November 15, 1969











            The SDS leaders, who organized the “civil war” in Chicago, Oct. 8-11, have written their own assessment of their success. (See reprint)

            The inhumanity of the SDS leadership is shown by their statement concerning Richard Elrod who is paralyzed with a broken neck because of their attack. Here is their “version” of what happened.

            “They’re trying to frame Brian Flanagan on a charge of attempted murder in the paralyzing of Tricky Dick Elrod – Pig Daley’s top legal oinker. The pig press reported that Brian had attacked pig Elrod with a club, a brick, a lead pipe, and his fists. What they didn’t report was the true story – Pig Elrod, living up to his role, trying to attack demonstrators and help finger leadership, saw Brian running through the streets and tried to tackle him, breaking his own neck when he hit the pavement. Elrod is now paralyzed–hopefully for life. He won’t be so quick to play pig next time.” New Left Notes, Oct. 21, 1969.

            Our observers observed and photographed the SDS troops carrying iron pokers, lead pipes, and throwing bricks.


            “Chicago 69

            “On Monday, October 6, 1969, a pig statue honoring the murderers of Chicago strikers in the Haymarket Massacre of 1886 was blown to bits. On Tuesday, October 7, the head of the Chicago Pig Sergeants Association said that “SDS has declared war on the Chicago police–from here on in it’s kill or be killed.” On Wednesday, October 8, the war was on. A white fighting force was born in the streets of pig city.

            “500 of us moved through the richest sections of Chicago, with VC flags in front, smashing luxury apartment windows and storefronts, ripping apart the Loop, and injuring scores of pigs. An undercover pig was critically injured when the brothers and sisters found him rooting and snorting around one of the movement centers. SDS women with clubs battles armed pigs on a march to an induction center. 8 of our people were shot, and over 100 were busted. It was war–we knew it and the pigs knew it. 

            “We came to Chicago to join the other side–to stop talking and start fighting with the VC, the Pathet Lao in Laos, the Tupamaros in Uruguay and the Black Liberation struggle. We came to do material damage to pig Amerika and all that it’s about–it’s school-jails, its pig armies, its fat businessmen, and its greedy empire. We came to do it in the road–in the open–so that white Amerika could dig on the opening of a new front, on the birth of a new brigade in the world liberation army. We came to attack–because we know that the only things to defend in honkie Amerika are the privileges–the cars, the apartments, the hotels, the TV’s–that we’ve gained off the sweat of the people of the world. We came to vamp on those privileges and destroy the ------- from the inside.

            “There were only 500 of us, but we forced Pig Daley to call in the Guard. We forced him to withdraw some occupation pigs from the black community and deal with us in Evanston and in Lincoln Park. We did what we set out to do, and in the process turned a corner. FROM HERE ON IN IT’S ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER–WITH WHITE YOUTH JOINING IN THE FIGHT AND TAKING THE NECESSARY RISKS. PIG AMERIKA–BEWARE: THERE’S AN ARMY GROWING RIGHT IN YOUR GUTS, AND IT’S GOING TO HELP BRING YOU DOWN.

            “Did that pig say kill. . . or be killed?”

Church Conduct! Criminal or Christian?

            The SDS terrorists, who invaded Chicago October 8-11, 1969, and engaged in an orgy of violence against people and property, were given hospitality by the Methodist Churches of Evanston and by Garrett and McCormick Theological Seminaries. As a result of SDS violence, Richard Elrod, chief counsel of Chicago, lies in a hospital bed with a broken neck suffering paralysis from the neck down. Do the churches and seminaries, who harbored the terrorists, share the guilt for their crimes?

            Spokesmen for the churches and seminaries have claimed that there were simply showing Christian compassion and engaging in an act of Christian reconciliation. Consider the evidence:

            SDS leadership publicly announced in SDS New Left Notes, September 12, 1969, that they were bringing an army to Chicago, October 8-11, 1969, to engage in civil war. Their slogans were, “Bring the war home,” and “The time has come for fighting in the streets.” They printed a picture of their red army training in the parks of Cleveland. They published material giving instructions for the care of the wounded and for legal steps to be taken by those who were arrested or, in SDS jargon, “become prisoners of war.”

            They were repudiated by the “Black Panthers” and by a communist revolutionary faction of SDS known as “Revolutionary Youth Movement II”, (RYM II). RYM II is led by Mike Klonsky who was secretary of SDS last year. It claims to be a communist organization following the teaching of Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Communists.

            The reason given by the Black Panthers and RYM II for their refusal to cooperate was because the SDS leadership indulges in “violence without a cause.” They claimed that violence should be used in pursuit of some cause and not simply for its own sake. SDS leadership on the other hand claimed that violence was necessary to recruit susceptible individuals into their elite corps; that violence would act as a magnet to the potentially violent.

            Despite this advance publicity, the churches and seminaries housed and fed the terrorists. Representatives have made the following statements to justify their actions:

1. Statement by the Evanston United Methodist Parish:

            “The Evanston United Methodist Parish responded to the request for housing of members of the Students for a Democratic Society. We did so out of our understanding of the nature of the church, not out of our understanding of the S.D.S. In fact, we explicitly reject their political program.

            “By nature the church is called to be a peacemaker. The decision was made in the belief that peace would more likely be maintained by their being housed in churches than staying in parks.

            “By nature the church is open to all. Such openness does not carry with it approval of what those who come are or do. This is the unique nature of Christian love. Christians are committed to the coming of a new society. We hope for its coming through a nonviolent witness. We do not approve of any violent action of the S.D.S. in the streets nor of the police in forcing entry to church doors which would have been opened to them.

            “By nature the church is especially sensitive to the alienated and the dispossessed. A “cup of water” given because “you bear the name of Christ” is the tradition of the church. In a time when we too easily call our brothers our enemy, the church lives her life under the command: ‘You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you Love your enemies.’

            “The role of the church, therefore, is to offer itself as a link of communication between those sectors of society alienated from each other. The response of our churches this week is offered as the best effort we could make to fulfill the ministry of reconciliation in a badly divided world.

            “The call today is to all who love the church and her Lord to strengthen the ties of love: to love the unlovable to express confidence in the sincerity of one another; and to search together in our many conversations for a new commitment to a true and relevant mission of Christ’s Church in this present moment.”

2. Statement by the President of Garrett Theological Seminary:

            “The Garrett community–faculty, students, staff–during the past week has been reviewing recent events on our campus and asking ourselves some pointed questions. The review of the events is a simple matter: How the SDS got on our campus and what took place after they came. Enclosed is a statement of these facts as they relate to Garrett.

            “Our discussions have turned spontaneously toward searching theological questions arising out of the difficulty, disturbing experiences of these days. Students and faculty have opened their hearts to each other. I want to share with you the essence of our concerns, for none of us can escape them. Let me pose three questions.

            “First, does the church have any responsibility for redemptive communication with that segment of our society made up of mostly young (some in their middle teens), alienated, angry, violence-prone, perplexed human beings. Many of them are idealistic, but confused and distorted in their thinking–willing to go to revolutionary extremes in the destruction of life and property (including their own) to bring in what they would describe as a ‘more humane society’. Does the church have a responsibility to try to bring to them some ministry marked by redemption and reconciliation?

            “The weight of opinion among us as we searched our hearts on that question was that responsible Christian discipleship requires that we answer in the affirmative.

            “That leads to a second question: If the church has such a responsibility, how does it go about doing it? And that is a very difficult question. For the people with whom you must deal are tough (though many of them are terribly afraid and are held in line by the almost military discipline of their group), their scale of values may be diametrically opposed to your own, their social practices and language often are repugnant. But there they are – human beings, bent on shaping the future, and inescapable in their presence. How do you reach them?

            “It may well be that the answer is not found in allowing a few of them in your midst. But we are convinced of one thing: to ignore them, to hate them isn’t the answer either. In obedience to the mandate of our Lord, our task is to seek the alienated. A number of our students and faculty engaged in this ministry with SDS students while they were here.

