establishing the island as a bastion of freedom.

The propaganda myth that Mao Tse-tung was an “agrarian reformer” evaporated as he formed a totalitarian communist regime, slaughtering millions. Acheson and the State Department clique still hoped to recognize Communist China, but after Mao’s thugs seized U.S. consular officers, imprisoned and even murdered our citizens, and poured their troops into Korea to kill American soldiers, this U.S. recognition of China ended up being deferred for many years.

The China disaster did not result from “blunders.” Congressman Walter Judd, an acknowledged Far East expert, said: “On the law of averages, a mere moron once in a while would make a decision that would be favorable to the United States. When policies are advocated by any group which consistently work out to the Communists’ advantage, that couldn’t be happenstance.”

« Older Entries