American Support for Decolonization and the Left in Subsaharan Africa, 1950-1970

Second of a Three Part Series on the Decivilization of Africa

1. First Footsteps of American Destabilization of Africa in the 1950’s

American meddling in Africa on behalf of the international left and antiwhite African “nationalists” began well before 1961 but accelerated with the wretched JFK administration. In June 1960 Salazar and Franco met at the Parador de Merida halfway between Madrid and Lisbon—a charming Iberian hotel you can still visit today—to discuss escalating American subversion within their African territories. William Scheinman and Frank Montero from the American Committee on Africa had been sent to Angola in March of that year to contact and fund terror groups—Portuguese authorities had stopped Scheinman traveling with a second fake passport. The American Committee on Africa was an older NGO from the 1950’s:

Powerful people loaned their names to the American Committee on Africa - Eleanor Roosevelt, Senator Hubert Humphrey, Jackie Robinson, the Episcopal Bishop of California, John Gunther, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., to name a few. Adlai Stevenson, the enemy of patriotism and friend of all leftist causes, was for it. A "Union of the Angola People" organization was set up in Leopoldville to form leaders for an underground movement. By September it was publishing a paper, VOICE OF THE ANGOLA NATION, in four languages, and planning a radio station to be financed by N'Krumah of Ghana and Sekou Toure of Guinea, tyrants whose methods of killing suspected opponents fazed Irving Brown and his ilk not at all.

The Scheinman-Montero visit was not Iberian paranoia or a conspiracy theory: it was celebrated by Scheinman himself in American media upon his return with promises that anticolonial activities would begin soon (they did in the following year, the first year of the JFK administration, with massacres of civilians in Angola carried out by American-funded and -armed guerrillas based in Lumumba's Congo). Scheinman himself is now eulogized on the Hoover Institute’s website as an anticolonial hero for Black self-determination. In 1959 Lawrence McQuade of the Council on Foreign Relations and “labor organizer" Irving Brown visited Ghana and left behind two American attachés to coordinate agitation of African “labor unions.” McQuade upon his return wrote an article in the New York Herald Tribune crying out to aspiring African leaders, “Unite! You have only a continent to gain and nothing to lose but your chains!” This was in support of Ghana’s Kwame N’Krumah, a Soviet-aligned anti-Western dictator. The choice of words here is interesting—indeed most of Africa did become Soviet-aligned in the next decade. AFL-CIO activist George Meany visited Ghana in 1957 essentially openly calling for violence against Europeans in all of that continent (Ghana, again, the first country to gain independence in Africa was Red-aligned and -funded under N’krumah). Robert Murphy, member of the Bilderberg group and advisor under both Democrat and Republican administrations, celebrated Lumumba and Congolese independence from Belgium while the country descended into chaos and massacres in 1960, praising the “wisdom” of the Congolese.

Groups like the Bilderberg and the Council on Foreign Relations are a mainstay of conspiracy theorists who talk about the New World Order or at least about globalism. Very often these pundits like to claim that globalism was a continuation, a natural outgrowth of, or equivalent to European 19th Century colonialism, because they accept the leftist condemnation of colonialism and seek to associate globalism to a widely-accepted moral taboo. In a sense this is true, but only in the sense that, like the Soviets, they sought to replace European rule with something else. Conspiracy theorists mired in leftist valuations ignore that in every case the “globalist” cause was accompanied both by explicit denunciations and aggressive actions against the then-existing European world order, very often in language equivalent to that of the anticolonial left of the time and of anticolonial “dissidents” (left and “right”) in our own time. That they sought to replace one international system with another one is not in question—but again so did the Soviets. The point is that in practice the two were aligned and worked together. This was true at every level of government—in France for example Maurice Couve de Murville, foreign minister and later prime minister under de Gaulle, and one of the architects of what was to become the American-led European Union, was also an aggressive anti-colonialist and blocked the efforts of other parts of the French establishment that sought to preserve French rule or influence in Africa and elsewhere.

