Marxmanship in Dallas
[Part II]
Revilo P. Oliver, American
Opinion, Volume VII, No. 3, March 1964, pp. 65-78.
Revilo P. Oliver is Professor of Classics in the University of Illinois. During World War II, he was Director of Research in a secret agency of the War Department. He has traveled widely. Dr. Oliver is an academician of international reputation who has published scholarly articles in four languages within the pages of twelve learned periodicals in the United States and Europe.
Henceforth, no American has an excuse for illusion. He has
had an ocular demonstration of who and what his enemies are. And that lesson is
repeated every day as his enemies, recklessly exposing themselves, try to carry
out their original plan in spite of Comrade Oswald’s bungling.
The assassination and its aftermath must have given to many
Americans the shock that each of us must somehow feel in his own being before he
can understand what Communists really are and why they are seeking to kill or
enslave him. That understanding does not automatically come from mere
information. We all carry in our minds a great accumulation of items of
information, such as that a continent lies under the ice of Antarctica or that
the natives of the Andaman Islands are pygmies, which have no effect on our
thinking because such facts seem irrelevant to our own lives. By this time,
every literate American has in his own mind a good deal of information about
Communists, although often as detached and unrelated items that seem remote from
his quotidian concerns. Even copious and systematic information may remain, so
to speak, inert in the mind until illumined by a perception that carries
conviction.
The Moment of Truth
The perception usually comes from some personal experience
or observation. It may be some minor shock, such as the falling apple is said to
have given Newton; but at that shock a thousand bits of scattered knowledge
latent in the mind arrange themselves into a coherent whole and exhibit a basic
truth.
When I was a youngster, I knew a man of substance who told
me that he had almost been enlisted in a Communist-front operation to release
from prison a creature named Mooney, who had murdered nine persons in California
to show how much he loved Humanity. Although moved by the plausible and pathetic
story told him by the Editor of a “literary” periodical, the gentleman was
canny enough to check a few facts and then visit the headquarters of the
organization soliciting his support. His unannounced visit gave him a moment of
perception. He returned with the conviction that he had seen specimens of a
criminal gang that was burrowing its way beneath the foundations of society,
bent on undermining the whole nation. I thought his alarm preposterous, and, I
am afraid, smiled at it.
In college, I could not overlook the young Communists. It
required no great acumen to see that their idealistic squeakings about “social
justice” and the “downtrodden” were mere pretense to cover the malice and
phrenetic rancors seething within them. But I did not really understand them
until I met, during the great Crusade to Save the Soviet, a young lawyer who had
been provided with a direct commission and a “vital” job in Washington to
preserve him from the kind of military service that may be bad for the skin. He
explained to me the wickedness of making a profit, and he told me how “social
justice” would come to businessmen. “We’ll shoot them in the belly,” he
said rapturously; “they die longer that way.” And the greasy-faced creature
licked its dry lips.
A professional man tells me that his moment came at the
time that Irreproachable Ike, violating the Constitution he had sworn to uphold,
used the Army to help the Warren Crew get the race war under way. He was talking
to a clergyman of the “social gospel” variety whose emotional perturbation
he did not understand until some indiscreet exclamations let him see that the
holy man was inwardly trembling with eagerness for news that Americans had been
bayonetted or machine-gunned on the streets of Little Rock.
The moment came to another man when he was one of a party
of four in the bar of a private club. One of the four, an evidently urbane and
cultivated gentlemen—who had come to the United State as a refugee and had
been given a salary and security that he could never have attained in the land
whence he came—took a Scotch or two too many and began to make it painfully
clear that he regarded Americans as detestable swine who need to be taught, with
the toe of a boot, their place in One World.
A university professor tells me that his moment came two
years ago when a senior colleague, who had for many years pontificated about the
“marketplace of ideas,” and, serene as a seated Buddha, had beamed benignly
when Gus Hall and Gordon Hall spoke on the campus, “because we need to hear
all sides,” began to yell like a Comanche at a scalp-dance. What had shattered
academic serenity was the discovery that there was a horrible “hate-sheet”
read by “Fascist war-mongers” who must be “stamped out” or, at least,
have their teeth kicked in. As for contributors to the hate-sheet, said the
Sakya Muni of Academic Freedom, whom I quote verbatim, “they must be
exterminated. Shooting is too good for them.” The hate-sheet in question was that mild and
self-consciously “moderate” fortnightly, National
Review, and my informant believes that the Double Dome would have run amok
with a kris, had he even suspected the existence of American Opinion. As it was, however, the yells sufficed to
make my informant suddenly realize what makes “Liberals” tick—and he
compared them to certain well wrapped and disguised packages that are
occasionally discovered by a postal inspector or the baggage master of an
airline because they also tick.
