The Information Keeps Coming
Part 7 and 8Â In the series, Â
By: Passionate Pachyderms
MEDIA MATTERS Left-leaning news reporters linked to Bill Ayers, Dohrn Also tied to Marxist-founded group seeking government-run Internet Posted: August 03, 2010 9:10 pm Eastern By Aaron Klein Â© 2010 WorldNetDaily William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn Among the individuals who were part of the controversial JournoList e-mail group were activists who served on an editorial board alongside Weather Underground terror group founders William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, WND has learned. Also, it has emerged that other members of JournoList were activists from a far-left think tank with close ties to a Marxist-founded, George-Soros-funded group that petitions for more government control of the Internet. So far, 107 names have been confirmed as part of the JournoList e-mail group of about 400 reporters and activists. The list shut down last month after group members were caught discussing how to minimize negative publicity about Obama’s radical associations, such as the politician’s long relationship with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The whole story, here and now! Get Aaron Klein’s “The Manchurian President” at WND’s Superstore. The names include John B. Judis, senior editor at the New Republic and a contributing editor to the American Prospect. Judis started reporting from Washington in 1982, when he became Washington correspondent for In These Times, a Chicago-based socialist journal. Also a confirmed JournoList member is Frida Berrigan, contributing editor and a member of the editorial board for In These Times. As of 2009, both Ayers and Dorhn were on the editorial board of In These Times. The duo became household names after it was exposed they maintained a close relationship for years with Obama. (Story continues below) Yesterday, WND reported that, in little-noticed comments, Judis first publicly exposed in 2008 that news-media reporters “threw their support” to Barack Obama, then a presidential candidate. Meanwhile, researcher Trevor Loudon of the New Zeal blog has identified eight other members of JournoList who currently or recently worked for the New American Foundation, a left-leaning nonprofit public-policy institute and think tank with offices in Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, Calif. The chairman of the New American Foundation board of directors is Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO of Google. Schmidt is a member of President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. A New American Foundation fellow is Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School and the chairman of Free Press, a George-Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization with close ties to the White House. WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a “world class” government-run media system in the U.S. In May, WND reported Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott was named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department. Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet. The founder of Free Press, Robert W. McChesney, is an avowed Marxist who favors the dismantling of capitalism. McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois and former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review. In February 2009, McChesney concluded that capitalism should be dismantled. “In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,” wrote McChesney in a column. The board of Free Press, meanwhile, has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama’s former “green jobs” czar Van Jones, who resigned after his founding of a communist organization was exposed. Obama’s “Internet czar,” Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press May 14, 2009, “Changing Media” summit in Washington, D.C., revealed the book “The Manchurian President”. Crawford’s pet project, OneWebNow, lists as “participating organizations” Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition’s Federal Communications Commission review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George-Soros-funded public-interest group. A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press. Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros’ Open Society Institute. Previous stories: News bias in prez race more than just a theory ‘JournoList’ group tied to White House, radicals Journalists plotted to bury stories about Rev. Wright Â Â From left to right: Bill Ayers, Jeff Jones and Bernadine Dohrn This is a rush transcript from “Glenn Beck,” July 28, 2010. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. GLENN BECK, HOST: We’re talking tonight about the Weather Underground manifesto written in 1969 by these guys. This is Bill Ayers. This is Bernadine Dohrn, his wife. And this is Jeff Jones. They all are in and around the president. She has been working on the Gaza flotilla. He’s been working on the stimulus package here in New York and showing they can spend it in government. And he is, of course, working on education. Their goal back in 1969 was kill the capitalist system and install world socialism. I contend, if you read this, America, you see exactly what they’re doing. Tonight, we’re going over it and then we’re going over it again tomorrow, the second half of it. It is â€” it is frightening, frightening stuff. We stopped at â€” there’s no property rights, because the ignorant masses â€” you know, the bigots or the stupid â€” they like the free market. They have some stuff. And what the ignorant masses don’t understand â€” by the way, that’s you, you’re clinging to your silly traditions and your God and your guns â€” the truth is: your wealth really isn’t your wealth. In a truly progressive society, in this society that they wanted, wealth belongs to the world. Quote, “The relative affluence existing in the United States is directly dependent upon the labor and the natural resources of the Vietnameseâ€ â€” remember this is written in the 1960s â€“ â€œthe Angolans, and the Bolivians and the rest of the peoples of the third world. All the of the United Airlines Astrojets, all of the holiday inns, all of the Hertz’s automobiles, your television set, your you’re your wardrobe already belong, to a large degree, to the people of the rest of the world.” Now, when I first read this, I thought, boy, where have I seen this before? And then, it dawned on me. George Soros-funded, the Tides Foundation â€” which that funded the “Story of Stuff,” which is now shown, most likely, in your child’s school.
- ‘Glenn Beck’: Faces of The Weather Underground
- ‘Glenn Beck’: Bell’s City Council Pay Scandal
- ‘Glenn Beck’: Oliver Stone Wants to Put Hitler, Stalin in ‘Context’
- ‘Glenn Beck’: Why Harry Reid Isn’t Worried About Cap-and-Trade or Public Option
- ‘Glenn Beck’: Women Raising Awareness About the Needs of Those Who Serve our Country
Then, along came the corporation. Now, the reason the corporation looks bigger than the government is that the corporation is bigger than the government. Of the 100 largest economies on earth now, 51 are corporations. And as the corporation has grown in size and power, we’ve seen little change in the government where they’re a little more concerned in making sure everything’s working out for those guys than for us. BECK: If you’re familiar with this, we played this before. It shows how we have gone and raped the rest of the world and so our stuff isn’t ours. Yes, it is all of this capitalist greed that is causing all of the problems on the entire planet. It is our system and it is set up to make sure that it stays that way â€” and the Weather Underground talk about it’s going to stay that way by force. They complained about the police. You remember, if you’re my age, you remember in the 1960s, people used to call the police â€” not people that I knew â€” but hippies used to call the police “pigs.” Well, apparently, the â€œpigsâ€ had the audacity to believe that people have a right to own their own property. Weather Underground, quote, “Even when there is no organized political struggle, the pigs come down on people in everyday life in enforcing capitalist property relations. They guard stores and factories and the rich and enforce credit and rent against the poor.” Can you believe this? The pigs actually believe that you should pay rent. Well, that hardly seems fair â€” especially with all of the predatory lenders out there. See, here’s the problem: pigs will enforce the property rights. So, what do they do? What do they suggest? Well, redefine “crime.” There’s a great way â€” redefine the crime. So, you are squatting in a house that you’re not paying for, you’re not paying your mortgage for, well, maybe it’s because of â€” maybe you’re not the problem. Maybe it is the bank â€” the predatory lender â€” maybe they’re the problem. Maybe that’s what it is. But a clearer example of this of what they suggested is what ACORN is doing: take it. ACORN now is house-squatting. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is our house now. BECK: There they are â€” they’re going â€” I don’t know why we only have that piece. But this is ACORN going in on a house that has been foreclosed, and they are just taking it. Well, when you see the world as a place that property isn’t owned by the individual but instead the collective, and, really, the rest of the world, it makes sense to see redistribution of wealth as the only response to virtually every single problem. Weather Underground: “It is the oppressed peoples of the world” â€” gee, where did we hear oppressed again? Oh, yes, that’s right, from Jeremiah Wright â€” “the oppressed peoples of the world who have created the wealth of this empire and it is to them that it belongs. The goal of the revolutionary struggle must be the control and use of this wealth in the interests of the oppressed peoples of the world.” Well, have they reached that goal of controlling the wealth? I showed you at the top of the show the financial regulation bill that is passed, is now law. We found out at Fox today that â€” you know, there’s a little sticky thing â€” they can shut you down now. They can shut you down if you’re a threat to the government. We’ve talked at length about the financial regulation bill. But now, you can’t even question them. Freedom of Information Act? Nope. Now, let’s not forget that Van Jones expressed this â€” taking the wealth and giving it to the oppressed people when he spoke about Native Americans. VAN JONES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE GREEN JOBS â€œCZARâ€: No more broken treaties! No more broken treaties! Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! JOEL ROGERS, LAW PROFESSOR: And I think ultimately, the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume in terms of energy and material resources in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous. BECK: You remember, they’re talking about taking your money from the United States of America, even the poorest among us, and giving it to another country, another part of the world. I don’t have to tell you that the policies we’re pursuing all seem to be magically aimed at these redistributive goals, do I? DONALD BERWICK, HEAD, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID: Excellent health care is, by definition, redistributional. BECK: OK. To complete this change, you have to have an enemy. Oh, you must have an enemy. Who is that enemy according to the Weather Underground? Well, I’ll show him to you, next. BECK: I’m going to ask to DVR the show tonight and tomorrow. And tomorrow is even spookier. Tomorrow is â€” tomorrow, we’re going into how to seize it. And it’s really â€” a lot of it is about your kids. What we are doing is we’re going over the manifesto. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. This is 1969. It is from the Weather Underground. This is another part of it. This is “Prairie Fire.” This is an original copy of this. I’m going to show you something at the end of the show about this that will blow your mind. These people, in education â€” this one is working with peace missions like the Gaza flotilla. This guy is working in New York with the Apollo Alliance. These guys are all tied in and around the president. They are former radicals that wrote this plan. This is Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn and Jeff Jones. They wrote this plan. The goal of the plan, which you can get free, front page at GlennBeck.com â€” please download this â€” “kill capitalist system, install world socialism.” That’s what their goal was. We showed you how they were doing it. And the reason why I am playing all of the video along with it is because I want you to ask yourself â€” this is irrelevant if it is 1969. Who cares? But when you see what they said to do and then what we’re doing â€” I’m telling you, with everything in me, this is what the United States of America is doing right now. This is what is happening to us. Please, read this. The end of the week, we have some solutions for you. But when I left off, we were going to expose the enemy of the Weather Underground. They said you â€“ to be able to do this, you have to have an enemy. So who is their enemy? Quote, “management personnel, corporate lawyers,” well, I actually agree with them on that, “Higher civil servants and other government agents, army officers, et cetera, because their job categories require and promote a close identification with the interests of the ruling class. These strata are enemies of the revolution.” Got it? Management, corporate lawyers, the evil executive class â€” they are enemies of the revolution. I mean, they just don’t want to pay their fair share. Is there any attack at all that seems familiar now? BARACK OBAMA, UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner city children, for them to go to school. HILLARY CLINTON, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE: The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. JOE BIDEN, UNITED STATES VICE PRESIDENT: It’s time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut. And the way to do that is they are still going to pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan. OBAMA: I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street. BECK: America, I can play video over and over and over and over and over and over again, but just a few of the highlights to make the point. This is not just about America, because here, step five is we have to become global citizens. Global citizens. What is it that the president has said over and over we need to become? OBAMA: And a fellow citizen of the world. BECK: That’s right. Citizens of the world â€” that’s right. Quoting the Weather Underground, “Any conception of socialist revolution, simply in terms of the working people of the United States, failing to recognize the full scope of the interest of the most oppressed peoples of the world, is a conception of a fight for a particular privileged interest and it is a very dangerous ideology.” All right, how many times have we talked about on this program that the unions are becoming global. And I’ve wondered how does a union go global and protect the interest here in the United States? Because that doesn’t have the best interests of the American worker in mind. To put it in the words of the most frequent visitor to the early Obama White House, Andy Stern, a former member of SDS which these people came from, and the president of SEU (sic) and now the man who is on the president’s Fiscal Responsibility Commission, here’s what he said. ANDY STERN, FORMER PRESIDENT, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION: We’re in the process of building a global union. Trade went global. Capital went global as you said. Companies went global. Workers of the world unite. It is not just a slogan anymore. It’s a way we have to do our work. (END VIDEO CLIP) BECK: Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. Workers of the word unite? Oh, yes. That’s right. It’s part of the things that I’ve read from these old documents from Congress when they were investigating communists. Workers of the world unite â€” I’ve heard that because that’s the communist slogan. Maybe he learned that in SDS and hasn’t shook it yet. Will the average American give up their own well-being to embrace the socialist version of global equality? Well, the authors of this and the Weather Underground â€” they knew. They understood it’s not going to work, so they had to develop a battle plan. Here it is, “On the whole, people don’t just join revolutions because revolutionaries tell them to. We must transform people’s everyday problems and the issues and the struggles growing out of them into revolutionary consciousness, active and conscious opposition to racism and imperialism.” Wow. Wow. Where have I heard that? I remember where I’ve heard that before. Can we put it on the 103 over here, please? Where have I heard that before? I remember now â€” Michelle Obama, before the election. Here is what she said. MICHELLE OBAMA, UNITED STATES FIRST LADY: Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices. We are going to have to change our conversation. We’re going to have to change our traditions, our history. We’re going to have to move it to a different place. BECK: Move into a different place. Transform the everyday life. Well, how do you do that? How do you do that? How do you accomplish a massive step towards global socialism? Well, what I believe is the most sinister recurring narratives of the left. They just tell you that you can’t do it. You can’t make it. You can’t make it. You need them. You can’t make it. The odds are stacked against you, quote, “The masses will fight for socialism when they understand that reform fights, fights for improvement of material conditions, cannot be won under imperialism.” That’s capitalism today. “You must make them feel hopeless” is what they’re saying. And they target the youth and make them believe that the system is stacked against them. You will â€” you will see this on tomorrow’s program. Oh, if you get the youth, they look to you for all of the answers. Youth unemployment, they say, is three times average unemployment. New people in the labor market just can’t find jobs, job stability. And of course, when they do find jobs, young people get the worst ones and have the least seniority. Well, that is how it was when I was a kid, too. That is the way it works. When you see acting out like this, when you see this, who are they going for? They are going for the campuses. They are the pigs going after them. You see it again. What are they doing? It’s interesting also to point out that the unemployment rate in America is 9.5. The teenage unemployment rate is 25.7. African-Americans, age 16 to 19, are 39.3 percent unemployed. A main contributing factor to that is that they raised the minimum wage. Who gets hit the hardest? Those with the least seniority, the youth. And then, back in a minute â€” back in a minute with this. BECK: We have spent this show talking about the Weather Underground and their manifesto and their ideas that are being implemented today. That is your job. Make no mistake. We are undergoing fundamental transformation of America. And tonight, I am doing a prime time live event on GlennBeck.com â€” live, you and me. We’ll be able to ask questions. You’ll be able to ask questions of me. Also we’re debuting a brand-new documentary on fundamental transformation. It’s a half-hour long and it is hair-raising. How much of your freedom has already been lost? And what lies ahead? Go to GlennBeck.com and sign up for the Insider Extreme now. Knowledge is power. Now, with the message that I just gave you, you will never make it. The whole world is against you. Well, you might as well fight for a revolution if you’re young. “Useful idiots” is what Stalin used to call them. I mean, you’re never going to be comfortable. You’ll never make it. You’ll never live your dreams. Well, who is preaching this? A ton of people, but my personal favorite is Michael Moore. Quote, “Listen, friends. You have to face the truth. You are never going to be rich. The system is rigged in favor of the few and your name is not one of them. Not now. Not ever.” In his book, he actually bolded the phrase “you’re never going to be rich.” It’s amazing because he was born poor and is now rich. The winning movement isn’t all about philosophy and propaganda. It’s also about boots on the ground, the strategic backing for the high-minded ideals. Who do you get to protest? Who do you get to march? How many times have you wondered, why protesters, how these protesters all got there? They are being bussed from different areas. People seemingly disconnected. How do people become professional protesters? Well, it is not a new idea. The Weather Underground strategized all of this regarding the youth movement decades ago. And I will show it to you when we return. BECK: Tomorrow, we’re going to start here, using our kids. And then, we’ll show you community organizing and everything else that is happening in America as part of the manifesto from the Weather Underground. Now, remember, here is the thing. Back in the 1960’s, this was the man. These were the pigs. This was you, the average family. You were safe at home and everything. And these were â€” they called themselves “the people,” but they were the radical revolutionaries. But what has happened? These people have all been cleansed through the system. And now, they’re just the regular people. They are you. The man is up here, but he is with them. And you are the racist and the terrorist, and so are the pigs, and soon, will be the soldiers. They flipped places. Now, you have to ask yourself, because people do stupid things in their lives. They do stupid things in their lives. These people have, you know, they did stupid â€” but did they change? Well, we went through some of their books. This one is â€” this one is probably my favorite, “Sing a Battle Song: The Revolutionary Poetry, Statements, and Communiques of the Weather Underground,” edited by Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers and Jeff Jones. Here’s the editor’s preface, “Each of us have included our reflections on the period and the writings that we share common sense that they are of historic value. And although we each cringe at the overheated rhetoric and the bombast” â€” not the bombs â€” “but the bombast, we all rejoice at the militant resistance to war, racism and imperialism.” They stand by these. What I showed you, there is no turning point in their life. And it is in the just these people. I ask you again â€” how many radicals do you know? How many people were in SDS? How many people do you know? How many people do you know were in the Weather Underground? This man is surrounded by a ton of them. And when you see the manifesto that the people â€” they may not be. I don’t think he has this on his desk or anybody has this on their desk. It is just part of them. Hillary Clinton â€” she was â€” wrote a love note as their college thesis on Saul Alinsky. It’s there. You decide. You decide if it makes a difference. This is a rush transcript from “Glenn Beck,” November 30, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. GLENN BECK, HOST: Politico is reporting ACORN has considered changing its name. Wow, I don’t know why that sounds so familiar. I’m trying to think where did I hear that? They’re going to change their name and go underground… (BEGIN ‘GLENN BECK’ VIDEO CLIP FROM JUNE 18, 2009) GLENN BECK: My prediction is that ACORN is going to get so much heat because of this network and only because of this network that they are going to disband. They are going to â€” you will see ACORN just kind of mutate, change, go underground. (END VIDEO CLIP) BECK: This is coming out after sensitive ACORN documents were found in a dumpster â€” more on that in just a second. But it’s going to take a lot more than a name change to cover up what we have already learned about ACORN no matter what they call themselves. First, how is ACORN related to the story I brought you last week on eminent domain abuse? Do you remember this shining example of eminent domain â€” you know, your right to own property and nobody can take it from you? In New London, Connecticut, the city decided to take Suzette Kelo’s home so the drug company, Pfizer, could build a plant that was supposed to bring new jobs and tax revenue. “Hi, we’re here from the city and we’re here to help.” Sure, you are. Here is what the city got â€” a big empty lot. Yes, Suzette’s home is gone. All the small businesses and everybody else â€” gone. The plant? Yes. Pfizer decided, now is not really a good time. Now, let’s go to Brooklyn, New York â€” a similar thing is happening there. Real estate tycoon and millionaire owner of the New Jersey Nets, Bruce Ratner, wants to build a new arena. Some homeowners don’t think that that’s important. They’d rather have their home. But Ratner went to the government with a grand plan for a new stadium and luxury apartments and retailers and stuff. And the government is like, “I smell tax revenue.”NARRATOR:
- ‘Glenn Beck’: Left Trying to Agitate the Tea Party?
- The Plan, Day Five: Surviving the Cuts; Selling the Plan
- The Plan, Day Four: Defense Department Cuts
- The Plan, Day Three: Abolish the Department of Education
- The Plan, Day Two: Social Security Is Broke
- Get your ACORN update!
- Well, after multiple lawsuits, the New York Court of Appeals at their supreme court decided they stand with the people and the state. I mean, eminent domain, with this much money, of course they can take people’s houses. And so, the Atlantic Yards project is going through.