In 1957 JFK gave a famous speech calling for Algerian self-determination and aligning America with what was to become in 1962 Algeria’s murderous “independence” and the subsequent ethnic cleansing of a million and a half Frenchmen who had lived there in some cases for well over 100 years. The full scope of America’s meddling in Algeria in favor of a Red-aligned regime and against its own NATO ally France is a matter for another article (or book). I intended this article to be mostly about subsaharan Africa—the problem is that the left thinks and acts internationally. So in practice these cases are connected. Thus, although American support for Algeria was sold to the American people and their representatives along the same lines, as an attempt to preempt the Soviets and promote America’s own version of postcolonial nationalism, in fact Algeria became immediately Red-aligned and the staging ground of training for left wing terrorists and coordination for agitation in subsaharan Africa as well. Although neocons have invented the absurd category of “Islamofascism” after about 2000 or so, in fact Marxism, Maoism, Islam and pan-Africanism were alternative ideologies adopted often by the same groups throughout the Cold War. The meaning of these ideologies is the material replacement of European civilization and settlers in the broader world—the Soviets and Chinese imagined it would be under their own men, but these were in fact often a transitional phase, and the ultimate beneficiaries were local Afromarxists whose loyalty to Moscow was theoretical. But during this time there were many cases of international Red operatives who moved for example between running pro-Lumumba radio stations in the Congo to activism in Algeria, and vice versa, from Algeria to anti-Portuguese pro-Soviet agitation in Angola or Mozambique.

In Guinea and in Ghana, “labor leaders” Sekou Toure and Kwame N’krumah were Red-aligned from their earliest days of training as community organizers but received massive American recognition and support for most of their tenure and especially in their crucial first years. American officials were aware—how could they not be?—that these men were receiving Soviet funding and passing it on to Lumumba among others. (State Department memoranda from 1960 and before are full of explicit remarks about such things) Sekou Toure had received training in Moscow, Prague and China after 1947. Nevertheless these leaders had always received American funding and political support as well, always being sold to the American people and their representatives as “anti-communist.” It was only in the late 1960’s that liberal journalists started to write that these leaders had “degenerated" and become violent tyrants. In fact they had been so from the start of their careers, and just as with Mugabe later in Zimbabwe, liberal and left opinion only turned against them when it was no longer possible to hide their cartoonish brutality, and presumably when these men had outlived their political usefulness to the international left (Mugabe began his tenure with a massacre of the Matabele tribe but, just as with Toure and N’krumah, was only condemned by libtards and leftists much later in his rule).

In 1966 when Ghana’s N’Krumah fell from power, stories of atrocities in what had always been a prison-camp country since its inception in 1957 started to come out. If you find any mention of his name today it is likely in the form of “brave socialist nationalist overthrown by NEOLIBERAL CIA.” Here is a recent example.

After independence in 1957, Ghana was a model of pan-Africanism and central economic planning. The country’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, a socialist, invested in education, health and infrastructure. His anti-imperialist industrialisation policy aimed to curb imports. In the early 1960s, Ghana built two processing plants to avoid wasting surplus tomatoes, which otherwise rotted during the rainy season. But in February 1966, a military coup backed by the CIA overthrew Nkrumah, and the country remained politically unstable until 1979, when another military coup brought the neoliberal Jerry Rawlings to power. With the help of international financial institutions, he made Ghana a model of African neoliberalism. The two canneries closed in the late 1980s, after structural reforms advocated by the IMF.

Such assertions of CIA meddling on behalf of “neoliberalism” account for most readers’ understanding of post-1950 history in much of the world, but this is all false. America supported N’Krumah to the hilt: the CIA-supported labor organizations and the CFR individuals named above were especially aggressive in supporting him. A united black Africa under N’Krumah’s rule had been American policy from 1957 on. Russel L. Howe wrote in support of this idea in the Washington Post in 1959, and CFR member Lawrence McQuade’s article mentioned above, also from 1959, was titled “Ghana’s Bid for Leadership.” American labor representatives had been left in Ghana in 1959 to help with integration with Guinea, which started with a $27 million grant from N’Krumah to Sekou Toure of Guinea, provided by America. By the time of N’Krumah’s fall in 1966 he had $400 million in reserves, provided through the same channels of CFR agitation and coordination and labor dues from American workers. George Lodge of the International Labor Organization, Cabot Lodge’s son, wrote in support of Guinea’s Toure in 1959, in Foreign Affairs, the CFR’s press outfit:

Sekou Toure, who led the independence movement in Guinea Africa's newest independent state, also got his start in politics as a labor leader. It was indeed as a labor leader that he first demonstrated his ability to connnand an almost religious devotion from his followers. It was his well-organized labor movement which gave him the power to force independence.

