Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The American Ultras have strong connections with the leaders of powerful corporations; their activists are high in the military; and they can summon up community support across the Nation from every know-nothing, bigoted and antidemocratic tendency in the land.

Indeed, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower who focused attention upon the massive social basis of the American Ultras. In his last address as President, Eisenhower pointed to an enormous danger to democratic freedoms: the military-industrial complex. With the cold war dominating American life, an entire section of the economy has been given over to war production. The military disposes billions of dollars of contracts; it is a powerful voice in the formulation of foreign policy; it has become much more of a power in American society than ever before.

As Waldemar A. Nielson of the Ford Foundation put it in a New York Times article, "The military services operate a farflung international broadcasting network. Defense exchange-of-persons programs are much larger than those of the civilian agencies. Defense officials, civilian and in uniform, make several times as many speeches and write several times as many articles bearing on foreign policy as officials of the Department of State. And through its links with a battalion of national organizations, the Defense Department has a built-in system of communication with the American people unequaled in scale by anything available to other Federal agencies."

This new military intervention in the civilian life of the Nation has brought generals and admirals into a close relation with the commanding heights of corporate power. For example, large corporations more and more find it necessary to hire retired military leaders at the top levels of executive responsibility. In short, two of the most powerful bureaucracies in the society have a certain convergence of interest, a web of professional and social ties, a tendency toward a common outlook.

What

Not every general is an Ultra; neither is every corporate executive. this report shows is that there is a significant, and most dangerous, tendency for an important section of the military-industrial complex to put its enormous power behind rightwing extremism.

The source of this development is in the cold war. Broadly, there are two types of response to the threat of Communist totalitarianism. On the one hand, there are those who see the Communists as capturing and perverting a basically progressive social revolution, particularly in the colonial movements for national liberation. From this point of view, the struggle against Communism is the fight to develop democratic alternatives for the revolutionary movements of our time. This, to one degree or another, is the approach of American liberalism, of the most responsible leaders of the major churches, of the socially conscious trade unionists, of the civil rights movement.

The other response to the Communist challenge grows out of a mood of frustration and desperation. It is a form of political paranoia. The problem is defined as one of evil conspiracies. If only the handful of Communist plotters, people who have infiltrated every government on the face of the earth, could be rooted out, then there would be peace and order.

This warped version of reality has roots in both corporate and military life. Executives and military men have a common interest in preserving the cold-war economy, a 20th century phenomenon which has provided the United States with an easy solution to the problems posed by an undirected economy. The $400 billion spent in the past 9 years on defense needs has also provided much of the capital which American business has needed in a new age of technology. Any attempt to cut military budgets or to shift spending from one phase of the "defense industry" to another, is met by mournful forecasts from those with vested interests.

The officer class sees questioning of military spending as less than patriotic. The expansion of the military influence over the past decade has been commensurate with the increase in military spending. At no time in American history has a professional corps of officers had so much influence on public opinion. Whether on Berlin, Latin America, southeast Asia, or neutralism, military men are listened to, and are given public forums in the press of this Nation, so that the “hard line" of military thinking is often the daily fare of newspaper readers. The adulation of military heroes is not an American phenomenon but military leaders are not slow to take advantage of the aura of infallibility with which they are now draped in the national press.

The slogan which big business and the military have adopted to preserve their preeminence, solidify their common interests, and extract support from the public, is "total victory." Thus, any attempt to modify the social structure is classi

fied as irrelevant in time of war. Increased spending in the critical areas of health and education is publicized as a plot to undermine the moral fiber of Americans. Talk of negotiation, suggestions that all men have a vital interest in self-preservation, even a hint that compromise on certain matters is possible— such talk is anathema to the Ultras of the brass and big business.

To the military men the notion that Communist advances result from basic social discontent is incomprehensible. For them the problem is one of logistics. If the Communists advance through the use of guerrilla warfare, as in southeast Asia, then we must train guerrilla fighters. Consequently Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara are being furiously studied in the U.S. Army today. But of course, guerrilla warfare without a political program that corresponds with the deep-felt yearnings of the native population is nothing but gangsterism in uniform and it must fail. It is this that the military men do not and cannot understand.

It is significant that the French military Ultras in Algeria, too, have taken to studying Mao on guerrilla warfare. But the French officers have gone a step further. They learned through experience that the techniques alone, without a revolutionary political mission, were useless. So they developed the mission, which, not surprisingly, took on a Fascist coloration.

Gen. Edwin Walker, in his statement of resignation from the Army, offered another, and more basic, clue to the problem. He talked of the "soldiers on the frontline outposts, continuously manned night and day, year after year * * *” The cold war, after all, has been with us for a long time. And for the men who have been in the Armed Forces throughout, as have most of the top military leaders, this has meant incessant tension and strain. Moreover to that strain has been added the bewilderment that stemmed from our losses. Not only have they always believed, as do all Americans, that this Nation is invincible, that we simply do not lose wars, but they have witnessed setbacks in the face of U.S. military superiority. Our stockpile of bombs is larger than the Russians, we have more airbases than they do, our industrial capacity is superior to theirs. How then explain our constant posture of defensiveness and actual series of defeats, one after the other: Eastern Europe, China, Korea, Cuba, Laos?

The explanation of course lies in that area in which most of the generals are hopelessly uniformed: politics. They neither know nor care about the passionate aspirations of some peasant in China or student in Cuba. Consequently they do not even begin to understand the problem of communism which is winning because of its counterfeit identification with the world revolution while American democracy carries the albatross of capitalism and the status quo around its neck.

Given this lack of understanding, the next step in the thinking of so many of the generals is almost inevitable. If we are militarily stronger than the Russians but it is they who keep gaining the victories, then it must be that we are being betrayed. And since everyone knows that the chief, if not only, method of operation of Communists is "subversion," that must be the answer to the mystery. Indeed, this is how General Walker sees the problem. He was out there fighting and getting shot at all those years; World War II, Greece, China, Korea, while at home the Communists were subverting all over the place. And of course it is the "politicians" who are to blame. Here is how he states it: "We are at war. We are infiltrated. We are losing that war every day. Are our hands tied, yours and mine? We need a substitute for defeat. If it is not within the power of this Congress to provide it-then the people of these United States are not truly represented." And further, "They (the Communists) long ago have infiltrated our Government so that a scheme of subversion can be traced through three decades."

Once this reactionary definition of reality is made, politics becomes the police activity of ferreting out spies, dupes, and traitors. Every movement of dissent and of protest becomes suspect because these are seen as the natural arena of Communist agents. Insofar as this point of view gains strength, every attempt of the people to better their life or to express their ideas is seen as the work of foreign agents or their native accomplices. Trade unionists, Negroes in the civil rights movement, courageous churchmen, idealistic students, are under a cloud.

In the process the American Ultras set a vicious circle into motion. They first develop their devil-theory politics out of a violent, irrational, desperate response to the complexities of the world power struggle. Then, basing themselves on significant social forces in this society, particularly on the militaryindustrial complex, they are able to influence American political life. The more strength they gain, the less is the Nation able to develop an effective democratic

alternative to Communist totalitarianism. The Ultra sees the Communist in the guise of spy or agent, but not as a totalitarian seeking, and sometimes winning, the leadership of dynamic and historic movements for social change. This aids the Communist and it increases the frustration of the Ultras. Desperation breeds desperation; the politics of paranoia create a situation in which the paranoid fantasy finds its confirmation.

The power of the American Ultras cannot be detailed in depth. It can only be measured by those who can penetrate behind the doors of corporate and military offices. Yet there are already alarming, visible signs of the growth of Ultra influence and power in the military-industrial complex.

This pamphlet is a documentation of the growing menace of the American Ultras.

II. REVEILE IN GLENVIEW

66*** you know what our national objective is ***? You wouldn't believe it. It's 'world peace through enforcible law.' In other words, some of our leaders seem to have a surrender complex."-Adm. Chester Ward (Retired), Institute for American Strategy.

Residents in the Chicago area received mail stamped "Official Business" from the Glenview Naval Airbase in the summer of 1960. The envelopes contained invitations to attend a 5-day conference at the base to "motivate an active force against moral decay *** and to bring an awareness of the ominous hammer and sickle."

The military and civilians from Illinois who attended that conference may have thought that a local patriotic group was performing a community service, or that Frank Vignole, the Forest Park furniture dealer was after more members for his anti-Communist organization, Education for American Security, Inc.

In actual fact, the Glenview conference was the result of a Pentagon campaign to tell Americans what they should, and should not, think about the cold war and communism.

From Seattle to Pensacola, the military, with the assistance of a dozen or more anti-Communist right wing groups, had given thousands of lectures, promoted films, books and journals of opinion favoring their point of view. Admiral Ward, a leader in the campaign to brainwash America, and a former Judge Advocate General, was sufficiently enthused by the success of the program that, in June 1961, he felt Americans were thinking "with their guts." This noncerebral process is described by Admiral Ward as follows:

"Americans are tired of defeats. They are tired of surrenders covered up as 'negotiated settlements.' They are, indeed, tired of so much talk and so little action by our leaders. For the first time in 16 years of the cold war, a demand for victory is beginning to roll into Washington."

