Marxofascism Succinctly Described and Identified

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

left fist in the sun

In the comments to Mark Musser’s article on Martin Heidegger, the NAZI father of the green movement and its goal of authoritarian environmentalism, someone just posted a raised eyebrow at  “Whatever ‘Marxofascist’ is supposed to mean.”

If one uses a term, he should be able to explain what it means.  That word is used often around the Gulag, so here is my reply to the Marxist commentator, humbly offered.

Since I coined the term, I’ll explain briefly.  Marxofascist is the engaging in Marxofascism and that term may be used synonymously with neo-Marxism meted out by means of crony capitalism and “public-private partnerships” as stepping stones, or Marxist power play gradualism (Gramsci-through-Alinsky), or Marxist manipulation for permanent majority rule of the proletariat (Trotsky), or communitarianism, or the looser definition of socialism.

It is collectivism by committee and ministerial council (a style of governance generally shared by Marxist and fascist societies).  In short, it is what one sees from the central banking complex and their sponsored or cooperative institutions and personages (IMF, China, Russia, EU, George Soros, Maurice Strong, Barack Obama, Ban Ki-moon, most American Democrats by default, many American Republicans in half measures, etc.).

It is a family name for two bastard brother philosophies, the adherents often having regarded themselves as rivals, but often and especially now, cooperating on the upswing of insurrection and revolution.

Another way to put it: this is the principle opponent of, and clear and present danger to human sovereignty and liberty.  There is one way to be free and there is only one direction to go, from freedom.  In America, any influence of Marxofascism and its practicing Marxofascist subversives and insurrectionists are our major enemies, foreign or domestic.


Media Guns Fire Blanks at Bachmann

By: Cliff Kincaid
Gulag Bound

Brian Ross of ABC News

Once a greatly feared investigative reporter, Brian Ross has been reduced to recycling left-wing material from the homosexual lobby. But the pathetic hit job he narrated on Monday’s ABC Nightline show on GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has backfired in a big way. The charge was that the Bachmann family counseling service engages in terrible things by teaching homosexuals how to leave their disease-ridden lifestyle.

Ross called this method of counseling, which emphasizes religious conversion, “highly controversial” and said it “could become a campaign issue.” Ironically, however, he presented evidence that ex-homosexuals do in fact exist

It is a sign of the dominance of the homosexual lobby in the media business that such a program would even be aired. The upcoming National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association convention features “Today” show co-anchor Ann Curry and CNN’s Don Lemon as keynote speakers.

The ABC piece, “Michele Bachmann Clinic: Where You Can Pray Away the Gay?,” was constructed in such a way as to suggest that ex-homosexuals are non-existent, even though the Brian Ross report itself noted the presence of books by a “self-proclaimed ex-lesbian” in the counseling center. A video from the ex-lesbian, Janet Boynes, was even shown briefly on the air. This was supposed to be shocking.

Of course, the notion of the Bible condemning homosexual behavior, reflected in several passages, was viewed as bizarre and intolerant.

Peter LaBarbera

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth says the phrase, “pray away the gay,” is intended to ridicule Christians and comes directly from homosexual activist Wayne Besen’s group, Truth Wins Out. LaBarbera asks, “Why are the major media repeating these hateful attack slogans by radical gay activists?”

He explains, “We don’t mock the idea of leaving drug addiction or alcoholism with God’s help. Why is it acceptable to mock faith in God to overcome unwanted behaviors like homosexuality in their lives?”

“Wayne Besen’s thesis is that ex-gays don’t exist,” noted LaBarbera. But Janet Boynes is a real person and absolute proof that one can leave the homosexual lifestyle.

Perhaps without realizing it, Ross has presented evidence of the homosexual “change” that he was trying to discredit.

“The homosexual lobby simply can’t deal with the reality that ‘gays’ can change (usually with God’s help),” LaBarbera adds. His group recently hosted an event with another ex-lesbian, Linda Jernigan.

To make matters worse, the ABC hit piece was largely recycled leftist material. Ross borrowed heavily from Truth Wins Out (TWO) and an article in The Nation magazine, in order to concoct the shaky story.