The Red takeovers of Ghana and Guinea were from the start an American-supported, Soviet-managed effort. The supposed “CIA activities” against N’Krumah are a later mythology after N’Krumah brutal rule was overthrown in 1966 as a result of typically African internal instability, mostly caused by his extreme brutality, after America had supported him with money, operatives, coordination and propaganda from the beginning.

The Winter 1960 issue of YALE REVIEW carried another propaganda piece proclaiming Ghana "The Showplace of Black Africa," by Lawrence C. McQuade. It had already been established that the country was a forced-labor camp, with worse to come. When N'krumah fell in 1966 the floodgates of atrocity stories and graft operations opened.

2. American Betrayal and Collusion with the Soviets in Angola, Mozambique, Kenya

   

   Edouardo Mondlane’s American wife Janet in Mozambique riling up FRELIMO Marxist guerrillas; in 1974 she was coordinating them from Moscow.

The American agitation on behalf of anticolonialist, antiwhite and Red (or to the benefit of Red) causes in Africa greatly accelerated during the JFK administration. I consider this the effective initiator of the total New Left ascendancy in America, the source of all its enduring personae—the egghead technocrat of righteous liberal morality from the show West Wing is a JFK administration innovation—and in practice one of the most active antiwhite and anticivilizational presidencies of American history, maybe even outdoing Obama.

G. Mennen Williams, JFK’s Assistant Secretary of State for Africa outright told antiwhite delegates of African regimes at a conference in Forest Park, PA in May of 1961 that American loyalty and decisions would be in favor of the Africans even if their interests were ever to conflict with those of America's NATO allies. JFK soon delivered on such promises in many instances, for example when America voted at the UN together with the Soviets and Soviet-aligned regimes in Guinea and Indonesia against Portugal and de Gaulle, condemning Portugal in Angola and elsewhere. Portugal, America’s actual ally, at this time was providing America with bases in the Azores and vast new airfields in southern Africa. In March of 1961, roughly a year after the CFR and the American Committee on Africa sent Scheinman and Montero to Angola and Scheinman gave a public speech about an imaginary “liberation” military movement in the Portuguese colonies, a massacre took place in Quitexe, Angola. It was the beginning of an all-out offensive carried out, again, by American-funded and Soviet-armed guerrillas based in Lumumba’s Congo. The Portuguese managed to stop them, but American activities against Portuguese and Spanish provinces in Africa, as well as against the Salazar and Franco governments in Europe, continued, and the war in Angola accelerated.

During the Angolan civil war the United States supported Holden Roberto’s liberation movement, as supposedly anti-Soviet; the African understanding of Roberto was, however, that he had been previously funded by the Soviets and let go not because of ideological differences but because of misuse of funding. Regardless, it was the MPLA that ended up winning in Angola; thus, whatever its pretenses of supporting a “third force” in Angola, American actions in that territory (again I refuse to call it a country: Angola has no being aside from Portugal) led to a Red victory, as it did with America’s similar blundering in Vietnam, Algeria, Mozambique, and elsewhere.

The case of Mozambique is one of the most blatant examples of American subversion on behalf (intentionally or not) of Red victory. Eduardo Mondlane of the Marxist terrorist group FRELIMO was entirely a creation of the United States. Mondlane was educated at Oberlin on a scholarship and was then a professor at Syracuse University. The Ford Foundation financed him through a Mozambique Institute to foster revolt in the Portuguese colony; the United States recruited Red guerrillas formerly active under exiled Brazilian communist Apolonio de Carvalho to promote armed revolution in the Portuguese colonies:

The African-American Institute opened its doors at 345 E. 46th Street, New York City, with CFR leftist Waldemar Nielsen as president. Nielsen, a veteran of State Department and the Ford Foundation, hired Brazilian "teachers" -militants formed in Appolonio de Carvalho's old cells - to train selected “students” from Angola and Mozambique. On January 6, 1962, a drive was opened for “specialists" for the Peace Corps. Associate Director William Moyers announced they would be drawn from labor and that Peace Corps strength would be doubled. On January 23 a Peace Corps official in Washington requested that the Corps be granted TOP SECRET stamps for its papers, "because the Corps conducts very delicate diplomatic negotiations.”

A mob of unkempt hippies appeared in the sedate Onondaga Hotel in Syracuse, NY They were Peace Corps "volunteers," there for training by Edouardo Mondlane. Where are they to be sent? To Nyasaland, on the borders of Mozambique and Rhodesia. While Mondlane turned the Peace Corps beatniks into a propaganda force for himself, the Newhouse newspaper chain and its Syracuse Post-Standard built up Mondlane. Step by step, methodically, as one would lay the foundations for a building, revolution in Portugal and her African provinces was being prepared.

Throughout this time the line on Mondlane continued to be that he was “fighting for democracy,” for African self-determination, and would be a third force or alternative to Soviet influence. But in this case the claim is especially absurd—there was then and now no doubt that Mondlane was the Soviets’ man in Africa: “On September 2, 1964, the Chinese freighter Heping was unloading arms in Dar-es-Salaam for Mondlane, while three Russian freighters bearing anti-aircraft guns and field artillery for guerrillas trained at Dar-es-Salaam's Colito Barracks were standing by. 20,000 terrorists fresh from secret camps in Algiers, the two Congos, Tanzania and Zambia were about to start massacring natives who wanted Portuguese rule. Methodist missionaries toured America, whipping up sympathy and collecting funds. Planes carried young Africans to Moscow, Peking, Havana and Algiers for training. Despite its formidable numbers this guerrilla movement served only for the softening up.” After Mondlane’s death his American wife was in Moscow coordinating and encouraging FRELIMO guerrillas to murder Portuguese civilians and Africans friendly to them. As in Angola and almost everywhere else in Africa, American support for the "noncommunist left" was an absurd pretext—in this case barely plausible—that almost always ended in Soviet-aligned regimes firmly established in the aftermath.

The falsehood of the pretext that American aid to the “noncommunist left” was meant to preempt Soviet control as a matter of realpolitik is demonstrated further by the fact that prior to American destabilization efforts in Angola and Mozambique, there was no viable leftist (or communist) faction in those places. Leftist as well as Red opportunities there were all a result of American subversion. A similar argument could be made regarding American efforts prior to decolonization in Ghana, Guina and even the Belgian Congo, but it is clearest in the case of the Portuguese territories. It could maybe be claimed that this was an honest mistake, motivated by the belief that decolonization was the inevitable trend of the future and that America must (and must be seen) to support it no matter what. This becomes harder to believe when you consider that the same interests acting on behalf of the United States carried out similar activities as far as they could in the home countries, in Europe, and especially in Salazar’s Portugal and Franco’s Spain. As far back as 1955 Irving Brown, the AFL-CIO and later its subsidiaries under the ICFTU were agitating for labor protests in Spain and Portugal. They were also doing this in Belgium in favor of Congo independence, and France in favor of Algerian independence, but let’s grant that in these nations there was arguably an active left that supposedly needed preempting—in Spain there was not. Franco had defeated a brutal regime of Red terror in the 1930’s and there was no question at the time, however, of his or Salazar’s regimes being in any sense weak, unstable, or facing realistic possibility of Red revolution. What Red subversion existed in these countries in the 1950’s for example was entirely funded and supported by America, whether in the form of labor organizations, meetings with pro-Soviet agents, etc. Also important in destabilization efforts of America’s NATO allies in Iberia was the International Rescue Committee, run by socialist Joseph Buttinger and American ambassador to Spain Angier Biddle Duke, which provided extraction, funding, safehouses and refuge to Spanish and Portuguese Red “dissidents.” (Reinhold Niebuhr, the blueprint for all future hicklibs, and the parvenu guru of men like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, spearhead of liberation theology and the faction of “Christian Marxism,” was one of the founders of the IRC and long active in its leadership). Further threats and pressure were applied to both Portugal and Spain by other officials in JFK’s and Johnson’s administration.