A New Yorker says that his moment came early in December
when he read a column by Walter Lippmann, whom he had long suspected to be
suffering from nothing more serious than a cerebrum bloated with ideals. In the
column the punctate pundit, wrapping his feet about his neck in one of his
customary verbal twists, claimed that “in a free [sic]
country” criticism of “Civil Rights and Russia” is “inherently
subversive.” Not content with thus having exposed himself, Big-Brained Walt
went on tactlessly to yowl that because Oswald scored a bull’s-eye, “the only solace for the nation’s [sic]
shame and grief can come from a Purge”—a purge, of course, of the awful
Americans who think they still have a country. Thus, said my correspondent, was
long covert hatred of Americans and dissembled blood-lust made manifest for all
to see. It is possible, to be sure, that the quoted phrase was just lipography,
and that Lippmann meant something else, such as forced feeding of castor oil to
Americans; but the phrase served to give at least one of his readers an impulse
to put together and comprehend many data that his mind was holding in
suspension.
Ex uno disce omnes
Oswald was a young Communist punk, but, aside from his
fortuitous notoriety, there was nothing unusual about him. You have seen
thousands like him, and you are paying taxes to breed or nourish swarms of them.
You saw a representative selection of them in that
excellent film, Operation Abolition, which is now more timely than ever. You saw the
veteran criminals, who should have been deported or imprisoned long ago, riot
and yell at the House Committee, an official delegation of the highest
governmental authority in our nation. You will not have failed to recognize in
them rabid beasts grown insolent with long impunity. You saw also the rioting
swarms of young creatures that had crawled out from the woodwork of the
University of California and other tax-supported institutions of “higher
learning.” You had an opportunity to study their hate-contorted faces.
You can see fledgling Oswalds in the flesh whenever, as
occasionally happens, a loyal American is permitted to speak on or near a
college campus. The young “progressives” will be there to jeer and quibble.
It will be instructive to observe how many are deformed in body or feature as
well as mind, and, if you approach near enough, you can see the hatred
glistening in beady eyes. (For a close approach, a handkerchief sprinkled with
ammonia will minimize the discomfort.) And you should reflect that you are
financing, directly through taxes or contributions or indirectly through the
institution’s tax-exemption, the hatching and “education” of young
murderers.
You can see the species wherever you look. And with just a
little patience and dexterity, you can make all but the most hardened and
experienced disclose their inner emotions—perhaps in a spate of verbiage, but
at least for a moment in an unguarded word or glare in the eyes; and you will
feel like a swimmer who has glimpsed, six fathoms down, the flat, greenish
flicker of a turning shark.
You can see them on television, on the floor of Congress,
and in their pulpits; you can read them in the Press. And you need have no
doubts. Whether they are trying crudely or subtly to use the Communists’
assassination of Kennedy to incite hatred against “right-wing extremists,”
you can no longer fancy that they are just ignorant “intellectuals” with
mixed-up ganglia. They are lying. They are lying with conscious calculation.
They are lying with murderous intent.
You cannot mistake them when, in your very presence and
with breath-taking effrontery, they discharge the diseased hatreds and homicidal
lusts that fester in their gangrenous little minds.
From direct observation, you, as an American, can now
recognize your enemy and know what he is. And if ever you are tempted to doubt
the evidence of your own eyes and ears, remember that such monsters are no
novelty—that in the brief span of man’s sad and dolorous history one can
find almost innumerable instances of recrudescent savagery and of the frenzied
and exacerbated rage of anthropoid beasts that cannot bear to be dragged toward
civilization and humanity. The best illustration in a book that I have seen is
Louis Zoul’s Thugs and Communists
(Public Opinion, Long Island City 4; cf. American
Opinion, January, 1962, pp. 29-36).
The vital thing is that you, as an American, realize that
you are being hunted by a feral and stealthy pack. And that this is no
nightmare, from which you will
automatically awaken in a moment, nor yet is it a vision excited by the writers
who strove to be more outré than Poe.
That is a reality which you must face, if you are to survive at all.
The Time Is Now
With the nature of our enemies thus made manifest, and with
such unmistakable indications of their numbers and power, an American who does
not wilfully close his eyes and drug his mind can scarcely escape a perception
of the magnitude and immediacy of our peril. This is the year of decision. We
cannot hope for a complete victory this year, but we must end thirty years of
unvaried retreat and, for a change, advance a little to recover some of the
ground we have lost and to turn the tide of battle. A mere stalemate is scarcely
possible, and another defeat will be our last. With another defeat, you and I
may not be alive in 1965—or, if we are, we may regret it.
Now that Providence has given us a last chance, we must use
it wisely and well. We must act with courage and determination, and, above all,
with a rational and realistic understanding of our situation. We are fighting
against enormous, though not insuperable odds, and we shall need the utmost
effort of every American who will work with us. Our greatest handicap is that
we, unlike our enemies, do not have a unified and secret command which plans the
total strategy without need to disclose or explain it to anyone, and which
carries out that strategy by issuing orders that are obeyed without question.
