Control the Unions
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz

This traditional method which the Communists have advocated for many years has not as yet succeeded in the establishment of effective Communist power in any country.  Originally they saw the labor unions as the instrument through which the Communist Party was to come to power.  The program was as follows.  The Communists were to infiltrate the labor unions and secure executive power within them.  They were then to call an industrial strike.  This industrial strike would become a political strike, then a general strike and finally a revolutionary strike leading to armed insurrection and the conquest of power.
      The first necessity was to infiltrate the labor unions.  Lenin specifically states this in his book, “Left-Wing” Communism, an Infantile Disorder.  How they got into the labor unions did not matter.  They were to work their way in, lie their way in, or buy their way in.  The all important thing was that they get in.
      We must be able to withstand all this, (i.e. insults and persecution), to agree to all and every sacrifice, and even–if need be–to resort to various strategems, artifices, illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges, only so as to get into the trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on Communist work within them at all costs.

Industrial Strike
Once in power, at the appropriate moment, they were to call an industrial strike.  An industrial strike is defined as one directed at the achievement of an industrial goal such as higher wages or shorter working hours.  Generally speaking, such a strike can always be called.  There are always grievances, and desires for improved conditions that any intelligent Communist leader can exploit.  Moreover, an industrial strike is, generally speaking, the only type of strike which can be organized and maintained with the support of the workers.  The industrial strike must then be transformed into a political strike.

Political Strike
A political strike is not designed to secure immediate, tangible, industrial benefits for the workers, but to destroy the Capitalist system.  A political strike is designed to undermine the foundations of authority by creating chaos, unemployment, bitterness, hunger and fear.  Usually, a political strike, as such, cannot be called, but an industrial strike can be transformed into a political one.  As the political strike extends and grows into a general strike, many situations will arise where the striking workers come into conflict with organized authority, usually with the police, but

sometimes with the military forces.

Revolutionary Strike
As acts of violence come to be associated with it, the political strike transforms itself into a revolutionary strike.  When the revolutionary strike has developed sufficiently and drawn into its orbit enough working people, a general insurrection can take place.  Thus the revolutionary strike transforms itself into armed insurrection.  If the insurrection is successful, the Communists, through their control of the labor unions, will be able to establish their dictatorship of the proletariat.
      This method, their traditional method for the seizure of power, has not yet brought them success in any country.  But it has been a most important adjunct to their seizure of power and rehearsals of the process have taken place in many countries.
      The last great strike wave organized by the Communists for this purpose was in the year 1949.  During that year there were worldwide, co-ordinated, organized strikes.  There was a dock workers’ strike in England when the British authorities expelled from Britain as an international Communist agent Louis Goldblatt, secretary-treasurer of the International Longshore Workers and Warehousemen’s Union.  The islands of Hawaii approached economic strangulation during a dockworkers’ strike that year.  In Australia there was a coal-miners’ strike.  These strikes were co-ordinated on a world-wide scale.
      The coal-miners’ strike in Australia is of special interest as it was a rehearsal of the Communist program for the assumption of total power.  In Australia, the Communist Party is an open political party and nominates candidates for political office in federal, state, and municipal government.  These nominations are made in the name of the Communist Party.  But the Communists in Australia have always been a small, politically insignificant minority, and their candidates invariably fail miserably.  There is a system in Australia whereby a candidate, when he nominates for an elective office, must pay a deposit which is refunded if he secures a certain percentage of the votes of the leading candidate.  This is designed to prevent frivolous candidates with no prospect of victory from swamping the candidate list.  It is a great day for the Communist Party if one of their candidates saves his deposits.  The Communists in Australia do not get elected to political office.
      However, their industrial power is very strong indeed.  By following Lenin’s technique, this handful of Communists has come to power in a vast segment of Australia’s labor unions.  They are very hard workers, they are good organizers, and they are dedicated.  Because of their organizing ability and dedication, they are frequently elected to executive union office.

      When I was a resident medical officer in the General Hospital in Brisbane, Australia, the largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere, the labor situation was most interesting.  The official union of the non-medical workers at the Brisbane General Hospital was the Australian Workers’ Union which, in its leadership, was fervently anti-Communist.  The representative of the workers at the hospital was a man called King who was a fanatical Communist.  King was elected by the workers as their representative in the hospital not because he was a Communist, but because he was prepared to work for them assiduously and courageously.  Every day when they received their pay checks, King stood at the office and waited.  If one of them had a grievance, he went to King who immediately went to the management.  There he yelled and shouted if necessary, in order to have the supposed wrong righted.  Those workers knew that if they had a grievance, King would be on their side, right or wrong, and that they could depend on him.  Therefore, they made him their representative.  The union itself was fanatically anti-Communist in its leadership and in its official publication.  But local Communists such as King were able by sheer hard work to exercise considerable influence and authority.  The workers served by such men saw only the dedication, not the ultimate purpose.
      By this method the Communists were able to come to power in a large number of Australian unions.  These unions included the Seamen’s Union of Australia, the secretary of which was a fervent, self-proclaimed Communist, the Waterside Workers’ Federation of which the secretary, Jim Healy, was a prominent Communist, and the Coal Miners’ Federation which was under effective Communist control.  In 1949, the steelworkers’ union of Australia, know as the Federated Ironworkers’ Union, was directed by Communist officials, though these have since been expelled.  Thus the Communists were in considerable power in a very significant section of organized labor in Australia.
      In the winter of 1949, a strike was called in the coal mining industry.  Coal is the life blood of Australia.  The country has no natural petroleum and no natural gas.  Coal is the source of gas, electricity, and, basically, the source of transportation.  It is the economic life blood of the country.  This was particularly true in 1949.  There had been a severe coal shortage since the end of the war.  There were no coal stocks at grass anywhere in Australia.  Coal that was mined one day was transported for use the following day.  The coal

that is used to provide gas for heating and cooking in Sydney comes from Newcastle which is one hundred miles to the north.  If a storm was raging and a coal ship was held up, it was quite common for gas rationing to be imposed till the coal arrived.  Public utilities and industry generally operated under the constant threat of coal starvation.
      In this situation a coal strike was called.  It was called in defiance of the established lawful processes for the settling of disputes, while the dispute was still before the arbitration authorities.  It was called as an industrial strike demanding increased wages and fringe benefits.
      When the strike began, chaos became the order of the day.  There was immediate rationing of gas and electricity.  Industries that depended upon electricity had to close down.  Hundreds of thousands of men were thrown out of work.  It was illegal to burn more than one electric light bulb in a home at any one time.  Gas was allowed for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening for cooking purposes only.  It was mid-winter.  Gas fires and electric radiators, which provide the only heat in most Australian homes, were prohibited without a medical prescription.  There were a number of tragedies.  Old age pensioners, living in rooms by themselves and feeling desperately cold, would illegally light their gas fires and go to sleep.  As they slept, the gas would be turned off at the main.  Later the gas would be turned on again and flood their rooms with deadly fumes while they slept on.  Many did not awaken.
      The government in power at that time was the Australian Labour Party, an avowed, self-proclaimed Socialist Party.  They declared that this was a revolutionary assault upon the authority and economy of the country and introduced drastic legislation.  They sent the armed forces into the strip coal mines to mine coal for the people.  They froze labor union funds retrospectively.  The Waterside Workers’ Federation, the Miners’ Federation, and the Steel Workers’ Union under Communist leadership had withdrawn large sums of money from the bank to use as strike pay.  The executive officers of these unions were taken before the courts and ordered to produce these sums of money which they had withdrawn before the law freezing their funds was introduced.  When they refused, they were sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of court.
      Chaos developed.  Everywhere there was strife and bitterness.  The unemployed and the cold were ripe for Communist agitation.  The Communist agitators placed the whole blame on the Capitalist system urging its overthrow.

      There was a rehearsal for the armed insurrection.  When Jim Healy, the secretary of the Waterside Workers’ Federation, was sent to prison for refusal to obey the court’s order to produce the money which had been withdrawn from the bank, the Communists agitated on the waterfront.  They gathered the long-shoremen together and told them that this was an assault on them.  This man was their representative.  They had elected him.  It was their duty to stand by him.  If they let this go without protest, soon more serious measures would be taken against them such as reductions in wages.  The men were stirred up and, thousands strong, they marched through the streets.  It did not break out into open violence, but all the potentials were there.  If the moment had been considered ripe, an incident could have been started, leading to fighting.  In this way a political strike becomes a revolutionary strike, and a revolutionary strike becomes armed insurrection.
      The most revealing aspect of the whole situation was the helplessness of the workers and the power of the leaders in the crisis hours.  Every labor union in Australia lined up, not in terms of the patriotism of its membership, but in terms of the Communist affiliation of its leaders.  The membership of the unions was helpless while the leadership was all-powerful.  This was very well illustrated by the different behavior of the railwaymen in the states of Victoria and New South Wales.  Victoria and New South Wales, the two most populous Australian states, are contiguous to each other.  There is no possible way by which you could differentiate the Victorian workers from those in New South Wales.  They are similar in every respect.  Nevertheless, the Victorian railwaymen were part of the Communist revolutionary front.  They sided with the strikers and refused to move the coal mined by the army, declaring it hot.  The railwaymen of New South Wales, on the other hand, handled the coal, transported it, and delivered it to public utilities, thus playing a large part in the mainteance of essential services.  The railwaymen of New South Wales effectively thwarted the Communist objective of a transport strike to advance the revolution.
      There was one all important difference between the railwaymen of the two states.  In Victoria, the secretary of the railwaymen was Jack Brown, a Communist, while the

secretary in New South Wales was Jack Ferguson, an anti-Communist.  That was the sole difference, but in the crisis hour, these men had legal authority to make decisions which were binding on thousands of other men.  The executives had the power to make the decisions unless a mass meeting was called to overthrow them.  This was well nigh impossible since mass meetings may require up to fourteen days’ notice.  Multitudes may starve in fourteen days.
      Frequently the argument is made that, provided that workers are patriotic, a few extreme union leaders do not matter very much.  History has proven this to be nonsense.  The International Longshore and Warehouse Workers’ Union of the West Coat of the United States was expelled from the CIO because it was a consistent instrument of the international Communist conspiracy.  The longshore workers of California are no less patriotic than the longshore workers of the East Coast, but on the West Coast they are controlled by a handful of Communsit officials.
      That the I.L.W.U. is slavishly devoted to Communist purposes is revealed in the published report of the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws to the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate.  This report reveals that during the collective or popular front period of the Communist Party, the I.L.W.U. supported Roosevelt’s anti-aggression program.  With the signing of the Stalin-Hitler pact, however, the I.L.W.U. suddenly discovered that the war in Europe was of no concern to it.  It attacked President Roosevelt and his policy of giving aid to the allies.  Following the opening of hostilities between Germany and Russia in June, 1941, the I.L.W.U. leadership reversed its policy and declared that the war in Europe was, after all, of vital concern to the labor movement.  In the summer of 1944, Bridges and the I.L.W.U. executive board urged that the no strike pledge be extended into peacetime.  With the end of the war in Europe and the collapse of the wartime collaboration between the Soviet Union and the Democratic Nations, the position of the I.L.W.U., like that of the Communist Party, underwent another change, and the no strike pledge was forgotten.

Gus Hall–America’s Communist Guru
by Robert Stacy McCain

Gus Hall, longtime leader of the Communist Party USA, died Friday in New York City of complications from diabetes.  He was 90.
      In the 1950s, Mr. Hall served eight years in federal prison for conspiring to overthrow the government.
      By 1996, however, he supported the re-election of President Clinton, calling on the Communist Party to “mobilize people to vote and to re-elect Clinton as the only way...to defeat” Republicans he called “pro-fascist forces.”
      Mr. Hall was the Communist Party’s presidential candidate in four consecutive elections from 1972 to 1984, running on the slogan “People Before Profits.”  Mr. Hall received his highest total–58,992 votes–in 1976.
      Joining the Young Communist League at age 17, Mr. Hall devoted his life to the cause.  Even after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union –ending as much as $2 million a year in Kremlin subsidies to the American party–Mr. Hall still spoke of the “inevitability” of Marxist socialism.
      A 1993 newspaper profile called him “The Last Comrade.”
      “Gus Hall is not only a giant figure in our party, but he was a giant figure in the world movement,” Scott Marshall, vice chairman of the Communist Party (CPUSA) told The Washington Times.
      Mr. Hall “was a figure in our movement that helped build our party, who fought in the struggles of the working class,” Mr. Marshall said.  “He was a founding member of the [United] Steel Workers Union.  He was a champion in the struggle for equal rights, against all forms of discrimination and racism.”
      Arvo Kusta Halberg was born in Minnesota, one of 10 children of Finnish immigrant parents who were charter members of CPUSA.  He went to work as a lumberjack at age 14.  By age 21, he was studying sabotage and guerilla warfare at the Lenin Institute in Moscow.
      Arrested for inciting a riot during a 1934 Teamsters strike in Minneapolis, he moved to Youngstown, Ohio, where he ran for City Council on the Communist ticket under his birth name.  He changed his name to Gus Hall when he applied for a job in a steel mill that refused to hire Communists.

      Mr. Hall was indicted on explosives charges during a 1937 Ohio steelworkers’ strike so violent the National Guard was called out to protect a Republic Steel plant.  The explosive charges were dropped, Mr. Hall was fined $500 for vandalism, and the steel company was forced to recognize the union.
      “That strike was the final blow against the steel giants’ vicious anti-union stance” the CPUSA said in a press release yesterday.
      During World War II, Mr. Hall volunteered for the Navy, served as a machinist mate, and was honorably discharged in 1946.
      But in 1948, Mr. Hall and 11 other CPUSA leaders were indicted on federal charges of “conspiracy to teach and advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government by force and violence.”
      Convicted in 1949, Mr. Hall jumped bail and fled the country.  Captured in Mexico, he served eight years in the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas.
      The party’s strength–estimated at 100,000 members in the early 1940s–had been broken by the time Mr. Hall was released from prison in 1959 and elected general secretary of CPUSA.
      Revelations of Soviet espionage by Alger Hiss and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the Soviet-backed invasion of South Korea, and congressional investigations by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and others contributed to communism’s declining support in the United States.  The 1960 election saw John F. Kennedy, an anti-communist Democrat, narrowly defeat anti-communist Republican Richard M. Nixon.
      Author of such works as the 1971 book “Erosion of U.S. Capitalism in the Seventies,” Mr. Hall published articles in the CPUSA newspaper, People’s Weekly World, as recently as last month.
      Mr. Hall’s 1995 report to the CPUSA convention denounced House Speaker Newt Gingrich as leader of the “extreme right fascist-like forces who took over the Republican Party.”
      In a 1999 article, Mr. Hall called Mr. Clinton’s impeachment “an attempted right-wing coup d’etat” and wrote: “We fully agree with Hillary Clinton when she called it a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’.”
      Mr. Hall is survived by his wife, Elizabeth; a daughter, Barbara; a son, Arvo; and two sisters.
      The Washington Times, October 17, 2000, p. A8

Multiculturalism and Marxism, Part II
by Professor Frank Ellis

A multicultural society is one that is inherently prone to conflict, not harmony.  This is why we see a large growth in government bureaucracies dedicated to resolving disputes along racial and cultural lines.  These disputes can never be resolved permanently because the bureaucrats deny one of the major causes: race.  This is why there is so much talk of the “multicultural” rather than the more precise “multiracial.”  Even more changes and legislation are introduced to make the host society even more congenial to racial minorities.  This only creates more demands, and encourages the non-shooting war against whites, their civilization, and even the ideas of the West.
      How is such a radical program carried forward?  The Soviet Union had a massive system of censorship–the Communists even censored street maps–and it is worth noting there were two kinds of censorship: the blatant censorship of state agencies and the more subtle self-censorship that the inhabitants of “people democracies” soon learned.
      The situation in the West is not so straight forward.  There is nothing remotely comparable to Soviet-style government censorship and yet we have deliberate suppression of dissent.  Arthur Jensen, Hans Eysenck, J. Philippe Rushton, Chris Brand, Michael Levin, and Glayde Whitney have all been vilified for their racial views.  The case of Professor Rushton is particularly troubling because his academic work was investigated by the police.  The attempt to silence him was based on provisions of Canadian hate speech laws.  This is just the sort of intellectual terror one expected in the Soviet Union.  To find it in a country which prides itself on being a pillar of Western liberal democracy is one of the most disturbing consequences of multiculturalism.
      A mode of opinion control softer than outright censorship is the current obsession with fictional role models.  Today, the feminist and anti-racist theme is constantly worked into movies and television as examples of Bartold Brecht’s principle that the Marxist artist must show the world not as it is but as it ought to be.  This is why we have so many screen portrayals of wise black judges, street wise, straight-shooting lady policemen, minority computer geniuses; and, of course, degenerate white men.  This is almost a direct borrowing from Soviet-style socialist realism, with its idealized depictions of sturdy proletarians routing capitalist vermin.
      Multiculturalism has the same ambitions as Soviet Communism.  It is absolute in its pursuit of its various agendas, yet it relativizes all other perspectives in its attack on its enemies.  Multiculturalism is an ideology to end all other ideologies, and these totalitarian aspirations permit us to draw two conclusions:
      First, multiculturalism must eliminate all opposition everywhere.  There can be no safe havens for counter-revolutionaries.
      Second, once it is established the multicultural paradise

must be defended at all costs. Orthodoxy must be maintained with all the resources of the state.
      Such a society would be well on its way to being totalitarian.  It might not have concentration camps, but it would have re-education centers and sensitivity training for those sad creatures who still engaged in “white male hegemonic discourse.”  Rather than the bald totalitarianism of the Soviet state we would have a softer version in which our minds would be the wards of the state; we would be liberated from the burden of thought and therefore unable to fall into the heresy of political incorrectness.
      If we think of multiculturalism as yet another manifestation of 20th century totalitarianism, can we take solace in the fact that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed?  Is multiculturalism a phase, a periodic crisis through which the West is passing, or does it represent something fundamental and perhaps irreversible?
      Despite the efforts of pro-Soviet elements, the West recognized the Soviet empire as a threat.  It does not recognize multiculturalism as a threat in the same way.  For this reason, many of the assumptions and objectives remain unchallenged.  Still, there are some grounds for optimism.  For example, the speed with which the term “political correctness” caught on.  It took the tenured radicals completely by surprise, but it is only a small gain.
      In the long term, the most important battleground in the war against multiculturalism is the United States.  The battle is likely to be a slow way of attrition.  If it fails, the insanity of multiculturalism is something white Americans will have to live with.  Of course, at some time whites may demand an end to being punished because of black failure.  As Professor Michael Hart argues in The Real American Dilemma (published by New Century Foundation), there could be a racial partition of the United States.  We might find that what happened in the Balkans is not peculiar to that part of the world.
      Race war is not something the affluent radicals deliberately seek but their policies are pushing us in that direction.
      I have argued thus far that the immediate context for understanding political correctness and multiculturalism is the Soviet Union and its catastrophic utopian experiment.  And yet the PC/multicultural mentality is much older.  In Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke offers a portrait of French radicals which is still relevant 200 years after he wrote it: “They have no respect for the wisdom of others, but they pass it off with a very full measure of confidence in their own.  With them it is sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things because it is an old one.  As to the new, they are in no sort of fear of the duration of a building run up in haste because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery.”
      Of course, multiculturalism is far from being a solution to racial and cultural conflict.  Quite the contrary.  Multiculturalism is the road to a special kind of hell that we have already seen in the last century, a hell that man, having, abandoned and in revolt against God’s order, builds for himself and others.
      Fact, Fiction & Fraud, July 2000

Gus Hall’s Obituary
by Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley

The recent passing of Communist Party USA boss Gus Hall, who died in New York this month at age 90, confirms that, on the major conflict of our time, democracy versus totalitarianism, American journalists literally don’t know what they are talking about.
      Consider selections from the obituary of Hall by Myrna Oliver of the Los Angeles Times.  “Affable, nattily dressed and adept at telling funny stories over endless cups of coffee,” said the Times.  Mr Hall “mellowed with age,” and “painted pictures of woodpeckers” at his cozy home in Yonkers.  His “hardscrabble experiences in the logging camps, mines and mills convinced him of the rightness of communism.”  But here’s the collector’s item, a true classic.  Hall was “quintessentially American.”  It’s not clear how it’s quintessentially American for anyone to dedicate his life to an ideology which according to its own founders, is rule by force and terror.  According to the careful count of “The Black Book of Communism,” the ideology to which Mr. Hall dedicated himself is responsible for as many as 100 million deaths worldwide.  The mass graves are still being unearthed.
      Not many Americans dedicate their lives to craven, slavish advocacy of the Soviet Union, some of the most loathsome regimes in history–a mass-murdering dictatorship that inflicted poverty and misery on millions, and was headed for three decades by Josef Stalin, who made genocide the defining characteristic of his regime.
      Gus Hall, born Arvo Halberg in Minnesota, was not just a partisan and cheerleader for this gang.  Stalin was his idol and his boss.  Hall was a paid agent of the Soviet regime

during the nadir of its brutality, when dissidents, writers and
artists vanished into the gulag, never to be seen again; when troops hauled entire ethnic groups to Siberia; when Eastern European leaders were tried for the crime of being Jewish, and executed after ludicrous show trials.  And much much more.  Hall knew all but denied or defended all, which is what his Soviet bosses paid him to do.
      Others in the Communist Party USA, an outfit founded, funded and directed by the Soviet Union, did it without pay.  They did it while enjoying the rights, freedoms, and prosperity of the United States of America, a nation they regarded as “glavy vrag”–the main enemy, and which they hated with sulfuric ferocity.
      The Communist Party USA was and is a hate group.  Gus Hall, who headed that party, was a Stalinist stooge, a paid professional liar, an agent of hostile foreign dictatorship.
      Despite his birth on these shores, he was quintessentially anti-American.  This is how he should be remembered, not for quaint coffee shop jokes or woodpecker portraits.  For purposes of comparison, imagine an obit of a long-time paid agent of Nazism reading, “he mellowed in his later years, believing National Socialism would come to America not by violent revolution, but through the ballot box, and liked to tell a good joke while quaffing a cold beer at his cottage in Vermont.”
      The anti-Semitic show trials that Hall defended took place in the early 1950s in Czechoslovakia, then a Soviet colony.  Milan Kundera, a novelist from that country, observes that the struggle of mankind against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.  That should be the watchword for a new century, but you can’t remember what you didn’t know in the first place.
      The Washington Times, October, 20, 2000, p. A21