I ask which is more likely: that these men in the case of Spain could see some twenty years into the future and guess that Franco would abdicate and that it was somehow in America’s “interests” to be seen as having supported his enemies on the left or otherwise the Soviets would somehow “take credit” for the March of History (?) …or is it rather that, as in all other cases discussed, their primary targets were in fact not communists, but their enemies on the right, whether Monarchists, “Fascists,” traditionalists, “European colonialists," etc.? These they opposed not out of any far-seeing pragmatic realpolitik motives, but because they had an emotional and ideological aversion to them that they shared with the Soviets.

In 1951-2 the Mau-Mau rebellion started against the English in Kenya. Obama has held a lifelong hatred of the English for their supposed treatment of his family during this time, but it was the Mau Mau committing at the time cartoonish and lurid tortures against any English they could find as well as against their black allies. The murders were so lurid in fact that any direct American aid to the Mau-Mau and Kikuyus during this time was likely out of the question. Nevertheless, the International Rescue Committee did what it could: it provided a medical “scholarship” to one Mungai Njoroge. Njoroge was sent to Stanford University medical school in 1952 “and sent back to Kenya in 1958 with International Rescue Committee backing of $30,000 per year for supplies and staff wages, and a promise of $100,000 for the construction of hospitals and village clinics, absolute necessities for guerrilla forces without a mobile medical corps. As mentioned in previous reports, America’s present Chief of Protocol, Mr. Angier Biddle Duke, was then head of International Rescue Committee and American Friends of Vietnam (the Diem family lobby.)” In 1965 this same Njoroge, IRC protege, was Kenya’s pro-Soviet defense minister.

What I’ve written here is an introduction only, and doesn’t cover fully the extent of America’s activities in subsaharan Africa from 1950-70 and beyond in favor of the “international left” and in practice most often for the benefit of the Soviet Union and China. The results: in Guinea, Congo-Brazzaville, Ghana, Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania etc., Red and Red-aligned regimes ended up in power, often with direct American aid. The American aid was against not only Europe, but also against pro-Western African leaders, most vicious and persistent in the case of Moise Tshombe, the leader of the secessionist state of Katanga during the Congo Crisis of 1960-65, which I will cover in the next installment of this series. I haven’t touched either on the role of other NGO’s like the World Council of Churches which had funded and publicly stomped for African tyrants from their first day, including men like N’Krumah of Ghana, later Sekou Toure of Guinea, and their successors, when it was obvious they was both pro-Soviet and heads of murderous regimes. Nor have I at all touched in this article on the problems of Rhodesia and South Africa, which have to be left for another time. That by the end of Apartheid the heads of the ANC like Chris Hani had all been educated in Moscow and spoke fluent Russian, and that now China is gaining influence in these same countries and spearheading the call for massacres of whites is relevant to judging whether America’s and the CIA’s support for the “noncommunist left" was as wise and far-seeing as some claim. (In the late 1970’s South Africa’s foreign minister sent a private communique that South Africa had more to fear from America than from the Soviet Union).

Some factions in the American government seem now to be veering in favor of men like Erik Prince and for the resurrection of some version of Executive Outcomes. This was a private military contractor that managed to stop bloody wars in Africa in the 1990’s when no one else could. They operated under mercenaries like Eeben Barlow and Simon Mann, formerly maligned by American officials and press, just as legendary soldiers Denard, Schramm, Hoare and others had been in the 1960’s when they fought on behalf of civilization in Africa. Executive Outcomes was disbanded some time ago under UN pressure for the unpardonable sin of being white mercenaries stopping African carnage in Sierra Leone and Liberia. I’m not sure if this effort to bring back these companies or similar will succeed, or how serious any of this is at all. It may be that this is a last-ditch effort by some in the American security establishment to correct the United States’ decades-long disastrous Africa policies, which have now left that continent entirely prey to Chinese and Russian initiatives (I’m sorry to tell online Dissidents that Russian and Chinese “influence” in Africa means and has always meant massacre and expulsion of the European whites living there and support for the most cartoonishly murderous Afromarxist governments; but, as you can see, America was also more often than not a partner in that effort).