Against a conspiracy that makes its decisions in secret and coordinates with the
efficiency of a single organism the movements of its numerous and often hidden
tentacles, we can oppose only the voluntary efforts of individuals who are
loosely organized into a large number of voluntary organizations, which must, in
turn, voluntarily cooperate with one another. In these circumstances a secret
strategy is impossible, and we must rely on the rationality and self-control of
responsible individuals to supply that minimum of unity without which we could
do nothing against a conspiracy that has almost absolute control over its agents
through its appeal to their criminal instincts, their complicity in past crimes,
and, if need be, fear.
Our enemies plan in secret, but they have a standard
technique for dealing with Americans that has long been obvious to every
observer. While the vast majority of Americans are kept, so far as possible, in
a state of ignorant complacency and confusion by the lie-machine, conservative
and patriotic organizations are destroyed by inciting them to fight one another
and by paralyzing them with internal dissension. That technique has been used
for more than forty years, and, without exception until the past few years,
accomplished its purpose speedily and infallibly. Its success depended partly
upon our enemies’ vast financial resources and long experience in covert and
subtle manipulation of individuals, but even more on the fact that loyal
Americans are divided in their personal interests and beliefs.
That we Americans are so divided is our basic weakness in
the present struggle, but it is not one of which we need be ashamed. It is the
weakness of all societies of free men, and hence it is, in large part, precisely
what we are trying to preserve. But our conflicts of interest and belief must be
candidly admitted and accurately defined, if we are not to succumb to the
manipulations of our enemies.
The Unity Of Dissension
As Americans, our one bond of effective unity is the
American tradition, which is, in its essentials, a severely practical
one. It is our first and most urgent duty to take a lesson from our forefathers,
the citizens of the thirteen colonies, who, confronted by overwhelming odds,
achieved independence because they had the intelligence and self-control never
to lose sight of their real objective; although the colonies were deeply divided
by opposed economic interests, vehement religious dissensions, and cultural
differences that were, within the ambit of Western civilization, comparatively
great. The governing bodies of each colony well knew that they could make an
extremely advantageous settlement by deserting the other twelve. And the larger
colonies must have been often tempted to seek opportunities, during the long
struggle, of extending their influence and power at the expense of others in the
hope of dominating whatever confederation might come out of independence.
A desperate undertaking, which most political analysts
would have pronounced impossible a priori
for peoples so sundered by divergent interests and creeds, succeeded
because—and only because—our forefathers were able to transcend those
differences and maintain an effective unity for the specific and strictly
limited purpose of attaining political freedom.
Our task as Americans today is to attain and maintain an
effective unity for the specific and strictly limited purpose of (a) preserving
our national independence by recovering our federal government from the
international vermin who have stealthily captured it, and (b) restoring as
rapidly as may be—and that will be over a period of more than a decade—our
Constitutional government that those vermin have all but totally subverted. As a
practical imperative, all other
purposes, however passionately important they may be to us personally, must be
recognized as secondary and even irrelevant, so far as the cause in which we
must unite is concerned.
Our problem, I grant, is far more complex and delicate than
that which confronted our forefathers. Their opponents were men who frankly and
honorably declared themselves and disdained disguise. Our enemies are secret
criminals whose principal weapon has always been deceit, dissimulation, and
stealthy subversion. But our problem, surely, is not beyond the power of reason.
And we should derive a stimulus to use it from the consideration that we have
much more at stake than did our forefathers.
Who Is The Enemy?
Every one of us who tries to calculate our chances of
victory must be continually astonished, and not infrequently dismayed, by the
fantastic fact that what should be our greatest strength is also our greatest
weakness. We have so indulged our human propensities to sentimentality and
emotionalism, and we have been so subtly conditioned to fear shibboleths and
bugaboos, that we squander in acrimonious debate over conjectures the energies
which, if rationally directed, could save us from annihilation.
Our enemy is the International Communist Conspiracy. Of
that, there can be no possible doubt. Every time the fetid nest of vermin in
Washington spends our money and (usually) the lives of American soldiers to
enslave and barbarize another country, that country is invariably handed over to
Communists—never to Fabian Socialists, Illuminati, or similar groups. East
Germany, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, China, Cuba, and the many others are all
obviously and notoriously Communist
provinces. And it is perfectly obvious that what the nest is preparing for the
United States, through “civil rights,” disarmament, and the like, is a Communist regime.
Although the Conspiracy is secret, we have learned a great
deal about it by (a) studying its operations, and (b) utilizing the testimony of
defectors from the Conspiracy and of our own counter-espionage agents who were
able to penetrate some distance into the organization. The information thus
obtained is necessarily incomplete, and, for obvious reasons, it becomes the
more scanty, the nearer we approach the Conspiracy’s inner core; and fails us
completely before we reach that core.
The information that we have is sufficient to give us a
good working knowledge of the general structure of the Conspiracy, although, of
course, there are a great many details and possibly some very important elements
about which we urgently need to know more.
Only the most naïve persons today are puzzled by the
operations of what is the lowest level in the Conspiracy (although it includes
persons of great social or political prominence). The Conspiracy, engaged in
total subversion, naturally finds and exploits all the weaknesses that are
inherent in our society as in all human societies. It finds, and uses as its
unconscious instruments, fat-heads and dunces who can be stirred to glutinous
sentimentality or a rancorous resentment of their betters. But it uses above all
the criminal tendencies that always have been present in all large populations
and always will be present to the utmost verge of the foreseeable future. Every
large aggregation of human beings produces, by biological necessity, its
sneak-thieves, robbers, shysters, “intellectuals,” perverts, sadists, and
other degenerates. As is known to everyone who has thought about it at all, the
continued existence of a civilization, like that of a large city, depends on the
efficiency of the sewage system that disposes of its organic waste: On this
level, all that the Conspiracy has to do is stop up the sewers (which civilized
societies seem naturally predisposed to neglect anyway, since no one likes to
think about such unpleasant necessities). By this time, we have all learned not
to waste time arguing whether a given person, who is knowingly serving the
Conspiracy’s ends, is a member, an accomplice, a hireling, or just a petty
criminal who has been given opportunity and encouragement.
The structure of the main Communist apparatus in this
country is reasonably clear. There is a large number of them and, so far as is
known, they operate independently of one another. The official Communist Party,
the more concealed “Trotskyite” apparatus, the military and naval espionage
rings directed from the various Soviet embassies, the industrial and
technological espionage directed from the various consulates, and the Secret
Police are all controlled directly from Moscow, and are believed to have no
contact with one another in this country, except that the Secret Police watch
all the others and probably supervise the transfer of talented criminals,
recruited by the Party, to the more secret units. The vast crypto-Communist
apparatus no longer has large cells, such as the one of which the infamous Hiss
was a member; and is now so organized that no cell has more than three members
and most of the criminals know the identity only of the superior from whom they
receive orders. Most observers believe that this operation is handled by the
Secret Police. There are other apparatus and transmission belts, some possibly
of strategic importance, which may
operate in this country independently of the ones I have mentioned. But given
the criminals’ success in preventing or halting all official inquiry into
their more clandestine activities in the United States, we can only speculate
about the chain of command in operations that we cannot even prove
to be Communist. Most observers would agree in identifying some of these by
cogent inference from copious circumstantial evidence; about others, so little
is known that competent observers differ widely in the surmises that they base
on admittedly fragmentary indications; and it is quite possible that there are
some whose true nature has not even been suspected.
So far as we know, however, the various Bolshevik apparatus
are controlled from Moscow. Whenever we can trace their organization at all, we
can follow the wires until they disappear in the massive walls of the Kremlin.
(In recent years, some circuits have been rewired so that the lines from this
country to go Peking; cf. American Opinion,
January, 1964, p. 71. That merely shows that a new exchange has been installed
for operational convenience.) All observers, I believe, would agree that, so far
as is known, the criminals in our country get their orders, directly or
indirectly, from Moscow.
Now there are very good reasons for believing that the foul
brute that is titular Boss in the Kremlin is merely a subordinate, an executive
of limited powers. So long as the unspeakable thing called Stalin was alive,
most (but not all) observers thought that he was the real head of the
Conspiracy. Events subsequent to the death (or, perhaps liquidation) of that
monster have made it increasingly apparent to judicious observers that the
organization of the Conspiracy is more complex than was once generally
supposed—that the bloody beast named Khrushchev is like a “star” in a show
on Broadway in that his personal appetites and eccentricities will, within
rather narrow limits, be tolerated, since he represents a considerable
investment in publicity; but who can always be fired by the producers of the
show, and will be eliminated the
minute the he gets out of hand so far as to endanger the success of production.
So, who are the producers?
The question may be too precipitately asked. Let us state
it first in more simple terms: Who controls Khrushchev and the organizations on
which his power is evidently based?
An experienced and highly qualified anti-Communist
organization, which has probably penetrated as far into the Kremlin and its
secrets as any human beings, summarized its findings in a report that the
Honorable Timothy P. Sheehan read to the House of Representatives on August 5,
1957. (You probably never heard of it. The unanimity with which daily liepapers
ignored sensational, and therefore potentially profitable, news, and the
extraordinary exertions made by prominent subhumans to avert the re-election of
Congressman Sheehan, serve only, so far as prudent ant rational Americans are
concerned, to validate and confirm the report he communicated to Congress.)
The kernel of this long and circumstantial report is that,
superior to Khrushchev and similar administrators, and superior even to the
Secret Police, is another and more select organization of truly international
scope, the Communist Security System (CSS), which has penetrated and controls
even the Secret Police. The existence of such an inner organization was first
suspected by cautious observers in 1939, when the purulent blob of anti-human
protoplasm called Nicolai Yezhov was blotted out and replaced by the equally
loathsome thing called Lavrenti Beria. That suspicion, however, remained
hypothetical, in the eyes of most observers, until 1953, when the ease with
which the Beria-thing was in turn liquidated made it apparent to thoughtful
analysts that the Secret Police, of which Beria had been the absolute and
unchallenged master, must be in turn subordinate to some inner and even more
secret apparatus. The CSS, as described in the report, precisely corresponds to
that more secret apparatus, as its characteristics were deduced by many
observers before the report was made public by a courageous and patriotic
Congressman at the cost of his own political career.
