Species of Men

Species of Men

Thomas Allen

Either we must admit different species in the genus Homo, or we must entirely reform zoological classification. – George Pouchet

    The following tables show the major branches, racial types, and representative nationalities or people of the several extant species of men.

For a detailed description of these species and racial types, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis by Thomas Coley Allen and "The American Indian" and "Indo-Australian."

 More articles on anthropolgy.

Analysis of Money No Mystery

Analysis of Money No Mystery

Thomas Allen

    The following is an analysis of Money No Mystery: Mastery by Monopoly by Arnold Leese [1938] (Hollywood, California: Sons of Liberty). Leese  (1878–1956) was a British fascist politician. What is proposed in his book is a fascist monetary system. He discusses some Jewish issues that are not addressed since they are beyond the scope and objective of this article. His words and my paraphrases or summaries of his words, I have italicized. My commentary is in roman letters. I have provided references to pages in his book and have enclosed them in parentheses.
    Mr. Leese comments on gold’s suitability for money. One property that makes gold suitable for money is its rarity (p. 3.). Rarity is an important characteristic for money if it is not too rare. What makes gold the most suitable metal for money is its flow-to-stock ratio. Annually, newly mined gold accounts for about 2 percent of the above ground stock of gold available for monetary use. Thus, newly mined gold does not have much effect on the value of gold.
    Mr. Leese remarks that irredeemable paper money had reached “a stage of general stability” (p. 3.). That may have been true during the late 1930s when he wrote. However, that stability was lost during World War II and the decades that followed.
    Like all fiat money advocates, Mr. Leese believes that governmental fiat gives money its value. Government can give otherwise worthless pieces of paper great value by declaring them legal tender and by that eliminate any need for gold backing (p. 3.). If governmental fiat can give money value, bimetallism would have worked. Gold and silver would have exchanged at the same value at the ratio decreed by the government. (Presumably, they would exchange at the same value even if various countries had radically different ratios.) If government fiat and legal-tender laws gave money its value, a $10 U.S. note would have had the same purchasing power as a $10 gold coin in the United States between 1862 and 1879. Instead U.S. notes traded at a discount to gold until they became redeemable on demand in gold.
    Mr. Leese claims, “No one inside this country [Great Britain] cared a scrap whether the legalised paper money was convertible or not into gold; he didn’t want gold; he wanted goods, and got them, through the scraps of paper legalised by the State as National Money” (p. 3.). That may be true. Only a miser wants money because it is money regardless of form. Most people want money so that they can trade it or invest it now or some time in the future. Convertibility into gold serves as a regulator of credit, paper money, and keeps it within proper bounds. If the government or banks are issuing too much paper money or other types of credit money, people will redeem the excess and halt the expansion. Gold keeps the monetary system honest and thwarts the expansionist programs of statists, which is why fascists and other statists hate it.
    Mr. Leese has a better understanding of the gold standard than most post-World-War-II writers, including proponents of the gold standard. He knew that the British pound was the value of 113 grains of gold (p. 4).
    Like most opponents of the gold standard, Mr. Leese declares, “Few people wanted to do this [exchange bank note for gold], because gold has limited functions in general utility; you can’t eat it, drink it, make clothes of it or even flirt with it; before you can make use of it, you have to exchange it for something you want” (p. 4). Thus, he presents one of the most absurd arguments that opponents of gold give. One can eat and wear gold. However, such an argument against gold is stupid and is intended to deceive. The same thing can be said about paper fiat money and even more so about its electronic equivalent. How does one eat, drink, and wear electrons, which make up the bulk of today’s money, flowing through some unknown computer at some unknown location?
    Mr. Leese makes an error common to most opponents and proponents of the gold standard. He asserts that if all paper money is not fully backed by gold, a true gold standard does not exist (p. 4.). The true gold standard does not require all paper money and other forms of market-generated credit money to be backed by gold. Bank credit money (bank notes and checkbook money) can also be backed by commercial money, real bills of exchange, which are themselves a form of market-generated credit money — the real bills doctrine.
    According to Mr. Leese, the international gold standard leads to people and countries attempting to corner gold to “become masters of the International Industrial situation.” Jews were the primary people who cornered gold. By cornering gold, Jews gain control of fixing the rate of interest (p. 4-5). Where the real bills doctrine operates, many financial transactions are with commercial money — not with gold. The propensity of consumers to buy fixes the discount rate of bills of exchange, which is not really interest — not the hoarders of gold. Hoarders of gold have much less power than their opponents give them. (A more detail discussion on hoarding gold is given in “Is Gold Too Easy to Manipulate?”)  As Jews control most of the paper money issued today through central bank operations, abandoning the gold standard for fiat paper money does not eliminate this issue. It does not assuage Leese’s problem of Jewish control of the monetary system. (Perhaps this is why the Protocols of Zion advocates abandoning the gold standard in favor of fiat paper money [v.i.].)
    Mr. Leese writes, “The Financier can, by using his control of Gold to expand or contract the volume of Money (currency or credit) in circulation, create boom or slump in Britain” (p. 5.). As post World-War-II history shows, the financier can more easily expand and contract the volume of paper money. He can expand the money supply far greater under today’s monetary system than he could under the gold standard. Thus, when the inevitable slump comes, it is more severe or last much longer than it would have under the gold standard.
    Like most opponents of the gold standard, Mr. Leese asserts that gold cannot “supply the industrial need for National Money” (p. 5). As I show in “There Is Enough Gold,” enough gold exists to accommodate world commerce several times over when accompanied by the proper credit system, the real bills doctrine. Enough gold was available in 2004 to accommodate 3.8 times the gross world product of 2007 without fractionalization of gold.
    Mr. Leese discusses Britain’s return to the gold standard following World War I (pp. 6-7).
    Mr. Leese writes, “OUR National Money must be divorced from its association with Gold” (p. 8). This part of his proposal has been achieved. In 1971 when President Nixon ended the gold exchange standard, Bretton Wood system, gold ceased any formal role in the world’s monetary systems.
    Mr. Leese states that countries (Great Britain) should pay for imports with domestic paper money that can only be exchanged for goods and services in the importing country (p. 8). To some degree, bills of exchange serve this purpose. The world is in the process of achieving the intent of his proposal by abandoning the U.S. dollar standard that has been in place since World War II. However, his proposal seems to require country A to buy from country B the value of products that it sells to country B. Such an arrangement would greatly hamper foreign trade.
    Mr. Leese recognizes the need to control the amount of money issued (p. 8). He does not offer any mechanism for doing this other than trusting politicians and bureaucrats. Thus, politicians and bureaucrats would have to act contrary to their nature by not seeking to increase their prestige, power, and wealth.
    Mr. Leese discusses how the practices of lending for interest came to Great Britain and the adverse effects of interest (pp. 9-12). Under fascism, interest on foreign loans belong to the people of the country as a whole and not to the individuals who lend the money abroad (p. 11). By “people as a whole” he probably means the government — at least that is what most statists mean. However, the government is not the people as a whole. It has never been and never will be. It is the small group of people controlling it. If the people as a whole are to receive the interest paid on foreign loans, some mechanism needs to be in place to divide that interest among the individuals of the country without the government getting part of it.
    Mr. Leese opposes the Social Credit scheme (p. 12). I discuss the flaws of Social “Credits in Analysis of Richard Cook’s Monetary Reforms.”
    Mr. Leese presents the monetary reforms of the Imperial Fascist League (pp. 12-15). A “Department of Issue is established to control absolutely the issue of currency and credit” (p. 13). Its objectives are:
    (1) Gradually inflate money and credit until the price level of commodities are raised to the level reached at the end of World War I (p. 13).
    (2) After achieving item 1 and in accordance with item 3, stabilize the purchasing power of money so that it becomes as fixed as the yard (meter), pint (liter), and pound (gram) and no longer varies; expand and contract the money supply to maintain a stable level of a general-price index (p. 13).
    (3) Adjust currency and credit until production is sufficient to satisfy the needs of the country and its exportation overseas (p. 13).
    (4) Retire gradually all external and internal interest-bearing government securities with non-interest bearing currency (pp. 13-14), i.e., with non-interest bearing government notes or central bank notes that function like government notes.
    (5) Adjust gradually “to the new values by limiting currency inflation, in the early stages, to State disbursements” (p. 14), i.e., the government gets the new money first before it loses value.
    (6) Distribute equitably credit inflation to agriculture and industry (p. 14).
    (7) Balance imports and exports by tariffs, embargoes, and trade packs that enforce equality in exchange value (p. 14). The trade issue is discussed above.
    Mr. Leese does not propose governmental ownership of banking. However, banks are stripped of their ability to create money via lending. That is, he advocates 100‒percent reserve banking. The government introduces new money by buying government securities and cancelling them and with low-interest loans. Only the government can lend money for mortgages, which are lent through deposit banks. The government fixes all bank interest rates (pp. 14-15).
    His proposal has so many flaws, one knows hardly where to begin. His system depends on the wisdom and integrity of politicians and bureaucrats. If that were not enough, his proposal also depends on them be omniscient. Governments have attempted items 1, 2, and 3. So far they have all failed.
    Moreover, all price indexes are flawed. They always over count some items and under count others. As people’s tastes constantly change, price indexes need to be revised often to account for changing tastes. Also, changes in technology affect quality and cost as well as offering new items not in the index. These changes need to be considered. An ever-changing price index makes comparing the cost of living over an extended time questionable. Furthermore, governmentally generated price indexes are subjected to political consideration. Politicians like to conceal inflation, so they adjust price indexes to hide the real cost of living.
    Most countries can achieve item 4, if so desired, by having their central banks buy all their securities. To keep such action from resulting in massive inflation,  if not hyperinflation, would require large-scale restraint of the monetary and banking system.
    When governments fix interest rates, they drive high-risk borrowers to the black market (loan sharks) for loans. To propose involving the government in the mortgage and lending markets is fuel for corruption and disaster. Governmental intervention in the mortgage and lending markets was a major contributor to the crash of 2008. When governments become involved in economic activities, politics usually trump economics.
    A great irony of Mr. Leese’s fascist proposal of replacing the gold standard with fiat paper money is that the Jewish Protocols of Zion has the same proposal. The Jewish proposal is set out in Protocol 20:

