January 15, 1971







            The communists have always claimed to be the forces of peace.  This claim has been based upon three doctrines which are axiomatic to communism.  These are:

  1. War is caused by the capitalist system:

Marxism teaches that capitalism needs war to operate; that war is the mechanism by which purchasing power is distributed to people to buy the overproduction that inevitably accumulates due to the “surplus value” of labor and profit.

            In the communist view, wars are a product of imperialism or capitalism in its final phase.  Wars between developed countries are fight to see who can monopolize the raw materials and cheap labor of underdeveloped countries while wars involving underdeveloped countries are to force the people of these countries to submit to robbery and exploitation.

            According to this communist classification, the current conflict in Vietnam is an imperialist war designed to enforce American exploitation of Vietnam.  The delusion prevails despite the fact that no conceivable economic benefit could justify the vast sums expended in conducting the war.

  1. Wars between “socialist” countries are impossible:

To the communists “socialist” countries are defined as those under the dictatorship of the Communist Party which they misname the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

            Since capitalism and surplus value (profit) have been abolished, the cause of war has been abolished.  Since no event can occur without a cause, war between countries under communist dictatorship becomes impossible.

  1. Lasting peace can only come to the world when communism rules in every country:

Universal and lasting peace will be the product of communist world conquest.  Since capitalism and surplus value will cease to exist, the cause of war will have been totally eliminated.  Thus true peace is synonymous with communist world conquest.

            Since peace results from communist world conquest, every action that advances communist world conquest is a peaceful act.

            The Chinese Communist invasion of Tibet was “peaceful” even though it resulted in many thousands of deaths.  The Russian military invasion of Czechoslovakia was likewise peaceful since it furthers the cause of communist world conquest.  The Soviet intentions and actions in the Near East are pure and dedicated to peace for the same reason.

            Since the permanent elimination of the bourgeoisie is essential to permanent world conquest and therefore lasting peace, every bourgeois executed dies peacefully.  The communists take a peaceful gun and put a peaceful bullet in a warlike brain.  They cause a peaceful death and bury in a peaceful grave.

            While the communists understand clearly the definition of “real” peace, they exploit the desires of people for a “false” peace which allows capitalism to continue.  This is in keeping with their policy: “Find out what people want, promise it to them, and go to work to get it for them so that you may come to power over them.”

            The communists organize “peace” movements all over the world.  When others with different motivations organize peace movement, the communists seek to infiltrate, influence, and control such movements.

Gus Hall Discusses Peace Movements

            I his reports to a recent meeting of the American Communist Party’s national committee, the General Secretary, Gus Hall, stated:

            “For a number of years the peace movement has been one of the explosive political issues. It has been the issued influencing the broadest sector of the people.

            “Any idea that the need for a peace movement is over would be a fatal error.

            “The issues that must get the attention of the peace movement are the domestic by-products of the imperialist war policy and of the continued aggression in Vietnam.  These issues related to the war have become more aggravated.  There are no wartax withdrawals.  There is no de-escalation of war-related prices or rents.

            “It seems clear we must find better ways of relating the struggles against the policies of military aggression to these domestic offshoots of these policies.

            “It seems obvious that there must emerge a network of peace action groups in every area that responded to the electoral challenge of reaction.  This means peace groups in the working class, black and Chicano communities.”  Pages 4 and 11.  (Daily World, December 1, 1970)

            According to the above analysis, war between the Soviet Union and Communist China is impossible.  Both the Soviet Union and Communist China claim to be “Socialist” countries under the dictatorship of the Communist Party.  Capitalism and surplus labor have been abolished.  Peace between them must be permanent.

            This theoretical interpretation runs foul of the facts.  Not only are the two communist giants involved in a vast campaign of mutual slander, there has also been fighting between their military forces in border areas with many casualties on both sides.  Many predict that full-scale war between the two will break out before long.

