How the American Left Distorts History in an Attempt to Find Past Heroes and Create a New Generation of Activists


m19-haym-harp-480Originally published by PJ Media

The American Left has been expert in indoctrinating a new generation with false history. We have seen this with Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s Showtime TV series on the Cold War, and especially with the writings and pseudo-history of the late Howard Zinn. While conservatives — with some laudable exceptions — concentrate largely on policy issues, the left knows that it is not sufficient to work only for its own political agenda. The left realizes it needs to capture the realm of culture, which includes the portrayal of the American past.

The left believes that if the American past is to be accurately understood, its citizens must be educated to understand that their country was always the real oppressor of both its own citizens and the world community. Then, the evil of virtually all administrations will be seen not as an aberration, but as the result one should expect.

In order to understand this, it is necessary for the left to create myths. It does not matter if they have already been challenged and accurately discredited. They merely repeat them as fact.

In the past two weeks, a few examples have surfaced that illustrate how this is done.

1. How American Communists see the Haymarket bombings

The first example concerns what took place as part of the convention of the American Communist Party recently held in Chicago. As reported in the Chicago Tribune by reporter Ron Grossman, a man named Tim Yeager took the comrades on a history tour of Chicago. Yeager is described as juggling three jobs — “United Auto Workers union organizer, Communist official, and Episcopal priest” (consider for yourselves what that reveals). The article tells us what Yeager presented to  his CP group on a tour of labor-related sites in Chicago:

Friday morning, Yeager led a bus tour of some party history. The first stop was at the Haymarket statue on Desplaines Street just north of Randolph Street, where in 1886 a bomb thrown during a labor rally killed seven police officers and at least one civilian.

Known radicals, some not even present at the rally, were rounded up, speedily convicted and hanged. Several were buried at Waldheim Cemetery in Forest Park, making it a pilgrimage site for labor activists and the second stop on Friday’s tour. The Haymarket affair made Chicago the natural site for the Communist Party’s founding convention in 1919.

Yeager noted that the Chicago establishment leaders who called for swift punishment of the Haymarket martyrs were “the 1 percenters of that day” — the favored few who enjoyed immense riches while the majority toiled for crumbs.

In the CP’s version of events, the radicals at Haymarket were framed for what was clearly a police provocation, an excuse to arrest and condemn the radicals for their protest of bad working conditions. As John J. Miller explained last year in National Review, labor historian Timothy Messer-Kruse has written a book that demolishes the myth and tells the truth: the trial was not a travesty of justice, as the left has always argued, but a real anarchist conspiracy meant to create an insurrection starting with attacks on the police.

The prosecution proved its case, and was able through solid evidence to show that the anarchists were responsible for the throwing of the bomb that led to the death of the police officers. It was not “one of the great miscarriages of justice,” as one mainstream textbook tells its readers.

Messer-Kruse is an honest historian who personally is a social-democrat. “I drunk the Kook-Aid,” he told Miller, but he now puts accurate history in front of ideology. It is more than likely, he says,  that the seven dead policemen were not killed by the bomb, but shot in cold blood by the anarchists present at the rally. It was, as I put it in my own PJM column, the destruction of “another historical myth.”

The people Comrade Tim Yeager took on his tour, or the many thousands who read Howard Zinn’s falsehoods, believe the frame-up myth. And if they come across anyone who disputes it, they respond by attacking the person as a turncoat and a traitor, and by repeating the myth to their own students, over and over. The myth cannot be allowed to be exposed, or the result will be a possible rethinking of everything they have learned from the falsifiers of history

2. The Rosenberg Case

The second long-standing myth is that of the trial for conspiracy to commit espionage of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Suffice it to say, the Rosenbergs were indeed Soviet agents, seeking to provide Stalin’s U.S.S.R. with whatever military and industrial secrets the ring could gather to hand over to the Soviet totalitarian state. When I first wrote about this in the 1983 book Joyce Milton and I co-authored, we were lonely voices intent on telling the true story. By now our conclusions have been widely accepted, and in America, only a dwindling group of old Communists and fellow-travelers believe in their innocence.

This, however, is not the case, evidently, with the French.

On the 61st anniversary of their execution, June 19 of this year, Le Point ran a piece informing its readers that the “conviction of the Rosenbergs is the result of a huge paranoia that grips an entire nation.” It is a result of “fantastic Red-baiting” that existed throughout the United States. The trial was nothing but “a mock trial.” They note that “many organizations worldwide are calling today for review of the Rosenberg case.”

That falsehood is meant to create the impression that they will not be hoodwinked, and that despite everything known about the case, the left knows the “truth” that they were innocent. And readers of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United Statesrevised way after the truth of their guilt was known, will find a section of his book on the Rosenberg case where he predictably uses old discredited material to “prove” that they were framed (pp.432-435).

3. The Spanish Civil War

For decades, the left wing in America has spread the myth about the Spanish Republic’s fight against fascism that started in 1936, and the decision of heroic volunteers to fight on its behalf. Especially singled out are the Americans who went to volunteer in that fight, who belonged to what they called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, which was actually a small battalion, the size of which they exaggerated purposefully in order to make themselves appear as more important than they actually were.

The old pro-Communists have their own falsified history to explain that event. That too has been long discredited, especially by the historian Stanley Payne, in books such as his recent The Spanish Civil War and in The Spanish Civil War, the Soviet Union, and Communism.    

