joe mccarthy’s real enemies - the occidental quarterlyinfluential anti -soviet leftists, whom the...

Joe McCarthy’s Real Enemies

K. R. Bolton ________________________

“I think the Communist conspiracy is merely a branch of a much bigger conspiracy.” Bella Dodd1

Joseph Raymond McCarthy, Senator from Wisconsin, is now re-membered mostly as an uncouth bully who recklessly destroyed the lives of decent people in the pursuit of his political career. The very term “McCarthyism” refers to a modern-day witch-hunt, and is a label held in as much contempt as the designation “Quisling.” The so-called “McCarthy era” is painted as the blackest period of American history, and anyone who raises a voice against anything of a Left-wing nature continues to be branded as a “McCarthyite” and is himself quickly condemned to disgrace and ruin.

Yet recent declassified files have started to show that McCarthy was correct in his supposedly “reckless” and “fraudulent” accusa-tions. This essay is not however primarily concerned with reassessing McCarthy’s accusations as with whether McCarthy was coming too close to other forces which set the course for his destruction.

Indicative of the ongoing reassessment of McCarthy even in res-pectable quarters, a recent BBC Radio 4 programme is described by Radio Times as follows:

David Aaronovitch thinks the unthinkable about the McCarthy period.

The hunt for the so-called “Reds under the beds” during the Cold War is generally regarded as a deeply regrettable blot on U.S. history. But the release of classified documents reveals that Joseph McCarthy was right after all about the extent of Soviet in-filtration into the highest reaches of the U.S. government.

1 Bella Dodd was a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party

USA, leaving the party in 1948. Comment to W. Cleon Skousen, former FBI special agent and Police Chief of Salt Lake City. W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Capitalist (Salt Lake City, UT: Ensign, 1970), 1.

The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 4, Winter 2010–2011

76

Thanks to the public release of top secret FBI decryptions of So-viet communications, as well as the release under the fifty-year rule of FBI records and Soviet archives, we now know that the Communist spying McCarthy fought against was extensive, reaching to the highest level of the State department and the White House. We reveal that many of McCarthy's anticommunist investiga-tions were in fact on target. His fears about the effect Soviet infil-tration might be having on US foreign policy, particularly in the Far East were also well founded. The decrypts also reveal that people such as [Julius] Rosenberg, Alger Hiss and even Robert Oppenheimer were indeed working with the Soviets. We explore why much of this information, available for years to the FBI, was not made public. We also ex-amine how its suppression prevented the prosecution of sus-pects. Hearing from former FBI, CIA and KGB operatives as well as formerly blacklisted writers, David Aaronovitch, himself from a family of communists tells the untold story of Soviet influence and espionage in the United States.2

McCarthy began his investigations against Communist infiltration when on February 9, 1950, he spoke before a Republican Women’s Club in Wheeling, West Virginia, at which he said that there were at least 57 known Communists in the U.S. State Department, and that the State Department knew it.3

It has been the common charge that McCarthy launched his anti-communist campaign for no other reason than to serve his own politi-cal career by whipping up hysteria. Yet other facts show him to have been a man of principle regardless of his career: In 1949 McCarthy had taken up the cause of German POWs held for allegedly gunning down

2 “McCarthy: There Were Reds Under the Bed.” BBC Radio 4, aired July 25, and

August 9 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t7hhf 3 Scott Speidel, Florida State University, “The Destruction of Joe McCarthy, Part

1.” http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009/07/the-destruction-of-joe-mccarthy/

http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/2009/07/the-destruction-of-joe-mccarthy/

Bolton, “Joe McCarthy’s Real Enemies”

77

American prisoners during the so-called Malmedy Massacre. McCar-thy exposed the fact that the Germans had had their POW status re-voked so that the Geneva Convention did not protect them, and that they were being tortured to extract confessions. Obviously this was not the type of cause that was designed to win friends. This had in-deed already resulted in McCarthy being condemned by the news media.4

It was the Senate that insisted that McCarthy make his list of 57 names of subversives public, although he did not himself think it proper, yet it is McCarthy who has since been damned as the man who destroyed the innocent by public inquisitions.

5

McCarthy’s elimination had been guaranteed, not because he was going after Soviet spies and subversives, but because he was getting too close to the centers of financial and political power.

CENSURE

The deathblow to McCarthy’s campaign was instigated not by some Party hack at the Daily Worker, but by Sen. Ralph E. Flanders who introduced the resolution for Senate censure of McCarthy. This was backed by Sen. Herbert Lehman, son of Mayer Lehman, founder of Lehman Brothers international investment bank, of which Herbert became a partner.

In its introduction to its collection of the Lehman Papers, Columbia University describes the august Senator Lehman as follows:

Having served as Governor of New York State between 1933 and 1942, in 1949, at the age of 71 Lehman was elected United States Senator to fill the unexpired term of Robert F. Wagner, Sr. Re-elected for a full term in 1950, Senator Lehman gave six years of distinguished service to the people of his state and nation. His courage, moral integrity and unfaltering dedication soon made Senator Lehman one of Washington’s most respected sena-tors; just as they had won him affection and honor in New York6

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid. McCarthy was never permitted to make full disclosure of his evidence. That he referred to three separate lists of subversives was distorted by the media and portrayed as inconsistency on McCarthy’s part.

6 Considering Lehman’s New York constituency, he would have gained its es-teem regardless.


78

and on the world scene. He became known as “the conscience of the Senate” as he led those who stood for liberal principles and for the rights of accused individuals in the early 1950s when Senator McCarthy’s influence was at its peak. Utterly fearless and disdainful for his own political fortunes, he fought, at times almost alone, against tremendous opposition.7

Stating that Lehman stood fearless and “at times almost alone” is nonsense. It was McCarthy who stood fearless and alone, while Leh-man had the full weight of the US Administration up to the presiden-cy, the Washington and Wall Street elites, and the most influential of the news media.

Columbia University describes the battle between Lehman and McCarthy as “bitter.” According to Lehman’s biographer, Allen Ne-vins, on at least one occasion senatorial colleagues feared that the ver-bal combat between Lehman and McCarthy would lead to blows on the floor of the Senate.8

Lehman, like the Warburgs and the Schiffs, et al., intermarried within the exclusive world of Jewish banking dynasties, marrying Edith Louise Altschul, the daughter of the head of the New York branch of Lazard Freres, the Paris-based banking house. He was awarded the Presiden-tial Medal of Freedom in 1963 for his campaign against Sen. McCar-thy,9 but died on December 5 as he was about to go to the White House to receive his reward. Another anti-McCarthy figure, cartoonist Herbert Block, discussed below, was awarded the same honor by President Clinton in 1994.

