The Naked Capitalist Read online

  As for McCarthy’s “intemperate” statement to General Zwicker, this was indeed a flimsy excuse for a censure. As researchers have since demonstrated, Senators of both the past and present have been using far more vigorous language against hostile witnesses without anyone raising the slightest objection.

  And what about the censure of General Zwicker? What about the promotion of a known Communist and his being given a hasty honorable separation? What about giving commissions to security risks who wrote “Fifth Amendment” on their Loyalty Oath forms? What about the toleration of spy cells in highly secret military operations for several years after the FBI had warned of their existence?

  Soon after these events General Zwicker was enjoying a pleasant retirement. It was only Senator Joseph McCarthy who got the censure. And it did accomplish exactly what the Communist-Establishment coalition intended.

  From then until now, the people of the United States have been paying in blood and treasure for the historical mistake of letting the “censure of McCarthy” totally discredit the shocking disclosures which the McCarthy hearings had proven. Ever since then any one attempting to tell the truth about Communist subversion in America has run the risk of being accused of the most heinous of offenses—“McCarthyism!”

  Dr. Carroll Quigley on McCarthy

  The reader of Tragedy And Hope will never learn that anything good came from the McCarthy hearings. He will never know it was one of those rare moments of awakening when the American people almost became exposed to enough white light of reality to change the calamitous course of current history. It was such a narrow squeak for the secret power-combine that Dr. Quigley could not resist the urge to lash out at McCarthy with the most vehement kind of denunciation. Imagine this professional historian supposedly disciplined in the reporting of facts indulging in the following diatribe against “Satan” McCarthy:

  “McCarthy was not a conservative, still less a reactionary. He was a fragment of elemental force, a throwback to primeval chaos. He was the enemy of all order and of all authority, with no respect, or even understanding, for principles, laws, regulations, or rules. As such, he had nothing to do with rationality or generality. Concepts, logic, distinctions of categories were completely outside his world. It is, for example, perfectly clear that he did not have any idea of what a Communist was, still less of Communism itself, and he did not care. This was simply a term he used in his game of personal power. Most of the terms which have been applied to him such as ‘truculent,’ ‘brutal,’ ‘ignorant,’ ‘sadistic,’ ‘foul-mouthed,’ ‘brash,’ are quite correct but not quite in the sense that his enemies applied them, because they assumed that these qualities and distinctions had meaning in his world as they did in their own. They did not, because his behavior was all an act, the things he did to gain the experience he wanted, that is, the feeling of power, of creating fear, of destroying the rules, and of winning attention and admiration for doing so....

  “His thirst for power was insatiable because, like hunger, it was a daily need. It had nothing to do with the power of authority or regulated discipline, but the personal power of a sadist. All his destructive instincts were against anything established, the wealthy, the educated, the well mannered, the rules of the Senate, the American party system, the rules of fair play. As such, he had no conception of truth or the distinction between it and falsehood, just as he had no conception of yesterday, today, tomorrow as distinct entities....”5

  This goes on for several more pages. It literally drips with malevolence. Dr. Quigley attempts to give a few “facts” from McCarthy’s biography. Everything is solid black.

  Cooler heads without any axe to grind have described McCarthy as aggressive and sometimes bombastic, but not a “throwback to primeval chaos.” Like all politicians they have caught him in an occasional exaggeration, but his speeches and Committee reports certainly do not support the charge that his mind had “nothing to do with rationality or had no conception of truth or the distinction between truth and falsehood.” In fact, the record would rather show that it was his ability to hammer home a whole panorama of irrefutable facts and present them in a completely rational, understandable way, that made him such an enemy of the powers behind the scenes. McCarthy was one politician who could make himself easily understood. And the American people were beginning to respond. That is what was so reprehensible to the Establishment.

  The charge that he sought publicity begs the point. Every Congressional committee which feels it has an important message to get to the rest of Congress and the people will seek publicity. The point is whether or not the publicity was warranted. And was it accurate? From the point of view of any old-fashioned Constitution-oriented American, the McCarthy hearings were not only important, they were enough to leave the reader in a state of shock. As for their accuracy, what else can you deduct from a high government official who is asked whether or not he is part of the Communist conspiracy, and he pleads the Fifth Amendment? Why is it inaccurate to say that such a man has the earmarks of a “security risk?”

  Quigley points out that in five years McCarthy did not prove that any person in the State Department was a Communist.6 If he means in court, this is true. But that is the job of the Department of Justice, not a Congressional committee. The McCarthy hearings exposed enemies of the American people in high places. McCarthy’s committee then recommended that more rigorous security laws be adopted. That was all his Senatorial Committee was supposed to do.

  Dr. Quigley’s statement that McCarthy “did not know what a Communist was,” is completely irresponsible. Note that Quigley documents practically nothing throughout his entire book. What can be documented is the fact that McCarthy was finding not only Communists, but those who were hiring Communists, promoting Communists, hiding Communists and lying under oath to protect Communists.

