tax-exempt educational organization, the Crusade aimed to diagnose the "philosophy, morality, organization, techniques, and strategy of communism and related forces". It spread its message through a newsletter and congressional testimony and in lectures and broadcasts.
      In the mid-1950s the discrediting of Senator Joseph McCarthy created a vacuum that other anti-communists could fill. In Schwarz’s case, however, there was some initial consumer resistance. Americans were bemused by his "shrill" Australian accent (to one observer his tones seemed reminiscent of a London music hall). His status as a non-citizen was a drawback as well.
      Things picked up though after Schwarz moved to the angst-ridden climate of Southern California where he found audiences that warmed to his "infectious, waggish grin" and "crisp energetic self-confident" style.
      Despite his sunny exterior, Schwarz presented a troubling message. The Crusade claimed that communists planned to take over the US by 1973. The external Soviet nuclear threat, it insisted, was being augmented by "internal demoralization" in American schools and universities, the mainstream churches and the US government.
      At "Anti-Communism Schools" audiences were encouraged to establish private study groups using material available from the Crusade. An estimated 5000 study groups were formed. A Schwarz publication, You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists) sold over a million copies.
      The high point of the crusade occurred in 1961 when Schwarz held a five-day "Southern California School of Anti-Communism" as a prelude to a rally in the Hollywood Bowl. An audience of 15,000 attended the rally which was telecast across California and later on prime time TV in New York City.
      Schwarz’s telecast was "the first extensive use of the persuasive and powerful visual media by organized anti-Communist forces". Support was forthcoming from a range of show business personalities including Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Pat Boone and Ozzie and Harriet Nelson. Schwarz’s success was not replicated in Australia. A branch of the Crusade operated out of Sydney but its impact was negligible.
      In the mid-60s an American reporter noted that Schwarz received "scarcely any public attention" when he paid his annual visit to his family.
      It was Schwarz’s fate to remain of no great account in Australia but, in contrast, he had a lasting impact in the US. Ronald Reagan, still imbued with anti-communist zeal, became president in 1981. He employed a trio of Crusade disciples as speechwriters. One of them helped to write the 1983 speech in which Reagan described the USSR as "the evil empire." 

Under Reagan, détente lost its allure. The Soviet Union ceased to be regarded as a normal power with whom accommodation should be sought. A latter-day John the Baptist, Schwarz had prepared the way for this great paradigm shift.
      After the USSR imploded, Crusade supporters saw no reason to disband but they needed younger leadership. In 1998, aged 85, Fred Schwarz stood down as president of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. He left California and returned to Sydney from where his message is still disseminated over the Internet.
      The Cold War, while having a powerful impact on Australia, was won and lost far from its shores. For good or evil, Schwarz’s efforts in galvanising anti-communist attitudes in the world’s only durable superpower dwarfed anything that could be achieved back in Australia. Though attracting little local attention, he exerted influence far closer to the scenes of ultimate power. He left Bob Santamaria and Frank Knopfelmacher for dead.
      —The Canberra (Australia) Times, August 1, 2000

ADDENDUM: by David A. Noebel
For skeptics amongst us who might doubt Dr. Holt’s assertion that Fred Schwarz "exerted influence far closer to the scenes of ultimate power," I direct your attention to Lisa McGirr’s Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right (Princeton University Press, 2001).
      The book contends that Orange County California is the true origin of America’s Conservative movement (which culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan) and that Dr. Fred C. Schwarz played a major part in educating Orange Country to the dangers of communism and the benefits of freedom, Christianity and conservatism.
      While McGirr is a typical liberal professor at Harvard University (history department) and not sympathetic to the conservative movement in the least, she does do a fairly decent job in identifying the key players in Orange County and notes numerous times that Fred Schwarz and his Christian Anti-Communism Crusade "helped to reshape the political direction of the nation." (p. 53)
      McGirr enjoys mentioning that Schwarz’s Schools of Anti-Communism were only speaking of "perceived threats of communism" or "perceived dangers of communism." (p. 55)
      What she should do is read carefully Harvard University Press’s own The Black Book of Communism and then tell the world that Schwarz only "perceived" the dangers of communism.
      As history has noted the Fred Schwarz’s of the world were right on target on the impact of communism, and the liberal left were wrong all the time.

