First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia, then we will encircle the United States which will be the last bastion of capitalism. We will not have to attack. It will fall like an overripe fruit into our hands. -- V.I. Lenin

As long as capitalism and socialism exist we cannot live in peace; in the end, one or the other will triumph--a funeral dirge will be sung over either the Soviet Republics or over world capitalism. --V.I. Lenin

I do not believe in communism any more than you do but there is nothing wrong with Communists in this country; several of the best friends I have got are Communists. --Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"Scientific" Socialism=dialectical materialism

What is the "philosophy" which traps the student intellectual and transforms him into a conspiring, conforming, never-questioning tool of the Communist Party? How are young minds twisted to swear that "slavery" is "freedom," "dictatorship" is "democracy" or that "war" is "peace"--and actually believe that it is so?

Karl Marx compounded the theories which "explain" all the contradictions. He called it dialectical materialism...Marx concocted dialectical materialism by blending Feurbach's atheistic materialism with Hegel's theory that everything in nature is in a state of constant conflict. In its simplest form, dialectical materialism teaches:

All people and things in the universe and the universe itself are simply matter in motion. As matter moves, opposites attract. When the opposites come together, conflict results and from the conflict comes change.

With this theory, Marx explains the origin and development of the universe, everything in it, and all life. Man, plants, animals, and their world are all products of "accumulated accidents."

Marx applied his theories of conflict and change to society. Human beings were arbitrarily divided into two classes (opposites). The bourgeoisie (propertied classes) were considered the degenerate class. The proletariat (unpropertied wage earners) were the progressive class.

Communism teaches that a state of continual conflict or class warfare exists between the two groups. In this conflict, according to dialectical materialism, the bourgeoisie will be destroyed. This change is "inevitable" and is defined by Marx as progress.

Marx was a self-proclaimed scientist. His "scientific" theories explained the entire history of man and determined his future. They are to be used to transform man's nature. Being "scientists," Communists have certain basic "scientific" laws which underlie their beliefs and teaching. They include:

There is no God. When Communists deny God, they simultaneously deny every virtue and every value which originates with God. There are no moral absolutes, no right and wrong. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon On The Mount are invalid.

Accepting this concept of "morality," the Communists teach that all is right which advances the cause of socialism. All is wrong which impeded its progress. For the Communist to lie, cheat, steal, or even murder, is perfectly moral if it advances communism. Conversely, a Communist who would refuse to lie, cheat, steal or murder to aid the socialist movement is immoral. In the words of Lenin:

We do not believe in eternal morality--our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle.

The second "scientific" law of communism follows the first logically. It is:

Man is simply matter in motion. As such, he is without soul, spirit, or free will and is not responsible for his own acts.

Marx taught that man was entirely an evolutionary animal, the highest animal form, without significant individual value or eternal life. Man is a body completely describable in terms of the laws of chemistry and physics.

The third "scientific" law, economic determinism, is to be the means for transforming man. It states:

Man is an economically determined animal. Qualities of human intelligence, personality, emotional and religious life merely reflect man's economic environment. The evil a man does is just a reflection of his environment.

Marx taught that once the material needs of man were satisfied, greed, profit-taking, avarice, and hate would disappear. The State would wither away. There would be no laws or need for a police force. A heaven on earth would result. Man's nature would be magically transformed. Each would work according to his ability. Each would desire to receive only according to his needs.

To reach this goal, the proletariat must achieve control of the entire earth, Marx taught. All poisoning traces of capitalism must be eliminated. In practice, as the Communists conquer a country, and if they conquer the world, they are left with those people raised in a capitalist environment. It has formed their character and personality. They will transmit the illness to their children.

Being materialist "scientists," the Communists do not hesitate. All the "animals" infected with the "disease" of capitalism and freedom must be exterminated. To the Communists, this is not murder. Murder means killing for bad reasons. The will kill the bourgeoisie for a "good" reason, the establishment of world communism. The "end" justifies the "means."

The Communists, therefore, are not interested in converting you, the reader, to communism, particularly if you are over 30 years of age. If you can be lulled into doing nothing to oppose the triumph of world communism, that is enough. Once the takeover comes, you, like millions of others, who believe in God and man's responsibility for his own life and actions, can be slaughtered like diseased animals or worked to death in slave labor camps or brothels for the Red Army.

