Iran-Contra and the Religious Right

Oliver North worshipped in a charismatic Episcopal Church in Virginia called Church of the Apostles. It turn out to be one of those Shepherding churches, a cult movement within the charismatic movement. North’s pastor was Rev. Brian Cox, a National Coordinator of Sharing of Ministries Abroad (SOMA), a right-wing political orgainization in guise of of an active missionary work in South America. Their agenda was to fight communism in South America.

In 1976, Jesus freaks from Gospel Outreach of California came to Guatemala after its earthquake. They did not waste time aiding earthquake victims, they were trying to convert Catholics to Pentecostals. One early convert was Rios Montt,who became leader of Gospel Outreach Verbo Church. He smuggled Bibles into Nicaruagua after Sandisitas took over the country.

Christian Emergency Relief Teams (CERT) started in Carlsbad, California in 1974 to aid Honduras hurricane victims, but after Sandistas took over Nicaruagua, they switched to aiding the contras. They have even accompanied contras to battle. Templo Biblico in San Jose, California was a front for Full Gospel Businessman International and World Vision. It became a CIA conduit to contras in Costa Rico.

Glendale, California based Transworld Mission (TWM), headed by John Olson .When Somoza was head of Nicaragua, Olson produced rabid anti-communist radio broadcasts in US, supporting Somoza. He became friends with Oliver North.

When Oliver North became an officer, he joined Officers’ Christian fellowship, founded by Ret. Army Major Gen. Clay T. Buckingham on 170 US bases. it was a shepherding organization.

1979-83-NCPAC Financial Director Carl “Spitz” Channel formed a coalition of religious right wing organizations to raise funds for contras. Lutheran pastor Rchard Nieuhaus influenced IRD in 1981 to supporting contras.

In 1982- Charles Moser, Secretary-Treasuru of Free Congress and Education Foundation, formed a committee to support the contras. This committee had Enrique Ruedo of Free Congress, Dan Tefferman of Freedom Leadership Foundation, Reed Irvine of AIM, and Lynn Francis Bouchery of Council for Inter-American Security. Jimmy Hasan, Director of Campus Crusade in Nicaragua 1982-85, was working for the contras.

By 1984, the most prominent private donor to contras was CBN. Capt. Robert Warren, retired Navy counterinsurgency specialist, was head of Operation Blessing. He was also formerly of Operation Phoenix, the CIA assassination group in Vietnam. North, Secord, and Poindexter were also in Operation Phoenix. They had ties to John Singlaub, head of World Anti-communist League (WACL) and a former member of NSC. He was a coordinator for private aid to the contras. North went around US trying to get aid for contras and build domestic propaganda for the contras. CBN contributed $3 million to Nicaraguan Patriotic Association. Its president was Juan Sacasa, Houston representative for the contras. Harry Aderholt, the Air Force officer who pioneered Operation Phoenix, headed the Air Commandos Association( the Air Force Green Berets) and was supplying the Salvadoran Army against its rebels. Aderholt, with Warren and Operation Blessing opened a clinic in Nebay region in Guatemala that turned out to be a de facto concentration camp for the Indians.

Dr. Alton Ochsner,Jr. convinced Moral Majority to the contras cause. They started “Family Forum” in San Francisco, an organization to support contras. They formed Friends of America (FOA) in 1984. Ochsner became head of Carribean Commission, a contra support group. He introduced Jenkins to Council for National Policy, which was supporting the contras. Ochsner father was a well-known white supremicist. FOA supplies were flown by the National Guard of Mississippi and Louisana at taxpayers’ expense and illegal activity.

In Sept.,1985, Robertson asked Reagan on the 700 Club, who was the person going to Tehran to talk about hostages. Reagan admitted sending someone to Tehran to trade hostages for arms. That “someone” was Oliver North. He was accompanied by Robert Marrow, an CIA agent allegedly on the plot to kill JFK, and was part of Operation Phoenix and in Operation Blessing. Jimmy Hasan was arrested by Sandistas after an IRD meeting on Oct. 31, 1985. He fled and appeared on the 700 Club. He recieved money from North’s NSC safe. North introduced Derstine to Calero and Bermudez in a secret map room. Rev. Derstine was a televangelist. Calero and Bermudez are contra leaders. FOA leaders generate public support and coordinate private aid from US church groups for contras, though that was illegal at the time.Woody Jenkins went around claiming Sandistas were dictators.

In 1986, FOA used Kelly Air Force Base and airlifted at taxpayers’ expense 100,00 pounds of supplies to Honduras for the contras. The planes were accompanied by National Guards of Mississippi and Louisana. FOA also supplied SETCO, an CIA airline for the contras. Operation Blessing supplied gas and drove vehicles for the contras. CERT accompanied contras to their battles.

David Cousas and Oliver North spoke at National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) to get support for the contras. 1985-John Olson was Oliver North’s guest at the White House for a briefing on the contra war. Olson was there on behalf of NRB. NRB became staunch advocate of direct US military intervention against Nicaragua. Before the Hausenfus crash, Robertson knew about the contras were being supplied by Israel and South Africa. This was before the press found out. AFC Richard Viguerie lobbied for the contras in Congress and claimed North was innocent. Singlaub and Micharl Clifford (Robertson’s CBN staff member) were among AFC members. North was keynote speaker for Bev LeHayes’ Concerned Women of America (CWA), urging them to aid the contras. Barbara Abbey, CWA,co-sponsored a fund-raiser for contra leader Calero. CWA sponsored a contra refugee camp in Costa Rico. CWA got money from Pepsico, Levi, Avon,Amex, Subaru, Sun Co., United Bank of Colorado, and Government Employees Insurance.

Jose Gonzales Souza started Semilla (“Seed”) at the Chesepeake, Va, office of Pat Robertson’s National Perspective Institute. Souza was a graduate of Robertson’s Regent University and lead its Hispanic Studies.CBN gave him money to start Semilla to train and organize Christian leaders in the Western Hemisphere, especially in Latin America.S emilla got $1,714.34 from Spitz Channell’s National Endowment for Preservation of Liberty (NEPL), part of Oliver North’s multifaceted procontra propaganda project.

Robert Reilly, Reagan’s liason to the Catholics, denounced liberation theology. He worked with former Maryknoll worker Geraldine O’Leary Macras (who worked for Costa Rican contras). He also worked with Humberto Belli, former editor of La Prensa. Humberto Belli started Puebla Instiute in Michigan in co-operation with Sword of Spirit (Catholic charismatic group) and Ciudad de Dios (“City of God”), the Hispanic version of Sword of Spirit. Belli claimed there was religious persecution in Nicaragua. CIA paid Belli to do a film called Nicaragua Christians under Fire. Belli was advisor to pro-contra Archbishop Bravo. He had Bravo doing mass for contras in Miami. Archbishop Bravo had ties with W.R. Grace Corporation. He also got funds from North. Robert Pickus and George Weigel formed National Endowment for Democracy (NED), spending millions of taxpayers’ money funding Nicaragua’s opposition press. Weigel served as advisor for USIA. Pickus formed World without War Council (WWWC), which promoted US tour of Belli and contra leader Arturo Cruz.

1987- Bev Lehaye met Violetta Chamarro, editor of La Prensa, pledging support for the contras. Rev Geoff Donnan of Carribean Christian Ministries organized anti-Sandistas clergy in Nicaragua using private Christian schools there. Donnan worked under sponsorship of Paul lindstrom, a John Birch organizer.

1986- Donnan declared liberation theology as Satanic. He planned to publish a “Christian ” history of Nicaragua, written by Belli. Contra leader Joseph Douglas joined CERT. A few days before Swaggert resigned, he went to Nicaragua and saw the children victims of contra attacks. He withdrew his support of the contras and criticized them for their inhumanity. Suddenly, Marvin Gorman came up with pictures of Swaggert with a prostitute. Meanwhile, the contras smuggled illegal drugs into the US.

Politics make strange bedfellows. This proves it! In 1961, after a military coup of a democratic government in South Korea that brought Park to power, KCIA decided to organize and utilize a church called Unification Church, as a political tool of the right wing military government. They wanted to export this church to the US. They asked Rev. Bill Bright to help organize it and chose a leader of it. Bill Bright choose Rev. Sun Myung Moon to head it. Moon had been a friend of Bright for a long time. Numerious Moonies served as aids to various Congresspersons since then.

In 1977, Richard Viguerie got a contract for “Children’s Relief Fund”, sponsored by the Moonies’ Korean Culture and Freedom Foundation. Less than 6.3% of the donations went to the needy, the rest went to Viguerie’s pockets and the Moonies. The biggest chunk went to Viguerie.

In 1986, Moonies paid Viguerie to handle the distribution of their magazine Insight.

In 1975,Christian Freedom Foundation founded by Bill Bright, Richard Viguerie, Richard Devos, Arthur DeMoss, Rep. John Conlan, Ed McAteer. The money came from Moonies.

In 1983, American Coalition for Traditional Values (ACTV) began with Tim LaHaye, Falwell, Robertson, Bakker, Robison, Humbard, and Swaggert. The money that started it came from the Moonies. It was right after Gary Jarmin, ex-Moonie, introduced Tim LaHaye to Col. Bo Pak, Rev. Moon’s right hand man.

1984-Rev. Moon was arrested for his illegal business activities. Moonies formed Coalition for Religious Freedom (CRF), a front for defense of Rev. Moon. LaHaye, Falwell< Ben Armstrong, Robison, Humbard, James Kennedy, and Swaggert were on the executive board. Paul Crouch and Hal Lindsey joined in 1986.

Ron Goodwin, a top Falwell aid left the Moral Majority to work on Insight in 1985.

1987-Col. Pak paid 10.06 million dollars for Vigueries’ offices. Christian Voice was in Moonies pay and headed by Gary Jarmin. Pres. Robert Grant and the Christian Voice joined the Moonies to form American Freedom Coalition.

1988-Grant made ties with Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations. It was a group made up of Who’s Who of WWII Nazis.

Coaliton on Revival (COR) was founded by Dennis Peacocke, a Bob Mumford disciple, and Jay Grimstead, an ex-Moonie. The money came from Moonies.

Mumford promoted dominion theology (Reconstructionism). Gary North of COR was a member of the John Birch Society.

The neo-Nazi church Identity’s rock group Legacy had entertained COR’s meetings and parties.

!985-While “Father” Dowling was passing off as a Catholic priest, he spoke at Grace Luthern Chruch in El Cerrito, CA. Its pastor, Ralph Moelling, was a member of the Moonies’ CAUSA. Dowling served as national advisory board on CAUSA, which was paying Dowling’s travel expenses. Dowling frequently met Pat Buchanan at the White House and Bretton Sciaroni, a confident of John Singlaub. Dowling kept close ties with Linda Guell, director of Western Goals, which was involved in North’s contra fundraising. It was also a John Birch front.

1987-Christian Emergency Relief Teams(CERT) recieved a large amount of money from the Moonies.

1986-Moonies received money from South Africa, $45million, in exchange for South Africa’s interest in Washington Times, the Moonie paper.

1982-James Whelan, editor of Moonie-owned Sacramento Union, went to the Washington Times. Back in 1961, he was part of a secret UPI team in Miami that covered the failed US invasion of Cuba. He was PR man for ITT, when it helped CIA overthrow Allende and set up Pinochet. Whelan resigned the Washington Times in 1984, and worked briefly for CBN.

Reed Irvine wrote for Moonie-owned papers. Richard Zone was also with Christian Voice. Grant had ties with Anita Bryant, an anti-gay crusade. Tim LaHaye, Bob Billings, and Cal Thomas, an ex-Moonie, was with the Christian Voice. Billings and Thomas was also with Moral Majority.

Shepherding

In 1965,in South Korea, Paul Yonggi Cho started a sysytem called Shepherding. He was inspired by the organizational methods of Rev. Moon. He wrote the book Successful Home Cell Groups in 1981, based on his ideas of shepherding.

1970-Argentina. An Assembly of God pastor, Rev. Juan Carlos Ortiz, established a new church, Body of Christ. It had a highly structured authority from small cells led by a “shepherd”, who was in turn led by another shepherd and so on in a pyramid form of command. It was from reading about what Cho was doing.

1972- Rev. Bob Mumford visited Ortiz’s church and was impressed. He brought Shepherding to America. He was a Bible teacher in Ft. Lauderdale,Florida.. Mumford,with four other associates, moved to Mobile, Alabama, directing the Christian Growth Ministries. They saw in the Charimatic Movement too much chaos. Shepherding would bring discipline.

Most leaders of the Shepherding Movement required their members to disclose intimate details of their lives and submit to the Shepherd (no female was allowed to be a Shepherd).The shepherd directed all facets of their followers’ lives.

Pat Robertson denounced the Shepherding Movement, but he invited Don Basham, one of the Shepherd leaders, to the 700 Club in 1987.

They have a magazine called New Wine. Cult Awareness Network declared they are a cult.

Mumford promoted dominion theology or Reconstrutionism, which was trying to get theocracy in America.Rev. Peacocke was one of Mumford’s disciples and his Coalition on Revival (COR) promoted Reconstructionism.

Robertson and the New World Order

A few years back, Robertson wrote a book called New World Order, his take on the Conpiracy Theory. He said that secret organizations are working together to make a one world government. This government will try to eliminate Christianity. He mentioned the illuminati, the Bavarian group started in 1776 by Adam Weishuapt and was disbanded in 1787. Robertson is one of those who believed Illuminati never disbanded, but behind the scenes of worldly events.

He said the Warburgs, Rockefellers, and Morgans created te Federal reserve Board and the IRS. They were out to change the Constitution. House, an employee of Rothchilds, started Council for Foreign Relations and talked Wilson into participating in WWI. House helped formed League of Nations. Adolf Hitler was trained by occult groups, so said Pat Robertson. The British Labour Party socialized Britain after WWII. Sweden became socialized. Robertson said that Ford Foundation wants US to merge with the USSR.

CFR infiltrated our government and the Federal Reserve Board. Also the Foundations (Ford,Rockefeller, Carnegie,etc.), our banks, our universities, and our newspapers.Marxism is its goal.Helped Communism to take control of Russia, China, East Europe, Central America, and Africa. Some are motivatied by Satan, so claimed Robertson.CIA under CFR control.

Then, Robertson turned to Trilateral Commission, formed to link Japan, US, and Europe.Robertson mentioned International Finance ( a buzz word for Jews) as backing US Communist Party.

Robertson said Communism was brainchild of German Jewish Intellectuals.

Robertson talked about Great Seal of US. He said the eye above the Pyramid is Eye of Osiris ( actually its Eye of Horus). A select few was planning to to replace Christian order, said Pat Robertson.

Robertson talked about roots of Communism were in the Illuminati. They staged the French Revolution. He mentioned Moses Hess, a radical Jewish rabbi, who influenced Engels. Robertson said Hess was an Illuminatus. He went on and mentioned Nesta Webster. who is a favorite author of John Birch Society and a member of British Fascist Society.

Robertson claimed Solidarity was a front for the Communist Party.

John Ruskin and his pupil, Cecil Rhodes. With Rothchild funding, Cecil Rhodes founded DeBeers. He created Rhodes Scholarship. Rhodes created British Roundtable.

Robertson mentioned Club of Rome as one of those groups working for one world government. He mentioned John Dewey teaching ethics different from JudeoChristian. New Age movement is a front for this One World conspiracy. He claimed the first Masonic legislator was Buddha. Illuminati borrowed from Jewish Cabala.

Rockefeller funded Planned Parenthood’s start. Robertson claimed that Muslems, Hindus, and Buddhists would undermine US.

Robertson claimed Lincoln was killed because he did not US government to loan from banks. Robertson said European Bankers(Jews) and money lords of US had Booth kill Lincoln. Booth was in employ of European bankers.

Robertson stole so much from John Birch literature and Nesta Webster works, its a wonder he wasn’t sued for plagerism. Robertson claimed occult came from Babylon and Egypt. Other times he said the occult came from China and India. He can’t seem to make up his mind. Historian Will Durant debunks the idea that Illuminati was connected to French Revolution. Many historians since then also debunk that idea. Robertson liked the old idea that only property owners could vote. That was a rule to prevent blacks and other minorities from voting, also keeping the poor from voting.

Well, in Robertson’s view, the Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion was real, that old Anti-Semitic forgery. I find this book both racist and contradictory. He is close to Mussolini here, with some borrowed ideas from Adolf Hitler, who was a believer in the Protocols, too.

Source

The Moscow Trial was Fair

1

By D. N. PRITT, K.C., M.P.

I STUDIED the legal procedure in criminal cases in Soviet Russia somewhat carefully in 1932, and concluded (as published at the time in “Twelve Studies in Soviet Russia”) that the procedure gave the ordinal accused a very fair trial. Having learnt from my legal friends in Moscow on my return this summer that the principal changes realised or shortly impending were all in the direction of giving greater independence to the Bar and the judges and greater facilities to the accused, I was particularly interested to be able to attend the trial of Zinoviev and Kamenev and others which took place on August 1923.

Here was, born the point of view of a lawyer, a politician, or an ordinary citizen, a very good test of the system.

The charge was a serious one. A group of men, almost all having earned high merit for their services at various stages of the anxious and crowded history of Soviet Russia, still not two decades old, almost all having been under some measure of suspicion for counter-revolutionary or deviationist activities, and most of them having had such activities condoned in the past on assurances of the loyalty in the future, were now charged with long, cold-blooded, deliberate conspiracy to bring about the assassination of Kirov (who was actually murdered in December, 1934), of Stalin, of Voroshilov and other prominent leaders.

Their purpose, it seemed, was merely to seize power for themselves, without any pretence that they had any substantial following in the country and without any real policy or philosophy to replace the existing Soviet Socialism.

With all its difficulties and shortcomings, with all the opposition, military or commercial, of the outside world, Soviet Socialism has raised a terribly backward Asiatic State in some 19 years to a State of world importance, of great industrial strength, and above all of a standard of living which, starting somewhere about the level of the more depressed peoples of India, has already overtaken that of many races of Eastern Europe and will soon claim comparison with that of the most favoured of Western industrial people.

And the charge against the men was not merely made. It was admitted, admitted by men the majority of whom were shown by their records to be possessed of physical and moral courage well adapted to protect them from confessing under pressure. And at no stage was any suggestion made by any of them that any sort of improper treatment had been used to persuade them to confess.

The first thing that struck me, as an English lawyer, was the almost free-and-easy dameanour of the prisoners. They all looked well; they all got up and spoke, even at length, whenever they wanted to do so (for the matter of that, they strolled out, with a guard, when they wanted to).

The one or two witnesses who were called by the prosecution were cross-examined by the prisoners who were affected by their evidence, with the same freedom as would have been the case in England.

The prisoners voluntarily renounced counsel; they could have had counsel without fee had they wished, but they preferred to dispense with them. And having regard to their pleas of guilty and to their own ability to speak, amounting in most cases to real eloquence, they probably did not suffer by their decision, able as some of my Moscow colleagues are.

The most striking novelty, perhaps, to an English lawyer, was the easy way in which first one and then another prisoner would intervene in the course of the examination of one of their co-defendants, without any objection from the Court or from the prosecutor, so that one got the impression of a quick and vivid debate between four people, the prosecutor and three prisoners, all talking together, if not actually at the same moment — a method which, whilst impossible with a jury, is certainly conducive to clearing up disputes of fact with some rapidity.

Far more important, however, if less striking, were the final speeches.

In accordance with Soviet law, the prisoners had the last word — 15 speeches after the last chance of the prosecution to say anything.

The Public prosecutor, Vishinsky, spoke first. He spoke for four or five hours. He looked like a very intelligent and rather mild-mannered English business man.

He spoke with vigour and clarity. He seldom raised his voice. He never ranted, or shouted, or thumped the table. He rarely looked at the public or played for effect.

He said strong things; he called the defendants bandits, and mad dogs, and suggested that they ought to be exterminated. Even in as grave a case as this, some English Attorney-Generals might not have spoken so strongly; but in many cases less grave many English prosecuting counsel have used much harsher words.

He was not interrupted by the Court or by any of the accused. His speech was clapped by the public, and no attempt was made to prevent the applause.

That seems odd to the English mind, but where there is no jury it cannot do much harm, and it was noticeable throughout that the Court’s efforts, by the use of a little bell, to repress the laughter that was caused either by the prisoners’ sallies or by any other incident were not immediately successful.

But now came the final test. The 15 guilty men, who had sought to overthrow the whole Soviet State, now had their rights to speak; and they spoke.

Some at great length, some shortly, some argumentatively, others with some measures of pleading; most with eloquence, some with emotion; some consciously addressing the public in the crowded hall, some turning to the court.

But they all said what they had to say.

They met with no interruption from the prosecutor, with no more than a rare short word or two from the court; and the public itself sat quiet, manifesting none of the hatred it must have felt.

They spoke without any embarrassment or hindrance.

The executive authorities of U.S.S.R. may have taken, by the successful prosecution of this case, a very big step towards eradicating counter-revolutionary activities.

But it is equally clear that the judicature and the prosecuting attorney of U.S.S.R. have taken at least as great a step towards establishing their reputation among the legal systems of the modern world.

2

By PAT SLOAN

recently returned after 5 years in the U.S.S.R.

Whenever there has been a big trial in the U.S.S.R., there has been a flutter in the world Press. This is natural, for big trials in any country are News, and when the trial has the additional feature of being “Bolshevik” into the bargain, its possibilities of making the trial a pretext for any and every kind of anti-Soviet slander, credible or incredible.

And the trial which has just concluded is no exception. It is particularly sensational this time: (a) because a number of well-known ex-members of the Bolshevik Party were the chief accused; (b) because, in connection with the new Draft Constitution, the capitalist press of all countries has been longing to get additional copy for the purpose of minimising the significance of this important document; and (c) because the fascist offensive against Peace and Democracy is at a critical stage to-day.

As in all previous big Soviet trials, this one has been declared a “frame-up.” But just as Mr. Alan Monkhouse’s outburst in court, during the famous Metro-Vickers trial, that the trial was a “frame-up,” was never supported by one iota of evidence; so to-day, the allegation of “frame-up” remains unsupported in the slightest degree.

The most serious statements which have appeared in the Press, and the most misleading, are: (a) that Stalin now stands alone, having “murdered” all the “Bolshevik Old Guard”; (b) that the trial was a “frame-up” because the accused all confessed their guilt; and (c) that this trial detracts from the significance of the new Draft Constitution.

If we just examine the present leadership in the Bolshevik Party, and the positions held by the leading personalities, we find that practically all are Bolsheviks of over thirty years standing. For nearly twenty years, therefore, they worked with Lenin. Just consider these:

Kalinin, President of the U.S.S.R. since 1922, was originally a metal worker. He joined the Party in 1898 (even before it bore the name of “Bolshevik”), and has been a member of the Central Committee of the Party since 1919. Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, has been a member of the Party since 1906, was a member of the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee in 1919, and Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for the years following 1920, and one of Lenin’s closest collaborators. Ordjonikidze, Commissar for Heavy Industry, has been a member of the Party since 1903, was elected to the Central Committee in 1912, and played an active part in the leadership of the Revolution in the Caucasus. Voroshilov, Commissar of Defence, was a worker who joined the Party in 1903, played an outstanding part in the Civil War, and was then elected to the Central Committee of the Party. Kaganovitch was a leather-goods worker, who joined the Party in 1911.

So that the youngest of these leaders had worked under Lenin’s leadership for at least ten years, and most of them for twenty years, and have now been thirty years in the Party. So it is fair to say that Stalin remains alone, and the “old guard” has been killed off? Ah, but it may be argued that only those now remain in power who were in minor positions when Lenin was alive.

So let us look at two individuals who, up to 1917, worked in close contact with Lenin all the time. People who had leading positions. Let us examine the records of these persons. In 1917, when the Party was preparing the armed uprising, the two intellectuals, Kamenev and Zinoviev, opposed this uprising in a meeting of the Central Committee. When defeated, they carried their opposition into the public Press—and gave away the Bolsheviks’ plans to the government. At that time Lenin wrote: “I should consider it disgraceful on my part if, on account of my former close relations with these former comrades, I were not to condemn them. I declare outright that I do not consider either of them comrades any longer and that I will fight with all my might, both in the Central Committee and at the Congress, to secure the expulsion of both of them from the Party. Let Messrs. Zinoviev and Kamenev found their own party from the dozens of disoriented people. The workers will not join such a party. “

So we find that two intellectuals, who were having “former close relations” with Lenin before October, 1917, and who are now hailed from “Daily Mail” to “Daily Herald” as the “Bolshevik Old Guard,” were condemned by Lenin for their treachery at one of the most serious moments of the Revolution, and he tried to get them expelled from the Party. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks who are working in closest collaboration with Stalin to-day are working men, who have been in the Party for from 20 to 30 years, and who rose to power as a result of their activities in the Civil War, after Zinoviev and Kamenev had already discredited themselves.

And as for Trotsky, there is no claim that this man was with Lenin for years before the Revolution. Actually, he called Lenin the “leader of the reactionary wing of the Party” in 1903, and in 1917 he said that the “Bolsheviks had de-Bolshevised themselves” and that “Bolshevik sectarianism” was an “obstacle to unity.” And to-day, in a recent interview with the “News Chronicle,” he refers to the “new Conservatism” of the Soviet leadership—a direct repetition of his attack on Lenin as far back as 1903.

But even when inside the Party, between July, 1917—when it was clear that only the Bolsheviks could lead the masses to success—until his expulsion, Trotsky opposed Lenin, who was supported throughout by Stalin, on one issue after another. And in the leadership of the Red Army, for which Trotsky became famous, there were continual conflicts with the Party leadership and with Lenin and Stalin. But while Trotsky won fame by his speeches, Stalin was sent to one critical front after another as the representative of the Central Committee, and was determining policy by short and concise telegrams to Lenin.

And when Lenin died, Trotsky buried all his old quarrels with Lenin. No longer did he refer to his earlier accusations that the Bolsheviks had been “bureaucratic” and “reactionary” under Lenin, but introduced his attacks now on the “Stalinist bureaucracy,” accusing Stalin of breaking with the policy of Lenin.

It is when the facts are seen in this light that the real position of Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev, to mention only three of them, can be understood. They are all three discredited ex-leaders, who have lost the confidence of the masses, and therefore could never be elected back to the leading positions in the Party or the State. They are the Ramsay MacDonalds and the Snowdens and the Thomases of the Russian working-class movement.

But the Ramsay MacDonalds and the Snowdens and the Thomases were discredited under capitalism. Therefore, when they lost their leadership of the Labour Movement, when the workers threw them out, they could still find means of advertising their personalities—in politics or capitalist business according to choice—within the framework of capitalism.

But in the U.S.S.R., once the workers have power, a discredited “leader” has no capitalist class to give him a job or finance him for a political career against the workers. In the U.S.S.R. he must submit to work under the leadership of those very leaders who have replaced him. And a worker, as a rule, recognising the need for class discipline above all else, can recognise his mistakes and work in a minor position when defeated on an issue. But the revolutionary intellectuals, time and again in moments of crisis, have shown their tendency to put personal prestige before everything else, and to fight to the bitter end against political opponents, even if this sacrifices the very principles that they were verbally accepting.

Kamenev and Zinoviev had to accept Stalin’s leadership—but it rankled. Their “independence” demanded that they should not submit to this domination by an elected leader with whom they did not agree. Therefore, from open opposition they started to fight in secret. And thus they came in contact with others fighting in secret—the fascist agents in the U.S.S.R.

Trotsky was expelled from the country. Since his expulsion he has never ceased to attack the “Stalinist bureaucracy.” But if a bureaucracy rules the U.S.S.R.—then remove the bureaucracy, and Trotsky can return as a hero! It is therefore consistent with Trotsky’s theory that the whole people of the U.S.S.R. are Trotsky was expelled from the country. Since his expulsion he has never ceased to attack the “Stalinist bureaucracy.” But if a bureaucracy rules the U.S.S.R.—then remove the bureaucracy, and Trotsky can return as a hero! It is therefore consistent with Trotsky’s theory that the whole people of the U.S.S.R. are dominated, against their will, by a small “bureaucracy,” that only the “bureaucracy” need be removed, for him to be welcomed back as a liberator. Is it unreasonable to assume that Trotsky, putting this theory into practice, was working with all and sundry to put an end to the few individuals composing his “bureaucracy,” as a way back to power?

But the allegation is then raised—that Stalin is a personal Dictator, without the support of the masses, and that this trial itself would bring mass struggles. Actually, no mass struggles have materialised except in the German fascist press, copiously requoted by the “Daily Herald” in the past few days. And two “aged mortals,” students of the working-class movement for sixty years, have been studying the working of the U.S.S.R., and they too have asked the question: “Is Stalin a Dictator?” Here is the reply of Sidney and Beatrice Webb in “Soviet Communism”:—

“First let it be noted that, unlike Mussolini, Hitler and other modern dictators, Stalin is not invested by law with any authority over his fellow citizens, and not even over the members of the Party to which he belongs. He has not even the extensive power which the Congress of the United States has temporarily conferred upon President Roosevelt.” (p. 431.)

“If we are invited to believe that Stalin is, in effect a dictator, we may enquire whether he does, in fact, act in the way that dictators have usually acted?

“We do not think that the Party is governed by the will of a single person; or that Stalin is the sort of person to claim or desire such a position. He has himself very explicitly denied any such personal dictatorship in terms which, whether or not he is credited with sincerity, certainly accord with our own impression of the facts.” (p. 432.)

“The Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. has adopted for its own organisation the pattern which we have described as common throughout the whole Soviet constitution. In this pattern individual dictatorship has no place. Personal decisions are distrusted and elaborately guarded against. In order to avoid the mistakes due to bias, anger, jealousy, vanity and other distempers, from which no person is at all times, entirely free or on his guard, it is desirable that the individual will should always be controlled by the necessity of gaining the assent of colleagues of equal grade, who have candidly discussed the matter, and who have to make themselves jointly responsible for the decision.”

Well, so much for the allegations that Stalin personally now stands alone, having put an end to all the “Bolshevik Old Guard.” Incidentally, this is the first time in its history that the “Daily Herald” and the “Daily Mail” have wept tears of salt in unison over the fate of “old Bolsheviks.” And not as to the “frame-up.” The actual question is: Why did sixteen accused men all confess guilty, participate in a lively way in the court proceedings, and show all their old capacity for public speaking and repartee, and yet plead “Guilty”?

It is not because they had been rotting in dungeons or anything of that kind. Actually, the most recently arrested of the accused were at liberty in the U.S.S.R. until May of this year. And anyway, if they had been maltreated in prison, surely some signs of this would have been visible to the public, or at least one of them would have made some sort of a statement on the matter!

No—the fact is this: The prisoners had four alternatives. First, to plead innocent. Second, to plead guilty—making political speeches against the Soviet government, the “Stalinist bureaucracy,” and justifying their crime. Third, to plead guilty and say no more. Fourthly, to confess, and give a full account of their activities. Besides these possibilities, there was no other way open to them—except suicide, the way chosen by Tomsky alone.

To plead innocent was impossible because the proofs were overwhelming, and all these people knew this. They knew what additional evidence could be brought against them if they tried to prove their innocence.

To attack the Soviet government and the “Stalinist bureaucracy” was impossible—because for nearly ten years now these people have had absolutely no political policy to oppose to that of Stalin. The fact is that Stalin’s policy is a success, and this has robbed his opponents of every excuse of a political attack. This fact is openly admitted by the accused.

Outside the U.S.S.R., from his refuge in Norway, Trotsky does issue an “opposing” policy. It is: (a) to proletarianise the non-proletarian elements in the U.S.S.R.; (b) to organise a Workers’ Front, as oppose to a People’s Front, in the capitalist countries. It seems that all the accused were sufficiently alive to political tendencies to realise that to put forward such a line in the court, as their political justification, would be worse than frankly admitting that they had no real alternative policy; that is, no political programme at all.

Actually, the policy of Stalin has consistently been to “proletarianise” the non-proletarian elements in the population, and the policy is now almost completely fulfilled. And internationally, to suggest the disrupting of the People’s Front, and forming a Worker’s Front in its place, hardly deserves mention.

And so, before all the men, against whom the proofs were overwhelming, who had no policy, there was the one possibility of pleading Guilty—with, or without, details of their crime.

Now it happens that not one of the individuals brought to trial has ever in his political career renounced the possibility of making a speech before the whole world. And they remained true to type. And in the court they made their speeches, showed signs of their old joy in “putting it over” and their old oratorical brilliance—and they told the truth to the whole world.

The newspaper, the “Observer” of August 23, no lover of the Bolsheviks, “old guard” or new, was bound to conclude:—

“Stalin is now the acknowledged leader of the unified Party, whose prestige in the country is now unquestioned.

“The defendants admitted frankly that they resorted to individual terror as a last resort, fully knowing that disaffection in the country now is not sufficiently strong to bring them into power in any other way.

“It is futile to think the trial was staged and the charges trumped up. The Government’s case against the defendants is genuine.”

And now, two final matters. First, it is said that the trial was “inopportune,” it was a “political blunder” to hold it just now. Of course, if it was a “frame-up,” specially staged by the Soviet government, that allegation would be true. But why should the Soviet government, at this most ticklish moment in international affairs, stage a frame-up calculated to run the risk of antagonising all that Liberal opinion all over the world that is more and more supporting the Soviet peace policy, but has a horror of death sentences, even against proven assassins? Three suggestions have been made. First, that the Soviet government wanted to prove that it is “becoming respectable.” But the Soviet leaders are intelligent enough to know that trials for treason are never likely to gain a reputation for respectability in Liberal circles, while Bolshevism as such, can never become respectable to the reactionaries, whoever might be killed off. And the second suggestion is that it was to turn attention off Spain within the U.S.S.R.! When the Soviet Trade Unions have collected more money for the Spanish workers than has been collected in any other country!

A third suggestion is—that mass unrest was growing in the U.S.S.R. But is this were so, and if the men who were brought to trial were the leaders of this unrest, then it is absolutely inconceivable, with foreign journalists and radio microphones in front of them, that not one prisoner should have said one word to mobilise this unrest, to give the disgruntled populace courage, and to set a light to that flame of dissatisfaction which was creeping over the country!

It is only the realisation that the accused knew they had no mass support, as they stated in the trial, that can explain their complete lack of any attempt to mobilise opinion and action against the existing Soviet government.

And finally, about the new Soviet Constitution. Is there a single word in this Constitution that says that Terrorists, planning acts of terror in co-operation with fascists, against the leaders of the Soviet State, shall not be tried, and if necessary condemned to death? No—not a word. Because, so long as there are fascist and capitalist states, there will be fascist and capitalist agents in the U.S.S.R.; and so long as the use of violence is a principle of capitalism, carried to all forms of bestial terrorism under fascism; so must the Workers’ State use force to suppress force.

In the Moscow trial the accused were offered the right to a defence counsel, and refused. They themselves pleaded guilty, and explained their crimes, because they had no better way of conducting themselves.

The old discredited leaders of the Russian workers, the MacDonalds and Snowdens of Russia, had no capitalist class to support their further political career, so they resorted to underground terrorism, and came into line with the capitalist class of Germany with its fascist agents.

