Chapter VI. The Enemy Within—Far-Left Press

      “We have to influence non-Communists if we want to make them Communists or if we want to fool them, so we have to try to infiltrate the big press, to influence millions of people and not merely hundreds of thousands.” These words were directed at the Communists of the world by Molotov in a memorandum in 1931. From that year on, Communist leaders, U.S.A., applied their satanic skills to this extremely important task of infiltrating and subverting the American press. There are 600 daily newspapers in the United States, with a circulation of over 59 million. In addition to these dailies, there are 8,000 weekly newspapers with additional millions in circulation.
The exposure of the Molotov memorandum was made by Igor Bogolepov, former Counselor of the Soviet Foreign Office, who defected from Communist at the end of World War II. In testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on April 7, 1952, Bogolepov said that in the same memorandum Molotov admitted: “Only a few people who are already Communists read the Communist papers. We don’t need to propagandize them.” So they fixed their eyes on the “enemy press.” Infiltration of the “enemy press” is always necessary before the Communists take over a country.
Revealing information regarding the techniques used by the Reds in infiltrating the “enemy press” was given in a report published by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee during 1962, entitled “Communist Penetration and Exploitation of the Free Press.” One section of the report deals with the Communist infiltration of the Bulgarian press prior to the Communist revolution in that country. The strategy used in Bulgaria was described for the Senate Committee by Dr. G.M. Dimitrov, President of the Bulgarian National Committee for Liberation:
“…Carrying out will-prepared, long-range plans, Soviet agents began planting Bulgarian Communists in all non-Communist publications, principally as journalists or printers. These Communist plants were instructed to go slow in their activities until the press was thoroughly infiltrated. They were to become friendly with all the personnel of the publication, from the editorial staff down to the printshop workers. They were to study the attitudes of the key members of the staff and to gauge how they can best be used by the Communists.
“After a Communist plant was well established in a non-Communist publication, his first task was to create favorable attitudes toward the Soviet Union. … Following the infiltration of the Bulgarian press, the Soviet Embassy in Sofia began to court openly the favor of Bulgarian newspapermen. Journalists of all convictions, even extreme anti-Communists, were invited to lavish vodka-and-caviar parties. As these parties became more frequent, the guests included political leaders as well. …
“The next Soviet step was to invite prominent journalists, writers, and political leaders to visit the Soviet Union and write about their impressions. The visitors, of course, saw only what the Soviets wanted them to see on closely supervised guided tours. The Soviet officials did not expect glowing praises of the Communist system in Russia by the Bulgarian press at that time, but they sought to induce the Bulgarian visitors to write about the struggle of Russian workers and peasants to build up their backward economy after centuries of neglect under the Tsars. … Another familiar Soviet theme was their great desire for peace in the world. These tactics paid off and many Bulgarian newsmen and other prominent people, most of the anti-Communists by conviction, actually did write favorably of their impressions while visiting Russia.
“Partisan dinners for newsmen continued at the Soviet Embassy in Sofia. More and more editors and publishers softened their anti-Communist sentiments and were willing to accept leftists, and later even known Communists, on their staffs. At the same time, the infiltration by concealed Red agents of the Bulgarian press and publishing houses continued. …
“At the time of the Hitler-Stalin pact in 1939, the Fascist-oriented press of Bulgaria was thoroughly infiltrated by the Communists. The prominent anti-Nazi journalist, T. Kojoucharov, for example, wrote in the reactionary daily, Slovo, that ‘nothing could be more natural than the unity of Nazi socialism and Soviet Socialism’ and that this unity would last forever. At the same time, the Bulgarian Communist theoretician, T. Pavlov, wrote a whole pamphlet in which he presented similar views.
“In 1944, the Soviet Union declared war on Bulgaria without any provocation or reason and the Red Army occupied the country without firing a shot because the allies assured the Bulgarian people that the Soviets were coming as ‘liberators.’ One of the first acts of the Communists upon gaining control of the country was to suspend all non-Communist publications and to place all newsprint under strict control. Soon the country was flooded with printed Communist propaganda with no opposition press to answer. …
“Most non-Communist publishers and journalists were declared Fascist or Nazi and sentenced to long prison terms by ‘people’s courts.’ Some were even executed. Among them were publishers and editors who had harbored Communist journalists as insurance against just such an eventuality. …”
While their tactics may vary somewhat from country to country, the Communist conspiracy’s basic strategy in infiltrating the enemy press in any nation is the same. In the introduction to its report on “Communist Penetration and Exploitation of the Free Press,” the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee warned Americans: “A free press can be lost. Let us know and understand what happened in nations which suffered this loss. Let us understand how and why it happened. And let us resolve that it shall not happen here.”