The Communists are after your children or grandchildren who can still be molded into obedient slaves of the State.

Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party, USA, told Americans what to expect when the Communists take over. Speaking at the funeral of Eugene Dennis in February 1961, Hall said:

I dream of the hour when the last Congressman is strangled to death on the guts of the last preacher and since the Christians love to sing about the blood, why not give them a little of it.

--John A. Stormer, None Dare Call it Treason...25 Years Later, (Liberty, 1990), Pp. 39-41.

Liberalism for Dummies

As everybody knows—or should know—today there is a world of difference between “big L” ‘Liberalism’ and “small l” ‘liberalism’. The former has been historically and academically known as “classical liberalism” and the latter is colloquially called simply “modern liberalism.” Philosophically, they are diametric opposites.

You could argue that Classical Liberalism (big 'L') gave the Free World the freedoms--and with them the prosperity and security--it once had; by the same token--contrarily--modern liberalism (small 'l') conspires to take them all away.

The collectivist adherents of what is known today as modern liberalism (small 'l') wish fervently to be associated with the high-minded philosophy of so-called Classical Liberalism (big 'L'). Hence the reason for their appropriation of that title with the goal of obfuscating the vast differences inherent in their intellectual and philosophical makeup. They want to make others fall into the trap of thinking that ‘Liberalism’ and ‘liberalism’ are synonymous, of equal meaning and prestige in today’s vernacular. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

Classical Liberalism (upper case ‘L’) has been loosely associated in the broad historical sense with the founding philosophy of these United States of America. However, since Classical Liberalism no longer exists except in fable, in today’s political lexicon the intellectual and philosophical heritage of the Founding Fathers is preserved solely within the framework known today as ‘Paleo-Conservatism’. Anyone can study all the 'isms' and clearly see that paleo-conservatism is the essence and preserver of the original and essential American ideals and philosophy. Of all the polities of the present day, the Founding Fathers would feel right at home in the ‘paleo-conservative’ camp and none other. (see Samuel Francis Tribute )

As mentioned earlier, small ‘l’ liberalism is essentially the opposite of large ‘L’ Liberalism. Small ‘l’ liberalism is most emphatically the opposite of original fundamental American thought: It is little more than socialism hiding behind a once-respectable name to trap the unwary.

Often today we see dyed in the wool so-called 'liberals' trying to appear like legit, ancient, 'Liberals' (thus assuming some respectability) and from that fabulous vantage point attacking anyone who discredits 'liberalism'--on the--now get this--grounds that "'Liberalism' is the essence of Americanism!" You see, they're using the classic Marxist propaganda stratagem of imagining and elevating ‘liberal’ to mean ‘Liberal’—even ‘LIBERAL’—and of trying to turn the truth inside out and making it look like anyone who dares to criticize Marxism is also criticizing America! Ho! What a feat! The problem with this tactic is that it is not only hilarious but both hackneyed and transparent. Everybody with an IQ higher than a turnip knows they are mixing apples and oranges--'liberalism' with 'Liberalism'--trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes to further their own nefarious political agenda.

So, to vindicate the dignity and honor and seriousness of polite political discourse, it is recommended that all erstwhile 'liberals' (small 'l') consult authoritative sources on: 'America', ‘American Founding Fathers’, ‘paleo-conservatism’, ‘Liberalism’, ‘classical liberalism’, ‘liberalism’, ‘modern liberalism’, ‘socialism’, ‘communism’, and ‘progaganda’ to refresh their familiarity with those terms. And quit trying to propagandize and dumb-down their friends and neighbors--they're doing them no favors!

return

Freedom's future is in grave danger today

because Americans and all other free peoples would like to believe that communism is changing and that the two systems can work out their differences and live together peacefully. The communist actions and their words say it cannot happen.

Soviet Strategic Deception

The softened attitudes of the Secretary of Defense [Dick Cheney (1989), under President Bush], the Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee [Les Aspin] and many Americans are the result of a well-planned and executed Red program of deception.

A 1987 book titled, Soviet Strategic Deception, examines the Soviet program which is designed to destroy America's desire to resist communism. One chapter, "Themes of Soviet Strategic Deception and Disinformation," by Dr. John Lenczowski examines both the Soviet program of deception and the reason why deception is so necessary for the Red cause. Lenczowski was Director of European and Soviet Affairs in the National Security Council before Iran-Contra. During his term the Reagan administration maintained a hard line against making new unverifiable agreements with the Soviet Union.

Nightwatch, an international journal of strategic intelligence published by the Security and Intelligence Foundation, reviewed Lenczowski's work. The review quotes Lenczowski as saying:

The objective of strategic deception is to paint a false picture of the entire political climate in which the Soviet Union operates among both friend and foe alike--disguising their objectives and ultimate ambitions. It involves the manipulation of concepts that describe the nature of the Soviet system and its leadership, its ambitions, fears and constraints. Its principal goal is to convince the non-Communist world that Soviet global intentions are other than what they really are...and [that they] should be regarded as merely another Great Power whose objectives are by definition subject to modification.

Such a response to Soviet strategic deception will obscure the true nature of international tension--the war between capitalism and socialism which Lenin taught would continue until one or the other triumphs. If the Soviet Union is simply another Great Power, then they fear and despise us, not for what we are [bourgeoisie who must be eliminated] but for what we do. It is then but a short step to concluding that we should change whatever actions offend them.

To support this preposterous idea, the Soviets use a dozen or so disinformation themes which contribute to the deception. Nightwatch in its review of Lenczowski's excellent work lists nine prominent themes of Soviet strategic deception. The nine themes of Soviet strategic deception, with comments, are:

Despite each of these themes being either objectively false or logically absurd, the Soviets (and their dupes and stooges) have repeated them so often and well that they have become a part of the folklore in the West. Dr. Lenczowski tell why. He says:

Soviet strategic deception succeeds not so much because of the ability of Soviet propagandists and agents of influence to deceive us, but because of our tendencies to deceive ourselves. Thus...Soviet strategic deception efforts are geared toward exploiting existing Western tendencies of thought...Soviet strategic deception also attempts to take advantage of our inclination to engage in wishful thinking or psychological denial. This manifests itself principally in our reluctance to admit the possibility of certain ugly realities.

Soviet strategic deception plays upon what Alexandr Solzhenitsyn has termed "the desire not to know." Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick called "the will to disbelieve the horrible." People don't like to hear disturbing news. Soviet strategic deception plays upon both that fact and an almost total lack of knowledge of Communist philosophy and tactics by America's leaders, scholars, media, exchange students, etc.

Know Your Enemy

The supposed reforms under perestroika and glasnost are an implementation of Lenin's teaching that progress toward the ultimate goal of communism is made through the dialectic process of "one step forward and two steps back." (Chinese Communist theorists use the term "three steps forward and two steps back")

Dr. Fred Schwartz, in his classic work, You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), described Communist "dialectical progress" which proceeds in a deceptive way and pattern. Dr. Schwartz said that Communists never move directly toward their ultimate goal. He explained:

The dialectical pathway [to progress] is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrupt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forward-backward steps the goal is approached.

To advance thus is to advance dialectically. The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time...If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving, we will obviously be deceived.

In the book Dr. Schwartz gives a very perceptive and helpful illustration of "dialectical progress." He wrote:

The Communist method of advance may be likened to the hammering of a nail. It is a very foolish person who brings the hammer down with a crashing, resounding blow and then keeps pushing. When the first blow has spent itself, back must go the hammer in preparation for the next blow. A person seeing the reverse movement of the hammer as an isolated act in time and not understanding the process of which this was a part, might find it difficult to believe that this hammer was driving in the nail. When he sees the backward swing as a portion of a complete process, he realizes that the withdrawal is as important as the downward thrust to the realization of the objective.

For those not trained in dialectical thinking, it is very difficult to understand that Communists have a fixed and changeless goal, but that their method of approach reverses itself all the time [as in hammering a nail]. The tendency is to judge where they going by the direction in which they are moving.

"Glasnost" and "perestroika" and the Gorbachev "reforms" are dialectic rather than fundamental. Gorbachev is a master of the dialectic. In a 3-1/2 hour speech marking the 70th Anniversary of the Revolution he subtly wrapped himself, perestroika and the future progress of the Communist Party in the mantle of the dialectic. Early in the speech he warned:

Those who treat Marxism dogmatically and pedantically cannot understand its central point: its revolutionary dialectic.

In doing so he subtly instructed the Soviet Communist Party's Central Committee and Supreme Soviet that the perestroika and glasnost reforms were to be dialectic in nature. His speech reviewed the 70 years of Soviet history--its triumphs and its failings. He spotlighted Bukharin, a hero of the Revolution and a longtime stalwart supporter of Joseph Stalin, who was executed in 1936 on Stalin's order. Gorbachev said that Bukharin's approach in the early 1030s "was based on a dogmatic approach and a non-dialectic assessment of the concrete situation." Bukharin wanted to press forward unwaveringly toward socialism--rather than take the dialectic approach. Gorbachev told the Supreme Soviet (and communists all over the world who read his speech):

In this connection it is appropriate to recall Lenin's opinion of Bukharin. "Bukharin," he said, "is not only a most valuable and major theorist of the Party; he is also rightly considered the favorite of the whole Party, but his theoretical views can be classified fully Marxist only with great reserve, for there is something scholastic about him (he has never made a study of dialectics, and, I think, never fully understood it)." The facts again confirm that Lenin had been right.

Gorbachev's recounting of this sordid bit of Soviet history confirms that he regards a failure to understand and apply dialectics as a capital offense for which Bukharin did get the death penalty.

Gorbachev was, of course, not the first Communist leader to implement seeming "reforms" which were, in fact, "dialectic withdrawals." David Wigg, a deputy assistance secretary of defense for policy analysis, in a paper on Soviet strategic deception pointed out (as have others) that Soviet founder V.I. Lenin used the term "glasnost" 46 times in his writings in the early 1920's. Then, as now, the purpose was to lure Western businessmen into bailing out the ailing Soviet economy.

Lenin dialectically turned to capitalism and limited free enterprise briefly in the early 1920s in what was called "The New Economic Program." In his 70th anniversary speech, Gorbachev said of Lenin's temporary retreat from socialism and move to capitalism:

The decision to launch a new economic policy, which substantially widened the notions of socialism and the ways of building it, was imbued with profound revolutionary dialectics.

Wigg said that Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, suggested in the mid-1930's that the Soviet Union should restructure the economy along capitalist lines. Stalin called his program "perestroika." Western businessmen responded but the perestroika "restructuring" was shortlived. With the beginning of the massive purges and reign of terror in 1936, Wigg said...

...the entire program of perestroika proved to be a total sham.

Even so, twenty years later, Stalin's chief hangman during the purge of the '30s, Nikita Khrushchev won acclaim form Western media and politicians for his "de-Stalinization."

It is in this context that Gorbachev's seeming relaxations in Eastern Europe must be understood. Much of the territory and the countries he supposedly released from some of their ties to the Soviet Union and the world communist movement were the same peoples Lenin dialectically agreed to give up in March 1918 "to save the Revolution." Interestingly, Lenin and the Soviet Union dialectically broke the [Brest Peace] Treaty eight months after it was signed.'

So, Communists regularly make progress toward socialism and communism through the dialectic process of "advance and retreat."

Unmasking the Deceivers

Tragically, a few well phrased questions to Red leaders would totally unmask the Soviet program of strategic deception and the false concepts it promotes in the West. However, the questions are not asked. America's leaders, scholars, media, exchange students, etc. seemingly have neither the will nor the knowledge of Communist philosophy to frame the key questions.

Well-phrased questions can unmask Soviet strategic deception. Here's why:
 

Communists will lie about anything--except the teachings of Marx and Lenin and dialectical materialism.

Properly phrased questions force them to tell the truth about Soviet goals and objectives. To deny the dialectic and the teachings of Marxism-Leninism would undermine their basis for legitimacy. An open member of the Communist Party cannot deny Marx or Lenin any more than a committed Christian can deny the Bible or Jesus Christ.