7 Columbia University Libraries, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, “Materials

for the Study of McCarthyism at the Herbert H. Lehman Suite and Papers,” http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/rbml/units/lehman/guides/mccarthyism.html

Sen. Flanders also had an interesting background, not as some “progres-sive” or liberal Democrat, but as a Republican, an industrialist and a banker. Under the guise of being an anti-communist, Flanders stated that McCarthy was misdirecting efforts against communism by looking inward, at subversion in the USA, whereas the fight must be directed outward against Soviet expan-

8 Allan Nevins, Herbert H. Lehman and His Era (New York: Scribner, 1963). 9 “Herbert Henry Lehman,” Jewish Virtual Library. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:kt24GqyEyfYJ:www.jewishvirtuallibrary.

org/jsource/biography/lehman.html


79

sion.10 This line fitted entirely with that of the US Establishment: Ever since Sta-lin foiled the US attempt to create a “new world order” immediately after World War II via the United Nations and the “Baruch Plan” for the internatio-nalization of atomic energy — both measures which, in the opinion of the So-viets, would have assured US global hegemony, the wartime US-Soviet accord had been replaced by a Cold War.11 The US Establishment sought to recruit influential anti-Soviet Leftists, whom the CIA depicted as “anti-communists.” This ideological offensive was undertaken by the CIA, with backing from wealthy and influential elites, in particular the Rockefellers, primarily under the banner of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, led by pro-Trotsky “Men-shevik” intellectual Prof. Sidney Hook, another recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.12

McCarthy’s most dangerous enemies were, in this writer’s opinion, not the Soviet spies and American Communist Party functionaries he was exposing, but those whom he had not even yet targeted, the power elite and their agents.

Flanders had been president of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank for two years prior to being elected Senator for Vermont. In 1942 he was appointed to the Committee for Economic Development, which was established to formu-late US post-war economic policy, including the role of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. 13

When Flanders introduced his resolution of censure against McCarthy, Time reported:

From outside the Senate, Flanders won the support of a group of 23 top businessmen, labor leaders and educators, e.g., Publisher John Cowles (Des Moines Register & Tribune), Movie Producer Samuel Goldwyn, Financier Lewis W. Douglas (chairman, Mu-tual Life of New York). They wired every U.S. Senator (except McCarthy himself) urging a favorable vote “to curb the flagrant abuse of power by Senator McCarthy.”14

10 Ralph E. Flanders, “Activities of Senator McCarthy—The World Crisis.” Con-

gressional Record—Proceedings and Debates of the 83rd Congress, Second Session (Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office), March 9, 1954.

11 K. R. Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War: How Stalin Foiled a ‘New World Or-der,’ Relevance for the Present,” Foreign Policy Journal, June 1, 2010,

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/ 12 Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts

and Letters (New York: The New Press, 2000). 13 Ralph E Flanders, Senator from Vermont (Boston: Little, Brown, 1961), 179-180. 14 Time, National Affairs: “The Dispensable Man,” August 2, 1954.


80

Note the line-up against McCarthy was that of the Left combined with big business and capital, precisely the nexus that any student of the inner workings of history and politics would expect. Flanders’ resolution read:

Resolved, that the conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin ... is unbecoming a member of the United States Senate, is contrary to senatorial traditions, and tends to bring the Senate into disre-pute, and such conduct is hereby condemned. Keep in mind at this stage that both Flanders and Lehman15 were

members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which CFR official his-torian Peter Grosse described as “the US foreign policy establish-ment.”16

Other CFR study group members included Lauchlin Currie

Flanders had been involved in a CFR study committee on post-war US foreign policy set up in 1940. Flanders was also a mem-ber of the Business Advisory Council, another association of signific-ance that will be considered shortly.

17 and Benjamin V. Cohen, both from the US State Department, Asia expert Prof. Owen Lattimore,18 and economist Leo Pasvolsky, special assis-tant for post-war planning to the US Secretary of State.19

This CFR connection is a primary key to understanding McCarthy’s political destruction, as will be considered below.

All of these CFR advisers were to come to the attention of Sen. McCarthy’s inves-tigations into subversion.

When a Senate committee voted for censure, Time magazine en-thused that the Senate had regained the “dignity” intended by the Founding Fathers:

15 Peter Gross, Continuing the Inquiry, “Basic Assumptions.” (New York: Council

on Foreign Relations. 2006). http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/assumptions.html 16 Ibid. 17 Joseph R McCarthy, America’s Retreat from Victory: The Story of George Catlett

Marshall (Boston: Western Islands, 1965), 57. Originally published by Devin-Adair, 1951. This book by McCarthy on how China was delivered to Mao via the USA is an example of how McCarthy’s arguments were meticulously documented.

18 Laurence H Shoup and William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on For-eign Relations and the United States Foreign Policy (Lincoln, NE: Authors Choice Press, 1977), 120-121.

19 Ibid., 124.

http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/assumptions.html


81

When the constitutional foundation of the U.S. Senate was built in 1787, the builders believed they were constructing a citadel of deliberation and dignity. Said James Madison: "The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular branch." One hundred and sixty-seven years later, when the floodlights blazed on the Army-McCarthy hearings, wisdom, system and coolness seemed to have vanished in the glare. But this week, out of a tidy office on the fourth floor of the Senate Office Build-ing, came a ringing reassertion of the U.S. Senate's dignity. A Select Committee of the Senate recommended the censure of Wisconsin's Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, and thereby erected a new landmark in U.S. government. The report was carefully constructed by six shirtsleeved men in the office of Utah's Sena-tor Arthur Vivian Watkins, a man little known in the past who should be long remembered in the future. Unanimously, firmly, unequivocally.20

Of course Time presented the Watkins committee as consisting of the heroic and the fearless, rather than as typical careerists who had the backing of most of the Senate up to the presidency, and what can generically be called the “US Establishment.” It is notable that of the dozens of counts that were originally levelled against McCarthy, after much deliberation the stalwart six found only two counts they felt confident they could make stick: McCarthy’s reaction to an investiga-tion on electioneering in 1951–52, which comprised an allegation sub-sequently found to be without merit; and McCarthy’s “inexcusable” and “reprehensible” manner before Brig. Gen. Ralph Zwicker at the McCarthy-Army hearing into communist influence in the military. The Watkins’ committee based its censure of McCarthy’s on his robust reaction to the attempted 1951 impugning of his character (even then) in regard to an investigation of funding. He reacted by characterizing the investigation itself as dishonest, and he described one senator, Ro-bert C. Hendrickson (R–New Jersey), as having “neither guts nor brains.” The Watkins’ committee sought to censure McCarthy because in 1952 he had impugned a senator’s character, which surely amounts to arrant humbug and hypocrisy on the part of the committee and all

20 “The Censure of Joe McCarthy,” Time (October 4, 1954).