Most newspapermen would protest vehemently if you accused their profession of being Communist infiltrated. Yet, in the years 1955 and 1956, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee looked into Communist infiltration of the American press and concluded that there was “substantial evidence” of such infiltration. During January 1956, the Subcommittee questioned seventeen newsmen in New York City, fourteen of whom had been on the staff of the New York Times. Of the seventeen witnesses, fourteen invoked the Fifth Amendment on questions regarding their association with Communism. In its 1956 annual report, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee summarized” “The subcommittee heard the testimony of more than a score of newspapermen during 1956. Except in a very few cases, it encountered a wall of resistance when it presented its evidence and information for them to reply. The resistance took the form of either a claim of privilege under the First or Fifth Amendments or outright defiance of the authority of the Sub-committee.”
A majority of the so-called liberal newspapers refuse to recognize the peril of internal Communism. A typical example of this blindness was the June 10, 1961, editorial in the Arkansas Gazette, Little Rock. This editorial claimed that the Communist Party in the United States as a domestic political force was a “negligible factor.” The Gazette claimed that the Communist influence on elections in our country was insignificant, its dogma abhorrent to the American people and repudiated by them.
The famed columnist, Art Buchwald, in his column of March 7, 1962, used the technique of ridicule to discredit anti-Communist activity in the United States when he said: “Unhappily, while there are more and more organizations being formed to fight Communists in the United States, there are fewer and fewer Communists around to fight, and the anti-Communist organizations are fighting among themselves over who has the right to fight Communists.”
Some of the far-left publications, such as Harpers magazine, actually utilize their columns to attack the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the House Committee on Un-American Activities for insisting that there is a Communist threat internally. In the October 1949 issue of Harpers, there was an article by the late Bernard DeVoto entitled “Due Notice to the FBI,” and here, in part, is what he said: “A single decade has come close to making us a nation of common informers. The Committee on Un-American Activities blasts several score reputations by releasing a new batch of gossip or we find out that the FBI has put at the disposal of this or that body a hash of gossip, rumors, slander, back-biting, malice, and drunken invention which, when it makes the headlines, shatters the reputation of innocent and harmless people and of people who our laws say are innocent until someone proves them guilty in court.” Of course, this is simply vicious smear and nothing else.
One of the newspapers that jumped all over then-Congressman Richard Nixon and the House Committee on Un-American Activities for exposing Alger Hiss, was the Washington Post. Even after Alger Hiss’ conviction, the Washington Post, in an editorial on January 23, 1950, gave the following strange explanation of Hiss’ deception: “Alger Hiss had the misfortune of being tempted to betray his country in an era of widespread illusions about Communism and is being tried for perjury in connection with his offense in a period of cold war when the pendulum of public sentiment had swung far in the other direction.”
In commenting on the editorial in the May 29, 1950 issue of the Chicago Tribune, an editorial stated: “The implication is that there was nothing shocking abut a disposition to betray one’s country, but that the traitor had to be careful about his timing.”
As we mentioned in another chapter, from time to time editors and publishers of far-left newspapers appear on the platform of Communist-sponsored rallies. For instance, on June 7, 1962, a Communist-organized united-front rally against the McCarran Act was held at Manhattan Center, New York City. Top Communist leaders, Gus Hall and Benjamin Davis, were among the featured speakers. Another featured speaker was Murray Kempton, New York Post columnist. The Communists were so joyful over Mr. Kempton’s speech that they printed lengthy excerpts from it in the June 19, 1962, issue of The Worker. Murray Kempton, in his speech, ridiculed the FBI and told the Communists at the rally that “This country has not been kind to you but this country has been fortunate in having you.” He also advised the Communists that “I salute you and I hope for times to be better.”
A very famous columnist, Walter Winchell, during the summer of 1962, resigned as columnist for the New York Mirror and King Features Syndicate. Winchell said that his editors on the New York Mirror had given him latitude but accused the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner of killing all items about Communism. King Features, he charged, killed five paragraphs about alleged Communists around the late President Kennedy, although according to Winchell his charges had been “cleared by the Mirror’s legal department.”
Probably the most prominent “far-left” American newspaper which constantly attacks anti-Communist investigations is the earlier-mentioned Washington Post. On May 22, 1950, the Washington Post published a lengthy editorial attacking anti-Communist investigations which stated as follows: “For weeks the Capital has been seized and convulsed by terror…akin to the evil atmosphere of the alien and sedition laws in John Adams’ administration.” In this one editorial, the editors of the Washington Post referred to Congressional investigations of the internal Communist conspiracy as “witch-hunting” twelve times. Undoubtedly this smear of sincere Congressional investigations into Communism misled a large number of unsuspecting Americans.
One of the most famous examples of Communists infiltrating the newspapers is that of Carl Braden. Braden was on the editorial staff of the Louisville Courier-Journal. His Communist activities first came to light when he bought a house in an all-white section of Louisville and transferred it to a Negro, Andrew Wade IV. When Wade’s family moved in, trouble broke out. There was shooting and bombing, and racial tension became explosive. Braden organized a “Wade Defense Committee” which, by press, radio, and mass meeting, defended Wade’s occupation of the house. The Commonwealth Attorney in Louisville, A. Scott Hamilton, investigated the whole affair and came to the conclusion that Communists had planned the whole thing, including the rioting and bombing, as a means of inciting racial hatred and trouble.