            “The third question is a difficult one also: If you should try to make some redeeming reconciling approach to these people, are you willing to take the risks and pay the cost? Maybe that is the question, for it is not theoretical but intensely personal and practical.

            “In God’s mission to ‘reconcile the world unto himself’ the road led to a cross.”

            This report drew the following resolution by the Board of Trustees of Garrett Theological Seminary:

            “BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Trustees of Garrett Theological Seminary that it rejects the violence and ill behavior of the young people of SDS; but at the same time expresses support for the response and action of the Garrett administration, faculty, and student association, in view of the difficult circumstances which they faced during the past week.

            “The Garrett Board further supports the President’s position as stated so conscientiously and compassionately in his letter of October 14, 1969, addressed to Garrett alumni and friends.”

            The above position are specifically repudiated by a statement of the Administrative Board, Chicago Temple First United Methodist Church:

            “Last Saturday afternoon multiple crimes were committed within the area – and against the people of – this parish. Those directly responsible for these crimes will be dealt with by the law.

            “Of greater concern to us is the complicity of the United Methodist Church in these crimes as some of our pastors and churches became accessories both before and after the fact as they aided and abetted these criminals while knowing of their intent an purpose.

            “We want to believe that this complicity was the result of good, if totally irresponsible, intention.

            “However, our credulity is strained in this as we read of the attempt of those involved to use adapted theological arguments to not only excuse what they have done but to try to make virtue of it. We find it unbelievable that a leader of those directly responsible could proudly announce in the public press that what was done was ‘the greatest moment for Evanston Methodist Churches in recent history – the fact that they were becoming involved in society rather than staying on the fringes.’

            “We find this calloused and irresponsible. If the church is to learn anything from this tragedy, it cannot be left unchallenged.

            “Those directly involved state that they were seeking to ‘open a door, build a bridge,’ to those alienated from society. They admit that they failed in both purposes.

            “But is should be carefully noted that they did not fail in closing dozens of doors to thousands of people, in the destruction of hundreds of bridges painfully and responsibly built by the church.

            “Those involved are partly responsible for injury to the cause of reasonable dissent, and this is a society where significant dissent is desperately needed. They are in part responsible for the blunting of protest as a weapon for justice. Hundreds of thousands of minority peoples, who know little of these events, have been set back in their search for justice by what has been calculatedly and deliberately done.

            “In view of the seriousness of this matter – and of the extended attempt of apologists to make virtue of irresponsibility and error – and of the need of the church to learn a lesson from this experience, the Administrative Board of The Chicago Temple-First United Methodist Church, in session October 12, 1969, unanimously adopted, and directed the undersigned committee to convey to our Bishop the following resolution:

            “‘We call upon our Bishop to provide that discipline which shall clearly indicate the censure which the United Methodist Church of the Northern Illinois Conference must accept – clergy and laymen – for the Church’s part in aiding and abetting those revolutionists involved in the violence that took place in Chicago last week, through providing them with food, shelter and a meeting place in which to arrange, and from which to stage, their attacks upon our people and our community. Further, we ask our Bishop to make it clear that unilateral use of the good name of The United Methodist Church indicating support of demonstrations and actions that lead to violence will not again be permitted.’”

            Are the statements of the Evanston United Methodist Parish and the President of Garrett Theological Seminary honest and sincere or are they merely attempts to rationalize encouragement of criminal activity?

            The intellectual honesty of the churches and Garrett Theological Seminary can be tested by asking two direct questions–one hypothetical and one real. They are:

            1. If Lee Harvey Oswald had announced that he was coming to Chicago to assassinate President Kennedy, would Christian love and the ministry of reconciliation require that the churches and seminaries should make their premises available to him so that he could carry out his plan as the President passed by?

            2. Will the churches of the Evanston United Methodist parish and the Administration of Garrett Theological Seminary make their premises available to the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade to conduct an anti-subversive seminar in the spring of 1970?

            I have sent the following letter to the President of Garrett Theological Seminary and the Evanston United Methodist Parish:

            “On behalf of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade, I request the use of your facilities to conduct an Anti-subversive Seminar during the spring of 1970.

            “It may be that you do not agree with the philosophy and program of the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade. If this is the case, by granting our request, you will be acting as a link of communication between sectors of society, alienated from each other, and fulfilling your duty to bring to us some ministry marked by redemption and reconciliation.

            “I await your reply expectantly.

            “Yours very sincerely,

            Fred Schwarz”


            Angela Davis is the self-professed communist who has been appointed Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The attempt of the Regents to fire her has been frustrated by a court decision. Angela Davis is a young black woman and, in an interview with Bettina Aptheker, she tells of the man who exercised the greatest influence on her life:

            “While at Bradeis I first met (Herbert) Marcuse, and enrolled in some of his philosophy courses. He had the greatest influence on me through his lectures, his books, and as a person. As a result of this I decided to do my graduate work in philosophy. It was with Marcuse’s recommendation that I was accepted as a student with Theodor W. Adorna at the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt. I spent two years there. This Institute is a center for Marxist study. Then I returned in 1967 to the States, and went to the University of California in San Diego where I began work on my dissertation under Marcuse.” World Magazine, Oct. 25, 1969, M-3.


            The communist Daily World of October 18, 1969, reports:

            “For the first time in the recent history of Latin America, a Communist has announced his candidacy for president of his country. Furthermore, political observers concede he has a chance to win the election scheduled for Sept. 4, 1970.

            “He is Pablo Neruda, world-renowned Chilean poet, humanist and fighter for peace, and former Communist member of the Chilean Senate.

            “On October 9, delegations of the Communist, Socialist, Radical Unified Popular Action Movement, Social Democrat and Independent parties began preliminary conversations to work out a program for a Popular Government.

            “Real rivals to Neruda seem to be only Salvador Allende, candidate of the Socialists, and Jacques Chonchol of the MAPU (Movement for Popular United Action, split off from the Christian Democrats.)

            “A possible platform for a popular government will include a real and complete nationalization of the copper and mining industry, extension of the Agrarian Reform, effective measures against the monopolies, more democratization in general and with this defined anti-imperialist line, the opening of the road towards socialism.” Page 10.


            Under the heading “World drive planned against anti-Communism,” the Daily World of October 25, 1969, reports as follows:

            “Preparations are under way for an international theoretical and ideological conference aimed at directing a world offensive against present-day anti-Communism.

            “The conference, for which no date has yet been set, will be held under the joint auspices of the Academies of Sciences of a number of socialist countries and will examine modern anti-Communism in the areas of philosophy, sociology, economics, law, international relations and culture. The article, declares that an offensive against anti-Communism ‘is one of the most important tasks presently facing the international communist movement.’” Page 11


            An excellent source for accurate up-to-date information on the plans and activities of the Communist and the Left is COMBAT, published twice monthly by Communications Distribution, Inc.


            Evidence that life in a communist country is intolerable continues to come from all around the world. Recently six individuals, who had hijacked planes to Cuba, voluntarily returned to face trial in the United States. Each knew he was liable to sentence of death or to imprisonment for 20 years. By their actions they affirmed that life in prison in the United States or death itself is preferable to life in Cuba.

            The most dramatic recent defection from the Soviet Union is that of Anatoli Kuznetsov, the famous Russian writer. He was one of the privileged of the citizens of that country. In a letter to the International Fraternity of Writers, Pen International Congress, he describes the conditions under which he worked:

            “Writers in the Soviet Union find themselves in a tragic situation. As you know, in Russia a person who opposes the existing political system is, according to the law, liable to arrest. This permits the authorities to interpret any critical statements made by a writer, or even by the characters in his works, as a criminal offence.

            “All means of mass communication are controlled by a small group of people at the head of the ruling party. By means of Glavlit (i.e. the censorship) and the K.G.B. (the secret police) the rulers impose the most barbarous dictatorship over literary activity that has ever been known in Russian history. Writers are told both what ideas they have to express and the forms in which they are to express them. Only if he follows these instructions will a writer be published, receive any support or achieve any measure of success.