82

who voted for the censure of McCarthy considering the years of abuse he had ensured.

The Times reporting on the second count (regarding McCarthy’s questioning of Brig. Gen. Zwicker) states that the Watkins’ committee condemned McCarthy for having stated to Zwicker that he was not fit to wear a uniform, and should be removed from command. The con-troversy concerned McCarthy’s investigation of the circumstances around the promotion of Maj. Irving Peress and his honourable dis-charge, even though he had refused to sign loyalty forms. Zwicker had refused to answer McCarthy’s questions on the matter, and McCarthy responded by not having the deference towards the Gener-al which was apparently expected of him. In condemning McCarthy’s attitude, the Watkins committee stated that McCarthy knew that Zwicker had been “ordered by a higher authority” to issue the honor-able discharge, which one might conjecture was the real problem: McCarthy’s having gotten too close to “higher authorities.”

Yet Time reported on the antics of Sen. Flanders in its analysis of the Watkins committee deliberations as being completely fair and charita-ble towards McCarthy, saying of Flanders:

Careful Reasoning. When it [the Watkins committee] considered the charge that McCarthy had unfairly attacked Vermont's Sena-tor Flanders, the committee made another careful distinction. McCarthy's comment on Flanders had been brutal; “I think they should get a man with a net and take him to a good, quiet place.” But this was an attack on an individual senator, because he had made “provocative speeches” about McCarthy on the Se-nate floor and had marched into a televised session of the Army-McCarthy hearings to serve notice that he was about to make another one. It was not an attack on a Senator for an official ac-tion he had taken as a member of a committee, as in the Hen-drickson case. While McCarthy's remarks were “highly impro-per,” the committee ruled that the circumstances did not justify a recommendation for censure.21

Time, presumably unwittingly, depicts the atmosphere surrounding the “McCarthy era” and the picture emerges that it was McCarthy who was subjected to the abuse and theatrics of the type his detractors

21 Ibid.


83

have continued to project onto him down to the present. One wonders whether the supposed “charity” the Watkins committee was bestow-ing upon McCarthy was in fact motivated by the flimsiness of their own position. Why hadn’t Flanders been censured for what the Watkins committee itself conceded was Flanders’ “provocative speeches” against McCarthy in the Senate? Why wasn’t Flanders cen-sured for his attempts to disrupt the hearings of McCarthy’s investiga-tions? Double-standards were being applied against McCarthy, the hypocrisy of which is compounded by the double-standards being called “charitable.”

As events transpired, soon after the Time report, the Watkin’s committee censure dropped the count of McCarthy’s having been dis-respectful to Zwicker, since there was contention as to Zwicker’s own attitude towards McCarthy.22

SOVIET AGENTS OR SCIONS OF THE SYSTEM? The primary contention of this article is that the individuals and as-

sociations that McCarthy was going after were not Soviet agents so much as Establishment scions. Hence when McCarthy attacked US policy in China as favouring the Maoists,23 it was assumed that the interests being served were those of the USSR. It has more recently been confirmed that McCarthy was correct in pointing the finger at Far Eastern advisers such as Prof. Owen Lattimore and others of the Institute on Pacific Relations. However the policy that was being pur-sued was on behalf of the American plutocratic cabal, while Stalin did his best to resist a communist takeover and indeed backed Chiang right up until the General’s final defeat.24

22 Medford Evans, The [Political] Assassination of Joe McCarthy (Boston: Western

Island, 1970), 243.

Instead the Watkin’s com-mittee substituted as the second count that McCarthy had been dis-respectful to their own committee! Of the dozens of original counts the Senators’ sought to use on the Senate Floor to censure McCarthy, they were only left with one original count — that McCarthy several years previously had refused to co-operate with the Gillette commit-tee investigating financial irregularities. The investigation of McCar-thy had been in reaction to the Senator’s condemnation of Secretary of State George C Marshall for his having supported the recall of Gen.

23 McCarthy, America’s Retreat From Victory. 24 Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: The Unknown Story (London: Jonathan

Cape, 1970), 304–311.


84

Douglas McArthur who had wanted to press for victory in Korea. Sen. William Benton (D., Conn.), instigated the creation of the Gillette Sub-committee on Privileges to enquire as to why McCarthy had not coo-perated with the Tydings committee into finances. The committee was ineffectual in its efforts to get McCarthy.

What did McCarthy in was his getting too close to the real power centers of the USA. The eminent American historian Prof. Carroll Quigley of Harvard, acknowledged by President Clinton as his aca-demic mentor, wrote of an international “network” controlled by in-ternational bankers, which seeks to establish a system of world politi-cal and economic control. Quigley was primarily referring the Council on Foreign Relations and its offshoots, and claimed inside knowledge, having been permitted in the 1960s to examine its papers and records.25 Although Quigley only writes of this “network” in a scant dozen or so pages in his more than 1300 page magnum opus Tragedy and Hope, which he used as a text for his Harvard courses, this was sufficient to suddenly bring Quigley’s long and distinguished career to an abrupt halt, despite his impeccable credentials and an Estab-lishment liberal-internationalist.26

Quigley does however provide much clarity on the origins of the real power that McCarthy and others were up against in supposing that they were simply fighting Communism and Soviet espionage. Quigley explained: “It is this power structure which the Radical Right in the US has been attacking for years in the belief that they were at-tacking the Communists.”

It must be recognized that the power that these energetic Left-wingers ex-ercised was never their own power nor communist power but ulti-mately the power of the international financial coteries, and once the anger and suspicions of the American people were aroused, as they were by 1950, it was a fairly simple matter to get rid of the Red sympa-thisers. Before this could be done, however, a congressional committee fol-lowed backward to their sources the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whitaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of tax exempt

25 Carroll Quigley, Tragedy & Hope (New York: MacMillan Company, 1966), 950. 26 Robert Eringer, The Global Manipulators (Bristol: Pentacle Books, 1980), 9.

Comments by Quigley to Eringer.


85

foundations. The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations .... It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be un-happy if the investigation went too far and that the “most res-pected” newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not be excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worthwhile, in terms of votes or campaign contributions.27

(emphasis added)

One such example of the power of the “international financial cote-ries” mistaken as communist influence, was the aforementioned Insti-tute of Pacific Relations (IPR), which was held responsible for pushing China toward communism by a 1951 Subcommittee on Internal Secu-rity under Sen. Pat McCarran. Quigley commented on this: “The in-fluence of the communists in IPR is well established, but the patro-nage of Wall Street is less well known.”28

He goes on to state that the financial backing for the IPR came from Rockefeller and J P Moragn interests, from Standard Oil, ITT, International General Electric, Na-tional City Bank, Chase Manhattan Bank, etc.

