Facing the Communist Menace

The sole objective of Communism is world domination through world revolution. On this foundation Marx based his economic and political philosophy. This objective directed every move of Lenin’s strategy and justified every act of his treachery. Mr. Khrushchev’s statements have never renounced this position nor has his conduct in international relations basically altered the Marx-Lenin procedure.

The official membership of the Communist Party is small, possibly 7 million in Russia and only 2 percent of the population in Red China. Yet in every particular it directly controls the lives of 900 million people.

Communism wants nothing of coexistence with us in the free world. Communism wants us—all that we are, all that we have. It wants you in complete submission to its authority; whatever it agrees to temporarily is but intended to achieve this ultimate purpose. It is not, therefore, the people of Russia or of Red China that we need to fear. Rather, it is Communism’s domination and the use of these people to gain control over our way of life, our resources, and us. Red China alone has fomented six wars and rebellions in other countries. So long as Red China is able to do this, Russia can afford to make deals which immobilize us in helping free nations to remain free and slave nations to revolt. Such was certainly the tragic case with Hungary. This strategy has divided Korea and undermined Tibet. It also may explain Red China’s continued castigation of the United States despite Mr. Khrushchev’s public warning against such outbursts.

However, not all the factors determining the direction of world affairs are on Khrushchev’s side. We have acted, regrettably, as if they were. Unfortunately, too, we have given him the advantage of the offensive.

What kind of world we shall live in depends on us. How accurately we appraise Communism, and what we are willing to do about it both in service and in sacrifice to secure for ourselves and for others the right to self-determination, will define the nature of our world and of our security.

Communism Is Not Moral

Before making agreements with Russia, the free world must ask: “How good is Communism?” To date we seem to be answering this question in terms of its military strength, industrial production, scientific invention, and mass education. These facts are but secondary. The main consideration is ethical. What character, what kind of personality the moral philosophy of Communism produces should determine the trustworthiness of Communism and our evaluation thereof. The Communists’ standard of action reveals their measure of integrity and tells us with what we must deal. Chesterton once observed that when you rent a room to someone, the real question to ask is not where he works or how much money he has, but rather, what is his philosophy of life. This advice could apply to nations also.

The basic question then, whether Mr. Khrushchev gives a watch to a worker, calls for universal disarmament, or speaks of peaceful competition in coexistence, is first and always the philosophy to which he is completely committed. The concept of “this jolly old Nikita” dare not fool us about the real Khrushchev. As Editor Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution said, “Remember when Khrushchev turns on the charm that he also heads a police state.” Read Marx and Lenin alongside the current news releases. World revolution, world domination by any means, has been Khrushchev’s training school. He is committed to the very same tactics. Remember he vowed to bury our system of free enterprise. Remember that in advocating trade agreements, he is not embarrassed to repudiate a $2,600,000,000 indebtedness to the United States. Remember Communism’s endorsement of slave labor that incarcerates even now at least 12 million in Russian labor camps alone. When you think of your future and that of your children, remember Marx’s concept of man as a producing animal. Don’t ignore what Overstreet said and verified, that “during 40 years of existence the USSR has set a world’s record for breaking pacts.” Remember Zinoviev’s words on treaty making which Communist leaders have never repudiated, “We are willing to sign an unfavorable peace because it would only mean that we should use the breathing space obtained to gather strength.” Remember the nonaggression pacts signed with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and what happened to all three in Russia’s “Little-Red-Ridinghood” act. Remember the 50 out of 52 agreements with Korea which the Reds have flouted and broken.

These facts are but several illustrations of Dr. John Bennett’s conclusion in Christianity and Communism: “The only ethical test they (Communists) recognize is whether or not it serves the Communist cause, which in turn bears out Lenin’s principle that ‘there is room in life only for those who are not troubled by virtue’.” We dare not stake our whole future on Russia’s present “good faith,” nor pay in advance for some eventual delivery of goods. Russia favors a “negotiation in crisis” strategy: point one, create a crisis; point two, make demands; point three, offer to negotiate. The result? A compromise in Russia’s favor. By agreement we surrender what is ours; by agreement they get what was never theirs. With such strategy nothing ever gets properly nor finally settled. Reopened hostilities are a constant threat under such “blackmail” conditions. Take the Berlin situation, for example. Establishing peace is not Communism’s chief concern. Rather, Communists want to maneuver themselves into a position where, if necessary, they can wage a successful war to gain control of Berlin. Conferences, therefore, either go on endlessly or end in stalemate.

Rejection Of The Idea Of God

Communism’s rejection of all forms of historical religion is thoroughgoing and final. It is atheistic in theory. More than this, Communism is committed to the destruction of all historical religion as rapidly as circumstances permit because religion, as we define it, is incompatible with Communism and a hindrance to its goals. Like Marx, all subsequent Communistic leaders have evaluated and treated the individual as a producing animal. That man exists merely to work for the State (the Communist doctrine) contrasts sharply with the Christian view, where man, as God’s child, stands in personal relationship to his Creator and yields to him his ultimate allegiance. Obviously if Communism is to survive, it must declare war on historic religion. Lest we think that Communism has softened its attitude toward religion, we need only to read what Dr. I. Krivilov, Communism’s prominent philosopher, said about Canterbury’s Red dean, Dr. Hewlett Johnson’s attempt to reconcile Communism and Christianity. Writing in Kommunist, the Party magazine, Dr. Krivilov said, “When such prominent figures as Hewlett Johnson state that dialectical materialism can coexist with Christianity, notwithstanding our high esteem for this outstanding man, we must show him the groundlessness of his thesis.”

Militant Against Christian Principles

Atheism in Communism is militantly committed to eradicating Christianity. As an instrument of destruction it is no less powerful than Russia’s nuclear weapons. Atheism destroys the moral and ethical principles of Christianity as a basis for man’s action, removes his sense of guilt when Christian principles are violated, and honors the man who repudiates them. Atheistic Communism takes complete charge of educating a man’s children. It makes him responsible only to the State which in Russia’s situation is the Party. It finally and summarily destroys his manhood.

While we may deplore atheism, in America we at least proceed on the principle of freedom in religion and the right to think. In Russia such right to think has no place whatever. To avoid persecution and to receive rewards, the individual must think and act only according to the Party line. At this point we should warn Americans that many evidences of such militant atheism are appearing in the United States. Apparently it is finding ways to use the law and its current interpretation to deny Christians full exercise and development of their basic rights and of their Christian philosophy of life. When some law permits a small minority to deny a large community the right to have a house of worship, or permits one school child averse to hearing Scripture or prayer, which are the common possession of both Christian and Jew, to cancel that right for all other children, then we see militant and destructive atheism at work.

Communism uses an immoral and unethical basis for its negotiations, while quite aware that the Western world operates on the morality and ethics of historic religion, believes that agreements must be kept, and considers human rights as paramount. For Communism, the end justifies the means. Winning is the main thing; whatever advances the cause is right, be it deception, murder, violation, or repudiation of agreements.

Why Christianity and Judaism cannot be tolerated in a political system which operates on this principle must be quite apparent. Obvious, too, in her negotiations is Russia’s abuse of the fact that free nations recognize the Christian ethic as foundational to a better world.

Russia has been very clever in deceiving the outside world about the real conditions inside her boundaries. For one thing, the tourist is shown only what Russia wants him to see. And if he sees a church it will be a full one. We get a truer picture of what Russia is doing to the Church when we realize that for the 3 million Jews—conditions are such that they can no longer worship on Saturday—less than 200 synagogues with only 60 rabbis are permitted; that in Moscow, a city of 5.4 million, there are two Baptist churches, 33 Greek Orthodox churches, two synogogues, and one Moslem temple (U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 26, 1959). By way of comparison this equals 14 churches for all Philadelphia, a city of 2,500,000 inhabitants. The same pattern of attrition is operating in Red China. All churches, furthermore, function under civil, not ecclesiastical, authority.

Justice W. O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court has recorded his findings in a hook titled Russian Journey. Mr. Douglas found no religious groups on the university campuses. The Communist Party, he was told, does all the educational work and supplies enough activities to keep the student busy without religion. Youth is taught that religion is evil and that atheism is the true faith. Religion, it was indicated, is for old people, for those too old to shake off their capitalistic philosophy. Soviets, according to Mr. Douglas, have confiscated all church property and demand 13 per cent of all church revenues. Church buildings are often desecrated by their use as cinemas, museums, and warehouses. What’s more, since in Russia the church has no legal standing, it cannot defend its property and other rights. “The State has destroyed the pulpit,” says Mr. Douglas. No church member can qualify for membership in the Communist Party, and without party membership it is impossible to secure public office or even any significant advance or promotion. The clergy dare not speak for social justice, and are so muzzled they can give only prescribed and stock answers to queries about religious freedom. To complain brings accusation of subversion or counter-revolutionary activities. To discredit Christianity, the propaganda ministry of atheistic Communism has taken pictures of Christ and hung them in Communist museums with the inscription, “A Jewish Fortune-teller.” Another portrays Christ among four horseman trampling down the people. Still another shows St. Christopher with the head of a horse. In one museum Mr. Douglas also saw a picture of drunken priests and nuns carousing together. The campaign against religion is an incessant one, he concludes, and aimed at Moslems as well as at Jews and Christians.

Because destruction of religion is a weapon used to destroy people’s confidence in the Western Powers, should not our free nations insist on real religious, as well as political, freedom as a quid pro quo for concessions which Communism seeks? In Tibet, the U.N. Commission discovered 65,000 Tibetans butchered, a military attempt to destroy national and racial groups, and an organized, ruthless campaign to stamp out Buddhism as a religion and to sack Buddhist shrines and buildings of their treasures. The hope of establishing common basis of morality and ethics on which to form trustworthy agreements is a religious problem. The “religion” of Russia still justifies slave labor for millions of people, and, according to a House of Representatives Committee report, in the last decade Red China has perpetrated 30 millions of political murders.

Significance Of Khrushchev

No movement or government is better than its leaders. When you ask, “How good is Communism?” you must therefore seek the answer in the character and conduct of its present officials. No competent observer will deny that from the beginning this leadership has been intelligent, shrewd and clever. These qualities, devoid of moral safeguards, explain Communism’s domination.

Khrushchev’s visit to the United States was intended to leave the impression that he is a different kind of Communist leader. While he became known not as jolly old Nikita” but as shrewd and clever “jolly old Nikita,” it appeared he would not push as hard and as far as his predecessors for world domination.

Is there any real evidence to support this hope? Many say Khrushchev is different from his predecessors. He is said to be easier to deal with and morally better, too. Khrushchev has murdered fewer political opponents than did Stalin, and is said to prefer the less devastating pattern of leadership as seen in Lenin. What are the real facts?

Coming to power through the promise of an election which he never permitted (Overstreet), Lenin achieved dictatorship by what is known in Communist procedure as the “big lie technique.” He then proceeded to increase that power by a worldwide strategy of conspiracy, evasion, and subterfuge. It was Lenin who propounded the principle that tactical collaboration with the enemy should be so designed as to disorganize the free world and to stregthen the forces of revolution. In his strategy, negotiation was never intended to settle anything but was to be used to weaken the enemy and to gain unfair advantage. Peace for Lenin and for Khrushchev as well is “a non-shooting phase of the permanent revolution.”

While in the United States, Khrushchev was actually subjecting us to a brain-washing operation of indoctrination and softening up. According to the surveys, he succeeded more or less with 13 per cent of our people. Whenever convictions and disciplines are weakened, and confusion and dissension set in, Communism is at work. Before we accept Khrushchev, therefore, we should insist on knowing exactly what he means by what he says. He may well be counting on the fact that by and large American businessmen, educators, clergymen and citizens will not insist upon such a translation.

When we decide how to evaluate Khrushchev’s proposal for disarmament, we should certainly be governed by all the immoral factors which constitute the true nature of Communism. While it was Khrushchev who enunciated the doctrine, it was really of Lenin’s making. The basis for good faith on which it was offered is no different from that by which Russia justified the violation of 50 agreements in respect to Korea. Khrushchev’s proposal sounds strangely similar to the Stockholm peace offer which would outlaw all atomic weapons as instruments of aggression; submit atomic weapons to strict international control; and brand as a war criminal any government that initiates use of such weapons against another. By omission, innuendo, and emphasis, this policy formulating leadership cast Western Powers in the role of would-be aggressors, but suggested no criticism whatever of Soviet policy. It said nothing about Stalin’s breaking of treaties and his conversion of East European countries into Soviet satellites. It held out against inspections and made numerous “promises” until the Western Powers complied with Soviet stipulations.

Words That Lie

It is extremely important that Americans know how Communists interpret and use certain key words. Communists, for whom Mr. Khrushchev is the spokesman, assume we will not be aware of or understand their double talk. We are indebted to Think magazine and to Mr. Edward Hunter, an authority on Red China, for the true definitions of these key words which Communists use in the Cold War to disarm us. We must always assume, indicates Mr. Hunter, that the Communist gives his words a meaning which best serves the purposes of psychological warfare. Thus “good in Communism means what is good for Communism, and “bad,” what is bad for Communism. “Truth” is whatever backs up the Communist line; whatever contradicts it is a lie, regardless of the facts. “Law” to the Reds is any regulation or order of the police or Party which governs only the accused; the authorities may uphold or disregard it according to the Party’s advantage. It is possible to be accused of a crime that violates a nonexistent law. And the “crime” could supposedly have happened generations ago. Linder terms of this “historic crime,” if the Reds took control of the United States, for example, every citizen could be punished for not helping in this endeavor. Two of the biggest lies ever perpetrated by any government, says Mr. Hunter, are those of the Moscow-Peiping axis: 1. that the United States engaged in germ warfare in Korea, and 2. that North American nuns attached to orphanages in China systematically murdered their infant charges.

“Peace” means simply the cessation of all opposition to Communism. “Struggle” is the Communists’ word for the war they wage until a Communist peace is achieved. “Unity” means submission to the Communist discipline. “War” means any resistance or attack on Communism. “Aggression” means any armed conflict against the Reds, even one of defense. “People” refers not to human beings as such, but only to followers of Communism. To say the people do not like something, as in Pasternak’s case, means the Party does not like it. When Communists mean “people” in our sense, they use the word “masses.”

By “coexistence” we mean live and let live. The Reds, however, mean thereby not interfering with Communist activity and expansion outside the Communist bloc. A “treaty” is binding only so long as it is of advantage to the Communist bloc. The Korean War truce is an example of this interpretation. To be pro-Communist is to be “liberal.” To be “tolerant” means to accept Red teachings; in other words, tolerance, as we know it is quite illegal for Communists. With such fraudulent language as a barrier, it is apparent there can be no real meeting of minds between us and the Communists.

Mr. Hunter exposes also the Communist trade double talk, something which every American businessman needs to understand. Trade to us is something non-political. For Communists, however, trade is that exchange which supports Soviet Russian economy and facilitates political control. In such an exchange Communism reaps most, if not all, the benefits. Thus its “economic warfare” becomes a major channel in subverting the free world. Merchants are rivals classified from a political point of view. In Burma, for instance, Peiping sold Japanese articles cheaper than they could be bought in Japan. The Communists had obtained them by barter as part of the Red China drive to prevent Japan’s development of natural markets in South Asia. In Thailand, Red China sold goods for less than the customs duties. A contract in Communist language binds only the non-Communist side. Our businessmen, therefore, need to recognize that with the Communists no security in contractual relations is possible.

On the basis of this information, are we to isolate ourselves from all relationship with a part of the world whose record has destroyed our faith in its integrity? Not at all! Let us continue to negotiate, if this delays a shooting war. Time is usually on the side of the democracies, so long as the Soviets postpone any action. But we must conduct our conferences realistically, with all the facts clearly in mind. Even at great personal sacrifice, we must meet the cost of maintaining material and military strength, but above all, of our spiritual principles and resources. We must use every opportunity to state our position and to win supporters for our cause. At all times, and especially now, “Eternal vigilance is still the price of our liberty and freedom.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.