The Media's Role in Covering Up Communist Atrocities and Crimes

The Media’s Role in Covering Up Communist Atrocities and Crimes

June 30, 2020 – The media has been allowed to get away with publishing outright lies, and lying by omission. The most important stories of the day get buried, or spun into something that doesn’t even resemble reality. Case in point, today’s ‘top’ story involving the despicable killing of three U.S. Marines, Russia (again), possible Intelligence failure, and yet another dreadful misstep by the Trump Administration. And all before anyone has actual facts in hand.

The New York Times has a particular history with skewing news stories to suit its fundamental editorial position. Dubbed the “newspaper of record,” The New York Times Bestsellers list has incredible sway and power when it comes to shaping culture. We need go no further back than recently in their news coverage to find that they allowed themselves to be used for a political propaganda operation, now known as the “Russia collusion” hoax.

The mainstream media played a direct and open role in this operation.  It cannot be emphasized enough that the national news media played in active role in an attempted coup. Their goal was to help “legitimize” the targeting of a political opponent under the veneer of a “counter-intelligence investigation” which we now know was simply a pretext to obtain a fraudulent warrant. They won prestigious “Pulitzer” prizes for stories having been proven false and worse, were planted by federal agents in pursuit of an outcome they desired.

According to Glenn Garvin writing in Reason, this role was exposed in a movie on Amazon Prime called Mr. Jones, incidentally co-authored by SpyGate coup plotter Andrea Chalupa. Garvin describes how the film exposes that the media fawned over Stalin and the horrid truth of what was happening:

The scene is Moscow, the year is 1932, and two reporters are in a venomous argument. One has just admitted to filing false stories attributing miraculous economic achievements to Joseph Stalin while ignoring the fact that he’s systematically starving peasants by the millions. Hitler, she declares, is on the march in Germany and, soon, the rest of the world, and without Stalin’s help, he’ll never be stopped.

‘You sound like you work for Stalin!’ the other reporter declares in horror.

‘I don’t work for Stalin,’ the first reporter haughtily insists. ‘I believe in a movement that’s bigger than any one person.’

Shuffle some names, faces and insert the phrase ‘moral clarity’ in there somewhere, and this could be a right-this-minute conversation between American journalists. And as the remarkable and riveting Mr. Jones makes appallingly clear, the first one didn’t end well.

Mr. Jones is a 2019 Polish-Ukrainian-British film that’s been kicking around European film festivals for the past year but is getting its first real exposure this month on Amazon Prime. Directed by Polish filmmaker Agnieszka Holland (known for a series of movies about the Holocaust, including the Oscar-nominated Angry Harvest) from a first-time script by Ukrainan-American journalist Andrea Chalupa, it resurrects two little-remembered tales of the 1930s. One is Stalin’s deliberate infliction of a famine on the peasants of the Ukraine that killed between four million and seven million of them. The other is how Western journalists, particularly those of The New York Times, deliberately covered up the mass murder.

At the forefront of Mr. Jones are two reporters. One, Gareth Jones (British television actor James Norton), an ambitious rookie freelancer for what was then called the Manchester Guardian, is so inexperienced he forgot to bring his typewriter on the trip. The other, Walter Duranty (Peter Sarsgaard, Wormwood), The New York Times’ Moscow bureau chief, is fresh off a Pulitzer prize for his fawning coverage of Stalin’s command-and-control economic policies.

Jones has been told Duranty is the man to see to arrange an interview with Stalin. He explains what he wants to ask: ‘So how are the Soviets suddenly on a spending spree? Who’s providing the finance?’ Duranty is noncommittal about the interview, but does have an answer about where the money is coming from: agricultural exports. ‘Grain is Stalin’s gold.’ He also offers some bad news—a German reporter who’s a friend of Jones and had promised to show him around Moscow has been murdered, apparently during a mugging—almost unknown in the stringently locked-down Moscow of the 1930s, particularly in the area where journalists and other necessary foreign evils lived.