Carl Braden was indicted on a charge of advocating sedition. Braden denied that he had ever been a Communist. A great parade of witnesses testified in his defense, including his minister, the Rector of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, writers, reporters, a professor at Indiana University, colleagues of Braden on the Courier-Journal staff, and local labor union leaders. But at the crucial moment in the Braden trial, the Louisville FBI released one of its undercover agents, Mrs. Alberta Ahern, who testified that Braden was an active secret Communist leader in Louisville. He had recruited her, in fact, into the Communist Party. He collected dues for the Red cell to which they both belonged. Braden was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Braden not only worked for the Louisville Courier-Journal before his exposure, but he had done free-lance work for the Toledo Blade, Newsweek magazine, Chicago Tribune, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, New York News, and the Federated Press which serves the Communist Worker. He was an influential member of the American Newspaper Guild, Louisville’s Chapter, and had written articles, speeches, and radio scripts for the AFL-CIO. When Braden’s house was searched, they found almost a “truckload” of Communist educational and propaganda literature, some charging germ-warfare against the United States, some branding America as the aggressor in the Korean War.
On February 8, 1962, in the Chicago American, columnist Irving Dillard referred to Carl Braden as simply an “Episcopalian” and to the famous Communist, Frank Wilkinson, as a “Methodist.” Mr. Dillard contended: “All Americans who care what happens to liberties in our country should breathe a little easier now that these men, Braden and Wilkinson, are again free.” Who knows how many innocent Americans may have been deceived by the mis-information in this one column by Irving Dillard? This one column is typical of the many editorials appearing in far-left newspapers which deceive the American people concerning the threat of Communism internally.
While these left-wing newspapers and columnists befriend even known Communists, you will seldom, if ever, find left-wing writers and the press referring to anti-Communist conservatives in any type of complimentary language. The former pro-Castro enthusiast, Ralph McGill, of the Atlanta Constitution is a typical far-left editorial writer. When he refers to the conservatives or anti-Communists, he uses such terminology as “pathetic and psychologically naked young men” or “wild and wall-eyed radicals.”
The influence which the Communist publications themselves have on the far-left’s daily newspapers is sobering to any patriot. For illustration, on April 5, 1950, soon after Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican-Wisconsin) had begun his efforts to expose the Communist conspiracy internally, the Communist Daily Worker wrote: “Communists are keenly aware of the damage the McCarthy crowd is doing.” On May 4, 1950, the term “McCarthyism” was printed for the first time in a Daily Worker article by Gus Hall, National Secretary of the Communist Party. He wrote, “I urge all Communist Party members and all anti-Fascists to yield second place to none in the fight to rid our country of the Fascist poison of McCarthyism.” On November 27, 1950, the Communist Party in Maryland and the District of Columbia mailed out an article entitled “Unity Can Defeat McCarthyism.” The author was Philip Frankfeld, Chairman of the Communist Party in Maryland, who was later convicted for his Communist activities. What kind of unity was Frankfeld speaking about? He was referring to unity of naïve, uninformed non-Communists with the Communist conspirators to accomplish a very important objective of the conspiracy—destroy Joe McCarthy!
On June 18, 1953, an FBI undercover agent exposed the Communist plot to assassinate Senator Joseph McCarthy.
The December 1953 issue of the official Communist Party organ, Political Affairs, carried an article by the National Committee of the Communist Party entitled “Unity Can Rout McCarthyism.” Following are quotes from this article: “The name of this growing Fascist beast is McCarthyism…Now is a time to deal a smashing blow at this monster. The sharp stand of the recent CIO Convention against McCarthyism sounds the right note…The issue must be taken to the great masses of the people…prepare them for a vast political movement that will defeat every candidate in the 1954 elections who does not specifically repudiate McCarthyism and all his filthy works… This situation is ripe for organized labor and its allies, by a united smash, to rout the McCarthyism pro-Fascists…This opportunity must not be missed.”
The April 1954 issue of Political Affairs continued the draft program of the Communist Party written by the National Committee of the Party. This directive to the conspirators was divided into seven sections, and five of the seven attacked McCarthy or McCarthyism. Section IV was devoted entirely to Senator McCarthy and was entitled, “The Menace of McCarthyism—The Growing Danger of Fascism.” In this program the conspirators again rated McCarthyism as their number one enemy as they exhorted their members and dupes: “To defeat this menace is the first task of the hour.” In the same issue William Z. Foster urged the Communists to “give everything we have to the development of this great struggle.”
