John Strachey was once denied admittance to the United States because of his militant activities as a member of the British Communist Party. He ostensibly broke with the Communists in the 1940s and became a top official in the Labor-Socialist Party, eventually serving as Britain’s Minister of War. But this former Red, by his own words and actions, showed that he was still pursuing the same vile purpose under a different color. In his book, The Theory and Practice of Socialism, he wrote: “It is impossible to establish Communism as the immediate successor to Capitalism. Accordingly, it is proposed to establish Socialism as something which we can put in the place of our present decaying Capitalism. Hence the Communists work for the establishment of Socialism as the necessary transition stage on the road to Communism.”
Strachey was merely restating the Leninist dictum that “Communism must be built with non-Communist hands” — often gradually, piecemeal. Communism, the “C” word, even today, after a decade of incessant propaganda proclaiming its death, still hasn’t completely shaken the odious taint of its violent, murderous record. The “S” word, socialism, carries a much more benign ring to our ears. But it still sounds too radical for most Americans, so the subterfuge must go a step further, marketing socialism under labels such as “New Deal,” “Great Society,” “New Covenant,” national healthcare, national industrial policy, national service, etc.
False Flags
Over the course of this century, our country has adopted much of the socialist/communist agenda under the falsely labeled nostrums offered by Democrats and Republicans. Time after time the American people have allowed this to happen because time after time they have been deceived and misled. But the deception has not been perpetrated solely, or even principally, by propaganda and brainwashing artists operating under the control of the Kremlin. The Red “Masters of Deceit” could not have carried out these colossal deceptions unaided. Indeed, they could not have come close without the enormous propaganda power of the news/entertainment media and the fabulous financial support provided by government agencies, tax exempt foundations, and corporations — all operating under the superintending direction of the global elitists such as the capitalist cadre who belong to the American Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). With some 3,500 members strategically placed in the federal government, Wall Street, philanthropy, academe, think tanks, and the media, the CFR cryptocracy exercises unparalleled influence.
The treble clout of media, money, and government has enabled this caliginous claque of CFR operatives not only to define and frame the “debate” on most crucial issues, but even to determine the spokesmen for both sides of the charade. Time after time after time we have seen the CFR elite utilize the same formula to legitimize the most extreme and seditious “causes”:
• Fund phony research by radical advocates proving some “crisis” demanding immediate intervention.
• Provide credibility to the cause by showering its “research” and its “experts” with abundant and overwhelmingly positive media coverage.
• Hide the Communist, socialist, radical affiliations and goals of the cause advocates.
• Orchestrate a tidal wave of support by “independent” experts, politicians, and entertainment celebrities.
• Conduct rigged opinion polls to show a public “consensus” favoring the cause.
• Ignore, marginalize, and/or demonize the opposition by portraying it as old-fashioned, retrograde, reactionary, anti-intellectual, mean-spirited, uncompassionate, greedy, racist, fascist, anti-Semitic, etc.
• Undermine genuine, popular opposition to the radical cause by arranging strategic cave-ins by the controlled opposition — i.e., Republicans and phony (or weak) Conservatives.
Lavender Revolution
Consider, for instance, the incredible revolution that has taken place over the past four decades under the banner of “homosexual rights.” The John Birch Society was ridiculed and attacked in the 1960s for seeing Reds behind the Lavender jihad and for suggesting that legitimizing the sodomites’ depravity would lead to ever more radical and destructive demands by the organized perverts. Then in 1990 the communist founders came out of the closet in a pro-homosexual book entitled The Trouble With Harry Hay: Founder of the Modern Gay Movement. It turns out that Harry joined the Communist Party in 1938 and, together with fellow Party members Robert Hull and Charles Dennison Rowland, founded, in 1948, the homosexual Mattachine Society, which spearheaded the organized sodomite drive to power. Communist bookstores and communist/radical book publishers took up the “homosexual rights” standard early on. Citadel Press, run by Communist Philip S. Foner, and Barney Rosset’s Beacon Press, infamous for communist and pornographic literature, were pioneers in the “queering of America” long before Disney and network television came on board.
From those early days to the present, providing legal assistance to the Red/Lavender revolutionists in their legal challenges of sodomy laws and laws concerning marriage, adoption, employment, military service, immigration, etc., have been the communist and pro-communist attorneys of the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU. Such communist organs as the People’s World and World Marxist Review presented homosexuals and lesbians as an “oppressed minority.” The Establishment press joined in, softening up public opinion by presenting homosexuals as a misunderstood and persecuted group, and highlighting the “eccentric genius” of prominent homosexuals, such as socialist economist John Maynard Keynes. Lord Keynes was a member of the infamous homosexual nest of “Apostles” at Cambridge University that produced the notorious British traitors Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Anthony Blunt, all of whom spied for Stalin.
“Bourgeois Morality”
Christian condemnation of homosexuality and other sexual licentiousness is anathema to the cultural elite, who view such remnants of “bourgeois morality” as intolerable threats to their right to every form of sensate debauchery imaginable and as a thorny impediment to their full socialist agenda. So over the past three decades, the federal government and huge tax-exempt foundations have showered billions of dollars in grants on the likes of Alfred Kinsey, Sol Gordon, Lester Kirkendall, Mary Calderone, Masters & Johnson, and other champions of the Lavender Left. And the CFR opinion cartel has given the equivalent of billions of dollars more in the form of “news” and “entertainment,” aimed at normalizing homosexual depravity in American culture. The justifiable outrage of millions of Americans over federal funding of the sadomasochistic, “homoerotic art” of Robert Mapplethorpe, Tim Miller, Holly Hughes, and other degenerates has not caused the pervert lobby or their powerful patrons to abandon their wretched agenda. In fact, they are pressing forward with greater arrogance and fury.
In virtually every other area of sexual immorality, we again see the same coalition of socialist/communist/Insider forces at work. Incest, fornication, adultery, and pedophilia all were given mighty boosts in the 1960s by UNESCO, Planned Parenthood, and SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States), and all have been heavily funded from the same fedgov-foundation troughs.
SIECUS director Isadore Rubin was officially identified as a member of the Communist Party, and many other SIECUS officials and authors are, or have been, notorious communist-fronters and avowed militant humanists. And they have flooded our schools with a non-stop ocean of tax-funded filth masquerading as “sex education,” “health awareness,” “family life,” “AIDS education,” and “diversity training.”
Nevertheless, the squalid SIECUS offerings, which have been endorsed by (and even funded by) Playboy porn king and militant anti-Christian humanist Hugh Hefner, have also been endorsed by the American Medical Association, the YMCA, the PTA, the National Education Association, and other organizations that have been subverted, bribed, or tricked into adding their prestige to the corrupt scheme.
The CFR media mandarinate portray these advocates of lurid licentiousness as moderate, sensible, educated voices of tolerance, reason, and progress, while those who adhere to Christian morals are depicted as priggish, insufferably sanctimonious, sex-repressed, puritanical fuddy-duddies clinging to an extinct “Ozzie and Harriet” era. Or, even worse, they are presented as dangerous, eye-bulging, slavering, slobbering, Bible-thumping bigots and homophobes.
Feeding at the same fedgov-foundation teats and basking in the media limelight are the harridans of NOW and their radical feminazi sisterhood. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Margaret Mead, Simone de Beauvoir, Bernadette Devlin, June Sochen, et al. are not merely feminists, but “femi-Leninists.” Don’t take our word for it; listen to Sochen, who has said: “Most women’s lib groups … share the Marxist-Leninist perspective of the evils of a capitalist society.”
This should help explain the unmitigated hostility of these radical women to the “religious right” and their special animus toward “dogmatic” Christians. It also helps explain why their ilk is constantly put forward by the CFR media clerisy as the “spokespersons” for “women’s rights.” Along with former Communist Party leader William Z. Foster, these feminoid radicals hold that “religion is the sworn enemy of liberty, education, science. Such a monstrous system of dupery and exploitation is totally foreign to a socialist society.” We should stipulate that this seething antipathy does not extend to all religions. Many of these “atheists” are enthusiastic adherents of Wicca and other occult religions. Many feminist bookstores are brimming with books on witchcraft, magic, theosophy, the New Age, and Satanism — alongside the usual Marxist-Leninist fare.
Bonfires of the Insanities
When it comes to the “fine arts,” we again see the same sickening pattern. According to Chairman Mao Tse-tung, “[Our purpose is] to ensure that literature and art fit well into the whole revolutionary machine as a component part, that they operate as powerful weapons for uniting and educating the people and for attacking and destroying the enemy, and that they help the people fight the enemy with one heart and one mind.” Quick, name the most celebrated painter of our age. Pablo Picasso, of course, the self-avowed millionaire Communist, who, echoing Mao’s command, said: “No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war for attack and defense against the enemy.” Art critic Herbert Read explains that surrealists “are performing a very important revolutionary function. The particular method they adopt is to so mingle fact and fancy that the normal concept of reality no longer exists.” Moreover, said Read: “Surrealism is an application of the same logic method (dialectical materialism) to the realm of art. By the dialectical method we can explain the development of art in the past and justify a revolutionary art at the present time.” Two of the most noted surrealist painters, Wassily Kandinsky and Marc Chagall, fought for Lenin and became art commissars in the Bolshevik regime, but that didn’t diminish esteem for their subversive “art” among the pseudo-sophisticates and moneyed plutocracy of the West.
Likewise, the Dadaist painters infused their work with the dialectical materialism of the politically correct artist. Two of the group’s eminent practitioners, George Grosz and John Heartfield, admitted that their works were knock-offs of the Soviet agitprop artist Comrade Tatlin. The glorification of the ugly, obscene, absurd, chaotic, blasphemous, and disordered has so permeated all of the visual arts for this century that it is difficult to overstate the long-term, deleterious impact this has had on the moral and psychological balance of Western society.