3. The French Congo, Abbé Fulbert Youlou, and a Cinematic Episode

In neighboring French Congo, today Congo-Brazzaville, a certain Abbé Fulbert Youlou was ruling the newly independent nation from 1960-63. He was a reasonable, Christian and pro-civilization Western-aligned leader. He was friendly to neighboring African leader Moise Tshombe of the secessionist state Katanga, which was also anti-communist and aligned with the West. SDECE, the French external intelligence agency was, against the wishes of much of the rest of the French government, aligned with Katanga and sent them weapons through Youlou—other parts of the French government, like the foreign ministry under Maurice Couve de Murville were not, and tried to stop this. Youlou was overthrown in 1963 by a “labor uprising” conducted by three labor unions—two based in Prague (the world center of Red-aligned labor unions), and one American-funded ICFTU union. The riots and disturbances started right after G. Mennen Williams, libtard Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under JFK visited French Congo in 1963. The government of Youlou was thereafter replaced with a socialist Red-aligned government.

In judging this event, consider again that the ICFTU “union’s” supposed very reason for existing under the brilliant CIA “support for noncommunist left” strategy was precisely to prevent such things from happening and to “support democracy” instead of the installation of anti-Western pro-Red regimes. Yet here it worked together with the two communist unions to achieve just that. Remember also that in French Congo, unlike in neighboring Belgian Congo, and like in the whole of the rest of Africa, there was no industry whatsoever. It's not correct therefore to call these organizations here or elsewhere in Africa “labor unions.” These were more like foreign-funded political agitation clubs. (The pretense of “labor union” has more recently been dropped with American funding instead now to “democracy promotion” and “civil society” groups in various countries it targets for similar destabilization.)

The downfall of Youlou in Congo-Brazzaville is as clear a case as you can get of what American interference in Africa during this time typically looks like. Internal French records indicate that Jacques Foccart, de Gaulle’s Secretary General for Africa “Mr. Africa” was out on a fishing trip during the days of Youlou’s downfall:

https://amphora.substack.com/p/8adf368f-9bac-467e-a50a-7b76c9f0142c

Foccart insisted that had he been consulted, he would have advised de Gaulle to order French soldiers to fire in the air. The crowds would have dispersed; but as he was not there to advise, the French ambassador on site lied to de Gaulle telling him they would have had to kill thousands to put down the uprising. Whether Foccart was right or not in thinking this, these internal remarks and letters show how much of history hinges on stupid, small accidents and personal quirks. Foccart’s fishing trip affected the lives of millions in Africa who became prey to Soviet-supported terror.

The case of French Congo includes a detail worthy of the most cinematic spy thriller, and it’s worth it to go on a tangent for a moment to discuss Youlou’s French advisor prior to the fall of this country to the Reds. Actually many of the stories I’m talking about here have such colorful details, and are all worthy each of its own exciting movie. French Congo leader Abbé Youlou’s main confidant was one Charles Delarue. Delarue was a French policeman who from 1947-1954 had covertly led Section 7 of the French police, a secret division tasked with pursuing Communist infiltration in French society and institutions. Delarue was during this period a fugitive himself: he was (falsely) accused of being a collaborator in World War 2. French authorities were divided on the matter, and he was apparently offered a pardon if he would turn himself in. Not believing he would get fair treatment, he preferred to remain on the run. Nevertheless he stayed in France covertly with the help of part of the French establishment. The fact that all these governments were divided throughout this period, including the American government, and that there was no unitary coordination to any of the events I'm talking about is important to impress on the reader. All theories of unitary and hegemonic coordination of historical events are a result of pleb paranoia, which absolutely can't tolerate the possibility of factions disagreeing and having their own historical agency: this would hurt one's ego more than the image of omnipotent evil directing all outcomes, demons in your iPhone, etc.