The Communist-inspired operation against a sincere American patriot ended n a disgraceful and unjustified censure. The Communist conspirators were in the thick of this phase of the battle against “the Fascist poison of McCarthyism.” The Daily Worker entitled an editorial of September 28, 1954, “Throw the Bum Out.” In it they called Senator McCarthy the “arch-conspirator against the American Constitution.” In this editorial and throughout the entire period of this time-wasting episode in our Senate, the Communist conspirators urged their members, fellow travelers and sympathizers to insist that the Senate vote for censure. It was a major issue in the Communist conspiracy publications. Why? The answer is obvious. The Communist conspirators and their sympathizers knew what they were fighting for, but millions of innocent American victims of the Communist Party line did not know what they were doing. Unfortunately, millions of these Americans still do not have the vaguest notion of what all the furor was about, even though they think they know. They think just as the Communists wish them to think.
In the May 1956 issue of Political Affairs the Communists said, “the democratic masses finally cracked down on McCarthy,” and that “The recent curbing of the McCarthy pro-Fascist menace by the American people augurs well for the future.” Whose future? The author, William Z. Foster, was certainly not speaking of the future of the American republic which was established by our Christian founding fathers. He is looking forward to a Soviet America and is confident of this end result in the great struggle going on today. Upon the death of this persecuted and hounded American patriot, the Soviet News Agency Tass said he was a “double reactionary” who “baited and persecuted by terroristic methods anyone who came out against the domination of a handful of billionaires.”
The word “McCarthyism,” a Communist-coined smear word, became something horrible beyond imagination in the minds of many Americans. Communists and their sympathizers kept up a steady fire of smear attacks against Senator McCarthy resulting in a united effort by the far-left to destroy “the enemy”—not Communism, but Joe McCarthy.
Among the popular magazines with large circulations, therefore exerting enormous influence upon public opinion in the United States, which joined in the smear attacks against Senator McCarthy, was Time magazine. In his newspaper column of November 20, 1951, Fulton Lewis Jr. summarized some of the choicest terminology used by Time magazine in reporting on Senator McCarthy’s fight against Communism: “Rash-talking Joseph R. McCarthy; pugnacious Senator Joe McCarthy; loud-mouthed; wretched burlesque; scare-head publicity; desperate gambler; a fool or a knave; weasel-worded statements; vituperative smear; half truths; wild charges.”
In his newspaper column of November 16, 1951, Fulton Lewis Jr. revealed a tremendous error Time magazine made in smearing Senator McCarthy in the Gustavo Duran case. Lewis wrote: “In an effort to smear McCarthy, Time magazine said: ‘Duran, never a Red, was definitely and clearly anti-Communist—he worked for the United States Government in Cuba during World War II tracking Axis and Communist agents.’
“What the editors of Time did not know when they tried to peddle this is that McCarthy had in his files a private memorandum from Time magazine’s Washington office that labeled Duran exactly what McCarthy called him. And then, just to impale themselves solidly on the hook, Time’s editors added: ‘Every word in Time’s story, incidentally, was thoroughly checked for accuracy of fact and interpretation. It is a policy the Senator would do well to follow.’” Mr. Lewis went on further in his column to quote from the Time magazine memorandum which coincided with Senator McCarthy’s charges.
In a letter to Henry Luce, publisher of the magazine, Senator McCarthy described the Time article on the Duran case as a “vicious and malicious lie being broadcast to millions of American people in [a] clearly deliberate, dishonest attempt to discredit my fight against Communism.” He went on to tell Mr. Luce, who owns the Time and Life magazines: “If freedom of the press is to be maintained, then the editors of a national magazine such as yours, regardless of how much they want to discredit my fight against Communists, do owe some honesty and decency to the public.”
Perhaps the leading newspaper to parrot the Communist Party line against Senator McCarthy was the Washington Post. In its May 22, 1950, editorial (which was run as a paid advertisement in other newspapers), the Post referred to “McCarthy-Goebbels-Vishinsky technique of the lie.” In the same editorial, readers were told: “The mad-dog quality of McCarthyism has become so apparent that its power for sowing confusion and suspicion has probably spent its force…” This was less than three weeks after the Communist publication coined the smear word, “McCarthyism.”
In 1954, a series of article smearing Senator McCarthy in the New York World-Telegram, a Scripps-Howard newspaper, was too much for one member of the Scripps family—Mrs. William Loeb Jr., grand-daughter of E.W. Scripps, founder of the chain. In a sizzling wire to her brother, Charles E. Scripps, Chairman of the chain, and Jack Howard, President of the newspapers, Mrs. Loeb said that the articles on McCarthy were “rotten, biased journalism which would make my grandfather, E.W. Scripps, who above all stood for integrity and fair play in the handling of news, turn in his grave in disgust and shame.”
In his book, McCarthyism—The Fight for America, Senator McCarthy referred to the policies of “managed news” practiced by the rewrite desks of the large wire services—Associated Press, United Press International, etc. The Senator wrote: “After several experiences, there was impressed upon me the painful truth that the stories written by the competent, honest Associated Press, United Press, or International News Service men assigned to cover the Senate or the House might not even be recognized by them when those stories went on the news ticker to the thousands of newspapers throughout the country. Before being sent out to America’s newspapers, the stories pass across what is known as a rewrite desk. There, certain facts can be played up, others eliminated. For example, so often we found in the stories about me a word like ‘evidence’ was changed to ‘unfounded charges.’ ‘McCarthy stated’ would become ‘McCarthy shouted.” ‘Digging up evidence’ became ‘Dredging up evidence.’ In one case, I recall the story as written on Capitol Hill was ‘McCarthy picked up his briefcase full of documents and left.’ When the story left the rewrite desk, it was ‘McCarthy grabbed his briefcase and stormed from the room.’”
One young reporter for the New York Herald-Tribune, Dave McConnell, reporting on the un-American treatment given to Senator McCarthy, wrote in his paper May 16, 1960, that the unfair treatment of Senator McCarthy “has come as a surprise to many newspaper veterans who cling to the old mandate that personal bias or personal opinions belong on the editorial page and not in the news columns…The uproar in the press section during Senator McCarthy’s testimony at one point made it difficult even to hear what the Wisconsin Republican was telling the subcommittee.”
Of course, not all the newspapers in the United States smeared McCarthy. From the very beginning, the New York Daily Mirror supported Senator McCarthy. In an editorial March 16, 1950, they referred to the investigations of Senator McCarthy as “one of the most important events of out time…McCarthy has courage. He has facts. He knows what he is talking about…That opposition-Senators and protectors of the State Department would like to smear McCarthy, throw up all manner of smoke-screens to divert attention, and achieve an eventual whitewash is not the issue—and the people will not permit it to be made the issue…They want the mess cleaned up in Washington. Go to it, Joe McCarthy.”
In an interview during 1950, J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, commended the anti-Communist activities of Senator McCarthy, which was ignored by most of the large left-wing daily newspapers. Mr. Hoover said: “He is earnest. He is honest. He is sincere. Whenever you attack subversives of any kind you are going to be the victim of the most extremely vicious criticism that can be made.”
American newspapers and publications have enormous power. They have the power to make or break men and organizations. Favorable or unfavorable images of certain movements and their leaders can be planted in the American minds without recourse to the subject.
William Randolph Hearst boasted that with one telephone call he made the name of Billy Graham a household word and in later years, Billy Graham admitted this. Upon hearing Billy Graham on the radio during a little-publicized revival in Los Angeles, Hearst called his Los Angeles newspaper and told them to “build him up.” Build him up the Hearst papers did indeed, making Billy Graham the number one evangelist, as far as fame is concerned, in the world today.
While it is possible for the press to build an unknown minister into an internationally-famous personality, it is also possible for them to picture a staunch and dedicated patriot as a dangerous, irresponsible “hate monger,” and ruin his influence.
In the McCarthy days, some of the far-left press actually stooped to printing outright lies about Senator McCarthy in their determination to destroy his effectiveness as an anti-Communist crusader. On October 19, 1951, the Post-Standard newspaper of Syracuse, New York, published an editorial in which Senator McCarthy was accused of paying money, through an intermediary, to a man named Charles E. Davis for forging the name of a Communist to a telegram sent to John Carter Vincent, then United States Ambassador to Switzerland. This editorial also accused Senator McCarthy of framing Senator Tydings of Maryland with a fake photograph showing Tydings in alleged conversation with Earl Browder, and made other accusations which were vile and contemptible against the Senator from Wisconsin.
Almost one and one-half years later, on March 5, 1953, the Syracuse Post-Standard published another editorial on “The McCarthy Record.” This editorial stated:
“An editorial published in this space, October 19, 1951, has been the subject of a suit for libel by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin. Since publication of this editorial the statements therein have been subjected to careful study in the light of all the facts now available.
“The Post-Standard in the light of all the pertinent facts wishes in fairness to its readers to correct certain statements that were written in good faith and in a sincere belief in their truthfulness, but which have nevertheless proved to be untrue and unfair to Senator McCarthy.”
The editorial went on to inform readers that the newspaper’s investigation had shown that Senator McCarthy “had not committed any act deserving of criticism” in connection with the so-called Charles E. Davis forgery. It stated that the newspaper was satisfied that Senator McCarthy was not responsible for the photographic “framing” of Senator Tydings, and that “responsibility has been clearly fixed on another individual who had no connection with Senator McCarthy.”
Once while visiting in Senator McCarthy’s office, I said to my friend whom I loved dearly and who proved to be such a great inspiration to me as a young minister fighting Communism in the early days of Christian Crusade, “Why don’t you sue some of these people who tell these lies on you?” As I recall, we were alone in his office. It was at the close of the day. I was to accompany him to his home for dinner. He smiled and pointed to a quotation which he had framed and which hung over his desk. It was a quotation by Abraham Lincoln which simply stated: “If I were to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business.”
There should be no question in the mind of any patriotic American abut the enormous damage done to the cause of freedom and Americanism by those far-left newspapers and magazines which joined in the Communist-inspired attacks against Senator Joseph McCarthy. The only way this damage can ever be rectified is by those periodicals launching a courageous and vigorous campaign on behalf of the Constitutional concepts and historic Americanism. However, it is extremely unlikely that a far-left newspaper will be converted to Americanism in our time. The attacks, smears, lies, innuendoes, half-truths, character assassination, guilt by association originally directed against Senator McCarthy are now being used against anti-Communist men and movements in 1964 who dare resist the Communist threat internally.