        The present issue of money in general does not correspond with the requirements per head, and cannot therefore satisfy all the needs of the workers. The issue of money ought to correspond with the growth of population and thereby children also must absolutely be reckoned as consumers of currency from the day of their birth. The revision of issue is a material question for the whole world.
        You are aware that the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it, for it has not been able to satisfy the demands for money, the more so that we [Jews] have removed gold from circulation as far as possible.
        With us [Jews] the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death.[1]

The two proposals merely disagree in the criteria to use in deciding how much money the government needs to inject into the economy. Was Mr. Leese an agent of the Jews?
    Mr. Leese’s proposal fails to achieve his purported goal. It does not make the monetary system or economy better — at least not in the long run. However, it greatly increases the power of the government, i.e., those who actually control the government, over the economy and the people. As such control is a goal of fascism, Mr. Leese’s proposal does successfully achieve that fascist goal.

Endnote
1. Protocol of the Learned Elders of Zion, ed. Sergyel Nilus, trans. Victor E. Marsden (1905, 1922), p. 16.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

 More articles on money.

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement -- Part 3

Martin Luther King 

Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]
    In 1955 Rosa Parks, a Negro and a Communist party activist,[101] began what became the Montgomery boycott when she refused to move to the back of a bus. She worked for the NAACP and had been instructed in agitation at the communist Highlander Folk School (HFS). Thus, Parks was not a simple seamstress; she was a communist operative. After deliberately violating the Montgomery bus ordinance, she was arrested and fined. As a result, she became a heroine of the Communist Party. Thus, Communists through front operations began the civil rights movement in 1955.
    The Montgomery bus boycott was not a spontaneous event; it was planned. Parks had previously defied bus segregation laws. She was chosen to initiate the Montgomery boycott. King was chosen to lead it.
    Martin Luther King’s rise from obscurity to a godlike statue began with the Montgomery boycott. He conducted the boycott through the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA). Fred Shuttlesworth formed MIA. Bayard Rustin, King’s secretary and advisor, joined them in leading the boycott. (Rustin later accompanied King to Oslo, where King received the Nobel Prize for Peace.)
    In 1957 King, Shuttlesworth, and Rustin formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). King became its president, and Shuttlesworth, its vice president. (Later Shuttlesworth became the president of the Southern Conference Education Fund [SCEF], a communist front.) Andrew Young was the program director of SCLC.
    Also, in 1957 King attended a workshop at the HFS where he spoke. He praised Audrey Williams, a Communist, and Myles Horton, director of HFS. King was a sponsor of this workshop.
    In 1959 King invited Anne Braden and her husband Carl to join SCLC. Both were Communists and leaders in SCEF. King also fellowshipped with James Dombrowski, a Communist and executive director of SCEF. Moreover, SCEF provided financial support to King.
    King supported Jesse Gray. Gray promoted the use of violence to achieve Negro racist goals. King's support of Audrey Williams, Gray, and the SCEF shows that King did not abhor the use of violence. Furthermore, King wrote the foreword to Negroes With Guns by Robert Williams, a Communist, who promoted guerrilla warfare by blacks. He showed no aversion to associating with Communists and promoters of violence. Contrary to his reputation, he was not a peace-loving man. King associated with known Communists and communist sympathizers and with communist fronts. (FBI surveillance under the direction of Attorneys General Robert Kennedy and later Nicholas Katzenbach, who succeeded Kennedy, shows that King was closely associated with known Communists.)
    King supported, sponsored, promoted, and otherwise associated with communist fronts besides SCEF. These fronts included the National Appeal for Freedom, the National Committee on Un-American Activities, and Highlander Folk School.
    In 1963, state and local police seized internal documents when they raided SCEF’s headquarters in New Orleans. Based on these documents, the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities issued a report exposing the close relationship between SCEF and King and his SCLC and SNCC. Commenting on this report, columnist Holmes Alexander noted:

        It links the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, a Castro front, by common membership to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and the Southern Conference Educational Fund. It ties Martin Luther King to Communist leaders like James Dombrowski, Benjamin Smith and Bruce Waltzer, all three under indictment for multiple violations of the Louisiana anti-Communist statutes.
        . . . It traces the Communist-led race riots, which began in the South and moved to the North, through a maze of names like Bayard Rustin and King which reappeared last summer in the march on Washington.[102]

    A 1963 letter to Lee Lorch, a Communist,[103] from Dombrowski showed that the Communist party lobbied for the Civil Rights Act and that King collaborated with them. The letter reads in part:

        As part of a massive letter writing campaign, we propose to place a full-page ad in at least one newspaper in each of these 15 states.
        We enclose a layout and text for the ad to be signed by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Dr. Martin Luther King, president; the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee; and SCEF.
        SCEF will raise the money. . . .[104]   

       Another 1963 letter, this one from Carl Braden to Dombrowski, also reveals King’s close affiliation with Communists. This letter in part reads:

        The pressure that has been put on Martin [Luther King, Jr.] about [Hunter Pitts] O’Dell helps to explain why he has been ducking us. I suspected there was something of this sort in the wind.
        The UPI has carried a story quoting Martin as saying they have dumped O’Dell for the second time because of fear that the segreationists [sic] would use it against them. He expressed no distaste for Communists or their beliefs, merely puts it on the pragmatic basis that SCLC can’t handle the charges of Communism.[105]

    Uriah Fields, King’s secretary during the early years, wrote, “King helps to advance Communism. He is surrounded with Communists.”[106]
    Soon after the King Holiday became law, Michael Parenti wrote a letter to the New York Times that stated, “What if communists had links to Dr. King? The three areas in which King was most active — civil rights, peace and the labor struggle (the latter two toward the end of his life) — are also areas in which U.S. Communists have worked long and devotedly.”[107] Parenti, who was a frequent contributor to Political Affairs, an official magazine of the Communist Party, shows that the civil rights movement is a communist movement and that King was a frontman for the Communist Party.
    Senator Jesse Helms remarked in the Congressional Record:

    . . . there is no evidence that Martin Luther King was a member of the Communist Party, but the pattern of his activities and associations in the 1950s and 1960s show clearly that he had no strong objection to working with and even relying on Communists or persons and groups whose relationships with the Communist Party were, at the least, ambiguous. It should be recalled that in this period of time (far more than today) many liberal and even radical groups on the left shared a strong awareness of and antipathy for the anti-democratic and brutal nature of Communism and its characteristically deceptive and subversive tactics. It is doubtful that many American liberals would have associated or worked with many of the persons and groups with whom King not only was close but on whom he was in several respects dependent. These associations and, even more, King’s refusal to break with them, even at the expense of public criticism and the alienation of the Kennedy Administration, strongly suggest that King harbored a strong sympathy for the Communist Party and its goals.[108]

    Although he was not a member of the Communist Party, King was a Marxist and an advocate of political, social, and economic egalitarianism. He told his SCLC staff, “We must recognize that we can’t solve our problems now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power.”[109]
    King was a powerful promoter and advocate of the Negro Revolution. In a 1968 interview, he stated:

America is deeply racist and its democracy is flawed both economically and socially. . . . the black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws — racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced.[110]

    In 1967 he told his SCLC staff:

For the last twelve years we have been in a reform movement. . . . But after Selma and the voting rights bill we moved into a new era, which must be an era of revolution. I think we must see the great distinction here between a reform movement and a revolutionary movement [which would] raise certain basic questions about the whole society. . . . this means a revolution of values and of other things.[111]

    Congressman John Ashbrook said before the House of Representatives, “King has consistently worked with Communists and has helped give them a respectability they do not deserve.”[112] Ashbrook “found King to be an apostle of violence and lawlessness, a racist, a power-hungry tyrant, an associate of ‘the most radical elements in our society,’ an individual who ‘has done more for the Communist Party than any other person of this decade.’ Ashbrook described King’s methodology as ‘criminal conduct and conspiracy, not civil disobedience.’”[113] Ashbrook was privy to many confidential reports on King.
    William Hoar described King as “a notorious libertine who was trained, backed, and advised by top Communists to provoke violence and build racial hatred as efficiently as any Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.”[114]
    If one were to judge King by his character instead of his race, one would find him as anti-white, anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-morality, anti-free-market economy, anti-Western Civilization, and anti-South.
 [Editor's note: The list of references in the original are omitted.]

Endnotes --- Continued

101. Henry Makow, “Rosa Parks & Our Communist Corporate Elite,” Dec. 1, 2010, http://www.henrymakow.com/001228.html, accessed Dec. 8, 2010.

102. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 127.

103. Francis and Helms, p. 32.

104. Francis and Helms, p. 32.

105. Francis and Helms, p. 33.

106. “Chapter 4. Communism and Racial Tension,” The Modern History Project, http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php ?Article=FinalWarn04, accessed Nov. 5, 2005.

107. Francis and Helms, p. 6.

108. Francis and Helms, pp. 42-43.

109. Francis and Helms, p. 43.

110. Francis and Helms, p. 43.

111. Francis and Helms, p. 43.

112. Francis and Helms, p. 44.

113. Gannon, I, p. 400.

114. Hoar, Architects of Conspiracy, p. 317.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.
 
Part 2

More articles on social issues.

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement -- Part 2

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement

Thomas Allen

The leading Negro organizations were founded, organized, and controlled by Communists and communist sympathizers. These organizations included the Civil Rights Congress (CRC), Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), Highlander Folk School (HFS), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Negro Congress (NNC), National Urban League (NUL), Revolution Action Movement (RAM), Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF), and Student Nonviolence Coordinating Committee (SNCC)

In 1946, the NNC, International Labor Defense (the legal arm of the Communist party), and the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties (all three were communist fronts) merged to form the CRC. Representing NNC was its president Max Yergan, a Communist. Vito Marcantonto, president of ILD and a member of many communist fronts, represented ILD. Milton Kemnitz, executive secretary of NFCL, represented NFCL. “In 1957, the Subversive Activities Control Board said that the merger ‘was created and established by the Communist Party as an organization which would utilize defense of civil rights for Party purposes and raise and maintain mass defense and bail funds for Party use. . . . [The Civil Rights Congress’] major activity became the defense of Party leaders, and the Party continued to assign functionaries and members as officers of or to work in the Civil Rights Congress to insure that the CRC would operate in accordance with the Party program. . . .’” In short, the CRC is a communist front.

In 1942 James Farmer and George Houser formed CORE. Rustin was the field secretary of CORE during the 1940s. King was a member of CORE’s national advisory committee. King’s SCLC and CORE collaborated on the southern campaigns. CORE promoted violence while SCLC offered a nonviolent solution. The message was “give King what he demanded or Farmer’s CORE will attack you.” That is, “save yourself from CORE’s violence by acceding to King’s demands.” With this tactic, the civil rights movement advanced.

As national director of CORE, McKissick stated, “CORE has many friends. Some might be Black Muslims or the Communists.” In 1965 CORE allied with the Black Muslims.

CORE’s basic tactic was to take over a person’s property and then force that person to either divide the property with CORE members or forcibly remove CORE members from the property. If the property owner chose the latter, he was castigated for doing a great moral wrong. Farmer, CORE’s national director, declared “CORE is the hard-cutting edge of the civil right movement. We’re much more militant than Malcolm X — we’re activists.” Known Communists were highly active in CORE and its demonstrations.

About CORE, Gannon writes, “Despite CORE’s leaders’ constant prattling about nonviolence, CORE demonstrations were fraught with violence. This was not an unusual development because the same situation held true for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Martin L. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the two organizations which were the main collaborators in CORE's demonstrations.”

HFS was a communist front that Myles Horton established with the assistance of Don West. West was the district director of the Communist Party of North Carolina. The purpose of HFS was to train religious leaders and others to subvert churches and labor unions to get them to support communist causes like the civil rights movement.

The NAACP was founded in 1909 to facilitate race wars in the United States and to bring down the white people. Behind organizing the NAACP was Jacob Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., head of the Russian Section of the Jewish International World Government, and a financier of the Bolshevik Revolution through Trotsky. W.E.B. DuBois and seven whites constituted its initial governing body. Most of the early members were white radicals, socialists, and Communists. Throughout its history, the NAACP has maintained close ties with Communists. In 1958 more than 61 percent of the top leaders of the NAACP were involved with communistenterprises. Since the founding of the NAACP, radicals have used it to advance their social and other statist agendas.

In 1923 Communists began financing the NAACP through the Garland Fund, which Communists ran, and continued to do so until at least 1934. A few years later Communists began taking control of the NAACP. By the late 1930s, the NAACP had become associated with communist organizations and fronts, such as the National Negro Congress, World Youth Congress, and American Youth for a Free World. In 1941 it cooperated with the Communist party in establishing Progress Citizens of America. The Communist Party endorsed the NAACP in 1953 and encouraged its members to support the NAACP’s campaigns. Another endorsement was given in 1957. The permanent attorneys associated with the NAACP were affiliated with communist fronts and projects.

Before 1960 the NAACP had focused on legal and educational programs. Then it followed SCLC and CORE and adopted an activist program. It became involved in “peace” marches, boycotts, picket lines at stores, and sit-ins.

Robert Thompson, a Communist, wrote the following about the NAACP in Political Affairs: “The emergence of a powerful left, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist current among the Negro people is unmistakable and is clearly discernible in the NAACP.”

About the NAACP, Manning Johnson declared, “National Association for the Advancement of Colored People set up the situation that erupted into racial violence at Little Rock . . . the main danger and handicap to the Negro is not the southern school, but the persecution and hate complex the NAACP and the Reds are trying to create.”

Gannon writes about the NAACP:

From its inception to the present, no matter the protestations of Langston Hughes or any other NAACP apologist, the organization’s officials and its known members, collectively and individually, have represented the influential left, the leadership of Communist fronts and leftwing political and pacifist groups, and the most effective of the anti-anti-Communist establishment. The NAACP has two seemingly contradictory objectives. One is to foment racial tensions, which intensifies barriers between Negroes and other races, especially whites. The other is to bring down barriers that separate Negroes from other races, especially whites. These two objectives are not really contradictory. Both use the Negro as a weapon to destroy the white people and the United States, which are the ultimate goals of the NAACP and kindred organization.

In 1947 The NNC merged with the CRC. James W. Ford, a Communist and a vice president of the League of Strength for Negro Rights (a communist organization), and the Negro Commission of the Communist Party established the NNC in 1935. Another organizer was Ralph Bunche. Communists who were active in the NCC were James W. Ford, Benjamin Davis Jr. (secretary of the NCC), Louise Thompson (member of the Communist Party’s central committee), and Louise E. Strong.