Section 7 of the French police was exposed in 1954 in a scandal and dissolved under French communist and socialist pressure, following which Charles Delarue escaped to Africa. There he became Fulbert Youlou’s confidant and advisor in the French Congo: upon independence in 1960, former French Congo, now the Republic of the Congo (or Congo-Brazzaville) remained Western-aligned, and refused communist infiltration as much as was possible. In 1963 after Youlou’s fall as a result of American- and Soviet-funded agitation, Delarue returned to France where he became the point man for French reactionary Catholics seeking to counter Communist subversion of Europe’s churches. He was tasked with uncovering the network of an organization called PAX, centered in Poland, headed by Vasily Gorelov, a former Czarist priest turned communist agent and now a colonel in the Soviet ministry of internal affairs (MVD). Gorelov was in charge of a vast Soviet effort to infiltrate Hinduism, Islam, Judaism worldwide, and especially Catholicism in Europe by training and recruiting clerics, missionaries, and propagandizing the meaning of Christianity by modulating it in favor of liberation theology and Christian Marxism, currently the theology of most present-day churches. This organization, called PAX in Europe, was now the target of French Catholic reactionaries. Their man Delarue was in charge of the investigation. In 1964 in the space of six weeks, Delarue as well his associates in this task, Emil Bougere, an ex-communist turned anti-Soviet in 1933 and an old comrade of Delarue’s in Section 7, and Robert Fenoy, a young seminarist alarmed at communist infiltration of the French priesthood, were all assassinated. Delarue was killed the night before his departure to Brazil to aid in similar efforts in that country. He was assassinated in the basement of a Paris bar where he was celebrating his good-bye party. The French press and government did not investigate or publicize these assassinations. The Catholic network Delarue worked for concluded the assassinations had been carried out by Polish counter-intelligence.

4. The Soviets lost the Cold War, America did not Win

Whenever I tell older smug conservatives or liberals about America’s actual policies during the Cold War they inevitably end up scoffing that the United States “won” the Cold War—so why does it matter, anyway? An analogy is helpful here. Edward Luttwak is fond of pointing out the CIA’s general incompetence in human intelligence: during the Cold War in the 1980’s you could walk into the CIA headquarters and see a big detailed satellite image of Moscow on the wall. The implication was that the CIA knew what was going on in Moscow, in minute detail, that it had its eyes on all things. This was disingenuous, and a lie. The reality was very different: the CIA missed the fall of the Soviet Union, predicting it would go on for decades, and its day-to-day intelligence reports about the Soviet Union in the 1980’s were often completely wrong. In recent years it’s become clear that the CIA in fact had no sources of actual intelligence in Russia, but that the people it believed were its men in Moscow were actually double agents working for the Soviets. Conversely, after James Jesus Angleton was forced to leave the CIA, that agency became penetrated and fucked in a hundred directions just as he predicted it would be. Aldrich Ames, wholesome chungus Catholic convert and Opus Dei member is just one of the more publicized examples, but the entire organization became a useless sieve into the 1970’s and 80’s. So here too a disingenuous reply can be: “the CIA won because the United States won the Cold War,” but that’s a palpable falsehood.

The United States didn’t win the conflict, the Soviet Union lost it. The Soviet Union lost the war despite actually winning handily the intelligence battle and the struggle for the Third World—it lost because of the internal contradictions of Marxist-Leninism. Late stage Marxism and its self-dissolution was the result of such a misunderstanding of human nature that a state embracing its principles can have supremacy and victory in espionage, intelligence and even supremacy or parity in military technology and material, but still lose the civilizational conflict by collapsing in on itself.

In this same way, it was possible for the Soviets to lose, despite in fact winning the struggle in Africa and elsewhere. But the terrible effects of American support for the “noncommunist left” persist to our time and explain much of the mess in which America, the Anglosphere, and Western Europe find themselves. This policy of supporting the worldwide left required of America also a self-transformation. This transformation included a process of “anticolonialism" at home in the form of the Civil Rights Act. More fundamentally this transformation mandated a posture that condemned white straight males as avatars of Exploitative Hegemony that had to be combatted as much as European colonialism abroad. This had arguably worse long-term effects on both America and its Western allies than a Soviet victory or sweep of Africa or parts of Asia would have had—which, again, is what happened anyway. Susan Sontag or Simone de Beauvoir (or some equivalent—it’s so easy to mix such specimens up, they’re interchangeable AI tools) remarking that seeing French soldiers in Algeria in the 1950’s reminded her of Nazi SS officers is typical. This fraudulent moralistic mythology of rot…the moral carcass of fake empathy out of which these images and tropes emanated is the actual Base of the entire Superstructure of the modern left and all its works.

The next and final installment of this series will cover the case of the Belgian Congo, Lumumba, and Tshombe, the Congo Crisis from 1960-66

As in this entire series I am indebted to Hilaire du Berrier’s commentary especially in his newsletter 1957-2002, and whatever quotations I have used here without links or citations are from his work: https://sorenbh.dk/page22.html