Does The National Democratic Party Want War?
Since the suspension of the Age of Honor in 1933, those few patriotic Americans who as linguists, astute historians, or intelligence officers have been privileged to look behind our iron curtain of censorship have had the shock of many times seeing the selfish wishes of a gang or a minority placed ahead of the welfare of the United States. The attempts of those writers and speakers who have tried to share the truth with their fellow citizens have, however, been largely in vain. Publishers and periodicals characteristically refuse to print books and articles that present vital whole truths. Patriotic truth-tellers who somehow achieve print are subject to calumny. I have been warned by many, said General MacArthur in his speech to the Massachusetts Legislature in Boston (July 25, 1951), that an outspoken course, even if it be solely of truth, will bring down upon my head ruthless retaliation, that efforts will be made to destroy public faith in the integrity of my views, not by force of just argument but by the application of the false methods of propaganda. Those who have occasion to read leftist magazines and newspapers know the accuracy of the warnings received by General MacArthur.
Why is the average American deceived by such propaganda? He has been taught, in the various and devious ways of censorship, to see no evil except in his own kind, for on radio and in the motion picture the villain is by regular routine a man of native stock. Ashamed and bewildered, then, the poor American citizen takes his position more or less unconsciously against his own people and against the truth—and thereby, against the traditions of Western Christian civilization, which are, or were, the traditions of the United States. It must not be forgotten for a moment, however, that it was the Saviour himself who said, ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. The average citizen of native stock needs nothing so much as to experience the purifying joy of realizing, of knowing, that he is not the villain in America. When the slackening of censorship allows him to enjoy the restored freedom of seeing himself as a worthy man, which he is, he will learn, also, something about the forces which have deceived him in the last forty or fifty years.
The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the facts stated in Chapter VI is that our foreign policy has had no steadfast principal aims apart from pleasing—as in its Palestine and German deals—the Leftists, largely of Eastern European origin, who control the National Democratic Party. Can this be true? If a war should seem necessary to please certain Democrats, to establish controls, and to give the party an indefinite tenure in office, would our leaders go that far? Despite the pervasive influence of censorship, many Americans think so. A member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin, charged in 1951 that President Truman, Secretary Acheson, and General Marshall, at that time Secretary of Defense, were conjuring up another war. In an article in National Republic (May, 1951 Congressman B. Carroll Reece of Tennessee gave the history of the Democratic Party as the war party.
This haunting terrible question is expressed as follows by E. B. Gallaher in the Clover Business Letter (Clover Mfg. Co., Norwalk, Conn.) for August, 1951:
As we all should know by this time, when the New Deal was about to crack up in 1941, Roosevelt, to save his hide, deliberately got us into World War II in order to give us something else to think about. The propaganda at that time, due to the global nature of the war, was don‘t swap horses when crossing a stream.
In this fake propaganda he succeeded in getting himself elected once again.
Now I wonder if history is not repeating itself, this time in a slightly different form. Could it be possible that Truman, seeing the handwriting on the wall for his Fair Deal . . . deliberately started the Korean war in order to insure himself of the necessary power to become a dictator? If he could do this, the 1952 elections could become a farce, and his election would become assured.
Let us then objectively examine the question Does the National Democratic Party Want War? Let it be noted explicitly at the outset that the question refers to the controllers of the National Democratic Party and not to the millions of individual Democrats, Northern and Southern, including many Senators, Congressmen, and other officials, whose basic patriotism cannot and should not be challenged. Their wrong judging is based on an ignorance which is the product of censorship (Chapter V) and is not allied to willful treason.
We shall examine in order (a) the testimony of mathematics; (b) the temptation of the bureaucracy builder; and © the politician‘s fear of dwindling electoral majorities. The chapter is concluded by special attention to two additional topics (d) and (e) closely related to the question of safeguarding the Democratic party‘s tenure by war.
(a) In the first half of this century, the United States had five Republican presidents with no wars and three Democratic presidents with three wars. Such a succession of eight coincidence under the laws of mathematics would happen once in 256 times. Even if against such odds this fact could be considered a coincidence, the Democrats are still condemned by chronology. They have no alibi of inheriting these wars, which broke out respectively in the fifth year of Woodrow Wilson, in the ninth year of Franklin Roosevelt, and in the fifth year of Mr. Truman. In each case there was plenty of time to head off a war by policy or preparedness, or both. Mathematics thus clearly suggests that the behind- the-scenes leaders of the Democratic Party have a strong predilection for solving their problems and fulfilling their obligations by war.