The truth about the Lincoln Battalion can be found in Cecil Eby’s important yet neglected book, Comrades and Commissars: The Lincoln Battalion in the Spanish Civil War. The role played by the Soviet Union in Spain can be understood in the book Mary Habeck and I wrote, Spain Betrayed: The Soviet Union in the Spanish Civil War. Reviewing it for The Weekly Standard, Stephen Schwartz wrote: “It will effect a complete overturn in historical perceptions of the twentieth-century Left.”

No matter. The left continues to teach its false history to a new generation. In the past two weeks, an article by William Loren Katz appeared on the website of the Zinn Education Project, which is devoted to spreading the word of the most popular leftist defiler of the truth, the late Howard Zinn. His column also appeared on the Huffington Post and other websites. According to Katz, the volunteers had one mission:

By November the volunteer rush became a torrent: An estimated 40,000 men and women from 53 nations left home to defend the Republic. For the only time in history, a volunteer force of men and women from all over the world came together to fight for an ideal: democracy. The volunteers brought a message that ordinary people could resist fascist militarism

In the United States some 2,800 young men and women of different races and backgrounds formed the “Abraham Lincoln Brigade.” Seamen and students, farmers and professors, they hoped that their bravery could turn the tide, or at last alert the world to the fascist drive for world domination. Most made their way to Spain illegally as “tourists” visiting France.

The truth: what they were joining was a Comintern army, put together by the NKVD’s international apparatus and the Communist International, and controlled and run by Stalin.

Rather than the mythical “good war” depicted by Katz and the propagandists, it was put together to help Spain fall under Soviet control, and to put into power a regime that would be the model for the post-World War II “people’s democracies” and that would be given limited military aid until such time as Britain and France might change their policy and unite with the Soviets in a new world alliance.

You will not find anywhere in Katz’s article — which continually heralds the volunteers’ anti-fascism — that during the Nazi-Soviet Pact, their Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade adopted the slogan “The Yanks are Not Coming!” Or that its leaders gave speeches condemning the warmongering of Franklin Roosevelt and the British, and depicted Nazi Germany as a benign power that was not a threat to the Western nations. Of course, their anti-fascism returned as soon as Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and Stalin again demanded an overnight change in the party line.

The left continues to present its ideologically determined view of the past as a tool to inspire today’s naïve and uneducated young activists, many of them taught these falsehoods by leftist professors at major universities. Their project is to mine history for heroes and martyrs, even if the heroes they praise turn out to be not heroes at all, and their martyrs actually guilty. Those of us who respect the truth have an obligation not to leave history to them.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • terrimo

    IMHO until someone splatters the truth across America perhaps on billboards and then challenges the liberals with $$$$$$$$$$$$ to disprove said facts, they will NEVER investigate anything detrimental to ‘The One’. The so called ‘Messiah’ according to Barbara Walters.

  • truebearing

    Not them I am defending them in any way, but what choice does the Left have? Admitting even one truth could lead to another, then another, until its entire edifice of deception collapses from the removal of its foundation of lies.

  • hiernonymous

    “Especially singled out are the Americans who went to volunteer in that fight, who belonged to what they called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, which was actually a small battalion, the size of which they exaggerated purposefully in order to make themselves appear as more important than they actually were.”

    In an article dedicated to correcting myths and insisting on historical accuracy, it’s disappointing to see the author commit the sin of which he complains – in the same paragraph.

    Battalions typically range in strength from a few hundred to about a thousand. In the wake of the first Gulf War, the battalion in which I commanded a company was so overstrength due to stop loss and augmentation that, at just under a thousand personnel, it was sardonically referred to as “the Regiment.” It is a rare and unusually strong battalion that has over 1000 members. Yet this article cites a unit of 2,800 and takes it to task for calling itself a “brigade,” and the author claims that it would have been a “small battalion.”

    Further, it is worth examining what a brigade actually is. Many armies employ regiments as the echelon above battalion, but some – notably the U.S. – use brigades. They are at the same echelon, and generally both commanded by colonels (with some exceptions), so what is the difference? A regiment is a fixed table-of-organization organization. Its combat and support troops are all organic to the unit. Brigades are a much looser, more flexible structure. They are command and support structures to which combat battalions are attached as needed for the mission. Brigades tend to be more self-contained, not in the sense that it’s line battalions are organic, but in the sense that they have more robust support elements – artillery, signal, intelligence, logistics. A typical brigade contains 2-5 battalions. Now let’s go back to Spain. The AL Bde had its own support elements and combat formations. It was about four and a half times the size of a typical battalion, and about two thirds the size of a typical U.S. brigade.

    So tell me, who is distorting the appropriate echelon classification of the unit in order to alter the impression of its importance?

    • WesternCivilization

      Johnny One Note: harping on a debatable point, one that turns on mere definition – and missing the forest for the trees.

      Mr. Radosh’s piece is brilliant, cogent and timely. Pity you missed it.

      • reader

        Exactly.
        “Further, it is worth examining what a brigade actually is.”
        …if one is bent on hijacking the subject that is.

        • hiernonymous

          How does a comment “hijack” a subject? If you don’t find it interesting or topical, ignore it. Or do you lack the self-discipline?

          As it stands, I am glad I made the comment because another poster raised a point I had not considered and made me revise my position. That’s a worthwhile exchange in my book any day.

          • reader

            All of you commie trolls have a pretty thin skin for your roaming about and chipping away any garbage with every post.

          • hiernonymous

            H: “How does a comment ‘hijack’ a subject?”

            R: “All of you commie trolls have a pretty thin skin”

            I guess that made sense to you when you wrote it.

          • reader

            You told me that you were a marxist. That I remember. What you’re doing here looks like trolling to me. Apparently, many agree, because I got 5 likes so far for the “hijacking” comment.” Makes sense?

          • hiernonymous

            “You told me that you were a marxist. That I remember.”

            Sorry, no. Didn’t happen. Feel free to link to the comment that you misinterpreted as such.

            “Makes sense?”

            No. “Commie trolls have a pretty thin skin” is not a coherent response to “how does a comment ‘hijack’ a subject?”

            Not even if you get fan mail.

            So, tell me again, how does a comment ‘hijack’ a subject?

          • reader

            I don’t even remember the thread we were on. But you made your avatar memorable. Not marxist any more? Just a progressive, eh?

          • hiernonymous

            “I don’t even remember the thread we were on. But you made your avatar memorable. Not marxist any more? Just a progressive, eh?”

            You’re babbling.

            How does a comment ‘hijack’ a subject?

          • reader

            If I’m babbling, do correct me. Who are you? A rabid free marketer? Don’t keep us in suspense.

          • hiernonymous

            I was in mid-edit when you replied. See above for what was actually said.

            “Who are you? A rabid free marketer? Don’t keep us in suspense.”

            What, are you trying to make me the topic? Weren’t you just complaining about threads being hijacked?

            Here’s the question you’ve been avoiding, by the way. How does a comment ‘hijack’ a subject?

          • reader

            “What, are you trying to make me the topic?”

            I’m not. You took an issue with me calling you a marxist, even though, you went to such length as to find a thread with our discussion and ridicule me of thinking that it was irretrievable. Really? I’m glad you did it. I have better things to do. But since you did and, granted, you never actually said that you were a marxist, you never denied voting for a marxist Obama. You just said that he wasn’t – an obvious lie, given all public information about his background – and your own admiration with Marx’s work. Hmmmm. That’s actually what marxist do.

            “How does a comment ‘hijack’ a subject?”

            You tried to pin down the author by making a perceived inaccuracy a central issue. I should have said that you made an *ss out of yourself, since you overstated the unit’s actual strength by discarding – what should be obvious for a military commander – trivial rotation. Not too good. And yet, you persist to make an *ss out of yourself. Your skin is thin for your own good – kind of like Obama’s. Or, put it in other words, you have a chip on your shoulder.

          • hiernonymous

            “…granted, you never actually said that you were a marxist…”

            So you lied.

            “You tried to pin down the author by making a perceived inaccuracy a central issue…”

            So you’re arguing that a single topical comment, by virtue of not addressing the entire scope of the article, hijacks a thread? I’d suggest that if the post isn’t topical, and generates no interest, it hasn’t hijacked anything. If it generates discussion, but isn’t what you hoped to see discussed, offer your own comment.

            “…since you overstated the unit’s actual strength by discarding – what should be obvious for a military commander – trivial rotation.”

            Well, no. Gee’s point was good, but only confirmed on further research. The author claimed that 2,800 people “formed” the unit, which means that they were what the Navy calls “plankholders,” or were the original members of the unit. As written, the article is quite clear and quite incorrect. That said, Gee’s point is a good one, because we discover after a bit of digging that 2,800 doesn’t represent the people who formed the unit, but the sum total of those who served in it over its brief lifetime.

            “And yet, you persist to make an *ss out of yourself. Your skin is thin for your own good – kind of like Obama’s. Or, put it in other words, you have a chip on your shoulder.”

            Hmmm.

          • reader

            Yeah. I lied that you said that you were a marxist, when you lied that you were not – as marxists do. Like it better?

            “The author claimed that 2,800 people “formed” the unit, which means that they were what the Navy calls “plankholders,” or were the original members of the unit. As written, the article is quite clear and quite incorrect.”

            So, as written you’re didn’t make an *ss out of yourself, but in reality you did. You also made an *ss out of yourself as a military commander. Or, perhaps, you never really was one. Who knows? All I know that you’re a marxist denying that you are – I don’t even know why, really. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

          • hiernonymous

            “Yeah. I lied that you said that you were a marxist, when you lied that you were not – as marxists do. Like it better?”

            You’re getting there. Admitting that you lied is a big step, even if you then try to rationalize it.

            “So, as written you’re didn’t make an *ss out of yourself, but in reality you did. You also made an *ss out of yourself as a military commander. Or, perhaps, you never really was one. Who knows? All I know that you’re a marxist denying that you are – I don’t even know why, really.”

            You’re still trying too hard.

          • reader

            I’m a hard worker. That’s what separates me from marxists. So, having answered all your enquires, I can’t get a straight an answer out of you. What exactly are you, if you aren’t a marxist, as you keep implying so hard but never actually deny or define yourself?

          • hiernonymous

            I’m a hard worker, too. I didn’t say you worked too hard. I said you’re trying too hard.

            “I can’t get a straight an answer out of you.”

            Why do I owe you one?

            And I have known the eyes already, known them all—

            The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,

            And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,

            When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,

            Then how should I begin

            To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?

            And how should I presume?

            -TSE

          • reader

            “”I can’t get a straight an answer out of you.”

            Why do I owe you one?”

            Do you owe a straight answer when you insert yourself into a discussion thread? It depends what you’re doing here. What looks like a troll, talks like a troll, swirl like a troll is a troll. Same as marxists.

          • hiernonymous

            “Do you owe a straight answer when you insert yourself into a discussion thread?”

            Certainly – on any arguments I have made and data I have presented.

            When you – as you predictably do – start trying to make the discussion about the other person, you’re not owed any information or help doing so. You may ramble on your own.

            While you were squirming around babbling about Marxism, some others were actually making some very good points and changing my mind. You might try operating on the level for a change.

          • reader

            “While you were squirming around babbling about Marxism, some others were actually making some very good points and changing my mind.”

            You mean, about how strong was the Lincoln Brigade? I’m sure that hundreds of esteemed historians work round the clock to change your mind. I’m not even trying to exercise such an ambitious project.

          • hiernonymous

            “I’m not even trying to exercise such an ambitious project.”

            It would be less futile than your current project, though the latter is becoming almost interesting, in an odd sort of way. Regards.

          • reader

            My current project here is evaluating your contribution to this thread. It’s been
            a) making an *ss out of yourself
            b) voicing your displeasure at me for being unfair to you
            So that you don’t waste so much space on whining next time, let me suggest that most people don’t give a flying rat about either of us. So, deal with it just like I do.

          • hiernonymous

            “So that you don’t waste so much space on whining next time, let me suggest that most people don’t give a flying rat about either of us. ”

            Of course they don’t. I don’t even reciprocate your obvious interest in me. That seems to have upset you.

            “So, deal with it just like I do.”

            Heaven forbid. I have too much self-respect. I am not ‘displeased’ by your Quixotic quest to correct that, by the way. I simply find it bizarre.

          • reader

            “Of course they don’t. I don’t even reciprocate your obvious interest in me.”

            Except for a few dozen whiny posts that is. That’s what I call marxist dialectics.

          • hiernonymous

            You’re not paying attention. I don’t initiate posts to you about you. I’m not intent on proving that you have this character flaw or that political belief. I don’t run around asking you “what ARE you?”

            Responding to your posts does not indicate personal interest. That’s the sort of thinking that leads adolescent boys everywhere to mistake simple good manners for “she likes me!” Sorry, whoever you are, but I don’t reciprocate your need, born out of whatever perceived slight or oddball trigger, to fix my ego or what have you.

          • reader

            Past your profound remark about the strength of the Lincoln Brigade, all of your posts are about my character flaws associated with my treatment of you here. In fact, you have a propensity to deny something that is obvious, and the more obvious it is, the more categoric your denial is. Particularly, the marxist part.

          • hiernonymous

            “She likes me!”

            I’m afraid that if you insist on interpreting the fact of a response to your posts as personal interest, you are going to see many obvious things that nonetheless are not so. Good luck with that.

          • reader

            “many obvious things that nonetheless are not so”

            Right. Ditto for marxist dialectics.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU0uiGAm_SY

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Mao TSE Tung.

          • hiernonymous

            The Little Red Book of J. Alfred Prufrock?

    • Reese

      Hey G2, FAO, battalion commander,

      When are they going to recall you so you have something to do besides instructing at a college and trolling? Anglo Arab speakers have to be in demand.

      If Ron Radosh is like the other writers at PJ Media (like Simon) he has a fair amount of humility. Obviously, he is a writer and has not actually soldiered so he screwed up on this point. The same criticism can
      be leveled at writers as is leveled against politicians. They have opinions on everything it seems but have done very little outside their fields in terms of groundwork.

      I would be interested in what Mr Radosh has to say. The overall point is still good. Now I amgoing to have to read Comrades and Commissars: The Lincoln Battalion in the Spanish Civil War and maybe a few other books. Truth matters. It will have to wait until I finish Robert’s ridge, a depressing book.

      “A battalion is a military unit with 300 to 1,200 soldiers that usually consists of two to seven companies and is commanded by either a lieutenant colonel or a colonel”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battalion

      • hiernonymous

        1. I did not say I was a battalion commander. Read more carefully.

        2. Gee raised a good point. The author cited a strength of 2,800, but did not mention that this could be a throughput number of a unit that odd not ever reach that total strength.

        • JackSpratt

          The detail you picked out to snivel over has little importance in the context of the article. It was an ‘aside’, at most. That’s why everyone figured you were trying to distract from the article.

          • hiernonymous

            That would assume that “everyone” is incapable of not responding to a comment. If it’s clearly trivial, ignore it and move on. It’s odd to see adults insist that a conversation can be ‘hijacked’ by a single comment. Have I somehow usurped your agency?

      • Drakken

        You also might want to read a few books written by a few of the Germans who fought in Spain, the titles escape me but they are available. The Condor Legion was what turned the tide in Franco’s favor. My grandfather was one of them.

    • Gee

      I too commanded a battalion.

      What the article said was a total of 2,800 served and that was over a period of 3 years. Actual strength at any one time was less than 800. So yes a battalion strength unit.

      • hiernonymous

        That’s a good point. That would still make it a large battalion – that last Army infantry to&e with which I was familiar had a battalion strength of order 600 – but your comment is valid.

        I did not claim to have commanded that battalion. I said I was a company commander in it.

        • Larry Larkin

          A British Empire Bn of the period had a ration strength of 841, in WWI it was 1,000. Modern bns of 600 are small in comparison to those of any period prior to the 1980s.
          A Brigade is 2-4 of those bns plus a HQ of anything up to 120 in strength.
          The Lincoln Bde rarely exceeded 400 combatants at any one time, so about 3 companies or half a bn.
          It was never a Brigade.

          • hiernonymous

            If your numbers about the Lincoln’s strength are correct, I’m afraid I’ll have to concede the point. The only figures I’ve been able to come up with are a strength of 500 at Jarama, and a combined strength of 900 between the Lincoln and Washington just before their merger as the Lincoln. That 900 didn’t last long, though, with 600 casualties noted in July 1937.

          • Drakken

            Franco was very good at eliminating communists no matter where they were from.

    • tagalog

      Thank you for explaining the nature of the brigade vs. the regiment.

      • JackSpratt

        Boy are you OLD.

        • tagalog

          I should have been more precise. I’m not really Methuselah’s grandfather. I mean my familiarity with the Army comes from before they replaced the regiment with the brigade, sometime in the early or mid-1960s.

          • Drakken

            Oh thank God, I thought you were in when Christ was a corporal? ;)

          • JackSpratt

            I was in, in the mid 60′s and they had both regiments and brigades.

          • tagalog

            Boy are you OLD.

          • JackSpratt

            Oh yeah!

    • JackSpratt

      And who is lying about commanding a company in a battalion in the wake of the First Gulf War? Your picking on the least important part of the article to pontificate upon is telling.

      • hiernonymous

        I don’t know, you tell me. On your second point, what do you think it is telling?

        • JackSpratt

          I addressed that a little above here.

      • JackSpratt

        Oops, excuse me, you were with Saddam. My bad.

        • hiernonymous

          I excuse you. You’re probably doing your best.

      • Drakken

        Not to defend hieronymous but! He did state that he was a company commander not a battalion commander. So come on Jack, your better than hat.

        • JackSpratt

          Better read my comment again. You will note that I am better than that. Better than hat too.

    • Drakken

      The one nice thing that happened to the Lincoln Brigade members is that they were shot by both the NKVD and Franco’s troops. There were very few survivors. Thank God Franco won.

      • hiernonymous

        I don’t know that I find that a “nice thing,” but it was sure typical of the NKVD. Have you ever read about the Winter War in Finland? When the 44th MRD was ambushed by the Finns, only a few hundred of the division’s members escaped back to Russian lines, where they were arrested and, if memory serves, shot.

        • Drakken

          When fighting Russians, the Finns to say the least were every bit as ruthless as the Russians if not better at it. Had a few German relatives that were advisors for the Finns, and to this day they have nothing but admiration for them.

          • reader

            By the way, Drakken, Mark Solonin wrote an excellent analysis of 3 consecutive wars between USSR and Finland (Winter War of December 1939 through March 1940; the war of June 1941 through December 1941; and the war of January 1944 through August 1944). I believe, he published it in German too.

          • reader
          • hiernonymous

            Yep, and the poor 44th was primarily manned by Ukrainians who had no idea how to deal with the winter terrain, and couldn’t even ski. I’m trying to come up with a harder-luck unit in military history, and can’t think of anything right off the bat.

          • Drakken

            7th Cav in Korea?

          • JackSpratt

            7th Cav in Montana?

      • Mike

        Good thing English George Orwell was English and therefore was not part of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

        • Drakken

          Orwell fought with British communist and most of them came to the same fate, and good riddance.

          • tagalog

            Orwell fought with the Spanish anarchists of POUM. He was never a fan of the Communists.

      • PAthena

        See Orwell’s “Homage to Catalonia.”

        • Drakken

          The funny thing about Orwell is that he went to Spain as an idealist, he came back to England a realist.

          • tagalog

            Don’t forget his interlude working in a Paris restaurant, which made him a realist about dining out. Read Down and Out In Paris and London. But only if you don’t eat out much.

    • JackSpratt

      C’mon you censoring sonsabitches!!!

      • hiernonymous

        Eh?

        • JackSpratt

          FPM

  • keithbreedlove

    There you go again, confusing the issues with facts. I am surprised though that you neglected the poster child of the Revolution — Che. What myths there must be about him. Have the Cubans built a magnificent ossuary to honor him yet? When they do, watch the pilgrimages from our universities.

    • SoCalMike

      You can see the walking brain dead mentally conformed things mostly but not necessarily on college campuses wearing t-shirts with the image of Che’s hideous face.
      When they cross my path, I say “God Bless Felix Rodriguez.”
      They usually ask who that is.
      I reply “He’s the great Bolivian officer who put an end to Che’s nefarious blood soaked career with a well-deserved bullet between the eyes.”

      • tagalog

        Rodriguez was probably using a 9 mm. pistol. Bless that little fellow too.

      • keithbreedlove

        I was amused while living in Africa a few years ago to see the number of Che t-shirts that were being worn. They just had no clue how racist Che was and how he hated blacks and just used them to further the Revolution..

      • tickletik

        It says in wiki that the beautiful man who ended that piece of s**t was actually Mario Teran, not Rodriguez. Which is too bad, because I was thinking of making t-shirts with Rodriguez’ face on it

    • Larry Larkin

      A few years back our local Borders Book Store had large posters of Gueverra for sale and prominently displayed so that they were the first thing you saw as you walked into the place.
      So I tracked down the manager, dragged him over to one of his own bookshelves and pointed out in a book he had for sale the truth about the Argentinian psychopath. And then asked him why he was selling the poster, and would he sell something similar featuring Heinrich Himmler.
      So he removed the posters from sale and they never returned.
      Far too many normal people are ignorant of the psychopath’s actual history and actions, but if you point out the truth to them you can get a very rapid change of opinion and behaviour.
      So if you see Che paraphenalia displayed in a store, complain about it to the manager and tell them the facts. If they still continue to carry and sell the garbage, lay your own personal boycott on the place and spread the word as to why.
      Decent people will get rid of the stuff, the garbage leftards will continue with it, but out themselves for what they are.

  • tagalog

    I don’t know how many Haymarket bombers or shooters were executed, but I know that one of the accused, Louis Lingg, received a dynamite cap while being held in jail, bit down on it, and blew half his head off, so it’s clear that he was never one of those executed. He committed suicide.

  • UCSPanther

    Another one that leftist love to lionize was the Sacco and Vanzetti case, where two Italian born anarchists murdered an armed security guard and a paymaster, and then fired on other workers during an armed robbery at a shoe factory.

    In several decades, they’ll probably be trying to lionize the Black Liberation Army, a radical leftist group that was responsible for the murders of several armored truck guards and police officers in the 1981 Brinks robbery…

    • tagalog

      According to Fred Siegel in his new book, The Revolt Against the Masses: How Liberalism Has Undermined the Middle Class, the bullet used in the gun employed by Sacco and Vanzetti was traced back to a gun used in another crime, owned by one of them (Sacco, I think, but could be mistaken), while the evidence for the other guy is not as convincing.

      • UCSPanther

        I am strongly of the opinion that all those left wing terrorists and organizations weren’t properly punished.

        Traitors, murderers and robbers the whole lot, and yet, transformed into Robin Hood figures…

        • JackSpratt

          Agree.

      • Michael__Durham

        For “Democrats”, Leftists, “liberals”, “progressives” (regressives, actually, which are simply neo-Bolsheviks), and other Communists, it’s really not that they know that Alger HIss was “innocent”, they simply know that the was one of them. There is no such thing as “innocence” or “guilt” to them; one is only a believer and facilitator of “the Revolution”, or one isn’t.

        They do have to continually strive to conceal their nature and their goals, because they know that if Americans really knew what they wanted, they’d be calling for their heads.

  • Atikva

    Since 1917 leftists of all denomination have been thriving on lies, distortions and manipulations which are their raison d’etre. Without them they couldn’t exist and I am still wondering who is most to be blamed, the authors of these fallacies or the people who willingly swallow even the most ridiculous ones without batting an eye.

    In any case, as reported by the Democratic Socialist of America organization 3 years ago, 70 members of the 111th Congress who represented themselves as “democrats” were actually communists – as much as 6 in CA, 5 in MA, 6 in NY, 4 in IL, 3 in OH. Their numbers have probably increased ever since.

    Also almost half of the Judiciary Committee members were communists in 2011, they may have reached a majority now.

    Have their electorates failed to notice that the ex-Democratic Party has become the Islamo-Socialist Party, or if they have, don’t they care?

    • Lightbringer

      This is truly horrifying. While I am inclined to believe you and mean no disrespect, could you provide a link with more information about this? I would like to learn more, so as to enlighten a few leftoids here and there.

      • Atikva

        The news was everywhere on the web in 2010/2011:

        http://theobamahustle.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/socialist-party-of-america-releases-the-names-of-70-democrat-members-of-congress-who-are-members-of-their-caucus/

        http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/socialist-party-of-america-releases-the-names-of-70-democrat-members-of-congress-who-are-members-

        http://www.c4strategies.com/whoarethesocialists.pdf

        As to the Democratic Socialist of America, here is their site. Obviously, they are using the word “democracy” as a smoke screen (another of their deceptions) to hide the true totalitarian nature of the movement – as if we didn’t know what kind of “democracy” was and still is practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot or Kim Jung-un :
        http://www.dsausa.org/

        • Asemodeus

          The first link mischaracterizes communism with socialism.

          The rest is the usual gibberish and fear mongering. You never actually get into the policy positions of the Progressive Party, since the specifics there are too big for you to handle, and how most of what they want Americans would agree to.

          http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/budgetexecsummary.pdf

          • Atikva

            Yeah, yeah, yeah… the gig is up. It doesn’t matter what label you stick on this bolchevik plague to hide its dictatorial nature – trotskyism, socialism, national or other, liberalism or progressism, whatever… the large majority of Americans don’t want it at any price. It miserably failed everywhere it was tried and it always will.

            And the Huffington Post as a reference, that’s a laugh!

          • JackSpratt

            Yeah, I had to laugh at that too. And most Americans want it. And it’s too big for us to handle. Funny stuff.
            Inside every leftist is a totalitarian screaming to get out. Watching Odumbo operate gives you a great insight as to how communists operate. The totalitarianism comes blaring through loud and clear. Not that one would have to have waited that long to find out. Given his two books, his speeches and mutterings, his two interviews with the SF Chronicle and NPR Chicago, his actions in office, etc. Odumbo wears his marxism on his sleeve.
            Unfortunately there are many people in this country who do want to be taken care of, and would give up any amount of freedom to get it. And the democrap party has spent the better part of a century massaging people with class warfare. The democommies are experts at exploiting the human predisposition to be jealous and greedy. I can’t tell how many times on the various blogs I have had a commie ask me why I continue to support some person given that they make way more money than I, or have way more wealth than I do. It’s mind-boggling, and of course my reply to them is that only a marxist would be concerned with another person’s wages or wealth. For my part, I can’t fathom how people can think like this. But the commies have been working on these people for a long time.

          • Atikva

            You are right. The leftists started their program several decades ago. First phase consisted in destroying religion, patriotism, and the family with mantras such as: Neither God nor master”, “Peace, no more wars”, “Women’s liberation”, and all that crap.

            Their next effort will focus on destroying individuality by imposing the fallacy of the “imaginary gender” – under the guise of combating a non-existing “gender-discrimination”.

            They are really not afraid of being ridicule, I’ll say that for these morons. Actually, if ridicule could still kill, there wouldn’t be one communist left on earth.

          • JackSpratt

            The queer agenda, militant feminism, flooding the borders with illegals, anti-gun agenda, pro-Islamist terrorism, anti-sports team mascots, etc., etc., are all being fomented by the communists. We learned alot about the various agendas, the communists were involved in the past in this country when the FBI and Venona files were declassifed. Both instigating and funding. Two of them were the Viet Nam War protests and the Unilateral Disarmament and Nuclear Freeze, protests. Those disclosures were actually brought to us by Soviet Dissisdents and KGB defectors.

          • Asemodeus

            And still nothing of any substance from your posts.

            Such a shame…

          • Atikva

            Just facts, which you communists have been so brainwashed that you can’t even recognize them.

          • JackSpratt

            He recognizes, and understands, but it’s his way of saying: I’ve got nothing.

        • Lightbringer

          Thank you!

  • Hank Rearden

    Not to mention that in his memoirs, Khrushchev gave a shout-out to the Rosenbergs as heroes of the proletarian revolution whose deeds should not be forgotten.

  • Drakken

    No matter how many times the communist try communism, it still ends up with stacks of dead bodies.
    Thank God for Franco who kept the communist out of Spain for 50 years.

  • Sniper’s Virtue

    Good article and on point. @Napoleonlegal Like you book. #tcot #pvfighters

  • PAthena

    George Orwell wrote about the Soviet Communist activities during the Spanish Civil War, in “Homage to Catalonia.”

  • Webb

    Too bad Bill Ayers and Bernardine didn’t get to stretch new ropes.

    • tagalog

      I would have been OK if they had worked at “working-class” jobs all of their working lives instead of finding sinecures in the university. It would have been fitting. Bill Ayers as a steamfitter; Bernardine Dohrn doing piecework in a textile factory. Cool.

  • Larry Larkin

    Lies and misdirection are at the heart of the leftard philosophy.
    “Bolshevik” means “majority” and was the name adopted by the less than 20% of extremists who walked out of the First International because the actual majority weren’t on board with a massive armed uprising.

    • reader

      You’re right about the term Bolshevik being Orwellian in nature, but it comes from about a dozen years prior to the Bolshevik revolution. Bolsheviks were a spin-off group from the original Russian Social Democratic party, naming themselves after an obscure fraction vote during one of the party’s earlier congresses.

      • tagalog

        I always thought the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, were the majority group in the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs), and that they were the majority because most SRs agreed with the concept of violent revolution led by a vanguard, resulting in a militaristic, strictly led society. The minority group, the Mensheviks, favored change, revolutionary or not, culminating in a parliamentarian form of government in the European style.

        • reader

          Well, the vote in and of itself was so insignificant in the long list of party fractional votes, that it would be obscure had it not resulted in the monumental branding of the Bolshevik party. But, yes, was held before 1905 revolution. When I said the Russian revolution, I meant the one of 1917. If I were to recommend an eye-opening book on the rise of the Bolsheviks, this would be it:

          http://www.bookdepository.com/Lenin-His-Comrades-Yuri-Felshtinsky/9781929631957

          • tagalog

            Thanks for the referral to a good book on the roots of the October Revolution. I’ve been enjoying Orlando Figes’ new book, Revolutionary Russia, 1891 – 1991, which, as its title suggests, is an attempt at being a comprehensive if short history. I also liked Richard Pipes’ books, Russia Under the Old Regime and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime.

            I’m not much of a student of Lenin. I read Solzhenitsyn’s Lenin in Zurich, but little else on Lenin.

            The accounts of the stupid obstinacy of the tsars makes a person sympathetic to the Social Democrats and the Socialist Revolutionaries. How desperate they must have been for justice!

          • reader

            The last Tsar in particular was certainly bad news for Russia, but there were still layers of possibilities as to what the outcome of turmoil would be. The Bolsheviks pulled out an incredibly long shot, and for them to stay in power through 1918 would be even trickier then to orchestrate a successful take over in the fall of 1917. Hence, endless bloodshed, treachery and misery.