Not all qualified observers find the report on the
Communist Security System as convincing as I do, although I know of none who
would categorically reject it. Since no member of the CSS has ever defected and
confessed, the intelligence report concerning it can be corroborated only by
deduction and inference from numerous, scattered, often ambiguous, and sometimes
conflicting data. The most that any observer can say, therefore, is that he
accepts the report’s description of the CSS as highly probable, since it fits
the known patterns of conspiratorial organization and provides the most
comprehensive and consistent explanation thus far proposed of the facts which
indicate that the Conspiracy is controlled by some inner circle.
But if the CSS is the controlling organism, we have merely
pushed the ultimate question one step further back. Who controls the CSS?
That, of course, must be the darkest and most jealously
guarded secret of all. As was to be expected, the report can only state that
“the guiding [i.e. controlling] members of the Communist Security System”
are “fellow travelers, rich financiers, and secret Communists” whose
identity is known only to themselves and the few trusted agents through whom
they, as an invisible government, transmit their orders. That description
suggests—even implies—that most or all of the real directors of the
Conspiracy live outside of Soviet territory. There is nothing implausible in
that. Indeed, there never was any real evidence to support the gratuitous
assumption that the Conspiracy’s headquarters were moved to Russia after the
conquest of that country in 1917.
Our Secret Enemy
Whatever hypothesis we may form concerning the inmost
structure of the Communist Conspiracy, we can scarcely do other than postulate
that the supreme direction must come from some supreme council which, in all
probability, has not less than ten nor more than five hundred members. Whatever
we may suspect, we do not know who they are; we do not know where they meet or
how they communicate with one another; we do not even know what rational end (if
any) they propose to themselves other than a Satanic domination over the whole
world. We only know that they must be phenomenally intelligent and unutterably
evil.
Now, at the risk of laboring the obvious, we cannot too
often remind ourselves that our ultimate enemies are the members of that
council, whoever they are, however
they work, and whatever their secret
designs. And the International Communist Conspiracy by definition consists of
the unknown members of that council and all
of the instrumentalities and subordinate organizations that they direct. That is
the conspiracy that we must defeat, if we are not to perish most miserably at
its hands. And I do not see how any American who has observed what has been done
to his nation in recent years, and thought about it, could disagree with either
the definition or a statement that only the most dedicated and united efforts of
American patriots can save us from an imminent and unspeakable horror.
No reader of American
Opinion, I am sure, will be confused, even for an instant, by the
semantic quibble made possible by the fact that the Communist Conspiracy is not
directed by Communists, if by that term we mean persons who believe in
“Marxism.” The barbarous jargon and confusing twaddle of “dialectical
materialism” has always been what Marx designed it to be, an elaborate
deception triply useful for enlisting recruits, stultifying ignorant
“intellectuals,” and concealing serious purposes. On the lower levels of the
Conspiracy, many members of the Community Party believe, or pretend to believe,
that drivel as an article of faith; while the more sincere and intelligent rack
their brains trying to solve a set of quadratic equations that were designed to
be insoluble (and eventually they either defect or get the point and move upward
to the next level). We may be quite sure, I think, that anyone who attains the
rank of assistant to an immediate subordinate of a branch manager, such as
Castro, has left belief in “Marxism” as far behind him as belief in Santa
Claus. So, unless we find an adolescent’s pleasure in the paradox that
Khrushchev and his kind are not Communists, we must understand that by
“Communist” we mean a conscious participant in the International Conspiracy,
without reference to his real or feigned reasons for participation.
Some Theories
It has long been apparent that the Communist Conspiracy was
something quite different from the picture that its members tried to hold before
the general public. It was clear to judicious observers a century ago that the
degenerates who publicly headed or secretly financed the International were not
in the least interested in the “workers” or the “proletariat” about
whose “oppression” they pretended to snivel. When the Conspiracy effected
its first territorial conquest in 1917, only the simple-minded could describe as
“Russian” a revolution whose leaders and executives had, almost without
exception, swarmed into Russia a few months before the take-over, and have been
financed from both Germany and the United States, although those two nations
were technically at war with one another. And after the conquest of Russia, it
was clear that the total resources of that hapless and more than decimated land
were utterly inadequate to finance an international conspiracy. And although
Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and the rest were, without doubt, viciously cunning
monsters, it was extremely improbable that they had either the brains or the
time to direct such a conspiracy while discharging their duties as executives in
Russia and, incidentally, clawing at one another’s throats.
Long ago, therefore, observers very reasonably began to
look for a conspiracy behind the Soviet. The existence of such an inner or
directing conspiracy was strongly suggested, as I have said, by the known facts
in the history of Communism from the time of Marx to the present. It was also
indicated by analogy to the structure of criminal conspiracies known to history.
For example, Weishaupt’s Illuminati*
were organized in a set of concentric circles; all members, even those in the
outer circle, were given the impression that they were “on the inside,” but
the members of each inner circle regarded the members of outer circles as
neophytes to be prepared for more advanced work or as suckers who were useful
because they could be made to believe anything. The Assassins, founded by
Hasan-I-Sabbah, were similarly organized: The members of the lowest grade (Lasiqs)
were fanatical believers in the Koran
and Islam, while guru members of the grade next to the top (Da’i i-Kabir) found it difficult to keep a straight face while
talking to boobs they considered so stupid as to believe in Allah or any god.
Since it was clear that there was a conspiracy inside the
outer (Marxist) shell, it was only natural that attempts should be made to
identify it. Various sincere and thoughtful writers have positively identified
the inner conspiracy as composed of one of the following: “Force X,”
Illuminati, Satanists, “Bilderbergers,” Zionists, Pharisees, Khazars, Fabian
Socialists, International Bankers, Rockefellers, Rothschilds, or a gang of
otherwise unidentified “messianic materialists.” Good and authentic evidence
drawn from the present or the recent past can be assembled to support each of
these identifications, and it is easy to argue convincingly that each is right,
provided that we can assume an extraordinary degree of stupidity or
short-sighted venality in some or all of the others. And although some of the
groups I have listed overlap others, or may do so, it is clear that all
of them cannot be the one central
conspiracy. Furthermore, we cannot assume that there are a number of major
conspiracies independent of one another but all blithely working together today
with no thought of the morrow.
Let me take as my example the “Force X,” recently
brought into prominence by Kenneth de Courcy in his excellent and generally
reliable Intelligence Digest. And let
me hasten to add that, although I feel confident that I recognize the entity to
which Mr. de Courcy refers. I do not pretend to have at my disposal the mass of
information and documentation that has presumably been assembled by Mr. de
Courcy’s private intelligence organization, which largely consists of former
members of British Military Intelligence now stationed throughout the world as
representative of British industries or in similar capacities.
Mr. de Courcy has not
said that “Force X” was the inner core of that Communist Conspiracy, but
many of his readers have drawn that inference from the indications that he has
provided. Mr. de Courcy has described “Force X” as “basically a criminal
group,” which directs the entire drug traffic of the world,” high-class
prostitution and homosexual rings, and many other forms of profitable crime. But
he says that it “has made use of Communism,” that “in Russia, Trotsky,
Zhdanov, Beria, and Litvinov” were its agents (as were, in Germany, “both
Ludendorff and Himmler”) , and that its executive head, a homosexual and
necrophiliac degenerate, gave advice to Stalin and now advises both Khrushchev
and Mao Tse-tung. Mr. de Courcy concludes that “The alliance between this
person and Communism is very close, although there are fundamental clashes of
aim. Neither seems to mind that at present.”
It is at this point that I have my doubts. As Communist
agents and fuddled cops are forever telling us, there is only one world—and,
what is worse, it is less than 25,000 miles in circumference at the equator. It
is much, much too small for two
conspiracies of “One Worlders,” and if, perchance, there are two, the heads
of both must have realized long ago that the more successful they were, the
sooner one would have to liquidate the other to escape liquidation itself. I
could believe that “Force X” is subordinate to the International Communist
Conspiracy, and I could believe that “Force X” is the inner core of that
Conspiracy and so controls Khrushchev and similar vermin, but I cannot believe
that two wolves are peacefully munching one rabbit.
Less Blood-Pressure, Please
If not two, then not three or five or ten. What we have
said about “Force X” will apply,
mutatis mutandis, to any other conspiratorial group that we may consider in
connection with the Communists. Let us, therefore, draw some conclusions.
On the basis of the information supplied by Mr. de Courcy,
and on the basis of our own deductions concerning the probable structure of the
Conspiracy, we recognize that “Force X” may be:
(1) An inner circle, comparable to, if not identical with, the Communist
Security System.
(2) A formal arm of the Conspiracy, comparable to the official Communist
Party in the United States or the Secret Police, and like them controlled from
above.
(3) A large and highly organized gang of racketeers, who, like all
ordinary criminals, “take the cash and let the credit go,” intent only on
loot today and loot tomorrow, but with no long-range plans or cosmocratic
ambitions. Such a gang would naturally be encouraged and protected by the
Communists, and would naturally perform services for cash fees or in exchange
for protection and opportunities. (Note that China is now the principal source
of the narcotics commonly used by drug-addicts, so that one of the most
profitable branches of the gang’s business depends on supplies from Communist
territory.) This, however, would make the gang, for all practical purposes, a
Communist subsidiary or instrumentality, and it could not be “more powerful”
than its employers.
Those are, I think, the three most probable explanations, but others are possible, viz.:
(4) That our inferences about the Conspiracy are incorrect, and that
“Force X” and the Communists really are independent in the sense that
neither controls the other.
(5) That the data supplied by Mr. de Courcy are wrong, in part or in
their entirely, either because his informants were mistaken or because they were
supplied with false information (a common trick in all intelligence work) or
because they or Mr. de Courcy have some interest in deceiving us. Thus “Force
X,” as described to us, may not exist at all.
Now we may differ widely in the percentage of probability
that we assign to each of these five explanations, and it will certainly do no
harm to argue about them for the purpose of clarifying our own thinking and of
eliciting from one another such incidental information as each of may have that
is relevant to the subject. But obviously, no one of the five hypotheses is certainly
right or certainly wrong. And I trust
that no one will place an extraordinary strain on his neuro-vascular system to
shout at the rest of us.
Serious argument is futile when what we obviously need is
more evidence. That evidence is available. A great deal must now be in the
possession of various police forces throughout the United States and either has
not been assembled or has been suppressed by political pressures. A vast amount
of evidence was concealed when the gang around Mr. Macmillan succeeded in
covering up the Profumo scandals, but the greater part of it is still there. In
the opinion of the best informed observers, a thorough
investigation of the activities of Bobbie Baker, and his high-ranking
accomplices in the Administration, would uncover a vast cesspool of corruption
necessarily connected with the one in England, because some specialists in vice
and crime shuttle back and forth from one country to the other. Probably any one
of the hundreds of known nests of drug-addicts, perverts, and degenerates in
Washington (or others found in any large city) would expose a trail that could
be followed back to the lair of some criminal syndicate or subsidiary thereof.
What “Force X” is or is not can be ascertained only by
systematic and relentless inquiry conducted with governmental powers; and while
it might take a long time for such an investigation to attain certainty, every
bit of additional evidence would enable us to calculate probabilities more
accurately. In the meantime, you can’t prove anything by waving your arms.
Horrid Hypotheses
So far as I can see, all hypotheses regarding conspiracies
that may be associated with the Communist Conspiracy are in the same status as
views about “Force X.” The evidence comes, of course, from other sources, is
of varying degrees of probability, can be reconciled with more or less
difficulty with what we know or think we can deduce with some assurance
concerning the Communists, and is susceptible to different ranges of alternative
interpretations. In some cases religious belief will strongly affect our
estimates: A formidable and powerful conspiracy of Satanists will seem likely
only to those who believe in a devil having the power to intervene, directly or
indirectly, in the affairs of this world. In others, a recognition of adverse
interests or inveterate antipathies is very likely to color our opinions. But we
are certainly dealing with hypotheses based on inadequate data. The most
probable cannot be reasonably stated as a certainty; the least probable cannot
reasonably be pronounced an impossibility. To prove or disprove anything, we
shall need many more facts than we now have at our disposal.
I confess that I cannot understand the extraordinary amount
of passion that can be generated by violent asseverations and hysterical
denunciations of theses that can be established or refuted only by ascertaining
facts. Quarrels on this subject remind me of two men whom I once saw engage in a
violent brawl to determine which of two teams would win a ball game on the
following day. I could not but wonder whether they imagined that their exertions
would, through some sympathetic or methectic magic, affect the result.
Less Heat, More Light
No display of temper will change historical facts. The
hair-pulling matches in which some Americans engage to vindicate their favorite
hypotheses would be comic, if they were not tragic in their consequences:
personal antagonisms, disruption of conservative organizations, and, quite
possibly, defeat and death for all of us. I should suppose that even the most
perfervid champions of antithetical hypotheses would realize, if they paused to
think about it for a moment, that the only way to settle their argument—to say
nothing of accomplishing something for their country—is to unite in demanding
of their state and federal governments the kind of searching and unremitting
inquiry into the Communist Conspiracy that we have urgently needed for fifty
years and have never had.
Few Americans realize that all of our uncertainties and the
futile quarrels that they occasion are directly caused by the International
Communist Conspiracy’s success in stifling, frustrating, or preventing
official investigation. A raid, carried out jointly by the State of Michigan and
Federal officers in 1922 on the headquarters of a nest of homicidal vermin
disclosed evidence that should have scared every sober American as much as
though a bullet had whizzed past his ear. But the net result was that a gang of
subversives, headed by the malodorous Felix Frankfurter, stopped in 1925 all
Federal investigation of the enemies in our midst. Nothing more was done by our
Federal government, despite its obligation under the Constitution to protect us
from foreign enemies, until a great American, Martin Dies of Texas, established
what became the House Committee on Un-American Activities (see his new book, Martin Dies’ Story; The Bookmailer, New York; $5.00). Mr.
Dies’ committee accomplished a great deal, despite open opposition and
clandestine harassment from the great War Criminal in the White House and the
scabrous louts with which that being surrounded himself.
In the Senate, a valiant beginning was made by Senator
McCarthy, but we all know what happened to him; and we all know that all inquiry
into treason in Washington was effectively stopped when Eisenhower issued his
un-Constitutional order to protect the vicious vermin lodged in our government
from interrogation.
Both the House and the Senate Committees have done the best
that they could, I believe, in the face of enormous pressures from the criminals
who had captured the Treasury of the United States and could use our money to
prevent us from learning about our blood-thirsty enemies. But such inquiries
were necessarily limited to the peripheral and superficial.
Some years ago, Judge Robert Morris, one of the most
experienced and staunch of all Congressional investigators, in a radio
broadcast, stated that no Congressional committee had ever
been able to investigate subversion and treason effectively, because the
investigation, whenever it began to approach the higher echelons of the
Conspiracy, was stopped by “irresistible
pressures.”
Obviously, what we Americans must do, if we wish to go on
living, is to generate pressures which make those that once seemed
“irresistible” seem as puny as the waving of a cockroach’s antennae.
The information is there and available in vast quantities.
It is constantly and almost automatically coming to light; the trouble is that,
if you read the liepapers, you never hear of it. For example, in December of
1963, Texas Rangers, on the authority of the Attorney General of Texas, raided a
criminal hang-out and discovered documents that astonished even seasoned
observers. The membership of the Communist Party in Texas had been officially
estimated at about five hundred. That was obviously too low, but few were
prepared for the discovery of a list containing the names of ten
thousand international criminals, members or conscious accomplices of the
Conspiracy, residing in Texas. As I write, it is rumored that Earl Warren, if
not soon impeached and brought to trial, will make heroic efforts to suppress
that list, acting either in his capacity as Boss of the Warren Crew in the
Supreme Court Building or in his capacity as chairman of Johnson’s special
Committee to Conceal. Whether these efforts succeed will depend on you, my
fellow Americans.
Armageddon
I venture to suggest—even to urge—that we Americans
suspend our vexatious disputaillerie
about conjectures and concentrate on our united efforts on obtaining the basic
information that we need, not merely to settle our arguments, but to survive.
I do not see how there can be a reasonable objection to
that policy, with which even the most incensed should concur. We are prudent men
and we therefore know that every prudent man knows that—if it happens that he
is unjustly accused of a crime of which he is innocent—he cannot destroy
public documents and sandbag witnesses on their way to the Grand Jury without
arousing some grave suspicions that he may be less innocent than a new-born lamb
on the hills of Arcadia.
We must obtain all possible information quickly, and we
must be willing, as reasonable and practical men, to pay the requisite price for
it, recognizing that the primary responsibility for the demoralization of
American life falls on you and me, who were too timid, too busy, or too lazy to
do anything about it during the past fifty years. That means, specifically, that
we must be prepared to condone and forget venial sins in public life—anything,
that is, which is short of treason. We could all argue for a year, vehemently
and inconclusively, about what should be a general standard of sexual morality.
I hope that we would agree, however, that that standard, however much we prize
it, is less important than our lives and those of our children. That question is
vital, if, as informed sources in Washington assert, fifty-five Senators—a
majority, mind you—are now kept in line by blackmail made possible by
highly-trained and expert “call girls” operating, at the expense of American
taxpayers, in collaboration with secret agents who installed concealed
microphones and hidden cameras, including infra-red equipment. That, it is said,
explains votes for “disarmament” and also explains the massive resistance
that would be opposed to any proposal for an open and searching investigation.
In the present crisis, I think it not too much to ask of even Mrs. Grundy that
she look the other way for a while.
In the meantime, we certainly know enough about our enemies
to attack effectively the Conspiracy on fronts that can absorb all our energies.
Enough of our enemies have exposed themselves in acts of open treason to make
inquiry into their motives or antecedents a waste of time. And time is what we
cannot afford to waste: We have so little of it left.
It is entirely possible that we may never be able to
identify the head of the octopus, but that will matter little, if we can lop off
enough of its tentacles.
I know that apocalyptic visions of cosmic disaster are
usually born of disordered imaginations. I know that men tend always to
exaggerate the important of their own countries and hence of the crises of the
moment. But look as I will, I cannot see a future for Western civilization
anywhere in the world, if the United States is lost. What another race may do in
five hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years is beyond our prevision; but
the fate of human civilization as we know it depends, I fear, on what we do this
year.
This is not Valley Forge: Had our forefathers lost, they
would have reverted to the status of British colonies and still have enjoyed a
good fortune greater than that of most of the rest of civilized mankind. This is
Châlons or Tours, and the issue, quite simply, is whether the world’s most
hated minority, the Christian West, shall be forever obliterated by the infinite
barbarism of irrational hordes. Or, to put it in less general terms, the issue
is whether your children will regret having been born.
* See American Opinion, June, 1962, pp. 33-37.
Back to Part
I
Back to Revilo P. Oliver
Back to Pre-WCR Reactions by the Right
Back to Pre-WCR Reactions
Back to WC Period