            Both parties to the dispute have now adjusted their theory so that war between them is theoretically possible.  For years now, Communist China has denied that the Soviet Union is a socialist country.  They accuse the communist rulers of Russia of being “revisionists” rather than true communists and classify the regime in Russia as “social imperialism.”

Soviet View of Red China

            For a time the Soviet leaders were more temperate in their statements about the Chinese Communists.  They have now thrown caution to the winds and classify the Chinese Communist leaders as “pseudo”-revolutionaries.  An article in Pravda, Moscow, May 18, 1970, states:

            “The present Chinese leadership is compelled to reckon with the tremendous force of attraction of Marxism-Leninism.  Mao realizes, of course, that he cannot win the masses and keep them under his control by his name and his ‘ideas’ alone.  For a certain period he posed as a Marxist, and now he is even trying to pass himself off as the successor to Marx and Lenin.

            “There was a times when many of the theses constituting Mao Tse-tung’s conception, if we may call it that, were regarded as mistakes and delusions due to the lack of experience and theoretical background.  Mao himself admitted that he ‘maintained various non-Marxist’ views’ and that he had only ‘some book knowledge of Marxism.’  He was often criticized in the CPC and the Comintern.

            “Developments in China disclosed the real nature of Maoism—a reactionary utopian petty-bourgeois concept which on the theoretical plane is an eclectic hotchpotch of the most diverse views, including elements of Confucianism, anarchism, Trotskyism and petty-bourgeois nationalism.

            “Mao borrowed from Confucianism the most conservative aspect of this philosophy, above all its advocacy of submissiveness, the glorification of authoritarian power, the cult of the supreme authority.

            “Mao inherited from petty-bourgeois doctrines the idea of the special revolutionary character of the peasants, underrating the vanguard role of the working class.  He exalts reactionary utopian notions born of historical backwardness to the rank of a new theoretical discovery.

            “Mao borrowed from bourgeois nationalist trends great-power chauvinistic views and transformed them into the messianic theory of China’s exclusiveness.

            “Mao owes to the Trotskyites the ideas about the pre-eminence of political principles over the objective laws of social development and about the ‘tightening of the screws’ and the militarization of society, the theory that socialism cannot triumph anywhere before the victory of the world revolution and the theory of the export of the revolution, oriented on a world war as the only way to the world revolution, and lastly, the rabid anti-Sovietism of the Trotskyites and their methods of subversion in the ranks of the international Communist and working-class movement.

            “Maoism is an anti-Leninist political trend based on ‘Sinicized’ social-chauvinism.  Such is the ‘Sinicized Marxism’ which was declared at the Ninth CPC Congress to be ‘an entirely new stage of Marxism-Leninism,’ with the claim that Mao stands ‘much higher than Marx and Lenin.’  This is an open attempt to replace Marxism-Leninism by a set of Mao’s ‘ideas’ and political objectives which, by their class nature, are alien and hostile to the theory and practice of scientific communism.

            “Now that imperialism places a special stake on ideological subversion against socialism, the subversive activities of the Maoists which are aimed at dividing and weakening socialist countries, at splitting the Communist movement and mass progressive organizations, virtually paves the way for the class enemies of the working people.  In this respect the Chinese leaders are linking up more and more with anti-communism.  A kind of ‘shuttle communication’ has been established between the Peking propagandists and the bellicose imperialist ideologists: they adopt on a growing scale each other’s methods, terminology and ‘arguments,’ and jointly use the poisoned weaponry of anti-communism.  No renegade or mercenary of the proletariat’s class enemies has ever inured the world revolutionary process as much as the Peking leaders are doing now.

            “The Soviet Union takes a clear-cut and unambiguous stand at the Peking negotiates on the question of normalizing the situation along the Soviet-Chinese border.  Our country considers it necessary to reach an agreement making it possible to turn this border into a line of good-neighborliness.  The CCCPSU and the Soviet government repeatedly emphasized that while refusing to retreat from our lawful and principled positions, and while defending the interest of our socialist country and the inviolability of its frontiers, we will continue doing everything in our power to normalize our interstate relations with the People’s Republic of China.