Here are the questions which, if asked, would unmask a smiling Gorbachev, a member of the Central Committee, or a Soviet disinformation specialist appearing as a guest on Ted Koppel's Nightline TV show. The same questions can unmask any knowledgeable exchange student from the Soviet Union, China, etc. or a domestic Communist schooled in the dialectic.

The questions and the Soviet's answers are not based on theory or idle speculation. They were asked of a representative group of Communist leaders including three members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. They gave the answers recorded below. The dialogue took place at the U.S./U.S.S.R. Emerging Leaders Summit in Philadelphia in December 1988, arranged at the Reagan-Gorbachev Summit a year earlier.

Their answer means, of course, that all of those who by reason of being born into the poisoned bourgeoisie class which believes in God, private ownership of property, free enterprise, etc. must be eliminated. The reason? Communists believe that man's nature and actions are totally a reflection of his economic environment. As long as the bourgeoisie exist anywhere in the world they will induce selfishness, corruption, etc. into the economic environment which will prevent the pure Communist man and his perfect world from developing. That is why Communism kills wherever it has ever come to power.

The Soviet answers were received with amazement by some of the American participants. Others viciously attacked the questioner for "having set back the progress of U.S./Soviet relations ten years."

Even those who appear to want to know what the Communists are doing seemingly do not have the foundational knowledge of Communist philosophy and tactics to analyze their actions in the light of their teachings. As President George Bush prepared for his December 1989 mini-summit with Gorbachev in the Mediterranean the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported in its November 19 edition:

Bush said in a radio interview released Saturday that his main goal at the meetings was to get an understanding of Gorbachev's thinking.

Almost 30 years earlier, Dr. Walter Judd had commented on visits to Russia, cultural exchanges and presidential summits as ways of understanding Russian thinking and actions. Judd, a longtime congressman, had lived among the Communists in China as a medical missionary in the 1930s. Out of his personal experiences with the Communists, he said:

A few days spent in a good library studying Communist writings and teachings will give more reliable insights into Communist goals and tactics than visiting the Soviet Union or speaking with them ever will.

It is unlikely that President Bush and his key advisers will get a real understanding of Gorbachev's thinking or his glasnost and perestroika goals at the Summit--unless they first understand dialectics. What were the real goals of Gorbachev's dialectic reforms? There were at least five. They include:

1. Easing some of the mounting tensions among hungry, freedom-starved people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and giving them and Communist Party members hope that the system could be improving.

2. Obtaining desperately needed Western economic aid and technology for the collapsing socialist economies of the Red bloc countries.

3. Setting the stage for "electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions" in the disarmament talks with the United States and the Western European nations.

4. Keeping Western eyes focussed on the happenings in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union while Gorbachev strengthens his puppets and agents to consolidate their positions and move ahead full force in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Southern Africa, the Philippines and South Korea. (While headlines were announcing that the Berlin Wall was cracking, Gorbachev-supplied Communist guerrillas in El Salvador launched a new wave of terrorism which killed 800 in five days.)

5. Encouraging liberal intellectuals who believe that Marx's dream of a one-world socialist government can be achieved without a bloody Communist revolution if the West moves to the Left while the Soviets evolve and mellow and move towards the "center."

A KGB defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, spelled out in his book, New Lies For Old, published in 1984, the KGB plan and Gorbachev's place in it. Amazingly, in Chapter 25 he predicted that the third phase of the KGB plan could bring to power a three-way Solidarity/Communist/Church coalition in Poland and the opening of the Berlin Wall.

As the decade of the 1990s began, one major question remained. Could Gorbachev and the Communist parties in Eastern Europe maintain their control of the governmental apparatus (even with the Western economic aid) once the captives were given a few tastes of freedom? If they do not succeed will the Red leaders be willing and able to mobilize the same force and ruthlessness manifested by the Chinese Reds at Tiananmen Square when the Chinese "reforms" got out of hand?

Communist Influence in America

America was spending $300 billion annually for military defenses against the Communist threat during the 1980s--but had no agency charged with protecting the nation internally from Communist influence and manipulation.

However, there are other important indicators that the Communist Party USA has develo0ped the ability to manipulate public opinion, administration policies and the United States Congress almost at will. Communist Party leaders have regularly been able to announce major legislative goals and see them adopted even when they directly conflict with policies of the President of the United States.