          • tagalog

            Agreed on the issue of possibilities, at least up to the very late point where Nicholas abdicated in favor of Mikhail, but the historians seem to have their blinders on when they don’t take the willingness of the people to have violent overthrow into account, with the Bolsheviks the only group unreservedly willing to engage in revolution (and with the most acceptable interpretation of the historical process). Still, it seems the best interpretation of the events to say that the Bolsheviks did indeed pull of a bit of miracle.

  • JackSpratt

    Fuck you FPM!

    • CapitalistPig

      To the readers of FPM:….JackSpratt above here is what’s called an “Enlightened Liberal”.

      • JackSpratt

        Actually I’m a Classical Liberal. Supporting the liberalism of the Founding Fathers, to wit: free-enterprise economy, limited government, property rights, religious freedom, firearms freedom, love of liberty, etc.

        • CapitalistPig

          Alright—-why the attack? This site is about as supportive of all those concepts as you’re likely to find on the web. That’s where I’m at politically–have been for decades (though I just drop the liberal thingy as that’s been so hopelessly corrupted by the left & I don’t feel like having to explain myself every 3rd post).
          I even point out to my liberal cement brained friends that if you were to transport yourselves to the 1800s, a liberal then would in all likelihood would be called a Tea Party member today.
          If you have additions or criticisms–make them. But just throwing off a vulgar attack is likely to get you ignored & never taken seriously.

          • JackSpratt

            FPM keeps eating my friggen comments. Doing it off and on for a long time. Oh yeah, I’ve been blogging here since he started it. I use to blog on David’s old Moontbat Blog. Couple of times over the years when I get tired of the comments being eaten, I avoid the site for some months. When I returned this time, I began posting with a different name. The way it’s been acting for me the last 2 or 3 days is that I type a sentence, blind, because nothing appears. Then I sit and wait 3 or 4 minutes and finally the whole sentence appears at once. Very frustrating and time consuming.

          • CapitalistPig

            If I ran a business, it wouldn’t even have to some high brow intellect stimulating website business like this—let’s call it “CapitalistPig’s Beefcake Revue & Taco Emporium” & you walked in the front door & said “F**k You CapitalistPig’s Beefcake Revue & Taco Emporium”……………….I’d ask you to leave too.

          • JackSpratt

            First, I said f**k you post trouble. And second, I left of my own volition.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Fuck you JerkSpratt!

      • JackSpratt

        Um, that’s JackSpratt! And don’t you forget it.

    • UCSPanther

      Is that all you have to say?

      • JackSpratt

        Of course not! I’m just getting started.

  • CapitalistPig

    It’s a little thing, but when they were showing the videos of the kids they’ve been letting in from Central America–did anyone besides me notice the heroic looking cartoon images pasted along the walls of the holding centers introducing the kids to famous, important Americas? No, it wasn’t Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson or even JFK, But look! Yes!, there’s Rosa Parks!…..& Cesar Chavez!…….& MLKing!

  • herb benty

    Why does our COUNTRY allow “professors” to teach lies about Islam and Communism? How do they get away with this arrogant intellectual rot.

    • Atikva

      Because when you want to take over a country, you start with getting hold of the education system and of the medias. Next you get hold of the justice system and the popular arts. Last, you dismantle the economy with the help of crony capitalism and you organize voter’s fraud on all levels. And that’s where we are today.

      • herb benty

        So, what the “Progressives” have done is permanent and irreversible? Been nice knowing ya! ” America, the Lost Dream”

        • JackSpratt

          Atikva, missed one important thing, that pertains to your question. The 2nd Amendment, an armed citizenry. That’s one of the first things they do, and they’ve been trying for 50 years, but luckily for us, there is the NRA and the republican party blocking them. To answer your question therefore, the Founders provided us a means of taking back our country and constitution, via revolution.
          Thomas Jefferson: The rebellion he is talking about is the Whiskey Rebellion:

          God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

          • herb benty

            Oh I’ve conversed with many, ” let’s march on D.C.”! people over the last couple years. And I realize there are millions of armed Patriots in the U.S. A short while ago there was enthusiasm for a march on DC, even a date proclaimed…. a couple hundred showed up. Deflating to say the least. America is the only country started by free people, and this progressive world hates us for it. The leftist “elite” distrust individualism and the ideas generated by individuals. They want groupthink only. This is one reason why the EU and the UN hate Israel. If it wasn’t for the Muslim hatred, Israel would be another America- the Jews are amazing.Anyway, what I mean is, we are not just fighting American big government progressives, we are up against world totalitarianism. Obama’s Nobel Prize was a “wink, wink” from this wicked world. The left are establishing permanent control of the USA, they are “going for it”. Didn’t you ever wonder why the MSM, Democrats, Hollywood, teachers, professors, NGO’s etc continually slander conservatives and patriots? They know they will never be OUT of control. Can this group of patriots rise to the level of the original patriots? Is it even possible anymore?

        • Atikva

          “Permanent”.. only until more Americans wake up and decide to take action to win their freedom back.

          • herb benty

            American’s woke up quite a while ago, and it hasn’t made any difference. The freebie, entitlement class outnumber Patriots. American’s woke up too late.

          • Atikva

            It’s never too late. Just more difficult, that’s all.

          • herb benty

            Well, you’re an optimist and I dearly pray and hope you are right. All is lost for the Right however, without massive ORGANIZATION.