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

Much of the influence of the “network” referred to by Quigley on US Ad-ministrations is exercised by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), estab-lished in 1921 by President Wilson’s chief adviser Edward Mandel House out of a previous think tank called The Inquiry, formed in 1917–1918 to advise Pres. Wilson on the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and another group of bankers and academics that had already been named the Council on Foreign Relations. CFR historian Grosse writes of the CFR in regard to the “McCarthy era”:

Concerns that seemed more pressing bore down at the turn of the 1950s. The nation was in danger of succumbing to a red-baiting frenzy, marked by the rise into the headlines of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Not surprisingly, the Council’s member-ship seemed solidly united in contempt for the Wisconsin dema-gogue; under his provocative rhetoric, after all, was a thinly veiled attack on the entire East Coast foreign policy establish-

27 Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, 954–955. 28 Ibid., 946.


86

ment, whose members gathered regularly in the closed confe-rence rooms of the Harold Pratt House.29

Here Grosse is saying in an official CFR history that:

1.

The entire “network” was “solidly united against” McCarthy in what he saw as nothing other than a fight against communism and Soviet influence;

2.

That what McCarthy thought was communism and Soviet infiltration was actually the “entire East Coast foreign policy establishment” cen-tred on the CFR.

While a large proportion of the subversives McCarthy was turning the na-tion’s attention to were CFR members such as Owen Lattimore, Lauchlin Cur-rie, et al., there were three individuals in particular who were too well-connected to the US Establishment for McCarthy to be allowed to continue. He was unwittingly too close to the centre of the US power structure. These indi-viduals were Cord Meyer, John J. McCloy and Robert T. Stevens.

Robert T. Stevens was Secretary of the Army at a time when McCarthy was involved in his final campaign before he was silenced — an investigation into communist activities in the military. Stevens of J. P. Stevens & Co., Charles E. Wilson of General Motors as Secre-tary of Defense, and George M. Humphrey of M. A. Hanna Co., as Treasury Secretary had been elevated to these posts after a meeting between Pres. Eisenhower, international banker Sidney Weinberg, and Gen. Lucius Clay. Those involved were members of the Business Ad-visory Council (BAC), Weinberg and Clay being on the executive committee.

The BAC had been formed in 1933 to advise Pres. Roosevelt on business matters, just as the CFR advised on foreign policy. The BAC was the brainchild of Sidney Weinberg of Goldman, Sachs & Co., who recruited most of the key members.30

29 Peter Grosse, Continuing the Inquiry, “X Leads the Way.”

In September 1960 Harper’s Magazine published an expose of the

http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/x_leads.html 30 Dan Smoot, The Invisible Government (Dallas: The Dan Smoot Report, 1964), 81.

Smoot, a former Harvard professor joined the FBI as a special agent. His book is one of the first exposing the CFR, and is meticulously researched.

http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/x_leads.html


87

BAC, which it described as “America’s most powerful private club.”31

The ar-ticle includes some pertinent insights into the forces that destroyed McCarthy:

The Business Advisory Council meets regularly with govern-ment officials six times a year.... On two of these six occasions …. the BAC convenes its sessions at plush resorts, and with a half-dozen or more important Washington officials and their wives as its guests, it indulges in a three-day ‘work and play’ meeting.... The guest list is always impressive: on occasion, there have been more Cabinet officers at a ... BAC meeting than were left in the Capital. After the 1952 election, the BAC was having its fall ‘work and play’ meeting at the Cloister, just off the Georgia coast and a short distance from Augusta, where Ike [President Eisenhower] was alternating golf with planning his first-term Cabinet. [Sid-ney] Weinberg and [General Lucius D.] Clay [members of the BAC executive committee] hustled to Augusta, conferred with Ike [a “close, intimate, personal friend” of both men].... The result was historic: Ike tapped three of the BAC leaders ... for his Cabinet. They were Charles E. Wilson of General Motors as Defense Secretary; [George M.] Humphrey, then boss of the M. A. Hanna Co., as Treasury Secretary; and Robert T. Stevens of the J. P. Stevens & Co., as Army Secretary.... The BAC, powerful in its composition and with an inside track, is thus a special force. An intimation of its influence can be gleaned from its role in the McCarthy case.... BAC helped push Senator Joe McCarthy over the brink in 1954, by supplying a bit of backbone to the Eisenhower Administration at the right time. McCarthy’s chief target in the Army-McCarthy hearings was the aforementioned Robert T. Stevens — a big wheel in the BAC who had become Secretary of the Army. The BAC didn't pay

31 Hobart Rowan, “America’s Most Powerful Private Club: How a semi-social or-

ganization of the very biggest businessmen — discretely shielded from public scru-tiny — is ‘advising’ the government on its top policy decisions,” Harper’s Magazine (September 1960, 79–84).


88

much — if any — attention to Joe McCarthy as a social menace until he started to pick on Bob Stevens. Then, they burned up. During the May 1954 meeting at the Homestead [expensive resort hotel in Hot Springs, Virginia, where the BAC often holds its 'work and play' sessions with high government officials and their wives], Stevens flew down from Washington for a weekend reprieve from his televised torture. A special delegation of BAC officials made it a point to journey from the hotel to the moun-taintop airport to greet Stevens. He was escorted into the lobby like a conquering hero. Then, publicly, one member of the BAC after another roasted the Eisenhower Administration for its McCarthy-appeasement policy. The BAC’s attitude gave the Administration some courage, and shortly thereafter Senator Ralph Flanders (a Republican and BAC member) introduced a Senate resolution calling for censure. The Business Advisory Council continues to exist under the name

of The Business Council.32 The BAC/BC seems even more enigmatic and secretive than the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers, Trilateralists, et al. Apart from the Harper’s 1960 report and Dan Smoot’s section on the BAC in his 1964 book on the CFR, the BAC/BC is a name that seems to have been seldom mentioned despite its im-mense influence considering that it had been founded in 1933 for the specific purpose of advising government on policy and being attached as advisers to the Department of Commerce.33

Some interesting in-formation however can be gleaned from its website.

The Council's first major assignment was to form the Industrial Advisory Board for the National Recovery Administration, to advise and assist in resolving pressing problems of the nation's recovery from the Great Depression. Simultaneously, the Coun-cil established a number of committees to address such issues as the Securities and Exchange Act, the Banking Act and the Social Security Act.

