Russia – Bastion of Traditionalism?

Cultural Marxism is at the root of the chaos we see in the world today. Feminism and LGBT mania, for instance, are communist front movements. The entire spectrum of anti-traditional trends has been promoted by the communist conspiracy since day one. Russia picked up the Marxist-feminist standard with the advent of Bolshevism and has carried it ever since. The purpose of today’s article is to obliterate the prevalent notion that Russia is a family-friendly “bastion of traditionalism” and share the truth that Russia is the true home of modern feminism.

feminism12

I can’t express how dismayed I am every time I see a self-proclaimed traditionalist, or a fellow Christian, refer to Russia in glowing terms. In “trad” social media groups and on traditionalist pages and websites, I routinely encounter people parroting Moscow’s propaganda about how “traditional” Russia is, how “feminine” the women are, how Russia is a “bastion of masculinity,” how there is a Christian “revival” occurring, and how wonderful Vladimir Putin is. Each and every point just mentioned flies in the face of the facts and is an inversion of reality.

I will focus primarily on the first three of the five points listed. Before discussing the first item, perhaps we should address we mean by “traditionalism.” Apart from the obvious definition that traditionalism means upholding tradition, regardless of what that tradition is, the sense in which the word is used today is defined by Google as “the theory that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition, human reason being incapable of attaining it.”

This is an accurate enough definition, though in popular parlance it usually refers to culture and families. Traditionalism is a culture. It is a mentality and philosophy. It is a way of life. Those who live a “traditional” life are those who embrace marriage, create families, are sexually upright, reject degeneracy, and are generally conservative and modest in manners, dress, appearance, and behavior. Traditionalism is heavily linked – I would argue inexorably linked – to Christian values and Christian views on marriage, family, and morality.

With this in mind, is Russia a “bastion of traditionalism”? That is, does Russia, as a society, embrace the traditional or Christian perspective of marriage, family, sexual purity, modesty, and upright behavior? Any honest examination of the reality on the ground – and I have seen that reality firsthand as I lived in Russia for two years and spent my days talking with average folks and meeting inside their homes – must conclude that Russia is not a traditional society.

Let’s analyze a few statistics and points of history. We must remember that Russia was conquered by the alien Bolshevik forces in 1917. The first communist regime was approximately 85% Jewish. That is, it was virulently anti-Christian and devoid of morals. Christian chapels were looted and then literally demolished. Priests were shot. Nuns were raped. And Orthodox cathedrals all across Russia were converted into “Museums of Atheism,” complete with pagan statues and blatantly anti-Christ exhibits. This had the effect of hardening the people and they remain hardhearted towards religion in general to this day, only attending church on holidays to gawk and take pictures at the astonishingly fanatical and theatrical displays of Orthodox priests.

communism759

The rhyming caption reads: “Religion is Poison. Protect Children.” It shows the Christian woman as an old, oppressive hag thwarting the child’s progression and desire to go to school by trying to force an outdated religion on her.

One of the Soviets’ first orders of business was to abolish church marriage and institute in its place civil marriage. In fact, they desired to abolish marriage altogether and began by replacing religious marriages with civil unions and figured the institution would “wither away” of its own accord. Some Communist Party members even performed “red marriages” in mockery of traditional Christian marriage.

The institution of marriage was and is viewed by the Marxists as inherently oppressive. They see marriage as slavery. It was in The Communist Manifesto that these enemies of humanity had threatened the “abolition of the family” throughout the world. In harmony with this evil design, the Reds began destroying marriage in Russia. In 1925, a Soviet publication in boasted:

Already the Soviet power has freed [marriage] from any superfluous shackles, has eliminated from it all religious and ecclesiastical survivals. . . . Marriage in Soviet legislation has ceased to be a prison” (Harold J. Berman, “Soviet Family Law in the Light of Russian History and Marxist Theory,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 56, Issue 1, 36, 1946).

Indeed, the communists made marriage an irrelevant and unnecessary formality of social life. Not just marriage, but the family as a whole was also targeted. After effecting their coup, the Bolsheviks set to work rewriting the Russian Family Code. Soviet Russia became the first nation to institute no-fault divorce. Divorce became so absurdly easy that you could actually send your spouse a letter in the mail saying “we’re divorced” and it was legally binding. In this sort of culture, marriage lost its sacred stature and divorce became the norm. They legalized abortion-on-demand and even subsidized it. And they did their best to collectivize children and make sure they were raised out of the home and in public schools where they could be indoctrinated in Marxist thought.

Russia Beyond gives us a glimpse into the Soviet attack on traditionalism. In his article “How sexual revolution exploded (and imploded) across 1920s Russia,” Alexander Rodchenko wrote:

““On the abolition of marriage” and “On civil partnership, children and ownership” were among the first decrees of the Soviets in 1918. Church weddings were abolished, civil partnership introduced. Divorce was a matter of choice. Abortions were legalized. All of that implied a total liberation of family and sexual relations. This heralded the beginning of the raunchiest epoch in recent Russian history.

A relaxed attitude to nudism was a vivid sign of the times: on the bank of the Moskva river, near the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour [which Stalin later blew up and replaced with the world’s largest swimming pool], a nude beach formed, the likes of which Western Europe could not have dreamed of at the time. . . .

communism787

Rape by 1920s has become an epidemic. Quite strikingly, sexual violence towards former noble and bourgeois women was for a time even considered “class justice” among the proletarian males. Meanwhile, up to 20 percent of Russia’s male population had carried sexually-transmitted diseases . . . New laws on marriage and the overall atmosphere of breaking with the past encouraged promiscuity and casual approach to sex, unthinkable just years ago.

Soviet society was breeding a dangerous generation of homeless orphans – official reports indicate that, by 1923, half of the children born in Moscow had been conceived out of wedlock, and many of them were abandoned in infancy.”

Yes, the Marxist sexual revolution was in full swing in Russia before most in the West had even contemplated it. It make havoc of families and homes and left, as you have seen and will see, a trail of societal desolation, broken hearts, and destroyed individuals in its wake – just as it was designed to do.

One of the best analyses of the family during this dark era of history is found in Paul Kengor’s superb book Takedown. I excise several choice paragraphs and share them with you:

The disciples of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were committed to a revolution in family life, to a radical rupture in traditional relations between husband and wife and parents and children. Their first and most ardent practitioners, the Bolsheviks, followed the new faith with reckless abandon. . . .

The Russian Orthodox Church’s long-standing prohibition against divorce was lifted by the Bolsheviks, leading to an explosion in divorce rates and utter havoc upon the Russian family. The dramatic combined effect of an immediate full liberalization of divorce laws and institution of “red weddings” became especially acute with the corresponding complete legalization of abortion in 1920, which was an unprecedented action anywhere in the world at the time. With those changes and the squashing of the Russian Orthodox Church and its guidance in marriage and families and children and education and more, Lenin and his allies dealt a severe blow to marital and family life in traditionally religious Russia. Right out of the gate, within the first months and years after they seized power, the Bolsheviks had initiated these jolts to society. . . . .

In the Soviet Union and other subsequent communist countries that followed suit, the effect on marriage and the family was nothing short of catastrophic. The divorce rate skyrocketed to levels unseen inhuman history. In short order, it seemed as though everyone in Moscow had a divorce. One Russian man, painfully recalling his boyhood years from the late 1920s, stated, “The years 1929 to 1932 were the unhappiest period for my family. At that time there were many cases of divorce. Many of our acquaintances got divorced. It was like an epidemic.”

The numbers grew worse decade by decade. As one study reported in the 1960s, “it is not unusual” to meet Soviet men and women who had been married and divorced upwards of fifteen times.

The world certainly took notice of this domestic carnage. It looked to outsiders as if these communists really were looking to abolish marriage. In fact, it is instructive that the influential American magazine the Atlantic published a 1926 piece with the title “The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage.”

If divorce was an epidemic in the USSR, abortion was a black plague.

The Bolsheviks legalized abortion shortly after they seized power. Like divorce, it was a rare area where the communists allowed for individual freedom. Here they enacted full privatization. So long as the family went up in flames, it seemed, the communists would eagerly allow full and free private ownership of gasoline and matches – with no rationing. You weren’t free to own a farm or factory or business or bank account or go to church or print your own newspaper, but if you wanted a divorce or abortion, the sky was the limit in Bolshevik Russia.

Having overthrown the ship of state and murdered the entire Romanov family in July 1918 – a fitting symbol to the coming war on the family – Vladimir Lenin made good on his June 1913 promise for an “unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions.” By 1920, abortion was fully and legally available and provided free of charge to Russian women. The number of abortions skyrocketed.

communism802

By 1934 Moscow women were having three abortions for every live birth, shocking ratios that American women, in the worst, wildest throes of Roe v. Wade, never approached. The toll was so staggering that an appalled Joseph Stalin, the mass murderer, actually banned abortion in 1936, fearing a vanishing populace. . . .

. . . A more progressive Nikita Khrushchev put things back in order in 1955, reversing Stalin’s abortion ban (and ramping up religious persecution), thus allowing rates to ascend to heights heretofore unwitnessed in human history. One authoritative source from the late 1960s reported, “One can find Soviet women who have had twenty abortions.”

By the 1970s, the Soviet Union was averaging 7 to 8 million abortions per year, annihilating whole future generations of Russian children. (America, with a similar population, averaged nearer 1.5 million abortions per year after Roe was approved in 1973.)” (Paul Kengor, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, 32-35).

Let’s build on this information with a few more quotations. The next statements come from the 1926 article Kengor mentioned titled “The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage.” It informs us:

The question whether marriage as an institution should be abolished is now being debated all over Russia with a violence and depth of passion unknown since the turbulent early days of the Revolution. . . .

One must live in Russia to-day, amid the atmosphere of torment, disgust, and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, the chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that hover over the Russian family, to understand the reasons for this heated discussion, for these passionate pros and cons.

When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, like every other ‘bourgeois’ institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with a will to destroy it. ‘To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of the ages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,’ declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term ‘illegitimate children.’ This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it. . . .

At the same time a law was passed which made divorce a matter of a few minutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage. Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.

communism799

Street children in Stalin’s USSR

Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another,’ asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. ‘They have children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support! (There are three hundred thousand bezprizorni or shelterless children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts. It is claimed by many Communists that the break-up of the family is responsible for a large percentage of these children.)

The peasant villages have perhaps suffered most from this revolution in sex relations. An epidemic of marriages and divorces broke out in the country districts. Peasants with a respectable married life of forty years and more behind them suddenly decided to leave their wives and remarry. Peasant boys looked upon marriage as an exciting game and changed wives with the change of seasons. It was not an unusual occurrence for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions.”

This is only a snippet. I encourage you to read the full article at this link. I urge you to comprehend that communism brought about the destruction of the family in Russia – and that the wreckage can be seen everywhere today. And we need not try to divorce feminism from communism, for it was the Bolshevik revolutionary Inessa Armand (who also had an affair with Lenin) who proudly boasted:

If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.”

Suffice it to say that Soviet Russia obliterated the family unit and destroyed the institution of marriage. Human life was made cheap and infanticide reached mind-boggling proportions. Marriage lost its significance and divorce became something everyone did. Even homosexuality and transgenderism flourished in the early days of the Soviet Union, with one Russian writer commenting that “members of the gay community were incredibly brave – some wore women’s dresses and corsets, wore their hair long and often looked like real women.”

communism803

Those who think the West introduced feminism and LGBT madness to Russia need to get their story straight – it was the other way around. We are just starting to really deal with those problems that have plagued Russia for over a century. The Bolsheviks deliberately exported these feminist ideas everywhere they could – particularly to the West – with the deliberate intention of weakening us so that we would succumb to their world revolution. It was the Jewish-Marxist radical Willi Munzenberg, of Frankfurt School fame, who is quoted as saying: “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” Sadly, their efforts have nearly succeeded – though thankfully our culture doesn’t yet stink as badly as Russian culture.

This is the awful legacy and crumbling foundation modern Russia is working from. While you can perhaps say today’s Russia is an improvement, the difference is negligible. Despite the carefully-concocted propaganda, Russian society has yet to break free from Soviet norms and is still further advanced down the road of cultural Marxism than the United States. Russian women still abort far more of their babies than their American counterparts and have a lower birth rate. And Russia has a staggering 60% divorce rate – the highest in the world. Russian homes are in tatters and their culture remains hostile to the traditional family. In no sense whatsoever can Russia be considered a “bastion of traditionalism.”

Let’s now move on to the second point. How feminine are Russian women? And do they really reject “Western” feminism as we so frequently hear? Sadly, the answer is no, they’re not particularly feminine and they don’t reject feminism. I’m convinced that most people believe Russian women are feminine because a good many Russian women are exceptionally attractive and, outwardly, dress in skirts and heels and always do up their face and hair. But is this what real femininity is?

Wikipedia defines femininity as “a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with women and girls.” According to this definition, you might be able to get away with calling women “feminine” if you really stretch it. But when we couch this in terms of traditionalism, the attempt falls flat. Remember, part of being traditional is being modest and moral. Russian women are not modest. Trust me on this one. Russian women are in the habit of wearing very short skirts, revealing attire, and overdoing it on makeup and accessories. They spend an exorbitant amount of their money on cosmetics, furs, and fancy clothes and shoes.

And what about behavior? Part of being feminine is to act ladylike and fulfill womanly duties like motherhood. 65% of Russian women work – a substantially higher percentage than in the United States. That’s not terribly feminine. Why aren’t these “feminine” women at home with their children? Perhaps one reason they’re in the workplace instead of in the home is that they don’t have a family. Remember, 60% of Russian marriages end in divorce. Also, the birthrate in Russia is pitifully low and even lower than the U.S. birthrate at 1.75 children per family. Again, this behavior is not very feminine.

Furthermore, Russian women are bossy – like Western feminists. They’re often shrill – again, just like Western feminists. Frankly, they push the men around and I’ve seen them be both physically and verbally abusive. They also drink, do drugs, and sleep around at a higher rate than Western women (though, fortunately, alcohol consumption is decreasing). Russia has one of the most rapidly rising AIDS/HIV epidemics in the world due in large part to the rampant sexual immorality. Can women who break the Lord’s law of chastity honestly be considered feminine?

Russia5

Russians in general engage in many behaviors that are repugnant to most Americans, such as public urination and defecation (though San Francisco, Commiefornia apparently sees nothing wrong with this). It’s a real problem. I watched mothers teaching their young boys to pee on the road and in the streets – not in emergency situations, but as a matter of course. I’ve even seen grown women squatting on the side of the road doing their business as people walked by. Fortunately, American women haven’t yet followed that trend.

Prostitution and public indecency are also massive problems in Russia. I’ve never seen so many prostitutes in one place in my life as I did in Russia. You’d see them selling their bodies on the side of the road as their handlers waited in a dirty van behind them. Then, down the road, their mafia oversees sat in cars monitoring police radios so they could warn their girls to run if the cops were on their way. I witnessed this phenomenon on more than one occasion. It’s remarkable how fast some women can run in high heels. I guess, as Vladimir Putin said, Russia has the best hookers.

As for pornography, the “new drug” that is scourging the world, I saw men and women both looking at pornographic magazines and videos while riding on trains or public transport. Billboards could also be a tad too salacious at times and you’d see far too much skin whenever you saw people sunbathing or swimming. If you visited the markets (the same ones where ripped-off American products or cheap knockoffs of everything imaginable proliferated), you had to be careful where you looked.

It’s sad that the sex-industrial complex is so well-established that we have detailed analytics on porn usage by country, region, state, gender, device type, day of the week, search category, and so forth, but we do. According to the data, Russia ranks 12th in global traffic to the world’s largest online porn site and their top search category is “Russian.” And there are a lot of Russian porn stars to search considering that Russia ranks #2 in the world (behind, tragically, our own country) in contributing female “actresses” to pornographic films (five of the top ten porn-star-contributing nations are Russia and four of its “former” Soviet satellites).

Russia9

In short, Russian women are gripped by feminism without even realizing it. No, they don’t consider themselves feminist – but neither do American women if statistics are to be believed. Yet, the feminist culture dominates. It is exhibited in habits and thought patterns. Russian women, like women in the West at the present time, are conditioned to believe that they are “liberated” by being single and sexually debauched, “free” when they murder their offspring, and “fulfilled” when they work. They are not submissive ladies and are in fact more willing to walk all over you, hit you, curse you out, cheat on you, or divorce you than American women are. Simply, don’t buy the hype about the “feminine” Russian woman.

The third and final point on our list I will cover only briefly. There is a myth circulating on the internet, perpetuated largely by Marxist-controlled Hollywood, that Russian men are masculine and strong. Sorry to burst the bubble, but this is laughably untrue. The Hollywood image of a tall, broad, muscular man with a great big beard is the polar opposite of reality in today’s Russia. Most Russian men are short, scrawny, and look as if they’ve been on a concentration camp diet. On a daily basis, I’d shake hands with people I met with on the streets. And on a daily basis Russian men audibly gasped and winced when I shook their hands. For the most part, they had a limp-wristed grip. A handshake really does tell you a lot about a person.

In 2007, I participated in a three-on-three basketball tournament in the small city of Ramenskoye to the south of Moscow. One of the opposing teams had a player from the Russian national basketball team on it. When we played them, I guarded the professional player. I held him scoreless and usually out-rebounded him even though he was one of the few Russians I ever met who was taller than me (I’m almost 6’1” and at the time I had lost thirty pounds and weighed only 160 lbs.). He was frustrated and thought I played too rough. I played against Russians in basketball, soccer, tackle football, and gatorball and in each case Russian men and boys wined about how physical Americans played (I’ve read that pro players from other countries almost universally observe the same thing when they come to America to play). In truth, they were simply unfit wimps. Physically, the average Russian man is a pitiful specimen.

Russia10

Hollywood is not reality

Naturally, there’s more to masculinity and character than physicality. A real man should be chivalrous, gentlemanly, courteous, polite, hard-working, a protector of women, have an upright character, be totally loyal to his wife and marriage covenants, and so forth. When this is applied to Russian men, however, they fail again. Russian men are, as a whole, drunkards. They also use a large amount of drugs.

In the city of Mytishchi where I lived for a time, you’d see drug needles littering the streets and our church building happened to be located in what people called “the drug area” (which was also home to numerous prostitutes and mafia groups). Russian SWAT routinely raided our neighbor’s property looking for drugs. In some cities, it was common to see Russians walking down the road with alcohol in one hand and a cigarette in the other. More times than I can count I’ve seen Russian men passed out in the street, peeing on themselves in public, convulsing from drugs in a corner alley, or dancing lewdly and making fools of themselves in front of everyone. The constant smell of cigarette smoke hanging in the air really completed the atmosphere.

Additionally, Russian men brawl and fight, curse and quarrel. It was routine to see men walking or staggering down the street covered in blood from either fighting or falling down drunk and bashing their face. The number of Russian men with missing or broken teeth was also astonishing – again, largely from brawling or drunkenness. And the number of Russian men who had been to prison – as evidenced by their tattoos – was also staggering.

As noted, Russian men get pushed around by their women (that is, when they’re not committing rape and murder at high rates). And why wouldn’t they? Russia is a feminist country – the first feminist country. It is a bastion of feminism and yet they don’t even realize it. Russian men (and, sadly, many Western men) see their raucous and dangerous behavior as some sort of masculinity. But it’s not real masculinity; it’s juvenile and crass. Drunkenness, fighting, prolific swearing (when I learned the various forms of the f-word in Russian, I was shocked at how commonplace their usage was), sexual unchastity, violent criminality, and physical unfitness do not a masculine nation make.

When you really look at the whole picture, Russia is not the “bastion of traditionalism” that propagandists and those who have been taken in by propaganda claim. I wish Russia was a bastion of Faith, Families, and Freedom. This is my wish for my own country and for every nation on earth. I yearn for the day when evil will be swept away, when the communist cancer will be eradicated, when feminism will die its natural death, when corruption and war are terminated, when sanity will prevail once more, when the Gospel of Jesus Christ sinks deep into every heart, and when Freedom will prevail.

feminism2

Sadly, we are not there yet and won’t be until the Lord returns in His glory. Until then, Russia stands as an enemy to the human race. The notion that “communism is dead” and “the USSR collapsed” is one of the most devastatingly effective ruses ever pulled on the world. The reality is that the Soviets faked their demise and communism never died. Indeed, the communist conspiracy is more powerful and prevalent than ever before. Russia, China, and their allies are in a strategically advantageous position over the West and the final clash draws closer despite Washington’s boast of strength and stability. You will live to see Russia and China strike the United States and initiate world war. Mark my words.

One final word is in order. You have doubtless noted the contempt in my tone. Let me make it clear that my contempt is for the Russian government and for the communist regime that so thoroughly demoralized and beat down the Russian people. I don’t hate the Russian people – I pity them. They are a product of communism – victims of the most wicked conspiracy ever created. I pity them and pray for them.

Here is the reality: Russia today is the America of tomorrow unless we root out the communist cancer among us. Russia is not following the West, as I so often hear, but we are following them – and to our detriment. From no-fault-divorce to civil marriages to abortion-on-demand to massive drunkenness to feminist women and emasculated men, Russia set the example and blazed the trail. And yet, still, there remain some fantastic individuals, including the most humble man I’ve ever met in my life – a spiritual giant from Ukraine who settled in Moscow who call Russia home.

I mentioned that I lived in Russia for two years. I was there as a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – one of the few foreign proselytizing churches that hasn’t been banned and kicked out by Putin’s regime (though Putin recently signed laws that severely restrict our ability to do the Lord’s work). I walked the streets speaking with Russians about their core beliefs, about their aspirations, and about their families. I met with them in their homes and churches. I visited the cities and villages. These people told me their life stories. They shared their beliefs about God. And some of them became lasting friends. I was even, for a short while after I returned home, engaged to a Russian gal.

My point is that I don’t hate the Russians. I love them and spent many nights on my knees praying for them. I do, however, hate communism. I hate the Russian regime that rules in Moscow and despise the KGB conspirator named Vladimir Putin who rules in the Kremlin and pretends he’s a Christian and traditionalist, despite his well-publicized affairs and broken marriage, so that the gullible will sympathize with and support Russia as some sort of world “savior.” Don’t fall for it.

One day, I firmly believe, though it will probably come only after a day of fire and cataclysm, Russia will throw off her shackles and become the Christian nation too many people wrongly believe she is now. The blood of Israel runs in their veins, as it does in the veins of most Caucasian peoples, and they have a glorious future. They will be gathered in by the Lord, but the time is not yet. At present, a communist pseudo-tsar rules in Moscow. Russia’s unparalleled stockpile of nuclear and biological weapons stands ready to be used to bring about the one-world order and one-world religion dreamed of by the global Elite. If we continue to allow the cultural Marxism imported into our nation by the Bolsheviks to infect us, we will be weak enough for the Elite to carry out their pre-planned strike.

It was this article’s purpose to wave the smelling salts under your nose to awaken you from the mental fantasy that Russia is a “bastion of traditionalism” and the hope of the world. Russia is, in truth, the home of feminism and the world leader in cultural degradation. The West is the way it is because we have followed Russia’s example. If we seek to reverse the trends, we need to stop listening to Russian propaganda and those who buy into it and instead cling to the traditions, values, and institutions that made Western Christian civilization great.

communism247

As Americans, we must rush forward to defend our Faith, Families, and Freedom against Marxist machinations whether promoted by Washington, Moscow, Tel Aviv, London, or Beijing. Our only hope is in turning to the Lord Jesus Christ and in rejecting all anti-Christ philosophies. If we seek traditionalism, we must look for it here at home – not on the Red steppes of Russia.

Zack Strong,

January 16, 2020

The Great Betrayal – How China Turned Red

“I have unswerving faith in the re-emergence of my country as a free united nation and in the eventful triumph of freedom over slavery throughout the world.” – General Chiang Kai-shek, Soviet Russia in China, 349.

In 1949, China was conquered by the communists led by Mao Tse-tung. Under Chairman Mao’s iron rule, the Reds slaughtered between 60 and 100 million innocent Chinese and threw tens of millions more in brutal labor and reeducation camps – camps still in use to this day. Naturally, the Red regime in Beijing was supported by the Soviet Union. In fact, the enslavement of China was perhaps the Moscow-based communists’ greatest victory. However, there is an aspect to this sad saga that is often overlooked – the critical role the United States played in undermining China’s Freedom movement and facilitating a communist triumph.

Chiang7

General Chiang Kai-shek

In pre-Maoist China, the legitimate leader was a patriotic general named Chiang Kai-shek. Chiang has been unjustly maligned by the Marxist Establishment as a brutal despot who impeded Chinese progress. In fact, Chiang desperately wanted a democratic government and a free China and was a staunch supporter of the United States. He fought tooth and nail against the communists almost his entire life. Fighting communism is, to the Western Elite, the same as impeding “progress.” It was precisely because of his anti-communist stance that Chiang has been smeared by Western academia. Also worthy of note is the fact that Chiang was a devout Christian – certainly not the sort of man welcome in Elite circles.

In mid-1947, as his Nationalist forces fought the communists under Mao, General Chiang stated of his Kuomintang (KMT) military:

“Regardless of what aspect we discuss, we hold an absolute superiority; in terms of the troops’ equipment, battle techniques and experience, the Communists are not our equal. . . . And we are also ten times richer than the communist army in terms of military-supply replacements, such as food, fodder, and ammunition” (Loyd E. Eastman, “Who Lost China? Chiang Kai-shek Testifies,” The China Quarterly, No. 88, 658, December, 1981).

How did a militarily superior force ostensibly aided by the United States eventually lose a civil war against the Reds? The answer is that the subversive element in the U.S. government did not support Chiang’s movement, but used their positions of influence to undermine it at every step. It was really a case of the U.S. Elite combining with the Soviets against Chiang and his Nationalists.

In his often overlooked book detailing Western involvement in the world-wide communist conspiracy, W. Cleon Skousen wrote of the fall of free China:

“General Albert C. Wedemeyer was the last commander of the Chinese Theater of Operations during World War II, and he has described in his book, Wedemeyer Reports . . . how he assured Chiang Kai-shek that the U.S. would support the Nationalist Chinese in setting up a democratic form of government after the war. But this never came about, because right at the time the delicate process of writing and adopting a constitution was in process, the State Department sent over George C. Marshall to tell Chiang Kai-shek that if he didn’t allow the Communist Chinese to immediately enter his government on a coalition basis, all U.S. aid would be terminated. General Wedemeyer wrote a comprehensive report to President Truman showing how this fantastic demand would ultimately lead to a Communist conquest of 600,000,000 Chinese. The State Department demanded that General Wedemeyer be “muzzled.” Chiang Kai-shek refused to accept the Communists in his government, and General Marshall fulfilled his threat. He wrote: “As Chief of Staff I armed 39 anti-Communist divisions (in China), now with a stroke of the pen I disarm them.” U.S. aid to China was reduced to a dribble. Both economic and military collapse became inevitable.

“We have already discussed the Establishment’s manipulation of the State Department through its Institute of Pacific Relations, which set the stage for the betrayal of China to a Communist conquest.

“By 1949 the whole mainland of China was in Communist hands and a bloodbath of genocidal terrorism was being poured out upon the people. What Americans had fought World War II to prevent the Japanese from doing to China, the State Department had encouraged Mao and Chao to go ahead and accomplish.

China17

“The next task was to keep the American people from discovering how China had been betrayed to the Reds. It was necessary to cover the tracks of the IPR and its agents who were working inside the U.S. government. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, wrote a notorious White Paper trying to put the blame on Chiang Kai-shek and saying the State Department had been helpless to prevent the Communist coup. However, Acheson’s ambassador to China, John Leighton Stuart, wrote a book called Fifty Years in China . . . in which he admitted that he and his associates in the State Department could not escape their “part of the responsibility of the great catastrophe.” He repudiated the White Paper as a historical document and said it left out much of what really happened. Professor Kenneth Colegrove of the Political Science Department at Northwestern University went even further. He said Dean Acheson’s White Paper “was one of the most false documents ever published by any country”” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist, 74-76).

Similarly, researcher John Coleman, in his phenomenal book One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship, which I cannot recommend too highly, wrote:

“Roosevelt refused to listen to intelligence reports about the activities of Owen Lattimore, and insisted on appointing him as his personal advisor to Chiang Kai Shek, which left Lattimore in the enviable position of easily betraying the Nationalists to the Communists. The Chinese Nationalist forces were further betrayed by Roosevelt appointee Lauchlin Currie, who ordered Army supplies intended for the Chiang Kai Shek’s Nationalist forces dumped into the Indian Ocean” (John Coleman, One World Order: Socialist Dictatorship, 121).

Currie was acknowledged by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI to be a Soviet agent. And Lattimore was likewise a long-time Soviet spy. Nearly all the men that FDR surrounded himself with were Marxist agents. FDR, my candidate for the worst president in American history, was himself a communist! He gave us four straight terms of communism and not only fundamentally altered our country for the worse, but played a major role in the communist restructuring of the world.

One of the enduring aspects of FDR’s treason against humanity is the fact he loved mass-murderer Joseph Stalin, used American resources to literally save the Soviet Union from Hitler’s anti-communist campaign, and enabled the Soviets to come back from the brink of near defeat at Germany’s hands to spread its Satanic influence across the globe – including into China. China was the dazzling jewel in the communist crown and its conquest would not have been possible had FDR not been a closet communist, had he not surrounded himself – in defiance of intelligence reports – with known Soviet agents, and had he not appointed communists to oversee the management of China. To learn about the shocking communist takeover of our government that occurred during FDR’s reprehensible administration, read Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government by M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein.

In his book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Gary Allen wrote of Elites’ efforts to turn the world communist:

“A clique of American financiers not only helped establish Communism in Russia, but has striven mightily ever since to keep it alive. . . .

“At Versailles, this same clique carved up Europe and set the stage for World War II . . . In 1941, the same Insiders rushed to the aid of our “noble ally,” Stalin, after his break with Hitler. In 1943, these same Insiders marched off to the Tehran Conference and proceeded to start the carving up of Europe after the second great “war to end war.” Again at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945, they established the China policy . . . later summarized by Owen Lattimore: “The problem was how to allow them [China] to fall without making it look as if the United States had pushed them.” The facts are inescapable. In one country after another Communism has been imposed on the local population from the top down. The most prominent forces for the imposition of the tyranny came from the United States and Great Britain. Here is a charge that no American enjoys making, but the facts lead to no other possible conclusion. The idea that Communism is a movement of the downtrodden masses is a fraud.

“. . . But if Communism is an arm of a bigger conspiracy to control the world by power-mad billionaires (and brilliant but ruthless academicians who have shown them how to use their power) it all becomes perfectly logical” (Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, 75-76).

I want to point out that communism is not an American plot. It actually originated in Europe in 1776 when Adam Weishaupt formed the Order of Illuminati. In my books, I’ve traced the ideology we know as communism back to the Illuminati. I will not repeat the details here. Suffice it to say that communism is Illuminism by another name. It is, therefore, hardly an American plot.

Additionally, many of communism’s financiers come from Europe – not simply from the United States. And Britain’s involvement is so pronounced in world conspiracy precisely because communists and Fabian Socialists took over England. Both Britain and the United States have been used by the international communists to set up bases in Russia and China from whence they carry out their world revolution.

Europe – indeed, the rest of the world – is much further down the communist rabbit hole than the United States. Despite the alarming growth of the communist cancer in our midst, we are still the last best hope for humanity and have the greatest potential for throwing off the Soviet shackles. However, it is absolutely true that Marxists imported their dogma to the United States beginning with the Illuminati-Jacobins just after the American War for Independence. Their existence was acknowledged by George Washington and other informed individuals. It has grown from there, being greatly aided by Jewish and other European immigrants.

communism36

“Bolshevism without the Mask”

Let’s be clear: The global Elite are all Marxists. And the top cadre within this group is a clique of avowed Satanists. I have discussed this at length in my books. These Elites are led by Lord Maitreya and the Ascended Masters of Wisdom – fancy names for Lucifer and his fallen angels. They direct the affairs of Satan’s earthly kingdom. Communism is their chief tool. Be very careful not to describe communism as an American or British plot. It is, rather, a worldwide conspiracy in which the super-rich, academic elitists, and other professional revolutionaries and occultists combine their dubious talents to conquer the world and subjugate humanity.

Texe Marrs has written of how Red China has been set up as another Illuminati-communist base of operations. He said:

“Red China has been chosen to be the poster child and role model for the Illuminati’s Hegelian synthesis of Communism and Capitalism. The United States, meanwhile, is being purposely beat down and suppressed. Alien philosophies and a wave of immorality are being used to destroy peoples’ minds while Wall Street operators continue their Ponzi scheme manipulation. The Federal Reserve, under Jewish banker Ben Bernanke’s direction, is regularly transmitting boatloads of electronic cash to foreign banks in China. Thanks to this infusion of dollars, along with the trillions of dollars brought in from stolen Iraqi oil use and sales, the Chinese economy is galloping ahead” (Texe Marrs, Conspiracy of the Six-Pointed Star, 202).

True it is that the Marxist Elite envision a future communist world order that combines elements of political, social, military, and religious communism with state-run monopoly capitalism (i.e. socialism). As I’ve covered elsewhere, demonic entities that have appeared to occultist conspirators around the world have relayed the message that the coming occult world order will be a fusion of the so-called best of both worlds: “The Masters advise 70 per cent socialism to 30 per cent capitalism as the best proportion” (Benjamin Creme, The World Teacher for All Humanity, 74). It is perfectly accurate, then, to call China the “poster child and role model for the Illuminati’s Hegelian synthesis of Communism and Capitalism.”

Much of what later happened in China was drawn up at the Yalta Conference of 1945 attended by the likes of Stalin and Roosevelt. These comrades essentially decided the fate of China. I take several paragraphs from James Perloff’s superb article “China Betrayed Into Communism.” He explained:

“Fateful decisions resulted when Roosevelt met with Stalin at the Teheran Conference (late 1943) and Yalta Conference (February 1945). Stalin, though our ally against Germany during World War II, maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan. This suited Stalin, as he wished the Japanese to wear down China’s Nationalist forces.

“At the Teheran and Yalta wartime conferences, however, Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his pact with Japan and enter the Far East war. Stalin agreed, but attached conditions. He demanded that America completely equip his Far Eastern Army for the expedition, with 3,000 tanks, 5,000 planes, plus all the other munitions, food, and fuel required for a 1,250,000-man army. Roosevelt accepted this demand, and 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease material were convoyed to the USSR for the venture. Stalin’s Far Eastern Army swiftly received more than twice the supplies we gave Chiang Kai-shek during four years as our ally.

“General Douglas MacArthur protested after discovering that ships designated to supply his Pacific forces were being diverted to Russia. Major General Courtney Whitney wrote: “One hundred of his transport ships were to be withdrawn immediately, to be used to carry munitions and supplies across the North Pacific to the Soviet forces in Vladivostok…. Later, of course, they were the basis of Soviet military support of North Korea and Red China.”

“But Stalin didn’t just want materiel in return for entering the Asian war. He also demanded control of the Manchurian seaports of Dairen and Port Arthur — which a glance at the map shows would give him an unbreakable foothold in China — as well as joint control, with the Chinese, of Manchuria’s railroads. Roosevelt made these concessions without consulting the Chinese. Thus, without authority, he ceded to Stalin another nation’s sovereign territory. The president made these pledges without the knowledge or consent of Congress or the American people.

“The State Department official representing the United States in drawing up the Yalta agreement was Alger Hiss — subsequently exposed as a Soviet spy. General Patrick Hurley, U.S. Ambassador to China, wrote: “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta”” (James Perloff, “China Betrayed Into Communism,” The New American, July 24, 2009).

In his brilliant book How the Far East was Lost, Anthony Kubek devoted a thorough chapter to the fateful Yalta Conference and its lasting consequences. He wrote:

“Roosevelt went off to Yalta, there to buy Stalin’s entry into the war we had already won. We are still paying the price. The needless and bloody battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were immediate costs. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Asiatic civilian populations – acts which have so prejudiced the United States in the eyes of Asian people – was another. Sovietization of China and the Korean War were still others. And the end is not yet in sight. . . .

“No discussion of Yalta by those who were present at that conference, thus far, explains Roosevelt’s generosity to Stalin, why he violated his own principles of the Atlantic Charter by transferring territory from one country to another without the consent of the deprived country, or why he reneged on his promises to Chiang Kai-shek at Cairo. It must be remembered he had promised the Generalissimo all the territory Japan had taken since 1914. Roosevelt gave to Stalin at Yalta effective control of the same territory over which the United States had gone to war with Japan, and by doing so set the stage for the Communist conquest of China, and it was a prelude to the war in Korea” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 91, 111).

FDR1

Comrades Stalin and FDR

General George C. Marshall – the same who disarmed Chiang Kai-shek’s forces – was one of the prominent attendees at Yalta. He used his influence to encourage Roosevelt’s pro-Soviet sympathies:

“One may find some explanation for the Yalta give-away in a review of the men who made up Roosevelt’s delegation. The most important of these advisers was General George Marshall, Chief of Staff . . . He stood at Yalta urging the grim necessity of Russia’s entry into war against Japan. He did nothing to deter Roosevelt from embarking on his ill-starred course which ended in disaster.

“The desire to have Russia’s help in the Far East was constantly stressed by Marshall . . . It was Marshall’s mistaken estimate of Japan’s capacity for continued military resistance, after all signs pointed to enemy collapse, that fortified Roosevelt in his determination to buy Soviet entry into the Pacific war at the price of vast strategic concessions in China. This deal foreordained the loss of China to Communist control” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 94).

Yalta was a communist conference from beginning to end. Yalta was a grimy location in the Soviet Union where Stalin, who had picked it, knew he could control the narrative. And control it he did with the help of FDR’s communist delegation which included communist sympathizers and Soviet spies. And FDR must be directly blamed for the existence of this compromised delegation – it was his administration that had formally recognized the Soviet regime on 1933 when it was on the verge of collapse.

It is truly incredible that the fate of any nation – let alone one like China – could be decided by a group of communist conspirators meeting in the Soviet Union with the full consent and blessing of an American president. Yet, that is what happened. Everything that came later merely followed the Yalta script.

The U.S. government’s attitude toward General Chiang had always been hostile, though it became more apparent toward the close of World War II. A disgraceful incident describes the contempt we had for the man and has anti-communist Nationalist government. In late 1944, FDR and other U.S. military and diplomatic leaders were busy discussing the conquest of Burma which was under Japanese control. They wanted Chiang’s Chinese forces to move quickly into Burma. However, they wanted their own hand-picked General Joseph W. Stilwell to take charge of the troops. Anthony Kubek explains the shameful scenes that followed:

“President Roosevelt again urged the Generalissimo to place Stilwell in command of all Chinese forces. Chiang was willing to agree on condition that the power of distributing lend-lease supplies would remain strictly under his control. But Stilwell confided in his diary: “If the G-mo [Chiang Kai-shek] controls distribution, I am sunk. The Reds will get nothing”. . . .

“. . . Marshall submitted a blunt message to Chiang with Roosevelt’s approval. The Generalissimo was asked (1) to reinforce the Chinese armies in the Salween area in Burma and to press their offensive in conjunction with the British, and (2) to place Stilwell in “unrestricted command” of all Chinese forces. . . .

“The message arrived in Chungking on September 19, 1944, with instructions that Stilwell was to deliver it “in person.” Stilwell was full of jubilation; he had waited for this moment to deliver an ultimatum to the Generalissimo. He noted in his diary: “President’s message arrived. Hot as a firecracker. ‘Get busy, boy, or else.’ ‘Do it now.’ The Peanut will have a red neck on this one.”

“General Hurley advised Stilwell this was not the time to deliver the President’s message. To quote from his later testimony, “I said (to Stilwell) ‘You shouldn’t now, because of this firm language, pile it on him at a time he has felt compelled to make every concession that we have asked. He has made them; he is ready to go; he is ready to bring troops down from the North to reinforce you in the Salween front; he is going to appoint you commander-in-chief.” Stilwell would not change his mind. He wanted to humiliate the Generalissimo and said, “I am directed by the President to hand it to him.

“. . . When Hurley handed the message to Chiang Kai-shek, the Generalissimo read it and Hurley noticed “. . . that he looked like he had been hit in the solar plexus. . . . “ Silence followed; no one moved. Then Chiang Kai-shek reached over to his tea cup and put the cover on upside down. Stilwell, in Chinese asked, “That gesture still means, I presume, that the party is over?” Someone in Chiang’s staff said, “Yes.” Stilwell and Hurley then walked out. . . .

“Stilwell’s lack of tact and his persistent urge to aid and use Communist forces shattered any confidence Chiang Kai-shek had in placing him in command of Chinese armies . . . John Stewart Service, U.S. foreign service officer in China, had some understanding of the true meaning of the recommendations and what Chiang suspected. “This was, in effect, a proposal that the Chinese Communists be armed,” Service later testified” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 214-216).

China23

If this was a one-time event, it could perhaps be written off as a simple blunder. However, the U.S. government’s consistent pattern of behavior toward Chiang Kai-shek and China proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that FDR and his administration favored the Chinese communists and did everything they could to undermine the establishment of a free China.

I quote once more from Kubek. He stated:

“It is a tragedy we did not accept the repeated warnings of Nationalist leaders and others that the Chinese Communists were part of a Marxist movement for world domination. Perhaps some blame should be placed on the Generalissimo for not selling this point to American officials. He saw the Red threat in the Far East far better than many of our foreign service officials. As a result of our miscalculations, deliberate or otherwise, we are today faced with a formidable threat – Red China. It can be said that the serious menace we face in the Far East was not due to our lack of information. On the contrary, our tragic policy in that area can be mostly attributed to the opposition of U.S. foreign service officers and other American officials to Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Government. These Americans frustrated attainment of our traditional and unannounced aims in Asia – preservation of the “territorial and administrative” integrity of China” (Anthony Kubek, How the Far East Was Lost: American Policy and the Creation of Communist China, 1941-1949, 217).

Volumes of additional evidence could be cited showing the duplicity and pro-communist sentiments of U.S. government personnel and military leaders. However, for the remainder of this article we turn the spotlight on General Chiang Kai-shek’s own witness and account of the Red takeover of China. In his highly-detailed book Soviet Russia in China: A Summing-Up at Seventy, Chiang gave a sometimes day-by-day account of how the communist conquered China. In numerous locations, Chiang’s history shows the betrayal and neglect showed by the United States. I now quote at length from his book, though I’m only able to quote a small portion of what I would like to and shift the burden upon the reader for additional study. Chiang testified:

“It was a matter of great regret that our ally, the United States, should stop its supply of arms to the Chinese Government at the very moment when the Chinese Communists began their anti-American activities. Earlier, in April [1946], following the Chinese Communists’ breach of the cease-fire agreement, the American Government had stopped its US $500,000,000 loan to the Chinese Government. Now it interrupted its military aid to China. At the same time it took no action whatever against the Chinese Communists despite their violations of the cease-fire agreement. In fact, it did not even adopt any measures in the face of Soviet Russia’s arming of the Chinese Communists in Manchuria with Japanese weapons. This dealt a severe blow to the anti-Communist forces and constituted a great boost to neutralism. . . .

“By February 1947 Communist student agitators in Shanghai formed a “Federation of Associations in Protest Against Violence by American Forces in China” as headquarters for students’ anti-American activities in various parts of the country. The federation soon started a “Signature Movement by Chinese students to urge the United States to change her policy toward China.”

“The Chinese Communists launched the “Anti-Violence Movement” when the industrial and commercial circles in the country failed to respond to their agitation against the Sino-American Commercial Treaty. When the people in general again failed to respond to the “Anti-Violence Movement” they switched to a “Boycott American Goods” movement . . . its only objective was “opposition to U.S. aid” and the “expulsion of American forces from China.”

“The American Government obliged by gradually withdrawing its troops from Peiping, Tientsin, Tsingtao and other places, and by discontinuing its military aid to China. Thus, a glorious episode of Sino-American cooperation in the cause of freedom came to an end under the attacks of the Chinese Communists and their international “comrades”” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 185-187).

communism449

A common communist tactic the world over is to request “peace talks,” negotiations, cease-fires, and détentes when things are going badly. These phony “peace talks” and cease-fires serve to buy time for the communists to regroup, rearm, and adjust their strategy. As soon as the communists are fully prepared to resume hostilities, they break off talks and negotiations and violate the cease-fire. We see this tactic successfully employed year after year by North Korea and Russia-backed Palestine, to name only two. Chiang Kai-shek documented this tactic in painstaking detail in his book, giving us many pages of valuable insight. I draw forth just a few lines relative to China’s downfall as examples:

“For security reasons the Government had to conduct military operations against the Communist troops which had taken Kalgan by storm and against the others concentrated around it. Chou En-lai tried to intimidate General Marshall by saying: “If the Government does not call off its military action against Communist troops in Kalgan and in its environs, the Communists will regard it as the open declaration of an over-all rupture.” Shortly afterward he left Nanking for Shanghai to dodge further discussions.

“On October 5 I again accepted General Marshall’s suggestion and ordered a ten-day halt during which the Conference of Three would discuss the military question while the Subcommittee of Five would deliberate on the political issues.

“Simultaneous discussion of military and political questions was originally one of the Communists’ demands. When the Government finally accepted it, they reversed their position by using the Kalgan question as a pretext. Now, after the Government had announced a halt in the Kalgan area, the Communists raised their demands again. . . .

“Chou En-lai also added the following points to General Marshall in a critical tone:

““The Chinese Communists cannot agree to the United States Government giving material aid to the Kuomintang Government at a time of civil war. . . .”

“Thus General Marshall had to return to Nanking emptyhanded. This meant that the Chinese Communists had already succeeded in gaining the time they needed for preparing their all-out insurrection. It also meant that Communist smiles of welcome to American mediation were no longer necessary. This signified the virtual termination of the peace talks and military mediation centered around General Marshall as a result of the Chinese Communist sabotage. As in the six previous instances the peace negotiations, which lasted for more than one year this time, also ended in failure.

“As the Chinese Communists showed no signs of willingness to resume negotiations after the expiration of the ten-day truce, Government troops retook Kalgan. . . .

“At this juncture, leaders of parties other than Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party, and nonpartisan leaders offered to mediate as “the third side.” On October 25, 29 and 30 a series of talks were held. The terms which they produced were likewise rejected by the Chinese Communists. In the meantime the Chinese Communists and the Democratic League launched anti-American movements in Peiping, Tientsin, Nanking and Shanghai.

“On November 10, only two days before the National Assembly was due to open, Chou En-lai said to General Marshall: “Whether the National Assembly is merely postponed or convened unilaterally, in either even there will be no room for any more political discussions.” Thus it became clear that the Communists’ real purpose was to prevent the convocation of the National Assembly and the introduction of constitutional rule.

“Meanwhile, it also became very clear that they intended to sabotage the peace talks and military mediation altogether and to resort to armed rebellion to subvert the country . . . on November 11, on the eve of the convocation of the National Assembly, I made a final appeal to them in the hope that they would, whether before or during the Assembly meetings, submit a list of Communist delegates and have them take part in the deliberations to give national backing to the launching of constitutional rule. . . .

“. . . The Chinese Communists were the only ones who had refused to submit a list of their delegates. The Democratic League, which had up to now posed as an independent neutral, tore off its mask and followed the example of the Chinese Communists by refusing to attend. After the opening ceremony the National Assembly decided to call a three-day recess to wait for the Communist and Democratic League delegates to turn up, but in vain.” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 175-181).

Chiang again wrote of the international efforts to sabotage the establishment of a free China with a democratic government:

“[O]ne could see that behind Soviet Russia’s sabotage of the American mediation was her wish to replace the United States as mediator so that she could manipulate the Chinese political situation.

“In December 1946 the United States announced the end of its mediation effort in China. Shortly thereafter General Marshall went back to America and the Chinese Communists openly launched a general rebellion. During the year which followed Soviet Russia and the Chinese Communists both directly and indirectly kept on asking the Chinese Government for resumption of peace talks. In the autumn of 1947, when Government troops were advancing toward Chefoo, Weihaiwei and Penglai on the southern coast of the Gulf of Chihli, their request for cessation of hostilities and resumption of peace talks became more urgent than ever. . . .

“. . . the Chinese Communists made use of American mediation as part of their neutralist tactics. In other words, they saw in the American mediation a chance for the growth of neutralism, just as they had seen in the cease-fire agreement a convenient cover for their military movements. Once the cease-fire agreement was concluded, their purpose in accepting U.S. mediation had been achieved. After that they no longer considered themselves bound by any stipulations in the agreement.

“On the other hand, the Government’s eagerness to abide by the agreement put its troops in a passive position and made them easy prey for the Communists. Now we know that the Communists accepted American mediation in order to sabotage it and they concluded the cease-fire agreement in order to break it. This created a situation of neither war nor peace in which fighting and peace talks went on side by side. This was the practical application by the Communist International of the laws of dialectics both in its basic stratagem and in its line of action. All through the year 1946 the Communists used this stratagem to gain time to complete their preparations for a final military showdown with the Government.” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 190-192).

China19

Chiang gave us valuable insight into how the communists subverted China. His insight is detailed and specific. The Red blueprint doesn’t change much, so this history ought to wake us up because the same tactics are being used in our own nation. Chiang recounted:

“After October 1948, when the Hsuchow-Pengpu Battle was at its critical stage and when the people and those in the Government were under the spell of Communist infiltration, there came into circulation a slogan to the effect that “Unless President Chiang goes, no American aid will be forthcoming,” and that “Unless President Chiang goes, there can be no peace talks.”

“In these circumstances, I decided to retire from office. I did so on January 21, 1949. The moment I was gone both the armed forces and civilians on the mainland seemed to have lost a symbol of common purpose. Thus, the political situation, social order and the people’s minds all fell under the Communists’ invisible control. The military situation deteriorated rapidly and soon became irretrievable.

“In their political activities and social movements, both the Chinese Communists and their front organizations, especially the Democratic League, had to take certain stands and were, therefore, easily identified. The same thing, however, could not be said of infiltration by these front organizations. They penetrated deep into government organs, representative bodies and civic organizations. They even joined such anti-Communist religious bodies and secret societies as the Kolaohui [a secret society in Szechwan province]. They also got hold of military men who had fought the Communists either in or outside the battlefield and politicians who acted as go-betweens between Kuomintang and the Communists. Through infiltration or encirclement they manipulated these public bodies and individuals directly as well as indirectly in order to attain their own objective.

“It was generally thought that ex-militarists, ex-bureaucrats and merchants and brokers seeking profits through speculation would make poor Communists or fellow travelers. In seeking to subvert the country and to destroy the social order, the Communists found that the more degenerate these people were the more useful they would be in working for the Communists and in running their errands. Their task was to help shake the very foundation of society and demoralize the military and the civilians alike by such slogans as “oppose conscription,” “oppose requisition,” “oppose mobilization” and “oppose civil war.”

“Though the Government knew the latter were acting as the Communists’ jackals, it felt its hands were tied by democratic institutions, and as long as they operated under the cloak of “freedom” and “human rights,” the Government could not take any action against these religious bodies, secret societies, underworld characters, gangsters, disgruntled politicians and profiteers who had come under the Communist grip. It was in this manner that neutralism and defeatism came to spread in the Government and in the armed forces, paving the way for Communist rumors to foment dissatisfaction, to stir up trouble and to create antagonism and disunity between the Government and the people” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 188-190).

Can you see the eerie similarities in recent events in the United States? Can you see how our own so-called “representatives” are selling us out in order to benefit themselves and extend the reach of the invisible hand that controls events? Can you see the same infiltration, the same propaganda pitches, and the same feelings of despair, neutralism, and defeatism that are pervading our society? Can you see the same communist front groups – feminism, LGBT radicals, environmental extremists, Antifa, the Democratic Party – at work today to “shake the very foundation of society and demoralize the military and the civilians alike”? The game plan is nearly identical – and the results will be the same unless we wake up and fight back.

General Chiang was one of history’s staunchest anti-communist fighters. A large section of his book is addressed to the world. He learned from firsthand experience how communists conquer a nation. He personally witnessed and forever mourned China’s defeat. He desired that the rest of the world would use the store of knowledge and experience he had gained regarding communist tactics and deceptions, as well as what works and what doesn’t in the fight against intentional Marxism. Again I stress that I’m sharing only a thimble full of the wisdom contained in Chiang’s remarkable book Soviet Russia in China. Chiang warned us:

“The Communists’ camouflage, deception and propaganda war are practical manifestations of their dialectic laws of contradictions and of negation. For instance, their resort to political assault to disguise their military operations, their assumption of a defensive posture to cover their offensive action, their use of propaganda war containing nothing but casuistry and falsehood, and their combining enticements with intimidation, all these are based on the principle of “unity in contradictions.” Again, for instance, their use of peace talks to negate or undermine their opponent’s morale and their use of hostilities at the same time to negate the peace talks with their opponent, are based on the law of “negation of negations.” In short, the Communists in their propaganda war stop at nothing wicked and mean to achieve their goal, i.e., in creating suspicion and disturbances. They are particularly adept in the fabrication of stories with no factual foundations, in misrepresentation such as “pointing at a deer and calling it a horse,” in distortion and in the forging of documentary proofs all of which they consider legitimate – even virtuous. Whenever it suits their purpose, they represent Satan as God or God as Satan. What the Communists say and what they do are entirely two different things. It is obvious that they had themselves robbed the people under their control of freedoms, and yet they asked the Government for all political freedoms. In areas under Communist control, there was nothing but darkness and regimentation, an yet in their external propaganda they boasted of political democracy and of a bright future for their slaves. In Communist terminology, “people” means the Communists themselves, “liberation” means enslavement, “peace” means another form of war and “coexistence” means exclusive Communist control. It follows that the smile they put on is another facet of their evil nature. The free world should be ready to expose and attack this kind of propaganda before anyone falls prey to it.

“In their “peaceful coexistence” campaign, the Communists have developed two methods of approach, which can easily lead the free world to think that the Communists are really seeking peace, or to consider their suggestions as genuine roads to peace.

“Peace talks. To ordinary people, peace talks represent a transitional path from war to peace. Whenever the Russian or Chinese Communists ask for “peace talks,” people in the free world instantly take it to mean that they will not engage in any more war of aggression. But, to the Communists “peace talks” do not constitute a path to peace, but are just another form of war. They start peace talks not for the purpose of attaining the objective of peace, but for the purpose of attaining their objective of war. The peace talks which the Chinese Communists held with the Government were to serve the following purposes:

“Peace talks could delay attacks by Government troops. . . .

“Peace talks could cover up preparations for armed revolt. . . .

“Peace talks could enlarge the following for neutralism, and expand the reserve strength of the front organizations. . . .

“Peace talks could undermine the morale of Government forces. . . .

“Peace talks could create the impression of “two Chinas” in the free world.

“Therefore, both the Russian and Chinese Communist love protracted negotiations . . . protracted negotiations carried on by the Russian and Chinese Communists represent a method of struggle with them.

Cease-Fire Agreement. “Respite tactics” are often resorted to by the Russian Communists. To secure a needed respite, they will not only negotiate with their enemy but will sign cease-fire agreements with him and, in fact, will even go so far as to conclude a peace treaty with him. . . .

“To the Communists, it is not simply a defensive tactic. They use peace talks and cessation of hostilities to reinforce and replenish their troops in preparation for the next attack; they use them also to start a political propaganda campaign to sow suspicions between their enemy and his allies, to strike at his morale, and to shatter his internal solidarity. To the Communists, all these are positive functions of peace talks and cease-fire agreements. . . .

“If we judge the Russian and Chinese Communists’ proposals for peace talks and cease-fire in the light of the dialectic law of negation, we can immediately grasp their very essence. Why do the Russian and Chinese Communists always want to hold peace talks and sign a cease-fire agreement while at war but violate the cease-fire agreement and resume fighting after it has been signed? We must understand that in their ideology, peace talks and cessations of hostilities are the negation of war, and to sabotage the peace talks and violate the cease-fire agreement is the negation of this negation. When they cannot win by force, they stop fighting and hold peace talks instead, they may even sign a cease-fire agreement. When they succeed in splitting the enemy’s camp, shattering his will to fight and destroying his morale, they will negate their peace talks and cease-fire agreements, for the purpose of waging, and winning, the final decisive battle” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 374-377).

Chiang6

Ladies and gentlemen, you have just read some of the most eloquent and frank descriptions of communist tactics and aims you will ever read. Will you heed them? Will you rush forward to save your own country from similar collapse? Will you finally put aside alternative theories – false theories – that blame anyone else but the Satanic communists for the plight of the world? It is time, long past time, to treat the Reds as a cancer than must be quarantined and eradicated if the world, let alone our own Republic, is to survive. Communism must die if America is to survive!

We can begin on our journey by learning about communism. We can learn the history of communist conquest around the world, most prominently in Russia and China. China’s example in particular provides an excellent account of how American traitors aid the international Bolshevik movement. It proves that conspiracy exists. It proves that the people we elect and send to Washington are not on our side and couldn’t care less about Freedom. It proves that many of our “heroes,” most prominently FDR, are in fact traitors and comrades in the Red conspiracy.

If we are to heal and move forward, we must acknowledge the tragedies of the past – tragedies orchestrated by an elitist clique of Marxist gangsters who want to subjugate the world. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact. Do you have the courage to embrace and help spread the truth? Or will you self-censor because the social media giants, the controlled media, and the raucous chorus of mindless lemmings attempt to shout you down? Unless we want our fate to be Red China’s, we will endure the hate, oppose the efforts to silence us, and push back mercilessly against the communists.

Chiang Kai-shek was correct when he asserted:

“It can be said that the greatest threat posed by international Communism lies in Asia, and this threat stems mainly from the Chinese Communists. The fall of the Chinese mainland was a tragedy to the world and its seriousness is only beginning to be recognized. Had my Government remained on the mainland, there would never have been such calamities as the Korean War and the Communist occupation of northern Korea and northern Indo-China. The place to begin combating Communism in Asia, therefore, is mainland China” (Chiang, Soviet Russia in China, 348).

As the current Hong Kong unrest shows, China’s regime is still brutal and constitutes a direct threat to free peoples everywhere. And the threat will only grow. Already our military generals are warning that China has nearly reached our level of expertise (and Russia has surpassed it in some respects). We should never have to hear the solemn declaration that “[the U.S. military] might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia” (National Defense Strategy Commission, November 14, 2018) or “China’s impressive military buildup could soon challenge the United States across almost every domain” (Admiral Harry Harris, February, 2018). Yet, that is what our generals are telling us.

President Trump, for all his host of flaws, is correct in also pointing out Red China’s currency manipulation and economic subterfuge. For years, China has been taking advantage of the West – and most often with the consent of the big business tycoons. Whether you agree or disagree with implementing tariffs on Chinese goods as a solution, it should be obvious that we must find a solution, and fast. The communist world is gearing up for their end game against the West as we crumble under the weight of Marxist subversion of our Faith, Families, and Freedom.

This war, like the one waged in China in the 1940s, can have only one of two outcomes for us: Victory or defeat. Which will it be? Will be maintain peace through strength or will we allow our nation to be bartered away to Chinese and Russian communists and their dupes here in America? Will we allow our anti-communist fighters to be insulted, denigrated, and smeared while the Elite run roughshod over the will of the People? Will we allow the communist-controlled press to demoralize us or will we catch the vision of heroes like General Chiang and resist communism to the last? Will we win or will we lose? Our fate is in our own hands.

Whatever we choose and however it plays out – and I believe things will get much darker before the light bursts forth – remember that communism is Satanism and that the Devil’s days are numbered. Christ has already won the victory! The only thing left to decide is what part we will play in this epic saga. Will we choose the right team? Will we help minimize the expansion of evil and tyranny by waking up and fighting back in our own sphere of influence? God help each of us to do so! And let each of us have the faith required to see this through to the end when the Red flag will go down and never more rise.

“I have unswerving faith in the re-emergence of my country as a free united nation and in the eventful triumph of freedom over slavery throughout the world.” – General Chiang Kai-shek, Soviet Russia in China, 349.

communism204

Zack Strong,

August 31, 2019.

The Politically Incorrect Origin of Political Correctness

It is politically incorrect these days to single out communism as the chief enemy of our American Republic. It is unpopular to call someone a communist or to suggest that a person belongs to, or unwittingly serves, an international cabal hell-bent on subverting and destroying our society. Communist propaganda has been so effective that any mention of communism draws forth an avalanche of skepticism, outright dismissal, and ludicrous name-calling. If you dare speak the truth about the communist conspiracy, you are called a “Nazi” or an “anti-Semite,” or are accused of whipping up another “Red Scare” or bringing back “McCarthyism.” In this article, I will discuss the communist origin of political correctness and its current purpose in our society; namely, to silence dissent to the communist subversion of our culture, government, and way of life.

political correctness1

The Encyclopedia Britannica, hardly a conspiratorial source, said this of the origin of political correctness:

“The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line).”

To be strictly accurate, the term “politically correct” was used back in the late 1700s. But the meaning was so different as to be irreconcilable with what we know as political correctness today. In its modern connotation, the term originated and found popularity and widespread usage with the Soviets.

To recap, political correctness is the communist “party line.” It is the officially accepted and allowed mode of thinking and speaking among communists and their conquered subjects. It is a top-down standard of behavior forced upon society. It is a cookie cutter way of thinking and behaving dictated by a small clique that believes people are too stupid to rule their own lives. The purpose of political correctness is to stifle dissent to this “enlightened” way of life and to bring everyone into rigid conformity and obedience to communist leadership. It is collectivist groupthink at its most terrible.

communism15

If you wanted evidence that communism has taken over America, look no further than the existence and popular acceptance of political correctness. Political correctness has been foisted upon the United States by an alien group of gangsters as a means of dissuading the conquered from criticizing the conquerors. The elite Establishment will not tolerate outbursts among the peasantry. We are intended to do as we are told, think as we are commanded, and be what we are desired. And what our political overlords want us to be are slaves – cogs in their state machinery.

In an article, William Lind described political correctness thus:

“Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. . . .

“That is the dirty little secret of Political Correctness, folks: it is a form of Marxism.”

In another piece, Raymond V. Raehn wrote:

“America as a nation is now dominated by an alien system of beliefs, attitudes and values that has become known as Political Correctness. It seeks to impose a uniformity in thought and behavior among all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature. It has its roots in the ideology of Marxism which requires a radical inversion of the prevailing traditional culture by cultural Marxism in order to achieve a social revolution. Such a social revolution is the kind envisioned by Karl Marx as an inversion of the social order and a commensurate inversion of the structure of power.”

political correctness7

And, finally, a third article described the concept this way:

“According to the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Kremlin advisers were the first to widely use the term. They did so without a trace of irony. Calling someone “politically correct” in Soviet Russia meant they toed the party line. A PC Kremlin insider was one who could reflect what Moscow was thinking—exactly the sort of person who would go far.”

Yes, political correctness is communism. It is an imposed “uniformity in thought and behavior.” It is totalitarian. Politically correct individuals are in reality toeing the latest Moscow propaganda line. The entire notion of political correctness is foreign to Americanism and the cherished, constitutionally-protected right of free thought, free speech, and public expression. Political correctness is a communist mechanism of subjugation – a form of warfare aimed at you and me.

political correctness3

Words are weapons. They are the most dangerous and effective weapons. Political correctness is perhaps more threatening than Russia and China’s massive, and ever-expanding, supply of thermonuclear missiles. This is because words sink into the soul and change our thoughts, speech, and deeds, whereas bombs only hurt our physical bodies. In order to truly conquer a nation, you must conquer their minds. The communists understand this and have kept up a century’s long barrage of propaganda and indoctrination aimed at bringing the American People into conformity to Moscow’s dictates.

In the era when Americans publicly denounced communism, many writers described the curse of conformity imposed by this demonic ideology. A 1949 publication of the U.S. House Committee on UnAmerican Activities titled 100 Things You Should Know About Communism asks the question “After you join [the Communist Party], what do you have to do?” and gives this answer:

“You have to obey the Party in all things. It may tell you to change your home, your job, your husband, or wife. It may order you to lie, steal, rob, or to go out into the street and fight.

“It claims the power to tell you what to think and what to do every day of your life. When you become a Communist, you become a revolutionary agent under a discipline more strict than the United States Army, Navy, Marines, or Air Force have ever known.” (100 Things You Should Know About Communism, 14)

China2

In his book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), the anti-communist author Fred Schwarz related a story about a psychiatrist who was angry at remarks Schwarz had made in a public address about the communist goal of world conquest. This psychiatrist railed against Schwarz and implied that his ideas were so crazy that he must need psychiatric help. Schwarz happened to have on hand a book written by the communist Liu Shao-chi wherein this Red Chinaman said that the communists would inevitably takeover the globe and make it communist. The psychiatrist saw the plain words on the page but nonetheless accused Schwarz of putting his own spin on them. Reflecting on this event, Schwarz made this observation to his readers:

“Outstanding among these attitudes is intellectual dishonesty. When the truth is too unpleasant, a natural tendency is to refuse to believe it. As a medical man, I have seen this often. A man of character and intelligence is afflicted with cancer. He knows the symptoms perfectly well, and if he saw them in another, would never have a moment’s doubt about the final outcome. When he observes these symptoms in himself, however, a strange thing happens. His characteristic honesty and clarity of judgement disappear. He ignores the central, symptomatic stream, and seizing on peripheral symptoms, builds them into a dream world in which to take refuge while doom advances. . . .

“The situation confronting us is dark and fearful. To face the true situation requires courage and honesty. The vast majority of people are quite unwilling to acknowledge the truth, preferring to ignore the evidence, or to select only those facts which will support their preconceived ideas and will not threaten the fulfilment of their desires. . . .

“When a man’s evidence cannot be discredited, the simplest alternative is to discredit the man himself. This is what [the psychiatrist] proceeded to do. . . .

“. . . Here was an apparently intelligent man who was quite unwilling to face the truth. . . .

“We have always had people in our midst who thought that fire would not burn, that if you jump out of a tenth story window, you may go down, but then again, you may go up. We used to call it insanity. Only recently has it taken itself the name of mental health.

“The malady of intellectual dishonesty has afflicted large segments of the educated and the religious groups leaving them quite unable to face the unpleasant truth. Intellectual dishonesty is one of the greatest allies of Communism. Like cancer, it cannot be treated adequately till its malignancy is recognized.” (Schwarz, You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), 102-103,115-116).

political correctness11

At the end of the day, political correctness is intellectual dishonesty. This is so because political correctness is not concerned with truth and facts; it is purely agenda driven. The agenda being promoted is communism. If it serves the communist cause to say the sky is red, then politically correct individuals will deny the sky is blue even if they see it with their own two eyes. The truth has no appeal to, or hold on, the politically correct mind.

Political correctness is a disease just as communism is a disease. I have long called communism the Red Plague. How many Americans are infected by this plague of the soul? Too many to count. But such people are easy to spot because they are politically correct and toe the accepted Establishment line regardless of what the plain reality is and regardless of how much evidence you hold under their nose. These people come from all across the political spectrum. Republicans slavishly defend their party against all truthful attacks just as readily as the Democrats blindly defend their interests from the reproof of reality. And in both cases, the communist elite smiles at the stunted intellectual abilities of Americans caused by the attitude of conformity undergirding political correctness.

When we indulge political correctness, we indulge communism. When we are intellectually dishonest, we aid the enemy and poison the waters of reason. Political correctness divides our power by preventing us from focusing our attacks on our true enemy – the communists who have hijacked our society.

Political correctness is a communist invention; a means of enforcing obedience within its ranks. It is a sad indictment that the American People have also adopted this alien mentality and have substituted individualism for groupthink collectivism. If we ever expect to reverse the devastating cultural and political trends initiated by communist agents seeking our overthrow, we must cast off the shackles of political correctness, acknowledge communism as public enemy no. 1, and promulgate the truth with clarity and courage regardless of the lame labels and phony falsehoods hurled at us by the communists and their dupes.

Zack Strong

April 22, 2018.

political correctness2