            “The writer who comes to doubt Communism itself is finished as a writer. Thus, in Russia, a writer such as Orwell will soon be imprisoned and his sentence will be regularly extended until he dies, or else he will be thrown into a madhouse to be reduced to a state of true madness. There is a long and unhappy list of precedents for this in Russia.

            “Nor is a writer able to leave his country; the authorities will not let him out. If he succeeds in escaping, he is regarded as the most frightful criminal, a ‘traitor to his country’, and he may be struck down by the KGB in any part of the world. Writers who tried unsuccessfully to escape are now sitting in Soviet prison camps. (See the book “My Testimony” by Anatoli Marchenko, who has just been given another prison sentence.)

            “There is no way out of this situation for the Russian writer, either he must write as he is ordered to write, or–whatever else he does, he is regarded as a criminal. The freedom of literary creation proclaimed in the Charter of PEN is inconceivable on the territory of the USSR, where the State suppresses Russian literature with truly fascist methods.

            “I would like to add my own special request to the Congress: Please do not forget what happened to the greatest living Russian writers: Andrei Sinyavsky is in prison, deprived of the possibility of writing, subjected to we do not know what kind of brainwashing, and it is probable (I emphasize this), that he will not survive.

            “Alexander Solzhenitsyn, though he is not in prison, has been reduced, through surveillance and pressure on the part of the KGB, to the state of a pariah; he is a sick and broken man. His works are available to only a very few people and only in manuscript form, and possession of them involved the danger of arrest. I personally have no doubt that the authorities will take all steps necessary to destroy Solzhenitsyn as they did Pasternak.

            “I beg you, members of the International PEN, by your words, your authority, your deeds, by every possible means – make the destiny of Russian literature your concern.

            “Signed A. Anatol – Kuznetsov”

            A little appreciation of life in the United States is in order.


            The following editorial statement in New Times, a publication of the Soviet News Agency, TRUD, shows clearly where the Soveit stands on the Vietnam War:

            “Much importance is attached in Moscow and Hanoi to the Soviet-Vietnamese talks which concluded on October 15. The Party and Government delegation led by Prime Minister Pham Van Dong was the first to come to Moscow from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam since the death of President Ho Chi Minh. The Soviet and Vietnamese leaders found it desirable to state and re-affirm once again their positions on all major issues of mutual interest.

            “It should be said first of all that the Soviet and Vietnamese statesmen’s analysis of the present situation in Vietnam fully coincides. American official professions of wanting a peace settlement in Vietnam cannot be taken seriously, they are not being backed up with action.

            “Hanoi and Moscow consider that a constructive basis for a peace settlement in Vietnam is provided by the ten-point programme of the National Liberation Front and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam. These proposals are vigorously supported alike by the D.R.V. and the U.S.S.R.

            “Following the talks there were signed on October 15, agreements on gratis Soviet economic and military aid to the D.R.V. with substantial quantities of foodstuffs, petroleum products, industrial plant, transport means, ferrous and nonferrous metals, cotton, textiles, medical equipment and supplies, fertilizers, arms and ammunition.

            “The Soviet people and their Communist Party are true to the sacred principles of socialist solidarity. In helping Vietnam they are following a class approach and making a very tangible contribution to the common anti-imperialist struggle of all progressive and democratic forces.” New Times, October 29, 1969, Page 2.


            Messages on the following subjects are now available.

            1. Does a communist have the right to teach in public schools?

            2. Marcuse and His Malignant Message.

            The first message deals with the Angela Davis case and its implications. It discusses such subjects as: What is academic freedom? Is the American Communist Party a political party? Are communists agents of the Soviet Union? Is teaching a right or a privilege? Are those who pay the taxation entitled to adequate representation?

            The message on Marcuse documents his teaching on: The destruction of American Society; the use of sex, obscenity, absurdity, drugs, and violence as political weapons; the Marxist utilization of selective ideas of Freud.

            Each message runs for over an hour and is recorded on a 7 - inch tape at 3-3/4 speed. The price is $5 per tape.