      When the truth finally emerges it will note that Sen. Joe McCarthy was right on his view of communism and The New York Times was wrong! Shamefully wrong!
      Following are some comments from McGirr’s work that notes how Dr. Fred C. Schwarz influenced America and hence the world:
      a) "The Orange County School of Anti-Communism was sponsored by a local committee made up of more than 100 prominent local citizens and headed by conservative Walter Knott, owner of a successful recreation park, Knott’s Berry Farm…Led by Dr. Fred Schwarz of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, the schools brought in "faculty" from around the nation to warn of an imminent communist takeover." (p. 60)
      b) "Schwarz, a lay pastor and former physician from Australia, had given up a medical career to devote himself to battling communism." (p. 61)

      c) "After settling in nearby Long Beach, California, Schwarz traveled extensively, spreading his message especially in the Southwest, where he was best known. A gifted orator, he drew on his medical training in describing the ‘evils’ of communism, comparing communism to a disease with many symptoms, a disease that would have to be studied, diagnosed and treated." (p. 61)
      d) "Schwarz was influential in shaping the agenda of the Orange County School of Anti-Communism." (p. 61)
      e) "The School of Anti-Communism decisively shaped the future of right-wing politics in Orange County." (p. 61)
      f) "Ronald Reagan was one of the speakers at the Southern California School of Anti-Communism…with approximately 15,000 in attendance." (p. 64) The picture McGirr uses also shows Mrs. Reagan and Roy Rogers in attendance.
      g) "Books like The Naked Communist, Masters of Deceit, 

and Fred Schwarz’s You Can Trust the Communists (to Be Communists) spoke urgently of dire communist plans to conquer the United States." (p. 96)
      h) "Fred Schwarz’s You Can Trust the Communists (to Be Communists) stressed communism’s opposition to the principle of ‘an absolute God’ and ‘an absolute truth’." (p. 96)
      i) "The All-Southern California School of Anti-Communism, held from August 28 through September 1, 1961, in the Los Angeles Sports Arena, not only featured Schwarz, W. Cleon Skousen, and Herbert Philbrick but also drew Rear Admiral Chester Ward, Senator Thomas J. Dodd of Connecticut, and prominent actors John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Pat Boone, Roy Rogers, and George Murphy onto the stage." (p. 101)
      j) "Ronald Reagan’s activities for the conservative cause included appearances before rallies of Fred Schwarz’s Christian Anti-Communism Crusade." (p. 190)
      k) "Ronald Reagan, an unabashed conservative 

ideologue, had won a resounding victory in his run for governor." (p. 217)
      l) "It is in the story of the making of suburban Orange County—and, with it, the making of the Sunbelt and modern West—that we uncover the forging of the New Right and, in a larger sense, the reconfiguration of twentieth-century American politics." (p. 273)
      Did Dr. Fred C. Schwarz have an impact on the world? The answer is easy. And besides, this Aussie physician influenced in one way or another Phyllis Schlafly, Beverly LaHaye, Tim LaHaye, Chuck Smith, Robert Schuller, Ralph Wilkinson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Norman Geisler, Gary North and yours truly.
      Is it any wonder why it is important to keep the name of Fred Schwarz alive along with his Christian Anti-Communism Crusade? It is my privilege to do so, and with your continuing help, we’ll someday make the name anti-Communism as respectable as anti-Nazi and anti-Fascist.

"But if any of you [U.S. Supreme Court] causes one of these little ones who trusts in me to lose faith, it would be better for you to have a rock tied to your neck and be thrown into the sea." Matthew 18:6
      The following article on internet pornography may be offensive to some readers, and should be to all.
      Whenever a supreme court opinion is bristling with references to Renaissance paintings, classical mythology, and "art and literature throughout the ages," you know the court is about to invoke the First Amendment to protect "Bisexual Schoolgirls’ Porn Pictures."
      Writing for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy struck down a perfectly sensible federal child porn law last week. Though you might think the attorney general was preparing to rip "War and Peace" off the shelves, the law simply extended the reach of the federal child pornography laws to computer-generated "virtual" images of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Without this law, it will be impossible, in practice, to prosecute any child pornography cases.
      In order to prohibit, say, "Youngest Teen Sluts in the World!" while leaving the Federalist Papers unmolested, the law carefully defined "sexually explicit" conduct as: "actual or simulated ... sexual intercourse ... bestiality ... masturbation ... sadistic or masochistic abuse ... or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."
      In response to this law, Justice Kennedy expounded on William Shakespeare’s "Romeo and Juliet" – "the most famous pair of teen-age lovers." He continued: "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and ... speech is the beginning of thought."
      Oh, cut it out.
      The last smut prosecutions for works with any redeeming value whatsoever took place almost four decades ago. Since then, pornographers have been running amok, producing the most degrading pornography imaginable – and then running to the Supreme Court to whine about threats to Shakespeare and "Lady Chatterley’s Lover."
      Some of the more respectable titles taken off the Internet include: "Preteen Pedophilia XXX," "Kiddie Pix," "Mary’s Pictures of Young Nude Girls," "Lolita Angels," "Preteen Nudist Camp," "Naked Little School Girls," "Kiddie Porn Lolitas," "Rape Lolita," "Preteen Incest Rape."
      Remember: I’m not the one who says "Preteen Sluts" is protected by the Constitution. Pornography defenders always insist on describing this particular constitutional right in vague euphemisms, such as "material dealing frankly with sex" and "sexually themed material." If I have to endure Justice Kennedy’s pompous platitudes when we’re talking 

about "Lolita Angels," then I’m not politely avoiding the topic.
      The nation is swimming in pornography. You can’t turn on TV without seeing simulated sex scenes. And Kennedy is worried that a law banning computer-generated photos of children engaging in sexually explicit acts will put Shakespeare at risk?
      If judges pretended to be this confused when interpreting other laws, there could be no laws about anything. Indeed, Depends undergarments would be a necessity on the high court, as justices struggled with whether that feeling in their bellies meant they had to go to the bathroom or needed to burp. Is it "Othello" or is it "Kiddie Pix"?
      In addition to Shakespeare, Kennedy claims that if Congress were permitted to outlaw virtual images of children in explicit sex scenes, movies like "Traffic" and "American Beauty" might be made differently. "[L]egitimate movie producers," Kennedy anxiously warns, might not "risk distributing images in or near the uncertain reach of this law."
      Justice William Rehnquist points out in his dissent that both "American Beauty" and "Traffic" were made (and given awards) while this precise child porno law was on the books. Not only that, but during that time, four of five federal appeals courts were upholding the law. As Rehnquist says: "The chill felt by the court ... has apparently never been felt by those who actually make movies."
      Moreover, the actress who played a teen-age girl in the crucially important simulated sex scene in "Traffic" was not, in fact, a minor. (Why does no one ever say, "‘Casablanca’ was a good movie – but what it really needed was simulated sex scenes with kids"?) Even high-priced lawyers for the porno industry couldn’t come up with more than one "legitimate" Hollywood movie that might possibly – theoretically – fall under the virtual child porn law.
      Here is a description, courtesy of an Internet rating service, of just some of the sex scenes from "American Beauty": "a couple has sex with thrusting, her legs up in the air ... a man is seen from behind m----------- in the shower ... a man m---------- next to his sleeping wife in bed ... a girl stands in front of boy, then takes her bra off and we see her breasts ... a man thinks a male couple is performing fel----- (they are not) ... a father kisses his daughter’s teen-age friend, caresses her clothed breasts and pulls off her jeans until she’s down to her underwear, and opens her shirt, exposing her bare breasts ... a man has several daydreams of a girl in a bathtub with rose petals covering her; he reaches his hand under the water at her crotch level as she puts her head back and moans."
      So Congress can’t ban virtual kiddie porn because the law might make producers think twice before making movies with scenes like that? This is the doomsday scenario? A little chilling might lead to "virtual" watchable movies.
      —Universal Press Syndicate, April 25, 2002

Bobby Seale, the former chairman and co-founder of the Black Panther Party, has just recently made a confession about Panther criminality that has vindicated what David Horowitz has been saying for years.
      Seale is best remembered for his 1969 courtroom histrionics as one of the Chicago Eight, the eight moral degenerates who were put on trial for inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Seale’s behavior caused the judge to order him shackled to a chair and gagged.
      Seale is now apparently ungagging himself about the Panther past. In a recent speech at a Panther reunion, he confessed that the Panthers were little more than extortionists, gangsters and murderers and that they killed Betty Van Patter — whose murder remains unsolved till this day.
      As expected, the former Panther engaged in selective memory and exonerated himself from any personal wrongdoing in Panther crimes. He also called David Horowitz a liar— even though he (Seale) simultaneously admitted that the Panthers were everything Horowitz has been saying they were.
      Seale’s confession serves as yet another reminder of the Left’s practice of historical amnesia, since the Liberal Establishment has yet to reconcile itself with who and what the Panthers really were. This explains why there has been a literal blackout by the national media on this issue.
      To fight this assault on historical memory, Horowitz has devoted much of his life to exposing Panther criminality. He has done so because the Panthers abducted and killed his friend –- Betty Van Patter. For speaking the truth about the criminality of the Left’s revolutionary vanguard, Horowitz has paid a large personal price. His life has been put in danger and his intellectual scholarship has been banned by the Nazi-like Leftist censors in academia.
      Seale’s confession now serves as yet another vindication of Horowitz. Eldridge Cleaver’s confession did the same several years back. In the now famous 1998 60 Minutes program during which he admitted the pernicious ruthlessness of the Panthers, the former Panther leader discussed his change of heart. Cleaver stated, "If people had listened to Huey Newton and me in the 1960s, there would have been a holocaust in this country."
      Betty Van Patter was one of the tragic victims of that holocaust in its beginning stages –- and fortunately that potential holocaust did not animate itself into a larger force.
      Betty had been recruited by Horowitz in the early 1970s to keep the books of a "Learning Center" in Oakland that he 

had created to run a school for the children of Black Panthers. A Leftist radical at the time, Horowitz had become affiliated with the Panthers after he met their infamous leader, Huey Newton, and became enchanted with him.
      Horowitz didn’t have a clue that the "Learning Center" served as a cover for Panther criminal activity; it was a military training center that was also being used as a vehicle to embezzle millions of dollars in California state and local education funds.
      After Newton killed a teenage prostitute and fled to Cuba in 1974, Elaine Brown took over as leader of the Panthers. She asked Horowitz to recommend an accountant to run the Party’s finances. Horowitz suggested Betty.
      Extremely naïve about what she was dealing with, Betty found something wrong with the Panthers’ record books and went to inform Brown. She subsequently disappeared. In January 1975, Betty’s battered body — with her head caved in — was found floating in San Francisco Bay.
      Horowitz was horrified by the murder of his friend. He felt a personal responsibility because he had brought Betty into the fold. He began to ask questions about her death, but he faced a disturbing lack of curiosity among his Leftwing associates.
      Horowitz was soon to learn that, in the mind of the Leftist, curiosity about Betty’s fate was tantamount to disloyalty to the cause. Jean-Paul Sartre had set the example long before: appealing to Leftists to avoid speaking, let alone seeking, the truth about Stalin’s gulags, since doing so would demoralize the French proletariat. In his autobiography Radical Son, Horowitz explains:
      "To doubt the Panthers was to jeopardize the faith that the Left had placed in them. Even though the era of revolutionary enthusiasm was over, they had remained a symbolic vanguard, the embodiment of black America’s revolt against white oppression and the incalculable odds every radical faced." (p.243)
      In his essay, "Black Murder Inc." published in Hating Whitey, Horowitz notes,
      "The existence of a Murder Incorporated in the heart of the American left is something the left really doesn’t want to know or think about. Such knowledge would refute its most cherished self-understandings and beliefs. It would undermine the sense of righteous indignation that is the crucial starting point of a progressive attitude. It would explode the myths on which the attitude depends." (p.121)
      Thus, Betty’s murder, and the eerie indifference shown to it by her Leftist friends and colleagues, forced Horowitz to face the unfathomable: that the revolutionary vanguard of his own socialist dream was a criminal entity. As a result, the radical’s utopian odyssey came to an abrupt and sudden end. His Whittaker Chambers-like conversion began.
      As Horowitz considered the insignificance of Betty’s life 