But luckily, the little people, the people who are fighting just to keep their homes, have ACORN to count on. ACORN to the rescue! ACORN is there to help out the little guy, right? They’re there to fight for affordable housing, right? ACORN would never let this project go through, right? Right, Bertha Lewis, head of ACORN? BERTHA LEWIS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ORGANIZER, ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW: Enough is enough. You better build it, and build it now! CROWD: Build it now! Build it now! Build it now! BECK: Did I slip through a wormhole? Am in some parallel universe? I mean, I’m sorry, is that happening in a world where people are actually saying what they mean and mean what they say? They will sell out to anybody. See, ACORN supports the Atlantic Yards deal. But why would they support a developer â€” a millionaire â€” I mean, somebody who is kicking little people out of their houses? They hate that, don’t they? Answer: ching-ching. You see, affordable housing is their way behind all of this. In 2005, Bertha Lewis actually sealed the deal with a kiss for Mayor Bloomberg and Bruce Ratner. Back then, they said there would be 50/50 affordable housing. Unfortunately, the group Don’t Destroy Brooklyn points out: “Six years into the project, there aren’t any designs for any affordable housing.” Yes. And you know, there’s really no guarantee that affordable housing will be built unless there are major government subsidies. So, wait a minute. New York’s going broke, so that means you could pay for that so they could have a new arena. Isn’t that fantastic? So let me see if I have this right. ACORN is supporting the project for all the affordable housing it will provide with no guarantee of providing affordable housing. It is just so lucky that they were there to help Ratner, because in a completely unrelated item, he was there for them just last year with lots of money, just to help. He’s a helper. That’s what he does. The New York Times has written: “Forest City Ratner complied with ACORN’s plea for $1.5 million in grants and loans to help restructure after the internal embezzlement scandal involving Dale Rathke, the brother of its founder, Wade Rathke.” So the guy who wants to build the arena gave them a whole bunch of money â€” completely unrelated, I’m sure. How else does this relationship work? Well, as Bertha Lewis pointed out in an interview with the Regional Labor Review, among other things, ACORN helps Ratner by being, quote: “Political cover. Let’s face it,” end quote. Oh, silly rabbit, why are you getting so worked up about this? I mean, come on. It’s a private company and a non-profit, right? And Congress, by the way, voted to cut off any taxpayer dollars going to ACORN. Wait a minute. Somebody warned me about that. Who was that? (BEGIN ‘GLENN BECK’ VIDEO CLIP FROM OCTOBER 14, 2009) BECK: Hey, don’t believe that BS about, you know, “Hey, we’re going to de-fund ACORN.” BECK: It’s almost like that guy has been right on a few ACORN stories. I should watch him more. The Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department has posted a legal opinion saying the Obama administration could honor the contract signed before Congress banned federal funds in September. So, according to one legal opinion, they still get your money. Oh, I can hear you complaining now: “Oh, Glenn, they had a contract. You stood up for the AIG executives getting their bonuses because they had a contract.” Yes. Yes, I did, no matter how unpopular it was, because they were some at AIG, you know, the ones that had the contract â€” there were some that did a really bad job â€” not for them. The others, the ones that signed the deal with the government right around the time of the bailout, coincidentally, they were like paid a dollar for the year. They were counting on their bonus that the government promised. Yes. And then the government decided to renege on that because it was politically correct to do so. If you want to talk about contracts, how about the contract with the bondholders at General Motors? Where did that contract go? You see, when you pick and choose which laws to uphold and which to ignore, the system doesn’t really seem fair. Wait a minute. Maybe I am for social justice? No, I’m kidding. We’ve seen this before with ACORN. The following was found at www.Discoverthenetwork.org THE “SHADOW” DEMOCRATIC PARTY
|The â€œShadow Partyâ€ is a term originally devised by journalists to describe “527” political committees promoting Democratic Party agendas. Here, the term is used more specifically toÂ refer to the network of non-profit activist groups organized byÂ George SorosÂ and others to mobilize resourcesÂ — money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising and policy iniativesÂ — to elect Democratic candidates andÂ guide the Democratic Party towards the left. The Shadow Party in this sense was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Harold Ickes. Its efforts are amplified by, and coordinated with, key government unions and the activist groups associated with theÂ Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The key organizers of these groups are veterans of the Sixties left. (For a list of some of the Shadow Party’s major players, click here.) No one knows who first coined the term “Shadow Party.” In the November 5, 2002Â Washington Post, writer Thomas B. Edsall wrote of “shadow organizations” springing up to circumvent McCain-Feingold’s soft-money ban. Journalist Lorraine Woellert first called the Democrat network a “shadow party” in a September 15, 2003Â Business WeekÂ article titled “The Evolution of Campaign Finance?” Other journalists quickly followed suit. Some journalists refer to the Shadow Party as “the 527s” or “the 527 groups.” These terms derive from the fact that most of the non-profit groups within the Shadow Party are registered under Section 527 of the U.S. tax code. Section 527 groups face weaker regulation and looser disclosure requirements than other types of non-profit groups. Thus they are better suited for operating in the shadows, in areas of dubious legality. Section 527 groups are used for raising “soft money.” For a thorough explanation of Section 527 groups and soft money, clickÂ here. Wall Street billionaire George Soros is the Shadow Party’s principal founder and mastermind. Clear hints of Soros’ intentions began to appear as early as the 2000 election. It was thenÂ that Soros (shouldering about one-third of the cost) sponsored the so-called “Shadow Conventions.” Organized by author, columnist, and socialiteÂ Arianna Huffington, the Shadow Conventions were media events designed to lure news crews from the real party conventions of that year. Huffington held her “Shadow Conventions” at the same time and in the same cities as the Republican and Democratic Conventions, in Philadelphia and Los Angeles respectively, and featured leftwing critics of mainstream politics. The Shadow Conventions promoted Huffington’s view that neither Democrats nor Republicans served the interests of the American people any longer. In Huffingtonâ€™s view, U.S. politics needed a third force to break the deadlock. Among the issues highlighted at the Shadow Conventions were racism, class inequality, marijuana legalization, and campaign finance reform. Most speakers and delegates pushed a hard-left line, accompanied by “Free Mumia” chants from the crowd and an incendiary tirade byÂ Jesse Jackson. A former conservative, Huffington told reporters: “I have become radicalized.” The Shadow Conventions were purely symbolic affairs. They fielded no candidates for office. However, many of Soros’ activities during the 2000 campaign went beyond symbolism. It was during the 2000 election that Soros first experimented with raising campaign funds through Section 527 groups.Â In preparation for the 2000 election, Soros assembled a team of wealthy Democrat donors to help him push two of his pet issuesÂ — gun control and marijuana legalization. Their donations greatly exceeded the limits on political contributions stipulated by campaign finance laws. Soros therefore laundered their contributions through Section 527 groups — dubbed “stealth PACs,” by the media of that time. One of Soros’ stealth PACs was an anti-gun group called The Campaign for a Progressive Future (CPF). This group sought to neutralize the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) by targeting for defeat any political candidate, at any level, whom the NRA endorsed. Soros personally seeded CPF with $500,000. During the 2000 election, CPF funded political ads and direct-mail campaigns in support of state initiatives favoring background checks at gun shows. Soros used other 527s to agitate in favor of pro-marijuana initiatives which appeared on the ballot in various states that year. Donors to Soros’ stealth PACs during the 2000 election cycle included insurance mogulÂ Peter B. LewisÂ and InfoSeek founder Steven Kirsch, both of whom would turn up as major contributors to Soros’ Shadow Party during the 2004 election season. During the 1990s, Soros had grown close toÂ Bill ClintonÂ and Hillary Clinton. Their ascension to power gave him easy entreÃ© to Washington elites of a sort he had long coveted but never enjoyed. Soros became the Clintons’ unofficial envoy to Russia and to other former Communist states. The assignment proved lucrative for him. Soros made a fortune in the so-called “Russiagate” phenomenonÂ — the orgy of backroom “privatization” deals and Russian junk bond issues which Clinton officials such as Strobe Talbot,Â Al Gore, and Lawrence Summers helped foster in the former USSR. More importantly, Soros discovered inÂ Hillary ClintonÂ an ideological soulmate. Mrs. Clinton shared his aversion to U.S. “hegemony.” Like Soros, she sought to subordinate U.S. interests to global interests; U.S. sovereignty to global government; U.S. law to global courts; U.S. wealth to global taxation; and U.S. productivity to a scheme for global income redistribution. She also shared Soros’ hostility to Israel. Soros and Mrs. Clinton formed a friendship based upon their mutual beliefs. When the Clintons left office, Soros dedicated himself to restoring Hillary to the White House. Soros has a wealth of He helped fund the 1989 “Velvet Revolution” that brought Vaclav Havel to power in the Czech Republic. By his own admission, he has helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government — a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party Soros has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries, prior to instigating a coup. At the heart of the American Shadow Party is theÂ Center for American ProgressÂ (CAP). It was launched on July 7, 2003 as the American Majority Institute. The name was changed to Center for American Progress on September 1, 2003. The official purpose of the Center was to provide the left with a new think tank of its own. Regarding the new think tank proposed by Soros and Halperin, Hillary Clinton told Matt Bai ofÂ The New York Times MagazineÂ on October 12, 2003, “We need some new intellectual capital. There has to be some thought given as to how we build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party’s values.” Expanding on this theme, Mrs. Clinton later toldÂ The Nation‘s Robert Dreyfuss, “We’ve had the challenge of filling a void on our side of the ledger for a long time, while the other side created an infrastructure that has come to dominate political discourse. The Center is a welcome effort to fill that void.” Hillary Clinton tried to minimize the depth of her involvement with the Center for American Progress. But persistent press leaks confirm that she — and not its official president,Â John Podesta — had ultimate authority at CAP.Â “It’s the official Hillary Clinton think tank,” an inside source confided to Christian Bourge of United Press International. As Robert Dreyfuss noted inÂ The Nation, “In looking at Podesta’s center, there’s no escaping the imprint of the Clintons. It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White-House-in-exile — or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.” Dreyfuss noted the abundance of Clintonites on the Center’s staff, among them Clinton’s national security speechwriter Robert Boorstin; Democratic Leadership Council staffer and former head of Clinton’s National Economic Council Gene Sperling; former senior advisor to Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget Matt Miller; and more. Dreyfuss wrote: “[T]he Center’s kickoff conference on national security in October , co-organized withÂ The American ProspectÂ and the Century Foundation, looked like a Clinton reunion, featuring Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary;Â William Perry, his Defense Secretary;Â Sandy Berger, his National Security Adviser; Richard Holbrooke and Susan Rice, both Clinton-era Assistant Secretaries of State; Rodney Slater, his Transportation Secretary;Â and Carol Browner, his EPA administrator, who serves on the Center’sÂ board of directors.” Hillary Clinton also attended the event, Dreyfuss reported. To develop the Shadow Party as a cohesive entity, Harold Ickes undertook the task of building a 21st-century version of the Left’s traditional alliance of the “oppressed,” the disgruntled, and the “disenfranchised.” He formed a coalition of pro-abortion activists, leftwing minority groups, and leftwing labor unions. By the time Ickes was done, he had created or helped to create six new groups, and had co-opted a seventh calledÂ MoveOn.org. Together, they constituted the administrative core of the Shadow Party. They were:Â America Coming Together;Â America Votes; theÂ Center for American Progress;Â Joint Victory Campaign 2004;Â The Media Fund;Â MoveOn.org; andÂ theÂ Thunder Road Group. In addition to its seven core members, the Shadow Party also came to include at least another 30 well-established leftwing activist groups and labor unions that participated in the America Votes coalition. Among the better-known of these were ACORN; the AFL-CIO; the AFSCME; the American Federation of Teachers; the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; the Defenders of WildlifeÂ Action Fund; EMILY’s List; the Human Rights Campaign; the League of Conservation Voters; the NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America; the National Education Association; People for the American Way; Planned Parenthood; the Service Employees International Union; and the Sierra Club. In a November 11, 2003 interview with Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post, George Soros described how he had jump-started the Shadow Party in the summer of 2003. The Wall Street billionaire told how he had summoned a team of political strategists, activists and Democrat donors to his Southampton beach house in Long Island, New York. According toÂ The Washington Post, attendees included:Â Morton H. HalperinÂ (Director of Soros’Â Open Society Institute); John Podesta (Democrat strategist and former Clinton chief of staff); Jeremy Rosner (Democrat strategist and pollster, ex-foreign policy speechwriter for Bill Clinton, and former special advisor to Secretary of State Madeline Albright on NATO; Robert Boorstin (Democrat strategist and pollster, ex-national security speechwriter for Clinton, and former advisor to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin);Â Carl PopeÂ (ACT co-founder, Democrat strategist, environmentalist, andÂ Sierra ClubÂ Executive Director);Â Steve RosenthalÂ (Labor leader, CEO of America Coming Together, former chief advisor on union matters to Clinton Labor SecretaryÂ Robert Reich, former Deputy Political Director under DNC chairman Ron Brown, and AFL-CIO Political Director from 1996 – 2002);Â Peter LewisÂ (major Democrat donor and insurance entrepreneur, and founder and chairman of Progressive Corporation); Rob Glaser (major Democrat donor and Silicon Valley pioneer); Ellen MalcolmÂ (co-founder and president of ACT and founder ofÂ Emily’s List); Rob McKay (major Democrat donor, Taco Bell heir, and McKay Family Foundation President; and Lewis and Dorothy Cullman (major Democrat donors, and founders of the Lewis and Dorothy Cullman Foundation in New York). At the meeting, Soros laid out his plan to defeat President Bush. He began implementing his plan before the meeting had adjourned. Blumenfeld writes: “Standing on the back deck, the evening sun angling into their eyes, Soros took aside Steve Rosenthal, CEO of the liberal activist group America Coming Together (ACT), and Ellen Malcolm, its president. They were proposing to mobilize voters in 17 battleground states. Soros told them he would give ACT $10 million. â€¦ Before coffee the next morning, his friend Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corp., had pledged $10 million to ACT. Rob Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, promised $2 million. Rob McKay, President of the McKay Family Foundation, gave $1 million, and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman committed $500,000. Soros also promised up to $3 million to Podesta’s new think tank, the Center for American Progress.” The Shadow Party had been born, and by late 2003 Soros issued an open call for “regime change” in the United States. “America under Bush is a danger to the world,” Soros told Blumenfeld in that same November 11, 2003 interview. Toppling Bush, said Soros, “is the central focus of my lifeâ€¦ a matter of life and death. And I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.” New groups are constantly being formed in the Shadow Party, while others vanish. To determine how many groups exist in the Shadow Party at any given time is difficult. It is even more difficult to determine the purpose of each group. In some cases, groups seem to have no function other than to transfer funds from one 527 to another, perhaps in order to obscure the money trail. On December 10, 2003, for instance, a 527 group called the Sustainable World Corporation suddenly sprang into existence in Houston, Texas. Within days of its birth, it gave $3.1 million to the Joint Victory Campaign 2004, which in turn disbursed half of the payment to Harold Ickes’ Media Fund. As of 2004, an alphabetical list of Shadow Party groups included the following:Â Air America Radio;Â America Coming Together;Â America Votes;Â American Constitution Society; American Federation of Labor – Congress of Industrial Organizations; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; American Federation of Teachers; Anshell Media;Â Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now; Association of Trial Lawyers of America; Band of Progressives; Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Campaign for a Progressive Future; Campaign for America’s Future; Center for American Progress; Clean Water Action; Communication Workers of America; The Constitution Project; DASH PAC;Â Defenders of WildlifeÂ Action Fund; Democracy for America; Democratic Governors Associations; Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; Dog Eat Dog Films;Â EMILY’s List; Environment 2004;Â Gore/Lieberman Recount Committee; Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union; the Human Rights Campaign; INdTV; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Joint Victory Campaign 2004; Laborers International Union of North American;Â League of Conservation Voters; New Democrat Network; The Media Fund;Â Media Matters for America;Â Million Mom March; Moving America Forward;Â MoveOn.org; Music for America;Â National Association for the Advancement of Colored People;Â NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Education Association; National Grassroots Alliance; National Jewish Democratic Council; National Treasury Employees Union; New American Optimists; New Democrat Network; Partnership for America’s Families;Â People for the American Way; Phoenix Group;Â Planned Parenthood; Pro-Choice Vote;Â Service Employees International Union; Sheet Metal Workers International Association;Â Sierra Club; TheÂ Thunder Road Group; United Food & Commercial Workers Union; United Progressive Alliance;Â USAction; Vagina Votes; Voices for Working Families;Â Vote for Change; Young Voter Alliance; and 21st Century Democrats.||
Next Up : Part Â 8Â In the series, Â
James H. Hansen
Uncovering theÂ Web of ConnectionsÂ Among Far-Left Groups In America
James H. Hansen
Uncovering theÂ Web of ConnectionsÂ Among Far-Left Groups In America
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAADC Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee
AAUP American Association of University Professors
ABM anti-ballistic missile
ACDA Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
ACT America Coming Together
ACW advanced conventional weapons
ADA Americans for Democratic Action
AFC America First Committee
AFSC American Friends Service Committee
AFSCME American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
AFT American Federation of Teachers
ALF Animal Liberation Front
ANC African National Congress
ANSWER Act Now to Stop War and End Racism
ATLA Association of Trial Lawyers of America
AV America Votes
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
BW biological warfare
CAF Campaign for Americaâ€™s Future
CAIR Council on American-Islamic Relations
CAP Center for American Progress
CBC Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
CBC Congressional Black Caucus
CC&D camouflage, concealment, and deception
CBRN chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear
CBS Columbia Broadcasting System
CC Central Committee (of CPSU)
CCNY City College of New York
CCR Center for Constitutional Rights
CEP Council on Economic Priorities
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
CIP Center for International Policy
CLRA Civil Liberties Restoration Act
CLW Civil Liberties Watch
CNN Cable News Network
CNSS Center for National Security Studies
CPSU Communist Party of the Soviet Union
CPUSA Communist Party USA
CW chemical warfare
D&D denial and deception
DCI Director of Central Intelligence
DGI General Directorate of Intelligence (Cuba)
DNC Democratic National Committee
DNI director of national intelligence
DSA Democratic Socialists of America
DSEA Domestic Security Enhancement Act
ELF Earth Liberation Front
EU European Union
FAIR Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FFP Fund for Peace
FISA Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
FISC Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FOR Fellowship of Reconciliation
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
GE Global Exchange
GLCM ground-launched cruise missile
GPS Global Positioning System
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
IAC International Action Center
IADL International Association of Democratic Lawyers
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ID International Department (of CPSU Central Committee)
IFCO Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization
IID International Information Department (of CPSU Central
IIG Iraqi interim government
IIS Iraqi Intelligence Service
IMF International Monetary Fund
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
IOW Iraq Occupation Watch
IOWC International Occupation Watch Center
IPA Institute for Public Accuracy
IPS Institute for Policy Studies
IRS Internal Revenue Service
ISO International Socialist Organization
IWCT International War Crimes Tribunal
IWW Industrial Workers of the World
KGB Committee for State Security (Soviet Union)
LAGPAC Lesbian and Gay Political Action Committee
LCCR Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
LCV League of Conservation Voters
LGBT lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
MCPL Members of Congress for Peace Through Law
MEK Mujahideen al-Khalq
MFS Mobilization for Survival
MMA Media Matters for America
MPLA Popular Liberation Movement of Angola
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MRBM medium-range ballistic missile
MRE meal ready to eat
NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored
NACCA National Association of Claimantâ€™s Compensation
NACLA North American Congress on Latin America
NAFTA North American Free Trade Association
NARAL National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NBC National Broadcasting Corporation
NCC National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
NCLB National Civil Liberties Bureau
NEA National Education Association
NECLC National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee
NGLTF National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
NION Not in Our Name
NLF National Liberation Front (Vietcong)
NLG National Lawyers Guild
NOW National Organization of Women
NPR National Public Radio
NPT Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSC National Security Council
OSI Open Society Institute
PA Peace Action
PCPJ Peopleâ€™s Coalition for Peace and Justice
PD Propaganda Department (of CPSU Central Committee)
PDN Progressive Donor Network
PFAW People for the American Way
PFP Pastors for Peace
PLO Palestine Liberation Organization
PWA Public Works Administration
R&D research and development
R&R Refuse and Resist!
RAN Rain Forest Action Network
RCP USA Revolutionary Communist Party USA
RIM Revolutionary Internationalism Movement
RU Revolutionary Union
RYM II Revolutionary Youth Movement II
SANE Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy
SAT Scholastic Aptitude Test
SCDP Soviet Committee for the Defense of Peace
SDI Strategic Defense Initiative
SDS Students for a Democratic Society
SEIU Service Employees International Union
SLA Symbionese Liberation Army
SNCC Student Nonviolent Coordinating Center
SRBM short-range ballistic missile
SVR Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia)
SWP Socialist Workers Party
TNF theater nuclear forces
UFPJ United for Peace and Justice
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
USA PATRIOT Act Uniting and Strengthening America by ProvidingÂ Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept andÂ Obstruct Terrorism Act
USPC U.S. Peace Council
VMC Vietnam Moratorium Committee
VVAW Vietnam Veterans Against the War
WFDY World Federation of Democratic Youth
WFTU World Federation of Trade Unions
WIDF Womenâ€™s International Democratic Federation
WILPF Womenâ€™s International League for Peace and Freedom
WMD weapons of mass destruction
WPC World Peace Council
WRL War Resisters League
WSI Winter Soldier Investigation
WSP Womenâ€™s Strike for Peace
WTO World Trade Organization
WUO Weather Underground Organization
WWP Workers World Party
WHATâ€™S ATÂ STAKE NOW
NO MATTER WHAT YOUR political persuasion, we clearly live in interesting,Â emotional, and highly charged times! Our political process is
moving faster, further, and in more directions than ever before. An excitingÂ timeâ€”but the United States seems to be at war with itself. If the
German philosopher George Hegel were alive today, he might cast theÂ issues into his framework of â€œthesis-antithesis-synthesis.â€
THESIS: The United States is attempting to secure itself through aÂ position of strength and is trying to spread freedom throughoutÂ the world.
On February 2, 2005, President George W. Bush stood before a jointÂ session of Congress to spell out his vision of extending freedom beyond
American borders and ensuring a stronger America based on the freedomÂ that other nations pursue and attain. It was a State of the Union
address of memorable proportions.1Â The war in Iraq was a prime topic. The president stated: â€œThe newÂ political situation in Iraq opens a new phase of our working in that
country. We will increasingly focus our efforts on helping prepareÂ more capable Iraqi security forcesâ€”forces with skilled officers, and an
effective command structure. We are standing for the freedom of ourÂ Iraqi friends, and freedom in Iraq will make America safer for generations
The campaign against international terrorism was also high on hisÂ agenda that night. He noted: â€œIn the next four years, my administration
will continue to build the coalitions that will defeat the dangers of ourÂ time. In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating
the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. . . .The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror,
and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom.â€ He notedÂ the necessity of â€œpursuing our enemiesâ€ as vital to the war on terror and
further noted, â€œWe must continue to support our military and giveÂ them the tools for victory.â€
At the same time, he noted that the U.S. aim is to â€œpreserve andÂ build a community of free and independent nations, with governments
that answer to their citizens and reflect their own cultures. And becauseÂ democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance
of freedom will lead to peace.â€ In this phrase, President Bush tied togetherÂ the advance of freedom on a global scale with enhanced security
for Americans and American interests. In short, this marked a fusion ofÂ Wilsonian idealism with Reaganesque muscularity.
There was recognition in this speech that the spread of freedomÂ would not be primarily a matter of arms. The United States has many
nonmilitary tools of â€œsoft powerâ€ as well as a first-class military establishment.
Our vast array of tools includes diplomacy (making our caseÂ quietly), public diplomacy (making our case publicly), economic
power, and covert action (political influence operations), not to mentionÂ a host of cultural influences as well (Hollywood, MTV, and English
as the dominant language of the World Wide Web).
Even before President Bush delivered his State of the Union speechÂ that night, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had put several foreign
governments on notice that their human rights records were lacking.Â The governments of Myanmar (Burma), Zimbabwe, Belarus, North
Korea, Cuba, and Iran were singled out by name. Some of these countriesÂ had not appeared on this list with such a high profile, although
North Korea, Cuba, and Iran had long been cited for giving varying degreesÂ of support to terrorism.
Within only two weeks of that address, events abroad coalesced asÂ if to underscore what a dangerous world President Bush had inherited
President Bush singled out Iran by name in his speech: â€œToday IranÂ remains the worldâ€™s primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear
weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve.
To the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your ownÂ liberty, America stands with you.â€ Shortly thereafter, the Iranian regime
hardened its already-defiant stance on its nuclear goals. At that junctureÂ it appeared that the combined efforts of the â€œEU Threeâ€ (the United
Kingdom, France, and Germanyâ€”with whom Iran had been negotiating)Â had no discernible effect on Tehranâ€™s nuclear goals.
He also singled out Syria, which was cited for allowing its territoryÂ and even parts of Lebanon â€œto be used by terrorists who seek to destroy
every chance of peace in the region.â€ Within two weeks, Syria stood accusedÂ of involvement in the massive bomb explosion in downtown
Beirut that killed former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, and theÂ United States withdrew its ambassador home â€œfor consultations,â€ a sign
that relations between the two countries were spiraling downward.
At this same time, North Korea announced that it had indeed attainedÂ a nuclear capability. The regime of Kim Jong-il had long been suspected
of developing nuclear weapons and had already tested long-rangeÂ missile delivery systems. This marked the first public announcement
from the secretive, reclusive regime in Pyongyang. All that would remainÂ would be some kind of nuclear test in the future, an event that would
surely evoke an array of nervous reactions throughout Asia and beyond.
Indeed, the events of early 2005 only began to illustrate the manyÂ hurdles lying in the path of U.S. aspirations to spread peace and freedom
on a global scale. These were times that would certainly challengeÂ to the utmost those keystone officials of the second Bush administration:
Secretary of State Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, nationalÂ security adviser Stephen Hadley, Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Director ofÂ Central Intelligence (DCI) Porter Goss, and National Intelligence Director
ANTITHESIS: Determined and influential forces are mightily opposingÂ these initiatives.
Before, during, and after the contentious election of 2004, there wasÂ a swirl of raucous, strident, and militant voices that spoke out forcefully
against the Bush administration and its objectives and policies. Many ofÂ those in this crowd expressed a venomous hatred for Bush in shrill
tones. Some called this the â€œSSSâ€ affliction (Sputtering and SpewingÂ Syndrome), and a few of those so afflicted were booking one-way tickets
to Canada by early 2005.
This level of hatred has been seen on only several occasionsÂ throughout American history. The names given to some of our most notable
presidents remind you that American politics is a rough (sometimesÂ bare-knuckle) enterprise. Thomas Jefferson of 1800 was an
â€œatheist,â€ an â€œinfidel,â€ a â€œJacobin,â€ and by 1804 had attained theÂ vaunted status of â€œanti-Christ.â€ In 1868 Ulysses S. Grant was known as
the â€œdrunkard,â€ the â€œbutcher,â€ and by 1872 had graduated to â€œUselessÂ Grant,â€ the â€œswindlerâ€ and â€œignoramus.â€
George Bush could take some solace from the fact that AbrahamÂ Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt were also targets of ridicule. In
1860 Lincoln was called the â€œbig baboon.â€ By 1864 he was the â€œIllinoisÂ Ape, the â€œtyrant,â€ and the â€œprince of jesters.â€ Many had spoken out
against Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1932 FDR was called a â€œdemagogue,â€Â â€œBolshevist,â€ â€œLittle Lord Fauntleroy,â€ and an â€œamiable boy scoutâ€ as
well as a â€œtraitor to his class.â€ By 1940 he was known to some as â€œKingÂ Franklin,â€ â€œDr. Jekyll of Hyde Park,â€ a â€œdictator,â€ a â€œwarmonger,â€ and
an â€œappeaserâ€ (quite the opposite of a warmonger, but why botherÂ with trivialities?).
The names called George Bush are one thing, but it is more significantÂ that determined forces have been marshaling, organizing, raising
money, and calibrating their efforts to oppose nearly every initiative theÂ United States puts forward. The overall level of organization and cohesion
of these groups is not well known, nor is the extent of their connectionsÂ to one another. Their levels and sources of funding are
certainly not known to a great extent. For anyone who bothers to look,Â the level of their vitriol is most evident, but their organizational nuances
are not. This book will try to fill in those blank spots in our commonÂ understanding of these organizations, focusing on what they
believe in, how they work together, and what it means to us.
The actions of these Far-Left groups have brought about a reaction
from many elements of mainstream America. As such, the country isÂ divided to the point of polarization. Just as there was a proverbial wall
that existed during the days of Vietnam, separating those who servedÂ there and those who did not, there is such a wall today as well. If anything,
the wall is just as high and just as thick as it was some fortyÂ years ago. If it has been the deliberate intention of these groups to
cause alienation and polarization in American society, they have succeededÂ remarkably.
SYNTHESIS: The outcome of this great political collision will hingeÂ greatly on the common personâ€™s understanding of these oppositional
forces and the degree of support that they garner.Â Average citizens should try to find out a few things about those
groups that have taken such an adversarial approach to U.S. policies. Â The key questions include these:
â€¢ What do these groups really believe? This includes their perceptionsÂ of reality, their understanding of their own capabilities, and
whether they truly believe what they are telling themselves andÂ their audiences.
â€¢ Do these groups mean well? Do they have the best interests ofÂ democracy in mind?
â€¢ Who is behind the Far-Left groups today?
â€¢ How well are they succeeding in forming and sustaining theirÂ groupings? This includes their abilities to fund, organize, and
control their movements.
â€¢ How are Far-Left viewpoints getting injected into the mainstreamÂ of liberal thought, and how much are these Far-Left viewpoints
becoming dominant themes of liberal thought?
â€¢ Can the non-Far-Left elements of the liberal movement reassertÂ control?
This book will examine these questions in subsequent chapters, butÂ for now it is useful to sketch out the essence of what many of these
groups truly believe if we are to take their own slogans and terminologyÂ at face value.
â€¢ The United States has used the war against Iraq as a first step towardÂ world domination and empire.
â€¢ The United States is a hegemonic, imperialistic nation eager toÂ impose its version of democracy on all other nations.
â€¢ President Bush is a moron, a bully, a liar, a murderer, and aÂ warmonger.