When it comes to literature it’s the same dreary story. It seems you have to be communist, deranged, alcoholic, drug-addicted, racist, or an habitual sex offender (or all of the above) to obtain recognition from the culturati. Chilean Communist Pablo Neruda, a so-called poet, was awarded the Nobel Prize more for his ideological rants than for his poetic creations, you can be sure. Ditto for Guatemalan Marxist and “indigenous peoples” activist Rigoberta Menchu. Also, Gabriel Garcia Marquez. Marquez runs Fidel Castro’s Cuban Film Institute, which endears him to the Hollywood Left and the outre-chic trendies of the New York literary set.
When you look at almost any controversial policy issue facing America today, you see the same media-entertainment-cultural elite locked arm-in-arm with the fedgov-foundation funders and the hardcore Left. If the issue is black-white race relations, you will rarely see conservative black spokesmen like Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Ken Hamblin, Jesse Lee Peterson, or Ezola Foster. The ruling class journalists of the CFR media cartel have all of their time and space reserved for the radical race hustlers like Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, John Conyers, Spike Lee, Johnny Cochran, and Al Sharpton, who reliably demand more federal government intervention and more socialist legislation.
Eco, Anti-Gun Bias
We have space here to look at only two important, current issues: gun control and environmental activism. The Columbine High School massacre brought the anti-gun extremists to an unprecedented fever pitch. A detailed analysis of the media coverage of this issue is not yet available, but there is no doubt that it has been even more overwhelmingly slanted than past anti-gun onslaughts.
A study by the Media Research Center (MRC) in 1997 confirmed the blatant anti-gun bias of network television news. MRC analysts reviewed every gun policy story on four evening shows (ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN’s The World Today, and NBC Nightly News) and three morning broadcasts (ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS This Morning, and NBC’s Today) from July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1997. “In 244 gun policy stories, those favoring gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 157 to 10, or a ratio of almost 16 to one (77 were neutral),” noted the MRC.
Other findings of the study:
• “Out of 103 evening news segments, pro-gun control stories outnumbered anti-gun control stories by 70 to 6, along with 27 neutral reports.”
• “Pro-gun control talking heads were televised 99 times on evening shows, to just 67 anti-gun control spokesmen.”
• “The morning shows were also far more likely to invite gun control spokesmen like Sarah Brady than 2nd Amendment defenders…. Pro-gun control spokesmen were able to advocate their side three times more than the anti-gun control speakers.”
The print media is equally biased, if not worse. This striking prejudice is patently obvious when it comes to environmental issues. Try to think of a single story you have read or watched that debunked one of the numerous eco-crisis myths. You’ve seen thousands of stories propagating these myths. Many of those stories have their genesis in funding grants ladled out by your very own federal EPA and other government agencies, or by those ever-generous folks at foundations like Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Packard, etc. When you add up the billions of dollars available to the socialist greenies from both government and private funding, it is easy to see how these activists can keep the non-stop flow of studies, opinion polls, and press conferences going with hired “experts” on every bogus “crisis” from asbestos and acid rain to global warming, ozone depletion, and endangered dung beetles.
In 1997, when several hundred scientists signed onto the UN “global warming” treaty calling for vast, global controls, the controlled media trumpeted their bogus warning. However, when fifteen thousand distinguished scientists, led by Dr. Arthur Robinson and Dr. Frederick Seitz (a physicist and past president of the National Academy of Sciences — and president emeritus of Rockefeller University), challenged the global-warming thesis and the proposed radical treaty solution, it was not “news.” Again, the professional disaster lobbyists such as David Brower, Paul Ehrlich, Stephen Schneider, Jeremy Rifkin, the Aspen Institute, the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, etc. were given — like their anti-gun zealot brethren — the lion’s share of media coverage.
In the case of the guns, the ultimate objective is quite transparent: confiscation of all privately held guns. Many of the gun-control advocates have openly stated this. Such policies, of course, are standard procedure in socialist, fascist, and communist regimes. The total state cannot tolerate the checks to its monopoly of power presented by an armed citizenry.
And the ultimate objectives in the case of environmental controls? There are many, but confiscation of all private property (excepting that of the elite nomenklatura, naturally) is a top priority. Like their comrades in the arts, many of the leading enviromaniacs barely disguise their Marxist-Leninist passions. And what did Lenin say on the matter? The Maximum Leader declared: “All we can say is that whoever conceives of the transition to Socialism without the suppression of the bourgeoisie is not a Socialist.” To whom was he referring? “Bourgeois means an owner of property,” Lenin explained. That may explain why the CFR one-worlders, the hard-core eco-Bolsheviks, and the Hollywood-media gliterati all seem to be unanimous in the selection of Mikhail Gorbachev to lead the international “greening” of Planet Earth. As head of the International Green Cross, this top one-world, communist strategist is the obvious pick.