and death in the eyes of his comrades, he began to recognize a familiar historical reality being played out in the surroundings of his own life: totalitarian and ruthless means were being perpetrated to build the fantasy of an earthly paradise. Real human flesh and blood was being sacrificed on the altar of ideals.
      While Horowitz could no longer blind himself about the Panthers, the American Left continued to do just that. It explains why, even though many radicals of the counter-culture have knowledge about what happened to Betty Van Patter, no one has ever been charged in her death. It also explains why, after more than two decades, the national media have yet to conduct even one serious investigation into any Panther murders.
      Now Bobby Seale has come forward and acknowledged that the Panthers murdered Betty. He has admitted that the Panthers were what the Left has always denied they were. His 

confession is no Twentieth Party Congress — that landmark watershed in Soviet history (1956) that witnessed Nikita Khrushchev expose and denounce Stalin’s crimes. But one can hope that it might be the foundation for something that can become analogous to Khrushchev’s secret speech.
      This is not to suggest that the Panther reality is equivalent to the Stalinist horror. Implying such a thing would only trivialize and minimize the large-scale diabolical evil that Stalinism was. But it is to suggest that many of the ingredients that spawned the Panther nightmare and the Stalinist terror were exactly the same.
      Seale might have just let the genie out of the bottle, and maybe we will soon be told more truth about what a mutated form of Stalinism, albeit on a much smaller scale, perpetrated in America.
      —FrontPageMagazine.com, April 25, 2002

Letter to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036-3959

Dear Sir:
Your March 20 editorial concerning Angola combined an extra-ordinary ignorance of the facts with a libelous mischaracterization of Dr. Jonas Savimbi and his leadership of the anti-Communist UNITA Freedom Fights.
      Dr. Savimbi was neither a Maoist, an opportunist, nor a supporter of apartheid. He was consistently an Angolan patriot, as he risked his life, day after day, for more than 30 years—first against colonial Portugal and then against crack Cuban troops, Soviet military advisers, and Angolan Communist conscripts.
      Despite your contrary assertion, Dr. Savimbi prevailed over Jose Eduardo dos Santos in the 1992 Angolan Presidential elections, as surely as Richard Nixon prevailed over John F. Kennedy in Illinois in 1960. In both cases, the results were altered by corruption. In Angola, hundreds of thousands of pro-Communist ballots were stuffed and counted while hundreds of thousands of pro-Savimbi ballots were subtracted and not included in the count.
      Despite this massive thievery, which has been well documented by reputable journalists, even some hostile to Savimbi and his objectives, the UNITA President promptly 

entered into negotiations for the constitutionally required run-off election, sending three of his most trusted associates to Luanda to conclude arrangements.
      Each of the three, including UNITA Vice President Jeremias Chitunda, was ambushed and murdered at the direction of the Luanda Leninists, and the mutilated bodies of Savimbi’s peace envoys were put on malignant display.
      Ever since Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on Dr. Savimbi and UNITA, with those sanctions reinforced and extended by George W. Bush, it made Machiavellian good sense for Angola’s dictator, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, to reject the negotiations which Savimbi sought and instead to pursue relentlessly the extermination of hundreds of thousands of UNITA supporters, even as Dr. Savimbi was himself cut off from vital supplies and equipment by those sanctions, more rigorous than any ever imposed on Communist Cuba, Red China, the Soviet Union, Iraq, or Libya.
      President Savimbi was the target of an all-out assassination attempt. Dos Santos, aided by tracking technology supplied by the United States, was ultimately able to find Savimbi, to capture him, to torture him, and to murder him.
      Your Editorial Board owes the truth an apology.

Sincerely,
Howard Phillips
Chairman, The Conservative Caucus, Inc.