â€¢ The terror inflicted upon the United States on September 11,Â 2001, was well deserved, justifiably brought on by our own aggressiveÂ policies.
â€¢ The terrorist threat is greatly overstated.
â€¢ The campaigns against al-Qaeda and Iraq are some of the greatestÂ crimes in modern history.
â€¢ Nothing can possibly justify the Bush administrationâ€™s criminalÂ wars on foreign soil or its widespread violation of human rights.
â€¢ Most Americans are truly ashamed of their governmentâ€™sÂ arrogance.
â€¢ The United States is using homeland security as a tool to stifleÂ dissent as well as harass those who oppose its policies.
â€¢ The United States is well on the way to jailing people for theirÂ political opinions or otherwise taking extreme measures that violate
the Bill of Rights.
The opposition forces rely greatly on their abilities to mobilize largeÂ numbers of people to support their causes. It does not matter whether
such people show up on the streets in demonstrations or appear in theÂ print or broadcast media. These forces know that there is strength in
The force of numbers has been decisive on several occasions inÂ modern history. On one occasion President Lyndon B. Johnson finally
gave in to the forces that were rising against his policies in Vietnam inÂ March 1968, when he announced on national television, â€œI will not
seek, nor shall I accept, the nomination of my party for President of theÂ United States.â€ Much more recently, voters in Spain turned out the
government of U.S. ally Jose Maria Aznar in March 2004, just two daysÂ after a series of deadly terrorist bombings of the Madrid commuter rail
network. The new Spanish government under Jose Luis Rodriguez ZapateroÂ set about immediately to withdraw its troops from Iraq.
WHATâ€™S AT STAKE: WHETHER HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE SUCCUMB TOÂ PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT AND OPINION MANIPULATION
In order to mobilize a large number of people, clever organizers oftenÂ rely on the manipulation of perceptions through advanced media techniques.
These techniques might be called opinion making, opinion shaping,Â and opinion policing. Opinion making refers to generating formative
themes that many can rally behind. â€œNo war for oilâ€ remains a favoriteÂ even now. Opinion shaping refers to channeling or bending existing issues
in a way that is favorable to a groupâ€™s point of view. One exampleÂ would be trying to prove that systematic torture of Iraqi and other foreign
detainees is standard U.S. policy. Opinion policing refers to definingÂ what topics are within the bounds of acceptable discourse and what are
out of bounds. The topic of hate speechâ€”and decisions on what topicsÂ are tolerable for debate on college campusesâ€”comes to mind here.
The aim of clever organizers is to influence peopleâ€™s opinions andÂ their resulting behavior rather than merely communicate facts. Many of
the individuals cited here have sought to change how people understandÂ an issue or a situation for the purpose of changing their actions in
ways that favor their groups. Many of them are skilled artists of the spokenÂ and written wordâ€”adept at influencing opinions through persuasion
or else through deception and confusion. In recent years there hasÂ been a substantial increase in deceptive and confusing tactics that have
targeted U.S. society and its perceptions of U.S. policies.
The most clever organizers and opinion makers are well versed inÂ all propaganda techniques. These include appeals to fear, appeals to authority,
the â€œbandwagon effect,â€ demonization, glittering generalities,Â oversimplification, stereotyping, scapegoating, and sloganeering. Given
the many ways in which opinions can be shaped and altered, averageÂ people have to have some way to assess and ultimately accept or reject
these various claims and statements. Rest assured that no hard-Left radicalÂ demonstration organizer wants average people to have the â€œtools of
awareness and filteringâ€ to see through the organizerâ€™s array of â€œtools ofÂ persuasion.â€ Likewise, the radical professor who uses his classroom to
propagandize students does not want them to use their own tools ofÂ awareness and filtering.
WHATâ€™S AT STAKE: AN ENDURING IMAGE OF AMERICA ABROAD
The sloganeering and hyperbole of Far-Left groups have been givenÂ wings abroad, especially in Europe and the Middle East. Many political
activist groups in Europe have readily adopted the jargon and the tacticsÂ practiced by American Far-Left groups. Many disillusioned youths who
inhabit the â€œArab streetâ€ parrot those slogans in front of cameramenÂ from Aljazeera. Given that many Far-Left groups in the United States
wish to project their message worldwideâ€”using every tool of theÂ twenty-first-century communications revolutionâ€”it is inevitable that
this message is replayed and amplified on a global scale. The allies ofÂ the Far-Left groups who inhabit the newspapers and major U.S. television
networks greatly assist in this process, as they can trim out variousÂ embarrassing details about the affiliation of such groups while
transmitting the most captivating sound bites instantaneously.
What’s At Stake: ALIENATION OF THE VOTING PUBLIC
Even though the election of 2004 resulted in a large voter turnout,Â there is no doubt that a huge number of Americans have become thoroughly
alienated from politics. The appropriate term, to borrow fromÂ the German, is politikverdrossenheit, meaning â€œfed up with politics.â€
There are many reasons for this alienation, but the techniques and tacticsÂ employed by radical elements likely account for a significant measure
WHATâ€™S AT STAKE: OUR OWN STANDARDS OF CIVILITY
In recent years everyone has witnessed a stupefying number of attackÂ ads, use of the Big Lie, caricature and stereotyping, demonizing the opposition,
extreme metaphor, mudslinging, the politics of personal destruction,Â ritual defamation, and smears. The years 2003 and 2004
witnessed a veritable flood of books from Far-Left authors (publishedÂ gladly by liberal publishing houses) that amounted to unlimited character
assassination. All of this has eroded our own standards of civility.
Only forty years ago, those on opposite sides of the aisle in the SenateÂ and House of Representatives saw one another as opponents, not as enemies,
as is often the case today. Policy makers of opposing partiesÂ could mingle at Capitol Hill watering holes at dayâ€™s end. Likewise, most
average citizens on both sides of the Democratic-Republican divideÂ were far more civil to one another when they had to mix.
Concentrates onÂ those organizations that have demonstrated continuity from their earlyÂ founding period and remain active up to the present. There is special
emphasis on those that emerged over the past ten years and continue toÂ play a major role today.
This is not intended to document the various stages of developmentÂ and decline of the New Left. That history is best left to others,
and any effort to get into all the twists, turns, splits, mergers, and otherÂ permutations that the New Left has experienced would either require a
new book on that topic or would significantly derail the discussionÂ from what is intended here.
Any author who tries to show the linkages that exist betweenÂ groups is tempted to assume that these various associations act with a
greater level of coherence and cohesion than may exist in real life. It isÂ well to remember that these groupsâ€”while coordinating their activitiesâ€”
may not always work as a smoothly functioning united front. JustÂ to take the examples of the European Union (EU), or NATO, or the UN
for that matter, different members can bring differing perceptions andÂ expectations to the tableâ€”factors that can get in the way of a higher degree
of group cohesion. Any author examining this topic must use someÂ degree of caution and not allow conspiracy theories to get out of hand.
Likewise, it is necessary to determine whether these groups pose a daggerÂ to the heart, an irritating pinprick, or something else. Not all of
them pose the same degree of threat to our republic.
Finally, it is wise not to overestimate the ultimate leverage and influenceÂ such groups may have on actual events. Many of these Far-Left
groups denigrated Iraqi efforts to hold its first election on January 30,Â 2005, or else tried to explain it away as insignificant. Yet their combined
efforts could not prevent or dismiss the groundswell of democraticÂ movement occurring in the Middle East in early 2005 alone: the â€œpurple
fingerâ€ Iraqi election; an election within the Palestinian Authority inÂ the post-Arafat era; the emergence of â€œpeople powerâ€ in Lebanon and a
popular upwelling of rage against the continued Syrian occupation; andÂ Egyptian president Mubarakâ€™s announced plans to hold some form of
multiparty election in September 2005. It is a fair question whether theÂ hard-line stridency and logical contortions of these radical organizations
will doom them to utter irrelevance.
1: THESE ORGANIZATIONS EMPLOY RECURRING PATTERNS OFÂ OPERATIONS AND TACTICS.
To cite the example of the â€œanti-intelligence lobbyâ€ of 1974, there wereÂ interlocking directorates and advisory boards among the chief groups.
The leading figures moved relatively freely between the Institute forÂ Policy Studies (IPS), Center for National Security Studies (CNSS), National
Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (NECLC), Center for ConstitutionalÂ Rights (CCR), and the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU). These groups had the ultimate goal of dismantling U.S. intelligenceÂ and security agencies, or at the very least rendering them toothless.
According to S. Steven Powell, â€œThey sat on one anotherâ€™s advisoryÂ boards, participated in one anotherâ€™s conferences, and wrote for one anotherâ€™s
journals. The different arguments being made by apparentlyÂ separate groups which reinforced one another were at the core basically
of a single argument being repeated over and over again.â€2Â To cite the best example today, there is a close interactive relationship
between todayâ€™s organizations, now consisting of United for PeaceÂ and Justice (UFPJ), Global Exchange, CodePink, and the Iraq Occupation
Watch (IOW). There is the same interlocking leadership amongÂ these groups, and they all tend to reinforce one another in a variety of
demonstrations, forums, conferences, and publications. At the sameÂ time, the groups formed in the 1960s and 1970s have not gone away, as
the anti-intelligence lobby groups of the 1970s are continuing and operatingÂ in concert just as they always have.
2: THEY ARE PURSUING NEW WAYS TO UNDERMINE THE ABILITY OF THEÂ UNITED STATES TO DEFEND ITSELF AT HOME AND ABROAD.
During the 1960s and 1970s, these groups campaigned hard against theÂ U.S. intelligence agencies as well as any new improvements in the U.S.
military arsenal. Had they gotten their way on all these issues, theÂ United States would have been defenseless, isolated, and saddled with
some kind of socialist government. Some prominent individuals inÂ these groups opposed any measures taken against foreign terrorists over
concerns about the terroristsâ€™ privacy or civil rights.
By the same token these groups are working hard now against anyÂ efforts to police or defend our bordersâ€”even in the face of an overwhelming
surge of illegal aliens. They are also working hard against the Â USA PATRIOT Act, passed by a substantial vote of Congress in October
2001, as well as any further enhancements in our homeland securityÂ posture. By the same token some of these groups today are obstructing
efforts to identify and strike back against foreign terrorist groups.
3: â€œUNITED FRONTâ€ ALLIANCES HAVE EMERGED BETWEEN RADICALÂ ISLAMIC ELEMENTS AND THOSE WITH A TRADITIONAL PROCOMMUNIST
BACKGROUND, AS WELL AS A NUMBER OF APOLOGISTS,Â ALLIES, AND PROTECTORS OF BOTH OF THESE GROUPS.
The confluence of interests began in the 1970s. Both the USSR andÂ some radical Islamic groups were opposed to â€œU.S. imperialismâ€ and
found a common enemy: the United States. There is no question todayÂ about the support to a host of terrorist groups offered then by the USSR,
Cuba, East Germany, and other Communist countries.
An examination of todayâ€™s umbrella groups shows that such alliancesÂ have continued. The â€œunited frontâ€ is as active as always. To cite
the example of UFPJ, its member groups include the Arab-AmericanÂ Anti-Discrimination Committee (AAADC), Communist groups such as
the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and the International Socialist OrganizationÂ (ISO), and radical lawyersâ€™ groups such as the CCR, NLG, as
well as traditional radical groups such as the American Friends ServiceÂ Committee (AFSC) and IPS. Many of these groups have taken up the
charges of â€œtortureâ€ against detainees from terrorist groups or they haveÂ worked hard to change the laws governing our policies vis-Ã -vis terrorist
Other linkages emerge as the evidence is examined. There are nowÂ working partnerships between Far-Left groups and the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Arab-American Institute.
There is ample evidence of some Americans offering assistance to Saddamâ€™sÂ regime (â€œsolidarityâ€ trips) as well as the recent deliveries of material
aid to the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah, Iraq, in the postwarÂ period.
4: THE LAWS THAT SUCH ORGANIZATIONS SPONSOR REALLY MATTERÂ BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES IS GOVERNED BY THE RULE OF LAW.
Much as we would like to, we cannot ignore the efforts of the ACLU, Â CCR, NLG, and their allied organizations to change existing laws. Their
campaigns have been fought on the floors of Congress and in the backÂ corridors and lobbies as wellâ€”usually out of sight of the U.S. public.
There has been a concerted effort to influence members of CongressÂ and their staffs as well. Lobbyists for such groups also work their wiles
on members of the Executive Branch as well as the Judicial Branch. TheÂ laws that come out of all these efforts govern what we can or cannot do
vis-Ã -vis foreign terrorists, illegal aliens, and others who seek to harmÂ U.S. interests.
5: THE INFLUENCE OF SOME OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS HAS BEENÂ UNDERCUTâ€”FOR NOWâ€”BY THE â€œMIDDLE EAST SPRING.â€
Starting with the elections in the Palestinian movement and in Iraq inÂ early 2005, and proceeding through the â€œCedar Revolutionâ€ in Lebanon
and the announced plans of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to holdÂ elections in September 2005, a number of dramatic events have combined
to suggest that perhaps President Bush was correct in staying theÂ course with the Iraqi election and in promoting freedom in other Middle
Eastern nations. It is interesting to note that on the second anniversaryÂ of the start of the Iraq War, on March 19, 2005, the number of
demonstrators was reported to be in the â€hundredsâ€ in large U.S.Â citiesâ€”not thousands or tens of thousands. At the same time a widespread
opposition movement centered on these groups could reemergeÂ quickly should the United States undertake another military venture
against another foreign dictatorship posing a threat with weapons ofÂ mass destruction (WMD).
6: THE NOTORIOUS RADICAL GROUPS GIVE AID AND COMFORT TO U.S.Â ENEMIES WHILE AT THE SAME TIME LIBERAL GROUPS GIVE AID AND
COMFORT TO THESE RADICAL GROUPS.
For more than four decades, officials of the IPS have collaborated withÂ opinion makers and policy makers (U.S. and foreign) against U.S. interests.
The radical IPS people have been assisted by a number of liberals inÂ the media and in the U.S. Congress. The spin-off groups of IPS, such as
the CNSS, enjoyed great support from a host of influential liberals. ManyÂ have ignored the various interactions that such radical groups had with
foreign officials and ignored the material aid and moral support that theyÂ gave to countries such as the USSR, North Vietnam, and Cuba.
Today, radical groups such as the troika of the Workers World Party,Â International Action Center, and Act Now to Stop War and End Racism
(WWP-IAC-ANSWER) have sponsored and organized the largestÂ demonstrations against the U.S. war in Iraq. The radical troika is helped
by a host of liberal groups that participate in these demonstrations, thatÂ ignore any warnings of the troikaâ€™s true character, or that otherwise give
radicals a stage or a media outlet. To this day, liberals in the print andÂ broadcast media have obscured the nature of radical groups while liberal
members of the U.S. Congress have gone out of their way to accommodateÂ and support various radical groups.
7: THE MONEY FLOW REALLY MATTERS BUT IS LITTLE UNDERSTOOD.
Research into these organizations reveals that staggering sums of moneyÂ are flowing in the system. Yet we know relatively little and can view
these money flows only as snapshots for a given period of time. By oneÂ policy decision and a few strokes of a pen, someone such as George
Soros can redirect the flow from one group to another. Moreover, thereÂ is very little known about his vast holdings, such as his accounts in Curacao,
which can go to radical causes. Other than Soros, the names ofÂ other influential money movers are barely known, which is unfortunate
because they also direct and redirect the flow of untold millions of dollarsÂ toward radical causes.
8: THERE IS A GREATER NEED TO CHECK ONEâ€™S SOURCES OFÂ INFORMATION THAN EVER BEFORE.
It has long been the case that the most radical groups have resorted toÂ lying, distortion, hyperbole, half truths, and exaggeration. But in recent
years groups that have become prominent have done the same thing,Â especially when regarding the elections of 2000 and 2004. Groups that
took every opportunity to twist and distort issues and reporting aboutÂ events spent great sums of money to do soâ€”especially in 2004. Largemembership
groups such as MoveOn.org have raised issues that serveÂ to undercut the legitimacy of the 2004 presidential election and have
thrown together a number of â€œscare tacticsâ€ statements with regard toÂ any proposed reforms in the Social Security system.
9: THERE IS PROBABLY MORE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE RADICAL ANDÂ LIBERAL U.S. GROUPS AND FOREIGN OFFICIALS THAN IS COMMONLY
KNOWN OR REPORTED.
There is never a shortage of conferences, seminars, workshops, demonstrations,Â or other kinds of gatherings where there are unlimited opportunities
to criticize the United States and its policies. There are someÂ within the U.S. organizations who have acted as de facto agents of influence
in the pastâ€”even though the U.S. government had not labeledÂ them as suchâ€”and these persons remain active today. By the same
token there are foreign officials who would have sought to influenceÂ U.S. politics through interaction with our opinion makers and public
officials. In view of the communications revolution and unlimited opportunitiesÂ to connect with foreign officials, it is highly likely that there
is sustained, ongoing interaction between the groups discussed in thisÂ book and some foreign officials who wish us ill.
10: THE BEST WAY TO COUNTERACT THE INFLUENCE OF RADICAL ANDÂ HARD-LINE LIBERAL GROUPS IS TO USE THE TOOLS OF EXPOSURE AND
We need to throw light on the various statements made by the officialsÂ of these groups. It pays to take them at their word and to assume that
they mean exactly what they say. The more light is shed on these sentiments,Â the better understanding we will all have of their true intentions.
A general level of awareness is useful for everyone who is concernedÂ about the direction that these groups are trying to steer the United
States and the way they are going about it.
At the same time it does not hurt to return to our own democraticÂ principles to ask these questions:
â€¢ Who elected George Soros to public office?
â€¢ Who elected Eli Pariser to public office?
â€¢ Who elected Ramsey Clark to public office?
â€¢ Who elected Leslie Cagan to public office?
â€¢ Who elected Ed Asner to public office?
â€¢ Who elected Michael Moore to public office?
Some of the radical groups discussed here practice those same techniques
and tactics or variations of them adapted to the present day.
This chapter will review some of the most significant aspects of the
war of manipulation. These include the broad concepts of active measures
and denial and deception (D&D). Other concepts relevant to
today are: agents of influence, disinformation, the big lie, the principle
of leading masses from hard-core elements, the â€œlong march through
the institutions,â€ and the resort to intimidation and physical violence.
The Soviets used the term â€œactive measuresâ€ (aktivnyye meropriyatiya)
primarily to refer to covert influence operations intended to provoke a
policy effect. They long considered active measures as an unconventional
adjunct to traditional diplomacy. Specifically, active measures
were designed to influence the policies of foreign governments, to disrupt
relations between other nations, to undermine confidence in foreign
leaders and institutions, and to discredit opponents. One
interagency intelligence study of 1982 notes that active measures consisted
of a wide range of activities, both overt and covert, that included
(among others) manipulation or control of the media, written or oral
disinformation, use of foreign Communist parties and front organizations,
and manipulation of mass organizations.1
Active measures emanate from a rich tradition in Soviet history,
going back to right after the Russian Revolution and the 1920s. One of
the best known was a massive deception operation known as the Trust,
which was planned and executed by Felix Dzerzhinsky, the head of the
Cheka secret police. This operation lasted from 1921 until 1927 and
convinced many Western European intelligence services to support and
fund a notional anti-Bolshevik â€œresistanceâ€ movement inside the USSR.
During the cold war days, the Soviets saw active measures as a way
to weaken opponents of the USSR and to create a favorable environment
for advancing Moscowâ€™s view and international objectives worldwide.
The United States was often the main target for these active
measures, and that situation had not changed even in the era of East-
West dÃ©tente. Those U.S. experts in this area recognized that the Soviets
had institutional memories as well as recurring patterns of operations.
PRINCIPAL TECHNIQUES OF SOVIET ACTIVE MEASURES
Covert Media Manipulation
â€¢ Placement and reply of articles
â€¢ Purchase of media outlets
â€¢ â€œTV offensiveâ€
Agents of Influence
â€¢ Recruited and controlled agents
â€¢ â€œSpecial contactsâ€ (nonrecruited)
â€¢ â€œTrusted contactsâ€ (nonrecruited)
Use of Foreign Communist Movements
â€¢ Nonruling Communist parties
â€¢ Other leftist parties
Use of Front Organizations
â€¢ Traditional fronts
â€¢ Soviet mass organizations
â€¢ Friendship societies
â€¢ Professional groups
People-to-People Contact Operations
â€¢ Public forgeries
â€¢ â€œSilent forgeriesâ€ (victim unaware)
â€¢ False rumors
â€¢ Intimidation operations
Active measures usually involved a complex blend of overt and covertÂ activities, and occasionally Moscow would coordinate several different
types of tactics, in what was called a â€œcombinationâ€ (kombinatsiya).
They would use a combination in what they believed were critical campaigns,Â such as their effort to prevent the deployment of NATOâ€™s longrange
missiles in Europe or to derail the Strategic Defense InitiativeÂ (SDI) announced by President Ronald Reagan in 1983.
In trying to sway or bend opinion, the Soviets would often use naturallyÂ occurring sentiments and then distort them in a pro-Soviet or
anti-Western direction. They would often allude to peace, freedom ofÂ the press, freedom of speech, and human rights.2 And they would seek
to play on mankindâ€™s genuine concerns over peace, security, and socialÂ justice. Often Moscow would take advantage of the U.S. propensity for
â€œmirror imaging,â€ wishful thinking, preconceived notions, and misunderstandingÂ of the Soviet system.
The two most prominent players in Soviet active measures were theÂ International Department (ID) of the Central Committee of the CPSU
and Service A of the First Chief Directorate (foreign intelligence) of theÂ KGB.4 The ID had an overarching role in Soviet indirect warfare and
would set the tone and coordinate affairs from Moscow. The ID wouldÂ sponsor trips for leaders of foreign Communist parties to the USSR, and
the ID would also place some of its representatives in selected embassiesÂ abroad. The KGBâ€™s Service A would plan and coordinate active
measures and oversee their implementation in the field. Both the IDÂ and Service A were relatively small organizations in terms of staffing,
with about two hundred to three hundred persons apiece, althoughÂ both played a major role in the cold war. The International Information
Department (IID) and the Propaganda Department (PD) of the CentralÂ Committee played supporting roles as well.
Moscow took active measures seriously. It was estimated that theÂ USSR spent some three billion to four billion dollars each year in its active
measures campaigns.5 Just as significantly, the ID and KGB realizedÂ that Washington DC was an ideal arena for their active measures. No
place else in the world is there a free press with greater access to highÂ government officials. Accordingly, the Soviets spared little effort to play
to the Washington press corps in efforts to swing U.S. opinion.
During the early1980s Moscow was involved in a number of influence operations intended to thwart the implementation of NATOâ€™s decision
to enhance its theater nuclear forces (TNF). The United States andÂ NATO had intended to deploy Pershing II ballistic missiles and the
ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) as counters to the muchfearedÂ Soviet SS-20 missile that had previously been deployed in the
western USSR and targeted on Europe.
The plan to modernize NATOâ€™s missile force led to the largest andÂ best-coordinated protests in decades. The nuclear freeze movement demanded
that the West unilaterally halt nuclear weapons development,Â testing, and deployment. The freeze movement in the United States was
organized by Terry Provance and Randall Forsberg, who used popularÂ entertainers such as Bruce Springsteen to draw audiences to nuclear
freeze rallies.6 Moreover, a host of books, authored by pro-freeze intellectuals,Â lambasted President Reagan and his â€œconfrontationalâ€ approach
that could lead to a nuclear war. Before the advent of George W.
Bushâ€™s presidency, Reagan was a favorite target for the Left to bash as aÂ â€œsimple-minded warmonger.â€
The active measures planners in the ID and KGB used journalists,Â political figures, and academicians to try to influence the decisionmaking
process in several West European countries. They brought out aÂ number of front groups and offshoots of these front groups to sponsor
or exploit various conferences, symposiums, and demonstrations opposedÂ to NATOâ€™s new missiles. Ultimately this campaign was not successful,
as the new missiles (108 Pershing IIs and 464 cruise missiles)Â were deployed in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy.7
At the same time, the Soviets used active measures to promote theÂ leftist insurgency in El Salvador. In late 1981 President Reagan had
authorized the CIA to furnish arms and training to the â€œcontraâ€ rebelsÂ fighting the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua and then-DCI William
Casey had persuaded the president to funnel support to anti-Marxist elementsÂ in the Salvadoran government. Moscowâ€™s plan also was motivated
by a variety of objectives: to establish another Communist (or atÂ least a pro-Soviet leftist) government on the U.S. doorstep, to divert attention
from Soviet action in Afghanistan, and to damage the U.S.Â image abroad by distorting U.S. policy on El Salvador and linking the
United States with objectionable aspects of the Salvadoran governmentÂ through a coordinated disinformation and propaganda campaign. This
â€œcombinationâ€ included such classic techniques as forgeries, frontÂ groups, covert press placements, disinformation, and the manipulation
of mass organizations. Some Salvadoran leftists created a number ofÂ â€œsolidarity committeesâ€ abroadâ€”evidently with Soviet and Cuban encouragement
and backingâ€”to serve as propaganda tools, conduits forÂ material aid, and organizers of meetings and demonstrations.Â Soviet active measures tended to retain certain long-range strategicÂ objectives:
â€¢ To influence both world and American public opinion againstÂ U.S. military, economic, and political programs perceived to be
threatening to Soviet objectives.