(b) A war inevitably leads to a rapid increase in the number of controls. The first result of controls is the enlargement of the bureaucracy. Defense emergency gives the Democrats a chance to build up for 1952. There are plenty of jobs for good party regulars (U.S. News and World Report, February 9, 1951). But just as an innocent-looking egg may hatch a serpent, controls may produce a dictator, and once a dictator is in power no one can chart his mad ourse. Nevertheless, these controls and this centralization of bureaucratic power urged by Mr. ruman as a Fair Deal program are so dear to many socialistically inclined Democrats, Eastern uropeans and others, that they may be willing to pay for them in young men‘s blood.
This sacrifice of blood for what you want is nothing startling. In the Revolutionary War, for instance, our forefathers sacrificed blood for national independence, and we need not be surprised that others are willing to make the same sacrifice for what they want, namely a socialist bureaucracy. The blood sacrifice, moreover, will not be made by those young male immigrants who are arriving from Eastern Europe (see c below) as students or visitors or as undetected illegal entrants. Many students and visitors have in the past found a way to remain. Young immigrants in these categories who manage to remain and the illegal entrants are likely to have passed the age of twenty-five and probable exemption from the military draft before cognizance is taken of their situation.
Newcomer aliens all too frequently slip into jobs that might have been held by those who died in Korea! Controls are usually introduced somewhat gradually and with an accompaniment of propaganda designed to deceive or lull the people. A return from absence gives an objective outlook, and it is thus not surprising that on touring America, after his years in the Far East, General Douglas MacArthur saw more clearly than most people who remained in America the long strides we had made toward collectivism. In his speech at Cleveland (AP dispatch in Richmond Times-Dispatch, September 7, 1951) he testified that he had noted in this country our steady drift toward totalitarian rule with its suppression of those personal liberties which have formed the foundation stones to our political, economic and social advance to national greatness.
It is significant that another American who stands at the utmost top of his profession arrived by a different road at a conclusion identical with that of General MacArthur. In a speech entitled The Camel‘s Nose Is Under the Tent, before the Dallas Chapter of the Society for the Advancement of Management on October 10, 1951, Mr. Charles Erwin Wilson, President of General Motors, the largest single maker of armament in World War II, gave Americans a much-needed warning:
The emergency of the Korean war and the defense program, however, is being used to justify more and more government restrictions and controls. It is being used to justify more and more
policies that are inconsistent with the fundamentals of a free society (Information Rack Service, General Motors, General Motors Bldg., Detroit, Michigan.)
The subject of bureaucratic controls cannot be dropped without the testimony of an able and patriotic American, Alfred E. Smith of New York . At the first annual banquet of the American Liberty League (New York Times, January 26, 1936) Governor Smith said:
Just get the platform of the Democratic party and get the platform of the Socialist party and lay them down on your dining-room table, side by side, and get a heavy lead pencil and scratch out the word Democratic‘ and scratch out the word Socialist,‘ and let the two platforms lay there, and then study the record of the present administration up to date. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will have your hand on the Socialist platform. . . It is not the first time in recorded history that a group of men have stolen the livery of the church to do the work of the devil.
After protesting the New Deal‘s arraignment of class against class, and its draining the resources of our people in a common pool and redistributing them, not by any process of law, but by
the whims of a bureaucratic autocracy, Governor Smith condemned the changing of the Democratic Party into a Socialist Party. Since this was said during Franklin Roosevelt‘s first term, Gov-
ernor Smith is seen to have been not only a wise interpreter of the political scene, but a prophet whose vigorous friendly warning was unheeded by the American people.
In summary, let it be emphasized again that wars bring controls and that some people in high places are so fond of controls that a war may appear a desirable means for establishing them.
(c) Finally, there is the Democratic controller-politician‘s worry about the whittling down of his party from a majority to a minority status in the national elections of 1948 and 1950. In each of these elections the Democratic failure to win a clear majority was slight, but significant. In 1948, Truman received less than a majority of the popular vote cast (24,045,052 out of a total of 48,489,217), being elected by a suitable distribution of the electoral vote, of which Henry Wallace the fourth man (Strom Thurmond was third) received none, though his electors polled more than a million popular votes (World Almanac, 1949, p.91). In 1950 the Democrats elected a majority of members of the House of Representatives, but the total vote of all Democratic candidates lacked .08 percent of being as large as the total vote of all the Republicans. Again the Democratic Party remained in power by the mere distribution of votes.
Here is where the grisly facts of Eastern European immigration enter the electoral vote picture. As shown in Chapter III, the great majority of these immigrants join the Democratic Party. They also have a marked tendency to settle in populous doubtful states, states in which a handful of individual votes may swing a large block of electoral votes. Moreover, the number of immigrants, Eastern European and other, is colossal (Chapter II). For a short account of the problem read Displaced Persons: Facts vs. Fiction, a statement by Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the Senate, January 6, 1950. Those interested in fuller details should read The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, referred to several times in Chapter II and elsewhere in this book.
Let us now examine the significance of the fact that almost all recent Eastern European immigrants have joined the Democratic Party. Let us suppose that our present annual crop of immigrants adds each year a mere third of a million votes to the Democratic Party—in gratitude for connivance at their admittance, if for no other reason, and let us suppose also that in a limited war, or because of occupation duties far from home, a half million Americans of native stock each year are either killed or prevented from becoming fathers because of absence from their wives or from the homes they would have established if they were not at war.
The suggested figures of 300,000 and 500,000 are merely estimates, but they are extremely conservative. They are based not, on a possible global war but on our present world ventures only, including those in Korea, Japan, Okinawa, and Germany. It thus appears that the combination of our loosely administered immigration laws and our foreign policy is changing the basic nature of our population at the rate of more than three-fourths of a million a year. In case of a world-wide war, there would be a rapid rise of the figure beyond 750,000.
To help in an understanding of the significance of the decrease of the native population occasioned by ear here are for comparison some population results suffered by our principal opponent in World War II. In Germany boys expected to leave school in 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956 number respectively 836,000, 837,000, 897,000, 820,000 and 150,000. The final startling figure, which is for boys only, reflects the birth drop because of full-scale participation in World War II (Marion Doenhoff in European Supplement to Human Events, September, 1950).
Even so, German soldiered were nearer home and had more furloughs than will be possible for our men in Korea or elsewhere overseas whether or not a full-scale World War III develops. It is thus seen that a combination of war deaths and fewer births among the native stock along with the immigration of leftist aliens might appear to some manipulators of the national Democratic Party as a highly desired way to a surer grip on power. To such people, the boon of being a wheel in an ever-rolling Socialist machine might be worth more than the lives of soldiers snuffed out in the undertakings of Secretary of State Acheson, or successor of similar ideology.
(d) It is well to emphasize in this connection that the American sympathy for Jewish refugees, so carefully whipped up in large segments of the press and the radio, is mostly unjustified, as far as any hardship is concerned. Those refugees who arrived in Palestine were well-armed or soon became well-armed with weapons of Soviet or satellite origin, and were able to take care of themselves by killing native Arabs or expelling them from their homes. Those Judaized Khazars arriving in the United States lost no time in forming an Association of Jewish Refugees and Immigrants from Poland (New York Times, March 29, 1944), which at once began to exert active political pressure. Many refugees were well-heeled with funds, portable commodities, or spoils from the lands of their origin. For instance, an article by the Scripps Howard Special Writer, Henry J.
Taylor, of $800,000,000 in profit on the N.Y. Stock Exchange in the Spring of 1945, to say nothing of real estate investments, commodity speculations, and private side deals, with no capital gains tax because of their favored status as aliens.
The Congress soon passed legislation designed to put such loopholes in our tax laws, but the politically favored alien remains a problem in the field of tax collections. In 1951, for instance, patriotic U.S. Customs Service officials detected several hundred thousands of dollars worth of diamonds in the hollow shoe heels and in the hollow luggage frames of a group of refugees (the newsletter of the U.S. Congressman Ed Gossett, April 12, 1951). In one way or another the average arriving refugee is, in a matter of months or in a few years at most, far better off economically than millions of native Americans whose relative status is lowered by the new aliens above them—aliens for whom in many intance native Americans perform menial work. This aspect of immigration has long bothered American-minded members of Congress. A report of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Sixtyeighth Congress (1924) expressed the following principle: Late comers are in all fairness not entitled to special privilege over those who have arrived at an earlier date and thereby contributed more to the advancement of the Nation (The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States, p. 61).
The non-Christian alien of Eastern European origin not only in many cases deserves no sympathy except of course from those who cherish his ideological attachments and endorse his political purposes; he is also often a problem. His resistance to assimilation and his preferred nation-within-anation status have already been discussed. Another objectionable feature of displaced persons, suggested in the reference to smuggled diamonds, is their all-too-frequent lack of respect for United States law. A large number of future immigrants actually flout our laws before arriving in this country! Investigating in Europe, Senator McCarran found that such laws as we had on displaced persons were brazenly violated. He reported to the Senate in a speech, Wanted: A Sound Immigration Policy for the United States (February 28, 1950):
I have stated and I repeat, that under the administration of the present act persons seeking the status of displaced persons have resorted to fraud, misrepresentation, fictitious documents, and perjury in order to qualify for immigration into the United States. A responsible employee of the Displaced persons Commission stated to me that he believed one-third of the displaced persons qualifying for immigration into the United States had qualified on the basis of false and fraudulent documents. . . A former official of Army Intelligence in Germany testified before the full committee that certain voluntary agencies advise displaced persons on how they might best evade our immigration laws. . .What is more, I was advised by a high official of the inspector general‘s office of the European command that they had positive evidence that two of the religious voluntary agencies had been guilty of the forgery of documents in their own offices.