  After the McCarthy episode the American people virtually went back to sleep. Nevertheless, the specter of Communism returned to haunt them again and again.

  In 1955 it was the Formosa crisis.

  In 1956 it was the Suez Canal crisis followed shortly by the tragic and disgraceful handling of the Hungarian Revolution.

  In 1957 the State Department sponsorship of Fidel Castro as the George Washington of Cuba set the stage for the betrayal of Cuba and her 6 million allies to a brutal Communist conquest.

  In 1958 the Soviet Union sponsored Nasser in the conquest of two independent Arab states. U.S. Marines had to land in Lebanon and both the British and U.S. had to combine to prevent the conquest of Jordan.

  In 1959, the fall of Cuba had become a bizarre reality. While Castro was brutally communizing this island 90 miles from U.S. soil, the State Department was continuing to trumpet the deliberate falsehood that Castro was not really a Communist. The man on the Cuban desk of the State Department was himself a personal friend of Fidel Castro and a former member of the ABC Revolutionary Movement of Cuba.

  Chapter Footnotes

  << 1. For an intimate and sometimes critical biography of Joseph McCarthy, see McCarthy by Roy Cohn, The New American Library, New York, 1968.

  << 2. William F. Buckley and L. Brent Bozell, McCarthy And His Enemies, Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1954.

  << 3. Lionel Lokos, Who Promoted Peress?, New York: The Bookmailer Press, 1961.

  << 4. America’s Retreat From Victory, New York: Devin-Adair Co., 1951.

  << 5. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, pp. 928-929.

  << 6. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 932.

  Chapter Eleven

  Prelude to a Showdown

  It was Cuba as much as any other single factor which made the blood of Americans boil and caused the people of the United States to turn away from the Republicans in the election of 1960.

  About the same time a few Americans among both Republicans and Democrats had begun to do their homework on the Communist conspiracy. A solid front of pro-American anti-Communists had begun to emerge from among America’s long-suffering silent majority.

  In 1958
, J. Edgar Hoover came out with his Masters of Deceit and during the same year this reviewer’s book was published under the title of The Naked Communist. By 1961 both books were on the national best-seller list.

  Study groups, seminars, radio and TV broadcasts began springing up all over the country. Soon names such as Dr. George S. Benson, Dean Manion, Dan Smoot, Dr. Fred Schwarz, Robert Welch, and Billy James Hargis had become familiar to readers and reviewers in the mass communications media. It was a grass roots movement which, unknown to its participants, was racing toward a head-on collision with the Communist-Establishment coalition.

  This reviewer was invited to serve on several of the faculties which were organized to speak at high schools, colleges and community gatherings. Everywhere the crowds were tremendous. Herbert Philbrick and the writer were teamed together to speak to audiences which sometimes totaled more than 10,000 in a single day. The week-long seminars had the same success.

  Beginning in Los Angeles with an average attendance of only 200, the seminars increased until a year later we were meeting in the Los Angeles Sports Arena with daily attendance running into several thousand. Our speakers were presented on television each evening with sponsors paying for two and three hours of expensive TV time.

  On October 16, 1961, the biggest anti-Communist rally in the history of the country was held in the Hollywood Bowl with a filmed telecast which subsequently went from coast-to-coast. The rally lasted three hours and was called “Hollywood’s Answer to Communism.” The stage was filled with the executives of the major studios and many of the top stars. George Murphy (later U.S. Senator) was the master of ceremonies.

  This rally practically monopolized the TV audience in every area where it was shown. In many cities it was rebroadcast. New York saw it twice.

  The rally had four speakers. They were Senator Thomas Dodd, Congressman Walter Judd, Dr. Fred Schwarz and the writer. Before we went on, one of the top executives of Life magazine asked for a few moments time.

  Life had been ridiculing these seminars in recent editorials, but when advertisers began canceling contracts running into hundreds of thousands of dollars, C.D. Jackson rushed out to Hollywood to appear on the program and assure the country that Life also wanted to be counted among the patriots.

  When my turn came to speak something unexpected occurred. It was my assignment to outline some of the practical steps which could be taken to protect the American people from further Communist subversion. My first suggestion was that we demand a full-scale, bipartisan investigation of the entire U.S. State Department. The crowd rose up in such a roar of approval that they virtually took over the program. Several minutes passed before they sat down again. Four other suggestions were also greeted with overtures of approval, but it was clearly evident that the investigation of the State Department was number one on their list. As we learned later, it was this particular part of the broadcast which upset the Establishment more than anything else.

  Within just a few days there was a tremendous reaction from New York.

  Walter Reuther

  Victor Reuther

  The Reuther Memorandum

  In retrospect it would seem that we had caught the Establishment somewhat by surprise. But not for long. Walter Reuther and his brother, Victor, who used to write back from Russia during their training days: “Carry on the fight for a Soviet America!” saw the telecast of the Hollywood Bowl rally when it was shown in New York. Being two of the Establishment’s most powerful labor leaders (and principal behind-the-scenes strategists), they quickly drew up a plan of action. They wrote an extensive memorandum to the Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, outlining the steps which should be taken to promptly stop this highly embarrassing exposure of the inner sanctum. Not since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy had the members of the secret power-combine been so emotionally disturbed.