Matt Taibbi

Since the segment was light on anything truly horrifying, he used film footage from a Truth Wins Out operative who had secretly taped a counselor for the Bachmann service. This had the effect of making everything look sinister. The apparently shocking advice to the undercover homosexual operative was that heterosexuality is natural and homosexuality is not. This is what passes for “investigative journalism” these days.

“ABC’s Brian Ross did a terrific job with this Nightline segment…” declared TWO executive director Wayne Besen.

As such, Ross can expect to be nominated for an award from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), which honors pro-homosexual coverage.

The Brian Ross hit piece follows an attack on the popular Congresswoman by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone magazine, ”Michele Bachmann’s Holy War,” where he smeared Bachmann as “a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.”

Blogger Trevor Loudon disclosed that Taibbi was the recipient of an award from the Democratic Socialists of America in Boston for his hard-left reporting.

Loudon commented, “Maybe Matt Taibbi should tell us about his own true beliefs. I’m betting he is not as open about his own convictions as Michele Bachmann is about hers.”


Whittaker Chambers, Alger Hiss, and Panettagate

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

By: Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media

Whittaker Chambers

On the 50th anniversary of Whittaker Chambers’ death, July 9, it is appropriate for the media to address the legacy of international communism and the Western response. Andrew G. Bostom has written a thoughtful essay, “Whittaker Chambers, Communism, and Islam,” which examines how radical Islam is a threat comparable in its external and internal dimensions to communism.

In this context, former Soviet KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky told me, “The communists have considered Islam their ally from the very beginning because in the early 20th century, Islam was the religion of the ‘oppressed people,’ of ‘the oppressed nations.’ Support of Islam was considered part of Russian-based anti-colonialism. It is very significant that Vladimir Lenin in 1917 addressed his second message to the ‘Muslim toilers of Russia and the Whole World.’ So they considered Muslims a reservoir of people for the world communist revolution.”

Bostom also makes the point that once Chambers decided to spill the beans on the communist network, it took nine years for the government to take him seriously. It was the House Committee on Un-American Activities which broke the scandal wide open.

The failure to seriously consider the nature of the communist threat continues to be manifested in such events as the nonchalance by some regarding the revelations that CIA director-turned-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta had a personal relationship with Communist Party member Hugh DeLacy.

Fortunately, there are figures in the journalism business who are not afraid to raise these troubling issues. Columnists Diana West and Frank Gaffney took the Panettagate allegations seriously. But as veteran journalist Wes Vernon made clear in one of his columns, the issue goes far beyond the personal relationship that Panetta had with a communist. Vernon noted that a “key leader of the Cold War-era Communist underground in the U.S.” had verified the Communist affiliation of DeLacy, who was a “friend of” Panetta.

That leader of the communist underground was John J. Abt, a member of the Ware Group exposed by Whittaker Chambers. As I pointed out in my series of columns, based in part on the work of blogger Trevor Loudon in uncovering a series of “Dear Leon” and “Dear Hugh” letters between Panetta and DeLacy, it was Abt in his 1993 book, Advocate and Activist: Memoirs of an American Communist Lawyer, who had officially confirmed that DeLacy had been a secret member of the Communist Party USA while he had served as a member of Congress from Washington State. However, DeLacy had previously been identified as a communist by defectors from the party.

Abt and DeLacy, of course, could not have anticipated that DeLacy’s communist connections could ever have come back to haunt long-time DeLacy friend, Leon Panetta. This is undoubtedly why DeLacy left his papers to the University of Washington, where researchers such as Loudon could easily discover them. However, there is no indication that the FBI, charged with investigating the backgrounds of federal officials, ever took a look at them before Panetta was nominated for the position of CIA director. The letters show that Panetta, then a member of Congress, promised DeLacy, who had moved into Panetta’s congressional district, a series of documents on military and foreign policy matters. In the 1980s, Panetta opposed every major U.S. weapons system and actively undermined President Ronald Reagan’s anti-communist policies in Latin America and Europe.

Abt’s identification of DeLacy as one of “two Communists who were elected to Congress”—the other being Johnny Bernard from Minnesota—is extremely significant because Abt spent most of his legal career as chief counsel for the Communist Party, and “At one point during the Cold War, he was a key member—at one time the leader (according to Whittaker Chambers in his literary masterpiece Witness)—of the secret Ware Group,” Vernon notes.

He goes on, “The Ware Group operated underground in the nation’s capital. It was a covert organization of Communist Party operatives within the U.S. government. It served to aid Soviet intelligence by passing information, as well as assisting the Communist Party. The spy ring held some of its meetings in Abt’s Washington apartment.

“Abt himself wormed his way into key government posts: the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA); the Works Progress Administration (WPA); the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC); the Senate Subcommittee on Civil Liberties Violations (the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee); and the Department of Justice (DOJ). In each of these posts, Mr. Abt held influential positions.

“On November 22, 1963, after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald asked that he be represented by John Abt.

“That is a thumbnail bio of the man who would later openly boast in writing of the Communist Party’s ability to elect Hugh DeLacy to the Congress of the United States (albeit for one term before the voters dismissed him).”

It was also a reason, Vernon says, to consider Panetta’s friendship with DeLacy as relevant in 2011.

Although the Senate confirmed Panetta, this does not mean that the controversy goes away, especially since Obama gave Panetta the task of slashing our national defense capabilities. At any time the Senate can—and should—revisit the controversy over Panetta’s ties to DeLacy.

In Witness, Chambers recounts that Abt took the Fifth Amendment when asked about his CPUSA membership by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He even declined to answer a question about knowing Chambers. It was a cover-up of monumental proportions.

But while we know much about the secret network, we do not know everything.

The Ware group was a communist underground apparatus in the nation’s capital. But Chambers said he was asked by “Comrade Peters”—J. Peters, the head of the underground section of the CPUSA—to move some of the “career Communists” out of the New Deal agencies, “which the party could penetrate almost at will,” into some of the “old-line departments,” such as the U.S. Department of State. That is when Peters introduced Chambers to Harold Ware.

“The Ware Group was a background and a base for my activities, from the time I arrived in Washington, in 1934, until I broke with the Communist Party, in 1938,” Chambers wrote.

However, the Ware Group was divided into “two sinister stems”—the Soviet espionage apparatus, and the apparatus associated with such figures as Alger Hiss, later convicted of perjury for denying he was a communist spy. The second apparatus was “more important” and “still lies in the shadows,” Chambers ominously wrote in 1952.

Hiss, Chambers wrote, “was no ordinary Communist. My own first impression of him had been brief, but his manner told me something, and from Peters and Ware, I had learned enough of his background to know he was highly intelligent, but without real Communist experience. Like almost all the Washington communists, he belonged to a new breed—middle-class intellectuals who had gone directly underground without passing through the open party.”

It is this Alger Hiss who continues to fool Washington policymakers to the present day.

It is certainly significant that Anthony Lake, described by the Financial Times as one of Obama’s “intimates” and once thought to be his first choice for CIA director or some other national security post, had expressed doubt as to whether Alger Hiss was really guilty. (Lake was considered unconfirmable by the Senate and was eventually given the position of executive director for UNICEF.)

AIM members had sent the following (unanswered) postcards to Lake, a Professor at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University:

Dear Professor:

It has been reported that you are now backing and raising money for Senator Barack Obama for president. Since that means you have an influence of some kind on his thinking, especially in foreign affairs, we would like to know the following:

(1) Do you still doubt that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy?

(2) What Is Senator Obama’s position on the question of Hiss’s guilt?

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

We don’t know anything about Leon Panetta’s view of Alger Hiss’s guilt. We also don’t know anything about his view of the relationship that he personally maintained over a period of many years with Hugh DeLacy, who had traveled to Communist China to meet with Soviet and Chinese intelligence operatives. Senators, including so-called “Reagan Republicans,” refused to probe these matters. But we do know that Panetta inserted a tribute to DeLacy in the Congressional Record, praising his resistance to “McCarthyism.”

In retrospect, this is even more frightening than Anthony Lake expressing doubts about the guilt of Alger Hiss.

The attacks on this writer and Trevor Loudon because of our unassailable research on Panetta demonstrate that there is an extreme vulnerability in the background of the Secretary of Defense that cries out for examination. The answers may lie in the “shadows” that Chambers talked about.