“In 1942, Attorney General Francis Biddle reported: ‘The National Negro Congress, throughout its existence, has closely followed the Communist Party line, espousing causes and adopting issues sponsored by the Party, and with regard thereto, has sought to affiliate itself and form “united fronts” with other organizations. It has characterized all legislation deemed a threat to the civil liberties of Communists or any alien or minority group as “repressive and fascist.” . . .’” Under Whitney Young’s leadership, NUL threatened the United States government into funding a social revolution to prevent an armed revolt. Actually, the ruling elite wanted to increase spending on social programs. Social programs make people dependent on the government, which the ruling elite control. Thus, social programs facilitated their control of the masses.

RAM’s “avowed goal was the violent overthrow of the United States Government.” Its leaders openly aligned themselves with the Vietcong. It sought to infiltrate and subvert other Negro organizations. About RAM, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover stated, “[RAM is] a highly militant, secretive organization following the Chinese oriented Marxist-Leninist line and believes in replacing the capitalistic system with socialism.”

King, Shuttlesworth, and Rustin founded SCLC in 1957. Among the guests at the SCLC organizational meeting were Ella J. Baker (spiritual mother of SNCC) and Charles Hayes (a Communist and district director of United Packinghouse Works of America).

Levison provided financial, organizational, and public relations services for King and SCLC and was responsible for much of SCLC’s finances. In 1956, Rustin introduced King to Levison, a Communist. Afterwards, Levison and King became close friends. Besides his other services to King, Levison wrote speeches for King.

SCLC collaborated with HFS to train Negro leaders in the civil rights movement.

The Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities found that SCLC was “substantially under the control of the Communist Party through the influence of the Southern Conference Education Fund and the Communists who manage it.” King and SCLC were closely associated with Dombrowski and other Communists.

SCEF was a communist front used to promote Communism and communist goals to Southern Negroes. SCEF appeared soon after the Southern Conference for Human Welfare (SCHW) disbanded in 1947. The Communist Party established SCHW in 1938. Carl Braden, a member of the Communist party was the field director of the SCHW and later executive director and information director. His wife, Anne Braden, who was also a member of the Communist party, was the editor of the Southern Patriot, which SCHW published and which the SCEF continued to publish. Law partners Benjamin E. Smith and Bruce Waltzer were part of the overall management of SCEF. Both were indicted under the Louisiana Subversive Activities and Communist Control Act. Benjamin Smith was its treasurer. William H. Melish, a Communist, was the Eastern Representative of SCEF.

Aubrey Williams, a member of the Communist party, was the president of SCEF until 1963, and then he became president emeritus. Under President Roosevelt, Williams was director of the National Youth Administration, which made him Lyndon Johnson’s boss. Dombrowski, former executive director of SCHW and a member of the Communist Party, was the executive director of SCEF.

SCEF was the financial backbone of the civil rights movement and the Negro Revolution and many communist fronts. Without the financial aid of SCEF, SNCC would have collapsed.

In 1960 King founded SNCC (pronounced “snick”) to manage sit-ins. After the founding of SNCC, sit-ins and related demonstrations became commonplace throughout the South. SNCC soon gained the support of the U.S. National Student Association (which the CIA funded), the U.S. Department of Justice, NAACP, CORE, and SCLC.

Besides sit-ins, SNCC conducted “freedom rides” and “freedom schools.” Although it claimed to be nonviolent, SNCC used violence and the threat of violence to achieve its goals.

Like nearly all civil rights organizations, SNCC was closely associated with Communists. “Liberal columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak commented: ‘ . . . There is no doubt that SNCC is substantially infiltrated by beatnicks, left wing revolutionaries and worst of all — by Communists.’” It used mailing labels of the communist National Guardian.

SNCC received funds from SCEF and Dombrowski. Jack Rogers, counsel of the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities, noted:

Without the help and backing of the Communist-led Southern Conference Educational Fund, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee would collapse overnight. However it originally started, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee is certainly now under the complete control of the Southern Conference Educational Fund through both money and leadership. . . .

The Committee finds that the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee are substantially under the control of the Communist Party through the influence of Southern Conference Educational Fund and the Communists who manage it.

In 1966 Carmichael became the chairman of SNCC, and SNCC abandoned the pretense of working for integration through nonviolence. Under Carmichael, SNCC pushed Black Power. SNCC formerly merged with the Black Panthers in 1968 for a few months after which SNCC expelled Carmichael and ended its merger with the Black Panthers. However, Carmichael left SNCC its rallying cry: “To hell with America . . . [which is] racist from top to bottom, from left to right.” What is left unsaid is that the racists are black and not the cowered whites.

Many more communist organizations have been involved in the civil rights movement. The ones discussed above are a few of the most important ones.

The Communists approached the civil rights movement with a two-pronged attack. They gave white America a choice to be destroyed by black violence or to be destroyed by black integration. Consequently, Malcolm X preached violence while King was presented as the symbol of nonviolence. If America did not give King what he demanded, it would have to answer to Malcolm X. Only King could save America from the violence of Malcolm X. Yet King seemed to leave a wake of Negro riots wherever he went. (King wrote that the purpose of his demonstrations was to provoke violence.)

Carmichael exposed the myth of “nonviolence” in the civil rights movement. During an interview in 1966, he declared:

This nonviolence bit is just a philanthropic handout. I don’t see why people keep thinking about that. The violence is inevitable. I don’t try to stop the fight. I try to prepare the people I am organizing so that when the right time comes they will be able to win it. Our country does not run on reason; it is run on violence. That’s the reality of how things are done here. It is to my benefit to get the Negro out on the streets to stop the machine which is keeping me from my rights. Whether they do it by marching, singing, dancing or fighting is irrelevant. Communists have been at the center of Negro riots. Former Communist Philip Abbot Luce stated, “All of us, as good Communists, were responsible for some work in the riots and each of us longed for the possibility that Harlem would herald the beginning of a nationwide guerilla war.”

Although many leaders of the civil rights movement are Communists, most members are not. The purpose of civil rights organizations is to get noncommunists to support the communist agenda of bringing the United States and the white race down via the Negro Revolution. (The Negro Revolution is one of several approaches being used to destroy the United States and the white race. Others include feminism and the homosexual movement. The same arguments are used in all three movements.) These noncommunist members, many of whom are naive or idealists, conceal the true masters controlling the civil rights movement: Communists and their lords, the ruling elite.

The communist influence is seen when the leaders talk about poor and working-class whites uniting with oppressed blacks to overthrow capitalism, which according to them is the cause of racism. Also, during their riots, Negroes often destroy many black businesses. Like Communists, civil rights organizations promote the welfare state and socialism. Consequently, they want to reduce blacks, whites, and everyone else besides the ruling elite to wards and slaves of the state. So much for freeing the Negro.

In essence, black leaders claim that, unlike people of other races, Negroes are too inferior to stand on their own. They need special privileges and handouts. If they do not believe that Negroes are inferior, then they reveal that they are more interested in promoting socialism than the welfare of Negroes.

One reason that Communists oppose segregation is that it causes the development of a Negro bourgeoisie. Pepper (Pogany) rightly blamed segregation for “. . . a rapid development of a Negro petit-bourgeoisie, a Negro intelligentsia and even a Negro bourgeoisie. The very fact of segregation of the Negro masses creates the basis for the development of a stratum of small merchants, lawyers, physicians, preachers, brokers, who try to attract the Negro workers and farmers as consumers. . . .” The Communists wanted to replace this independence and prosperity of the Negro people with hatred toward whites and dependence on the government — and they have succeeded remarkably well.

Furthermore, because the ruling elite feeds on crisis and turmoil, segregation was turned into a great social crisis. This crisis has been one of the most artificial crises ever created in the United States. Elitists, primarily through Communists, instigated it to add racial hatred to class hatred. Integration also serves the purpose of hastening the death of the white people as it destroys them with artificial guilt and helps breed them out of existence.

The Carnegie Foundation and the Ford Foundation have been important financial sources for the Negro Revolution and its civil rights movement. Carnegie foundations financed Whitney Young, a racial extortionist, and the National Urban League. Young and NUL also received funding from the Ford Foundation.

Besides NUL, CORE, SCLC, and NAACP received funds from the Ford Foundation. The Ford Foundation also funded Milton A. Galamision, LeRoi Jones, and Floyd B. McKissick.

Carnegie’s money also paid for Gunnar Myrdal’s study that purported proved that segregation caused all the problems of the Negro. If it were not for segregation, the Negro would be the white’s intellectual, economic, and social equal. Myrdal held that liberty must be sacrificed for the sake of social equality. He was a Communist who considered the U.S. Constitution to be a plot against the common people. Aiding him in his study were 16 people associated with communist fronts. At least four of them (Ralph J. Bunche, Doxy A. Wilkerson, Bernard J. Stern, and James E. Jackson) were Communists. The United States Supreme Court relied on Myrdal’s study to reject the U.S. Constitution and to impose integration. Stang described this study and its use by the Supreme Court as “the Communist weapon forged by these totalitarians for the purpose — as one of the main justifications for ordering the forced amalgamation of the races in the schools. And that decision leads straight to the forced bussing of today. In other words, forced bussing is nothing but a tactic in a long-range Communist strategy.” The purpose of this strategy is to subvert covertly the government of the United States into a dictatorship. To achieve this goal, the family must be destroyed. This destruction is the purpose of forced integration. Not only did the ruling elite use the financial might of their foundations to foment the Negro Revolution, they also used the money and power of the U. S. government. President Johnson’s civil rights law and War on Poverty were merely weapons that the ruling elite used through the Negro Revolution to destroy the constitutional government of the United States and the white people.

One ostensible object of the War on Poverty was to eliminate slums that agitators exploited to get Negroes to riot. Yet Communists and other agitators were hired to administer the War on Poverty. Actually, the real purpose of the War on Poverty was to create turmoil. (Before the riots of 1967 broke out, Sargent Shriver, director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity, knew that the United Community Corp., an agency of the Office of Economic Opportunity, was organizing the riots.) President Johnson used the 1967 riots as an excuse for the expansion of his War on Poverty. Negro riots served the purpose of expanding the size, power, and intrusiveness of the U.S. government.

Black revolutionists gave the ruling elite an excuse to carry out compulsory racial integration in the United States. The organization of racial integration was assigned to Ronald Lippert of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the American Jewish Congress. His program called for the destruction of the individual’s personal identity and his racial heritage — especially the destruction of white racial identity. The National Education Association was employed to execute this program. Controlling the National Education Association was the Stanford Research Institute. Controlling the Stanford Research Institute was the Tavistock Institute. The Tavistock Institute specialized in developing, teaching, and employing mind control and brainwashing techniques.

Some Negro leaders, such as former Communists Helen Wood Birnie and Manning Johnson, had the intelligence and courage to oppose the evils of the civil rights movement. They realized that the ruling elite was using Negroes to advance their communistic, illuministic New World Order. Manning summed up school integration:

. . . the whole issue boils down to taking Negro children out of one school and transferring them to another so that they can be seated with white children on the assumption that only in this way will the Negro child get an education. What really is being implied is that the 113,000 Negro teachers in Southern schools are inferior, incompetent and unable to properly teach the children of their own race . . . it is a question of the liquidation of the Negro school and the Negro teacher under the guise of integration.

These Negro leaders were ignored or smeared with vile epitaphs. (Probably many Negro leaders, such as King and DuBois, who had sold their souls to the ruling elite, were aware of these evils and that their people were merely tools used to advance the illuministic New World Order.)

To show Americans, especially Southerners, that the resistance to the U.S. government and its despotic edicts was futile, President Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard and used it to invade Little Rock in 1957. Later, President Kennedy federalized the Mississippi National Guard in 1962 and used it to invade Mississippi. Thus, the ruling elite used these national guards against their own States.

Moreover, black organizations allied with communist fronts and liberal organizations have been highly successful in destroying Southern culture. Singing “Dixie” and displaying the Confederate battle flag have been banned. Statues honoring Confederate soldiers and heroes have been torn down. Streets and public buildings bearing the name of Confederate soldiers and nineteenth century. Southern political leaders have been renamed. In the name of tolerance, the South is drowning in a sea of intolerance.

Communists supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They correctly saw the law as greatly increasing the power of the U.S. government and the President over the people. Communist Benjamin Davis declared, “Communists believe the achievement of this program [legislation, etc.] will lay an indispensable basis not only for the further social progress of the country, but for its socialist and communist future.”

Lloyd Wright and John C. Satterfield, both past presidents of the American Bar Association, stated about the Civil Rights Act:

It is 10% civil rights and 90% extension of Federal executive power. If this legislation becomes law and is upheld by the Courts—

–It will, in fact, extend Federal control over business, industry and over individuals (with a corresponding destruction of State power) in a degree that exceeds the total of such extensions of power by all judicial decisions and all Congressional actions since the Constitution of the United States was adopted.

–It will, in fact, destroy the Constitutional checks and balances between the Federal Government and the States; and

–It will, in fact, destroy the Constitutional checks and balances between the Executive branch of the Government and the Legislative and Judicial branches.

—The “civil rights” aspect of this Legislation is but a cloak; uncontrolled Federal Executive power is the body.

Wright and Satterfield continue:

This legislation assumes a totally powerful National Government with unending authority to intervene in all private affairs among men, and to control and adjust property relationships, in accordance with the judgment of Government personnel.

It is impossible to prevent Federal intervention from becoming an institutionalization of special privilege for political pressure groups.

They conclude, “This must lead eventually, not to greater human freedom, but to an ever-diminishing freedom.”

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibited forced busing, federal judges soon replaced the clear language of the law with the communist agenda of forced busing for racial purposes. Thus, they replaced the “rule of law” with the “rule of man.” Congress did nothing and has done nothing to stop these illegal acts of federal judges. Forced busing has nothing to do with quality education for Negroes. It has everything to do with forcing integration.

To show the result of the civil rights law, Alan Stang comments on a barber prosecuted under the civil rights law of Illinois for refusing to cut the hair of two Negroes:

So in the United States of America — the land of the free — man can be sent to jail for six months, for refusing to cut somebody’s hair.

According to the Rev. Dr. King, what we have to worry about is slavery. It was slavery that made the problem. And is the “vestiges” of slavery that keep the problem alive. It’s slavery that we have to get away from.

What is slavery?

A slave is officially defined as: “One whose person and services are under the control of another as owner or master.” The point on the Old Plantation, according to Dr. King, was that some men’s services were under the control of other men as masters.

And according to Dr. King this was wrong. It was slavery.

But according to Dr. King it’s perfectly all right for the services of a man in Illinois to be under the control of another man as master. It’s perfectly fine that a man can be sent to jail for six months for refusing to cut another man’s hair. That’s wonderful, that’s okay.

That isn’t slavery.

It’s civil rights.

Yet the whole point to slavery, isn’t it, is that a slave can’t quit. Negro slaves couldn’t quit the Old Plantation — and Mr. Rehm apparently can’t quit in Illinois.

The civil rights movement along with forced integration has made race relations worse. It has heightened racial identity and consciousness among nonwhites and has done nothing to reduce racial stereotypes. It has increased intolerance. In the name of tolerance, the leaders of the civil rights movement have been highly intolerant. Conflicts have been elevated between Negroes and Latinos, Negroes and Somalis, Latinos and East Asians, and other racial and ethnic groups. (When left free to choose, most people prefer segregation to integration. They prefer being among others who are like them.) Integration has even created conflict between groups that historically never had conflict with each other until they came to the multiracial, multicultural United States. Communists and other statists feed on conflict as it fertilizes their power. That is why the ruling elite brought the civil rights movement to the United States and has pushed the multiracial, multicultural, open borders, “diversity is strength,” agenda. It destroys liberty and the white race while making the ruling elite all-powerful.

The whole civil rights movement is a hoax. Its purpose is not to grant Negroes “equal rights” per se. Its purpose is to enslave whites. The common excuse for Negro crime and Negro riots is that Negroes are rebelling against white oppression. Whites have denied Negroes their “rights.” Well, Negroes have not only been granted “equal rights,” they have been given superior rights. They have become the new aristocracy, a privileged class. Yet Negro crime grows, and the riots still occurred. However, whites have surrendered enormous freedoms in the name of “equal rights.” The more “equal rights” Negroes have acquired, the more socialistic (fascistic) the United States have become. The more “equal rights” Negroes acquire, the more political power is concentrated in the U.S. government and in the President — and fewer real rights anyone, black or white, has. As Pat Buchanan remarks, “Civil rights has become a racket.”

If whites are as vile and evil as proponents of the civil rights movement contend, why would blacks want to integrate with such hideous people? This is one of the great mysteries of the civil rights movement. That blacks want to integrate with such despicable cowards speaks volumes about blacks — and it is not complimentary. The answer to this mystery must be that blacks do not want to associate with whites. They want the wealth, property, and power that they perceive whites as having. At least they have achieved their goal of power over whites.

In the end, the civil rights movement and Negro Revolution do not benefit the Negro. They were never intended to benefit the Negro. They were intended to enslave everyone under the ruling elite. To see the future of the Negro in what is becoming a Latino-controlled America, one needs only to look at California, especially Los Angeles.

The Civil Rights Act reduced the States, especially the Southern States, to little more than administrative districts of the U.S. government. It has given the President almost absolute control over every business in the country, public education, housing, and the media. In the name of eradicating the vestiges of slavery, the Civil Rights Act has reduced all to slavery. According to King, slavery placed men’s services under the control of other men as masters, which is exactly what the Civil Rights Act that he supported has done. Furthermore, whites have been cowered into allowing their race and culture to be destroyed.

J. Edgar Hoover outlined the communist-led civil rights movement:

Communists seek to advance the cause of communism by injecting themselves into racial situations and in exploiting them (1) to intensify the frictions between Negroes and whites to "prove" that discrimination against minorities is an inherent defect of the capitalist system, (2) to foster domestic disunity by dividing Negroes and whites into antagonistic, warring factions, (3) to undermine and destroy established authority, (4) to incite Negro hostility toward law and order, (5) to encourage and foment racial strife and riotous activity, and (6) to portray the Communist movement as the “champion” of social protest and the only force capable of ameliorating the conditions of the Negro and the oppressed.

In his book Color, Communism and Common Sense, Manning Johnson describes the tactics that Communists used to control the civil rights movement. A chief tactic is to condemn racial strife while creating it. Smearing opponents is another.

The civil rights movement has followed the basic communist tactic of thesis (action), antithesis (reaction), and synthesis (solution). Blacks agitate, threaten violence, take over property, and riot — thesis (problem). Whites react to protect themselves — antithesis. (To ensure a violent reaction, often the reaction is led by agents of the ruling elite.) Agents of the ruling elite come forth with the solution, which is concentrating ever more power in the U.S. government and the President, whom the ruling elite controls if not own — synthesis (solution). It is all very simple.

The objective of the civil rights movement is to divide and destroy America and to bring down the white race. It has been remarkably successful because of the complete and unconditional surrender by whites.

As has been shown, the civil rights movement has been a communist movement from the beginning and continues to be one today. Its leaders have been Communists and communist sympathizers.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.
 
Part 1 Part 3

More articles on social issues.

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement -- Part 1

The Civil Rights Movement Is a Communist Movement

 Thomas Allen

[Editor's note: Footnotes in the original are omitted.]

    Early in the twentieth century, the racial plan to destroy the United States and the white race was laid out:

We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we can move them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against whites, we will instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise to prominence in every walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.[1]

Congressman Thomas Abernathy entered this quotation into the Congressional Record. It was from “A Racial Program for the 20th Century” (1912) by Israel Cohen, a British Fabian.
    Cohen reveals the real objective of the Negro Revolution and the civil rights movement. This plan has been highly successful and has been mostly achieved.
    Soon after the Communists consolidated their position in Russia, they exported their revolution to the United States. Stalin sent Joseph Pogany, also known as John Pepper, to the United States to promote the Negro Revolution and Black Nationalism. The goal of Black Nationalism was to carve a Negro nation out of the United States. Pogany sought to convert American Negroes into communist revolutionists and to use them to destroy the United States. Black Nationalism grew into the Black Muslim and Nation of Islam movements. The “Million Man March” of 1995 and the demands-for-reparations movement (the demand that today’s American Negroes be paid large sums of money and be given additional legal privileges because Negroes were slaves 160 years ago) are also outgrowths of Black Nationalism. Unlike most communist revolutions, the Negro Revolution has been more covert than overt. It has been a revolution concealed in the crime statistics and frequent riots.
    In 1925, the Communist Party laid out its plan to use the Negro to ignite the Negro Revolution:

The aim of our Party in our work among the Negro masses is to create a powerful proletarian movement which will fight and lead the struggle of the Negro race against the exploitation and oppression in every form and which will be a militant part of the revolutionary movement of the whole American working class . . . and connect them with the struggles of national minorities and colonial peoples of all the world and thereby the cause of world revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.[2]