â€¢ To demonstrate that the United States was an aggressive, â€œcolonialist,â€Â and â€œimperialistâ€ power.
â€¢ To isolate the United States from its allies and friends and discreditÂ those that cooperate with it.
â€¢ To demonstrate that the policies and goals of the United StatesÂ were incompatible with the ambitions of the underdeveloped
â€¢ To discredit and weaken U.S. intelligence effortsâ€”particularlyÂ those of the CIAâ€”and expose U.S. intelligence personnel.
â€¢ To create a favorable environment for the execution of Soviet foreignÂ policy.
â€¢ To undermine the political resolve of the United States and otherÂ Western states to protect their interests against Soviet
It is now interesting to see some of these themes recycled as recentlyÂ as 2006. True, the Central Committee and its ID have departed
the scene, but new radical U.S. groups have emerged since the hammerand-sickle flag was lowered over the Kremlin, and some new groups
have adopted the various objectives that the Soviet groups developedÂ earlier.
Some of the Far Leftâ€™s propaganda techniques are even identical toÂ those used by the ID and KGB forty to fifty years ago. These include the
systematic denigration of the United States, its culture, political system,Â and belief structures; imputing false motives to U.S. policy; and debasing the meaning of wordsâ€”especially when applied to the United StatesÂ or its policies.
DENIAL AND DECEPTION
Denial and deception (D&D) refers to a range of measures that oneÂ takes to conceal his hand and to mislead his opponent. In the military
context, D&D had earlier been called CC&D (camouflage, concealment,Â and deception). The essence of D&D is to strike at the mind of
the enemy commander by leading him astray.
The first D of denial simply means measures to present the otherÂ side from gaining information. This could include masking or hiding
oneâ€™s capabilities. The second D of deception is the more active side, referringÂ to a concerted program to mislead or confuse the adversary.
The U.S. experience with Iraq confirms that the Iraqis were mastersÂ at D&D. They repeatedly hid their weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
and often resorted to playing an elaborate shell game with weapons inspectors.
Moreover, they transmitted false and misleading messagesÂ about their capabilities and intentions, either through controlled sources
(plaiting false information on agents of foreign intelligence services) orÂ else broadcasting this information to the world in public forums.
TWO EXAMPLES OF D&D TODAY
One good example of D&D occurred in a 1988 book by Bill Moyers entitledÂ The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, a work that
emerged in the wake of the Iran-Contra scandal.10 In this case, MoyersÂ practiced both denial and deception in one short book.
Moyers brought in denial when he refused to mention the powerfulÂ role played by President Lyndon B. Johnson in ordering the involvement
of the CIA in Operation CHAOS in 1967, a role that ran againstÂ the agencyâ€™s charter for overseas operations. As a former aide to LBJ,
Moyers would have no interest in revealing this significant fact. FurtherÂ denial was evident as Moyers masked or obscured the ideological bent
of some who had contributed significantly to this book (and to the televisionÂ program that this work was taken from). These persons included
the notorious radical Morton Halperin, black activist and IPS seniorÂ fellow Roger Wilkins, liberal columnist Richard Strout, and rogue former
CIA employee-turned-radical Ralph McGehee.
Moyers brought in deception when he implied that there was aÂ â€œconstitutional crisisâ€ in the first place. Reaganâ€™s aides had made serious
miscalculations and missteps, and they and Reagan paid a high politicalÂ price, pure and simple. But it was no constitutional crisis. Moyers further
added deception when he referred to the Center of Defense InformationÂ under retired Adm. Gene LaRocque as a â€œpublic interest group,â€
with no further discussion of its actual radical orientation. Finally, deceptionÂ came in the form of linguistic exaggeration and hyperbole, as
Moyers compared William Caseyâ€™s â€œEnterpriseâ€ working out of the NationalÂ Security Council with the murderous Cheka secret police established
by Dzerzhinsky in the USSR after the Bolshevik Revolution.
An excellent example of D&D emerged in early 2003. Denial occurredÂ during a large antiwar demonstration on January 18, 2003, in
Washington DC. In covering this event, the combined resources of theÂ major news networks never once indicated the involvement of organizers
from the Workers World Party (WWP). Neither C-SPAN nor LisaÂ Sylvester of ABC nor Dan Lothian of NBC nor Joie Chen of CBS found
it possible to mention the pedigree of the principal figures who had organizedÂ and led this demonstration. Instead, the networks touted the
â€œdiversityâ€ of the people and groups that comprised the demonstration,Â portraying them all as a cross section of America.
Deception occurred a few weeks later. On this occasion, Amy Goldman,Â the radical host of a radio program called Democracy Now! just
happened to have several guests â€œdrop byâ€ her New York City studio.
These guests were Ramsey Clark, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon, andÂ Harry Belafonte.12 These, of course, are four of the most vociferous and
hard-core individuals adamantly opposed to any Bush administrationÂ effort and to George Bush himself. What resulted was a stereo broadcast
of a hate-America, hate-Bush message, quite typical on Democracy Now!
AGENTS OF INFLUENCE
This term refers to people whom the Soviets used to advance theirÂ plans and goals, influential individuals usually close to the levers of
policy and power in their own countries. Agents of influence were
DENIAL AND DECEPTION
Denial in General
â€¢ An effort to hide or block information, which can be used by anÂ opponent to learn the truth
â€¢ Methods to conceal secrets, especially from foreign intelligence collection
â€¢ Examples of methods:
â€”Countermeasures to satellite/aerial reconnaissance
â€”Underground or covert facilities
Deception in General
â€¢ An effort to convey false information, causing an opponent toÂ believe something that is not true
â€¢ The manipulation of information and perceptions designed toÂ change an opponentâ€™s course of action
â€¢ Examples of methods:
â€”Critical role of LBJ in ordering CIA to act in Operation CHAOS
â€”Radical/liberal orientation of Halperin, Wilkins, Strout, and McGehee
â€”There really is a constitutional crisis
â€”Portrayal of CDI as â€œpublic interest groupâ€
â€”Linguistic hyperbole and exaggeration (â€œEnterpriseâ€ = Cheka)
D&D in Case of 2003 Demonstrations
â€”No mention by networks of WWP affiliations of organizers
â€”Messages of guests who â€œdrop inâ€ to Democracy Now! radioÂ program (Clark, Glover, Sarandon, Belafonte)
sometimes recruited by Soviet intelligence and sometimes not, althoughÂ they were under some form of control. They were sometimes
paid for their services and sometimes not. And they were sometimesÂ fully aware of their Soviet sponsors and sometimes not, and not all
agents of influence knew that they were being used in this way.
There were several different categories of people whom the SovietsÂ tried to use for influence operations. Agents of influence were under the
control of either the KGB or the ID. Using Soviet intelligence terminology,Â a â€œspecial contactâ€ was someone who was under less control, and
someone in a â€œtrusted relationshipâ€ was under even less control.
The Soviets relied on developing strong personal relationships withÂ political, economic, academic, and media figures abroad who could be
used to further Moscowâ€™s agenda. The Soviets usually entrusted thisÂ task to the KGB, which tried to secure the active collaboration of these
persons on matters of mutual interest while the individuals retainedÂ their integrity on other issues. In return for collaboration, the KGB
would offer intangible rewards tailored to meet the specific requirementsÂ or vulnerabilities of the persons involved. Such rewards included
publicity for the collaboratorsâ€™ accomplishments and promises ofÂ special communications channels to the Kremlin.
One example is the remarkable case of French journalist Pierre-CharlesÂ Pathe. In 1980 Pathe was convicted for acting as a Soviet agent of influence
since 1959. During his career as a Soviet agent, Pathe was handledÂ by KGB officers who worked under the cover of either the Soviet delegation
to UNESCO or the Soviet Embassy in Paris. Early contacts betweenÂ Pathe and his handlers were overt, taking place at receptions or
restaurants. After 1962 all these meetings were clandestine. His articles,Â sometimes written under the pseudonym Charles Morand, were published
in a variety of French newspapers and journals, includingÂ France-Observateur, Liberation, and Realities. All of the articles subtly
pushed the Soviet line on a wide range of international issues. The SovietsÂ reviewed Patheâ€™s articles and provided information that formed the
basis of others. Pathe also published a private newsletter, Syntheses,Â with funds provided by the Soviets.
Pathe did not receive a regular agent salary from the Soviets, but heÂ was paid for individual analysis of French and international political developments
he provided to them. His established reputation amongÂ journalists and political figures, many of whom took his information
and views at face value, made Pathe a valuable asset. He was well integratedÂ into the political establishment.
ARNE HERLOV PETERSEN
Another example concerns the case of Arne Herlov Petersen of Denmark.
In early 1981 the Danish government expelled a Soviet diplomatÂ for activities inconsistent with his diplomatic status. It also reported that
a Danish citizen, Arne Herlov Petersen, had been arrested and chargedÂ for his activities as the Soviet officialâ€™s agent. This interesting case
showed the different ways in which an agent of influence can be used.
For several years Petersen was in clandestine contact with a successionÂ of KGB officers. Under their direction, he functioned as a propagandist,
an activist, and a clandestine conduit of funds to supportÂ Soviet-induced â€œpeace movementâ€ activities. Petersen was also a source
of information on â€œprogressiveâ€ Danish journalists and other Danes ofÂ interest to the KGB, as well as purveyor of forgeries. Below is a sample
of some of his activities:
â€¢ In 1979 Petersen published a pamphlet entitled Cold Warriors.
The pamphlet, based on a KGB-supplied draft, contained briefÂ but scathing attacks on major Western political figures: Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, Senator Henry â€œScoopâ€ Jackson (DWA),Â Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), and major European
political figures. The pamphlet was published in Dutch andÂ English.
â€¢ In 1980 Petersen published True Blues: The Thatcher that Couldnâ€™tÂ Mend Her Own Roof. This pamphlet attacked the foreign and domestic
politics of the British government, and the text was suppliedÂ by one of Petersenâ€™s KGB contacts.
â€¢ The May 30â€“31, 1981, issue of the newspaper Information carriedÂ an appeal bearing the signatures of 150 Danish artists endorsing
Soviet proposals for a nuclear-free zone in northern Europe. TheÂ assy is known to have promised Petersen that it would
finance at least part of the expenses for such newspaper appeals.
Those who signed the appeals, a number of which were published, Â were apparently unaware of who paid for theirÂ publication.
â€¢ Petersen, who was actively involved in the Denmarkâ€“NorthÂ Korea Friendship Society, was used by the Soviets to pass a forged
report dealing with alleged negotiations between the UnitedÂ States and China that were intended to discourage negotiations
between the two Koreas. The Soviets apparently believed that ifÂ the North Koreans believed the Chinese were negotiating with
the United States over Korean issues, Pyongyang would feelÂ threatened and seek closer ties with Moscow. Petersen was chosen
to pass the report to the North Koreans, without revealing theÂ Soviet role, because of his role in the friendship society.
The third example of a prominent agent of influence concerns AustralianÂ journalist Wilfred Burchett. In late 1974 Burchett lost a libel suit
challenging allegations that he had been engaged in espionage activitiesÂ for the USSR. During his long and controversial career as a foreign correspondent,
Burchett was known as a confidant of former VietnameseÂ premier Ho Chi Minh as well as former Chinese premier Chou en-Lai.
Burchett also wrote for a wide variety of newspapers and news agenciesÂ throughout the Western and Communist world.16 He conducted a
guided tour of North Vietnam for reporter Harrison Salisbury in 1966 toÂ support Salisburyâ€™s book Behind the Linesâ€”Hanoi. Burchett was a
prominent participant in the International War Crimes Tribunal thatÂ took place in Sweden and Denmark in 1967 and made his influence
known in other ways while covering the Vietnam War.
The fourth example of an agent of influence connected to the Far LeftÂ was the case of Orlando Letelier. During the rule of socialist Salvador
Allende, Letelier had been named Chileâ€™s ambassador to the UnitedÂ States; he later served as Chilean foreign minister, head of the national
police, and defense minister. After the 1973 coup that toppled Allende,Â Letelier worked tirelessly to restore socialism to Chile. To this end, he
organized exiled Chilean Marxists and cultivated ties not only with terroristÂ groups and Communist governments but also with liberal American
Saul Landau introduced Letelier to the Institute for Policy Studies,Â and by 1975 Letelier had come to Washington to take a position there.
In September 1976 he was assassinated in Washington DC. The FBI recoveredÂ his briefcase from his bombed-out car and found evidence that
Letelier was acting as an agent of influence for the Cuban intelligenceÂ agency, the General Directorate of Intelligence (DGI), and the Chilean
Socialist Party apparatus exiled in East Germany.
Letelier was receiving financial support from Cuba for his politicalÂ activities in the United States, and he had extensive contacts with the
Communist world. Listed in his address book were eleven Cuban officials,Â thirteen East German addresses (including Politburo and Central
Committee members), and many other contacts in the East. Among hisÂ American friends and associates, those in the media composed the
largest group. He was in contact with twenty-seven journalists, reporters,Â and editorsâ€”seven of whom worked for the Washington Post.
According to S. Steven Powell, this case showed conclusively howÂ the IPS used fashionable issues to manipulate liberals into supporting a
radical agenda. The case further showed the â€œproclivity of the IPS toÂ join hands with parties behind the Iron Curtain, parties that, when not
denying individual human rights in general, wonder at the incorrigibleÂ naivete of American liberals.â€
Disinformation, or dezinformatsiya in Russian, is false, misleading, orÂ incomplete information that is passed, fed, or confirmed to a targeted
individual, group, or country. Disinformation is carefully crafted withÂ regard to the nature of the message, the intended recipient, and the expected
result. Propaganda may be used as a support element of disinformation,Â but propaganda lacks the precision and bite of disinformation.
As practiced by the Soviets, disinformation became more widely used in the 1960s, and the Soviet KGB and their allied intelligence services
grew better at it as time went by.
During the mid-1960s Soviet disinformation had three principalÂ aims:
â€¢ Destroy the confidence of the Congress and the American publicÂ in U.S. personnel and agencies engaged in anti-Communist and
cold war activity.
â€¢ Undermine American prestige and democratic institutions andÂ denigrate American leadership with NATO governments and
other non-Communist countries, thereby contributing directly toÂ the breakup of the NATO alliance.
â€¢ Sow distrust and create grounds for subversion and revolt againstÂ the United States in the Western Hemisphere and among the new
nations of Africa and Asia.18
In recent years, the term â€œdisinformationâ€ has been used widelyÂ and inaccurately. It differs from â€œmisinformationâ€ in that the latter
refers simply to erroneous information (â€œOh, I was just misinformedÂ about thatâ€). â€œDisinformationâ€ is not nearly as innocent a term, and it
refers to something that is created as a falsehood from the start, somethingÂ that is intended to generate a response. Sometimes the disinformation
message can be packaged within a larger message of trueÂ information with the intention that the recipient will believe the disinformation
as well as the true facts.
THE BIG LIE
Nazism died with the fall of the Third Reich in 1945, yet one of Adolf Â Hitlerâ€™s principal tools has lived on: the big lie. Hitler said it best when
he concluded, â€œThe broad mass of a nation . . . will more easily fall victimÂ to a big lie than to a small one.â€
There is no limit to the size of the big lie. Dictators will use anyÂ number of techniques to support it. The biggest examples of the big-lie
technique often involve the nature of the regime itself.
To cite one example, according to John Lenczowski, a Soviet expertÂ on the Reagan National Security Council (NSC), the Soviets tried to
perpetuate the big lie that the â€œSoviet Union is not Communist.â€Â
Moscow calculated that if it could convince Western policy makers andÂ opinion shapers that this was the case, it would go a long way to erase
the â€œimage of the enemy.â€ The one U.S. policy maker who bought thisÂ idea was Ambassador Joseph Davies (see chapter 3), who demonstrated
a breathtaking degree of gullibility, but other high-level U.S. officialsÂ also accepted this lie in varying degrees up through the 1980s.
In this regard, the Soviets perpetuated some sub themes to supportÂ the big lie. One was that the Soviets did not believe in their ideology
anymore. You could not accept seriously what they said in their propagandaÂ outlets.
Another supporting subtheme was that there was competition betweenÂ factions of the leadership (â€œhawks and dovesâ€). U.S. policy makers
should therefore be careful not to antagonize the hawks in the SovietÂ leadership and should try to work with the doves in the Politburo and
the Central Committee. During the late 1940s some U.S. policy makersÂ even went so far as to urge presidents to get along with Joseph Stalin,
for there were allegedly even more menacing Bolshevik leaders thanÂ Stalin whom we might have to deal with. Arnaud de Borchgrave, speaking
in Washington in 1985, noted that Averill Harriman conveyed thisÂ message in 1947: â€œHelp Stalin; if you donâ€™t there are more sinister forces
waiting in the wings.â€
The Soviets tried to convey the idea that some of their leaders wereÂ liberals beneath their Leninist exterior. The most spectacular case involved
the packaging of Yuri Andropov as a â€œclosetâ€ liberal. This effortÂ involved a large stretch of credulity, for Andropov was one of the most
orthodox and doctrinaire of all seven heads of the USSR since the revolutionÂ and had headed the KGB for fifteen years before his elevation to
general secretary of the CPSU. During his tenure at the KGB, SovietÂ policies became ever more repressive.
To perpetuate the idea that the Soviets were not Communist anymore,Â some Soviet propagandists made use of the structural deceptions
built into the Soviet system. These included a constitution, a parliamentÂ (the Supreme Soviet), elections, churches, trade unions, freedoms of the
press and speech, and the right of republics to secede from the USSR.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s there were variations of thisÂ theme. It was preferable to portray some pro-Communist groups that
were vying for power in the Third World as â€œRobin Hood reformersâ€Â rather than as threatening Communists. The Sandinista regime in
Nicaraguaâ€”when it was contending for powerâ€”was often given a freeÂ pass by many in the American media. Instead of hard-core Communists,
the Sandinistas were portrayed by some as â€œagrarian reformers.â€
Returning misty-eyed from a 1985 trip to Nicaragua, Senators TomÂ Harkin and John Kerry described Daniel Ortega as a â€œmisunderstood
democrat rather than a Marxist autocratâ€ in 1985.
By the same token, apologists have defended Saddam Husseinâ€™sÂ regime in some innovative ways. Few could argue with a straight face
that it was not a police state, but many did advance the idea that SaddamÂ had done nothing wrong.
The big lie is relevant here because some U.S. organizations of theÂ Far Left disguise their own radical orientation or origins. At first glance
(at their Web sites usually), it is often impossible to find this informationÂ altogether; it is not spelled out. One can easily get the erroneous
idea that these organizations were formed as a kind of spontaneousÂ gathering of â€œconcernedâ€ citizens.
LEADING MASSES FROM HARD-CORE ELEMENTS
This is a principle that has been a fact of life in left-wing politics forÂ decades. It was apparent in Central America in the 1980s, when some
hard-core Communists became the leading and directing body of theÂ Sandinista movement in Nicaragua. It has been evident more recently as
some peace movements have effectively been taken over by a smallÂ group of organizers with Communist sympathies.
The foundation of this technique was set in place as early as theÂ 1930s. Against the backdrop of a worldwide depression and financial
chaos, extremist movements of the Far Right and the Far Left flourished.
Not only was fascism in vogue in countries in Central and EasternÂ Europe, but pro-Communist groups were burgeoning in some of
the leading capitalist countries of the West.
Circumstances called for the Communists to ally themselves withÂ anti-fascist groups. Accordingly, the Comintern (Communist International)
could draw on three masters of the game who emerged duringÂ the 1930s: Dmitri Manuilsky, Willi Muenzenberg, and Georgi Dimitrov.
Manuilsky was a noted Comintern official for many years. AfterÂ World War II he was the USSRâ€™s first ambassador to the United Nations.
Manuilsky is well known for his statement in the early 1930s, when heÂ spoke to a group at the elite Lenin School in Moscow:
War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today,Â of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come. . . . To
win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have toÂ be put to sleep, so we shall begin by launching the most spectacular
peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures andÂ unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent,
will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at anotherÂ chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall
smash them with our clenched fist.
Less outspoken and more diplomatic was another Comintern official,Â a German named Willi Muenzenberg. He was a brilliant and tireless
propagandist and organizer. In August 1933 Muenzenberg organized aÂ meeting in Amsterdam to bring about a united front against fascism, a
gathering that took place under the sponsorship of French writers RomainÂ Rolland and Henri Barbusse. Rolland announced the meeting with
a radical call to arms against fascism: â€œThe Fatherland is in danger! Our Â international Fatherland . . . the USSR is threatened!â€ This meeting was
endorsed by luminaries such as Albert Einstein, John Dos Passos, UptonÂ Sinclair, George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, and Theodore Dreiser.
Earlier,Â in June 1933, Muenzenberg had organized another anti-fascist gatheringÂ of intellectuals at the Salle Playel in Paris, and ten days later the
Salle Playel and the Amsterdam groups merged to form the CommitteeÂ of Struggle Against War and Fascism. Muenzenbergâ€™s mobilization of intellectuals
came to the United States when the American League AgainstÂ War and Fascism held its first meeting in September 1933, largely attended
by Communists and front organizations.
Georgi Dimitrov was chief of the Comintern during the mid-1930sÂ and remained in that post until the group was dissolved in 1943. He
later ruled Bulgaria after World War II, leading a regime installed by theÂ Red Army. Dimitrov articulated the principle of using hard-core elements
to penetrate and manipulate mass movements. In 1935 a changeÂ in the party line put Communists in position to work effectively with
non-Communist groups. The real objective of the Communists was toÂ discredit their new partners and take over these groups. In July 1935
the leadership of the Comintern ordered Communists everywhere toÂ cooperate with all groups that opposed fascism. In a phrase that would
become part of anti-Communist lore, Dimitrov told the delegates thatÂ they should use mass organizations as Trojan horses to â€œpenetrate the
very heart of the enemyâ€™s camp.â€
THE LONG MARCH THROUGH THE INSTITUTIONS
This term refers to the long-term plan of Communists, radicals, andÂ their supporters to work their way into vital establishments that shape
opinions. Once again we turn to the work of another foreign Communist,Â an Italian Marxist named Antonio Gramsci, who was active during
the 1930s. He pondered the historic inability of Communist parties toÂ mobilize workers to seize the means of production and overthrow the
capitalist ruling class, which Lenin had envisioned. Gramsciâ€™s new ideaÂ was to focus the attention of radicals on the means of intellectual production
as a new lever of social change. He urged radicals to acquireÂ â€œcultural hegemony,â€ meaning to capture the institutions that produced
societyâ€™s governing ideas. This, he believed, would be the key to controllingÂ and transforming society itself.
In this respect, the radicals have succeeded beyond anyoneâ€™s wildestÂ dreams, for the administrations of American universities have fallen
into the hands of individuals who generally profess liberal and radicalÂ ideas. Liberals and radicals have captured academia to a far greater extent
than any of the other institutions. This control exceeds even that ofÂ their influence over the print and broadcast media.
Some former members of the Weather Underground OrganizationÂ (WUO, or Weathermen) now occupy positions of authority on major
campuses. Former domestic terrorists such as Bernardine Dohrn (NorthwesternÂ University) or Bill Ayers (University of Illinois at Chicago) come
to mind. Besides them, there are thousands of other former activists, radicals,Â and far leftists who have risen to prominent positions within academia.
The stakes are higher and the atmosphere is more politicized atÂ the most prestigious universities.
The â€œmarchâ€ began long before many people think, and the leftwingÂ takeover of American universities is not a new story. As early as
the 1930s Irving Kristol recalled that City College of New York (CCNY)Â was so radical that â€œif there were any Republicans at Cityâ€”and there
must have been someâ€”I never met them, or even heard of their existence.â€
27 Moreover, many campuses were already radicalized by theÂ mid-1960s. Among those most in the news were Berkeley, Columbia,
Wisconsin, and Michigan. Today, campus leftism is not merely prevalent,Â but is â€œradical, aggressive, and deeply intolerant,â€ according to Jeff
Jacoby.28 Not only are most college professors fashionably liberal, butÂ most faculties have a strong contingent of hard leftists whose views are
extreme and whose concentrated numbers make it possible for them toÂ dominate (and even define) entire academic fields, according to David
Some academics freely admit that when they were in control of universityÂ faculties in the 1960s, they opened the doors to the hiring of
radicals in the name of diversity. However, the leftists tenured after theÂ 1960s first transformed the colleges and universities into political
battlegrounds and then redefined them as â€œagencies of social change.â€
In the process, according to Horowitz, â€œthey first defeated and then excludedÂ peers whom they perceived as obstacles to their politicized academic
Of all the various institutions the leftists could target, they haveÂ done the most by far in academia. Richard Rorty has summarized this
achievement: â€œThe power base of the left in America is now in the universities,Â since the trade unions have largely been killed off. The universities
have done a lot of good work by setting up, for example,Â African-American Studies programs, Womenâ€™s Studies programs, and
Gay and Lesbian Studies programs. They have created power bases forÂ these movements.â€31 Rorty is a professor of philosophy at the University
of Virginia and a powerful voice who celebrated the conversion of collegesÂ into political â€œpower bases.â€ This attitude is typical of many other
academics as well.
David Horowitz points out that there is an organic connection betweenÂ the political bias of the university and that of the press. â€œIt was
not until journalists became routinely trained in university schools ofÂ journalism that mainstream media began to mirror the perspectives of
the adversary culture.â€32 Seen in this way, there has been a steadyÂ process of graduates of distinguished J-schools such as Columbia University
or the University of Missouri into the mainstream media, aÂ process that has deepened the leftist tendencies in mainstream media.
Bernard Goldberg noted that only two out of two hundred students atÂ Columbiaâ€™s J-school admitted to being â€œright of center.â€
The bias in universities shows up in the following ways:
â€¢ Professors frequently commenting on politics in class, evenÂ though the political topic has nothing to do with the course.
â€¢ One-sided presentations on political issues.
â€¢ Using the classroom to present their personal political views.
â€¢ Perhaps most important, a self-perpetuating, entrenched group
of radicals and liberals whoâ€”sitting on tenure and search committeesâ€”Â are ready to blackball any candidates with a conservative
The result has been smugness, complacency, ideological blindness,Â and a condition of group think. Conservative viewpoints and values are
grossly underrepresented in the curriculum, and conservatives themselvesÂ are relegated to second-class citizenship. As such, many students
are likely to graduate without ever having a class taught by a professorÂ with a conservative viewpoint. The result is that some students are conditioned
to accept leftist viewpoints as â€œmainstream.â€
The unbalanced and biased selection process in the hiring of collegeÂ faculty has been proved in research by the Center for the Study of
Popular Culture. This research examined more than 150 departmentsÂ and upper-level administrations at 32 elite colleges and universities.
The key findings: The overall ratio of Democrats to Republicans at theÂ 32 schools was more than 10 to 1, or a total of 1,397 Democrats to 134
Republicans.34 And not a single department at any of the 32 schoolsÂ managed to achieve a reasonable parity between the two parties, even
though, in the United States as a whole, registered Democrats and RepublicansÂ are roughly equal in number. The closest to parity was at
Northwestern University, where registered Democrats outnumberedÂ registered Republicans by a 4-to-1 ratio. Brown scored a 30-to-1 ratio;
Bowdoin and Wellesley showed ratios of 23 to 1; while Columbia andÂ Yale demonstrated ratios of 14 to 1. At Columbia University, the researchers
could not find a single Republican in the history, political science,Â or sociology departments. At Cornell University the departments
of English and history had no Republicans.
INTIMIDATION AND PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
If all else fails, according to the hard-line radical mind-set, there is alwaysÂ the resort to physical violence and intimidation. This was displayed
in spectacular fashion in the streets of Washington DC in 1971Â during operations that the Far Left called Dewey Canyon III and May
Day (that actually lasted for several days). Cora Weiss once called forÂ storming the gates of the White House and issued a â€œcall for chaosâ€ to
bring new enthusiasm to the antiwar movement. Her colleagues TomÂ Hayden and David Dellinger had once planned â€œtactics of prolonged direct
actionâ€ to end the Vietnam War.
Consider also Gael Murphy of CodePink, a strident supporter ofÂ Saddamâ€™s Iraq. After giving aid and comfort to Saddamâ€™s regime, she returned
to south Florida to attend a demonstration against a BrowardÂ County military recruiting office. She was described by a conservative
Web site: â€œA seasoned protester, Gael employed many classic leftist tactics,Â such as shouting out that we were violating her right to free speech
by exercising our own right to free speech. It did not take long beforeÂ Gael resorted to the leftist tactic of physical intimidation.â€
In recent years we have witnessed violent displays in campaignsÂ against the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank.
The campaign in Seattle in 1999 was one of the most violent in recentÂ memory.
The most common displays of force have been the everyday attemptsÂ of the Far Left to control the dialogue. Those on campuses have
encountered â€œspeech codesâ€ that are most often targeted against anyÂ kind of â€œoffensiveâ€ speech (which often happens to be conservative in
nature). Usually this takes the form of ridicule, with conservativeÂ message-bearers being labeled as â€œlunatics,â€ â€œracists,â€ or â€œhatemongers.â€
Some conservative speakers on campusesâ€”if they are invited atÂ allâ€”have been shouted down, heckled, or physically prevented from
reaching the lectern.
IT HAS ALLÂ HAPPENED BEFORE
CHEERLEADERS FOR HITLER
During the 1930s there was ample hysteria throughout radical rightwingÂ circles in the United States. Much of it was directed against
Franklin D. Roosevelt, his supposed â€œJewishâ€ heritage, and his allegedÂ willingness to advance the cause of world Jewry and Communism. This
led to some influential figures on the Far Right becoming enamoredÂ with Adolf Hitler and his goals in Germany. Some Americans copied
Hitlerian tactics to achieve power.
Fritz Kuhn became the unquestioned leader of a group known as theÂ Bund. In the early 1930s it was known as the League (Bund) of the
Friends of the New Germany, and it changed its name in 1936 to the GermanÂ American Peopleâ€™s League.1 One of its main goals was to convert
people to the idea that Nazi Germany was a friendly power. This groupÂ had some sixty-five hundred activists as well as fifteen thousand to
twenty thousand sympathizers in 1938. Most of the members were firstorÂ second-generation Americans. Some two-thirds were male, and most
lived in large cities in the East and Midwest. The Bund also featured aÂ youth organization and girlsâ€™ league. It operated some summer camps,
which included Camp Sutter in Los Angeles, Camp Nordland in NewÂ Jersey, and Camp Siegfried in Yaphank, Long Island.2
Hitler had many admirers among Bund members. One unidentifiedÂ follower stated, â€œHitler is showing us a way to take care of people who
get in our way, and we can do the same thing here.â€3 In an infamousÂ moment at Madison Square Garden in 1939, the Bundists and their
friends pledged allegiance to the United States while giving the HitlerÂ salute. One of the groupâ€™s newspaper headlines claimed GERMAN BLOOD
OUR PRIDEâ€”A BETTER AMERICA OUR GOAL!
Upon returning from a meeting with Hitler in late 1936, KuhnÂ vowed to defeat Rooseveltâ€™s bid for reelection. The Bundâ€™s violenceladen
rhetoric led to demonstrations and clashes with those who opposedÂ them. The Bund promoted two themes, Americanism and
anti-Communism, both of which contained much anti-Semitism. TheÂ Bund taught that Americanism and Nazism were compatible. Three individuals
who received respectful attention in the Bundâ€™s camps andÂ training halls were George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Horst
Wessel (a Nazi â€œmartyrâ€ who was murdered in 1930). Yet the BundÂ worked on behalf of an anti-American foreign power.4 Finally, convicted
of grand larceny and forgery, Fritz Kuhn, the American bundesfuehrer,Â headed off to Sing Sing Prison.
William Dudley Pelley headed an organization known as the SilverÂ Shirts. He turned himself into a radical Anglo-Saxon protector of threatened
American values and found ample opportunity to rave against theÂ Jews. Pelley believed that Hitlerâ€™s success in Germany demonstrated
that anti-Semitic propaganda could lead to power and fame. EvidentlyÂ with an eye toward becoming the American Hitler, Pelley stated, â€œI intend
to lead to fight to rid our country of the Red Jewish menace.â€ PelleyÂ charged that the Jews in America were taking their orders from
Moscow, while FDR (a â€œDutch Jewâ€ whose real name was â€œFranklin D.Â Rosenfeltâ€) was working in cahoots with Leon Trotsky.6 Through
marches, leaflets, and the acquisition of guns and munitions, the SilverÂ Shirts worked toward the ultimate slaughter of the Jews and their allies.
At their peak, the Silver Legion had between ten thousand and fifteenÂ thousand active members, although some estimates placed the number
as high as twenty-five thousand card-carrying members and seventy fiveÂ thousand fellow travelers.
FATHER CHARLES E. COUGHLIN
Father Charles E. Coughlin, the priest at the Church of the Little FlowerÂ in Royal Oak, Michigan, was also known as the â€œradio priestâ€ and was
influential throughout the 1930s. He spoke regularly over the radio andÂ had a large, faithful audience (believed to be about thirteen million) that
listened to him every Sunday evening and contributed millions of dollarsÂ to his cause. Coughlin also appeared at large rallies, where he would
work himself into a frenzy. Some of those who answered his call forÂ righteous violence joined a group called the Christian Front, many of
whom anticipated the day when a Christian â€œAryanâ€ army would takeÂ over the United States.8 Coughlin was known for anti-Semitic diatribes
and was much admired in Berlin.
He was drawn to Hitler at least in part because Hitler liquidated theÂ largest Communist party in the West and had destroyed the rest of the
German Left as well. He believed that some type of Hitler-like â€œnewÂ orderâ€ in the United States could destroy â€œJew-Bolshevismâ€ as well. He
could envision a â€œcorporate-Christian America which would suppressÂ Jews and radicals of every stripe, along with atheists, Masons, international
bankers and plutocrats, and all others against who he had beenÂ inveighing for the past 12 years.â€
By the late 1930s Father Coughlin drew even closer to the fascistÂ powers, whose achievements thrilled him. He wholeheartedly endorsed
the Nazi conquest of Czechoslovakia, Francisco Francoâ€™s occupation ofÂ Madrid, Benito Mussoliniâ€™s invasion of Albania, and even Japanâ€™s seizure
of further Chinese territory. In April 1939 he reminded his audience, â€œItÂ should never be forgotten that the Rome-Berlin axis is serving western
Christendom is a peculiarly important manner.â€
By 1940 he became an unfailing apologist for Hitler. â€œHe welcomedÂ the fall of France and the advent of the puppet Vichy regime. He condoned
the Luftwaffeâ€™s attempt to bomb England into submission. He applaudedÂ the new dispensation that the Axis powers were bringing to
Europe and Asia.â€ However, these viewsâ€”along with his well-knownÂ hyperboleâ€”were more than most of his radio audience could stomach,
and radio stations began dropping his program. By the end of 1940 hisÂ radio voice was stilled.
FATHER GERALD B. WINROD
Reverend Gerald B. Winrod of Kansas found himself attracted to HitlerÂ and his aims. Head of the Defenders of the Christian Faith, he noted,
â€œGermany stands alone in her attempt to break Jewish control.â€ WinrodÂ was another die-hard FDR-hater and traced his â€œradicalismâ€ to the
presidentâ€™s supposed Jewish genes. According to Winrod, FDR was descendedÂ from the â€œRosenveltâ€ line. Publishing a fake genealogy, Winrod
ascribed FDRâ€™s allegedly pro-Soviet, pro-international banker stance toÂ his advocacy of â€œJewryâ€™s world program.â€
Famous aviator Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. was an outspoken isolationistÂ and had some troubling relationships with the Nazis as well. He had
visited Germany during the interwar period, toured German aircraftÂ plants, and returned with glowing descriptions of German industry
and the Luftwaffe. He had accepted a military medal from HermannÂ Goering, which made him vulnerable to accusations of being a Nazi
sympathizer. The collapse of the Allied effort in France and BelgiumÂ wasâ€”according to himâ€”the concern of the British, not the Americans.
As the most prominent spokesman of the America First Committee,Â he believed that the United States should refrain from meddling in
purely European conflicts. In July 1941 Interior Secretary Harold IckesÂ called Lindbergh a â€œNazi mouthpiece.â€ In September 1941 Lindbergh
accused â€œthe British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration ofÂ pushing the nation into war.â€
Lindbergh was not alone in being won over by the German dictator.
A well-known favorite of the silver screen in the 1930s, MaryÂ Pickford, was a guest in Germany. She commented, â€œHitler seems to
be a great fellow for the Germans. Things certainly are marvelous nowÂ in Germany.â€14 Well-known radio commentator Doug Brinkley also
swooned over him. Hitler, he stated, was â€œa simple man for the commonÂ man and a great idealist.â€ Brinkley noted, â€œHitler treated Jews
well; and concentration camps were pleasant places, as â€˜one influentialÂ Jew told me.â€™â€Â In his time Hitler cast his spell over a wide range of influential figures.
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor were photographed with himÂ and may have been in line to return to power in a Nazified Great
Britain. Joseph P. Kennedy Sr., the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom,Â was at least initially sympathetic to Hitler as well. Kennedy and
his friend Viscountess Astor saw Hitler as a â€œwelcome solution to [the]Â world problemsâ€ of Communism and Judaism in Europe. Kennedy told
his Nazi counterpart in London that Roosevelt was â€œthe victim of JewishÂ influence,â€ and the German ambassador reported to Berlin that
Kennedy was â€œGermanyâ€™s best friend in London.â€
Hitlerâ€™s ally Mussolini also had a following in the United States. AngeloÂ Rossi, the mayor of San Francisco, was an admirer, and the San
Francisco police department had many supporters of the Duce. GovernorÂ Philip F. LaFollette of Wisconsin was another admirer. Henry Morgenthau,
the secretary of the treasury, respected the way in whichÂ Mussolini restored the economic health of Italy. In addition, another
Mussolini admirer was a certain â€œColonelâ€ Art J. Smith, who commandedÂ a small legion of some thirty to one hundred â€œKhaki Shirts.â€
ASSESSMENT: SO WHY DID THEY DO IT?
The 1930s brought about an astonishing array of radical right-wingÂ groups. There were the Silver Shirts, the White Shirts, the Black Shirts
(mostly Italian Americans), and the Bund, or the equivalent of theÂ Brown Shirts (mostly German Americans), not to mention a large number
of sects. All of them modeled themselves on the paramilitary outfitsÂ that Hitler and Mussolini used in their countries.
Many of these people admired Hitler and Mussolini in the beliefÂ that fascism represented an acceptable alternative to democracy. Many
were dismayed at the huge and growing number of people left joblessÂ and, in some cases, homeless by the Depression. In desperate economic
times, people often look for desperate political solutions to the problems.
Those individuals on the Far Right were convinced that they hadÂ a fighting chance that the American people would turn to them, everything
else having failed, â€œjust as the German and Italian people turnedÂ to Mussolini and Hitler out of desperation, each of them having also
been scoffed at and ridiculed when they began their astonishing crusades.â€
Even today, a look at advanced industrial countries in Europe indicatesÂ that economic hard times often bring authoritarian movements to
the forefront. The best-known cases are those European countries whereÂ productivity and industrial growth are stagnant that have growing rightwing
Many of these individuals were looking for scapegoats, and the JewsÂ emerged as ideal scapegoats. The individuals in Far-Right movements
saw Jewish plots where none existed and Jewish control over the keyÂ levers of power in the United States.
Some likely were overjoyed to read a book such as Mein Kampf,Â which offered a rationale for persecution of the Jews. As of 2006 some
Muslim immigrants to European countries and to the United StatesÂ have been singled out as scapegoats as well. In some cases, there are reasons
for this, and in some cases not.
Some who fell under the fascist spell were simpletons while othersÂ were well-educated people who knew how to pull the levers of power
and use their skills at verbal persuasion and manipulation. Few people,Â if any, could accuse Father Coughlin of stupidity, although some of his
followers probably were.
CHEERLEADERS FOR STALIN
In the 1920s some Americans visited the newly formed USSR and returnedÂ gushing about what they had seen. Journalist Lincoln Stevens
set the pace in 1919, then he came back to state, â€œI have been over intoÂ the future, and it works!â€ Jane Addams called the Russian Revolution
â€œthe greatest social experiment in history.â€19 A number of other influentialÂ people saw the Soviet Union as a paradise under construction:
George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Theodore Dreiser, Paul Robeson,Â Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Harold Laski, and Louis Fischer.20 In some
articles for the New Republic in 1928, famous educator John Dewey offeredÂ some misty-eyed enthusiasm for the USSR: â€œI have never seen
anywhere in the world such a large proportion of intelligent, happy, andÂ intelligently occupied children.â€
The various trip reports by American intellectuals likely helped toÂ shape the ideology behind President Rooseveltâ€™s New Deal. All of thisâ€”
combined with the views of his close advisersâ€”likely convinced him toÂ adopt the approach to the Soviet Union that he did: diplomatic recognition
in 1933 and constant accommodation until his death in 1945.
And then there was Joseph Davies. He served as U.S. ambassador to theÂ USSR for seventeen months in 1937 and 1938. During this time he was
repeatedly deceived by Soviet representatives, and he took a number ofÂ positions that reflected Moscowâ€™s viewpoint and that put the Soviets in
the best possible light.
Davies was a corporation lawyer and a diplomat later in his life. HeÂ had been a supporter of FDR since 1920. In 1935 he married Marjorie
Merriweather Post, the General Foods heiress. It was said that his weddingÂ present to his bride would be to make her an ambassadorâ€™s wife.
Davies could well afford this, as proved by his contribution of $17,500 toÂ FDRâ€™s reelection campaign. Apparently nobody thought it significant
that Davies knew nothing about Russian history and politics and did notÂ speak the language.22 Daviesâ€™s major task from FDR could be summed up
in the simple sentence: Get along with the Russians. According toÂ William Corson and Robert Crowley, â€œHe was prepared to swallow any
improbability as long as it emanated from an elevated Soviet source.â€
Davies soon began to report back what he thought the president wantedÂ to hear. Kenneth Davis states, â€œHe continued to do so, with great emphasis,
in utter disregard of his own embassy staff. . . . and of many signsÂ that his reported â€˜factsâ€™ and conclusions were probably untrue.â€24
Davies attended the purge trials of 1937 and 1938, perhaps the onlyÂ envoy in Moscow to do so every day. He did so, however, in a state of
bewilderment and concluded that the defendants were guilty. His bookÂ Mission to Moscow contains many passages in which he quotes other
diplomats and correspondents who concluded that the accused were actuallyÂ guilty of anti-state activities; some of these diplomats and correspondents
are mentioned by name, but others are not. Davies threwÂ himself enthusiastically into justifying the most improbable distortions
as evidence in the purge trials, and never once did he call into questionÂ the nature of the evidence presented in court. Mission to Moscow is a
sustained apologia for all of Stalinâ€™s excesses, and all criticism of the SovietsÂ is stifled in the book.
When Davies left Moscow in June 1938, his friend Maxim Litvinov,Â a foreign commissar, gave him a farewell dinner and asked him to pass
on the â€œunbiased judgmentsâ€ of his studies of Soviet life. PresidentÂ Mikhail Kalinin told Davies that he and his associates â€œmuch regrettedâ€
that Davies was leaving his post.26 The last statement is arguably one ofÂ the most truthful things that Soviet officials told him during his sorry
tenure in Moscow.
Mission to Moscow is a very useful tool to assess Daviesâ€™s mind-set,Â perceptions, and vulnerabilities. The book is a record of his dispatches
to the State Department, official and personal correspondence, diaryÂ and journal entries, with notes and comments up to 1943. A detailed
content analysis of this book revealsâ€”to be most diplomaticâ€”an exoticÂ interpretation of Soviet realities of the late 1930s. To judge from the
statements therein, Davies lived in a world of sublime unreality duringÂ his tour there. His book reveals an abysmal and even stupefying degree
of ignorance about Stalin, the Soviet political system, and the nature ofÂ the purge trials under way at the time.
There is no critical, reflective analysis of what the Soviets toldÂ Davis. He was told by the Soviets and by others that the defendants in
the show trials were guilty, but nowhere did his legal-trained mindÂ probe for evidence. He was told that the Soviet government â€œhad gone
out of its way to extend particular considerationâ€ to the U.S. government,Â but did he once stop to consider why?27 He echoed the Soviet line
on the provisions of the 1936 Constitution, the purge trials, and otherÂ aspects of Soviet life. Is it any wonder that the Soviets were genuinely
sorry to see him leave Moscow?
Davies had influence with President Roosevelt, who repeatedlyÂ sought his opinions. Daviesâ€™s access was such that he lunched twice
with him in April 1937, and FDR asked to meet with him again in DecemberÂ 1937.28 In June 1938 Roosevelt told Davies he had â€œalways
heardâ€ that the Soviets â€œhad lived up to their agreements and wereÂ particularly scrupulous as to their given word.â€
Daviesâ€™s influence with the White House may well explain a calamitousÂ reorganization within the State Department shortly after his appointment
as ambassador. Under unidentified pressures from the WhiteÂ House, the Russian division within the department was abolished, and
its unique collection of material on the USSR was ordered to be dismantledÂ and destroyed. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior
Secretary Harold Ickes actively thwarted State Department officials whoÂ took a hard line toward Moscow, and they may have been involved in the
breakup of the Russian division. No reason was ever given for thisÂ bizarre action, but it seems that the division chief, Robert F. Kelley,
â€œtended to recommend firmer attitudes in the face of Soviet truculenceÂ than seemed wise to certain people.â€30 This episode smelled of some pro-
Soviet influence in the highest reaches of the U.S. government.
Davies also was close to others high up in the foreign policy establishment.
He had a close friendship with Secretary of State Cordell Hull,Â Harry Hopkins, and Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy among others.
Clearly Hull relied on Davies substantially for viewpoints on the SovietÂ Union. Hull also attempted to accommodate the Soviets, and there is
evidence that when they got a chance to negotiate with him, they fedÂ his illusions.
One American authority, Dennis Dunn, has examined the role ofÂ the first five U.S. ambassadors to the USSR, and his work has generated
a most revealing analysis of Daviesâ€™s behavior. According to Dunn,Â â€œDavies thought that the Soviets were essentially Russian-speaking
Americans who were quickly developing into democratic capitalists.
This was his view when he arrived in Moscow, and it was still his opinionÂ when he departed in June 1938.â€
Davies ignored the advice of experts such as William Bullitt, LoyÂ Henderson, George Kennan, and Charles â€œChipâ€ Bohlen. The experts
did not respect the ambassador, and he had no use for their anti-StalinÂ disposition, despite their knowledge. Daviesâ€™s main companionsâ€”besides
military attachÃ© Col. Philip Faymonville (called the â€œRed Colonelâ€Â and known for delusional pro-Stalin views)â€”were newsmen. This circle
included Walter Duranty and Harold Denny of the New York TimesÂ (â€œwho were notoriously pro-Stalinâ€), Joseph Barnes and Joseph Phillips
of the New York Herald-Tribune, Charles Nutter and Richard Massock ofÂ the Associated Press, Normal Deuel and Henry Shapiro of the United
Press, James Brown of the International News, and Spencer Williams ofÂ the Manchester Guardian.32 Some of these Western journalists supported
Daviesâ€™s idyllic view and deliberately portrayed a false image of Stalinâ€™sÂ Russia in the United States.
The communications channel went from Davies to Secretary of StateÂ Cordell Hull. In a telegram to Hull on April 1, 1938, Davies reiterated his
point: â€œMany fine things are being done under the present regime. ManyÂ noble enterprises have been projected which arouse sympathy and inspire
intense admiration.â€34 There is no evidence that Hull took issueÂ with these conclusions. Also, such views were warmly received at the
White House, for adviser Harry Hopkins had also shown no interest inÂ wanting to curb Stalinâ€™s â€œinsatiable appetite for power and control.â€
Of the first five U.S. envoys to Moscow, Davies was the least successfulÂ and most destructive representative from the viewpoint of
Americaâ€™s interests. According to Dennis Dunn, Davies greatly exaggeratedÂ Russiaâ€™s industrial development; totally misrepresented the purge
trials, Communism, and Stalinism; fabricated facts and offered fancifulÂ and preposterous interpretations of Stalinâ€™s crimes; and dismissed terror
in Soviet society as a necessary consequence of rapid modernization.Â According to Robert Williams, Davies and his wife did not comprehend
â€œthat they were, in part, pawns in a deadly game, a game in which StalinÂ was eager to manipulate Western opinion while destroying real and
imagined enemies at home.â€
The consequences of FDRâ€™s error in appeasing Stalin were costlyÂ and tragic. On one level it led to the Sovietsâ€™ making life more difficult
for other U.S. representatives in Moscow. At a higher level, this approachÂ also enabled Stalin to separate Roosevelt and Winston Churchill
and to adopt a demanding tone toward Roosevelt. Moreover, FDRâ€™s policyÂ also contributed to the spread of Soviet rule abroad and strengthened
Stalinism in the Soviet Union. Specifically FDR overlooked Stalinâ€™sÂ expansionist moves in parts of Europe (moves against the Polish
government in exile and plans to annex the three Baltic states as well asÂ parts of Romania, Finland, and Poland).