In December 1960 the Communists of the world were told in Moscow by the Communist dictators to step up their activities against anti-Communists in the United States. Edward Hunter, psychological warfare expert (and one of the ten most effective anti-Communist voices in America today), testified before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee July 11, 1961, concerning this Moscow directive against United States anti-Communists. Mr. Hunter said that it was planned in Moscow that the American news media would be used by the Communist International to discredit the anti-Communist movements in the United States. Indeed, immediately following the Moscow 1960 meeting, American far-right newspapers and publications began their vicious attacks against the so-called “radical right” or the anti-Communist movements of America.
Guilt by association? Sure, the far left will use guilt by association to discredit the anti-Communist cause. In the February 9, 1962, issue of Life magazine, Keith Wheeler, author of a smear article against the anti-Communist movements of America, pulled a shabby trick of including anti-Communists and Nazis together in the far-right classification. He wrote: “The far-right ranges all the way from the respectable conservatism of a Barry Goldwater to the vicious lunacy of the American Nazi Party.” This is a typical example of the satanic deception perpetrated under the false theory of Communism and Nazism as opposite extremes, when all the time Communism and Nazism share the Socialist foundation.
Newsweek, Look, Time, New York Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Constitution, every star of the far left, parrot the Communist Party line against the anti-Communist or conservative movements in the United States with amazing continuity. As Ed Hunter said before the Senate Committee on July 11, 1961: “The players know only the conductor in front of them and he may be totally ignorant of who selected the music, arranged the program, and why. The extraordinary orchestration (against the anti-Communist movements) that preceded and appeared in leading American newspapers and magazines…is in full accord with the new ‘unity line’ of the Red Manifesto…” Edward Hunter also pointed out during his testimony that during these smear drives against anti-Communists, “Few in the wolf pack know why they are barking.” This is true in the case of non-Communist Americans following any phase of the Communist Party line. As Jesus said when facing the ordeal of Calvary, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
By April 1962 the smears against the anti-Communist organizations were so successful that Gus Hall wrote in the Communist publication Political Affairs that there was a “mass upsurge against the ultra-right which started with our statement ten months ago that warned of this danger and outlined [a] tactical approach for the mobilization of the democratic forces to oppose this menace.” He assured fellow Red conspirators that “this fanatical Fascist-like fringe of the ultra-right will be pushed back into its lair.”
In the June 23, 1962, issue of the Portland Reporter, Philip Hager wrote that Americans are standing in line “waiting their turn to lash out at the extremists of the right.” Non-Communist Americans are practically lined up to attack not the Communist conspirators but opponents of the Communists. The attacks on the anti-Communist movements are so vicious and unfair that Edward Hunter commented in our Weekly Crusader, June 15, 1962: “In my thirty-five years in journalism I have never read or seen so much sheer dishonesty and outright faking outside of the Communist press as I have been witnessing in the newspaper and air coverage of the anti-Communist movement.”
The attacks against me personally and against Christian Crusade started on January 1, 1962 when that much-publicized “champion of all liars,” Drew Pearson, triggered the smear attach against me by accusing me of “flamboyant hate preaching.” The words of Senator Richard Russell of Georgia on the floor of the Senate May 19, 1950, explains the Pearson phenomenon: “Drew Pearson uses the freedom of the press for political blackmail…It would be impossible for any Senator to attempt to add to Mr. Pearson’s statute as the Prince of Liars…”
If any American wants to know the effectiveness of any minister, writer, broadcaster, or politician against the Communist conspiracy, all he has to do is read faithfully the Communist publications. If you are an effective anti-Communist, you will be smeared mercilessly by the Communist press. If your statements aid and abet the cause of Communism, you will be applauded continuously by the Communist press. The Communists hold Walter Lippman in high regard. In a column in The Daily Worker, November 24, 1957, A.B. Magil praised Mr. Lippman as “one of the wisest of contemporary capitalist political philosophers.” An article in the November 10, 1962, issue of the West Coast Communist newspaper Peoples World referred to James B. Reston of the New York Times as being “as knowledgeable and informed a correspondent as there is in the nation’s Capitol” and as “a responsible journalist.” When the Communists speak in such complimentary terms of a writer, we can be sure that the writer so praised is not putting out much in the way of facts which would be harmful to the Communist cause.
On August 20, 1961, The Worker reported favorably on the Portland Daily Reporter as follows: “Born as a weekly strikers’ publication in February 1960, it grew in one year to a daily paper with an avowed ambition to be a liberal independent daily. In the face of incredible handicaps it survived…the first daily newspaper that has been started in the United States in fifteen years.” The Worker article pointed out that stock of this paper was owned by some 6,000 shareholders in forty-six states, including Oregon’s United States Senators, Wayne Morse and Maurine Neuberger, the State Attorney General, the Mayor of Portland, and White House Advisor, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. The Communist writer states that Senator Morse was instrumental in obtaining Associated Press service for the newspaper. If this is the first newspaper to be started in our nation in fifteen years, it is a tragic commentary on the state of the public mind in the United States that it has to be a paper which rates so highly with the Communist conspirators.