Shortly after the November 1986 elections, Gus Hall, the head of the Communist Party USA, addressed the Party's Central Committee. He rejoiced that liberal Democrats  had won control of the U.S. Senate from the somewhat more conservative and anti-communist Republicans. His speech was printed in the January 1987 issue of Political Affairs, the party's theoretical journal. Hall ordered the comrades to capitalize on the change and lead the struggle in Congress to...

1. End all nuclear testing.

2. End aid to the Contras (the Nicaraguan Freedom Fighters).

3. Stop Star Wars (the communist name for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) which would protect the United States from a surprise Soviet attack if the communists cheat on their treaty commitments in the future as they have in the past).

4. Ratify the SALT II disarmament agreement.

Those familiar with current events will recognize Gus Hall's 1987 legislative agenda was also the agenda of a majority or near majority of the U.S. Congress and about 90% of the news media. As a result, the Communist Party's four legislative goals were largely achieved by Congressional action or Executive order by early 1988.

The communists were jubilant. The headline on James Steele's 1987 Christmas Eve column in the official communist newspaper, People's Daily World, read: "1987 was a very good year; 1988 can be even better."

Steele is secretary of the Legislative and Political Commission of the Communist Party. His column detailed ten events that made 1987 "the year that was" for communists. Steele's list of communist victories included the achieving of Communist Party Chief Gus Hall's four 1987 legislative goals plus:

Steele's People's Daily World article cited the ten events as communist "victories."

--John A. Stormer, None Dare Call it Treason...25 Years Later, (Liberty, 1990), Pp. 10-21.

The long range goals of the Communist Party USA for the "peaceful transition to socialism":

1. Penetration of political parties, chiefly the Democratic Party.

2. Penetration and assumption of key positions in "mass" organizations.

3. Development of independent political  forms, i.e. the forces of political independence.

4. Bring together the forces of political independence into the All-People's Front. Unity Coalition and Progressive Coalition which will work mainly through the Democratic Party using the politics of discontent.

5. Elimination of internal security agencies and emasculation of the FBI.

6. Aggressive use of "political exposure" to isolate and discredit enemies of the revolution.

7. Achieve respectability and acceptance of Communists and the Communist Party.

8. After exhausting use of the Democratic Party as a transitional vehicle for gaining acceptance for radical views, form a new political party by pulling together all the elements of the coalition of independent forces.

9. Further splintering of the traditional two-party political structure by conservatives when Republican leaders, under pressure from below, move to the left.

10. Coalition politics to achieve key positions in Congress which under a multi-party parliamentary system will form the government after electing a malleable president.

--John A. Stormer, None Dare Call it Treason...25 Years Later, (Liberty, 1990), P. 333.

top

return

When Communism kills

it is by definition a good act. The killings purify society's environment of its diseased animals.

Even the smiling, handshaking advocate of perestroika and glasnost, Mikhail Gorbachev, approves of killing property owners. In his three-hour Perestroika: The Revolution Continues speech to the Supreme Soviet on the 70th anniversary of the Revolution in November 1987, Gorbachev reviewed Communist history. He discussed the "excesses" in the period in the early 1920s when 9 million kulaks--small farmers--were systematically exterminated through planned starvation, mass deportation to Siberia or a bullet in the back of the head. A careful reading of Gorbachev's words, however, shows that the 9 million murders were not the "excesses" he deplored. Gorbachev said:

...if there had been a consistent line to promote the alliance with the middle peasant against the kulak [property owning small farmers], then there would not have been all those excesses that occurred in carrying out collectivization.

Today it is clear...the basically correct policy of fighting the kulaks was often interpreted so broadly that it swept in a considerable part of the middle peasantry too. Such is the reality of history.

Gorbachev was not objecting to the elimination of millions of "capitalist" kulaks but rather to "excesses" of bureaucrats who eliminated many working peasants as well.

When Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge Communists seized control of Cambodia in April 1975 they killed over 2 million of Cambodia's 7 million people within a year. The Reader's Digest told the sordid and tragic story in February 1977 in a condensation of the book, Murder of a Gentle Land, by John Barron and Anthony Paul. The introduction said:

Since the Communists took over the country in April 1975, a pitiless terror has emptied the cities and turned the villages, fields and jungles into charnel houses where unburied corpses lie putrefying in the sun. The numbers of dead are staggering. Yet no protest is made; indeed, the world knows almost nothing of what has happened.

Within six days after "peace" came to the capital city Phnom Penh, a city of 3 million people was empty. The Reader's Digest account said:

Phnom Penh had been transformed into a wasteland occupied only by corpses, stray dogs, pigs, ducks and chickens and Angka patrols standing guard to insure that human life did not return. By April 23 the Communists had begun to empty the other principal cities of Cambodia...On the highways, roads and trails, the 3.5 million people driven from the cities wandered toward an unknown future.

The founder of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, Dr. Fred Schwartz, published the 16-page booklet, Why Communism Kills. He used the Cambodian experience to illustrate his thesis that communist killing stems from communism's basic philosophy. He said:

The leaders of the Cambodian Communist Party were convinced Marxists. They set out to be the best Marxists the world had ever seen. They conducted the programs demanded by their Marxist doctrines with an amazing consistency and ruthlessness. These doctrines taught them that the environment generates character; that the capitalist environment generates an evil character; that the cities are the headquarters of capitalism; that the bourgeoisie must be liquidated and the residual people removed from the capitalist environment of the cities; that physical labor is regenerative.

Translating these doctrines into deeds, they ordered the evacuation of the cities of Cambodia. Everyone had to go. No one was exempt for humanitarian reasons. These people were animals and could be treated like animals. Three million people who were crowded into Phnom Penh, were ordered to leave the city in one day. Everyone had to leave as they were. Children in schools were not permitted to go home and join their parents but were driven out of the city like cattle. Hospitals were emptied of doctors, nurses and patients.

Multitudes died on the roads from exhaustion or starvation or from thirst in the 100-degree sun. Others were systematically executed. Barron and Paul described typical killing scenes in Murder of a Gentle Land. They wrote of ten civil servants and their families rounded up in Banteay Village:

Weeping, sobbing, pleading for their lives, the prisoners were formed into a ragged line, the terrified wives and children clustering around each head of family. One at a time, each official was thrust forward and forced to kneel between two soldiers armed with bayonet-tipped AK-47 rifles. The soldiers then stabbed the victim simultaneously, one through the front and the other through the back. Family by family, the Communists proceeded methodically down the line. As each man lay dying, his wife and children were dragged up to his body. The women, forced to kneel, also received the simultaneous bayonet thrusts, then the children and babies...By refusing to bury the slain, the Communists advertised their deeds...to intimidate the populace.

What kind of monsters would order the brutal mass slaughter of a million human beings? Amazingly, they were well educated economists, lawyers and teachers--but they were Communist economists, lawyers and teachers. Barron and Paul reported that the Cambodian Communists were largely controlled by eight people with similar backgrounds:

All were in their mid-40s; they had studied in France during the 1950s, and all ardently embraced communism. They were educated as economists, lawyers or teachers, and in the context of their values and beliefs, all apparently were principled, honest and courageous.

One of them, their foreign minister Ieng Sary, flew to New York to attend a special session of the United Nations. He left behind a nation without universities, commerce, art, music, literature, science or any semblance of culture. Upon his arrival in New York, he boasted, "The towns have been cleaned." He was not troubled by the dead. He said:

As long as we have one million left, that will be enough to make the new [communist] man.

Why do Communists kill? They kill because communism requires that they kill to be good Communists. Communism is an idea which came out of a twisted mind. Communist killings demonstrate that ideas do have consequences.

If communism ever should come to America, Americans will be added to the lists of those killed in every part of the world.

Many years ago, a dedicated anti-Communist showed a film which documented the awfulness of the Communist threat. In his closing remarks, he left the audience with this challenge. He said:

If communism should come to America--God forbid--will you be able to look your children in the eye and say, "I did all I could to prevent it from happening"?

--John A. Stormer, None Dare Call it Treason...25 Years Later, (Liberty, 1990), Pp. 338-340.

top of article

return