The not-yet-completely discredited leader of the British workers, Sir Walter Citrine, who is already famous in the Nazi press for his attacks on the U.S.S.R., protested against the trial, asked for the use of “foreign lawyers” for the defence, and that there be “no shootings.” The “Daily Herald,” the not-yet-completely discredited “workers’” newspaper, has been quoting columns of false allegations against the U.S.S.R. It has invented the “disappearance” of Mme. Czersky, wife of the Soviet Trade Representative—who was on holiday in the country. It has given reports of “rumours in Moscow” as reported by a “German Press Agency.” And the Nazis, in their radio broadcasts, have been quoting chunks from the “Daily Herald”!

The line-up of the discredited “leaders” in the U.S.S.R. with the Nazi Gestapo for purposes of terrorism—which is the only method of struggle now possible against the leadership of the united Soviet workers, can only be distinguished in degree from the line-up of the not-quite-completely discredited Trade Union “leadership” in Britain, the “Daily Herald,” and the whole apparatus of Nazi propaganda. In both cases the enemies of the militant workers’ movement, losing the support of the masses, are ready to go to any length to hold on to, or get back, their power. In the U.S.S.R. it is now a struggle of physical force, as in Spain. In Britain it is still only a conflict of propaganda.

The “Daily Herald,” quotes Hitler’s propaganda agencies, and Hitler is quoting the “Daily Herald.” Their policy is the same.

Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and the others got assistance from the Hitler Secret Police, and worked with the help of the Nazi agents—their policy was the same.

This policy is: To weaken the Soviet Union by destroying its leadership, and to split the united struggle of the workers who are going forward in alliance with the middle class and peasantry of all countries to fight fascism—in fact, consciously or unconsciously, to strengthen the fascist offensive and its policy of suppression of the workers’ movement in all countries and of wars of aggression all over the world.

Our task is to expose these plans, and to fight with all our strength against this “united front” of all the forces of reaction!

Democratic Korea in solidarity with Occupy movement

Biggest Protest against Capitalism in 300 Odd Yrs

Pyongyang, October 18 (KCNA) — The working masses’ struggle against capitalism was staged all at once across the world on Oct. 15 and 16. This was the biggest organized one ever in history of capitalism spanning more than 300 years.

Taking part in it were millions of people from all walks of life in more than 1 500 cities in 80 odd countries.

This struggle was erupted at Wall Street in Manhattan of New York in the United States, the heart of the capitalist economy and a synonym for monopolistic capital on Sept. 17. Under the slogan of “Occupy Wall Street!” dozens of protestors set up tents outside a stock exchange in New York to go into an action of protest. This turned in a twinkle to a chain movement across the U.S. including Washington, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The Occupy Wall St movement was an eruption of the exploited classes’ pent-up wrath at the exploiters. It was also an expression of the will to remove the stronghold of capitalism as a whole which brings only exploitation, oppression, unemployment and poverty to the popular masses. In San Diego, California, a man in his forties jumped down from a high-rise building to death to protest against the corrupt society where the rich get ever richer and the poor get ever poorer.

Young Americans formed a mainstream of the ranks of demonstrators at first. But they were joined by people from all walks of life who varied in their ages including day laborers, poor and unemployed Americans as well as employees of companies and housewives.

Their actions included marches, sit-in strikes, occupation of bridges and various other forms of protests and non-stop protests at night.

The protesters are now expanding their ranks after setting forth such slogans clearer in nature as “equality, democracy and revolution”.

Ruling quarters in the U.S. are crying in distress that the “class struggle has been launched.” The authorities have arrested and cracked down upon the demonstrators with mobilization of huge armed police to soothe over the class contradiction but failed to check the spread of the struggle.

The U.S. chief executive formally recognized that this is a manifestation of feeling of frustration toward the U.S. society.

The American protestors set October 15 as “day of international movement”, calling on the working people the world over to respond to it.

In response to this call anti-capitalist demos took place all at once in Britain, Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Belgium, Australia, Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, etc. on October 15 and 16.

The protestors contended that the blame for the capitalist economic crisis is on the greedy financial capital and corrupt politicians. They demanded final end to poverty and economic inequality, chanting such slogans as “Reject capitalism!” and “Give us jobs!”

In south Korea more than 400 civic and public organizations and workers’ organizations launched protest, chanting “Occupy Seoul!”

These unprecedented actions of the working masses in capitalist countries are attributable to the extremely acute socio-class contradictions created after the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2007.

Various relief measures taken by the Western countries after the financial crisis eruption were, in essence, for saving the huge monopolistic capitals on the maw of bankruptcy. Those steps deepened concentration of capital only on big monopolistic enterprises while bringing the popular masses’ life to worse phase.

Suffering biggest are working masses laid off due to the wholesale dismissal measure taken by the business side to make up for the loss.

401 000 people were registered as unemployed in the U.S. for first one week in October. The number of the unemployed reached 22 785 000 in EU countries in August.

The unemployment is bound to lead to the increase of the poor.

The number of people under poverty stood at 46.2 million last year, an increase of 2.6 million from the year before. The income of the U.S. families showed nearly 10 % decrease for the past four years. Economists estimate that the living conditions of Americans are the worst in scores of years and the economic slowdown has not stopped yet.

About 80 million people are living under the poverty line in EU countries.

Economist Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner, voicing his support for the protest sweeping the capitalist world, clarified that the society is covering the losses caused by the avarice of financial capitalists while a few bankers are raking in the profits.

Source