Skip to comments.America's Fifth Column - Aiding and Abetting Our Enemies
Posted on 04/06/2008 7:15:44 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
America has a growing enemy within. This enemy is referred to by experts as Americas Fifth Column. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the term Fifth Column refers to A clandestine group or faction of subversive agents who attempt to undermine a nations solidarity [unity] by any means at their disposal.
As Britannica notes, the term is credited to Emilio Mola Vidal, a Nationalist general during the Spanish Civil War (193639). As four of his army columns moved on Madrid, the general referred to his militant supporters within the capital as his fifth column, intent on undermining the loyalist government from within.
Does such a group of subversive agents intent upon undermining American unity actually exist today? If they do, who are they, what are their methods and what is their goal?
Who is the American Fifth Column?
In short, members of the American fifth column can be identified by their open or disguised opposition to pro-American policies, principles or values. Agents of the fifth column can always be identified as those working to undermine a nations solidarity [unity].
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhillcoffeehouse.com ...
It's interesting that Soviet nuclear spy Julius Rosenberg was code-named "Liberal" by the KGB in the Venona cables. That word, like "progressive," has a "special" meaning to the Fifth Columnists.
“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” - Thomas Jefferson
About 1929 or so... yes?
When for the first time in American history, government began teaching Americans to look to government for private economic solutions...
The suddenly fashionable term Progressive is yet another example of how we have been badly used by those who establish public school curricula. The "Progressives" were not quite the altruistic people that we have long been led to believe. While they believed their intentions were honorable, they were quite capable of being racist and eugenicist and were possessed of a totalitarian impulse that was the often inspiration for the likes of Mussolini and Hitler. Modern American leftists now use the word Progressive to define themselves because it seems to have more elan than "liberal." Unwittingly they are being more honest, because originally (pre FDR) the word "liberal" defined those who wanted to constrain government power, whereas modern leftist are extremely statist as were the Progressives. Jonah Goldberg does a very good job of illustrating this in his "Liberal Fascism."
Hence the antipathy so many leftists (as they are legatees of the Progressives) have for the founders and our existing Constitutional Republic. Great quote!
The Depression caused many idealists (some of whom later became prominent "useful idiots," others who became flat-out Communists) to lose faith in capitalism and see the USSR as their shining hope. Many of them gravitated to FDR's administration and were instrumental in shaping pro-Soviet and pro-Chinese Communist policies in the Roosevelt-Truman-Eisenhower years. Spy and traitor Alger Hiss advised FDR at Yalta and was a prime architect of the UN. Others moved into journalism and the universities where their ideological successors remain.
FDR was greatly influenced by Communism. Watch the movie "The Grapes of Wrath," starring Jane Fonda's daddy Henry. It's a great welfare state/Communist propaganda piece.
What's striking as you review the history is that their methods and tactics haven't changed much, if at all. Character assassination is their weapon of choice but theft/suppression of archival documents, "show trial" Congressional hearings like the one that destroyed McCarthy, and constant brainwashing by the media and academy are all part of their armory.
Very informative posts!
there's no question that the use of "Marxist" however aptly would leave them open to a political onslaught that they couldn't recover from.( VR-21)
It's more like 70 years since America was infiltrated with Fifth Columnists dedicated to destroy her. Anyone who points out the elephant in the parlor risks being labeled "paranoid." ( Bernard Marx )
It is Marxism that has always driven the liberals. It is the internal nuclear fuel rod that drives everything they say and do.
I think of it like a train line. Every liberal social, economic, or political policy they have managed to get implemented are merely train stops. The final destination is, and always has been, Soviet style Marxism. Unfortunately, Rush, Sean, and OReilly seem to be asleep on the tracks while the Marxist train rushes ever forward.
I am please to hear that Glen Beck is calling Fifth Column Stalinsts. I do know that Michael Savage has been using the term Bolshevik for many years.
I agree with you, Bernard and VR-21, Rush, Sean, and OReilly would be called paranoid and accused of "name-calling" if they started identifying the Fifth Column as communists and Marxists,,,BUT,,,Glen Beck seems to be doing it with a sense of humor, surely the Three Stooges ( Rush, Sean, and OReilly) could use humor as well. They aren't because, in my opinion, they are weenies.
As for schools, I don't recall Rush, Sean, OReilly, Ingram, or Savage, ever saying that parents should remove their kids from government schools and elect legislators that will close these indoctrination centers down. Personally, I think these talk show hosts are:
1) Too stupid to see what a danger the Marxist indoctrination in our schools is to our nation.
2) Are stupid and oblivious to the problem since they either have no kids, their kids are in private schools, or their kids are grown
3) Do not want to want to offend their listeners who are using government schools or making a living directly or indirectly from them.
My conclusion: They are stupid and/or weenies. This is too bad since talk radio should be, and could be, one of the best weapons against the Marxist Fifth Column.
I really have no idea what set you off. I've read as much or more Steinbeck than you have, and know a great deal about the literature and political/artistic ferment of that era. My post stands on its own in the context of the thread.
I was responding to your suggestion that the 1939 film was made as part of some propaganda campaign.
My point was that the movie was made for commerical reasons with commerical expectations (that were fullfilled incidentally as the film was also very popular) not as part of some force feeding propaganda campaign.
The ‘Happy Poor/ Miserable Rich’ meme was popular in movies before Steinbeck. Probably before FDR but I’ve had to investigate further to be sure.
I remember all too well other pro-Soviet Hollywood propaganda during WWII. It depicted one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants in history as a kindly avuncular, pipe-smoking gentle fellow we all called "Uncle Joe Stalin" even as he and Alger Hiss were pulling the wool over FDR's eyes at Yalta.
If you're looking for literary antecedents, don't overlook "Robin Hood." You're right, the idea of robbing from the rich to give to the poor is a very old meme.
“I remember all too well other pro-Soviet Hollywood propaganda during WWII.”
Weren’t those made by a virtual FDR fiat/commission? What would have been the consequence of making films disparaging the ally at that time.
I was looking at the Chicago Tribune Archives recently back to the 1940s when they carried Hedda Hopper’s column. She claimed ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ was anti-American propaganda intended to make the U.S. system look corrupt and took special exception to the innocuous 1944 Chopin biopic ‘A Song to Remember’. Her objection was that they made Chopin mouth various revolutionary (read Bolshevik) desires about overthrowing the Tzar whereas the historical Chopin was a nobleman’s son. The fact was that he hated what the Russians were doing to Poland hence his anti-Tzarist feelings.
While Russia was a wartime "ally," FDR remained nearly terminally obtuse about Communism, Stalin and Soviet aims. He was influenced by the Communists and Fellow Travelers who riddled his administration. Hollywood had more than its share as well. If you choose to sugar-coat those facts I won't waste a lot more time trying to argue with you.
No sugarcoating here. Stalin’s death probably saved my parents’ life as he was planning to ship all Soviet Jews to Siberia in the mid 1950s. But during WW2, the U.S. was operating under an ‘Enemy of My Enemy’ philosophy. BTW could you point out some films from the time which have an affable ‘Uncle Joe’ figure? I’m just curious. ‘Mission to Moscow’ was the famous one...made by the director of Casablanca!