This case also shows political manipulation as well as a mismatch ofÂ the personalities of Davies and Stalin: the mind-set of an altar boy
matched up with that of a crime boss. Not once did Davies ascribe toÂ Stalin or his lieutenants the possibility of their playing an elaborate
game of deception. Daviesâ€™s mind screened out the possibility of deceptionÂ because of his tendency to â€œmirror-image,â€ or ascribe to the Soviets
those values and goals that Americans possessed. He remarked that itÂ was the purpose of the Soviet leaders â€œto promote the brotherhood of
man and to improve the lot of the common people.â€ He was not theÂ only American official who has mirror-imaged in this way, but he was
one of the most influential persons to have done so for so long and withÂ so profound an effect.
There is no evidence to suggest that Davies was recruited by SovietÂ intelligence. In fact, the Soviets were content to allow him to function
in this way without approaching him to become a complicit agent of influence.
Moscow was much more concerned with results than with theÂ distinction between a witting and unwitting participant in its plans.
Davies was especially close to Walter Duranty of the New York Times, aÂ longtime correspondent in the USSR. The Davies-Duranty association
may have begun as early as January 1937, when the correspondentÂ sailed with Davies on board the ship Europa to take up his post in
Moscow. Content analysis of the Davies book reveals that Durantyâ€™sÂ name is several times mentioned first among all others when Davies
refers to the Moscow correspondents, those â€œunofficial colleaguesâ€ ofÂ â€œinestimable valueâ€ to him. Davies calls them a â€œbrilliant groupâ€ and
states that he came to rely upon them. Most tellingly, Davies states, â€œIÂ shall always feel under a special obligation to Walter Duranty who told
the truth as he saw it and has the eyes of genius.â€
Others have taken a different view of him. According to WilliamÂ Corson and Robert Crowley, Duranty achieved his preeminence as
Stalinâ€™s favorite foreign correspondent â€œby his willingness to report BolshevikÂ blather with scrupulous attention to detail.â€41 Duranty attained
an infamous reputation by steadfastly refusing to report on a famine inÂ the southern USSR, a tragedy of immense proportions that Stalin fostered
and exacerbated. Stalin praised Durantyâ€™s reporting and stated toÂ the journalist, â€œYou have done a good job in your reportingâ€ about the
USSR because â€œyou tried to tell the truth about our country and explainÂ it to your readers.â€
Not surprisingly, Duranty had praise for Mission to Moscow, whichÂ he called a â€œgood and true storyâ€ written with â€œexceptional vision and
courage.â€ Duranty also played the critical role of gatekeeper to SovietÂ officials, as he entertained the Moscow press corps and ensured
that the more deserving of them received cordial receptions from SovietÂ officials and the less deserving did not. After Duranty received a
Pulitzer Prize, he becameâ€”according to the conventional wisdom ofÂ the dayâ€”the Westâ€™s foremost â€œSoviet expert.â€ Thus he was prepared
to advise FDR directly and did so at length shortly after Roosevelt wasÂ elected.
Walter Duranty was desperate to maintain his access to Stalin andÂ consistently portrayed his regime in sympathetic tones. Unfortunately,
Durantyâ€™s influence was as pervasive on Davies as it was on his newspaperÂ readership. Durantyâ€™s help to Stalin came at a critical time, when
the Soviets first tried to collectivize agriculture in the late 1920s duringÂ the first Five-Year Plan. There was considerable resistance from the
peasantry, and it was in Ukraineâ€”forcibly brought into the USSRâ€”thatÂ collectivization met its greatest resistance. To break this resistance, and
to campaign against Ukrainian national culture as well, Stalin issuedÂ unreasonable delivery quotas for grain that could not be met without
the peasants themselves dying of starvationâ€”a deliberate use of starvationÂ as a weapon. Stalin later authorized seizures of the peasantsâ€™ grain
to meet the targets.
In November 1932 Duranty claimed, â€œThere is no famine or actualÂ starvation nor is there likely to be.â€ In June 1933 he reported, â€œThe
â€˜famineâ€™ is mostly bunk,â€ at the very time when it was pervasive andÂ deadly throughout Ukraine. He later wrote in August 1933, â€œAny report
of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.â€
Malcolm Muggeridge, who tried to report the truth about theÂ famine in Ukraine, called Duranty â€œthe greatest liar of any journalist I
have met in fifty years of journalism.â€46 Duranty was not ignorant ofÂ events and knew exactly what was happening; this much is known from
his private comments to others. He actually guessed correctly at theÂ number of deaths from the forced collectivization of agriculture and the
famineâ€”about 9.5 million in all (according to sources from now openedÂ Soviet archives). At least 5 million perished in Ukraine alone, a
number that does not include casualties in other Soviet republics fromÂ the forced collectivization.
Duranty won not only a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 but also praise fromÂ the Nation. That magazineâ€”far left even thenâ€”praised him for his
work in â€œthe most enlightening, dispassionate and readable dispatchesÂ from a great nation in the making which appeared in any newspaper in
Robert Conquest, who has chronicled Stalinâ€™s terror campaignsÂ masterfully, cited one Communist as saying that the USSR could hope
to attract support around the world for its Marxist system only if theÂ human costs of its policies were kept from the public eye.48 Duranty
obediently played his part in denial and deception masterfully, as theÂ New York Times readers never gained an inkling of the great human
tragedy unfolding in the early 1930s.
There are modern-day disciples of Davies and Duranty. Take, for example,Â the works of Michael Parenti, a modern-day apologist or tacit supporter
of Stalin and Stalinism. In his book The Anticommunist ImpulseÂ (1969), the jacket statement is significant: â€œAn expression of how our
obsession with anticommunism â€˜has warped our national commitmentsÂ to freedom and prosperity, immobilized us in our efforts to remedy
national ills, and caused the pursuit of a foreign policy that has ledÂ to the death and maiming of hundreds of thousands of young Americans.â€™â€
Parenti states that anti-Communism â€œis an outgrowth of ourÂ loftiest messianic visions and our crudest materialistic drives and as
such it tells us more about ourselves than about the world we inhabit.â€
Individuals such as Parenti have gone so far in their crusade againstÂ anti-Communism that they claim, since anti-Communists live in a
delusional world all their own, anything they might say about CommunismÂ should be dismissed out of hand.
Some of Parentiâ€™s assertions can only be called â€œhowlers. â€ AsÂ pointed out by Richard Gid Powers:
Had anticommunists charged Stalin with murdering millions? Laughable.
â€œThat Stalin could have maintained such popular devotion among theÂ masses while so decimating their ranks is, to say the least, highly
questionable.â€ The Gulag was another fiction: â€œWhen the camps wereÂ abolished after Stalinâ€™s death, there was no sign of twenty million halfstarved
victims pouring back into Soviet life. Labor camp inmates numberedÂ in the thousands.â€ The idea that Russians could not change their
jobs, or move about freely in their own country, Parenti derived as anotherÂ anticommunist myth.
The sad fact is that these claims occurred many years after formerÂ Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev himself revealed the scope of Stalinâ€™s
crimes in 1956, and heroic figures such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn andÂ Andrei Sakharov were persecuted for telling the truth about Soviet mass
murders and labor camps.
Parenti continues on the loose, spewing his toxic waste to the presentÂ day. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University
and has taught in a number of colleges and universities. According toÂ his Web site, he is the author of 18 books and 250 articles and appears
of radio and television talk shows. He lectures on college campuses beforeÂ a wide range of audiences in North America and abroad, and â€œhis
books are enjoyed by both lay readers and scholars.â€ His Web siteÂ claims that his works have been translated into 17 languages, including
Chinese, Greek, Korean, Persian, Serbian, and Turkish. Among the topicsÂ he treats are â€œimperialism and U.S. interventionism,â€ â€œpolitical bias
in the U.S. news media,â€ and â€œfascism: past and present.â€
ASSESSMENT: SO WHY DID THEY DO IT?
The available evidence suggests that ego-weakness, not stupidity, accountsÂ for the actions of people such as Davies, Duranty, or Parenti.
Davies had advanced academic and judicial degrees, and one cannot sayÂ that stupidity led to his perceptions and behavior. But he was described
as â€œignorant, conceited, and arrogant,â€ traits that affected his judgment.
The evidence also suggests Davies had a propensity for wishful thinking,Â an intolerance of opposing points of view, and an inability to weigh
evidence and draw impartial conclusions.
By the same token, Duranty accomplished much and could notÂ have remained in his position in Moscow had he been stupid. He was
well aware of how to play the system, to include his role as gatekeeperÂ for other journalists in Moscow. There is little doubt that he was selfimportant
and felt a need to influence others (including a sitting president)Â by his actions.
In addition, Parenti clearly does not suffer from stupidity. AnyoneÂ who can attain a doctorate from Yale, teach in various universities, and
publish as he has cannot be called stupid. His more recent behavior is inÂ some respects more puzzling than those figures from the 1930s, given
the overwhelming evidence of the vast scale of human suffering andÂ misery involved in the building of a socialist society in the Soviet
Union. All of his actions suggest a willingness and choice to screen outÂ any information that would conflict with his half-baked opinions.
CHEERLEADERS FOR HO CHI MIN
During the 1960s and 1970s there was no shortage of American supportersÂ of Ho Chi Minh, his regime, and his cause. Many chanted Hoâ€™s
name in the streets and on campuses and marched under North VietnameseÂ or Vietcong flags. There is no doubt that the U.S. antiwar movement
was large and diverse. The majority of all who participated simplyÂ wanted the war to end. A minority within that group, however, clearly
was rooting for the North Vietnamese and Vietcong to win the war. TheÂ latter group would do whatever it could to offer aid and comfort to the
North Vietnamese regime and the Vietcongâ€”usually in the form of activeÂ collaboration or delivery of material aid.
Until Hanoi opens its archives and records from the Vietnam War, weÂ will have an incomplete picture of the full extent of this collaboration
between selected Americans and the North Vietnamese regime. For theÂ present time, one way to determine who was the most activeâ€”and useful
to the enemyâ€”is to see who traveled abroad to meet North VietnameseÂ or Vietcong representatives. But the complete list of Americans
who did so is not yet available in any public forum. Still, there is ampleÂ evidence about the most prominent Americans who traveled abroad to
meet with the North Vietnamese or Vietcong. A substantial number ofÂ officials of the antiwar or â€œsocial justiceâ€ movements went to North Vietnam,
and some met with enemy officials in various countries abroad.
There was never a shortage of misty-eyed effusion after these trips.Â Many of the pilgrims returned raving about the heroic â€œresistance fightersâ€
battling the American â€œimperialistsâ€ against heavy odds.
â€¢ After meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong officials inÂ Bratislava, Czechoslovakia, in 1967, Tom Hayden was reported to
gush, â€œNow weâ€™re all Vietcong.â€
FROM HANOI TO HAVANA . . .
SELECTED TRAVELERS TO ENEMY TERRITORY
â€¢ Herbert Aptheker (1965) â€¢ Peter Weiss (1970)
â€¢ Staughton Lynd (1965) â€¢ Cora Weiss
â€¢ Tom Hayden (1965, 1966, 1967) â€¢ Sidney Peck
â€¢ Harrison Salisbury (1966) â€¢ Marcus Raskin
â€¢ Wilfred Burchett (1966) â€¢ Richard Barnet
â€¢ David Dellinger (1966, 1967, 1968) â€¢ Arthur Waskow
â€¢ Doug Dowd (1967, 1970) â€¢ Richard Fernandez (1970, 1971)
â€¢ Donna Allen (1967) â€¢ Joe Urgo (1971)
â€¢ Rennie Davis (1967) â€¢ Noam Chomsky (1970, 1971)
â€¢ Dagmar Wilson (1967) â€¢ Jane Fonda (1972)
â€¢ Stokely Carmichael (1967) â€¢ Howard Zinn (1968)
â€¢ Daniel Berrigan (1968) â€¢ Barry Romo
â€¢ Richard Falk (1969) â€¢ Ramsey Clark (1972)
â€¢ Father Robert Drinan (1969)
â€¢ Stokely Carmichael (1967) â€¢ Rep. George Crockett (D-MI)
â€¢ David Palmer â€¢ Danny Glover
(met with VC reps during â€¢ Woody Harrelson
Vietnam War) â€¢ Oliver Stone
â€¢ Eleanor Raskin â€¢ Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) (1998)
(met with VC reps during â€¢ Leslie Cagan
Vietnam War) â€¢ Medea Benjamin
â€¢ Ed Asner â€¢ Victor Rabinowitz
â€¢ Upon returning from a 1967 trip to North Vietnam, Donna AllenÂ stated, â€œWhen you come back, youâ€™ve dedicated your life.â€53
â€¢ On the heels of a trip to North Vietnam in 1971, Joe Urgo statedÂ that his trip â€œhad an enormous impact on me in convincing that I
was on the side of the Vietnamese now.â€
These trips evidently led to the suspicion that the peace movementÂ was directed from abroad. A CIA study of the U.S. antiwar movement as
part of the infamous Operation CHAOS (ordered by President Lyndon
â€¢ Leonard Boudin â€¢ Kathy Boudin
â€¢ Leonard Weinglass â€¢ Rev. Lucius Walker Jr. (2003)
â€¢ Robert L. Borosage (1983, 1984, 1985)â€¢ Sen. John Kerry (D-MA, 1985)
â€¢ Saul Landau (1983, 1984, 1985) â€¢ Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA, 1985)
â€¢ Richard Barnet (1983, 1984, 1985) â€¢ Mike Farrell (1985)
â€¢ Peter Kornbluth (1983, 1984, 1985) â€¢ Leonard Weinglass
â€¢ Cora Weiss (1983, 1984, 1985)
â€¢ Phyllis Bennis (1999) â€¢ Rep. David Bonior (D-MI)
â€¢ Brian Becker (2002) â€¢ Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
â€¢ Ramsey Clark (2002) â€¢ Jodie Evans (2003)
â€¢ Sean Penn (2002, 2003) â€¢ Medea Benjamin (2004)
â€¢ Rep. James McDermott (D-WA) â€¢ Gael Murphy (2004)
â€¢ Czechoslovakia (meeting in Bratislava with North Vietnamese and Vietcong officials
in 1967): David Dellinger, Tom Hayden, Nick Egleston, Christopher Jencks, AndrewÂ Kopkind, Dick Flacks
â€¢ Grenada (revolutionary regime): Barbara Lee (1983)
â€¢ North Korea: Brian Becker (2000)
â€¢ Afghanistan (Taliban regime): Medea Benjamin (2001)
Note: Does not include all U.S. travelers but mostly high-profile individuals or officials within well-known
peace or â€œsocial justiceâ€ movements. Dates of travel are shown when known. Other trips are possible butÂ may not have been reported.
B. Johnson) concluded that there was no significant evidence of CommunistÂ control or direction of the U.S. peace movement or its leaders,
an assertion that LBJ and other administration officials did not believeÂ or wish to believe. Yet the study also noted that the only extensive
government contacts maintained by peace activists were with Hanoi.
FONDA AND CLARK
Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark made two of the most publicized trips toÂ North Vietnam in 1972. Jane Fonda toured the country July 8â€“22. She
was photographed on a North Vietnamese antiaircraft artillery gunÂ mountâ€”a picture that no liberal or radical group wants you to see these
daysâ€”and toured bomb-damaged parts of the country. After talkingÂ with American POWs, she made a special report over the radio in
which she testified to the good treatment of the prisoners and called onÂ the U.S. airmen to halt the bombing. Her broadcast provoked unmitigated
furor in the United States, and the State Department, veterans organizations,Â and conservative politicians condemned her, and some
members of Congress charged her with treason.56 Fondaâ€™s efforts on behalfÂ of the North Vietnamese earned her the nickname â€œHanoi Jane.â€
The storm centered on her one well-publicized trip to North Vietnam,Â and it is not commonly known that her husband, Tom Hayden, made
three such trips.
Ramsey Clark was well known by 1972, having served as PresidentÂ Johnsonâ€™s attorney general from 1967 to 1969. He and other Far-Left
leaders had previously formed the Citizens Committee for the AmendmentÂ to End the War, designed to mobilize grassroots support for withdrawal
by a fixed date.57 Clark surveyed bomb damage in theÂ countryside from July 29 to August 12 as part of an international commission
to assess the war damage in North Vietnam. Clarkâ€™s hand wringingÂ statements clearly indicate that he was distressed by what he
saw. He said afterward that he had seen â€œmore apartments, villages,Â dikes and sluices destroyed than I ever want to see again.â€ The country
â€œhas now been bombed back into the 17th century,â€ he stated, and seeingÂ the survivors of the bombed villages was â€œalmost unbearable.â€ John
Mitchell, Clarkâ€™s successor as attorney general, said that Clark had beenÂ â€œunwittingly duped into playing Hanoiâ€™s wretched game of using POWs
as bargaining chips.â€ Mitchell also called Clark a â€œmegaphone for Communist
INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
The year 1967 also featured a bizarre episode that benefited Ho ChiÂ Minhâ€™s cause: the infamous International War Crimes Tribunal (IWCT)
sponsored by ninety-four-year-old British philosopher Bertrand Russell.
The IWCT began meeting in Sweden and later met in Denmark. ItsÂ major sessions took place in May and November 1967. The United
States was accused of â€œaggression, civilian bombardment, the use of experimentalÂ weapons, the torture and mutilation of prisoners and genocide
involving forced labor, mass burial, concentration camps andÂ saturation bombing of unparalleled intensity.â€ Naturally, the United
INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL
â€¢ Jean-Paul Sartre (France)
â€¢ Noam Chomsky (MIT)
â€¢ Stokely Carmichael (SNCC, Black Panthers)
â€¢ Carl Oglesby (SDS)
â€¢ Peter Weiss (NLG, IPS)
â€¢ Wilfred Burchett (Australia, KGB agent of influence)
Found United States â€œGuiltyâ€ Of:
â€¢ Bombardment of Civilians
â€¢ Use of Experimental Weapons
â€¢ Torture and Mutilation of Prisoners
â€¢ Genocide Involving Forced Labor
â€¢ Mass Burial
â€¢ Concentration Camps
â€¢ Saturation Bombing of â€œUnparalleled Intensityâ€
â€¢ Held in Sweden and Denmark in 1967
â€¢ Used Data Supplied by North Vietnam
States was found guilty on all counts. The tribunal made widespread useÂ of gut-wrenching testimony and data supplied by the North Vietnamese.
The tribunal was so skewed and one-sided that even CBS News and theÂ New York Times recognized it as a farce and a propaganda ploy.
One of the few Americans to take part was Carl Oglesby, a veteranÂ SDS operative and convert to radical causes. He claimed that the evidence
at the tribunal â€œgot to you.â€60 Oglesby had worked closely withÂ Sidney Blumenthal in the 1960s, and Blumenthal later went on to the
Clinton White House.61 The IWCT was supported by the leading MarxistÂ intellectuals in Europe and the United States, notably French philosopher
Jean-Paul Sartre, who had worked with the Soviet-backed WorldÂ Peace Council, and Noam Chomsky. Chomsky went to North Vietnam
whereâ€”among other thingsâ€”he â€œnegotiatedâ€ POW releases as a propagandaÂ ploy to show the â€œbenefitsâ€ of cooperating with the North Vietnamese.
Also on the tribunal were Stokely Carmichael, Peter Weiss, andÂ Wilfred Burchett, an Australian journalist and notorious KGB agent of
influence working for the pro-Vietnamese Dispatch News Service. (TheÂ Dispatch News Service provided Seymour Hershâ€™s story of U.S. war
crimes at My Lai to the New York Times in November 1969.)
Nor was there ever any doubt that the North Vietnamese and VietcongÂ valued such help. As early as 1965, the Hanoi regime placed great
importance on the U.S. antiwar movement, and Norman MorrisonÂ (who burned himself fatally in front of the Pentagon) was then already
a national hero in North Vietnam.
COMMUNIST VIETNAM SAYS â€œTHANK YOUâ€
We would like to thank the communist parties and working class of the countries of the world, nationalÂ liberation movements, nationalist countries, peace-loving countries, international democraticÂ organizations, and progressive human beings, for their wholehearted support, and strong encouragementÂ to our peopleâ€™s patriotic resistance against the U.S. for national salvation.
Wall plaque inside the War Remnants Museum (originally the War Crimes Museum) established in 1975 in HoÂ Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). The quote is from an excerpt from a report of the Vietnamese CommunistÂ Party Central Executive Committee, December 1976. Source: John E. Oâ€™Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, Unfit forÂ Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2004).
ASSESSMENT: SO WHY DID THEY DO IT?
It is difficult to fathom all the reasons for this type of collaboration. TheÂ reasons were likely as complex and numerous as the various strands of
the American antiwar movement itself. Some who met with the NorthÂ Vietnamese and Vietcong probably were well meaning, wishing to bring
the war to a rapid conclusion. Others were more inclined to cheer forÂ the other side and even wish for an American defeat. These were the
ones who delivered whatever assistance they could to the cause of HoÂ Chi Minh. Some who went to meet with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong
probably had a combination of motives to do what they did.
None of the individuals seemed to suffer from a lack of self importance,Â and all believed thatâ€”for whatever reasonsâ€”they had anÂ inside track to the appropriate corridors of powers or communicationsÂ channels. To cite one example, Cora Weiss was described as havingÂ â€œtremendous dedication and almost as tremendous self-importance.â€
They would sometimes say, â€œTheyâ€™d never lie to me,â€ or â€œIâ€™ve been thereÂ and really understand them and their situation.â€ The sense of selfimportance
comes through in their statements, and with that sentimentÂ often come self-righteousness and self-delusion. Probably none whoÂ went believed that they could be deceived or led around by their nosesâ€”although this is precisely what occurred time after time.
GET THEÂ RIGHT TOOLS
Given the fluid and dynamic nature of American politics, it is essentialÂ to use the many Web sites out there. This includes conservative, liberalradical,
and impartial Web sites as well. Several dozen Web sites provedÂ especially useful in this work. Â I cannotÂ refer to all of these Web sites as â€œrecommendedâ€ (especially those of
some of the targeted groups here). However, they clearly are â€œrelatedâ€Â for they point out how these groups see themselves, the issues, andÂ those who stand in their way.
The Internet is arguably the most promising of the various alternativeÂ media used by conservatives today. On the most-visited Web sites,
some twenty-four are on the Right and eleven are on the Left. The InternetÂ news audience is growing steadily as well. In 1999 only 6 percent
of people got their news via the Internet, but this figure had jumped toÂ 19 percent in 2003. Most of these are young people.
By the account of Viguerie and Franke (Americaâ€™s Right Turn), theÂ big breakthrough for the Internet occurred in January 1998. At that
time, Matt Grudge had outed Monica Lewinsky as President Bill Clintonâ€™sÂ sex partner. Only ten days later First Lady Hillary Clinton used the
term â€œVast Right Wing Conspiracyâ€ to Matt Lauer of NBC. Her staffersÂ then assembled a stunning 331-page â€œenemies list,â€ in which those who
plied their trade on the Internet were big culprits.
Some conservative Web sites have proved especially valuable:
â€¢ Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org)
â€¢ Discoverthenetwork.org: A Guide to the Political Left (www.discoverthenetwork.Â org)) ) )
â€¢ Front Page (www.frontpagemagazine.com)))
â€¢ National Review Online (www.nationalreview.com))
â€¢ World Net Daily (www.worldnetdaily.com))
Moreover, there are quite a few Web sites that take no particular positionÂ but are sources of ample data to back any robust research project.
Those Web sites frequently can answer questions about the sources andÂ flow of political money. Many of them were especially useful during the
presidential election of 2004 and remain useful to the present day.
Link analysis Â goes back to at least theÂ 1920s, when it was a useful device to examine the connections amongÂ organized-crime figures. Link analysis can be used to connect individualsÂ with one another or individuals to a certain movement or event.
Example Task: Examine some of the relationships that accounted forÂ the influence of Mark Lane, a radical lawyer and conspiracy theorist
who emerged during the 1960s.
Solution: Draw the connections between Lane and three individuals:
Jane Fonda, philosopher Bertrand Russell, and Soviet official GenrikhÂ Borovik. Then factor in other influential figures who interacted with
those three individuals.
First-order analysis: (A) Fonda had turned against the Vietnam WarÂ while she was living in Paris between 1965 and 1969. Shortly thereafter
Lane brought her into contact with the Vietnam Veterans Against theÂ War (VVAW). Lane also worked with Fonda on the Winter Soldier Investigation
(WSI), a kangaroo court â€œwar crimesâ€ tribunal. (B) BritishÂ philosopher Bertrand Russell, ninety-four years old when he sponsored
the effort to investigate U.S. â€œwar crimesâ€ in Vietnam, supported Laneâ€™sÂ publishing efforts and arranged funding for him as well. (C) Lane had
regular contact with Genrikh Borovik, a Soviet media figure, KGB official,Â and head of the Soviet Committee for the Defense of Peace
(SCDP)â€”one of Moscowâ€™s most influential fronts of the 1960s andÂ 1970s.
Second-order analysis: (A) Fonda was married to Tom Hayden, theÂ founder of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and one who
has devoted his adult life to campaigning against the United States andÂ its policies. (B) Bertrand Russellâ€™s wife, Dora, was also instrumental in
the effort to â€œtryâ€ the United States for â€œwar crimesâ€ and added much toÂ her husbandâ€™s effort. (C) Genrikh Borovik was well connected to the
upper echelons of the Soviet leadership as well as to media circles, as heÂ was a journalist, novelist, playwright, and television presenter who had
worked in the United States. The Soviets believed that Laneâ€™s conspiracyÂ theory (that the CIA had killed President John F. Kennedy) worked to
their advantage. Therefore, second-order analysis adds greatly to ourÂ understanding of the primary linkages.
Content analysis is often a useful tool when trying to ascertain the meaningÂ of a written work. Simply put, content analysts seek to assess the nature
of a given work (an article or book) by examining the terminologyÂ or the frequency with which certain themes are raised or terms are used.
Content analysis is used to a certain extent here, specifically in examiningÂ the nature of various Web sites of certain groups. This is one
way to throw light on these groups by revealing what they say aboutÂ LINK ANALYSIS OF LANE, FONDA, RUSSELL, AND BOROVIK
Jane Fonda Tom Hayden
UPSHOT: Extends influence of Far Left
Bertrand Russell Dora Russell
UPSHOT: Adds to anti-U.S. campaign
Genrikh Borovik High-level Soviet officials
UPSHOT: Anti-U.S. â€œactive measuresâ€ have approval at highest level themselves, the issues they are tackling, why they believe these issues
matter, and the various obstacles that stand in their way.
Example Task: Examine specific evidence that some U.S. clergymenÂ willingly provide material aid as well as significant moral and psychological
assistance to the regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba.
Solution: Look closely at the actions of the group called IFCOâ€“PastorsÂ for Peace as well as the speeches of its founder, the Reverend Lucius
Walker Jr. The content of the IFCO/PFP Web sites clearly statesÂ that the group has delivered material aid to Cuba on many occasions.
By mid-2005 this group had delivered fourteen caravans of material aidÂ to Cuba and had dispatched many delegations and work brigades. The
first Friendshipment Caravan carried fifteen tons of milk, medicines,Â Bibles, bicycles, and school supplies to Cuba in November 1992. The
fourteenth Friendshipment of July 2003 involved â€œcaravanistasâ€ to celebrateÂ the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of the Cuban Revolution.
Meanwhile, Lucius Walker Jr.â€”the head of IFCO/PFPâ€”addressed aÂ throng in Havanaâ€™s Plaza of the Revolution on May 1, 2003. The content
analysis of his speech revealed his willingness to join Cuba in its struggleÂ against â€œU.S. terrorism.â€ It revealed his plea for the United States to
stop its â€œhypocritical lies and distortions about Cubaâ€™s human rightsÂ record.â€ And he urged the Cubans, â€œHold on to your revolution.â€ This
was only several weeks after some dissidents were given draconian sentencesÂ of up to twenty-eight years in prison, so perhaps he advocated an
even tougher crackdown on domestic opposition to Castro. In short theÂ content analysis of his actions revealed treachery of the lowest order,
and made it abundantly clear what his organization stood for.
Matrix analysis attempts to see what features certain individuals orÂ groups may have in common. The data is presented on a grid, with the
individual or groups usually listed on the vertical axis and the measuringÂ or assessment data presented on the horizontal axis. Matrix analysis
can be either very simple or extraordinarily involved.
Example Task: Assess and evaluate the interlocking relationships betweenÂ the heads of some of the most prominent radical groups in the
United States. These groups include United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ),Â Global Exchange, CodePink, and Iraq Occupation Watch (IOW).
Solution: Matrix analysis of the heads of these organizations clearlyÂ reveals the close connections at the upper leadership levels. Specifically,
several of these women belong to two or more of these groups.
Medea Benjamin is a high-ranking member of all four. Leslie CaganÂ heads UFPJ and is on the board of IOW. Andrea Buffa is on the Steering
Committee of UFPJ and is also a member of Global Exchange andÂ CodePink.
Gael Murphy occupies leadership positions at UFPJ, CodePink, andÂ IOW. In this case, matrix analysis displays this relationship better than
any other tool.
This is a straightforward way to present data in a historical or chronologicalÂ context. Often this kind of analysis is used to present â€œwhat occurred
when.â€ Time/event charting is frequently used in the newsÂ media in efforts to simplify some series of events, and often involves the
presentation of time lines.
Example Task: Depict the order of formation of the various radical/Â liberal groups over the twentieth century and early twenty-first century.
INTERLOCKING LEADERSHIP OF SEVERAL GROUPS
(UFPJ, GLOBAL EXCHANGE,
CODEPINK, IOW)Â UFPJ GE CP IOW
Medea Benjamin X/f X/h X/f X/b
Leslie Cagan X/fs X/b
Jodie Evans X/f
Andrea Buffa X/s X X
Gael Murphy X/s X/e X/b
Key: f = founder; h = head; s = steering committee; e = executive committee; b = board
1917 AFSC (American Friends Service Committee)
1920 ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
1923 WRL (War Resisters League)
1936 NLG (National Lawyers Guild)
1958 WWP (Workers World Party)
1963 IPS (Institute for Policy Studies)
1966 CCR (Center for Constitutional Rights)
1966 NACLA (North American Congress on Latin America)
1969 CEP (Council on Economic Priorities)
1974 CNSS (Center for National Security Studies)
1975 RCP USA (Revolutionary Communist Party, USA)
1977 Mobilization for Survival
1981 PFAW (People for the American Way)
1983 DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) *
1986 FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
1987 Refuse and Resist
1987 SANE/FREEZE **
1988 IFCO/PFP (Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization/Pastors
1988 Global Exchanges
1992 IAC (International Action Center)
1993 Peace Action
2001 International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)
2002 NION (Not in Our Name)
Progressive Donor Network
UFPJ (United for Peace and Justice)
IOW (Iraq Occupation Watch)
2003 MMA (Media Matters for America) web site
*Formed from the merger of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the New American Movement
**Formed from the merger of the Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy and the Nuclear Weapons FreezeÂ Campaign. In 1993 SANE/FREEZE was renamed as Peace/Action.
Some conflicting data on formative years for some groupsÂ Solution: Construct a time line that begins with World War I and extends
to the present. Find the year that each of the groups was formed,Â and chart it on this time line. Because this covers such an extended
length of time, divide the time line into three distinct periods. This timeÂ line shows which groups were formed at a very early stage (pre-1960)
and which have developed in more recent years. This particular time lineÂ is the basic conceptual tool used in chapters 5, 6, and 7.
ANALYSIS OF COMPETING HYPOTHESES
The analysis of competing hypotheses is a relatively advanced analyticalÂ tool, sometimes used to seek explanations for things that are otherwise
perplexing or bewildering. The technique here involves establishing aÂ series of hypotheses on the vertical axis, and setting out possible explanations
on the horizontal axis.
Example Task: Try to make sense out of this statement by ArthurÂ Ochs Sulzberger Jr., the co-chairman of the New York Times, who spoke
at the Poynter Institute in Tampa in February 2005. He was asked aÂ question about his newspaperâ€™s liberal bias and replied, â€œI hear more
complaints that the newspaper is in the pocket of the Bush administrationÂ than that it is too liberal.â€
Solution: Construct a matrix that can show the various hypothesesÂ for this perplexing statement. Set out the hypotheses along the left side
of the matrix, on the vertical axisâ€”possible explanations why he madeÂ such a statement. Along the top edge of the matrix on the horizontal
axis, put in things that would support each of those hypotheses (itemsÂ of evidence, for example).
There are at least six hypotheses why Sulzberger would make thisÂ statement: (a) he hears things very selectively; (b) he is parroting the
big lie about â€œright-wing media biasâ€; (c) he is surrounded by leftistsÂ who tell him this kind of thing on a regular basis; (d) he is out of touch
with reality; (e) he is in denial, or (f) he believes his audience is stupidÂ and gullible. On the horizontal axis are possible explanations that
might support some of these hypotheses: (a) his own leftist backgroundÂ causes him to say this; (b) his current job causes him to say this; or (c)
his statement actually reflects the actual situation, that the New YorkÂ Times is in the Bush administrationâ€™s pocket.
There are no easily identified solutions to this issue, but the preliminaryÂ evidence suggests that it is either Sulzbergerâ€™s own left-wing background
or his current job that leads him to make this statement. HisÂ statement in no way reflects the actual situation, as the New York Times
has not endorsed a Republican for president since Dwight D. Eisenhowerâ€™sÂ day. The paper has taken repeated stands against the initiatives
of the Bush administration, as well as conservative U.S. presidents beforeÂ George Bush. Andâ€”tellinglyâ€”the paper continues to employ a
host of Far-Left ideologues such as Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, andÂ their ilk.
This type of analysis attempts to discern various levels of commitmentÂ or involvement of selected individuals or groups. It is one answer to the
problem of lumping individuals or groups into a single, homogeneousÂ categoryâ€”an approach that often oversimplifies the issues. This tool is
useful in differentiating hard-core true believers from casual participants.
It seeks to determine the differences between the dangerous radicalÂ and the moderate liberal, and even seeks to find some middle
ground between them.
Example Task: Make some kind of distinction between die-hard,Â committed radicals and more casual liberals.
Solution: Set out some criteria for separating the groups into twoÂ distinct camps.
ANALYSIS OF COMPETING HYPOTHESES AND SULZBERGER STATEMENT
Hypotheses: background job actual situation
Selective hearing X
Big lie: â€œright-wing biasâ€ X
Surrounded by leftists X
Out of touch X
In complete denial X
Thinks audience stupid X? X?
As a start, ask whether this person did or did not: (a) travel at anyÂ time to North Vietnam, Cuba, or Saddamâ€™s Iraq; (b) devote twenty-five
years or more of his/her life to the radical cause; or (c) give material aidÂ or moral/psychological support to a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist
group. If the answer to any of these questions is â€œyes,â€ then itâ€™s safe toÂ place that person in the column of a die-hard committed radical. This
guideline is used in this book as well. (See pages 74â€“75 for this graphic.)
David Horowitz has done pioneering work by using this approachÂ in his own work. In order to avoid typecasting all leftists into one large
group, he employs five distinct categories: totalitarian radicals, anti-American radicals, leftists, moderate leftists, and affective leftists.
These run the gamut to hard-core, totally committed radicals such asÂ Brian Becker to the casual leftists such as entertainers Katie Couric or
This is a little-known analytical approach that is quite simple. RatherÂ than look at just one individual or group, it is sometimes useful to examine
a pair of individuals or groups as to assess the interaction betweenÂ them. It matters that liberal policy makers Clark Clifford and
Paul Warnke once were law partners in Washington DC. It matters thatÂ Cora Weiss and the Reverend William Sloane Coffin Jr. worked closely
together at the Riverside Church in New York City. And it certainly mattersÂ that George Soros and Morton Halperin work together to channel
money to various causes. This approach often leads to more sophisticatedÂ assessments than examining just one individual or group.
Example Task: Examine how President Bill Clintonâ€™s foreign policy orÂ national-defense decisions may have been affected by the orientation of
his two national security advisers, Anthony Lake and Samuel â€œSandyâ€Â Berger.
Solution: Build a graphic that lays out the apparent political orientationÂ of both these individuals and also depicts their relationship with
one another. This type of graphic would show the relevant backgroundÂ items in each personâ€™s life before the White House job, that personâ€™s apparent
orientation while on the job as national security adviser, or relevantÂ events afterward.
LINKAGES OF ANTHONY LAKE AND SANDY BERGER
â€¢ Bill Clintonâ€™s national security adviser, 1993â€“96
â€¢ International Voluntary Services, pacifist group (Lake was director)
â€¢ Dovish foreign service officer, served in Vietnam
â€¢ Center for International Policy (Lake knew Orlando Letelier)
â€¢ Senator Frank Church (Lake was his legislative aide)
â€¢ Cyrus Vance (brought Lake to State Dept. in Carter Transition Team)
â€¢ Morton Halperin (Lake and Halperin partners at CNSS function, 1974)
Samuel â€œSandyâ€ Berger
â€¢ Bill Clintonâ€™s national security adviser, 1996â€“2000
â€¢ Deputy to Anthony Lake on NSC staff, 1993â€“1996
â€¢ Antiwar activist in college (Cornell, Harvard)
â€¢ Worked for McCarthy and Kennedy (1968)
â€¢ Speechwriter for McGovern (1972)
â€¢ Trade lawyer for Hogan and Hartson (point man for China trade office)
â€¢ In White House, worked the â€œChina connectionâ€ with Harold Ickes andÂ Mark Middleton
â€¢ Very close to Clinton, with daily access to him in White House
â€¢ Pled guilty in April 2005 to removing classified documents fromÂ National Archives
AND THEIR LINKAGES
IN THE EARLY PART of the twentieth century, there was only a small handfulÂ of social justice or antiwar groups. As such, there was nothing like
the network of linkages that is apparent today. However, those groupsÂ that did form then have shown remarkable staying power and resiliency.
THE AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE (1917)Â Founded in 1917 for the ostensible purpose of assisting European
refugees and those affected by World War I, the American Friends ServiceÂ Committee (AFSC) provided a home for conscientious objectors.
Although the AFSC repeatedly denied it, the group had close associationsÂ with the Communist Party USA and various socialist revolutionary
The AFSC gave assistance to the Soviet Union in order to allow aÂ degree of â€œrelaxed domestic controlâ€ as well as to â€œachieve greater benefits
through peaceful co-existenceâ€ than it could through war. In theÂ 1930s the AFSC refused to criticize the USSR because the establishment
and development of personal ties seemed to be the only way to diffuseÂ hostilities. The AFSC later claimed that the real threat to world stability
was the United States.
Year after year, the AFSC has attempted to sell itself as the logical extensionÂ of traditional Quakerism and the concept of social justice while
simultaneously offering tangible support and material assistance to someÂ of the most brutal, repressive, and corrupt regimes in world history. It
has perpetually criticized the United States while turning a blind eye toÂ the excesses and brutality of the Vietnamese Communists, the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO), and the Cambodian Khmer Rouge of PolÂ Pot. In the 1970s the AFSC claimed that the massacres of Pol Pot were
the product of â€œAmerican misinformationâ€ and also noted that the NorthÂ Vietnamese victors were carrying out the task of reconstructing Vietnam
with â€œextraordinary humanenessâ€ (ignoring the summary executionsÂ and confinement to labor camps of South Vietnamese officials).
The AFSCâ€™s primary goal is to agitate for the unilateral disarmamentÂ of the United States, compelling the United States to withdraw economically
and militarily from foreign posts around the globe. Moreover, theÂ AFSC has taken a strong stance against laws that would apprehend and
punish illegal immigrants to the United States, as it recognizes no justificationÂ for the United States to guard its borders more diligently.
THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (1920)
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was formed in 1920 andÂ was first known as the Civil Liberties Bureau. It took the side of aliens
threatened with deportation by Attorney General Alexander Palmer forÂ their radical views. The ACLU also opposed attacks on the Industrial
Workers of the World (IWW, also known as the Wobblies) and otherÂ labor unions to organize and meet.
In 1925 the ACLU persuaded John T. Scopes to defy Tennesseeâ€™sÂ anti-evolution law to provoke a court test. Clarence Darrow, a member
of the ACLUâ€™s National Committee, headed the Scopes legal team. TheÂ ACLU lost the case, and Scopes was fined $100. Subsequently, the Tennessee
Supreme Court reversed the case but not the conviction. InÂ 1942, a few months after Pearl Harbor, ACLU affiliates on the West
Coast sharply criticized the U.S. governmentâ€™s policies regarding enemyÂ aliens and U.S. citizens descended from enemy ancestry. This included
the relocation of Japanese-Americans, internment of aliens, and prejudicialÂ curfews.
Early in its history, the ACLU was singled out for criticism for its apparentÂ pro-Communist stance. In 1931, for example, the Special House
Committee to Investigate Communist Activities noted that the ACLU isÂ â€œclosely affiliated with the Communist movementâ€ in the United States
and that â€œfully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of Communists who haveÂ come into conflict with the law.â€ The House committee noted that while
the ACLU claimed to stand for the freedom of speech, the press, and assembly,Â it is â€œquite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt
to protect the Communists.â€ Moreover, the committee stated,Â â€œSince its beginnings, the ACLU has waged war against Christianity.â€
During the long history of the ACLU, many critics have claimedÂ that it has sought to advance a liberal agenda, going far beyond its
stated goal of defending constitutional rights. Some have pointed to itsÂ opposition to the death penalty and further note that the ACLU has not
been consistent in protecting all civil liberties. It has not protected theÂ right to bear arms, as provided for in the Second Amendment. On the
religious front, the ACLU has been accused of attempting to remove allÂ references to religion from American governmentâ€”pushing the concept
of separation of church and state far beyond its original meaning.
This issue appears each Christmas season, as one or another ACLUÂ chapter inveighs against the display of religious symbols in public
places. The ACLU has also been accused of promoting a radical form ofÂ Islam called Wahhabism (most recently through its association with the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR).
The ACLU has also taken stands on other issues. Today it supportsÂ reproductive rights, including the right to choose an abortion. It supports
full civil rights for homosexuals, including government benefitsÂ for homosexual couples. It supports affirmative action (governmentsanctioned
reverse discrimination). In addition, it opposes the criminalÂ prohibition of drugs and supports the legalization of drugs such as
heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.
THE WAR RESISTERS LEAGUE (1923)
The War Resisters League (WRL) was formed in 1923 by those whoÂ had opposed World War I. Many of its founders had been jailed during
the war for refusing military service. This group was formed from the Â Fellowship of Reconciliation when many Jews, suffragettes, socialists,
and anarchists combined to form the more secular WRL.8Â The WRL continued its activities in subsequent decades. During
World War II many of its members were imprisoned. In the 1950s theÂ WRL was active in the U.S. civil rights movement and also organized
protests against nuclear weapons testing and civil defense.
In the 1960s the WRL was the first pacifist organization to call forÂ an end to the Vietnam War. In the 1970s and 1980s the groupâ€™s opposition
to nuclear weapons was expanded to include opposition to nuclearÂ power. The group has also been active in feminist and anti-racist causes.
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD (1936)
The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) was founded in 1936 by membersÂ of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and liberal fellow travelers. This
organization of radical lawyers adopted a benevolent pose as a professionalÂ organization that functions as an effective social force in the service
of the common people. In fact, it has consistently embraced itsÂ Communist heritage.
During the late 1940s and early 1950s the NLG represented theÂ Hollywood Ten, spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and thousands of
what it calls â€œvictims of anti-Communist hysteria.â€ The NLG claimsÂ that it was unjustly labeled as subversive by the U.S. government.10
The NLG remains an outpost of the International Association ofÂ Democratic Lawyers (IADL), which itself was one of a complex of thirteen
interlocking front groups of the Soviet Communist Party. TheÂ IADL had its headquarters in Brussels and was formed in 1946 to support
Soviet propaganda, to issue legal statements and appeals for SovietÂ political priorities, and to condemn non-Communist causes. For a
time the NLG had some twenty-five thousand members in eightyÂ countries.
All of these groups reported to the International Department (ID) ofÂ the CPSUâ€™s Central Committee. The purposes of the IDâ€™s front groups
were to appeal to a broad range of opinion, to support Soviet propagandaÂ themes, to conceal connections between the USSR and the Soviet
Communist Party, to attack the West, and to never criticize the USSR.
Some of the most active front groups during the cold war were the World Peace Council (WPC), the World Federation of Trade Unions
(WFTU), the Womenâ€™s International Democratic Federation (WIDF),Â and the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY).
Some of the front groups also created â€œfronts of fronts,â€ groups toÂ address particular issues and to put further distance between them and
Moscow. One example was Generals for Peace, a front of the WorldÂ Peace Council. The U.S. affiliate of the World Peace Council is the U.S.
Peace Council, which played a prominent role in the cold war.
In recent years the NLG has sought to legally represent persons andÂ groups that have attacked the United States. The NLG was been at the
forefront of various efforts to weaken U.S. intelligence and securityÂ agencies. It has opposed the proposed Domestic Security Enhancement
Act (DSEA), also known as Patriot Act II, and has endorsed the CivilÂ Liberties Restoration Act (CLRA), designed to roll back security policies
that were adopted after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Moreover, theÂ NLG advocates open borders and mass immigration. The group is the
spearhead of the Open Borders Lobby, and its National ImmigrationÂ Project consists of a network of lawyers and legal workers.13
THE WORKERS WORLD PARTY (1959)
The Workers World Party (WWP) is a Communist-socialist party in theÂ United States founded by Sam Marcy. The WWP claims to embrace
Marxism-Leninism, but others characterize it as being Stalinist. IdeologicallyÂ the group is made up of different streams of Communist thought.
In origin it is a Trotskyite group, but describes itself as Marxist-LeninistÂ (a term rarely used by Trotsky followers). Yet the WWP continues to sell
the writings of Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao Zedong. In practical terms, itÂ supports the remaining Communist nations of Cuba, North Korea, and
China. It also supports countries that it sees as victims of â€œAmerican imperialism,â€Â such as Libya and Iraq.14
The WWP was formed as a splinter group from the Socialist WorkersÂ Party in 1958 over some long-standing differences. Some of these differences
included Marcyâ€™s support for the Chinese Revolution led by MaoÂ Zedong as well as his support for the brutal Soviet armed intervention in
Hungary in 1956â€”an event that alienated many Communists worldwide.
The WWP also supported the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia inÂ 1968 and its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979â€”other events that put the
USSR and the WWP on the wrong side of the â€œself-determinationâ€ issue.
At first the WWP was confined to the Buffalo, New York, area, butÂ it expanded in the 1960s. The partyâ€™s youth movement, called Youth
Against War and Fascism, attracted support for its campaigns againstÂ the war in Vietnam.
The WWP has been active in U.S. presidential elections since 1980.
Its candidate of 1984 and 1988, Larry Holmes, remains a powerful forceÂ within the WWP to this day. The WWP has opposed both Persian Gulf
wars and has sometimes been an important ally of Third World solidarityÂ movements in the United States. The group also supported Chinaâ€™s
brutal crackdown in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Moreover,Â the group has defended Saddam Hussein as well as Serbian dictator Slobodan
The WWP split in 2004, and a new groupâ€”the Party for SocialismÂ and Liberationâ€”was formed by several WWP members.15 The longterm
effects of this split remain unclear.
More significantly, the WWP has been a guiding and leading forceÂ in two movements: the International Action Center (IAC), a WWP
front formed in 1992, and International ANSWER (ANSWER forÂ short), formed in 2001.16 The most prominent members of the WWP
today are Brian Becker and Larry Holmes (both members of the partyâ€™sÂ secretariat) as well as Teresa Gutierrez, Sarah Sloan, and Sara Flounders.
All of these persons appeared at a rally sponsored by ANSWER in 2003,Â although they were not identified as WWP members.
ALL IN THE FAMILY
Many of the foundations of todayâ€™s Far-Left movement were set in placeÂ during the 1930s. Against the backdrop of a worldwide depression and
financial chaos, extremist movements of the Far Right and the Far LeftÂ flourished. Not only was fascism on the rise in countries in Central and
Eastern Europe, but pro-Communist groups were also growing in someÂ of the leading capitalist countries of the West.
In some cases the parents of todayâ€™s figures in â€œprogressiveâ€ movementsÂ were quite active during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. It is logical
to assume that the formative experiences of public people during thatÂ time have carried over into attitudes of their offspring through the
process known as political socialization.
The family issue is now increasingly important because the secondÂ generation is inheriting their parentsâ€™ causes. The second generation includes
progressive names that have become prominent in recent years:
Cockburn, Rubin-Weiss, Boudin, Ickes, Thomas, Soros, Moyers, andÂ Richards.
One example is that of Claud Cockburn (1904â€“81). The son of a diplomat,Â Cockburn (pronounced ko-burn) was born in China. He was a socialist
author and journalist as well as a sympathizer of Joseph Stalin.
He wrote for the Daily Worker under the pseudonym of Frank PitcairnÂ from 1935 to 1946 and served as a war correspondent for that Communist
paper in Spain in the 1930s, acting on assignment from the head ofÂ the British Communist Party. He later wrote under the name of James
Helvick when he authored the novel Beat the Devil in 1951. Educated atÂ Oxford as well as universities in Budapest and Berlin, Cockburn received
his start as an unofficial correspondent in Berlin in the 1920s. HeÂ later wrote for the Times of London as a correspondent from New York
and Washington DC from 1929 to 1932â€”during which he filed reportsÂ that were total fabrications. His stint at the Times overlapped that of
Graham Greene (the darling of Havana and Moscow), who was a subeditorÂ there, and he was also a close friend of Malcolm Muggeridge.
Cockburn also contributed to the New Statesman, the Daily Telegraph,Â Private Eye, the Saturday Evening Post, and the British humor magazine
Punch. Cockburnâ€™s most ambitious effort was his newsletter, called TheÂ Week, a recurring tip sheet of politics that he published between 1933
and 1946. Cockburn broke with the Communist Party after World WarÂ II and moved with his family to Ireland in 1948, but he continued to
contribute to various newspapers and journals.17Â During the time he was most active, Cockburn maintained close
contact with Mikhail Koltsov of the Soviet Embassy in London. KoltsovÂ was both an editor of Pravda as well as a Stalinist agent in Spain.
Cockburn has had three sonsâ€”Alexander, Andrew, and Patrickâ€”all of whom remain active journalists to the present day.
Alexander Cockburn is the proud heir of the family tradition andÂ was the closest to his father before Claud died in 1981. He was born
in Scotland in 1941 and grew up in Ireland. Another Oxford graduate,Â he has lived in self-described exile in the United States since 1972,
where he has worked as a syndicated or contributing columnist. SinceÂ that time he has managed to defend the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
as well as the regime of Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhafi in Libya.
He has spoken strongly against the United States and its policies ofÂ â€œterrorâ€ during the civil war in Nicaragua. He has been a regular contributor
to the Nation, although his work has also appeared in theÂ Wall Street Journal, the Village Voice, House and Garden, and the Los
In 1987 he wrote a book entitled Corruptions of Empire: Life StudiesÂ and the Reagan Era. One reviewer noted the â€œsame disrespect of his father
for the truth was also evident in this book which defended everyÂ anti-American tyrant and regime in the Third World.â€18 More recently,
Alexander has been a strident opponent of U.S. ventures in AfghanistanÂ and Iraq. He now teams with Jeffrey St. Clair to co-edit the journal
Andrew Cockburn was born in Scotland in 1947, grew up in Ireland,Â and also lives in the United States. Another Oxford man and author,
he has specialized in defense issues and international relations
Claud Cockburn (1904â€“81)
Alexander CockburnÂ â€”Counterpunch, Nation, other publications
+ Jeffrey St. ClairÂ (current partner at Counterpunch)
Andrew CockburnÂ â€”defense writer
+ Leslie CockburnÂ (wife, journalist, and film producer)
Patrick CockburnÂ â€”foreign correspondent
over the past three decades. He produced a special on the Red Army forÂ PBS and wrote a book called The Threat: Inside the Soviet Military Machine
in 1983. The book was an effort to debunk the â€œbig threatâ€ pictureÂ of the Soviet armed forces and made a case for moral equivalency in
stating that both the U.S. and Soviet military systems were large, inefficient,Â wasteful bureaucracies, each inflating the threat posed by the
other for its own selfish purposes.20 He has been a contributing editor ofÂ Defense Week and contributes regularly to Counterpunch.
Andrew is married to Leslie Cockburn, a journalist and CBS newsÂ producer.22 In 1987 she wrote a book entitled Out of Control: The Story
of the Reagan Administrationâ€™s Secret War in Nicaragua, the Illegal ArmsÂ Pipeline, and the Contra Drug Connection. Leslie recognized the help of
her husband in compiling her book.
Patrick Cockburn also was born in Scotland and grew up in Ireland.Â He had earlier worked as a correspondent for the Financial Times in
Moscow. Patrick later worked in Baghdad during the first Persian GulfÂ War and has also served in Jerusalem for the Independent. Filing from
Iraq, three of Patrickâ€™s articles appeared in Alexanderâ€™s Counterpunch inÂ late 2003, each with a distinctly anti-U.S. title. Patrickâ€™s most recent
book is Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, which heÂ wrote with his brother Andrew.23 (Perhaps a second resurrection is in
Samuel Rubin (1901â€“78) is responsible primarily for the initial surge ofÂ funding to major left-wing organizations. His parents brought him from
Russia to America as a child. He was a registered Communist PartyÂ member, although he had business talent and decided to operate like a
good capitalist. Rubin was also a friend and business associate of ArmandÂ Hammer, a longtime supporter of Lenin. In 1930 Rubin founded
the Spanish Trading Corporation, but he closed it when FranciscoÂ Franco took power in Spain. In 1937 Rubin founded Faberge Perfumes
and built it from a small specialty shop into a major cosmetics firm. InÂ 1959 he established the Samuel Rubin Foundation from his personal
wealth. In 1963 Rubin sold Faberge for $25 million and gave a portionÂ to his foundation. This foundation has funded legions of left-wing
causes since then; the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) is among theÂ leading recipients.
Cora Weiss, nÃ©e Rubin, is the daughter of Samuel Rubin and hasÂ been the director of the Samuel Rubin Foundation from its founding.
She was also instrumental in the funding decision to create the InstituteÂ for Policy Studies (IPS). Her husband, Peter Weiss, was the first chairman
of the IPS board of directors. The couple selected Marcus RaskinÂ and Richard Barnet as co-directors of the IPS. Cora gained notoriety as a
leader of the Vietnam Warâ€“era coalitions who traveled to Paris andÂ Hanoi for repeated meetings with Communist leaders.25 She has been
active in a variety of radical causes for at least four decades.
Peter Weiss, born in 1925 in Vienna, Austria, is the senior partnerÂ of the law firm Weiss, David, Fross, Zelnick, and Lehrman in New York
City. His firm specializes in trademark, copyright, and international law.
Weiss is a prominent member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG)Â and has served many other Far-Left causes. He was chairman of the IPS
board of directors until the 1990s.
Leonard Boudin was a prominent radical lawyer. He was especially activeÂ in the 1960s and 1970s and died in 1989. He was the brother-in-law of
FLOW OF MONEY AMONG RUBIN, WEISS, AND TIDES
Samuel Rubin (Faberge)
Samuel Rubin Foundation
Teresa Heinz Kerry
Stern Family Fund
Many leftist groups
Institute for Policy Studies (IPS)Â and related groups
the radical journalist and Soviet agent I. F. Stone. Stone had a newsletterÂ called I. F. Stoneâ€™s Weekly, which was comparable to the Cockburn
newsletter in the United Kingdom in the 1930s and 1940s. Stone consideredÂ himself â€œAmerican to the core and radical to the end.â€ (Only the
first part of that phrase is somewhat questionable.) Boudin was the lawÂ partner of Victor Rabinowitz, who once defended Fidel Castro, Benjamin
Spock, and Daniel Ellsberg. Moreover, Boudin hired Leonard Weinglass,Â a leader of the NLG, who himself defended the Symbionese Liberation
Army (SLA) as well as cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. In addition, WeinglassÂ has defended Boudinâ€™s daughter, Cathy Boudin.
Cathy Boudin became even better known thanks to her involvementÂ with the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), or â€œWeathermen,â€
and its violent activities. In 1984 she and Bernardine Dohrn were sent toÂ prison for participating in a bank robbery in which a policeman was
killed. Cathy Boudin has a host of connections and links to other radical families
BOUDIN FAMILY LINKS
Leonard Boudin I. F. Stone (Leonardâ€™s brother-in-law)
Victor Rabinowitz (Leonardâ€™s law partner)
Benjamin Spock (defended)
Daniel Ellsberg (defended)
Fidel Castro (defended)
Leonard Weinglass (Leonard hired Weinglass)
Mumia Abu Jamal (defended)
Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) (defended)
Cathy Boudin Bernardine Dohrn (close friends with Cathy)
Bill Ayers (married to Bernardine)
Michael Meeropol (Cathy dated son of Rosenbergs)
Lynne Stewart (on Cathyâ€™s legal team)
Stanley Cohen (on Cathyâ€™s legal team)
William Kunstler (influence on Cohen)
figures. She became acquainted with Bernardine Dohrn in the late 1960s,Â and the two remained close for years after that. Dohrn worked for the
NLG in Manhattan where she was involved in draft-resistance counseling.
Dohrn married Bill Ayers, a veteran organizer of the Students for aÂ Democratic Society (SDS). She received money from actor Jon Voight,
and for a time she and Ayers lived on Voightâ€™s houseboat in California.
Boudin had also dated Michael Meeropol, the son of executed spiesÂ Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. In addition, Boudin had a strong connection
to radical lawyers Lynne Stewart and Stanley Cohen; they both joined herÂ legal team in the early 1980s. Stewart has a connection with Dohrn
through the NLG and is involved with several other radical organizationsÂ herself. Cohen is a protÃ©gÃ© of radical lawyer William Kunstler, who
founded the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).
Harold Le Claire Ickes (1874â€“1952) served as Franklin Rooseveltâ€™s secretaryÂ of the interior between 1933 and 1945. Ickes held leftist political
views, and in 1932 he played an important role in persuading â€œprogressiveâ€Republicans to support FDR in the election. He claimed that the
â€œbusiness administrationsâ€ of three Republican presidents â€œhad ruinedÂ virtually everybody in the country.â€
In 1933 FDR picked him as his secretary of the interior. This job involvedÂ running the Public Works Administration (PWA), which spent
some $6 billion on large-scale projects over the next six years. IckesÂ worked closely with the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) to establish quotas for black workers in PWAÂ projects. In a profile of Ickes in 1934, the New York Times noted that he
â€œknows all the rackets that infest the construction industry.â€
Ickes controlled a private investigative group, unbeknownst to theÂ general public. One effort of this group was dedicated to exposing Nazi
propaganda efforts in the United States, and it uncovered startling informationÂ about German connections with the Silver Shirts, Father
Charles Coughlin, and groups such as the Christian Mobilizers. IckesÂ turned this material over to the attorney general, and â€œduring the next
year very bad things happened to the subjects of the investigations.â€Â FDR remained aware of what Ickes was up to, at least in general. Ickes
assembled an able committee of â€œhelpersâ€ to combat subversive fascistÂ propaganda. His circle included Dorothy Thompson, pollster George
Gallup, Henry Luce, and theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.31 Ickes grewÂ adept at leaking information when it suited his and FDRâ€™s purposes.
Ickes was a member of a Stalinist front called the League for PeaceÂ and Democracy.32 Moreover, he took an active role against anti-Soviet
officials in the State Department. According to Dennis Dunn, PresidentÂ Roosevelt, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, and Interior Secretary
Harold Ickes told Soviet ambassador Constantine Oumansky emphaticallyÂ that anti-Soviet officials in the State Department would be
thwarted.33 Ickesâ€™s involvement was peculiar, for it was far outside theÂ bounds of his job as secretary of the interior.
Ickes did not get along with Harry Truman and resigned from theÂ government in 1946. In his final years Ickes wrote a syndicated newspaper
column and contributed regularly to the New Republic. He wroteÂ several books, including his memoirs, The Autobiography of a Curmudgeon
(1943). Ickes died in Washington in 1952.
His son, Harold M. Ickes, was deputy chief of staff in the ClintonÂ White House between 1994 and 1996. As a student at Stanford, Ickes
fell under the influence of Professor Allard Lowenstein, who seducedÂ many idealistic young students into the New Left. Ickes later traveled to
the Dominican Republic in 1965, evidently to assist a socialist presidentÂ who was deposed, but his role in this event remains obscure to this day.
Ickes met Bill Clinton while both were working on Operation Pursestrings,Â a grassroots lobbying effort aimed at pushing through the
Hatfield-McGovern amendment to cut aid to South Vietnam.
As a labor lawyer, Ickes represented many corrupt unions controlledÂ by organized-crime families. He worked on behalf of labor racketeers
and gangsters, which brought him perilously close to prosecution. BillÂ and Hillary Clinton later found many uses for Ickesâ€™s peculiar talents.
Hillary Clinton placed Ickes in charge of a special unit within the WhiteÂ House Counselâ€™s office, dedicated to suppressing Clinton scandals. Because
so many of his jobs involved damage control at that time, Ickes referredÂ to his role as â€œDirector of Sanitation.â€ Former Clinton adviser
Dick Morris noted that whenever there was something that Bill ClintonÂ thought required ruthlessness or vengeance or skullduggery, â€œhe would
give it to Harold.â€
By 1996 federal investigators began zeroing in on Ickesâ€™s involvementÂ in numerous Clinton scandals. These included the illegal commandeering
of more than one thousand secret FBI files on potentialÂ Clinton foes as well as the spilling of military and technological secrets
to China in exchange for campaign contributions. Ickes became a liabilityÂ and was fired by President Clinton shortly after his reelection in
Ickes ran the successful Senate campaign of Hillary Clinton inÂ 1999â€“2000 and has remained an influential force in Democratic circles.
After passage of the McCain-Feingold Act in March 2002, Ickes helpedÂ George Soros put togetherâ€”with various activists and left-wing Democratsâ€”
an effort to circumvent the soft-money ban instituted by theÂ McCain-Feingold Act.37 He personally helped to launch groups such as
America Coming Together (ACT), America Votes, the Center for AmericanÂ Progress (CAP), Joint Victory Campaign 2004, the Thunder Road
Group, and the Media Fund.
One of Ickesâ€™s major accomplishments was creating the MediaÂ Fund. It received more than $28 million from left-wing labor organizations:
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AmericanÂ Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The
Media Fund was extremely active in creating and airing attack adsÂ against George W. Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign.
As of late 2004, various sources indicate that Ickes is with his oldÂ law firm, Meyer, Suozzi, English, and Klein, as well as with the Ickes
and Enright Group. To this day, Ickes remains one of the most importantÂ persons in the Democratic Party.
Norman Thomas (1884â€“1968) was the son of a Presbyterian ministerÂ and studied political science under Woodrow Wilson at Princeton University,
from which he was graduated in 1905. Influenced by the writingsÂ of the Christian Socialist movement in the United Kingdom,
Thomas became a committed socialist. He was ordained in 1911 andÂ became pastor of the East Harlem Presbyterian Church in New York
City. A pacifist, Thomas believed that World War I was an â€œimmoral,Â senseless struggle among rival imperialisms.â€
Thomas joined with several others to form the Fellowship of ReconciliationÂ (FOR), a group from which a faction later split off in 1923
to become the War Resisters League (WRL). Moreover, in 1917Â Thomas joined with Crystal Eastman and Roger Baldwin to establish
the National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB). In 1920 Thomas joinedÂ with Jane Addams, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Upton Sinclair to establish
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). As such, ThomasÂ was intimately involved with two organizations that continue to the
present. Thomas served as associate editor of the Nation in 1921â€“22Â and was codirector of the League of Industrial Democracy from 1922
After the death of Eugene V. Debs, Thomas because the SocialistÂ Partyâ€™s candidate for president in 1928, 1932, and 1936. Although he
was easily beaten each time, Thomas had the satisfaction of seeing FDRÂ introduce several measures that he had advocated.
Thomas helped to form the America First Committee (AFC) inÂ 1940, with one of its goals being to keep America out of the war. This
committee was dissolved four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Thomas was the Socialist Party candidate in 1940, 1944, and 1948, thusÂ running a total of six times. He denounced rearmament and the development
of the cold war. He also campaigned against poverty, racism,Â and the Vietnam War.
The grandson of Norman Thomas, Evan Thomas has long been theÂ assistant managing editor of Newsweek magazine. The magazine has
maintained a consistent liberal (though not radical) slant throughout itsÂ existence.
George Soros is a Hungarian-born American businessman. Born inÂ 1930, he is famous as an investor, currency speculator, and philanthropist.
He is chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open SocietyÂ Institute (OSI). Soros is known primarily for donating huge sums of
money to organizations that sought to defeat President George W. BushÂ in 2004.
Soros learned his craft at a young age, trading currencies on theÂ black market in Hungary during World War II. He left Hungary for the
United Kingdom in 1947 and graduated from the London School ofÂ Economics in 1952. In 1956 Soros moved to the United States. He
stated that he intended to earn enough on Wall Street to support himselfÂ as an author and philosopher. At one time, Sorosâ€™s net worth
reached an estimated $11 billion, but it is now believed to be closer to aÂ paltry $7 billion.
In 1970 he founded the Quantum Fund with Jim Rogers. ThisÂ fund returned more than 4,000 percent over the next ten years and created
the bulk of Sorosâ€™s fortune. Soros plays the currency marketsÂ through this fund, which is registered in Curacao, Netherlands Antillesâ€”
a tax haven cited as one of the most important centers forÂ money laundering. By using Curacao, Soros not only avoids paying
taxes but also hides the nature of his investors and what he does withÂ their money.
Soros had earlier stated that removing George W. Bush from officeÂ was the â€œcentral focus of my lifeâ€ as well as â€œa matter of life and deathâ€
for which he would willingly sacrifice his entire fortune. Soros gaveÂ some $3 million to the Center for American Progress (CAP), $5 million
to MoveOn.org, and $10 million to America Coming TogetherÂ (ACT). According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2004 Soros
FLOW OF SOROSâ€™S MONEY
Open Society Institute (OSI)
ACT (America Coming Together)
CAP (Center for American Progress)
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
NLG (National Lawyers Guild)
CCR (Center for Constitutional Rights)
Major Donors to Liberal Causes, 2004 Election:
George Soros (New York City) $23,450,000
Peter B. Lewis (Cleveland) $22,997,220
Herb and Marion Sandler (Oakland) $13,008,459
donated $23,581,000 to various 527 groups dedicated to defeatingÂ President Bush.41
Soros also donates to other causes that he deems worthy. For example,Â in 2002, he contributed $20,000 to the defense committee of radical
lawyer Lynne Stewart.
This information surfaced from records filed with the IRS and was reportedÂ in February 2005. This was about the same time that a New York
jury found Stewart guilty of helping her terrorist client, â€œblind sheikhâ€Â Omar Abdel Rahmanm, communicate with his Islamist followers from
prison. Stewart was found guilty of all counts against her, including conspiringÂ to provide and providing material support to terrorists.
Soros blames many of the worldâ€™s problems on the failures inherentÂ in market fundamentalism. In 1997 he predicted the imminent collapse
of the global capitalist system. His writings also include a healthy doseÂ of blame-America-first. This is illustrated by a look at his book The
Bubble of American Supremacy (2004): â€œThe reckless pursuit of AmericanÂ supremacy has put us and the rest of the world in danger.â€ So he
claims that the only way we can â€œextricate ourselvesâ€ is by rejectingÂ President Bush. â€œHow can we escape from the trap that the terrorists
have set for us?â€ he asks. â€œOnly by recognizing that the war on terrorismÂ cannot be won by waging war.â€ We must, he notes, â€œcorrect the
grievances on which terrorism feeds.â€ He claims that the war on terrorismÂ as pursued by the Bush administration cannot be won â€œbecause it
is based on false premises.â€
A personal dislike for George Bush comes through loud and clear.Â For example, he asserts, â€œBeing a reformed substance abuser and bornagain
Christian, he had personal acquaintances with the devil.â€ Soros isÂ much better at lobbing verbal grenades at George Bush than in predicting
the future, as he stated in 2003, â€œI am confident that he will be rejectedÂ in 2004.â€
Now in his midseventies, Soros is likely contemplating the buildingÂ of a dynasty. He has five children, three by his first wife, Annaliese, and
two by his second wife, Susan. He has recently placed his two oldestÂ sonsâ€”Robert and Jonathanâ€”in charge of his empire and the day-today
investment decisions. Forty-two-year-old Robert currently serves asÂ chief investment officer, and thirty-five-year-old Jonathan is acting as
Robert is focusing on state-level politics at present. He and his wifeÂ gave some $100,000 to the New York State Democratic Campaign Committee
in 2004.45 Jonathan is an activist with MoveOn.org. He also financiallyÂ sponsors other groups. Occasionally commentators refer to
this network of independent, nonprofit issue groups controlled by theÂ Soros, Ickes, and other families as the Shadow Party. David Horowitz
and Richard Poe have concluded that this Shadow Party is here to stayÂ and will continue to grow. Already, they note, â€œShadow Party control of
Democrat fund raising has given Soros and his minions influence overÂ the partyâ€™s platform, strategy and candidate.â€
Bill Moyers, born in 1931, is a journalist, advocate, and financier for liberalÂ causes. He is influential in several different spheres and has been
adept at portraying himself as a â€œmoderateâ€ to U.S. audiences. MoyersÂ was deputy director of the Peace Corps during the Kennedy administration,
as well as special assistant to President Lyndon B. Johnson fromÂ 1963 to 1967. His association with LBJ goes back to 1954, when he first
worked for him as a summer intern. Others who worked in the JohnsonÂ administration include Ramsey Clark and Morton Halperin.
JOHNSON INSIDERS, THEN AND NOW
THEN: Attorney General, 1967â€“69
NOW: International Action Center (IAC), Act Now to Stop War and End RacismÂ (ANSWER), and many other liberal causes
THEN: Special Assistant to President Johnson, 1963â€“67 Â NOW: Believed retired after serving many liberal causes
THEN: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning andÂ Arms Control, 1967â€“69
NOW: Head of Washington DC office of Open Society Institute (OSI)Â the â€œdaisy girlâ€ commercial that purported to show that Barry Goldwater
was a dangerous influence who could lead the nation into nuclearÂ war. He ordered from the Madison Avenue firm of Doyle Dane Bernbach
an unforgettable ad that had a little girl plucking petals from aÂ daisy while an off-camera voice counted down to a final image of a nuclear
blast and mushroom cloud. It closed with the words, â€œThese areÂ the stakes: To make a world in which all of Godâ€™s children can live, or to
go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die. VoteÂ for President Johnson on November third. The stakes are too high for
you to stay home.â€47 This ad is still remembered as one of the most negativeÂ ads ever shown on national television.
Moyers has been in broadcast journalism sine 1971. He was onceÂ executive editor of the public television series Bill Moyers Journal. He
was then a CBS News correspondent and senior news analyst for thatÂ network. In 1986 he formed his own independent production company,
Public Affairs Television, Inc., based at WNET in New York.
Moreover, Moyers was a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation forÂ twelve years and more recently served as president of the Florence and
John Schumann Foundation. He has been prominently featured onÂ Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which he has often used as a platform
for liberal pronouncements.
Moyers has been known to pay advocates to come up with an anticorporate,Â anti-capitalist message, and then report the totally biased
outcome on PBS television. In March 2001 PBS stations nationwideÂ aired a ninety-minute report on the chemical industry titled Trade Secrets:
A Moyers Report. The report portrayed the chemical industry in aÂ cold, calculated cover-up of deadly health effects, and implied that the
chemical industry was guilty of premeditated murder of its own employees.
In the thirty-minute panel discussion that followed, MoyersÂ hosted two activists who had advance knowledge of the showâ€™s subject
matter. One anti-industry panelist had previously received $325,000 inÂ grants from the Schumann Foundation. The chemical industry was
represented by two men who had no advance knowledge of the showâ€™sÂ content.
Moyersâ€™s philosophy is summed up in his own words. He told theÂ Environmental Grantmakers Association on October 16, 2001, â€œTrue
believers in the god of the market would leave us to the ruthless crueltyÂ Â unfettered monopolistic capital where even the law of the jungle
Moyersâ€™s son John is the executive director of the Florence and JohnÂ Schumann Foundation, known for its support of National Public Radio
(NPR), PBSâ€™s Frontline, and the Columbia Journalism Review. John MoyersÂ is also as executive director of the Florence Fund, a nonprofit corporation
based in Washington DC. TomPaine.com is a Web site project ofÂ the Florence Fund.
Ann Richards was born in 1933 and attended the University of Texas atÂ Austin. At that time she became politically active, working for â€œcritical
social causes,â€ according to one favorable biographic sketch. She was aÂ former Texas state treasurer, a county commissioner, a teacher, and â€œactivist.â€
Richards came upon the national scene with a keynote addressÂ to the 1988 Democratic National Convention. She entered the 1990 gubernatorial
campaign and was elected the forty-fifth governor of Texas.
One favorable review of her service noted her as a â€œlongtime advocateÂ of civil rights and economic justiceâ€ who created â€œthe most representative
and inclusive administration in Texas history.â€
George W. Bush defeated her decisively in the 1994 race for governor,Â which effectively ended her career as a candidate for elected office.
As such, both Richards and her daughter, Cecile, have pursued a personalÂ vendetta against Bush ever since. In 1998 Richards was a senior
adviser with the Washington DCâ€“based law firm of Verner, Lippfert,Â Bernhard, McPherson, and Hand. During the 2004 campaign she made
appearances in many states to attack George Bushâ€™s reelection effort.
Cecile Richards is the president of America Votes and also serves onÂ the board of America Coming Together (ACT). America Votes was
launched to help coordinate the activities of a growing number of nonprofitÂ groups within the Shadow Party. In July 2003 a number of Democratic
Party heavyweights launched America Votes and appointedÂ Cecile as its first president. She is hard set against the so-called Christian
Right. After her motherâ€™s 1994 defeat, Cecile founded the TexasÂ Freedom Network, a grassroots organization aimed at countering the
influence of conservative Christians, especially on local school boards.
Next up: Part 9Â In the series, Â
Radical leaders and their Groups Then and now…. Continued 2000 To Present