The Glenview conference undoubtedly helped the demand, for at that 5-day session the "big guns" of the far right were brought in to direct their fire at influential leaders around the Chicago area. Along with the base commander, Captain Isaiah Hampton, who is a key figure in the "demand for victory" movement, these men took part: Frank Barnett, former Rhodes scholar, who is program director for the Institute for American Strategy and the Richardson Foundation; Dr. Fred Schwarz, founder and the head of the Christian AntiCommunist Crusade, who describes his crusade as 'the unorganized army for the Republic of the United States ***"; E. Merrill Root, member of the Committee of Endorsers of the John Birch Society and author of "Brainwashing in the High Schools" and "Collectivism on the Campus"; Richard Arens, exstaff director of the House Un-American Activities Committee, also a "specialist" for the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade in "Ferreting Out Communists in Government"; Herbert Philbrick, ex-Communist, author of "I Led Three Lives"; Dr. Herbert Niemeyer, Notre Dame University, who is a member of the Institute for American Strategy Education Committee; Dr. Antony Bouscaren, former faculty member, National War College, Associate Professor of Political Science at Le Moyne College, Syracuse, N.Y., and another "specialist" for the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade.

Three officers from the Glenview base also spoke during the 5-day conference and three other officers, Rear Adm. W. McKechnie, Maj. William Mayer, and Vice Adm. Robert Goldthwaite traveled to bolster the military point of view. The "enemies slain" at the Glenview base that week, according to the Christian Century included "liberals, modernists, John Dewey, Harvard students, high school students, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, textbooks, the

American Friends Service Committee, pacifists, the New York Times and Herald Tribune, the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, naive ministers. The heroes lauded by the speakers were conservatism, Senator Barry Goldwater, conservative Baptists, J. B. Matthews, and the nuclear bomb."

Those who attended were assured that they "will acquire the experience, poise and know-how which we hope will germinate into discussion groups being organized in every community of the Midwest." But Captain Hampton and his men were reluctant to allow civilians off the base without a "hard sell.” In a leaflet entitled "Information Sheet on anti-Communist Seminar" it was stated that "a specific attempt will be made to encourage attendees to join such anti-Communist organizations as the Christian anti-Communist Crusade, the Cardinal Mindzenty Foundation, and Education for American Security." This blatant attempt by military officers to indoctrinate the civilian population and to bludgeon them into joining selected organizations with the "correct" point of view was indefensible. The American Civil Liberties Union took up the matter with the then Secretary of the Navy who reported that he had ordered the Glenview base to cease official sponsorship of such activities. However, on November 30, Dr. Schwarz was back again heading up a program which featured an "Action Report" and Captain Hampton, undeterred by the ban, commenced a blitz on the surrounding communities by sending out groups of men to convert the fainthearted.

On February 23, 1961, three Glenview men in uniform lectured 400 civilians at the American Legion Hall in Fox Lake, Ill. For 4 hours these people were told how to write letters to TV sponsors, how to disseminate anti-Communist literature and how to develop a "challenging program of individual action." "Progressive education" was ridiculed because, said a Glenview man, "the enemy cannot be defeated by throwing basketballs and footballs at them."

Trios of experts were also sent to Waukegan, Peoria and North Chicago where Lt. Comdr. Charles Bigler spoke on "the problems faced by President Kennedy and Congress in dealing with Khrushchev."

Undaunted by the fact that the Glenview affair had involved military men who were second guessing the President and Congress, Captain Hampton traveled to Chicago where he spoke for "We The People," another in the lengthening list of "anti-Communist" groups organized to brainwash the public. The affair took place in the Sheraton Towers Hotel on March 24 and Captain Hampton took the platform along with Billie James Hargis, William K. Lambie of the American Security Council and others to encourage firm opposition to "higher debt and taxes," "Government controls" and "socialism."

Despite warnings and directives from Government departments forbidding more Glenviews, the pro-blue brainwashing to persuade Americans that a victory in World War III is possible continues. On August 9, Westbrook Pegler announced that Der Tag was dawning. Detecting "a remarkably intelligent and determined rising of unacquainted but sympathetic Americans everywhere," Pegler announced that "It may be the first outcry in a grand revolution--led by not a general but by a hundred of the best generals and admirals that the country has yet produced."

In Washington, Senator Fulbright suggested that the White House and the Defense Department should "begin the process of formulating directives which will bring such military activities under effective civilian control." Despite the complaints arriving in Washington, the Pentagon merely "admonished" General Walker, forbade the use of one film "Communism on the Map" and relegated another, "Operation Abolition" to a "when-asked-for-basis." Mild steps indeed in face of Pegler's "Grand Revolt."

It seems obvious that the massive dose of military propaganda which the public has received since 1958 has taken effect and that any attempt to steer the generals, admirals, and lesser minions back into the ranks will be received with suspicion by many. For 3 years they have been told that that is exactly the kind of ruse that Communists specialize in. More than a dozen anti-Communist groups have paraded soldiers onto platforms of alerts, alarms, forums, and strategy sessions to tell the people that the war is on. It's a peculiar kind of war, fought with words instead of bullets, full of subversion, treason, appeasement, welfarism, socialism, Red ministers, spies, tampered textbooks, Pugwash professors, egghead showoffs, and newspapers that are telling the people far too much about everything.

This hysteria was promoted in 1958 by a top-secret directive issued by the President, implemented by the Pentagon, elaborated by the dozens of anti-Communist groups throughout the country and financed, produced, and directed by

foundations, millionaires and patriotic instincts, fraternal bands, chambers of commerce and Catholic, Baptist, Fundamentalist, and Christian crusades. The sheer volume of this propaganda spewed from hundreds of platforms, books, films and do-it-yourself pamphlets for those who want to catch their very own Communist, has an an effect opposite to that intended. Instead of strengthening the moral fiber of the Nation, broadening understanding of communism, untangling the complexities of cold war policy, and finding common ground with other democratic countries, the Ultras indulge in a masochistic, exnophobic search for spies under the roof of the garrison. "Distrust everybody," "Check with me before you sign," "Better dead than Red," "He's on the list," "That's a commie paper," "They've already taken over”-these are slogans taken seriously by those who have been inoculated by the needle of fear.

1. The John Birch Society

III. WHO ARE THE ULTRAS?

It was in the spring of 1961 that the Nation first began to realize that a new wave of rightism had begun to descend on the land. Newspapers began to carry stories about a John Birch Society that had mushroomed forth in one community after the other, spreading a gospel of hate and fear. Its founder and leader, Robert Welch, a retired candy manufacturer in Belmont, Mass., was touring the country speaking to overflow audiences in one community after the other. His message, delivered in tones that combined lowbrow scholarliness with doorto-door salesmanship, sounded reactionary but odd. The first reaction to it of most moderates was one of puzzlement and a momentary hesitation; as if not knowing whether to laugh or be angry. For Welch's theme went as follows: Communism has all but conquered the entire world and the United States is already 40 to 60 percent Communist dominated. He also maintained that the countries of Western Europe, and especially those with Social Democratic governments, were really Communist controlled; that all of Asia was lost, including India, whose Prime Minister Nehru was a "Marxist"; that the Middle East and Africa had been taken over under the leadership of those out-and-out Communists Nasser and Nkrumah; and that Latin America had been subverted, not only by Castro but even more so by Romulo Betancourt of Venezuela and Victor Paz Estanssoro of Bolivia. These claims seemed wild enough in view of the fact that every one of them was simply the opposite of the truth, but Welch did not stop there.

It was when he got to the United States that he really seemed to become frenzied. He claimed that just about every nationally respected leader in both major parties was a hidden Communist: Chester Bowles, Charles E. Bohlen, Arthur H. Dean, the late John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, Milton Eisenhower, Walter Reuther, Maxwell Rabb, Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman. It was hard to think of a name, other than that of Dwight D. Eisenhower, whom Welch didn't literally call a Communist. But then some enterprising newspaperman dug up a manuscript written by Welch, entitled "The Politician,” and there it was: Dwight D. Eisenhower was a "card carrying" Communist.

The rest of Welch's basic doctrine was a similar brew of reaction and irrationalism. "Democracy is a perennial fraud” and America is not and was never intended to be a democracy, but only a republic; the U.N. is an "intended Communist international" and ought to be destroyed; civil rights is a Communist notion and is for them an exact parallel to the slogan "agrarian reform" by which they conquered China. Chief Justice Warren is a "Communist" and should be impeached. The income tax ought to be abolished. Finally Welch unveiled his own unique contribution to the understanding of history, his answer to the Marxian dialectic: the principle of "reversal." According to this principle everyone else has failed to understand the Communists because they thought they meant what they said, while the actual truth of the matter is that the Communists really mean the very opposite of what they say. Thus, if Khrushchev bangs his shoe on the desk and shouts "Hammerskjold must go," he really wants Hammerskjold to stay. Or if the Communists denounce U.S. foreign aid as an instrumentality of American imperialism, they really want the United States to extend aid to underdeveloped countries. Until we understand this fundamental principle, says Welch, we will continue to play into the hands of the Communists. There are still other ideas purveyed by the Birch Society in its various publications: The "Blue Book," its "bible" containing the text of a 2-day speech given by Welch at the founding meeting of the organization, the "White Book," a bound volume of the bulletins of the society, the

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »