Friday, June 02, 2023
View Blog
Feb 19

Written by: Diana West
Thursday, February 19, 2015 10:11 AM 


The unhinged attack of American Betrayal -- curiously, as noted, led by ex-Communists -- made much of my "occupation" metaphor. This would be the "occupation" of Washington by a Soviet intelligence army of literally hundreds of covert American agents who became embedded in the halls of power during the Roosevelt years, working on behalf of global Communism as led by Stalin's dictatorship. 

The evidence that sparks the metaphor is actually overwhelming. In fact, it is a rather obvious conclusion to draw, even if it has not been drawn before.

But there is something more shocking and much less metaphorical presented in the book, something that the arsonists never mention.

That is the book's discussion of the Communist front, the Popular Front, the Eastern Establishment, and the FDR administration. Here is an excerpt -- with lessons to draw regarding "Islamic fronts" today. 

From American Betrayal:

How did this happen? The answer has to do with another relic of the day, the Communist front, the infiltration mechanism deployed around the world beginning in the 1920s by which Communists, directed by Moscow, would advance, Trojan-horse-style, deep into any enemy’s territory through intensive campaigns of deception and manipulation. Eugene Lyons quotes Nechayev, “one of the prophets of Russian Bolshevism,” who provided the formula for manipulating “liberals of every shade” in his Catechism of the Revolutionist— yet another precursor to Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: “One may conspire with them in accordance with their program, making them believe that one follows blindly and at the same time one should take hold of them, get possession of their secrets, compromise them to the utmost, so that no avenue of escape may be left to them, and use them as instruments for stirring up disturbances.

Deathly amoral stuff. In this very way, false front organizations appear to be self-governing and independent but are, as a Comintern resolution of 1926 explained, “in reality under communist leadership.” Otto Kuusinen, a member of the Comintern secretariat, summed up the idea in strategic terms, also in 1926: “We must create a whole solar system of organizations and smaller communi- ties around the Communist Party, so to speak, smaller organizations working actually under the influence of our Party.” Members didn’t know, didn’t have to know (although surely some did); they only had to follow.

By following the Party line—following the Silvermaster line on “neurotic” Bentley being a clear example—the Eastern Liberal Establishment did indeed function under Communist influence. By 1948, this was nothing new. It was the modus operandi of the scores of front organizations Martin Dies successfully exposed during his tenure as chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. All of these groups and organizations were working under the influence of the Communist Party. In 1963, Martin Dies made the logical leap when he wrote, “By Kuusinen’s definition, ‘organizations working actually under the influence of the Communist Party,’ there is no question that the New Deal functioned as a Communist front.”

I agree, but Dies is wrong on one point. Yes, the New Deal functioned as a Communist front; but there are certain to be a lot of questions about it, welling up and blasting off in sputtering indignation. Then there is the question of how to break this to the busloads of American tourists who believe it is their patriotic duty to pay homage to FDR at his memorial. How to break it to them? How to break it to those continuously forming blue-ribbon panels to elevate FDR to the presidential pantheon one more time? How to break it to Doris Kearns Goodwin? This sounds flip, but it’s not. The problem of how to overturn more than three-quarters of a century of grounded, anchored, riveted historical un- derstanding is grave indeed.

Eugene Lyons made what may be a more accessible and palatable comparison to illustrate the workings of the New Deal bureaucracy when he explained that it functioned as an unofficial Popular Front government. Establishing “People’s Front” or “Popular Front” governments had been the main purpose of the Comintern in its “fabulous ‘democratic’ period” in the mid-1930s, Lyons writes, tongue firmly in cheek.

These weren’t run-of-the-mill coalitions, of course. The main characteristic, Lyons writes, was “the inclusion of the communists— not so much as a domestic political element but frankly as agents and spokesmen of Soviet Russia.” A sovereign domestic cabinet that included Moscow representatives, in other words. This came about in France in the Leon Blum government, and in Spain briefly, for example. In the United States, where Communists were always a neglible demographic, a different vehicle took shape, what Lyons called “an amazing unofficial Popular Front government— unrecognized, unadmitted, independent of the Administration, yet operating energetically within the New Deal framework.” He continued, “It added up to the most potent and ubiquitous influence in Washington, a half-clandestine government-within-the-government, arrogantly open in some spots on some occasions but conspiratorial in essence . . . With every passing month, the penetration was deeper, the entanglement closer.” This is exactly the force that William A. Wirt detected back at the very beginning. Even by 1941, Lyons didn’t know half of the half of it, with the worst of the penetration and entanglement still to take place, its existence to remain a state secret for half a century. ...


Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 2012 by Diana West