Nosing around while he waits to see what will happen with his Stalin interview, Jones learns that his German friend thought something fishy was going on in the Ukraine, the Soviet Union’s breadbasket region, which had recently been placed off-limits to foreigners, and was planning to sneak in. Jones decides to do the same, arranging a tour of a German-built factory on the other side of the Ukraine from Moscow, then ditching his Soviet minder to spend a couple of days wandering alone on foot.

Even before he leaves the train, Jones has clues that something has gone deeply wrong. When he offers to buy an overcoat from a Ukrainian passenger, the man begs to be paid in bread rather than currency. When Jones pitches a gnawed apple core into a wastebasket, another man dives into the trash to retrieve it. – Glenn Garvin, Reason

One has to wonder, is there a bit of Chalupa’s self-reflection going on here, or simply more NATO-backed propaganda.

For more information on Chalupa’s involvement in the Russia hoax, see here. We know for a fact the media often is influenced by a number of factors. And we know that The New York Times is complicit, due in part to Walter Duranty‘s assistance to cover up Stalin’s many atrocities.

According to a report entitled “The New York Times and the ‘Lost Cause’ of Bolshevism” by William L. Anderson:

A century ago , the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia ushered in a century of mass murder, starvation, summary execution of millions of people, destruction of ancient social institutions, wars, a vast network of death camps, and the evisceration of liberty, at one time, of a third of the planet.

According to the New York Times, we should be mourning the passage of this era and all of its promises of a better life for all.

You read that correctly.

For the past few months, leading up to the centennial of when the followers of Lenin and Trotsky overthrew the Provision Government of Russia and established ‘all power to the Soviets,’ the Times has run a series of op-ed articles by people mostly mourning the ‘Lost Cause’ of communism and all of its promise. We have learned that Bolsheviks were wonderful parents, that women under communism had great sexMao liberated women (when he wasn’t murdering them), that Bolshevism promoted a pristine, clean environment and we should all be communists if we want environmental purity (except that the communist bloc had much worse pollution problems than the so-called polluted capitalist West), and that the revolutionary fervor of communism can lead to a glorious socialist future.

As one reads these articles, it becomes clear that to the NYT, the end of communism as we knew it – except for a few backwaters like North Korea and Cuba – really was the end of hope for a better life, the end of hope of liberation from the slavery of capitalism, and the end of hope that the state could forcibly destroy human institutions from marriage to religion and replace them with peace, love, and brotherhood. If only.

Should there be a common theme in these odes to the glories of Bolshevism, one senses that the world missed the opportunity to install paradise because those great Keepers of the Secret continued to die before they could share their great knowledge with the rest of humanity. Oh, if only reactionary Germans had not killed Rosa Luxemborg in 1919, for she knew how to make socialism work. If only Trotsky had triumphed instead of Stalin in the 1920s. If only Lenin hadn’t died prematurely from complications from a stroke. If onlyMao had not contracted ALS and died. And so on.

Given the near-uncritical support that the NYT historically has given communist dictators, from its deliberate cover-up of the infamous Ukraine famine in the 1930s, its whitewashing of the Moscow Show Trials of that same decade, and its near-worship of Mao in China and Castro in Cuba, one comes to understand that the editors of that paper now regard communism as a great “lost cause,” a chance for humanity to better its sorry condition that disappeared all because the Great Unwashed wanted cellphones, fast cars, good food, and, yes, liberty instead of embracing the intellectual and spiritual liberation that communism offered.

American journalists are not afraid to attack the ‘lost cause’ interpretation of the American Civil War and Southern secession. The South depended heavily upon black chattel slavery, it sought secession in order to continue that doomed institution, and all of its fighters were traitors, or at least that is how modern journalists interpret that war. That the horrors of Jim Crow and its accompanying violence came about only after Southern politicians embraced the Northern secular religion known as Progressivism is stuffed down the same Orwellian Memory Hole into which the NYT and its supporters in academe and the media have deposited the unprecedented orgy of murder and slavery that was Bolshevism and its aftermath.