In the December 23, 1962, issue of The Worker, the Detroit Free Press was applauded by the Communists because the Detroit paper had attacked the House Committee on Un-American Activities, During October 1961, The Worker rated a news account in the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper as a “straight-forward news story.” From time to time the Christian Science Monitor has been praised by The Worker, including a complimentary editorial on the front page of The Worker, May 22, 1962.
One of the publications that the Communists attack most frequently is Barron’s Business and Financial Weekly. In one editorial, November 4, 1962, Barron’s was attacked by the Communists because the publication had called “for a purge of all those in the government who advocated a lessening of world tensions, and hinted at a nation-wide witch hunt against peace advocates.” Of Barron’s, The Worker said that this menacing, Hitler-like demand is not being made by a Birchite, but by a leading spokesman for big business.
The Chicago Tribune is high on the list of Red enemies among United States newspapers. An article in The Worker of October 15, 1961, attacked the Chicago Tribune for printing anti-Communist editorials, as follows: “No right-wing inspired story emanating from the offices of Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond or from the prolific press-agentry of the House Un-American Activities Committee or from the weekly Manion Forum of the air…escapes the Chicago Tribune’s news hawks. They all get printed and in great length…” In an article in The Worker, January 14, 1962, the Communists attacked the Chicago Tribune as follows: “The Chicago Tribune has a long and odious record. For a century it has poisoned America’s atmosphere.”
There is little or no criticism in the Communist press for such publications as Look and Newsweek.
Within one hour after the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963, the Communist press in Moscow was blaming the anti-Communist and conservative forces of the United States for the death of the President. This, therefore, became the Communist Party line. The Communist press itself denied any Communist connections with Lee Harvey Oswald, the President’s assassin. The pro-Communist press in America shifted the blame to the anti-Communists in another way—the premise of some of the far-left critics is that certain anti-Communists in Dallas had created such an atmosphere of hate for President Kennedy by maintaining consciously or unconsciously [that] he and certain of his decisions were soft on Communism, that a Communist on whom the government had been very soft had killed the President. In other words, a hardened Communist killed the President because the President was criticized by some anti-Communists. The mind to which this logic makes sense, especially in view of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to prove their position and all the evidence is against it, is a mind which is in the grip of powerful illusions or a mind which is just passing on, without evaluating, the gossip which it has heard. Some liberals went so far as to suggest that since the President had to be killed, it was a shame that some anti-Communist didn’t take his life. The twisted logic of these illusionists is further illustrated in the fact that their great outcry is against the right and not against the Communists. The official Party line is that the anti-Communist elements of America are to blame. By the “right,” they have reference to all active anti-Communists who call for a firmer stand against internal and external Communism. It is quite obvious why the Communists blame the anti-Communists. Anything in their non-moral outlook is truth if it can in some way advance the Communist Party and discredit their opposition.
Here are some examples of non-Communists parroting the Communist Party line by blaming the right-wing elements of the United States. On November 23, the New York Herald-Tribune carried an article on page eight on “Dallas, Long a Radical’s Heaven.” Of course, Oswald was born in New Orleans, had lived some in New York, and had been in the USSR for several years. He had been a Communist in his thinking from about fifteen years of age. Thus, whether Dallas had been a haven of so-called radical right-wingers or not had nothing to do with making Oswald a Communist. He was not a product of Dallas or America, but of Karl Marx. (However, in all fairness, we should point out that on the same day this article was carried in the Herald-Tribune, another columnist, Stuart H. Loory, wrote in the same paper that the politicians in the nation’s capital “were only too eager to believe” at first that it had been done by someone on the far-right wing.)
Newsweek magazine, who, with Look magazine, is constantly in a battle for first place in the far-left publication race, in its issue of December 9, 1963, was still blaming the right-wing for “creating an atmosphere of violence.” In the same publication, Newsweek reported on Castro’s reaction to the death of Mr. Kennedy and headed the report: “The Grief Of A Foe.” Castro is a Communist. He deceived Cubans and many others into thinking that his revolution was not communistic. He has executed many people. He hates the United States. He had more than once called for the death of Kennedy. Really, isn’t it a bit too much to believe that Castro was filled with such grief as Newsweek magazine suggests?
Drew Pearson wrote a column shortly after the death of Mr. Kennedy claiming that President Kennedy was a victim of a hate drive by people on the right, such as the editor of the Dallas Morning News, Robert Dealey. He called the assassination “Dallas’ answer” to the President’s plea for good will and reason. He quoted an Arizona editor that “the hatred preachers got their man. They did not shoot him: they inspired the man or men who did it.”
A Communist shot the President: therefore, anti-Communists in Dallas are to blame. A man who learned his hate, not in Dallas, but elsewhere, and mainly from Marxism, murdered the President; so Dallas is guilty. However, even James Reston of the New York Times had to admit: “All the evidence to date indicates that the right-wing had nothing to do with the death of Kennedy and that the deed could have been done in New York just as well as in Dallas.” It is indeed frightening then to contemplate the editorial in the Wall Street Journal which was reported in the Congressional Record December 3, 1963: “In their obsession with the far-right, some people seemingly refuse to believe that the deranged killer was a man of the far-left.”
Of course, the AFL-CIO Executive Council had to join in with these attacks on the anti-Communist movements as always. On November 26, the AFL-CIO Executive Council said: “Hatred—blind, bitter, savage hatred—is on the rise in America There is the hatred exemplified by the John Birch Society and the followers of General Walker. There is the hatred of the fanatical Communist. There is no choice among them, for hatred in any form is evil.” To classify members of the John Birch Society or friends of General Walker with the Communist party is an evil and vicious thing. There may be some members of the John Birch Society who hate and there may be members of the AFL-CIO who hate. Perhaps the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO is guilty of hatred—hating the John Birch Society and General Walker. However, hate is an official doctrine of the Communist conspiracy, but hate is not an official doctrine of the conservative right-wing organizations. Why didn’t the AFL-CIO say something about the black racist, Malcolm X, who indicated after the death of Kennedy that he was glad that the President had been shot?
Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution immediately wrote an article on the “Harvest of Psychopathic Hate” in which he did not make one little reference to the extreme left, but most of it dealt with racial violence and those whom he viewed as extremists on the right. He made no specific reference to the fact that the man who killed the President was a Communist.
As we read these irresponsible charges against the anti-Communist elements of America by the left-wingers, the following question is raised in our minds: “Can this outpouring of accusations against those whom the far-left label the ultra-right be an indication of hate on the part of some of these accusers?”
In a speech before a convention of broadcasters, former Florida Governor Leroy Collins indicted the so-called Southern right-wing extremists for the death of the President. Senator Mansfield in his funeral eulogy called for “the strength to do what must be done to bridle the bigotry, the hatred, the arrogance and the iniquities and inequities which marched in the boots of a gathering tyranny to that moment of horror.” Not a word about the bigotry, hatred, arrogance, iniquities, and inequities of Communism. Are we afraid to pinpoint on Communism the responsibility for the murder of the President, lest we offend the feelings of some Communists? Must we talk about sinners in general, or haters of the far-right specifically, lest the real criminal, Communism, be exposed in its brutal nakedness?
In attack after attack, leaders of the far-left single out the right-wing for criticism, but there was not a word about Communism, which was responsible for the murder of the President, from the lips of these liberal political, religious, and educational leaders. What lamentable, warped logic: Communism killed the President; therefore it is the fault of someone else. One on the left murdered the President; therefore, the right is responsible. We wonder if some of those who talk so much about hate being the cause of the President’s death without implying that it was Communist hate, but rather insist it was rightist hate, may not, by their irresponsible statements, be stirring up the hate and violence of some people. Almost immediately after the death of the President, Senator John Tower, a conservative opponent of the administration, began to receive threatening phone calls. His wife had to go into hiding.
The Chicago Tribune reported that Senator Barry Goldwater “has been stunned and shocked by the number of abusive letters and telegrams which he has received since the death of President Kennedy.” There has been an outpouring of satanic abuse such as he has never seen in his life.
Hate did kill the President, but it was not the hate of which some in their illusions, some in their blind and bitter sorrow, and some in their shallowness, have spoken. It was the hate which is an inherent part of Communism which killed the President.
Thank God there are here and there patriotic newspapers that are faithfully presenting the pro-American and anti-Communist positions. Such newspapers as the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, Chattanooga News-Free Press, Omaha World-Herald, Tulsa World, Tulsa Tribune, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Shreveport Journal, Amarillo Daily News, Borger News-Herald, San Diego Tribune, and many, many others are worthy of the support and respect of the American people. Only by reading responsible dailies such as those mentioned above and truth magazines such as Christian Crusade, Weekly Crusader, Christian Beacon, Human Events, National Review, American Opinion, Dan Smoot Report, etc., can the floodtides of Communism be dammed in the United States.
One of America’s best authorities on the Communist conspiracy is Dr. J.B. Matthews, former chief investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities and for the McCarthy Committee. In his excellent book (which I recommend to every student of Americanism), called Odyssey of a Fellow Traveler, Dr. Matthews stated:
“Hate is at floodtide in the world today, a hate born of the doctrine that man is arrayed against man in an irreconcilable conflict of classes. It is a hate more deep rooted and terrible than that of international war…
“However much Communists might prefer to be the only political group immune to all criticism and however much they may attempt to enforce this immunity with vituperation, it is important that the critics of Communism employ the restraint of civilized emotions, a fine sense of balance, and perhaps above all, their sense of humor while proceeding fearlessly to the work of criticism.”

Back to The Far Left