Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism

НазваниеLiberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism
Размер0.98 Mb.
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   44

In any event, Lattimore's influence was far greater than his official sinecures suggest. Lattimore's recommendations had a bad habit of becoming official government policy. The left's Poet Laureate Lattimore was hauled out of irrelevance by President Roosevelt - on the recom­mendation of Soviet agent Currie - and sent to advise Chiang Kai-shek from 1941 to 1942.54 He also accompanied Vice President Henry Wallace on his trip to Siberia and China in 1944.55 After Lattimore toured Stalin's slave-labor camps with Wallace, he gushed about the wonderful things Stalin was doing for Russia. Using the standard liberal talking point about Soviet slave-labor camps, Lattimore described the gulags as "a combination Hudson's Bay Company and TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority]." Stalin's other Manchurian candi­date, Henry Wallace, used the exact same phrase.56

For many years, Lattimore edited Pacific Affairs, the journal of the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR). As editor, he published articles defending Stalin's purges. He loftily dismissed criticisms of the demonic show trials, saying, "A great many abuses have been discov­ered and rectified." By the time McCarthy called Lattimore a Soviet spy, forty-six people associated with Lattimore's IPR had been named under oath as members of the Communist Party, and eight others as espionage agents for the Soviet Union.57 Lattimore's entire institute was chock-full of Soviet spies. A meeting of two or more Republicans is treated with greater alarm.58 Owen Lattimore surely had closer ties to agents of Joseph Stalin than right-wingers do to Richard Mellon Scaife.

Lattimore thought Stalin was a peach, but he equivocated about our Nationalist Chinese ally Chiang Kai-shek. Lattimore had once oozed with praise for Chiang - as long as he served Moscow's interests. When Chiang was fighting the Japanese and thus preventing them from threatening Russia, Lattimore adored Chiang. But as soon as the Soviets didn't need Chiang and Mao's Communists besieged the Chi­nese Nationalist government, suddenly Lattimore complained that Chiang Kai-shek was nothing to write home about. So Chiang wasn't perfect. It's all relative now, isn't it? In order to be preferable to a satanic dictator in a barbarous land, apparently the alternative has to be Teddy Roosevelt. Is that a fair contest? It was not an opportune moment for the U.S. to be demanding reform from Chiang, inasmuch as he was in the middle of a civil war with Mao's Communists. But Lattimore recommended that the United States begin placing demands on Chiang while simultaneously opening a dialogue with the Communist insurgents. In a stunning development, despite Lattimore's honorable patriotic intentions, China fell to Communism, and more than a billion people were enslaved by a bloodthirsty dictator.

In a fawning profile of Lattimore in the Washington Post in 1995, Orville Schell wrote that Lattimore's IPR was attacked for "reasons that are still mysterious." Bear with me here - this is just a guess - but maybe it was the eight Soviet spies working there. That's even more than the New York Times had. Schell described critics of IPR as "pesky yet irrelevant cranks with a single-minded agenda."59 Their pesky single-minded agenda was keeping a quarter of humanity free. This "countercurrent" in intellectual opinion, according to Schell, viewed the "old China hands" - Lattimore and his ilk - as being "soft on communism." By opposing Chiang and supporting Mao, was Lattimore being "tough on communism"?

Owen Lattimore was the original Clinton. He stonewalled the truth, and liberals would never apologize. Conservatives go through agonies of conscience for thirty years after quickly admitting to some minor misstatement. Democrats tolerated the patent risk of allowing Soviet-partisans to loiter around their administrations and to this day, they will not admit the truth.

In the terror that gripped the nation during McCarthy's rule, all respectable opinion supported Lattimore and opposed McCarthy. The left's idea of persecution is an absence of total unanimity in support of Harvard-educated traitors. Lattimore was so cowed by the black night of fascism that when McCarthy first attacked him, he instantly flew to Washington to denounce McCarthy as "base and despicable." He later boasted of that "short and pithy" response, though by degree, Latti­more proceeded to become considerably less "pithy." He said McCar­thy was "a fool or a knave" if he imagined Lattimore had promoted Communist interests on the flimsy evidence of his having promoted Communist interests. Furthermore, McCarthy had created "a reign of terror." Most devastatingly, Lattimore said McCarthy had made America "the laughing stock of the Communist governments" - a ter­rifying prospect to liberals everywhere. In April 1995, Lattimore's harangue was described in the Washington Post magazine as "elo­quent" and "convincing."60

In Lattimore's first round of hearings, he faced the Tydings Com­mittee, a Senate Committee composed of Maxine Waters-style Demo­crats. The committee refused Senator McCarthy the right to question witnesses. It pursued no leads and produced no evidence. It glibly dis­missed as "hearsay" the testimony of ex-Communist Budenz identify­ing Lattimore as a Soviet agent. It accepted Lattimore's angry denials at face value. Lattimore's brave appearance before this committee con­sisted of his haranguing the committee as un-American. For this, he was literally applauded. On the basis of no investigation whatsoever, the Tydings Committee hastily concluded that the charges against Lat­timore were "a fraud and a hoax perpetrated on the Senate of the United States and the American people ... the most nefarious cam­paign of half-truths and untruth in the history of the Republic" blah, blah, blah.

The Tydings Committee was such a joke that a second commit­tee - the McCarran Committee, also dominated by Democrats but of a very different complexion - was later required to perform an actual investigation of Lattimore. In round two, the terrified and quaking Lat­timore called his accusers "a motley crew of crackpots, professional informers, hysterics and ex-Communists," "embittered, ruthless and unprincipled . . . masters of the dark techniques of villainy," and "artists of conspiracy." Particularly terrifying, evidently, was McCarthy himself, whom Lattimore shrunk from in fear by calling him a string of names such as the "Wisconsin Whimperer" and "a graduate witch burner." One wonders what turns of phrase he would have used if McCarthy had been a little less intimidating.

Yes, McCarthy held a terrified nation hostage. Lattimore was defended pro bono by future Supreme Court justice Abe Fortas and Yale Law School Professor John P. Frank. President Truman, fresh from denouncing the Hiss hearings as a "red herring," said Lattimore was being "shamefully persecuted" by the Senate. All in all, Lattimore's persecution would not be matched until President Clinton's ordeal in the black night of fascism was ignited by a man called . . . Ken Starr.

Though Lattimore prattled on about "my seriously damaged repu­tation," his stock only soared in the nation's editorial pages and uni­versities. He took a paid leave from Johns Hopkins presumably to work on more derisive adjectives for the committee members. He continued to lecture, including a once-a-year stint at Harvard. Typical of the con­temporaneous fawning over the man who helped condemn a billion people to a Communist slave state, the New York Post editorialized: "All those who believe in freedom in this country are in the debt of Owen Lattimore." The millions of Chinese exterminated by Chairman Mao are also in Lattimore's debt.

The idea of a bowed and terrified liberal minority during McCar­thy's "reign of terror" is poppycock. Then as now, all elite opinion was against McCarthy. The principal result of being called a Communist by McCarthy was you got to teach at Harvard. In a two-part, four-billion-column-inch Washington Post story detailing the horrors suffered by Lattimore, the sole suggestion of any professional harm is a bald alle­gation that Lattimore's annual lecture at Harvard met with "resist­ance." It was never actually rescinded, mind you. But there were rumors of "resistance."61 Harvard resisting a Communist was about as likely as the American Conservative Union resisting Ronald Reagan. Contributing to the authenticity of the story, the alleged "dean" who put up the impotent resistance remained anonymous. Lattimore taught in Europe for a while, where, the Post said, "the academic community as a whole had been far more supportive of [Lattimore's] scholarly work and admiring of his courage."62 Unless they were performing the sex acts Monica executed on Clinton, it's difficult to imagine how Euro­pean academics could have been any more supportive of Lattimore than American academics were.

By 1972, Lattimore himself boasted that his reputation needed no further defense. "President Nixon's record of the same period," he sniffed, "could do with, and is getting, a lavish application of cosmetic art."63 Lattimore's descent into the hell of "McCarthyism" involved fawning media coverage, legal representation by a future Supreme Court Justice, a paid leave from Hopkins, annual lectures at Harvard, and the adulation of academics everywhere. Having survived his "ordeal," Latti­more took a position at the University of Leeds in Britain. Only by incre­mental slander did the loudmouthed "victims of McCarthyism" finally convince people that McCarthy held a terrified nation captive. In 1954, critic Leslie Fiedler captured the essence of "McCarthyism": "From one end of the country to another rings the cry, 'I am cowed! I am afraid to speak out!', and the even louder response, 'Look, he is cowed! He is afraid to speak out.' "64 The New York Times, unintentionally hilarious "Herblock" cartoons, and the usual Treason Lobby hysterically attacked McCarthy. Seeking the rewards of apostasy, "moderate Republicans" nodded in agreement. Never has a more powerful oligarchy screamed so long and so loudly about its own victimization.



History is an endless process of liberal brainwashing. The battle for truth is purely propagandistic. Liberals can't persuade, they can only harrumph. But they write the history books. Like all historical myths, arrogant and powerful institutions of liberalism distorted the truth about McCarthy through sheer malice. He was sub­jected to a relentless stream of abuse the likes of which would not be seen again until Ken Starr had the goods on Clinton. Liberal hysteria has become historical fact. As the critic John Jay Chapman said a cen­tury ago, "Give a professor a false thesis in early life, and he will teach it till he dies. He has no way of correcting it."1

History textbooks ritualistically include the demonstrably false assertion that McCarthy "did not discover a single Communist any­where."2 Schoolchildren are taught in a major American textbook, A History of US, that McCarthy "was a liar. Not your ordinary small­time fibber. No, Senator Joseph McCarthy was an enormous, outra­geous, beyond-belief liar."3 Upcoming editions will include the dark tale of how Swedes flew planes into the World Trade Center on 9-11 and glorious renditions of how Bill Clinton - shoulder-to-shoulder with Larry Flynt - saved the Constitution.

Flip through any book about McCarthy and notice the footnotes. It is an arresting fact that the supporting documentation rarely consists of primary source material. Academics cite other academics, who cite other academics, with nearly all statements about McCarthy eventually tracing their way back to contemporaneous news accounts from a rab­idly anti-McCarthy press. Doing original research on McCarthy is apparently not tenure-track material at American universities. As the saying goes, the first draft of history is written by journalists. And we know who they are. They told us Clinton was only counseling Monica. But trust them on McCarthy. The news industry is the last place you'd go for the truth about McCarthy. It would be as if all historical ac­counts of the Bush presidency were based exclusively on Maureen Dowd columns.

The press loathed McCarthy. Their idea of investigative reporting was to recycle passages from the Tydings Committee report - a well-known smear job hatched by the segregationist Democratic senator Millard Tydings. Tydings's father-in-law was the infamous Joseph E. Davies, Roosevelt's ambassador to the USSR, who gushed with admi­ration for Stalin's show trials - later made into a major motion picture, Mission to Moscow. When Western journalists wrote a letter pleading with Stalin to spare the life of a prominent Russian journalist, Vladimir Romm, Ambassador Davies refused even to deliver their letter. "Poor devil," Davies glibly wrote of Romm.4 Davies's son-in-law's con­cern with Soviet spies was about as honorable.

Historical facts about McCarthy are sourced to the news stories of prominent journalists like I. F. Stone. Needless to say, Stone attacked McCarthy early and often. Stone was an "idealist." He supported Joseph Stalin in the 1930s, the Soviet-backed "Progressive Party" presidential candidate Henry Wallace in the forties, and Ho Chi Minh in the 1960s.5 He spoke at the first Vietnam teach-in at Berkeley. Two years later he marched on the Pentagon.6 After warming to the idea of suppressing "fascist" speech, Stone would later revise that position when it came to Communists. The Washington Post said he changed his mind "in light of McCarthyism."7 Stone famously disdained the wisdom of "the common man"8 - who adored McCarthy - preferring the wisdom of out-of-touch elites.

Despite the serious risk of being called brave, Stone stood with the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, Hollywood, and every college and university in the nation against the brute McCarthy. The Los Angeles Times hailed Stone's raw courage, saying, "Long before it was safe to do so, he attacked McCarthyite loyalty purges."9 One can only imagine the horror that would befall a journal­ist who criticized McCarthy. In fact, literally one can only imagine it.

The late Fred Friendly, doyen of American journalism, called Stone "the conscience of investigative journalism." Friendly was a pro­fessor at Columbia School of Journalism, where he initiated the tradi­tion of forcing students to gasp in awe at his genius and courage for attacking McCarthy at CBS, where he produced the famous Edward R. Murrow smear job on McCarthy.10 So honest was I. F. Stone that an Oliphant cartoon showed him refusing to enter heaven because - as Saint Peter is telling God - "he'd rather hang around out here, and keep things honest."11 Stone's life was the subject of a fawning 1975 documentary, narrated by New York Times columnist Tom Wicker.12

It has now been overwhelmingly documented that I. F. Stone was a paid Soviet agent.13 While intrepidly attacking McCarthy, this "con­science of investigative journalism" was on the payroll of a totalitarian regime. Stone was identified as an agent by a former KGB agent in 1992.14 A few years after that, declassified Soviet cables confirmed that he was an agent. In one cable, Stone's NKVD contact reported Stone was willing to accept money for his services, but "did not want to attract the attention of the FBI."15 According to professional Soviet apologist Victor Navasky, if you accept the Venona documents, "you have to accept that I. F. Stone . . . was a Communist agent."16

Consider that an American journalist on Joseph Stalin's payroll was indistinguishable from other members of his profession. Stone was constantly cited as an exemplar of honest and independent journalism. Michael Beschloss said Stone was a journalist others "came to emu­late."17 The Washington Post called Stone a "tough-minded individu­alist in a time of conformity."18 The Los Angeles Times's Washington bureau chief Jack Nelson said Stone "was one of the great investigative reporters of the 20th Century."19 Former Washington bureau chief of the New York Times James Reston called Stone "the scholar of our profession."20
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   44


Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBooks on the Cold War

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconIn the decade after the end of the cold war

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconCold War Development of Scalar Interferometry

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconEast Asia in the Post-Cold War Era

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism icon1 New Approaches to Cold War: History and Current International Politics

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconThe Otherworld War (The Multiverse War) Cover Blurb

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconPaper presented at the International Conference on The History of the Cold War, Cortona, Italy, October 5–6, 2001

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconWar and peace? An agenda for peace research in geography. Nick Megoran, Newcastle University. Needs – engaging war. Maybe as crit geop section Abstract

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconAnTir/West war was lots of fun! The fighting was great! The results of the war met with an unfortunate accident so we can only assume AnTir won! (of course, we can as easily assume the West won!)

Liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism iconBiography
«terrorism, war, internal and external security» "terrorisme, guerre, sécurité intérieure, sécurité extérieure", unanimously awarded,...
Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2014
обратиться к администрации
Главная страница