We should not forget that the NYT has endorsed nearly every totalitarian movement save Nazism, and no respectable person wants to endorse Adolph Hitler, anyway. As for socialism, what socialistic or communist regime has the NYT and its gaggle of academic and journalistic allies not endorsed, at least at the beginning? It stood with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and, for a while, even Pol Pot in Cambodia. As always, they declared the very idea of socialism to be rooted in justice, so even if the actual communist experiment failed, nonetheless, the love of justice required that right-minded people support it, anyway. – William L. Anderson, Mises Foundation

The level of treachery that has been exposed is quite incredible, particularly as it relates to the so-called “national paper of record.” We have seen the media routinely water down the crimes of vicious oppressive leaders and governments, all the while creating “larger than life” personas.

The widespread consequences have been horrendous. Had the western nation’s public known about the Soviet atrocities, they might done something to thwart their successes. Lives could have been saved. Jarrett Stepman of the National Interest published a recent article entitled “Why The New York Times Is In Love With Communism” that describes the ideological bent of the Leftist media:

Editor’s note: In its coverage of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon, The New York Times published a series of pieces critical of the U.S. space program, including an article titled ‘How the Soviets Won the Space Race for Equality.’ Promoting that article, the Times tweeted, ‘America may have put the first man on the moon, but the Soviet Union sent the first woman, the first Asian man, and the first black man into orbit—all years before the U.S. would follow suit.’

Unfortunately, this is far from the only time the Times has been a cheerleader for communism. The following article was first published in 2017.

It seems communism is back in vogue at The New York Times.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution.

A sad but common issue in the modern West is that progressives have created a fanciful and distorted picture of socialism to make it seem like an intriguing alternative to American-style capitalism.

Ikea socialism—with Sweden as the model—is an utterly distorted, but at least understandable, example for leftists to trot out as a demonstration of success.

And it’s even a bit amusing how they try to dance around the fact that Venezuela—which is utterly collapsing and egregiously abusing human rights—is a socialist country they praised just 10 years ago.

But The New York Times now has actually found a way to create fanciful notions of Soviet-style authoritarianism—and whimsical tales of its influence in America—in a new section dedicated to the ‘Red Century,’ which explores ‘the history and legacy of communism, 100 years after the Russian Revolution.’

While some of the pieces explore the horrors and failures of communist rule, others delve into topics that would seem funny if the subject matter weren’t so horrifying.

For instance, the Times ran what can aptly be described as a ‘puff piece’ on Vladimir Lenin, the man who led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and is linked to the death and murder of millions of people.

The article, titled ‘Lenin’s Eco-Warriors,’ paints the man as some kind of Siberian John Muir, and incredibly concludes that leaving ‘landscapes on this planet where humans do not tread’ was the Soviet dictator’s ‘legacy.’

As absurd as that piece was, the Times managed to outdo itself with another article on, no joke, ‘Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism.’

This piece is an idealized account of how life under an absolutist government could be liberating and possibly a better model for the feminist movement. – National Interest

Getting to the heart of the matter, this is an ideological lens that is anti-American and fundamentally misguided. This insidious agenda is not just being used in the global media; it is then pumped into the developing minds of children in our schools.

In 2016 Harvey Klehr from Learn Liberty published an article entitled “How Schools and The Media Cover Up Communist Crimes” that discusses how this communist infiltration has made its way into rooms across America:

An astonishingly high percentage of millennials do not know who communist leaders like Mao Zedong and Vladimir Lenin were. Even worse, among those actually familiar with these leaders, a quarter had a favorable opinion of Lenin and a full 37% admired Che Guevara.

These are among the most eye-popping results of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation’s survey of American attitudes toward capitalism, socialism, and communism.

Perhaps the most disturbing finding is how many Americans, and particularly millennials, lacked basic knowledge of the crimes of communist regimes. About 30% of millennials labored under the delusion that George W. Bush’s administration had killed more people than Joseph Stalin.

Only 37% had a very unfavorable view of communism, and a little less than 20% thought it likely they could vote for a Communist political candidate.

These results are, alas, no surprise to anyone who teaches at an American university. Even college students at elite institutions have an abysmal lack of historical information, fueled in good part by the gutting of general education requirements.

You can be sure that if a reputable survey had found such widespread admiration for Adolf Hitler or demonstrated an ignorance of the Holocaust and willingness to vote for a Nazi running for political office, it would generate outrage, hand-wringing about historical amnesia, and front-page stories in the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets about the danger to democratic values festering in the body politic.

There was no such reaction to this survey, however.

That very same media bears a significant amount of blame for the public ignorance about the most murderous, blood-soaked ideology of the twentieth century. Along with the American educational system, it has whitewashed or glossed over the crimes of communism for many years.

It began with the New York Times’ Moscow correspondent Walter Duranty, who covered up the horrific man-made Ukrainian famine of the 1930s that killed millions — and won a Pulitzer Prize for his lies. It continued with the New York Times’ Havana correspondent Herbert Matthews, who glorified Fidel Castro and Che Guevera, concealed their communist beliefs, and assured Americans that they were simply democratic reformers. That same newspaper printed the delusions of Sydney Schanberg, who hailed the victory of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

To this day, the Times is far quicker to raise alarms about the activities of fascist or neofascist groups than to cover the behavior of their communist counterparts.

Consider the attention the media has given to the lunatics of the far right who endorsed Donald Trump for president. Did anyone bother to note that the Communist Party of the United States endorsed Hillary Clinton? Was she pressed to repudiate its support?

Most Americans are familiar with the horrors of the Holocaust; it is a subject taught in schools, and its lessons are hammered home in such public commemorations and displays as the Holocaust Museum on the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Such reminders are absolutely necessary and proper. They are a vivid demonstration of the brutality and evil that America helped to destroy during World War II, and a warning about the consequences of racial and ethnic hatred.

Where are the equivalent warnings about the evils of communism? Communist regimes murdered even more people than fascist ones.

For more than 70 years, they conducted a ruthless war on their own citizens, starving tens of millions in deliberate campaigns to bring the peasantry to heel, executing millions because of their class background or their ethnic identity, deporting whole populations for the sole crime of belonging to a group labeled an enemy of the people, imprisoning thousands of intellectuals for their writings or ideas, persecuting religious believers, and arbitrarily shipping dissidents and innocents alike to concentration camps where they labored under horrendous conditions.

Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews. Stalin alone is responsible for some 20 million deaths. During the Great Leap Forward, Mao’s policies led to some 45 million Chinese dying. And the Khmer Rouge killed nearly 2 million in Cambodia. Every other communist regime accounted for tens of thousands of other murders. – Harvey Klehr, Learn Liberty

Klehr unfortunately is spot on. There is an active force at play here, seeking to undermine everything upon which this country was founded. This dark force has been infiltrating every level of our society, and attempting to steer it into the horrors of totalitarianism.

Angelo Codevilla, back in 2o14 wrote an article for Law Liberty called “Islam, Communism and the Progressive Class” which could easily have been written just yesterday. He explains:

Last week, our ruling Progressive class cheered New York Democratic mayor de Blasio’s disbanding of an NYPD intelligence unit that had been keeping watch over the city’s Muslim community. Republican President George W. Bush’s mantra that ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ in response to 9/11 and Muslim terrorism in general, had drawn similar plaudits from the same Progressives. But this protectiveness does not mean that Progressivism is Islamophilic. Nor are the words and actions from on high that minimize Islam’s relationship with the terror that has struck America in the last generation attributable to ignorance.

No. Our rulers are neither innocent of facts nor do they harbor special sympathies. The explanation for their attitudes is deeper and more ominous.

Consider for example: Eric Adams, Brooklyn’s borough president, told Fox News’ Bill O’ Reilly with a straight face that ceasing to pay special attention to Muslims is right because there is no more reason to look for terrorists in mosques than in Catholic churches. Adams was not stating a proposition that was factually defensible. Indeed, he declined to defend it. Rather, that proposition is a standard article of Progressive doctrine, the examination of which yields the essence of the matter, namely: that Progressives are protective of Islam and Muslims only incidentally to their disdain of Christianity and Judaism, and of the ordinary Americans who live by them.

The first step to understanding this truth lies in realizing that the Progressives who object to looking for terrorists primarily among Muslims, and who say conservatives are at least as much of a terrorist threat, are the very same people (providing that they be of a certain age) who not so long ago demonized the Americans who sought to defend against the Soviet Union by rooting out communist infiltrators in the U.S. government.

The second step is to realize that the Progressives who today profess equanimity toward Islam yearn to live like the Muslims of Saudi Arabia even less than the Progressives of generation ago yearned to live as subjects of the Soviet empire.

Positive sentiments about enemies of the United States cannot account for this phenomenon. The most fulsome praises of the Soviet Union from the Franklin Roosevelt administration or from the New York Times’ infamous Walter Duranty never amounted to more than covering up for its genocide and other crimes, plus patent idiocies about communism’s efficiencies and equality. Today, not even the Council on American-Islamic Relations tries to sugarcoat the Islamic lifestyle—much less do sympathetic outlets like the Huffington Post. Some of Adams’s Brooklyn constituents might fantasize about benefiting from Muslim polygamy, mindless of the fact that it victimizes all but a few. But Progressives such as Adams are driven by no such illusions.

Rather, protectiveness toward America’s enemies can be understood only as the result of the Progressives’ disdain for their fellow Americans.

What, after all, so attracted our ruling class to Alger Hiss—whose espionage for the Soviet Union was revealed in the 1940s by the intelligence agencies’ decryption of Soviet embassy messages, confirmed by the jury that convicted him of perjury in 1950, before being reconfirmed by Soviet documents released in 1993—that editors, columnists, professors, and Establishment figures in general treated him respectfully and his accusers like lepers? What made them protective of Treasury official Harry Dexter White, another Soviet agent, as well as of the reputations of countless others who collaborated in the Soviet cause?

That this collaboration, which went from softness to outright subversion, reflected the Progressives’ own substantive preferences is only part of the answer. The vehemence and enduring tenacity with which Progressives continue to protect the memory of the communist infiltrators while scorning their opponents is rooted in the deeper level of identity politics.

What bonded the likes of Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and Harry Hopkins indelibly to Progressive hearts was nothing less than their social identity with the Progressive class. They were secular, refined in manners and taste, and had an intellectual patina that ordinary Americans lacked. Their very existence and influence—indeed their very defense of the Soviet Union, warts and all—was a rebuke to philistine Americans, differentiation from whom was and remains the Progressives’ paramount passion. – Angelo Codevilla, Law Liberty

Now, in 2020, will Mayor Bill De Blasio seek to “defund” the entire New York Police Department? The “progression” of his ideological and political initiatives show REGRESSION, nothing even remotely near forward, higher ideals. The goal is always the undermining of American society.

Matt Taibbi is Editor of Rolling Stone, by all means a left leaning, liberal outlet. He has recently been grappling with this realization that the media has only gotten worse. In his most recent piece, “On ‘White Fragility’” details his clear annoyance with this collectivist mentality:

A core principle of the academic movement that shot through elite schools in America since the early nineties was the view that individual rights, humanism, and the democratic process are all just stalking-horses for white supremacy. The concept, as articulated in books like former corporate consultant Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility (Amazon’s #1 seller!) reduces everything, even the smallest and most innocent human interactions, to racial power contests.

It’s been mind-boggling to watch White Fragility celebrated in recent weeks. When it surged past a Hunger Games book on bestseller lists, USA Today cheered, ‘American readers are more interested in combatting racism than in literary escapism.’ When DiAngelo appeared on The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon gushed, ‘I know… everyone wants to talk to you right now!’ White Fragility has been pitched as an uncontroversial road-map for fighting racism, at a time when after the murder of George Floyd Americans are suddenly (and appropriately) interested in doing just that. Except this isn’t a straightforward book about examining one’s own prejudices. Have the people hyping this impressively crazy book actually read it?

DiAngelo isn’t the first person to make a buck pushing tricked-up pseudo-intellectual horseshit as corporate wisdom, but she might be the first to do it selling Hitlerian race theory. White Fragility has a simple message: there is no such thing as a universal human experience, and we are defined not by our individual personalities or moral choices, but only by our racial category.

If your category is ‘white,’ bad news: you have no identity apart from your participation in white supremacy (‘Anti-blackness is foundational to our very identities… Whiteness has always been predicated on blackness’), which naturally means ‘a positive white identity is an impossible goal.’

DiAngelo instructs us there is nothing to be done here, except ‘strive to be less white.’ To deny this theory, or to have the effrontery to sneak away from the tedium of DiAngelo’s lecturing – what she describes as ‘leaving the stress-inducing situation’ – is to affirm her conception of white supremacy. This intellectual equivalent of the ‘ordeal by water’ (if you float, you’re a witch) is orthodoxy across much of academia.

DiAngelo’s writing style is pure pain. The lexicon favored by intersectional theorists of this type is built around the same principles as Orwell’s Newspeak: it banishes ambiguity, nuance, and feeling and structures itself around sterile word pairs, like racist and antiracist, platform and deplatform, center and silence, that reduce all thinking to a series of binary choices. Ironically, Donald Trump does something similar, only with words like ‘AMAZING!’ and ‘SAD!’ that are simultaneously more childish and livelier.

Writers like DiAngelo like to make ugly verbs out of ugly nouns and ugly nouns out of ugly verbs (there are countless permutations on centering and privileging alone). In a world where only a few ideas are considered important, redundancy is encouraged, e.g. ‘To be less white is to break with white silence and white solidarity, to stop privileging the comfort of white people,’ or ‘Ruth Frankenberg, a premier white scholar in the field of whiteness, describes whiteness as multidimensional…’ – Matt Taibibi

The undermining of America is always the agenda. Claiming America is evil, and that the majority of not just Americans, but “white people” in general, are the problem. This racist, vile book never could have made into the homes of Americans across the country, and people around the world, had the New York Times not praised it.

This has now morphed into a war on our history itself, all across the western world. Seen by the communists as the “capitalist empire,” America is targeted the most. Calling for violence, smearing our founders and toppling monuments and statues, these are their tools and they are out for blood.

The revolutionary communist specter is once again on the rise, seeking to engulf the entire world. It has gotten to the point the the communists have totally taken over the Democrat party, and have infiltrated the Republican party. With the tacit assistance of the media, the Democrats had the gall to refer to a celebration of the nation’s founding as “white supremacist,” in a tweet they quickly deleted (archived here).

They are also engaging in false flag operations at Trump rallies, by having people dress up, and then go to a microphone and make racist slurs to make it appear common at Trump events and among his supporters.

This of course leads to dehumanization, something Communists do to soften the target population up in advance for a political purge. They have their allies in the media start demonizing one group of people, while riling up another group of people. They then use this chaos and take advantage of it to seize control to whatever extent they are permitted by the rational among us who see through it.

And that is where We The People have our role, perhaps a sacred obligation. We must all speak up while we are still free to do so. We must call for punishment and accountability in the media. We must call out and counter in any way that fits in with our lives, any and every lie and distortion we see in print or broadcast or the internet. Editors get to hide in the shadows, while influencing so many minds. Perhaps some sunlight is needed, and a review of how the media got into the state is currently in today.

Further Recommended Reading

I recommend the following as further reading on this subject:

  1. Dehumanizing Always Starts With Language” by Brene Brown.
  2. Dehumanized Perception: A Psychological Means to Facilitate Atrocities, Torture & Genocide?” by Lesanna Harris and Susan Flick.
  3. Let One Hundred Panthers Bloom” by Evelyn Chao.
  4. Mob Rule Imperials Western Civilization. It’s Time for Courage” by The Daily Signal.
  5. Beijing’s Global Megaphone” by Freedom House.
  6. The NY Times Keeps Whitewashing the Crimes of Communism” by Washington Post.

See a spelling or grammar error? Let us know! Highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments