State of Mankind
How much do you know?
Excerpts from How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World
In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, one of the four main Oceanian ministries is the Ministry of Peace, which oversees the Party’s military affairs. The inverted meaning of its name actually contains profound meaning: When one’s strength is inferior to that of the enemy, the best strategy is to proclaim one’s desire for peace. Extending an olive branch is the best way to hide imminent war. The Soviet Union and other communist countries were and continue to be adept practitioners of this strategy, which is employed to infiltrate the West.
The World Peace Council was formed in 1948. Its first chairperson was French physicist Joliot-Curie, a member of the French Communist Party. World War II had just ended, and the United States was still the only country to have produced and tested the atomic bomb.
Having suffered huge losses in the war, the Soviet Union aggressively promoted world peace as a stratagem to stave off pressure from the West. The World Peace Council was directly controlled by the Soviet Peace Commission, an organization affiliated with the Soviet Communist Party. It ran a worldwide narrative proclaiming the Soviet Union to be a peace-loving country and condemning the United States as a hegemonic warmonger.
High-ranking Soviet official and ideological leader Mikhail Suslov promoted a “struggle for peace” that became a fixture of Soviet rhetoric.
“The present anti-war movement testifies to the will and readiness of the broadest masses of the people to safeguard peace and to prevent the aggressors from plunging mankind into the abyss of another slaughter,” Suslov wrote in a 1950 propaganda tract. “The task now is to turn this will of the masses into active, concrete actions aimed at foiling the plans and measures of the Anglo-American instigators of war.”[23]
The Soviet Union sponsored a multitude of organizations and groups such as the World Federation of Trade Unions, World Youth Association, International Women’s Federation, International Federation of Journalists, World Democratic Youth Alliance, World Association of Scientists, and the like to support the claims of the World Peace Council. “World peace” became one of the frontlines in the communist public-opinion war against the free world.
Vladimir Bukovsky, a prominent Soviet dissident, wrote in 1982 that “members of the older generation can still remember the marches, the rallies, and the petitions of the 1950’s … It is hardly a secret now that the whole campaign was organized, conducted, and financed from Moscow, through the so-called Peace Fund and the Soviet-dominated World Peace Council …”[24]
Communist Party USA General Secretary Gus Hall said: “There is a need to expand the fight for peace, escalate it, involve more people, and make it the hot topic in every community, every people’s group, every trade union, every church, every family, every street, and every site where people gather. …” [25]
The Soviets pushed the “struggle for peace” movement in three waves during the course of the Cold War, with the first being in the 1950s. The second climax was the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s. According to the testimony of Stanislav Lunev, a former officer of the Soviet GRU (military intelligence) who defected from Russia to the United States in 1992, the amount of money the Soviet Union spent on anti-war propaganda in Western countries was double its military and economic support to North Vietnam. He said that “the GRU and KGB financed almost all anti-war movements and groups in the United States and other countries.” [26]
Ronald Radosh, a former Marxist and activist during the anti-Vietnam war movement, admitted that “our intention was never so much to end the war as to use anti-war sentiment to create a new revolutionary socialist movement at home.” [27]
The third major anti-war movement took place during the early 1980s when the United States deployed intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Anti-war protesters demanded that both the Soviet Union and the United States limit their nuclear arsenals, but the Soviet Union never abided by any international treaties.
A study conducted by the U.S. Senate Judicial Committee in 1955 found that in the 38 years since the founding of the Soviet regime, it had signed nearly 1,000 bilateral or multilateral treaties with various countries around the world, but breached nearly all the promises and agreements it made. [28] The authors of the study noted that the Soviet Union was probably the least trustworthy of all major nations in history.
Trevor Loudon said that during the 1980s, New Zealand’s anti-nuclear movement was covertly sponsored by the Soviet Union using trained special agents. As a result, New Zealand withdrew from the The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS or ANZUS Treaty), directly exposing this small country with a population of less than 4 million people to the threat of communism. [29]
After the 9/11 attacks, there were a series of large-scale anti-war demonstrations and protests in the United States. Behind these demonstrations were organizations closely related to communists. [30]
Even the highly acclaimed American civil rights movement was influenced by the specter of communism. Comparing the communist revolutions in China, Cuba, and Algeria, the American thinker G. Edward Griffin discovered that the civil rights movement in the United States followed the same general pattern. In the first stage, people were divided into different and mutually conflicting groups. In the second stage, a united front was established to create an illusion of universal support and move against the opposition in the third stage. The fourth stage was to incite violence. The fifth stage was to launch a coup and seize power under the guise of revolution. [31]
Starting from the late 1920s, the communist Workers Party discovered the great potential for revolution among black Americans. They called for the establishment of a Soviet “Negro Republic” in the middle of the South, which was home to many blacks. [32] A communist propaganda handbook published in 1934, “The Negroes in a Soviet America,” proposed a combined racial revolution in the South with the overall proletarian revolution. [33]
The civil rights movements in the United States in the 1960s received support from the Soviet and Chinese communist parties. When Leonard Patterson, a black man and former member of the Communist Party USA who received training in Moscow, withdrew from the CPUSA, he testified that insurrection and rioting among American blacks enjoyed the Party’s strong support by the U.S. Communist Party. Both he and CPUSA General Secretary Gus Hall had been to Moscow to receive training. [34]
The intensification of the civil rights movement also coincides with the CCP’s campaign to export revolution. In 1965, the CCP put forward the slogan of “international revolution,” calling upon the “broad countryside” of Asia, Africa, and Latin America to surround the “international cities” of Western Europe and North America, just as the CCP had first taken over the countryside, then defeated the Kuomintang in the cities during the Chinese Civil War.
The most violent organizations in the black people’s rights movement, such as the Revolutionary Action Movement and the Maoist Black Panthers, were all supported or directly influenced by the CCP. The Revolutionary Action Movement advocated violent revolution and was considered a dangerous extremist organization by the mainstream society. It was disbanded in 1969.
From its form to its teachings, the Black Panthers looked up to the CCP as their role model, with slogans such as “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” and “all power belongs to the people.” The Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong was a must-read for all members. Like the CCP, the Black Panthers advocated violent revolution. One of its leaders, Eldridge Cleaver, predicted in 1968 a wave of terror, violence, and guerrilla warfare. At many black gatherings, participants waved the Little Red Book (Quotations from Chairman Mao). The sea of red bore a striking resemblance to the scenes seen in China around the same time. [35]
Although many of the appeals of the civil rights movement have been accepted by mainstream society, the radical black revolutionary ideology has not disappeared. It has recently resurfaced as the Black Lives Matter movement. [36]
People all around the world wish for peace, and pacifism is an ancient ideal. In the 20th century, people of great vision and compassion dedicated their efforts to reduce misunderstanding and conflict among nations. Due to historical circumstances, racial discrimination does exist in the United States and other Western countries. People try to eliminate racial discrimination through education, media, and protests, all of which are understandable.
But the specter of communism takes advantage of the ideological trends and social conflicts in Western countries. It sows discord, incites hatred, and creates violence while deceiving and manipulating masses of people who initially harbored no ill intent.
......
When the street revolution of Western youths was in full swing in the 1960s, there was one who dismissed their naivety, sincerity, and idealism. “If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair,” he said. The man was Saul Alinsky, a radical activist who wrote books, taught students, and personally oversaw the implementation of his theories, eventually becoming the “para-communist” agitator with the most baneful influence for decades.
Aside from his worship of Lenin and Castro, Alinsky has also explicitly praised the devil himself. In his book Rules for Radicals, one of the epigraphs says: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”
The reason Alinsky is best termed a “para-communist” is because unlike the Old Left (political leftists) of the 1930s and the New Left (cultural leftists) of the 1960s, Alinsky refused to affirmatively describe his political ideals. His overall view was that world has “the haves,” “the have-a-little-want-mores,” and “the have-nots.” He called upon the “have-nots” to rebel against “the haves” by any means and to seize wealth and power in order to achieve a completely “equal” society. He sought to seize power through any means, while at the same time destroying the existing social system. He has been called the Lenin of the post-communist Left and its “Sun-Tzu.” [1]
In Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, Alinsky systematically set forth his theory and methods of community organizing. These rules include: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” “Keep the pressure on.” “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” [2] The essence of his rules was about using unscrupulous means to achieve his goals and gain power.
The nature of Alinsky’s seemingly dry rules for community organization reveal their true nature when applied in the world. When the Vietnam War was still in progress in 1972, George H. W. Bush, the then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, gave a speech at Tulane University. Anti-war students sought advice from Alinsky, and he said that the standard protest format would likely result in them being simply expelled. He thus suggested that they don Ku Klux Klan garb, and whenever Bush defended the Vietnam War, they’d stand up with placards and say, “The KKK Supports Bush.” The students did so “with very successful, attention-getting results.” [3]
Alinsky and his followers were delighted with two other protests he planned. In 1964, in negotiations with Chicago city authorities, Alinsky concocted the plan of organizing 2,500 activists to occupy the toilets in Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, one of the busiest in the world, to force its operations to grind to a halt. Prior to actually carrying off the plan, he leaked the plan, thus forcing the authorities to negotiate. [4]
In order to force Kodak, the major employer in Rochester, New York, to increase the ratio of black employees to white, Alinsky came up with a similar tactic. Seizing on the upcoming Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra, an important cultural tradition in the city, Alinsky planned to purchase hundreds of tickets for his activists, feeding them only baked beans beforehand. They would fill the theater and ruin the performance with flatulence. This episode didn’t come to fruition, but the threat of it as well as other of Alinsky’s tactics, enhanced his position in negotiations.
Alinsky’s book leaves the impression of a sinister, cold, and calculating individual. His use of “community organizing” was really a form of gradual revolution. [5]
The differences between Alinsky and his forerunners were several. First, both Old and New Leftists were at least idealistic in their rhetoric, while Alinsky stripped “revolution” of its idealistic veneer and exposed it as a naked power struggle. When he conducted training for “community organizations,” he would routinely ask the trainees: Why organize? Some would say that it was to help others, but Alinsky would roar back: “You want to organize for power!” [6]
In the training manual Alinky’s followers went by, it said: “We are not virtuous by not wanting power. … We are really cowards for not wanting power”; “power is good”; “powerlessness is evil.” [7]
Second, Alinsky didn’t think much of the rebellious youth of the ’60s who were publicly against the government and society. He stressed that whenever possible, one should enter the system, while biding time for opportunities to subvert it from within.
Third, Alinsky’s ultimate goal was to subvert and destroy, not to benefit any group—thus in implementing his plan, it was necessary to conceal the real purpose with localized or staged goals that were seemingly reasonable or harmless by themselves, to mobilize large crowds to action. When people were accustomed to being mobilized, it was relatively easy to mobilize them to act toward more radical goals.
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky said: “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. … Remember: once you organize people around something as commonly agreed upon as pollution, then an organized people is on the move. From there it’s a short and natural step to political pollution, to Pentagon pollution.”
A leader from Students for a Democratic Society who was deeply influenced by Alinsky nailed the essence of radicalizing protests: “The issue is never the issue; the issue is always the revolution.” The radical left after the ’60s was deeply influenced by Alinsky, and always turned the response to any social issue into dissatisfaction with the status quo overall, as a stepping stone for advancing the revolutionary cause.
Fourth, Alinsky turned politics into a guerrilla war without restraint. In explaining his strategy for community organizing, Alinsky told his followers that they need to hit the enemy’s eyes, ears, and nose. As he writes in Rules for Radicals: “First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people’s organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.”
Fifth, from his actions in politics, Alinsky emphasized using the most evil aspects of human nature, including indolence, greed, envy, and hatred. Sometimes, participants in his campaigns would win petty gains, but this only made them more cynical and shameless. In order, to subvert the political system and social order of free countries, Alinsky was happy to lead his followers to moral bankruptcy. From this, it can be inferred that if he were to truly gain power, he would neither take care of nor pity his former comrades.
Decades later, two prominent figures in American politics who were deeply influenced by Alinsky helped to usher in the silent revolution that has subverted American civilization, traditions, and values. At the same time, the no-holds-barred, unrestricted guerrilla warfare-type protests advocated by Alinsky became popular in America from the 1970s on. This is clear through the “vomit-in” protest in 1999 against the World Trade Organization in Seattle (where protesters ingested a drug that induced vomiting, then collectively vomited in the Plaza and conference center), the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Antifa movement, and so on.
It is salient to note that in one of the introductory pages of Rules for Radicals, Alinsky gave his “acknowledgment to the very first radical,” Lucifer. Further, in an interview with Playboy magazine shortly before his death, Alinsky said that when he died, he would “unreservedly choose to go to hell” and begin to organize the proletariat there because “they’re my kind of people.” [8]
Alinsky
No comments:
Post a Comment