Part of this plan would make any act of discrimination against a Negro a crime. Blacks would receive greater benefits than whites.
    Part of the communist plan for Negro liberation was to agitate for “full racial, social, and political equality for the Negro people.”[3] Initially, the Communists tried to get equality and independence for blacks in the South. In 1930, Stalin ordered that the Negroes in the North be included in the agitation for “equal rights.”[4]
    The most effective part of the Negro Revolution has been the communist plan to establish organizations to promote “civil rights” for Negroes. These “rights” include forced school integration, bussing students to a particular school because of their race, micro-managing the hiring practices of businesses (covert quota systems), stripping landlords and home sellers of their right to rent or sell or not to rent or sell to whomever they desire, stripping restaurant owners of their right to serve whom they please, and admissions to college based on skin color. “Civil rights” have led to reverse discrimination (discrimination against whites), lower standards (especially for Negroes), double standards (higher standards for whites and lower standards for blacks), hiring and job promotions based on race instead of ability, denying people the right to choose, deteriorating education, stripping people (especially whites) of the freedom of speech and assembly, emphasizing a person’s race over his character, and degrading Negroes (are they admitted, hired, or promoted because of ability or because of race). Whites have been trained to cower before black militancy. If they do not, the weight of the U.S. government and the news media is brought to bear against them. The goal of the civil rights (equal rights, integration, black privileges) movement is to bring down the United States and the white race. It has led to revising the immigration laws to favor nonwhite immigrants, which has transformed into open borders, especially for nonwhites.
    For the most part, the leaders and organizers of the civil rights movement and other Negro movements, Negro riots, and Negro organizations have been Communists or communist sympathizers. Backing these leaders and organizers are globalists, one-worlders, heads of major foundations, international financiers, chief executives of multinational corporations, Zionist leaders, leaders of the occult, and other elitists — that is, the ruling elite.
    Most promoters of the Negro Revolution and the civil rights movement have been Communists or communist sympathizers. Most supported North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Many supported Castro’s Cuba. They include:
        Herbert Aptheker: white, a Communist, editor of the communist journal Political Affairs, considered the chief theoretician of the Communist Party in the United States, a supporter of Congress of Racial Equality and Black Panthers, “encourage Negroes to be extremely militant in their pursuit of massive social revolution,”[5] author of numerous books and articles on the Negro in America and American history.
        Ralph Abernathy: a Negro, treasure and vice president of the Southern Christian Leadership League, a member of the advisory committee of the Congress of Racial Equality, and a leading organizer of the Montgomery Improvement Association (the force behind the 1955-1956 Montgomery boycott and the use of Rosa Parks to initiate the boycott), threatened to burn the country down with his Poor People’s March on Washington if the U.S. government did not give Negroes enough largess.
        Ella J. Baker: a Negro, member of In Friendship (an organization that provided financial aid to blacks who were in legal trouble because of their political activity), established the Southern Christian Leadership Conference headquarters in Atlanta, a special consultant of the Southern Conference Educational Fund, and an active member of the Student Nonviolence Coordinating Committee. (John Lewis called her “the spiritual mother of S.N.C.C.”[6])
        James Bevel: a Negro, civil rights agitator, one of King’s most militant lieutenants (1963-1968), member of the Student Nonviolence Coordinating Committee staff, and head of the Spring Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam (a communist front). (Bevel remarked, “We must move to destroy Western Civilization.”[7])
        H. Rap Brown: a Negro, chairman of the Student Nonviolence Coordinating Committee, Black Panther, member of the Republic of New Africa, (the geopolitical arm of the communist Revolutionary Action Movement), instigator of the East St. Louis Negro riot of 1967, and the Cambridge, Maryland, Negro riot of 1967. (Brown urged blacks to murder whites: “How can you be nonviolent in America, the most violent country in the world. . . . You better shoot that [white] man to death, that’s what he’s been doing to you.”[8])
        Ralph Bunche: a Negro, a Communist,[9] founder of the National Negro Congress, contributing editor of the communist magazine Science and Society, high official of the Institute of Pacific Relations (a communist front), U.S. delegate to the United Nations, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relation.
        Stokely Carmichael: a Negro, chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, help organize the Black Panther party in Mississippi, promoter of Black Power. (Carmichael told a Negro audience, “I don’t ever want to hear you apologizing for a black man. Don’t you apologize for anyone who’s driven to throw Molotov cocktails. And don’t you call them riots, call them rebellions, for that’s what they are.”[10] Just before the 1967 riot in Cincinnati, “Carmichael urged Negroes to ‘fight the police and burn the city.’”[11])
        Revels Cayton: a Negro, a Communist,[12] and executive secretary of the National Negro Conference.
        Leroy Eldridge Cleaver: a Negro, a Black Muslim, a Black Panther leader, Peace and Freedom party (a communist front) candidate for President, considered himself “a member of the world communist movement which has made many sacrifices for the Soviet Union.”[13] (Speaking to a crowd of students in Paris via a tape-recorded message, Cleaver said, “Now is the time for us to move into the streets, to cause destruction, to drag this decadent system [of capitalism] over the cliff.”[14])
        George Crockett: a Negro, a Communist,[15] civil rights attorney, judge, vice president of the National Lawyers Guild (a communist front), a sponsor of the Civil Rights Congress. (Crockett remarked, “The Communist Party, greatest champion of Negro rights, doesn’t have to take their hats off to anyone when it comes to fighting on that issue. . . .”[16])
        Benjamin J. Davis, a Negro, a Communist,[17] Communist party secretary of Negro Affairs.
        John W. Dobbs: a Negro, a national vice-president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, on the board of the Southern Conference Educational Fund.
        James A. Dombrowski: white, a Communist,[18] executive director of the Southern Conference for Human Welfare and Southern Conference Educational Fund.
        W.E.B. DuBois: a Negro, a Communist,[19] affiliated with at least 96 communist fronts,[20] a founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and editor of its magazine The Crisis, recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize in 1959. (He wrote, “The most ordinary Negro is a distinct gentleman, but it takes extraordinary training and opportunity to make the average white man anything but a hog.”[21])
        William Epton: a Negro, a Communist,[22] chairman of the Harlem Defense Council.
        James Farmer: a Negro, 1941-1945 race relation secretary of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (a radical-pacifist organization), field secretary for and later vice president of the socialist League of Industrial Democracy, a program director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (1959-1961), a founder and national director of Congress of Racial Equality (1961-1968).
        Herman B. Ferguson: a Negro, member of the Revolutionary Action Movement.
        Milton Galamison: a Negro, organizer and leader of the New York school boycott in 1964, 1965, and 1968, director of the School Community Organized for Partnership in Education (which demanded racial integration of New York City schools and which received funding from the Ford Foundation), affiliated with the Southern Conference Education Fund, after the 1964 riot in New York threatened more and larger riots if New York City did not agree to his demands.
        Jesse Gray: a Negro, a Communist,[23] vice chairman of the Communist Party’s United May Day Committee, chairman of the Organization for Black Power (1965), campaign manager for Benjamin Davis in 1952 and 1958, and organizer of the 1964 Harlem riot.
        John H. Holmes: white, a founder and national vice-president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People for 55 years, affiliated with at least 30 communist organizations.[24]
        Myles Horton: white, founder and director of Highlands Folk School, affiliated with the Southern Conference Educational Fund and the Southern Conference for Human Welfare.
        George Houser: a Negro, a founder and director of the Congress of Racial Equality, executive director of the American Committee on Africa.
        Roy Innis: a Negro, associate director and later national director of the Congress of Racial Equality, executive director of the Harlem Commonwealth Council. (Innis displayed more wisdom and intelligence than most whites. He wrote, “Under segregation, black people live together but their institutions are controlled by whites. Under integration, black people are dispersed and the institutions, goods and services are still controlled by whites. In effect, the two are the same. But under separatism, black people will control their own turf.”[25] And, “We no longer want or seek integration. Integration ends up being almost as obnoxious to both blacks and whites as segregation.”[26] And, “Integration is a total failure. We must continue as a separate entity.”[27] And, “In America today there are two kinds of black people — the field-hand blacks and the ‘house niggers.’ We of CORE — the nationalists — are the field-hand blacks. The integrationists of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are ‘house niggers.’”[28] According to Innis, the “house niggers” are mostly mulattoes of various degrees, who preferred living in the white world over living in the black world. [The “house niggers” have won in the political arena. However, as the United States disintegrate into multiracial multiculturalism, the field hand blacks are prevailing by segregating themselves from the social suicide of whites. When the Latinos, i.e., Indians and mestizoes mostly from Central America, reach a critical point, the “house niggers’” political victories will be overthrown. Then blacks will be fortunate to sit in the bus’ backseat as the Latinos may not even let them on the bus.])
        James Jackson: a Negro, a Communist,[29] Communist party secretary in charge of Negro and Southern Affairs,[30] a member of the World Peace Council (a Soviet-controlled front organization).
        LeRoi Jones: a Negro, poet, playwright, essayist, member of the Republic of New Africa cabinet, leader of the 1967 riot in Newark (Jones wrote, “We [blacks] must eliminate the white man before we will ever be able to draw a free breath on this planet.”[31] And, “We [blacks] must make our own world, man, and we cannot do this unless the white man is dead. Let’s get together and kill him.”[32] And, “I don’t see anything wrong with hating white people.”[33])
        Martin Luther King, Jr.: a Negro, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a member of the Congress of Racial Equality advisory committee, and founder of the Students Nonviolence Coordinating Committee. (See the Part 3 for more information on King.)
        Stanley Levison: white, a Communist,[34] liaison between the Communist party and the Soviet Union, involved in In Friendship, one of King’s top advisors in the 1960s. (Coretta Scott King, King’s wife, described Levison’s importance to her husband and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference: “Always working in the background, his contribution has been indispensable.”[35] Also, she wrote that Levison was one of her husband’s “most devoted and trusted friends.”[36])
        John Lewis: a Negro, a founder and leader of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, an organizing member of the Organization of Afro-American Unity, and advocated the communist position on the Negro Question. (Lewis urged “those of us involved in the freedom fight to bring about confrontations between the federal government and the state governments of the South.”[37])
        Lincoln Lynch: a Negro, associated director of the Congress of Racial Equality. (Lynch remarked, “If America doesn’t come around, we’re gonna burn it down.”[38])
        Floyd B. McKissick: a Negro, general council and later national director (1966-1967) of Congress of Racial Equality, a leader of the 1963 March on Washington, an advocate of black power achieved through revolutionary means. (McKissick remarked, “Forget about civil rights. I’m talking about black power.”[39] [Thus, he reveals what Negroes really want: It is not integration per se; it is power.] And, “Negroes are not geared to nonviolence.”[40] He advised whites, “If you want to help, keep your mouth shut and get out of my way.”[41])
        Malcolm X: a Negro, Black Muslim leader, founder and chairman of the Organization of Afro-American Unity.
        Thurgood Marshall: a Negro, counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, director and counsel of the Legal Defense and Educational Fund, U.S. circuit court judge, U.S. Solicitor General, U.S. supreme court justice. (Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Marshal said, “I want you to understand that when the colored people take over, every time the white man draws a breath, he’ll have to pay a fine.”[42] [For the Senate to approve the nomination for the Supreme Court of someone who expressed such hatred for people because of their race makes one wonder what the ruling elite had on these Senators. If a white nominee ever said anything resembling this remark, he would be persona non grata for life.] About Marshall’s appointment to the Supreme Court, Representative Joe Waggoner commented, “I suppose we should be thankful it was not Stokely Carmichael who go the job.”[43])
        Elijah Muhammad: a Negro, Black Muslim leader.
        Huey P. Newton: a Negro, cofounder of the Black Panther party, neighborhood organizer in Oakland for the Office of Economic Opportunity, Peace and Freedom party candidate for Congress.
        Hunter Pitts O’Dell: a Negro, a high-level Communist,[44] King’s secretary, executive director of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, organizer of the Communist party in New Orleans, associate editor of the Communist party’s propaganda magazine Freedomways, member of the World Peace Council (a Soviet-controlled front organization).
        William L. Patterson: a Negro, a Communist,[45] executive secretary of the Civil Rights Congress.
        Philip Randolph: a Negro, first chairman of the National Negro Congress, national vice-president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a member of the Congress of Racial Equality advisory committee, affiliated with at least 20 communist organizations.[46]
        Bayard Rustin: a Negro, a Communist,[47] an organizer of Young Communist League (an arm of the Communist party), organizer of the 1947 Freedom Ride Through the South, King’s secretary (1955-1960) and advisor, an organizer the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, organizer of King’s 1958 March on Washington (which was a project of the Communist party[48]), leader of the 1963 March on Washington, a field secretary for Congress of Racial Equality. (Rustin suggested “that more bloody Negro suffering should be encouraged so that squeamish Northern Negroes would be horrified into line. . . .”[49])
        Bobby G. Seale: a Negro, cofounder and chairman of the Black Panther party, helped incite the riot during the 1968 Democratic Convention, organizer for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and member of the Afro-American Association.
        Fred Shuttlesworth: a Negro, correspondence secretary and then vice-president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, president of the Southern Conference Educational Fund, leader of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, and a member of the Congress of Racial Equality advisory committee.
        Susan Sontag: white, a birth mother of the revolution of the 1960s. (Sontag remarked, “The white race is the cancer of human history.”[50])
        Sterling Tucker: a Negro, head of the Washington Urban League of the National Urban League. (Tucker stated, “I view rioting as a tool of communication that more and more people will accept. Man needs to be heard, needs people to respond to him.”[51])
        Wyatt Tee Walker: a Negro, King’s chief of staff. (Walker declared, “If the Negro is to be given equality, our whole economy will have to be changed — probably to some sort of socialism.”[52])
        Andrew D. Weinberger: white, a national vice-president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, treasurer of the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee (a highly active communist organization[53]).
        Roy Wilkins: a Negro, executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, affiliated with at least seven communist organizations,[54] sponsor of a joint meeting of the communist League against War and Fascism and the communist-controlled American Friends of the Chinese People in 1937. (Gannon described Wilkins as follows:

            Wilkins is undoubtedly one of the suavest spokesmen for Negroes in the civil rights area. He does preach nonviolence as a tactic, but at the same time, lards his speeches with references to police brutality and lynching and three-hundred-years-of-deprivation — just enough to keep militants from rejecting him. As for riots, Wilkins is extremely careful never to blame Negroes for instigating them and he characterizes riots as a “grass roots revolt” against conditions imposed upon Negroes. He never hints that anarchists, Communists, and black revolutionaries are conspiring to cause riots. And whatever solutions he offers to Negroes’ problems inevitably entails large expenditures of money by the federal government.[55])

        Aubrey Williams: white, a Communist,[56] president of the Southern Conference Educational Fund, and director of the National Youth Administration under President Franklin Roosevelt. (King noted that Aubrey Williams was “one of the noble personalities of our time.”[57])
        Robert F. Williams: a Negro, a Communist,[58] a leader of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, cofounder and chairman-in-exile of the Revolution Action Movement, a founder of the communist Fair Play for Cuba Committee, a founder of the Black Liberation Front, a propagandist for Fidel Castro and Mao Tse-tung (Mao Zedong). (Williams declared “‘RAM and Black Panthers share a common objective’: guerilla warfare.”[59] Williams described Mao as “our great leader and teacher, the architect of people’s warfare.”[60])
        Max Yergan: a Negro, a Communist,[61] president of the National Negro Congress, and writer for the communist Sunday Worker.
        Andrew Young: a Negro, trained at Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tennessee.
        Whitney M. Young: a Negro, head of the National Urban League, presented himself as nonviolent to gain the support of (guilt-ridden) white liberals and (cowardly) white conservatives and then promoted black power.
    All these men were Communists or communist sympathizers.
    Manning Johnson, a former Communist and a Negro, describes black civil rights leaders as:

    The utter bankruptcy of the Negro intelligentsia is startlingly evident by reason of the absence of any strong and dramatic movement for genuine Negro organization, leadership and thinking. Deep in the swamp of inferiority, lack of ability, muddled thought, the Negro intelligentisiam [sic] looks to the phoney white liberals, politicians and progressive hypocrites for leadership, guidance and money. These “whites” are carriers of “isms” other than Americanism which spreads like an epidemic in the ranks of the hapless Negro intellectuals. Due to the lack of race pride, there is no immunity.[62]

    Johnson cites some things that the Communist led civil rights movement has accomplished for the Negro:

    [It has made the Negro:]
    (a) feel sorry for himself;
    (b) blame others for his failures;
    (c) ignore the countless opportunities around him;
    (d) jealous of the progress of other racial and national groups;
    (e) expect the white man to do everything for him;
    (f) look for easy and quick solutions as a substitute for the harsh realities of   competitive struggle to get ahead.
        The result is a persecution complex — a warped belief that the white man’s prejudices, the white man’s system, the white man’s government is responsible for everything. . . .[63]

At least the civil rights movement has given blacks an excuse for all their failures: racism.

Endnotes

1. Henry Makow, “Is Plan for Racial Strife Another Hoax?”, http://henrymakow.com/the_book_the_bankers_made_disa.html accessed June 13, 2008. Willie Martin, “Do You Care?” http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/Inter-88.htm, accessed Feb. 24, 2015.

2. “Chapter 4. Communism and Racial Tension,” The Modern History Project, http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php ?Article=FinalWarn04, accessed Nov. 5, 2005.

3. Alan Stang, It’s Very Simple; The True Story of Civil Rights (Belmont, Massachusetts: Western Islands, 1965), p. 31.

4. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 31.

5. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, III (1972), p. 218.

6. Samuel Francis and Jesse Helms, The King Holiday and Its Meaning (1983,1998.), p. 29.

7. William P. Hoar, “Inside FBI Files on the Reverend Martin Luther King,” Conservative Digest, reprint.

8. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, I (1969), p. 188.

9. Gannon, I, p. 261. Alan Stang, “Forced Bussing: Crisis in Boston,” American Opinion, June 1975, p. 2.

10. Gannon, I, pp. 269-270.

11. John A. Stormer, The Death of a Nation (Florissant, Missouri: Liberty Bell Press, 1968), p. 27.

12. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 87.

13. Gary Allen, “Detroit,” American Opinion, April 1970, p. 3.

14. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left, II, pp. 276-277.

15. Allen, “Detroit,” p. 7. Gannon, III, p. 296.

16. Allen, “Detroit,” p. 7.

17. Manning Johnson, Color, Communism and Common Sense (1958, Rpt. Belmont, Massachusetts: Robert Welsh, Inc., 1963) p. 9.

18. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 102.

19. Gannon, I, p. 140. Gannon, III, p. 338. Stang, It’s Very Simple, pp. 45, 129.

20. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 129.

21. Gannon, I, p. 141. Francis X. Gannon, Biographical Dictionary of the Left IV (1973), p. 337.

22. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 77.

23. Gannon, III, p. 420. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 75.

24. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 129.

25. Gannon, III, p. 462.

26. Gannon, III, p. 462.

27. Gannon, III, p. 463.

28. Gannon, III, p. 464.

29. Johnson, p. 9.

30. Francis and Helms, p. 7. Johnson, p. 9.

31. Gannon, II, p. 434.

32. Gannon, II, p. 434.

33. Stormer, p. 32.

34. Francis and Helms, pp. 19ff. Paul Scott. “Marting Luther King Jr. and the Tapes,” Dec.1978, p. 13.

35. Francis and Helms, p. 21.

36. Francis and Helms, p. 21.

37. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 185.

38. Gannon, I, p. 45.

39. Gannon, I, p. 45.

40. Gannon, I, p. 45.

41. Gannon, I, p. 450.

42. Gannon, I, p. 439.

43. Gannon, I, p. 438.

44. Francis and Helms, pp. 7, 25-26. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 105.

45. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 94.

46. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 128.

47. Gannon, I, p. 51.

48. Gannon, I, p. 518.

49. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 107.

50. Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigratant Invasion Imperial Our Country and Civilization (New York, New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin’s Griffin, 2002), pp. 55, 71, 217.

51. Gannon, I, p. 613.

52. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 145.

53. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 128.

54. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 128.

55. Gannon, I, p. 594.

56. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 101.

57. Hoar, “FBI Files.”

58. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 68.

59. David Emerson Gumaer, “The Panthers,” American Opinion, April 1970, p. 5.

60. Gannon, II, p. 587.

61. Stang, It’s Very Simple, p. 86.

62. Johnson, p. 61.

63. Johnson, p. 44.

Copyright © 2015 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More articles on social issues.