32 The Business Council, “Background.” http://www.thebusinesscouncil.org/about/background.aspx 33 Ibid.


89

Council members worked closely with public officials responsi-ble for those milestone policy enactments to help resolve the challenges of implementing the new laws. Another field in which the Council became active was labor relations, providing insights on policy and administrative issues.34

Its role is obviously similar to that of the CFR, and there has always been a large overlap of membership between the two bodies.35 In 1961 the BAC was renamed The Business Council with the intention of broadening the scope of the council to encompass all departments of the Administration and not just the Department of Commerce, a deci-sion that the council states was welcomed by President Kennedy.36

The council is quite open about the nature of its influence, again simi-lar to that of the CFR and Trilateralists:

Since its formation, the Council has been called upon by Presi-dents in turn for counsel and advice. The Council has also served regularly as a de facto reservoir of experienced talent to assist an administration in carrying out its public mandate. During the critical years of the Second World War, for example, more than 50 Council members were called into government service to as-sist in meeting the tremendous challenges facing the nation. Subsequent years have seen many Council members leave pri-vate life to serve in critical positions within government at the request of Presidents from both parties. Today, as it has for many years, the Council numbers among its members many business leaders who are serving in various roles as public ser-vants. And from its membership the Council has provided expe-rienced business leaders as voluntary leaders for a variety of special panels and commissions that help develop policy for the federal government. Its closed, elitist nature is also stated, having a limit as to numbers

and on recommendation in regard to influence, in this respect being reminiscent of the original structure of the CFR:

34 Ibid. 35 Smoot, The Invisible Government. 36 The Business Council, “Background.”


90

The Business Council limits itself to 150 active members, each of whom is selected on the basis of personal qualities and position as the chief executive officer of a leading private sector business from commerce and industry. The Council seeks a wide repre-sentation of business leaders, both from a broad range of indus-trial and service sectors as well as from a geographical basis. There are no political qualifications for membership.37

Although the membership list is public, Council bylaws, accounts and conference details are not. The current membership includes the following corporations: Bechtel, American International Group, Ama-zon.com, Goldman Sachs, American Express, J. P. Morgan Chase, Mattel,38 Thomason Reuters, Morgan Stanley, Washington Post Com-pany,39

The current chairman is James W. Owens (CFR), Caterpillar Corp.; Vice Chairmen are from J P Morgan Chase, Exxon Mobil, Aetna, and Archer Daniels Midland. Executive committee members include those from Bechtel, Dow, Boeing, et al. Owens is on the Board of Directors of the CFR.

General Electric, Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Coca Cola, Pfizer, Dow Chemical, Macy’s, Procter and Gamble, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Boeing, Bank of America, Ford, Citigroup, The Carlyle Group, AT & T, US Steel, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron. There are many others, showing that The Business Council represents the highest echelons of the international financial elite.

40

The other particularly important Establishment figure that McCarthy was coming close to investigating was John J. McCloy, chairman of the CFR, Wall Street lawyer, adviser to Presidents from Roosevelt to Reagan, Military Gover-nor and US High Commissioner of post-war West Germany, chairman of the Chase National and then the Chase Manhattan Bank, etc. The New York Times writes of McCloy:

37 Ibid. 38 Mattel’s CEO Bob Eckert is also with the Trilateral Commission. The influence

of this toy company on young minds is a subject that merits attention; suffice it to say here that Mattel brought out the “Bratz” dolls aimed at pre-teen girls. See:

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/blog-Bratz.htm 39 Represented by CEO Donald E. Graham. The role of flagship newspaper of the

Establishment in the destruction of McCarthy will be considered. 40 Council on Foreign Relations, Board of Directors, http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/blog-Bratz.htm


91

Between times and often concurrently, he was board chairman of the Ford Foundation, chairman of the powerful Council on For-eign Relations and board chairman of a dozen or so other enti-ties, including the Salk Institute and of E. R. Squibb & Sons. As a lawyer, he represented scores of corporate clients, including 23 oil companies dealing with the Organization of Petroleum Ex-porting Countries. “Chairman of the Establishment” Mr. McCloy was chairman of so many boards and had his hands in so many ventures that the political writer Richard Rovere once proposed that he was the informal “chairman of the Estab-lishment,” a group that ”fixes major goals and constitutes itself a ready pool of manpower for the more exacting labors of leader-ship.”41

McCloy came to McCarthy’s attention when his committee began investi-gating communist influences in occupied Germany under McCloy’s authority. Some of those questioned by the McCarthy committee declined to answer un-der the Fifth Amendment regarding self-incriminating testimony, or were eva-sive. Wes Vernon states:

Senator McCarthy at one point cited a “secret order” McCloy had issued in 1944 as Assistant Secretary of War wherein Com-munists and their sympathizers were not to be discriminated against by the Army unless a “specific finding” of disloyalty could be made. Writing about this in the 1992 book The Chairman, McCloy’s left-wing biographer Kai Bird concedes that “McCarthy had his facts right, and given the current climate [1954], McCloy was aware that he was vulnerable.” Bird shows step-by-step how McCloy buttonholed Ike [Pres. Ei-senhower] at every opportunity to take decisive action against McCarthy. The occasions for exerting such influence included —

41 “John J. McCloy, Lawyer and Diplomat, Is Dead at 93. New York Times (March

12, 1989).


92

but by no means were restricted to — the cozy camaraderie of a “stag party” at the White House.42

Vernon in his series on the destruction of McCarthy, cogently describes the situation:

Thus, what was going on behind the scenes was in fact a “strange bedfellow” coalition whereby extremely powerful forces on Wall Street were pushing in the same direction as the Communist Party USA — the goal being the destruction of the Wisconsin senator and the termination of his investigations. While the Communists were using their transmission belt appa-ratus to get the party line on McCarthy out on the street, Wall Street titans managed the power plays. There was surely no evi-dence of a knowing alliance between the two or that anyone an-ywhere was pushing buttons to coordinate it, but the goal was identical — once again certifying that — as has often been said, “Not everybody who hated McCarthy was a Communist, but every Communist hated McCarthy.”43

In 1948 Timothy Leary, a psychology graduate student, met Cord Meyer at a Milwaukee convention of the Left-wing American Veterans Committee, of which Meyer was a founder. Leary credited Meyer with, “helping me understand my political cultural role more clearly.” In 1950 Meyer was assigned to the CIA’s International Relations Division, which included the Congress for Cultural Freedom,

Another major figure about to be investigated by McCarthy was Cord Meyer, an omnipresent CIA operative who was responsible for special opera-tions involved with recruiting and using anti-Stalinist Leftists. Meyer for ex-ample had recruited to the CIA-sponsored, phony “New Left revolution” LSD guru Timothy Leary and seminal radical feminist Gloria Steinem.

44

42 Wes Vernon, “McCarthy — the Censure.” RenewAmercia (December 3, 2007).

the aim of which was to support, fund and infiltrate Left-wing movements.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/071203 43 Ibid. 44 Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: the CIA and the World of Arts

and Letters (New York, The New Press, 2000).


93

An informative press obituary quoted by the Arlington National Cemetery, the US Government resting place for military veterans, states that Meyer served with the CIA for 26 years, and was some-times criticised for his role in subsiding [Leftist] student and labor groups as a counter to the USSR. Despite what is called his “anti-communism” (sic), which should read anti-Stalinism, “Mr. Meyer faced accusations at the height of the McCarthy era that he was a Communist sympathizer.”45

Meyer was a co-founder, with James P. Warburg of the Warburg banking dynasty, of the United World Federalists in 1947, to promote a World State, and he became president of the World Federalists in 1948.

46

The Arlington obituary continues that Meyer was a special assistant with the US founding delegation of the United Nations in 1945. “He was young and idealistic and very much involved in the one world movement, said Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, a former American delegate to the United Nations.”

47

In regard to Meyer’s role in the founding of the United Nations as part of the American Delegation, it is important to note that according to the 1948 Times interview: “There he saw the United Nations born. He deplored the veto, which left U.N. virtually powerless to prevent aggression.” It is highly significant that it was Joseph Stalin who wrecked these globalist plans, by insisting on a veto.

48

McCarthy described the CIA as a “communist sinkhole.” Informa-tion had been given to him by the FBI on Leftists in the CIA. The so-called “Communism Fighter,” Cord Meyer, had already been consi-dered a communist by the FBI but was protected by the CIA, which according to Meyer’s own account refused to permit the FBI to inter-rogate him.

49

45 “Cord Meyer Jr., Communism Fighter at C.I.A., Dies at 80,” “Contemporary

Press Report” cited by Arlington National Cemetery, Cord Meyer Junior,

In 1953 McCarthy stated he intended to expose 100 communists in the CIA, and one of the first was to be Cord Meyer.

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:k_VSlYl_5rgJ:www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cordmeyer.htm

46 “Opinion in a drawing room.” Time Magazine (February 16, 1948). http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,794188,00.html. 47 “Cord Meyer Jr., Communism Fighter at C.I.A., Dies at 80,” op.cit. 48 K. R. Bolton, “Origins of the Cold War.” 49 Cord Meyer, Facing Reality: From World Federalism to the CIA (Lanham, MD:

University Press of America, 1980), 60–84.


94

A media smear was launched under the direction of Frank Wisner, the head of the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination, who marshalled CIA-connected journalists Drew Pearson, Joe Alsop, Jack Anderson, Walter Lippmann and Ed Murrow.50

Helen Lehman Buttenwieser, daughter of Arthur Lehman and niece of Sen. Herbert Lehman, was a lifelong, tireless defender of Hiss, a se-nior official of the US State Department, and General Secretary at the United Nations Founding Conference, convicted for perjury in 1950. Helen Buttenweiser was married to Benjamin Buttenwieser, a senior partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Her sister Frances married into the Loeb family.

Another influential CFR member who was exposed by McCarthy but ulti-mately called to account by Richard Nixon, was Alger Hiss, who also enjoyed high-level patronage.

51

THE SMEAR CAMPAIGN As noted, the CIA instigated a smear campaign against McCarthy by calling

in their pet journalists. However, the smears against McCarthy had previously been launched, headed up by the Establishment mouthpiece, the CIA con-nected Washington Post.

This was at a time when the Post was run by Katharine Meyer Graham, daughter of the international banker Eugene Meyer. Katharine’s husband Phi-lip, the publisher, was a CIA operative.

Biographer Deborah Davis writes:

Katharine’s husband, Philip Graham, publisher of the Post until his suicide in 1963, also up until that year served as director of the CIA’s Project Mockingbird, whose object was to infiltrate the corporate news media. The CIA apparently bought around 600 journalists. Philip Graham boasted that “you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month.”52

50 Jack Anderson, Confessions of a Muckraker (New York: Random House, 1979),

208. 51 Susan Heller Anderson, “Helen Buttenwieser, 84, Lawyer and Civic Leader.”

New York Times (November 23, 1989). http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/23/obituaries/helen-buttenwieser-84-

lawyer-and-civic-leader.html?pagewanted=1 52 Deborah Davis, Katharine the Great (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991), p.

131.


95

Katharine boasts that her paper coined the term ‘McCarthyism’. While Ms Graham concedes that the Communist “party had succeeded in establishing a surprising network of infiltrators and even spies,” the Washington Post had already in 1947 started attacking the pre-McCarthy House Committee on Un-American Activities. Graham cites one edi-torial as “putting the Post’s position succinctly,” stating that the con-gressional committee was “more dangerously un-American than that of any of the groups or individuals that it had investigated.” What the Estab-lishment feared was not McCarthy’s attacks on Soviet spies and agents, but that an American nationalism would be generated as a by-product.

Both Katharine and Philip Graham were members of the CFR.53

When in early 1950 McCarthy launched his investigations, Phil Graham was from the start antagonistic, and his antagonism cannot be seen as anything other than a reflection of the attitude — and fear — by the CIA and the US Establishment towards this upstart. Katha-rine remarks that, “much of Phil’s time was taken up with the McCar-thy menace.... Most effective of all probably was Herblock’s series of cartoons depicting McCarthy and his various outrageous activities. It was Herblock who had coined the term ‘McCarthyism’.”

54 Herblock or Herbert Block worked as the chief editorial cartoonist for The

Washington Post for 55 years, right up until the time of his death in 2001. While McCarthy is of course now recalled by the US Establishment and its kept me-dia as having created the USA’s darkest period of history, Herblock is eulo-gised as a hero. He won three Pulitzer Prizes (1942, 1954 — the year of McCar-thy’s censure — and 1979, possibly for his smears against Nixon). He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1994. The Library of Congress continues to feature an ongoing Herblock exhibition of editorial cartoons. 55 In 1999 he was awarded a Doctor of Arts from Harvard University. In the year 2000 the Library of Congress named him a “Living Legend.”56

The other Establishment media flagship is The New York Times, which did not neglect its duties as part of the smear-campaign to de-stroy McCarthy. A pamphlet written during those times, by the Amer-

53 CFR membership lists: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29338152/Council-on-

Foreign-Relations-Brochure 54 Katharine Graham, Personal History (New York: Knopf, 1997), 193. 55 “Enduring Outrage: Editorial cartoons of Herblock,” Library of Congress. http://myloc.gov/exhibitions/enduringoutrage/pages/objectlist.aspx 56 “Herblock’s History: political cartoons form the crash to the millennium,” In-

troduction. Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/intro-jhb.html


96

ican patriot Joseph P. Kamp gives an alternative view of the so-called “McCarthy era,” the time during which McCarthy supposedly held Americans in fear. Kamp stated of The New York Times campaign: “The Times has pursued Joe McCarthy with a hysteria of invective far out-doing the statesman whom it falsely brands as master of the smear.”57 Kamp stated that the New York Times had described McCarthy as a “traducer of reputations and mud-slinger extraordinary,” in its issue of July 10, 1952.58 Later the Times editorialized that McCarthy “preys on fear, he stirs up hatred ... via the route of wild charges, gross dis-tortions, and assorted form of demagoguery.” 59

On March 22, 1953 the Times editorialized:

If these attacks have not yet reached a point of grave danger, it is because they are mainly conducted by men of small intellectual stature. … They are little men who might otherwise be over-looked. They are little men who are intoxicated with a bit of power and splash of publicity. We cannot indefinitely have these arrogant upstarts prying into matters which are no affairs of theirs, including the private opinions of our citizens.60

As Kamp commented, this was “pure propaganda. It included not a name or fact.”61

In contrast, one of McCarthy’s prime subjects of interest, Prof. Owen Lattimore, was heralded as a hero by the Times,

However, it is typical of the nonsense that has con-tinued to this day to be heaped upon the memory of McCarthy.

62 including a feature article with Lattimore’s photo on page one accompanying a glowing review of his book Ordeal by Slander. Kamp states, however, that McCarthy’s own book McCarthyism: The Fight for America was blacklisted by The Times, as were all other books by McCarthy’s pub-lisher, Devin-Adair.63

57 Jospeh P Kamp, How the New York Times Betrayed its Readers on “McCarthyism”

(New York: Headlines, 1954), 2.

58 Ibid., 4. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid., 5. 62 Times Sunday Review of Books (July 30, 1950), 1. 63 Kamp, How the New York Times Betrayed Its Readers on “McCarthyism,” 5.


97

The Times was published during this period by Arthur Hays Sulz-berger, whose other associations included serving as a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation (1939–1957) and membership in the CFR.64

CLIMATE OF INTOLERANCE The cliché-ridden descriptions of the “McCarthy era” have become

part of popular American mythology in which decent and intelligent citizens were “blacklisted” and subjected to “witch-hunts.” Given that it was the US Establishment that mobilised against “McCarthyism,” a more critical consideration of this myth is warranted. American scho-lar and poet E. Merrill Root of Harvard, a self-declared “McCar-thyite,” and hardly the stereotypical “little man who would otherwise be overlooked,” as the Times portrayed “McCarthyites,” described something of the atmosphere of this era for those who supported the Senator:

The “Age of McCarthy, as the Little Orphan Annie “intellec-tuals” report it, is an artifact, an illusion of bad consciences, a lie. There was no such thing. I lived in those years and through them, and I know. I was a conservative college professor then, and I know the climate of that time. One “Liberal” colleague would pass me in the corridors of my college and would never speak. My seven “Liberal” colleagues in the English department sought to discourage my best students from taking more courses with me… Hostility, criticism, opposition, did all they could to keep me from writing my book Collectivism on the Campus. As Ludwig Lewisohn well said, it was a time when: “The only scho-lar, the only type of student who is still forced into a defensive position on American campuses ... is the conservative teacher or student.” I know the truth of that by my own experiences. I said publicly that Joe McCarthy was one of my three favorite Senators (The other two were William Jenner of Indiana and Robert Taft of Ohio), and so I was regarded in academic circles as one who had

64 CFR membership lists: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29338152/Council-on-

Foreign-Relations-Brochure


98

intellectual leprosy. I became a tin can for intellectuals to shoot at.65

Interestingly, Prof. Root also mentioned that the president of his college, who was fortunately resistant to the pressures to get rid of Root, when seeking out funds for the college from “among the rich and powerful,” stated that he was told: “Go home and fire E. Merrill Root first,” to which he replied: “Gentlemen, Earlham College is not for sale.” 66

Prof. Root continued:

I tell this with no bitterness, with no concern for myself, with no complaint; that, in Academe, it was those who supported Sena-tor McCarthy who were ostracized, attacked, and in danger. Meanwhile at my college, as at all colleges I knew (and I knew many) the majority of the faculties spoke openly, and freely, and with venom, of Senator McCarthy. They said they were afraid; but, as God is my witness, they had nothing to fear! To attack McCarthy — virulently, venomously — was merely to be a good little gilded weathervane, showing which way the prevailing academic wind was blowing. It was smart. It was chic. It was the cliché of the academic hour. It was to add your conventional yip, yip, to the chorus of the hounds. … It was the holy cow of the “intellectuals.”… You were not on the inside unless you were anti-McCarthy. I know, I was there. I was a McCarthyite, and I learned how ancient lepers in Jerusa-lem felt when the good citizens cried out, “Unclean, unclean!”67

A major part of the mythology of the “McCarthy era” was that those who were targeted by “McCarthyism” were “blacklisted” and could not work in the professions. Much weeping and wailing is made over this. Yet the Establishment maintained its own blacklist that included for example, Lillian Gish, for having supported the America First Committee. Consequently Gish could not get work in

65 E. Merrill Root, “Joe McCarthy: Why the “Liberals” Hate Him Still.” American

Opinion 16(3) (March 1973), 86. 66 Ibid., 87–88. 67 Ibid., 88.


99

the movies or on stage.68

Ayn Rand, the novelist and scriptwriter, re-counted the atmosphere in Hollywood:

Everyone who has testified for the Committee69

— not the big stars, but the lesser-known actors and writers who were consi-dered dispensable, and those who were free-lancing and were not under contract to a major studio — lost their jobs. Morrie Ryskind had more work than he could handle; he never again worked in Hollywood. Adolphe Menjou, who was also free-lancing, got fewer and fewer jobs; after about a year, he could find no work at all. I was not victimized, because of The Foun-tainhead, and because I had a contract with Hal Wallis.

The people whom McCarthy thought he was exposing as part of a Soviet conspiracy had associations with the highest echelons of US Es-tablishment think tanks such as the CFR and BAC, and also threat-ened to upset the CIA Cold War operations involved in recruiting an-ti-Soviet Leftists, including communists, whom McCarthy is likely to have regarded as at most “Soviet infiltrators” whose well-placed pa-trons were naïve rather than conspiratorial. On June 22, 1954, in the course of the Army-McCarthy hearings, McCarthy charged that the CIA was infiltrated by communists. What was not known at the time was that Paul F. Hellmuth, who channelled funds to CIA operations, was a member of the law firm of Hale and Dorr, the firm of Joseph Welch,70 who was counsel for the Army during the McCarthy enquiry into communist subversion. While McCarthy was censured and has been forever vilified as an abusive inquisitor, like the abuse and thea-trics he had endured from the hypocrite Sen. Watkins, Establishment lawyer Welch damned McCarthy to his face as “reckless” and “cruel.” Welch just could not find it in himself to “forgive McCarthy.”71

Nevertheless, if one reads the transcript of the Army-McCarthy hearings, it should be conceded that it was Welch who acted in a posturing, bullying manner when questioning McCarthy aide Roy

68 “Lillian Gish Online Tribute and Memorial Website,” http://www.respectance.com/Lillian_Gish/ 69 House Un-American Activities Committee. The HUAC investigations into Hol-

lywood were not part of the McCarthy investigations; they were begun several years prior to McCarthy’s investigations which focused on government institutions.

70 Medford Evans, op.cit., 240. 71 Ibid., 187.


100

Cohn, who was deferential to Welch throughout the questioning; and it was when McCarthy brought up Welch’s having sought to bring in-to the hearings Fred Fisher, a young lawyer with Hale and Dorr, whom McCarthy pointed out had been a member of a Communist Party front, the National Lawyers’ Guild, when Welch not only got abusive towards McCarthy, but refused to discuss the matter further when McCarthy attempted to prove his assertions.72

Paul F. Hellmuth was exposed by Sol Stern in 1967 as one of the CIA operatives involved in Establishment manipulation of the New Left via the National Students Association. The NSA had been formed in 1947 in response to Soviet predominance at an international, stu-dents conference held at Prague in 1946, and in 1950 an anti-Soviet in-ternational student organization was formed in Stockholm centered around the NSA. Stern in his Ramparts article exposed the multifa-ceted ramifications of the CIA Cold War operations, from which emerged the New Left and such enduring spin-offs as feminism via Gloria Steinem. Stern found that the address for several fronts used to channel CIA funds to the New Left had the same address as “the pres-tigious law firm of Hale and Dorr.” Hellmuth of Hale and Dorr, was a co-trustee of one source, The Independent Foundation, and sole trus-tee of the J. Frederick Brown Foundation. Funding from the likes of the Rockefellers et al. was provided separately from the CIA channels. This control of the NSA was part of the broader Cold War offensive that included the Congress for Cultural Freedom and the Steinem en-terprise.

The televised confrontation is said by modern mythology to have undermined McCarthy’s reputation, but this is not how the transcript of the hear-ing reads. McCarthy merely questioned the wisdom of placing some-one in such a position who had been associated with a Communist Party front.

73

Whatever the association that exists between the CIA and the Bos-ton law firm, Stephen Preston of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and

72 Robert D. Marcus and Anthony Marcus (Eds.) “The Army-McCarthy Hearings,

1954,” On Trail: American History Through Court Proceedings and Hearings, Vol. II (St. James, NY: Brandywine Press, 1998), 136–51.

73 Sol Stern, “A Short Account of International Student Politics and the Cold War with Particular Reference to the NSA, CIA, etc.,” Ramparts (March 1967). 29–38.

http://www.cia-on-campus.org/nsa/nsa.html


101

Dorr was nominated by Pres. Obama to be CIA chief counsel.74

Is it just coincidence that the man chosen by the US Administration for the job of ridiculing McCarthy before the publicly broadcast Army-McCarthy hearings was a partner in a law firm that also had connec-tions with the CIA and whose Paul F. Hellmuth was involved in the same CIA Cold War operations that McCarthy was apparently about to expose with the intentions of investigating “communist infiltration” of the CIA and in particular the activities of Cord Meyer?

CONCLUSION McCarthy was finished off by a coalition of Big Business, the CFR,

the Business Advisory Council, the US Administration, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CIA. He carried on as Senator for a further several years during which time he was ostracized and his speeches boycotted in the Senate. McCarthy was wrecked emotionally and physically by the campaign against him, Fred J. Cook describing him as “a pale ghost of his former self.” He died in 1957 at the age of 48, having turned to increasingly heavy drinking and in a state of de-pression after his censure.75

E. Merrill Root cogently described the sit-uation with which McCarthy was probably unknowingly confronted:

I do not think that the Senator ever quite saw the real nature of the enemy within, the full scope of the Conspiracy in New York and Washington.76

Ironically, during the same period a Congressman, Carroll Reece, was trying to investigate the source of the power that McCarthy had not even yet reached in his investigations, that of the tax exempt foundations and the role they play in channelling funds from the oli-garchy to Leftist causes.77

74 The Blog of Legal Times, “Wilmer Partner chosen for CIA Legal Counsel”

(April 16, 2009).

If McCarthy had been aware of the findings of the Reece Committee, and there does not seem to be any evidence that he was, he would have come realized who and what were behind

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/04/wilmer-partner-nominated-for-cia-general-counsel.html

75 Fred J. Cook, The Nightmare Decade: The Life and Times of Senator Joe McCarthy (New York: Random House, 1971), 537.

76 E. Merrill Root, “Joe McCarthy,” 93. 77 See Quigley, Tragedy & Hope, 955.


102

the subversion he was trying to expose. The manner by which Con-gressman Reece was thwarted was quite different from the frenetic climate that faced McCarthy — that of the silent treatment rather than the smear. Perhaps for a time the hysteria generated both for and against McCarthy served to distract public attention away from the Reece findings, and McCarthy was allowed to pursue “Soviet agents” until he started coming close to the same influences that Reece had being attempting to uncover?

At any rate, in 1954, the year of McCarthy’s Senate censure, the Reece committee report “showing the left-wing associations of the in-terlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations” was released “rather quietly,” as Establishment historian Prof. Carroll Quigley states it.78 The committee had begun in 1953, originally prompted by questions on Rockefeller funding for Alfred Kinsey’s sexology studies. Quigley describes the leftists of the period as not exercising their own power but “the power of the international financial coteries.” And he notes that it would have been a simple matter to make these Left-wingers inconspicuous had it not been for the Reece committee tracing their influence back to the foundations. It is notable that Quigley refers to public “anger and suspicions” being directed towards the “energetic Left-wingers” beginning in 1950,79

the year that McCarthy launched his campaign. In tandem. Reece and McCarthy, albeit with very dif-ferent styles, could have brought the real conspirators and subversives to justice.

K. R. Bolton, Ph.D. (Hist.Th.), D.Div., Th.D., Ph.D. (h.c.), is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research, Athens. He is also Contributing Writer, Foreign Policy Journal; Board of Governors, Global Academy, India; assistant editor, Ab Aeterno. He is a widely published author in academic journals and popular press.

78 Quigley, Tragedy & Hope. 95. 79 Ibid.

joe mccarthy’s real enemies - the occidental quarterlyinfluential anti -soviet leftists, whom the...

Documents