            “We cannot, however, close our eyes to the fact that Peking persists in whipping up wary hysteria, demanding that the people ‘prepare for famine, prepare for war.’”  Religion in Communist Dominated Areas, published by the National Council of Churches, September 1970, pages 139 and 140.

Communist Military Power

            Military power is growing in both the Soviet Union and Communist China.  This military power can be used against each other, but it can also be used against the United States.

            The growth of Soviet military power is awesome.  In many areas it now surpasses the military power of the United States.  This is revealed by John S. Forster, Jr. Director of Defense Research Engineering for the past five years and who has served Presidents Johnson and Nixon as chief advisor on weapons development, in an interview published in the U.S. News and World Report, November 30, 1970.

            “First, surprising as it may seem to Americans who are used to our technological superiority in defense, the U.S. will lose technological superiority to the Soviets in the next several years if present trends continue.  It’s a struggle that largely goes on in secret, but already we can see some of the things to come in new top-quality Soviet weapons.

            “In ‘throw weight’—the total usable payload on top of a missile—the Soviets have a capacity about twice that of the U.S., and they also surpass us in total megatonnage, which is a rough measure of total destructive power, but not in total number of warheads.

            “The Russians have more land-based missiles operational today—over 1,300 launchers, compared with our 1,054.  We have more submarine-based ballistic missile launchers operational today than they have—656, compared with 200 to 300.  If you include all the Soviet missiles completed and under construction we know about for land and sea-based, their total is larger than ours.

            “But we stopped adding numbers to both our land-based and submarine missile forces four to five years ago, and the Soviets are continuing their missile production.  The Soviets have continued building up their already larger land-based strategic-missile forces at an impressive rate—an average of about 250 per year for the last four years.  They are deploying sea-based ballistic missiles in Polaris-type submarines at the rate of about 130 missiles a year.  By 1974, we can expect a Soviet submarine-launched ballistic-missile force also comparable in size to, or larger than, our own.

            “Our bombers would have to penetrate a Soviet air-defense system which is modern, dense and sophisticated.  Their bombers under present conditions would go against an American air-defense system which is thin, obsolescent and shrinking.

            “If the technological developments which are under way in the Soviet Union are completed and the resulting weapons are deployed, they will constitute a severe threat to our land-based strategic deterrent missiles.  Their ICBM’s would be able to take out almost all of out Minuteman force.  Their submarine missiles could catch much of our bomber force on the ground—and also those Polaris boats which are in port.  The surviving Minuteman missiles, bombers and Polaris Poseidon missiles would then face much improved Soviet missile and air defenses.  Those are the consequences of the improvements that we think we understand in Soviet weapons.  In effect, that is their ‘no surprise’ force of four to five years from now.

            “As you know, the Soviets long have believed in defense in depth.  Today they have an operational ABM complex around Moscow, as well as about 10,000 surface-to-air missiles already deployed.  We think this SAM force is largely for defense against aircraft.  However, some of these interceptors may have ABM capabilities.

            “The first way for our ICBM’s to survive is by active missile defense—an ABM system.  The Safeguard system, deployed at four Minuteman base areas, would provide for the survival of a number of Minutemen.  As the threat increases, however, more ABM defense will be needed, or fewer Minutemen will survive.”  Pages 24, 25, 26, and 29.

            Warlike rhetoric does not always lead to warlike acts.  However, it often does.  The theoretical possibility of war between Russia and China exists.  There are conflicting national interests.  Border fighting has taken place.  Warlike words thunder from both sides.  Major war is possible.

            Despite this, it is doubtful that it is probable.  Both sides prefer that fighting be done by the forces of other nations and have shown great caution about the involvement of their won troops.  Both sides agree that “American Imperialism” is the major enemy.  One of the charges each side makes is that the other is making a secret deal with American imperialism.

            Major war would be a disaster for the countries involved and also a disaster for everyone.  There  is no cause for rejoicing in the possibility of a war between Russia and China.

            The appropriate attitude is one vigilance and preparedness.  Weakness invites disaster.  Every effort must be made to inform the people of other nations of the nature and purposes of communism to help them avoid falling into the communist trap.  The war of words is being fought fiercely by the communists.  They must not win.

            The expanded formula for communist conquest of the U.S.A. is: “External encirclement, plus internal demoralization, plus thermonuclear blackmail, equals progressive surrender.”  Once understood, this formula shows the pathway of survival.


            The Black Panthers held a convention in Washington, D.C. over the weekend, November 27-29, 1970, to write a new constitution for the United States.  The Crusade sent an observer.

            The convention failed to secure an auditorium where the delegates could meet.  Attempts to secure the use of the D.C. Armory, the University of Maryland, and Howard University failed.  Consequently the estimated 3,000 to 5,000 delegates roamed the streets like lost sheep.

            Delegations attended from almost all states and represented many diverse groups including the Youth of the Socialist Party, the Young Lords, the Gay Liberation Front, Women’s Collective, and the Young International Party (Yippies).

            Panther Defense Minister and Commander-in-Chief, Huey Newton, addressed a capacity crowd of 400 inside the auditorium of St. Stephens Episcopal Church, and his message was relayed to about 2000 milling around outside.  His speech lasted about 15 minutes and failed to stir a spontaneous response.  He rectified this by saying he wanted a hand, and the applause was constant thereafter.

            Many of the delegates tried to goad the police into action against them, but the police did not respond to verbal provocation.

            There was talk of the necessity to “liberate” Washington, D.C. before writing a new constitution.  Most of the delegates left the nation’s capital sadly disillusioned.


            A standard question asked by reporters and interviewers is, “Who supports the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade?”  The answer is, “people who care.”  They care about the education and the future of their children.  They care about the security of their country.  They care about the moral deterioration which surrounds them.  They care about the suffering which communism has caused to hundreds of millions of people throughout the earth.  Many of them care about the Gospel of Christ and its proclamation to the people of the world.

            Those who ask the question re sometimes the unwitting victims of communist propaganda.  Communists claim they represent the true interests of the working man while the large corporations are the enemies of the working man.  Therefore, the workers are procommunist and the corporations anticommunist.  They teach that the corporations finance the anticommunist movement.

            This is pure fantasy.  Most workers recognize communism for the enemy it is while some businessmen are blinded by their desire for trade or some other advantage.  Most of the support the Crusade receives comes from workers.

            Here are extracts from a letter from a Crusade supporter:

            “I was very eagerly looking forward to your Dallas visit, scheduled for May 6, 1969.  I had arranged for a baby sitter to stay with my (then) four children, and I have even bought a new dress for the event.  The, without a warning, a big white long-leffed bird flapped his way down our chimney, and at 11:30 p.m. on the Cinco de Mayo, my fifth child made his debut, two weeks before schedule.  So while you spoke to your devoted followers (they would have had to have been devoted. . .remember the storm we had?), I lay in my room, watching, with awe, the grandeur of God’s lightning-swept skies; and wishing that I, too, could be in attendance at the Marriott instead of Baylor Hospital.

            “Thomas Maxwell-Armstrong Fuqua (Max, to his friends) is now a twenty-five pound toddler, with hair the color of moonlight, gentle eyes as blue as a Texas sky, and an affinity for adventure and/or mischief that will turn my own hair gray before I am thirty-five.

            “I haven’t forgiven him yet for making me miss your visit.  And I am looking forward to a return engagement. . .by you, not the Stork, for Heaven’s sake!  Please let us know when you plan to revisit Dallas.

            “I feel very encouraged regarding our church.  Nowhere have the demoralizing influences of the New Left been felt more keenly than in our churches.  My husband and I became most distressed with a large Methodist Church about three years ago, when an assistant pastor declared to me that the divinity of Christ was just so much nonsense; and that I had absolutely no right to force my middle-class morality onto my children.  When the pastor of that congregation praised, from his pulpit, the anarchists and misguided clerics, who are working so hard to destroy our nation, we resigned our membership and moved to a Methodist Church reputed at that time to be fundamental.

            “That first summer we attended the evening Vacation Bible School.  I use that phrase loosely; there wasn’t a Bible in sight.  For five nights we heard lectures from a minister’s wife, on how to justify extra-marital sexual activity.  That same summer, our ‘fundamental’ church hired a new Youth minister, who promptly began a series of ‘meaningful dialogues’ open only to junior and senior highers (no parents, ever), concerning the new Social literature, and renounced Old Testament characters as ‘out of it.’

            “Well, to make a long story short, enough parents and grandparents sneaked ourselves onto some decision-making commissions, and it wasn’t long before the Youth Minister and our ‘forward looking’ Director of Christian Education were fired.  Last fall we hired a young man, whose mother had dedicated his life to Jesus, as our D. of C.E.  He is a delightful person, who walks with the Master, and who is restoring order out of chaos.  We are so thankful for him.

            “Now on Sunday mornings our children learn from a Book of real value.  There is no more inspiring sight than that of a nine-year-old boy, a cowlick in his hair and a pea-shooter in his back pocket, going into church, carrying his own Bible.

            “Tonight our turkey bows its final curtain call.  Outs was a Thanksgiving to cherish.  Grandad, at 83, presided over the festivities, and the three babies, my Stephen II, Max, and niece Kay, kept us all scurrying.  There were twenty of us, in all.  I arranged the tables so that the ages mixed.  The Generation Gap?  Nowhere in sight.  We never pamper our children, and I do employ corporal punishment when it seems necessary.  Just last week, Louis, (the same guy with the cowlick and the peashooter), got carried away, and broke a window of a neighbor’s garage with a rock and his trusty slingshot.  His caboose stayed red for quite some time, and only yesterday did he finish earning the money to repair the damage.  But in spite of our ‘oppressive environment,’ my sister-in-law and I still hear the dreams and heartaches of our daughters; and our boys come to us first, with the latest jokes and successes.  Failures, too.  I think we are more typical than the liberal press would have Americans believe.

            “Three of our dinner guests were refugees from Communist countries.  Annie and her father are from Central Europe; and Ramon G. comes from Dr. Castro’s paradise.

            “Annie’s father is a slight man, with deep, piercing eyes.  Eyes that have seen more sorrow in his forty years than I shall probably see in my lifetime.  He spoke in very gentle, broken English of his dreams and of his faith in America.  And he spoke nearly in a whisper, of his friends, whose sentiments are the same as his, who still reside behind the Iron Curtain.  He is an avid fan of your newsletters, and Thursday I gave him my last copy of ‘You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists).’  Recently he received word that should he return to his native land, he would be arrested and subject to six months to five years in prison.  Of course, he is happy in America; but who of us can leave our home so finally without some regret?

            “The joy of any holiday depends upon our continued freedom.  For your part in this struggle, I am so grateful.  God bless you and yours in this holiday season.”  Brenda Fuqua, Dallas, Texas.


            Attend the Orange County Antisubversive Seminar which will be held in the Inn of Tomorrow (adjacent to Disneyland, 1100-1110 W Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California).  The faculty includes Juanita Castro, sister of Fidel; Dr. Walter H. Judd; Dr. Joseph Dunner, Chairman of the Political Science Department of Yeshiva University, New York City; Charles E. Rice, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School; and Dr. Fred Schwarz.

            If you cannot attend, sponsor a student.  Full scholarships for tuition and lodging will be granted to students, teachers, policemen, and clergymen.  The value of a full scholarship is $60.


            It is difficult to get a clear picture of what is happening in Cambodia.  From reports in the News Media, it is obvious that the situation is serious.

            Prince Sihanouk and the communists claim that they control practically all Cambodia.  Their claim is illustrated by a map, published in the Peking Review, November 27, 1970.  Doubtless their claim is exaggerated, but the situation is ominous.