  Of course, to members of the Establishment, their global socialist society represents the ultimate dream in human achievement. Therefore, to them, we anti-Communist Americans look like reactionary conspirators who are guilty of postponing the communal millennium with our old-fashioned Constitutional concepts of freedom and self-determination.

  Fortunately, the Attorney General’s office was kind enough to furnish a friend of the writer a copy of the Reuther Memorandum. Since then, it has been published. It speaks rather bitterly of the Hollywood rally:

  “In Schwarz’s Southern California meetings, as shown in the New York re-telecast a couple of weeks ago, Senator Dodd’s and Representative Judd’s heavy handed foreign policy polemics received little applause, but when W. Cleon Skousen (author of The Naked Communist) charged treason in high places, the place went up in a roar of applause.”1

  This is not quite accurate, but the Reuther brothers were trying to make a point. Actually both Senator Dodd and Congressman Judd received excellent applause for their talks. What bothered the Reuthers was the fact that when I suggested investigating the State Department, the audience rose to its feet and vigorously demonstrated before the millions of TV viewers their hearty approval. The Reuthers could see a tide of American indignation rising at the grass-roots level. Since this is the key to exposing and deflating the power of the Establishment, it was imperative that we be taken off the air. A few speeches to local audiences wouldn’t hurt much, but a television exposure to millions could soon make the Establishment so contemptible that every Congressman and Senator who was found supporting it would be replaced at the next election.

  And that is exactly what we had in mind.

  But for the moment, they drove us back to the grass-roots. The Reuther brothers recommended five tactical maneuvers which turned out to be temporarily devastating to the grass-roots movement:

  1. Muzzle the military by having all speeches cleared through a military and State Department censuring committee.

  2. Use every means possible to stop the flow of funds to conservative organizations. Use Internal Revenue to investigate conservative organizations and remove their tax-exemption where possible.

  3. Use the power of the Federal Communications Commission to regulate (eliminate) conservative programs.

  4. Have conservative organizations placed on the Attorney General’s “Subversive Organizations” list in order to provide a “balanced list.”

  5. Curb the activities of J. Edgar Hoover who “exaggerates the domestic Communist menace and contributes to the public’s frame of mind.”

  Washington’s Campaign To Stomp Out Conservative Educational Programs

  The muzzling of the military came almost immediately. Furthermore, all patriotic and anti-Communist military programs were suspended. Leading military officials who resisted or objected were forced into retirement or given disciplinary assignments. The Reuthers made their position clear in their memorandum:

  “The radical right inside the Armed Services presents an immediate and special problem requiring immediate and special measures....

  “... the spectacle of the U.S. Army sponsoring Skousen’s reflection on the patriotism of Franklin Roosevelt and the loyalty of Harry Hopkins, could only have been achieved through the connivance of inside military personnel.”2

  It was clear that as of 1961 the Establishment didn’t want people to know about Harry Hopkins giving atomic secrets to the Soviets any more than it had in the days of Joseph McCarthy.

  Using the Internal Revenue to harass patriotic organizations and their leaders was also promptly implemented. By using technical decisions (and sometimes reversing previous decisions) the IRS was able to assess Walter Knott of Knotts Berry Farm a fortune in taxes.

  Billy James Hargis was told that his organization was having its tax-exempt status suspended because of participation in politics. Of course, no such ruling would ever be applied to the Ford Foundation’s Fund for the Republic.

  This reviewer was small fry but likewise received a visit from IRS. I gained the impression, however, that the examiner knew he was on a vindictive “political” assignment. In any
event, he seemed rather pleased when he returned some time later to announce that after going over my records, he had discovered that the Government owed me several hundred dollars!

  As far as getting the patriotic educational programs off the air, that was amazingly successful. They did it through the FCC “Fairness Doctrine.” This provided that if you paid for a program and mentioned subversive individuals or organizations who had been exposed by Congressional committees, those individuals or organizations could demand equal time free of charge to answer. Theoretically the idea sounded perfectly “fair,” but in practice it resulted in all stations excluding any programs which made specific references to people or organizations which had been involved in subversive activities. All future programs had to be in terms of generalities. Education in broad principles continued on the air, but actual exposure of the subversion being uncovered by Congressional Committees practically died. Station managers were afraid they would go broke giving free time to those who wanted to answer. Had the “Fairness Doctrine” required the stations to offer paid time to the offended party, there would have been no problem. But, of course, that would not have fulfilled the objective of the Reuther Memorandum.

  Robert and John Kennedy

  The Kennedy Years

  There had been several things in the John F. Kennedy campaign which had led some people to expect his administration to be an improvement over the last years of Eisenhower. At least, he had promised to “do something about Cuba.” But, as Dr. Quigley boasts, “Kennedy despite his Irish Catholicism, was an Establishment figure.”3 Instead of conditions improving the calamities began to escalate. Here are some examples: