John Bevilaqua

George de Mohrenschildt, whose wife Jeanne was born in Harbin, Manchuria home of the Anastase Vonsiatsky espionage ring actually worked FOR Anastase Vonsiatsky. See: The Russian Fascists, by John J. Stephan Harper, Roe 1979. And see my post on Anastase Vonsiatsky - THE Manchurian Candidate. Richard Condon wrote about Vonsiatsky and implied he was in fact, THE Manchurian Candidate using a character named Lou Amjac. Harbin was one place where Japanese Kamikaze pilots were trained, where Unit 731 conducted human vivisection experiments and where both Ray S. Cline and Robert Emmett Johnson spent time close by in Tsingtao and Mukden. Johnson and Cline were behind the Archbishop Oscar Romero assassination in South America and several others. Hint, hint.

Were you aware of Otepka's history as a supporter of The Liberty Lobby, the John Birch Society and Willis A. Carto? His lawyer was HEAD of the Dallas John Birch Society and was part of the group who sponsored the Wanted For Treason Poster in Dallas, Robert J. Morris via Weismann. From p. 162 in Power on the Right by William W. Turner (1970)... In an interview with Joe Trento of Wide World News Service, Otepka (in the late 1960's) made it clear that in his view the only subversion is on the left. "Be realistic. There are no Nazis. This is just the pink, communist method for slandering good Americans." (Otepka) Benefactor Carto (of the Liberty Lobby) was one of those good Americans. "The Liberty Lobby is a respectable organization -- patriotic. Willis Carto is no Nazi. He believes in the fine tradition of American life, and to me that is important." Who was Otepka's lawyer throughout his infamous Ordeal? See: The Ordeal of Otto Otepka by Richard Gill. None other than Mr. McCarthyite himself, Robert J. Morris. And who appeared in the film of the same title now owned by The Sons of Liberty: Senator Strom Thrumond, Robert J. Morris head of the Dallas John Birch Society, Colonel Curtis B. Dahl and Bircher Congressman James B. Utt Ms. Mellen, methinks you have been had by Otto F. Otepka.

There were actually 4 references in The Manchurian Candidate to members or founders of YAF, The Young Americans for Freedom started by Larrie Schmidt a close ally of Robert J. Morris and Charles A. Willoughby in the Dallas John Birch Society. They were both linked to the Bernard Weismann, Wanted For Treason Poster circulated in Dallas on the weekend JFK died. The 4 persons from YAF referred to in The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon were Senator Strom Thurmond, William F. Buckley, Jr., Robert J. Morris and Maj. Gen. Charles A. Willoughby. Richard Condon knew who was going to be behind the murder of JFK. He just could not do anything about it. Philosophy YAF's founding statement of principles, the Sharon Statement, was written on September 11, 1960, by M. Stanton Evans with the assistance of Annette Kirk, wife of the late Russell Kirk. [1] Since its founding, YAF has continuously identified itself as "conservative." Indeed, the founders were among those who helped to define the modern meaning of this term in American politics. However, the term "conservative" has changed in meaning over several generations. Before World War II, most American conservatives were isolationist. But as the Cold War began to dominate American foreign policy, the old conservatism disintegrated. After Robert Taft was defeated for the Republican nomination in 1952, isolationist conservatism mostly vanished. In the 1950s, a new kind of conservatism arose. This new ideology was formulated in large part by the newspaper Human Events, the magazine National Review, and National Review's editor William F. Buckley, Jr. This new conservatism welded together four different strains: free-market economics, respect for traditional values, orderly society and anti-communism. In the late 1960s, the term libertarianism began to be used for a political philosophy. Many of those who popularized this term were initially part of the conservative movement, but came to separate themselves from the conservatives on certain issues. Libertarians within YAF believed, for example, the military draft was a violation of the individual freedom the organization claimed to embrace. The conservatives (or traditionalists as they were sometimes called) supported the draft as being necessary to defeat communism. After 1969, the relationship between conservatives and libertarians in YAF was often rocky.[2] A majority of members identified themselves simply as conservative, but some identified as both conservative and libertarian, and still others identified themselves simply as libertarian. From time to time, power struggles broke out; when this happened, the libertarians almost always ended up losing. In later years, new viewpoints would be amalgamated by the conservative movement, including neoconservatism in the early 1970s, the New Right in the late 1970s and the Religious Right in the 1980s. Some YAF members identified with some of these philosophies, others opposed them and still others were content to simply identify themselves as conservative without further specificity. Since its founding, YAF members on college campuses focused primarily on national and international politics, rather than on-campus politics. Thus members were much more likely to pass out handbills for a candidate for congress than for student body president. [edit] History YAF's history can be broken into six periods. [edit] National conservative activism, 1960–1965 In September 1960, YAF was founded at a meeting held at Buckley's estate in Sharon, Connecticut. In the first four years of its existence, YAF grew rapidly on college campuses. On March 7, 1962, a YAF-sponsored conservative rally filled Madison Square Garden in New York City. In the 1960s, the Republican Party was divided between its conservative wing, led by Barry Goldwater, and its more liberal wing, led by Nelson Rockefeller. YAF members fell squarely on Goldwater's side. However, some members had sympathy with the conservative Southern Democrats known as Dixiecrats, and thus from its inception YAF was deliberately non-partisan. By 1964, YAF was a major force in the campaign to nominate Goldwater, and then after his nomination, to elect him president. Goldwater's massive defeat in the presidential election of 1964 demoralized many members. One of the organization's major achievements during this period was their defeat of Firestone's plans to open a rubber plant in communist Romania. A large YAF public relations campaign, capped with a threat to spread "Boycott Firestone" handbills at the Indianapolis 500, resulted in Firestone canceling their Romanian plans in April 1965. YAF faced opposition from groups like the American Nazi Party because of the presence of Jews in the organization and its close relationship with Marvin Liebman. Most members also kept their distance from segregationists such as George Wallace and conspiracy theorists such as the John Birch Society. However, YAF did honor staunch segregationist and Senator from South Carolina Strom Thurmond with its Freedom Award in 1962.[3] [edit] Reaction to radical activism, 1965–1971 Liberalism and radicalism dominated campuses from the mid-1960s until the early 1970s, primarily as a result of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. During this era, members felt outnumbered by the left on campuses, and spent their energy challenging and rebutting left-wing groups such as Students for a Democratic Society. YAF members tended to hold similar opinions to their older compatriots within the conservative movement. Members vocally supported an aggressive policy of seeking victory in the Vietnam War, but opposed how the war was being conducted, such as the use of conscription and allowing the enemy sanctuary in the Laos, Cambodia, and the North Vietnam. A smaller fraction philosophically extended the traditional support of limited government in economic issues to social, and defense-related issues. This group came to be known as libertarians. Members of this faction were among the founding members of the Libertarian Party in 1971. The majority of members during this era supported Ronald Reagan's successful bid for governor of California in 1966, as well as his unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 1968. [edit] Advocacy politics, 1971–1985 In the 1970s, YAF became much older, demographically speaking. Rather than merely staging campus demonstrations, they focused on influencing national politics by lobbying and occasionally staging and publicizing small demonstrations. When the Nixon administration enacted wage controls and price controls, abandoned the gold standard and improved relations with mainland China, YAF felt he was abandoning conservative principles. They publicly denounced the administration for these moves, becoming the first conservative organization to do so. They supported Reagan's almost-successful bid to win the Republican presidential nomination in 1976 and his victorious race for the presidency in 1980. On college campuses, YAF was a large political group, more conservative and less partisan than the College Republicans. Members were willing to oppose liberal Republicans and support conservative Democrats and third-party candidates. During many local and national races throughout this era, YAF members were divided about whether to support a moderately conservative electable candidate or to support a staunchly conservative long-shot candidate. In 1980, Young Conservatives of Texas was formed by a group of YAF members in Texas that broke off to found their own organization. Since that time, YAF itself has never had a major presence in the state. By the mid-1980s, many of YAF's leaders were in their thirties and long out of college. Some of them held positions in government while continuing to run the organization as a lobbying and fund-raising group for conservative causes. [edit] Campus activism, 1985–1990 As YAF grew older, most of the original members went on to other things, while younger members dominated YAF. During this era, a new generation of liberal and radical activism was growing on college campuses, and members began focusing on opposing these movements. This growth was strongest in California, where members staged protests in favor of aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, in favor of Reagan's anti-communist policies and in opposition to the United Nations. At the same time, internal problems paralyzed the YAF hierarchy. The national board was still controlled by lawyers and lobbyists who remembered the glory days of YAF fund-raising in the early 1980s. The new activist element resented and distrusted the old guard, and began to gradually whittle away at their power. In 1989, an alliance of Californian and New York activists ousted most of the old guard from national leadership positions. [edit] Advocacy politics, 1991–present Members of the University of Michigan YAF Chapter protest affirmative action in Ann Arbor, Michigan.By 1991, the national board of YAF contained a majority of Californians -- the first time a single state had had a majority in the governing council. However, this new régime found itself unable to effectively run YAF as a financial and organizational entity. The strength of its activism was shattered by the Gulf War that begin in January 1991. Most members considered President George H. W. Bush to be insufficiently conservative, and his rhetoric justifying the war -- "a new world order" -- to be dangerously utopian. Later in the 1990s, YAF returned to national advocacy politics. The national office organized petition drives and staged a variety of events to promote the conservative viewpoint on a variety of public issues. Some of these events would have an attention-grabbing theme such as "Pardon Oliver North" and "Impeach Janet Reno." [edit] Today's YAF YAF continues to exist today and continues to advocate conservative issues. In recent years, a number of chapters have been formed or revived across the country.[4] While a majority of chapters are found on college campuses, the California organization is statewide and includes a political action committee -- which endorses candidates and assists conservative candidates.[5] Its most recent activities have included rallies proclaiming support of the troops, advocacy for strict control of illegal immigration, demonstrations against affirmative action and protesting left-wing campus speakers.[6][7] YAF has also organized protests against legislation enacting anti-discrimination protection for transsexuals.[8][9] Notable YAF chapters exist at Pennsylvania State University, Michigan State University and the University of Michigan. In fact, a movement to revive YAF has achieved a degree of success with various chapters across the United States. The Central Michigan University chapter participated in the celebration of Freedom Week 2006, which includes World Freedom Day. Freedom Week "celebrates victory over communism" and is one of many conservative events advocated by the Young America's Foundation, an organization that has been closely linked with YAF.[10][11] CMU's chapter also hosted a "peaceful rally and ceremony" before the Rev. Jesse Jackson's visit in January 2007.[12][13][14] With the growing comeback of YAF on college campuses, chapters are taking the lead by organizing educational events, and partnering with like-minded student organizations to combat the opposition -- which has often united both liberals and conservatives in taking on the university's administration. Most recently, the CMU chapter hosted a forum on Belarus,[15][16] which has been called "Europe's last dictatorship" by President George W. Bush and others.[17][18] [edit] Michigan State University On November 20, 2006, around one dozen YAF members from MSU and Olivet College were involved in a protest outside the Lansing City Council. They were protesting a proposed ordinance prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals and transsexuals. Some of the protestors held signs reading "Straight Power." [19][20] The Southern Poverty Law Center took objection to the MSU chapter's actions and has included the organization on its hate group list for 2006 under the "general hate" category.[21] In an interview with the Lansing State Journal, a spokeswoman said the YAF chapter went overboard for advocating "a lot of anti-gay beliefs" on the MSU campus. [22] [edit] YAF's national status While many YAF chapters have formed and revived on campuses across the country, it is unclear if the national organization still exists. The website [23] has not been updated since President Reagan's death. Some recent claims suggest that the organization still maintains an advisory board. According to a blog maintained by MSU-YAF chairman Kyle Bristow, it includes people such as M. Stanton Evans; Ron Robinson; Vice President Dick Cheney; Senators Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott; former Senator George Allen; former Attorney General John Ashcroft and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. [24]. [edit] Lasting influence YAF had a great deal of influence in the 1960s and 1970s when activism on college campuses was at its peak because of the Vietnam War. [25] Its indirect influence is felt through the great numbers of conservative political figures who began their careers as members in college. These alumni include former President Reagan; former national chairman and former U.S. Representative Robert Bauman; former California chairman and former California legislator Pat Nolan; U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher; former Vice President Dan Quayle; Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Chris Cox; U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo, a 2008 presidential candidate; American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene and a great number of other national and state politicians. [edit] Footnotes ^ http://www.kirkcenter.org/documents/ayk-speech-2004-05.html ^ http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/BruceBa...n_gop_defection ^ Eric Foner, Give Me Liberty! An American History Volume 2, Norton Seagull Edition 2006, 890. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...rkam-usat_x.htm ^ http://www.calyaf.org/ ^ http://www.ourmidland.com/site/index.cfm?n...78054&rfi=8 ^ http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/cnn...rmative.action/ ^ http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A.../611210331/1382 ^ http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=38845 ^ http://www.cm-life.com/vnews/display.v/ART...7/455d2c0886947 ^ http://students.yaf.org/activists/freedom_week/index.cfm ^ http://media.www.cm-life.com/media/storage...gepublisher.com ^ http://media.www.cm-life.com/media/storage...gepublisher.com ^ http://9and10news.com/category/story/?id=111951 ^ http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?ne...72542&rfi=6 ^ http://www.mlive.com/news/sanews/index.ssf....xml&coll=9 ^ http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../5/214450.shtml ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1721135,00.html ^ http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=21542 ^ http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=38845 ^ http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?S=MI&m=5 ^ http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...50387/1001/news ^ http://www.yaf.com ^ http://spartanspectator.blogspot.com/2007/...state-news.html ^ http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_06/cover.html [edit] External links Young Americans for Freedom Buena Vista University Chapter California Young Americans for Freedom Florida International University Chapter Michigan State University Chapter Minnesota Young Americans for Freedom Pennsylvania State University Chapter University of Michigan Chapter Western Michigan University Chapter [edit] Further reading Andrew, John A., III. The Other Side of the Sixties: Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of Conservative Politics. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press (1997), 286 pages, ISBN 0-8135-2400-8 (paper). Covers the history of YAF from 1960 to 1964. Crawford, Alan. Thunder on the Right: The "New Right" and the Politics of Resentment. New York: Pantheon Books (1980), 381 pages, ISBN 0-394-74862-X (paper). A negative portrayal of 1970s and 1980s conservatism, including much material on YAF. Nash, George H. The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945. Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute (1996), 467 pages, ISBN 1-882926-12-9 (hardcover). A history of the different strains of conservative ideology from 1945 until 1976, updated to 1996 in the second edition. Rusher, William A. The Rise of the Right. New York: National Review Books (1993), 261 pages, ISBN 0-9627841-2-5 (paper). A history of American political conservatism from 1953 until 1981, updated to 1993 in the second edition. Includes much material on YAF. Schneider, Gregory L. Cadres for Conservatism: Young Americans for Freedom and the Rise of the Contemporary Right. New York: New York University Press (1999), 263 pages, ISBN 0-8147-8108-X (hardcover). Covers the history of YAF from 1960 to 1985. Klatch, Rebecca E "A Generation Divided" Berkeley, University of California Press (1999), 334 pages, ISBN 0-520-21713-6 (paper). A scholarly and academic work with many references to Young Americans for Freedom, SDS, and campus activism of the 1960s and early 1970s. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Americans_for_Freedom"

I have coined the phrase, used often by The New York Post and elsewhere in the 1990's, "The Far Reich Wing in America" to describe such organizations as the CNP, the JBS, ASC, YAF and The Liberty Lobby among others. I will be opening threads on any of these groups which do not already have their own thread.

Thanks for that Gary. Yes, very important article. I know most American's think 'It can't really happen HERE!'. I was in Chile before the US overthrew the duely elected and democratic social democratic government of Salvadore Allende [using some of the Dallas crowd, by the way...but another story..] - and they thought it could never happen there. Chile had never had a military take-over and of all of S. America, had the most stable and democratic history. We took care of that! [see Naomi Klien's Shock Doctrine about Chile!] And many other nations, as well. [see William Blum's Killing Hope!] My list since WW2 includes about 60 from this bastion of democracy that we are not....we are a bastion of predatory corporate capitalism with a Military and supporting structure for it...not for the People in or out of the Nation. [i.e. a growing fascist state] America, as I write is about, IMO, 7-8 steps of the way in the list of ten and the end can come in the stroke of a pen by the twice unelected President after a false new emergency a la' the phony one on 911 or another Dallas or invent yet another one in or outside the country....yet the American's 'sleep' and only wring their hands. Who will save us?....not the next election!.....only we can save our Country. The first step is awareness, the second is Action to stop the madness from Dallas to Today....and about to continue anabated unless stopped. IT CAN, AND WILL HAPPEN 'HERE' IF NOT STOPPED. THE 2-3 STEPS NOT YET COMPLETE ARE ACTIVELY BEING 'WORKED' UPON AS WE SIT ON OUR HANDS.......... Well I think it is in facct happening here... Fine with me but this little tirade was itself on topic. It just shows how readily and willingly those using McCarthy style tactics (like those used against Alger Hiss) are to resort to a 'circling the wagons' or 'pack dog' mentality to call in reinforcements to focus the next attack on someone perceived as the enemy. Wonder how Thomas is feeling about this little whiplash treatment? I know how Alger Hiss felt about it. Permanent disbarment from the Forum is more than just a little bit overdone especially when this call to action comes from someone who was just recently banned and then somehow resurrected, right? What a mistake that was. Kick him off this island. Alger Hiss was nothing less than a victim of the exact same 'pack dog' mentality launched from the Radical Right. Their leadership at that time included the Marvin Liebmann types from YAF and The China Lobby who attacked Owen Lattimore, the Robert J. Morris types from McCarthyism who attacked anyone within easy range, and the John Birch and Liberty Lobby types who did almost the same like Robert Welch and Dr. Revilo P. Oliver who eventually appeared before the Warren Commission as a so called expert witness. If this does not convince some of you on this Forum and in the world at large to seriously reconsider the source of and the motivations for the unfair attacks launched on Alger Hiss and Owen Lattimore and others even to this day, than certainly nothing will. To think that refined gentlemen and scholars like Hiss and Lattimore could have their reputations smeared throughout their lifetimes by the likes of the sleaze bag attack dogs and pond scum from the Far Right from YAF, JBS, Liberty Lobby and McCarthyism is shameful. Have you no shame, Senator McCarthy? Whittaker Chambers, you are despicable. Nathaniel Weyl would still be serving jail time if he were still alive. He implicated himself. Robert Welch and Robert J. Morris and Marvin Liebmann had no principles, they were only out to make a buck on others misery using donated money from sometimes unwitting sources. Anyone else who joins these pack dogs should be reviled, despised and shunned. I hope you have all learned a great object lesson as you watch McCarthyism at work still alive and kicking to this day. In some small way we should all be grateful that most of these attack dogs like Senator Joe McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Whittaker Chambers, Marvin Liebmann and Wickliffe Draper were all homosexuals. For they can leave no living progeny to carry out their campaigns. In the case of some others still active in these anti-society and anti-humanity campaigns (some of whom still post to this day on this Forum and others very similar to it) I can only advise you to get the mental health treatment you so desperately need. I think we all know who they are in fact. They all jump to the defense of the same frequent and constant posters and agents provocateur whenever they are asked. Sad but true.

Gary, careful here. Did you know we have both current and former members of both the Young Americans for Freedom, McCarthyism and The John Birch Society here and all 3 were determined to be Fascist dominated organizations or Fascist inspired movements in the 1960's? Gratz and Caddy were in YAF... Can you figure out the McCarthyites and Birchers? Wow, you must be younger and more impressionable than you look. Amazing stuff. How quickly we forget... For a second I thought you were kidding but you are not in fact, are you? Do you really know the history of YAF, The Birch Society and McCarthyism and some of those persons/tactics you so quickly jump to the aid of here? You hate Fascists but you support Fascism or is it the other way around? I am getting confused. LOL Look up YAF or the JBS. Have you forgotten that Birchers and YAFers like Larrie Schmidt, Robert Morris and Charles Willoughby paid for the Wanted For Treason poster fronted by Bernard Weissman? Have you forgotten that Robert Morris received the YAF Man of the Year award in 1964 from Wm. Buckley, Jr. for... for... ummm... for something he did in 1963 perhaps? Go figure. Have you forgotten, or did you ever know, might be a better tack, that Richard Condon in The Manchurian Candidate wrote about "... that fascinating young man who wrote about man and God at Yale?" Do you know who even wrote 'God and Man at Yale' published by that Fascist yellow journalism shop Regnery Press? I guess not. Do you recall who was the most prolific Holocaust Denial source ever? Regnery Press. Do you know who published more anti-Clinton garbage than anyone else? Regnery Press. Do you know who volunteered to be Hitler's representative in American following a Nazi victory? William H. Regnery, a founder of the America First Group, which lobbied for non-interventionism before World War II. See: Did you say JOSEPH KENNEDY posting by Timmy ratz. William was the grandfather of today's Regnery owners who are trying to change directions. Do you understand why many have postulated and some have proven these likely links between YAFers and their knowledge of the JFK Assassination? Why are you here if you don't know these barebones facts about YAF, YAFers and their consummate, vitriolic hatred for JFK and anyone who supports him? Do you know that YAFers were, and still are, considered the first line of defense for anyone who tries to point fingers at YAFers, JBS members or McCarthyites? Didja? Guess not. Did you know that Marvin Liebmann a YAF founder I believe rode Robert J. Morris' coattails from The China Lobby, through McCarthyism and then into YAF? Look it up. Amazing. Just amazing. These postings are being made so that the historical record WILL be set straight. It WILL. Here are the tactics used by certain individuals on THIS VERY FORUM... Thanks for the posting. And Gary, DO NOT LET THE YAFFERS BRAINWASH YOU, CONTROL YOU OR AFFECT YOUR OPINIONS. You have a mind of your own. Use it. 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (like the Communists or Hiss supporters) 2. Create a gulag (You are now in the doghouse... set the attack dogs upon them.) 3. Develop a thug caste (like the backstabbing Gestapo bee-atches posting here and elsewhere. Meeee-owwww.) Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, or here in identical skirts and blouses would be more appropriate, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. 4. Set up an internal surveillance system (3 internal spies on every Forum) 5. Harass citizens' groups (Like the Education Forum or alt.conspiracy.jfk) 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release (You are off the Forum, you are on again, you would be off if I were boss.) 7. Target key individuals (like your opposition or anyone who accuses your associates or anyone whose posts you disagree with) 8. Control the press (With a barrage of Letters to the Editor or Forum postings, get it?) 9. Dissent equals treason (Therefore dissenters are treasonous... get it?) 10. Suspend the rule of law (If I were in charge XYZ would be off, and Little Timmy's Gestapo would become the Gestapo thugs in charge.) Little Timmy even tried to off one his own supporters... amazing. "Off with his head, said the Queen." What a bee-atch. Oh, you AGREED with me? Well, then put your head back on then. All better now? On with the Inquisition then. Naomi Wolf's The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot will be published by Chelsea Green in September.

Objective scholares (sic)... What is that supposed to mean? Name one! And only non-objective scholares conclude that he was innocent? Well, now we are beginning to get the picture. Ipso facto rides again.

My eyes must have decieved me then, because I'm pretty sure I did read it. Bingo, they weren't refuting the actual, unpublished, article, but an oral presentation, which, if I understand correctly, they did not even attend. Now let's actually address the paper, shall we? These Right Wing types don't like to confuse their opinions with the facts. My guess is that no matter how slowly it was typed, it was still too fast and too complex for them. My other guess is that they are not capable of even comprehending it.

Yeah, they are essentially "refuting" an article they had not even read at the time. It was a preemptive strike. I find their "refutation" weak and facile, particularly their attempt to explain away Gorsky's placing Ales in Mexico while Hiss was in Washington, compare which to Kai and Chervonnaya. Jeff Kisseloff calls it "a quickly assembled, conjectural, truncated, inaccurate summary of Bird and Chervonnaya's findings included in a premature and hostile response to reports of "The Mystery of Ales" by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (see "Hiss Was Guilty," History News Network, April 16, 2007), which was posted on the Internet two months before the Bird and Chervonnaya paper was published or even available for review." http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/tanenhausresponse.html By "objective scholars" I assume you mean Allen Weinstein, Bush's Chief Archivist and the man who said of the National Endowment for Democracy, which he helped create, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." He wrote a book almost entirely worthless called "Perjury." Since you are not dealing with any real issues, I will just direct you to some refutations and leave it at that. See here: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/kissel.html http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/navasky.html http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/gaps.html http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/jones.html Nice job, Owen. You apparently are able to see through the thinly veiled subterfuges promulgated by the efforts of those from the Far Right. Did you see where Nathaniel Weyl ended up? As a suspect in a violation of The Neutrality Act and as a suspect as an accessory after the fact to murder for his role in the Bayo/Pawley affair. I was told that if it were not for the fact that he was so old and infirm at the time that the cases would have been pursued. What role do you think was played by Weyl in the Hiss case?

Nathaniel Weyl SHOULD have been known as a 3-time convicted felon and someone in the pocket of Wickliffe P. Draper, founder of The Bell Curve, and the persecutor of both Sacco and Vanzetti AND Alger T. Hiss. Instead history let's him off scot free and continues to indict an innocent Hiss. Draper was also behind such assaults against humanity as the Immigration Act of 1924, the American Eugenics Society, Hitler's Nuremburg Laws, Buck vs. Bell and The Involuntary Sterilization Laws, The Case of Dr. Ossian Sweet, The Hollywood Seven, McCarthyism itself, HUAC, and opposition to the de-Nazification of Germany, Brown vs. Board of Education and The Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also financed The Assassination of JFK. Then he sponsored most of the research behind the fatally flawed conclusions of The Bell Curve. This was after he funded a "Back to Africa" movement which offered a bonus to any black person who would move back to Africa. Later Doug Blackmon in the WSJ proved that Draper funded the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission in the 1960s. What more do you need to know? Certainly this are many arguments that Draper's sponsorship of Joe McCarthy, Robert J. Morris, Whittaker Chambers and Nathaniel Weyl is prima facie evidence that he would have been the person who convinced them to join him in the indictment of Alger Hiss by funding their efforts in this regard. There are NO Draper campaigns against humanity which were fair, accurate or justified. None. Therefore the Hiss case falls into this category as well since it was yet another Draper campaign against humanity. Does anyone here think that Draper would have actually latched onto a single accurate campaign in his entire lifetime? Can anyone here name one?

Typical tendencious Haynes and Klehr schlock. All of which can be rebutted by simply comparing this article to the Bird/Chervonnaya paper which it attempted to pre-emptively rebut. After studying this matter in some depth, I can say that the entire case against Alger Hiss is one blatant fraud after another and that he is entirely innocent. Nathaniel Weyl SHOULD have been known as a 3-time convicted felon and someone in the pocket of Wickliffe P. Draper, founder of The Bell Curve, and the persecutor of both Sacco and Vanzetti AND Alger T. Hiss. Instead history let's him off scot free and continues to indict an innocent Hiss. Draper was also behind such assaults against humanity as the Immigration Act of 1924, the American Eugenics Society, Hitler's Nuremburg Laws, Buck vs. Bell and The Involuntary Sterilization Laws, The Case of Dr. Ossian Sweet, The Hollywood Seven, McCarthyism itself, HUAC, and opposition to the de-Nazification of Germany, Brown vs. Board of Education and The Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also financed The Assassination of JFK. Then he sponsored most of the research behind the fatally flawed conclusions of The Bell Curve. This was after he funded a "Back to Africa" movement which offered a bonus to any black person who would move back to Africa. Later Doug Blackmon in the WSJ proved that Draper funded the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission in the 1960s. What more do you need to know? Certainly this are many arguments that Draper's sponsorship of Joe McCarthy, Robert J. Morris, Whittaker Chambers and Nathaniel Weyl is prima facie evidence that he would have been the person who convinced them to join him in the indictment of Alger Hiss by funding their efforts in this regard. There are NO Draper campaigns against humanity which were fair, accurate or justified. None. Therefore the Hiss case falls into this category as well since it was yet another Draper campaign against humanity. Does anyone here think that Draper would have actually latched onto a single accurate campaign in his entire lifetime? Can anyone here name one? Here is the Kai Bird and Svetlana Chervonnaya article exonerating Hiss. Summer 2007 The Mystery of Ales The argument that Alger Hiss was a WWII-era Soviet asset is flawed. New evidence points to someone else By Kai Bird and Svetlana Chervonnaya Nearly 60 years ago, Alger Hiss, a former high official in the U.S. State Department, was convicted of perjury and sentenced to prison on the grounds that he had lied about his role in a Soviet spy ring prior to World War II. The Hiss case became the most controversial spy story of the Cold War — and for good reason. As the distinguished historian Walter LaFeber once observed, “It was the Hiss trial, among other [events] that triggered the McCarthy era.” For many conservatives, the Hiss case confirmed the specter of Soviet infiltration at the highest levels of American government. The case also catapulted an obscure California congressman, Richard M. Nixon, onto the national scene. Nixon championed the allegations against Hiss and in 1950 was elected to the U.S. Senate, largely based on the notoriety he had acquired from the case. Although Hiss insisted on his innocence until his death in 1996, many Cold War historians, and perhaps most notably Allen Weinstein in his 1978 book, Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case, have firmly concluded that Hiss was part of a clandestine Communist cell from 1935 onward and that he passed information to the Soviet Union from late 1936 until early 1938 through an underground Communist courier named Whittaker Chambers. Most historians have conceded the argument to Weinstein (who is today the Archivist of the United States). They have done so, however, not because the evidence against Hiss is clear and definitive, but because the evidence box — filled as it is with a morass of circumstantial detail — leaves them the easy option of finding him guilty of some form of espionage activity during his murky relationship with Chambers. To a few skeptics, however, this muddled spy case will remain an open question until the Russian archives disgorge incontrovertible proof that Hiss was or was not a conscious agent. Despite continuing claims that the documents U.S. researchers obtained from the Russian archives in the early- to mid-1990s represent, in the words of scholars John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, a “massive documentation of the guilt” of Alger Hiss, not a single document with his name or that of his accuser Whittaker Chambers has ever been produced from the publicly accessible Russian archives. To be sure, there are a few references to Alger Hiss in Soviet-era documents that have been leaked to Weinstein and his Russian co-author, Alexander Vassiliev. But in their book The Haunted Wood, Weinstein and Vassiliev leave the impression that Hiss is repeatedly mentioned in Soviet-era documents. Their narrative of Hiss’s espionage in the 1930s is heavily referenced to Weinstein’s own Perjury. And when they quote from three 1945 KGB documents describing a Soviet source at the State Department, they substitute Hiss’s name in brackets for “Ales,” the cover name for an American working for the Soviets. They do the same thing when quoting from a Soviet intelligence cable dated March 30, 1945, decrypted and released by the U.S. government under the National Security Agency’s VENONA program. Weinstein and Vassiliev did get exclusive access to a crop of documents from the KGB archive. But the references to Hiss in those documents boil down to only five pages from a single SVR (the successor agency to the KGB) file. We do not propose to address the larger question of whether Hiss was guilty or innocent of espionage, but rather to explore whether he fits the profile of the Soviet asset hidden behind the cover name Ales (pronounced A´-les). Historians of the craft of intelligence recognize the peril of assigning identities to code names more than 50 years after their use. It is difficult at best to translate from one language and culture to another, particularly when dealing with partially decrypted documents. Other imponderables include the ambiguities surrounding witting and unwitting sources and, most obviously, the incentives for intelligence officers to exaggerate the value of both their information and their sources. All of this is to say that we are aware that, like others before us, we tread on thin ice. Still, we have found evidence to suggest that Hiss could not have been Ales. Moreover, an alternative candidate exists. THE VENONA PUZZLE Until the mid-1990s, Weinstein and other historians accepted Chambers’s assertions that Hiss’s associations with the Soviets were confined to the period of 1936–38. But when the NSA declassified the VENONA documents in the mid-1990s, students of the case claimed that Hiss continued his presumed espionage into the World War II years. The documents are a collection of intercepted and fragmentary decrypted cables between Moscow and its overseas intelligence outposts (most prominently New York and Washington, D.C.) that produced hundreds of cryptonyms for agents, assets, or contacts of Soviet intelligence. They also included many names of unsuspecting Americans whom Soviet intelligence operatives discussed, targeted, or merely mentioned. Hiss’s name turned up in this second group. In one such fragmentary GRU (Russian military intelligence) cable, it is reported that an NKGB (a forerunner of the KGB) operative mentioned an official “from the State Department by the name of HISS.” Normally, these Russian-language cables use the Cyrillic alphabet, but here HISS is spelled out in the Latin alphabet, perhaps indicating that the name was unfamiliar to the sender. Could a person openly named in such a message be an agent of that service at the time the message was written or at any previous time? Not according to Lt. Gen. Vitaly Pavlov, a former KGB foreign intelligence officer who had supervised intelligence operations focused on the United States from late in 1938. When interviewed in 2002, Pavlov firmly stated that no one openly named in the VENONA cables could have been an agent. Why was he so sure? “Had he ever been an agent, the service would have his code name in the system.” Three years later, this opinion was upheld by another Russian intelligence professional, Maj. Gen. Julius Kobyakov. After reading one VENONA cable, Kobyakov told us that had Hiss been an agent, “it would be very unusual to put a true name in a cable: speaking about one of their assets, normally, they would use a code name.” This VENONA message openly using the name Hiss has been lost in a heated, decade-long discussion of yet another VENONA cable, 1822, sent from Washington to Moscow, originating from the NKGB intelligence station on the top floor of the Soviet Embassy on 16th Street. Dated March 30, 1945, the cable describes a Soviet agent who had the code name Ales. The NSA released its English translation of the cable in 1996 with a footnote saying that Ales was “probably” Alger Hiss. According to FBI historian John F. Fox, the identification of Ales as Alger Hiss in VENONA 1822 dates back to a May 15, 1950, FBI memorandum from Alan Belmont, head of the FBI espionage section. “It would appear likely,” the 1950 memo surmised, “that this individual [Ales] is Alger Hiss in view of the fact that he was in the State Department and the information from Chambers indicated that his wife, Priscilla, was active in Soviet espionage and he also had a brother, Donald, in the State Department.” Those officials privy to the VENONA intercept seem to have conducted, at best, a cursory investigation of Ales’s identity. Hiss, who was in the news for his perjury conviction, seemed to fill the bill. Even so, in the same May 15 memo, the FBI noted that “an attempt is being made by analysis of the available information to verify this identification.” Even three years after Hiss’s conviction in 1950, the FBI was still conducting interviews about Ales — suggesting that the bureau had doubts. Yet almost half a century later, when the FBI’s May 15 memo was released to a U.S. Senate commission, no mention was made of the bureau’s initial and continuing doubts. Appendix A of what has become known as the Moynihan Commission Report said that “a Soviet cable of March 30, 1945, identified an agent, code-name ALES, as having attended the Yalta Conference of February 1945. He had then journeyed to Moscow where, according to the cable, he and his colleagues were ‘awarded Soviet decorations.’ This could only be Alger Hiss, Deputy Director of the State Department’s Office of Special Political Affairs; the other three State Department officials in the delegation from Yalta to Moscow are beyond suspicion.” Ever since, Ales’s identity as Alger Hiss has become a mantra for longtime believers in Hiss’s guilt. Today, NSA historian Robert L. Benson goes so far as to say that the word “probably” should be dropped in the NSA’s tentative identification of Ales. In his view, there can no longer be any question that Hiss engaged in wartime spying on behalf of the Soviet Union and that he is the Ales described in VENONA 1822. At first, this reasoning appears to be straightforward and logical. But a closer reading of VENONA 1822 raises numerous questions: - The cable says that Ales had been working with the GRU since 1935; Chambers specifically said that Hiss had no GRU connections before 1937. - The cable says that Ales was the leader of a small group “mainly consisting of his relatives.” Hiss, his critics have assumed, was “working” with his wife, Priscilla, and his brother Donald — although no one has ever lodged any espionage allegations against Donald, and the FBI itself said charges that he was a member of the Communist Party were unsubstantiated. Neither has any evidence surfaced that Priscilla was a Communist Party member. - The cable says that Ales provided his Soviet handlers with “military information only.” Here the evidence pointing to Hiss is at best ambiguous, if not exculpatory. It would be illogical to use a State Department career diplomat with a legal background for obtaining information that would not normally come his way — and at the same time to underuse him for getting the diplomatic information he would encounter naturally. Attempts to prove that Hiss was Ales by pointing out that by 1944–45 he was privy to information on military matters seem to disregard this elementary logic of intelligence tradecraft. - Finally, and most important, VENONA 1822 reports that “after the YALTA Conference, when he had gone on to MOSCOW, a Soviet personage in a very responsible position (ALES gave to understand that it was Comrade Vyshinsky) allegedly got in touch with ALES and at the behest of the Military NEIGHBORS passed onto him their gratitude and so on.” Those who believe Hiss is Ales argue that this clue is the clincher: Ales attended the Yalta conference in February 1945 — and so did Hiss. Ales left Yalta and flew to Moscow where the Soviet deputy foreign minister, Andrei Vyshinsky, ostensibly conveyed “their gratitude.” Like Ales, Hiss did leave the Yalta conference and fly with Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius to Moscow, where he remained for two days. On the evening of February 13, 1945, Hiss accompanied Stettinius to a performance of Swan Lake at the Bolshoi; he and Stettinius’s party sat in the central box of the theater with Vyshinsky — who presumably seized this occasion, perhaps during an intermission, to take Hiss aside for a moment and express his gratitude. Case closed. But after months of digging in both the American and Russian archives, we have discovered new evidence that demonstrates the falsity of this damning scenario. Hiss was not Ales. The historians who have maintained that he was Ales turned an assumption and a few clues into a conclusion without bothering to determine if Hiss actually fit the profile of Ales — or asking whether someone else better fit that profile. THE SECOND GORSKY CABLE We have found that Hiss had a firm alibi. We know this from a relatively recent discovery, a Soviet-era cable that sheds new light on the clues to Ales’s identity given in VENONA 1822. This new evidence surfaced during a libel suit filed in London by Vassiliev, Weinstein’s Russian collaborator on The Haunted Wood. In 2003, Vassiliev lost his suit, but in the course of the trial he introduced numerous notes he had taken on Soviet-era documents that he was allowed to read (but not to photocopy) in the archives of the SVR. One of these documents was a March 5, 1945, cable signed “Vadim,” written to his colleagues in Moscow. Vadim is known to have been Anatoly Gorsky, the NKGB’s station chief in Washington, who operated under the cover name Anatoly Gromov and the cover position of the first secretary in the Soviet Embassy in Washington. Gorsky would also be the author, almost a month later, of VENONA 1822. Weinstein had access to Vassiliev’s notes on the March 5 Gorsky cable, but he cited only a small portion of it in The Haunted Wood. The important clue in the notes reads “Special attention — to ‘Ales.’ Was at Yalta conference, then left for Mexico-City [and] has not yet come back.” Gorsky places Ales at Yalta — and asserts that as of March 5 he was still in Mexico City attending the Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace. After flying from Yalta to Moscow, Hiss had indeed accompanied Secretary Stettinius to the Mexico City conference, arriving on February 20. But Stettinius had asked Hiss to organize the San Francisco conference to found the United Nations. The conference was scheduled to open on April 25, and there was a lot of work to be done. So, less than two days after arriving in Mexico City, Hiss was ordered to fly home on the secretary’s airplane. Hiss arrived in Washington on Thursday, February 22, and went to his office to catch up on the backlog of preparations for the conference. An international crisis was brewing, stemming from sudden French and Chinese demands about which countries would be the “inviting parties” to the conference. This dispute had already pushed back the date on which official invitations would be sent. Originally the invitations were scheduled to go out on February 24 — which is why Hiss had to leave Mexico City to be back in Washington. The invitations were unquestionably Hiss’s top priority at this time, but because of foot dragging by the French, their issuance had to be postponed. Over the next few days, several proposed new dates came and went. Both the State Department and the Soviet People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs in Moscow were in continuous communication on this issue with their respective embassies. It is significant to understand that the Soviets knew that Hiss was the State Department’s point man on the San Francisco invitations. At Yalta, it was Hiss who had twice handed over to Ambassador Andrei Gromyko the U.S. draft of the invitation for the conference. By March 1, the situation had reached a crisis point. The Soviets were anxious that the invitation be issued as agreed at Yalta — and they knew that Hiss would be the man to resolve the issue. At 7:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 3, Hiss was one of the three State Department officials to appear on an NBC broadcast titled “Building the Peace.” Hiss was introduced as the “Deputy Director of the Office of Special Political Affairs.” Because “Mr. Hiss has just returned from the Crimea Conference,” Assistant Secretary of State Archibald MacLeish directed many of his questions to him. The next morning, March 4, Washington’s Sunday Star reported on the radio show in an article headlined, “State Department Radio Show Gives ‘Oaks’ Plan in Plain Talk.” The article named Hiss as a participant. The New York Times ran a similar a story the same day, and it too mentioned Hiss. If Gorsky (the “Vadim” of the March 5 and 30 cables), the NKGB’s man in Washington, was doing his job, either he or his assistants were listening to the radio and reading the Times or the Star. Gorsky, age 38, was a sophisticated and experienced operative. In 1939, when stationed in London, he had been running 18 agents, including Kim Philby of the famous “Cambridge Five.” In Washington, his main job as the Soviet Embassy’s first secretary was that of a press officer, which involved daily monitoring of the press, reports of information agencies, and radio broadcasts. Gorsky would have to have been incompetent not to know that Hiss had returned from Mexico City. Gorsky and his Soviet Embassy colleagues would have been particularly interested in Hiss’s activities at the State Department on March 5, when a morning press and radio news conference took place there. At the press conference, Hiss went to the rostrum to “explain some of the technical aspects of these points concerning the functions of the Security Council” and to answer the correspondents’ questions. The press corps turned out in force to hear the announcement. Even if Gorsky as press officer did not attend the event, he would have been listening to it on the radio and would also have been informed by Laurence Todd, an American journalist who covered State for the Soviet news agency TASS from 1927 to 1952. Moreover, we know that early that morning Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew “telephoned the Soviet Ambassador [Gromyko] . . . and said that at 12:00 o’clock today we are issuing the invitations to the U.N. conference.” When the NSA chose in 1995 to declassify the VENONA decrypts, historians such as Weinstein assumed that the NSA identification of Ales was confirmation of Hiss’s pre-war espionage. But of course it was more than that. VENONA cable 1822 was used to confirm Whittaker Chambers’s original accusations, but also to up the ante on Hiss, transforming him into a long-term spy (a decade of espionage instead of less than two years) and one so valuable to the Soviets that they went out of their way to convey their gratitude to him by informing him that he had been decorated by the Soviet government. These allegations are far more serious than the charge of pre-war espionage. Despite the fact that VENONA 1822 and the March 5 Gorsky cable contain significant clues, and perhaps because Hiss’s guilt has been so widely accepted, no one has until now made a serious effort to investigate whether anyone other than Hiss fits the profile of the mysterious Ales. IF NOT HISS, WHO? In reopening the mystery of Ales, we are addressing two questions: who was Ales, and what was Ales? We deal mainly with the first question, but with regard to the second, it needs to be said plainly that neither of the two Gorsky cables establishes Ales as a recruited or controlled Soviet agent. An emerging post–Cold War understanding of the complex nature of the conversations and interactions between Americans and Russians during World War II has room in it for a wide spectrum of roles, many of them honorable and patriotic. With no particular candidate in mind for who Ales might be when we started this investigation, we spent hundreds of hours in the U.S. National Archives and the Moscow archives searching for clues to his identity. We gathered dozens of different State Department and Russian Foreign Ministry lists of all the Americans who traveled to Yalta, Moscow, and Mexico City in February 1945 — and later that spring to San Francisco. Nine American officials attended the Yalta conference and then traveled to Moscow. These included Secretary of State Stettinius; Edward J. Flynn; Major Terence L. Tyson, Stettinius’s military aide and medical doctor; Alger Hiss; H. Freeman Matthews; Wilder Foote, assistant to the secretary of state for drafting; and Stettinius’s secretariat of Lee B. Blanchard, George Th. Conn, and Ralph L. Graham. Ales must have been one of these men. We immediately decided to drop Stettinius as an improbable candidate. Next, we dropped Edward Flynn — former chairman of the Democratic Party National Committee and President Roosevelt’s close political adviser, whom Roosevelt sent to Moscow with a special mission and who stayed back in Moscow after Stettinius and his party flew out on February 14. Now we must drop Alger Hiss. We also have to drop Matthews, who flew back from Mexico to Washington with Hiss aboard the secretary’s airplane. We are left with a list of five Americans: Major Tyson; the members of Stettinius’s secretariat (Blanchard, Conn, and Graham); and Wilder Foote. Tyson was a physician drafted into the Medical Corps in World War II who was only chosen to accompany Stettinius in early 1945. Other than accompanying the secretary to the conferences and to Moscow, as a medical doctor, he does not fit the profile of Ales. The youngest member of Stettinius’s secretariat, Graham, born in 1919, was only 16 in 1935 and a high school student in Philadelphia, and therefore far too young to have been the Ales who allegedly began “working” in 1935. Blanchard, born in 1914, was 21 years old in 1935 and a university student in Arizona until 1937. From 1937 to 1940 he worked as secretary for a broadcasting company and from 1940 until 1944 he worked for manufacturing companies. He entered government service as secretary to the under secretary of state in March 1944 and transferred to the United Nations on July 1, 1945. Conn, born in 1913, graduated in 1934 from George Washington University. In 1934–35 he worked as an editorial clerk for a publishing firm, and from 1936 to 1941 he was an administrative assistant in a trade association. Neither occupation seems very fertile for intelligence gathering. However, Conn joined government service in 1941 (with the Lend-Lease Administration — a known target of Soviet intelligence), transferring to State in 1944 and to the United Nations on July 1, 1945. The last person on our list, Foote, was 39 years old in 1945, and though he served as an assistant to the secretary for drafting, he has always been lumped into the impossible-to-be-Ales category. I n his 2003 essay on Ales, Air Force historian Eduard Mark briefly described Foote as “a more plausible suspect” than Stettinius’s other clerks. However, he decided that “it is unlikely that Foote was so engaged while he rusticated in the farther reaches of New England.” It makes sense to eliminate Graham because of his youth and Blanchard because he did not enter government service until 1944. That left us with just two candidates, Conn and Foote, both of whom went into government service in 1941, worked for the Lend-Lease Administration, transferred to the Department of State in late 1944, and later worked at the United Nations. Admittedly, Conn seems on the young side to have been working in 1935, and nothing about his jobs before going into the government would make him of interest to the Soviets as a potential spy. But Foote, who had worked in Vermont until late 1941, also seemed unlikely to fit the Ales profile. At this point in our research, a piece of evidence turned up in Moscow. THE BOLSHOI CENTRAL BOX VENONA 1822 reports that Ales was contacted in Moscow by a high-ranking Soviet official who “passed onto him their gratitude and so on.” Using both American and Russian archival papers, we have established the daily schedules of the members of Stettinius’s party during their two-day layover in Moscow. All of them stayed in Spaso House, the official Moscow residence of the American ambassador. Based on an hour-by-hour inspection of their whereabouts, the best opportunity for any Soviet official to convey his gratitude to Ales would indeed have been on the evening of February 13, 1945, when the American delegation went to the Bolshoi Theater for a performance of Swan Lake. A document from the Russian archives strongly suggests that it was on this occasion that Ales was thanked. The working Soviet diplomatic protocol listed the people invited to the Bolshoi central box on that evening. Eleven Russians and 13 Americans were to sit together in the central box — a grand box right in the center of the house, nearly three tiers in height and draped in red brocade curtains. Once designed for the tsar’s family, it can seat two dozen or more officials in its four rows of heavy red plush-and-gilt armchairs. The American list included Stettinius, Ambassador Averell Harriman and his daughter, Generals Dean, Hill, Roberts, and Spaulding, Admiral Olsen, Matthews, Hiss, Page, Foote, and diplomat George Kennan. The Russian list began with Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov, whose name was obviously added in ink and numbered “No. 1a,” with his first deputy Andrei Vyshinsky listed as “No. 1.” Molotov must have been added in order to upgrade the status of the Russian party. The list also included two of Molotov’s deputies besides Vyshinsky, Dekanozov and Litvinov; Ambassador Gromyko; Tsarapkin, the head of the U.S. department of the NKID (the foreign affairs commissariat); two other NKID officials, Chuvakhin and Fomin; and the chairman of the Moscow City Soviet, Popov. The only Russian in military uniform was Col.-Gen. Fyodor Kuznetsov — the director of the GRU of the General Staff of the Soviet Army from March 1943 to September 1947. Tellingly, the Russian list has a handwritten addition at the bottom of a column explaining that Vyshinsky had given last-minute instructions that someone named “Mil’sky” should be seated with the Americans. Years of American scholarship have focused on the question of when and how Vyshinsky could have thanked Ales on behalf of the military. In fact, as a diplomat, Vyshinsky would never have agreed to decorate an intelligence source. According to interviews with retired KGB officers and diplomats, the GRU would have brought in its own operational officer to do this. And that is what happened. The GRU did the job all by itself, in a most elegant setting and in the presence of Kuznetsov, the GRU director himself. It was here that the “military NEIGHBORS,” as VENONA 1822 describes the scene, “passed on to him their gratitude and so on.” “Mil’sky” was the cover name for Col. Mikhail Abramovich Milstein, age 44, who was without question one of the GRU’s most competent and sophisticated officers. Mil’sky was the name he used from 1935 to 1938 as an operative and later as the “rezident” or station chief in New York City. Under the same alias, he had also visited Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the summer of 1944. In 1941 and 1942, as head of the Intelligence Department of the Red Army Western Front, he had organized intelligence operations against the advancing Nazis. By the time this experienced spymaster entered the Bolshoi central box, he was deputy head of GRU’s strategic intelligence directorate. Milstein had attended the Yalta conference. One of his colleagues at the Military Diplomatic Academy in Moscow later recalled, “I clearly remember that he went to Yalta and was continuously present in the meeting room, since he had on contact a highly valuable source of information.” Garrulous, articulate, and athletic, Milstein was a likable man, a great storyteller, and the heart of any party, where he could drink anyone under the table. After his retirement as a lieutenant general, he had a long and successful academic career. He was perfectly suited to convey the GRU’s commendation to Ales. But whom did he thank? Because Conn was not in the box, he must be eliminated. So we are left with one candidate — Wilder Foote. WHO WAS WILDER FOOTE? Henry Wilder Foote, born in 1905, came from a long line of New England farmers, sailors, and theologians. He went to Harvard — like his father — and graduated in 1927. That fall he went abroad to travel and study informally in Paris, Berlin, and Vienna. Late in 1928 Foote returned to America and on October 22 married Marcia Noyes Stevens, the daughter of a founding editor of The Christian Science Monitor. That autumn he got a job as a staff writer for the Associated Press in Boston. In 1931, he was still with AP, serving as a night editor. That year he quit and moved to Vermont, where he bought three weekly regional newspapers, which he edited and published for nearly 10 years. When Foote took control of his main weekly, the Middlebury Register, it was a self-described Republican newspaper. Foote changed its affiliation to Independent. Through the late 1930s, as the specter of fascism threatened Europe, he became active in the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies, a lobbying group chaired by William Allen White, the well-known Republican newspaper editor from Kansas. Foote’s membership in the group marked him as an ardent interventionist. According to his son, also named Wilder Foote, his father was a staunch admirer of Franklin Roosevelt. “My father was a lifelong Democrat of a liberal bent,” says the junior Foote. “He was a strong supporter of FDR and the New Deal. His international views were definitely of a worldly nature, as he had been a [retrospective] supporter of Wilson’s attempts to make the League of Nations a viable entity. He believed strongly that international recognition and cooperation was essential to world order instead of world chaos.” Recall that the Air Force historian Eduard Mark dismissed Foote as an unlikely candidate for Ales because, throughout the 1930s, “he rusticated in the farther reaches of New England.” However, Foote was a cosmopolitan, an intellectual, and an internationalist. In fact, a well-connected journalist like Foote might have been of interest to the Soviets — even in Vermont. Soviet intelligence placed a premium on the recruitment of journalists whose work and broad contacts made them natural conduits of information and influence. In November 1941, just before Pearl Harbor, Foote moved to Washington to serve as an information officer with the Office of Emergency Management. In 1942 he transferred to the Office of War Information (OWI), where he became its news bureau liaison officer. Among his other responsibilities, Foote was supposed to be in communication with William “Wild Bill” Donovan’s Office of the Coordinator of Information — the predecessor to the Office of Strategic Services. A short time later, he was promoted to chief of the Lend-Lease and Combined Boards Section of the OWI. This job gave him access to information throughout the War and State Departments on Lend-Lease issues, a topic of prime interest to the Soviets, who were in desperate need of military supplies throughout much of the war. By the end of 1943, Foote was promoted again, this time to head the foreign information programs (Lend-Lease). Although he maintained an office at OWI, he spent most of his time working for Stettinius, who was running the Lend-Lease program. Stettinius took a liking to the affable Foote and valued his ability to draft speeches and memos. On February 14, 1944, Foote quit his position at the OWI to become a special assistant to Stettinius, who was now the Foreign Economic Administrator. In the autumn of 1944, Secretary of State Cordell Hull sent Foote to Britain, France, Italy, and North Africa to gather “first-hand information on the part played by Lend-Lease and reverse Lend-Lease in allied war operations.” Secretary of War Henry Stimson armed him with a letter of introduction specifying that he was “authorized to obtain all types of classified as well as unrestricted information material in this field.” Throughout these assignments, Foote served as a high-level government reporter. As such, he had access to plenty of military secrets and sensitive diplomatic information. When Stettinius was elevated to secretary of state, Foote once again followed his patron. On January 24, 1945, he was formally promoted to be an assistant to the secretary of state. In many respects, Foote fits the profile of Ales better than Hiss does. Like Hiss, he followed the Ales itinerary from Yalta to Moscow to Mexico City and finally to the San Francisco conference. But unlike Hiss, he was still in Mexico City when the March 5 cable says that Ales was there. He had access to high-level information from the time he joined the government in 1941. The Soviets would have been particularly interested in an official whose expertise on Lend-Lease issues was of vital interest to their war effort — not to mention one who became an assistant to the secretary of state in charge of drafting the secretary’s, and sometimes the president’s, speeches. Foote was present at many of the Yalta meetings, often sitting immediately behind Roosevelt and Stettinius, who relied upon him to take handwritten notes in a black notebook. Foote was also the principal writer of the joint communiqué issued at the conclusion of the conference. In July 1945 Foote left the State Department to follow Stettinius to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations. When Stettinius resigned in June 1946 from the UN job, Foote became an assistant to his successor, Warren Austin. In August 1947, Foote left the U.S. Mission to the United Nations to become Director of the UN Secretariat’s Press and Publications Bureau. Throughout the 1950s, Foote continued to work as a top aide to both the Secretary Generals Trygve Lie and Dag Hammarskjöld. He traveled widely with Secretary General Lie and became the United Nations’s public spokesman and ardent advocate. He retired from the United Nations in 1960 at the relatively young age of 55, telling friends that he was moving to Maine where he wished to write and fish. After Hammarskjöld’s death in an airplane crash in Rhodesia, Foote edited a collection of Hammarskjöld’s papers. He died in relative obscurity in 1975. Was Wilder Foote Ales? We have no unambiguous answer to that question, so we decline to do what others have done when they rushed to identify Hiss as Ales. Nevertheless, we have turned up a considerable amount of additional information that suggests Foote fits the Ales profile. Evidence from the Moscow archives indicates that the Soviets received leaked confidential reports from within the office of Secretary of State Stettinius. On March 19, 1945, Ambassador Gromyko received a memo from Stettinius titled “Preliminary Proposals on the Organization of the Conference in San Francisco.” It looks as if whoever passed along the double-spaced memo had typed on the bottom of its last page a single-spaced paragraph that said: “On the secret agreement between USA and Holland for providing the USA naval and aviation bases in the Dutch West Indies, Holland has received from the USA a loan of 175 million dollars.” And again, on June 23, 1945, at the close of the conference, Gromyko received “Materials sent from the Office of Stettinius,” including a cover-signed memo and attached notes of an address Stettinius was going to make on the same day. Along with these two official papers, Gromyko obtained a one-page light copy of an untitled draft of a statement Stettinius was to make later that day to address whether the Provisional Polish Government of National Unity would sign the UN Charter — a topic of concern to the Soviets. The leads in Russian files continue into the early Cold War period. We now know from archival files in Moscow that the Soviets had a very good source (or sources) at the UN Secretariat and probably in Lie’s immediate circle. The so-called Molotov private-files collection, only recently declassified in Moscow, has produced a wealth of 1951 and 1952 reports flowing to Molotov, Stalin’s longtime foreign minister, from the heads of all the Soviet intelligence services. In one of these reports, dated September 19, 1951, the head of the Soviet Committee of Information tells Molotov that six days earlier in New York there was a conference of the leading officers of the UN Secretariat, presided over by Lie, devoted to drafting new guidelines on the Secretariat employees. Similar reports could only have come from a source in Lie’s inner circle. The Soviet source in the Lie office is not named in any of the released Molotov personal-file documents, but we do know from an FBI report that Lie himself told the FBI that Wilder Foote was “a very close adviser.” In our research into U.S. government files, we found that repeated investigations of Foote began in June 1941 — about six months prior to his government employment — and that he had a thick FBI file. When we first saw this file, it was heavily redacted, but some months later, we discovered unredacted copies of many of the FBI reports in Foote’s Civil Service Commission (CSC) file at the National Archives. Both the FBI and CSC investigations revolved around Foote’s various associations. This can be shaky ground, of course, but it can suggest how a particular person might have been introduced to certain ideas or activities. The history of Soviet espionage groups in the 1930s and ’40s (most notably the Cambridge Five) suggests the importance of college associations in introducing left-wing ideas that sometimes led to the world of Soviet espionage. At Harvard, Foote began several longstanding friendships that are interesting in this context. While he was managing editor of The Harvard Crimson, the editor was Frederick Vanderbilt Field and a member of the editorial staff was Joseph Fels Barnes. After graduation, all three traveled to Europe. Field headed to London for postgraduate study at the London School of Economics, and his politics veered to the left. In his memoirs, he claimed to have been a Communist Party member, although Russian files describe him only as being “very close” to the party and that he was “generously donating money to several organizations close to” the Soviets. Documents show that he was in contact with various Soviet representatives in the United States beginning in early 1935. Some of these interactions may be described as “active measures” on behalf of the Soviet Union. Still, what we know does not prove that Field was a full-blown Soviet agent. Barnes spent eight months of 1928 in the Soviet Union studying Russian and returned there in early 1931, writing for The New York Herald Tribune; he said his intentions for going there were to master his Russian and to “see what was going on.” He revisited Russia in 1934 in his capacity as secretary of the American branch of the Institute of Pacific Relations. The Soviets regarded him as “highly left-wing.” Barnes returned to Moscow in the late 1930s as the Herald Tribune bureau chief. In 1953 Foote testified to an International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board hearing that he met Field in Berlin late in 1928 and saw him again “sometime during the 1930s.” He downplayed the friendship, however, and denied being aware of Field’s political views. Concerning Barnes, Foote told the board that he spent Christmas of 1927 in London with him and his mother and that he saw Barnes again the following spring in Vienna. Their associations in Vienna, he said, “were merely with the young Social Democrats of Austria, who were firm enemies of Communists as well as of the Fascists.” Foote testified that after Vienna, their ways parted but that Barnes stopped by “once or twice” to see him in Vermont. He said he also saw Barnes in London in late 1945 or early 1946 and again at the United Nations in the late 1940s. From our reading of Foote’s FBI and CSC files, it looks likely that Barnes played some role in Foote’s getting into government service. In the fall of 1941, Foote wrote to Barnes “asking about the possibility of a job in the Overseas Office for the Coordinator of Information.” Foote knew that Barnes had been appointed to the New York office of this nascent, pre-war intelligence organization headed by William Donovan. It is telling that the first federal government job Foote applied for was with a precursor to the Office of Strategic Services and the Central Intelligence Agency. “[barnes] sent me an interim reply,” Foote said, “indicating there might be something later.” That Foote had such a history of friendship with Harvard classmates like Barnes and Field should not, of course, be interpreted as evidence of guilt. Critics may charge that we are deploying against Foote the same “guilt-by-association” tactics used throughout the McCarthy era. We can only respond that having identified an individual who matches the Ales itinerary, we are compelled by logic to assemble as full a biographical portrait as possible of him. What are the threads of this man’s life story? What were his politics? And yes, with whom did he associate? Do Foote’s associations convict him? No. But they help to answer the question of how plausible a candidate he may be for Ales. Foote’s friendships with Field and Barnes, dating back to student days and lasting more than two decades, suggest at a minimum that he was not merely “rusticating” up in Vermont. THE FBI AND WILDER FOOTE Allen Weinstein writes in The Haunted Wood of an encounter between Gorsky, the NKGB’s man in Washington, and Ruble (the cryptonym for an agent in charge of Ales) on April 2, 1945. Citing Vassiliev’s notes from Soviet intelligence files, Weinstein reports that Ruble slips a note to Gorsky while shaking hands. It warned Gorsky that an FBI agent had recently observed that a bundle of documents had been brought to New York, photographed, and then returned to Washington within 24 hours. Judging by the character of the documents, only three people had access to them. One of these people is “Ales.” . . . According to Stettinius, the FBI agent told him such operations with documents had already gone on for 18 months, that in this manner, “hundreds and hundreds” of documents were withdrawn. Stettinius asked the FBI agent whether these documents were going to PM [a radical New York daily newspaper], to which the latter answered, “No, much lefter than this.” Concluding his conversation with [Ales] about it, Stettinius told him, “I hope it is not you.” Weinstein asserts that Ruble could only have heard this story directly from Ales, the man to whom Stettinius had in dismay said, “I hope it is not you.” Weinstein assumes that Hiss was Ales. But this ignores something Stettinius wrote in 1949 in his book Roosevelt and the Russians: “I never heard of any questioning of Mr. Hiss’s loyalty from anyone inside or outside of the State Department or from the FBI during my time of service in the Department.” Clearly, Stettinius seemed to think he had no reason to question Hiss’s integrity. And given the closeness of Stettinius and Foote, the story fits Foote better than it does Hiss. The items in Foote’s FBI file provide a glimpse of a man who appears to have been energetic, intelligent, and downright courageous, particularly given the growing anti-left political atmosphere of the late 1940s. Like many other civil servants, Foote had to cope with the stress associated with the anti-subversive investigations conducted by federal, state, and municipal agencies during the early 1950s, a period dominated by McCarthy’s headline-making searches for hidden Soviet agents. But in the end, the FBI’s investigators were unable to find anything that could cause Foote to be dismissed, let alone indicted. “McCarthyism was a problem for both my father and me,” says Foote’s son. “My father was on McCarthy’s ‘list’ but was never called to testify.” Available American and Soviet files cannot resolve the issue of whether Wilder Foote was Ales, and the archival portrait we have of Foote simply does not paint a garish, McCarthy-era picture of a hardened Stalinist spy. The possibility exists that his interactions with the Soviets were sanctioned by his patron, Edward Stettinius, or by some other American government authority. But even without official sanction, Ales might not have thought of himself as a spy. After all, the Soviet Union was a wartime ally and many otherwise patriotic Americans thought that their government should be doing everything possible to help the Russians in their war against the Nazis. Still, it is hard to imagine that the GRU would bother to place Milstein in the Bolshoi central box to commend a “blind” source and not an important asset. A veteran GRU colonel, asked during a 2003 interview who Milstein met with at the Yalta conference, replied: “I emphasize: not an agent but a source of information, probably, a confidential contact at the Department of State who . . . had played a highly positive role in the development of Soviet-American relations.” When asked if that source was Alger Hiss, the GRU colonel became visibly irritated and insisted, “I have never heard of Hiss as an agent of [the] Kremlin from anybody.” Wilder Foote’s mentor and champion, Edward Stettinius, who was not only secretary of state but also a former chairman of U.S. Steel, considered Foote to be a man of sound political judgment. Foote’s actions show him to have been a person of strong character. Friends described him as gracious, resolute, patient, hardworking, and modest in demeanor. He clearly believed himself to be a man of impeccable integrity, an idealist who dedicated most of his career as an international civil servant to building up the United Nations as a bulwark of world peace. If he was also a gentleman spy, he was excellent at his craft. But it is important to remember that a decade ago a host of historians and intelligence officers hastened to proclaim the identity of Ales. It is clear to us now that they were premature. With this in mind, we must all be agnotics when it comes to Wilder Foote until the Russian archives open up. In the meantime, Wilder Foote’s son insists, “I am confident that the actions of my father will ultimately be proven to be above reproach.” Research for this article was supported by The Nation Institute. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kai Bird is the co-author with Martin J. Sherwin of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, which won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for Biography. Svetlana Chervonnaya, a Russian historian and TV documentary writer and producer, has a special interest in the history of Cold War espionage.

Typical tendencious Haynes and Klehr schlock. All of which can be rebutted by simply comparing this article to the Bird/Chervonnaya paper which it attempted to pre-emptively rebut. After studying this matter in some depth, I can say that the entire case against Alger Hiss is one blatant fraud after another and that he is entirely innocent. Thank you. My sentiments exactly. When you consider that Nathaniel Weyl's later efforts to promote the career of Senator Barry Goldwater by participation in the Bayo/Pawley affair actually put Weyl in a position of committing several felonies, you can better understand Weyl's tendencies towards falsehoods. 1) He entered the territorial waters of a Sovereign nation, Cuba, on a boat which was armed to the teeth, whose occupants were hell bent on launching an act of aggression. Violation of The Neutrality Act. 2) He watched while an unnamed occupant of the boat fired a burst of machine gun fire into the inflatable but motorized rubber raft used by the on shore raiding party causing it to sink to the bottom of the ocean with its occupants who were weighed down with combat boots, heavy uniforms, ammo belts and firearms. Some of them were at a minimum wounded by the gunfire and others, he confessed, died instantly. No one was unscathed by the gunfire and he admitted watching them disappear beneath the surface and doing nothing to help. Accessory after the fact to murder.

This question is sort of like the classic: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It implies that you WERE in fact already beating your wife. Or Whitmey's classic circular reasoning... "Since it was Ferrie in Winnipeg, and since he was a homosexual therefore he MUST have said "Auntie" instead of what Giesbrecht reported as "Annie" because that is a term of endearment between homosexuals. And Giesbrecht would not have know that." And the path to the truth was blocked. How Whitmey would have known that is beyond me. Is there anyone here who can confirm or deny that "Auntie" is or is not a term of endearment between homosexuals either from personal experience or from just hearsay? Thank you. Why are people afraid to chime in on this question? Certainly someone here would know.

History has essentially been able to exonerate Hiss by dint of the fact that the statements (of Chambers) regarding how he came to know Alger Hiss and the ensuing criminal activities (in the case of Weyl) of his 2 main antagonists have both been exposed thoroughly over time. Impeachment of witnesses, even long after the fact, is to me prima facie evidence that the historical record has been straightened forever regarding Hiss. Both Chambers and Weyl are the ones who were guilty as Hell. Add to that the analysis done on the Underwood by IBM and you have a consensus. Hiss was innocent and this is the last statement I will make on the topic. It is Nathaniel Weyl who should have spent serious jail time for his admitted violations of The Neutrality Act and for being an accessory either during or after the fact to murder, which he disclosed to me at one time without even realizing what he said. The purpose of the Bayo/Pawley affair was to assassinate the character of JFK and to help the Presidential aspirations of one Senator Barry Goldwater, which was also admitted to by Weyl, but it failed. The purpose of the Hiss affair was to kick start the illegitimate political career of Richard Nixon and that succeeded, unfortunately. Only Nathaniel Weyl was part of both efforts as far as I can tell besides Wickliffe Draper and for that history should justifiably damn them both forever. Unrelentlessly. Anyone who supports the positions of both Chambers and/or Weyl, knowing their motivations and history as either paid pathological liars and/or criminal felons will be judged by history accordingly. For them, disbarment from the world of caring and honest human beings certainly seems too little too late. A similar fate should befall all other similarly duplicitous, evil and vindictive persons, IMHO. My recent gap of available time is coming to a close quickly. I wish I had the time to sit on my butt all day long and just post dozens of controversial, extremist or inflammatory messages to forums gratis, but alas such is not the case here. I still have a career and a real life to occupy my time unlike some other members of the frequent posters club.

They couldn't name Hiss if they did not even know him. The one telling fact which came out after the fact relates to the IBM analysis which concluded beyond the shadow of a doubt that the typewriter style or font used to produce the Pumpkin Papers did NOT EVEN EXIST when these papers were allegedly found and typed. Any other discussion, speculation or prevarication must first accept the fact of the forged papers as historical truth. The only discussion worth having in fact is WHO persecuted Hiss and why did they choose him as a target? I think the answer is Wickliffe Preston Draper of The Pioneer Fund and his close crony Nathaniel Weyl who inadvertently admitted to me in a phone conversation that Weyl himself was guilty of a violation of the Neutrality Act during the Bayo Pawley affair involving anti-Castro exiles. He lived out the rest of his life in the fear that he would be arrested and charged with this crime and others he admitted to in the course of the conversation including being an accessory after the fact to murder as he watched some of the anti-Castro exiles being shot in front of his eyes. He also denied knowing either Draper, Osborne or Vonsiatsky despite the fact that he co-authored a book with Osborne one of Drapers cronies. That man was a paid, pathological xxxx and a mercenary beyond imagination.

Whittaker Chambers lied about how he knew Hiss and the details of the layout of his apartment. New York Times Sunday, December 12, 1948 Hiss and Chambers: Strange Story of Two Men By ROBERT G. WHALEN This is the story of the two men who have been involved in one of the strangest headline dramas of recent years. It is the story of Alger Hiss and Whittaker Chambers and of their relationship. It is far from complete because finis is not yet written and more than that, because so much of it is shrouded in mystery and contradiction. What follows is an attempt to reconstruct, out of the testimony and known facts, what seems definite in the story and to clarify the mysteries so far as possible. The principal characters in the drama are these two men: Whittaker Chambers, 47, short and plump. Native of Philadelphia, studied at Columbia. A Quaker, joined the Communist party in 1924, worked as operating editor of The Daily Worker and writer for The New Masses. Quit the Communist party in 1938, joined the staff of Time magazine in 1939. Was a senior editor of Time until his resignation last week. Did most of his writing on his farm at Westminster, Md. His associates at Time describe him as an "intellectual" and they add: "None of us knows him very well." Alger Hiss, 44, tall and slender. Native of Baltimore, Phi Beta Kappa from Johns Hopkins, graduate of Harvard Law School, protégé of Felix Frankfurter, former secretary to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. An Episcopalian. Entered Government in minor post in 1933. Served as a counsel to Senate Munitions Investigating Committee, joined the State Department in 1936, rose rapidly to become adviser at Yalta, executive secretary of Dumbarton Oaks conference, secretary general of United Nations Charter Conference in San Francisco. In 1946 succeeded the late Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler as president of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The drama falls into two parts: an early period, beginning around 1934 and running to the middle of this year, the events of which are obscure; and the subsequent period when the drama broke into the open. The first period might be called The Prologue, and the second can be divided into these six chapters: (1) The Accusation; (2) The Denial; (3) The Chambers Rebuttal; (4) The Hiss Rebuttal; (5) The Confrontation (6) The New Chapter. THE PROLOGUE The two men met in Washington about 1934. The atmosphere of the city was one of change and experiment. The capital abounded with "bright young men," eager to take part in building the New Deal. Ideas were freely exchanged. Communists were regarded with a certain tolerance. The Soviet Union, recently recognized by the Roosevelt Administration, was looked upon as a friendly nation. The relationship of the two men in this setting is a matter of dispute. According to Mr. Chambers, he was at this time a paid "courier" of the Communist "underground" and Mr. Hiss, a Government official, was associated with him in espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union. According to Mr. Hiss, they met while he was with the Senate committee; Mr. Chambers—under another name—posed as a free-lance writer and sought material on the investigation; they parted after a brief acquaintance when Mr. Hiss decided Mr. Chambers was a "sponger." At any rate, it is certain that the two men knew each other in Washington, and eventually broke off their relationship, however close or casual it may have been. Approach to Berle In 1939, when the Nazi-Soviet pact was signed, Mr. Chambers—no longer a Communist—decided that the story of the Communist “underground” should be told. He sought an interview at the White House and was referred to Adolf A. Berle Jr., an outspoken anti-Communist, then Assistant Secretary of State. He gave Mr. Berle the impression that Mr. Hiss belonged to a pro-Soviet group, but he refused to make open charges. Mr. Berle made some inquiries but found no grounds for action. Eight years passed. The atmosphere in the nation was markedly different from that of the Nineteen Thirties. The Soviet Union was regarded as a potential enemy. Communists were widely suspected of being Russian agents. The Thomas Committee In April of last year, J. Parnell Thomas, chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee, demanded that the Department of Justice prosecute Communist leaders. He said that committee hearings on legislation to outlaw the Communist party had proved that there was a “fifth column in our midst.” In June, Attorney General Tom Clark ordered an investigation by a Federal grand jury in New York. The hearings were secret, but it is now known that Mr. Hiss and Mr. Chambers both testified before that grand jury. Last July, the jury indicted twelve Communist party leaders on charges of conspiracy to overthrow the Government. There were reports that the jury had also taken considerable testimony on espionage. The Thomas committee called open hearings to make the espionage and other charges public. 1 -- THE ACCUSATION The Hiss-Chambers case came before the Un-American Activities Committee on Aug. 3. The scene was a hearing room in the New House Office Building in Washington. Mr. Chambers was in the witness chair. He told how he had quit the Communist party in 1938 and went on: “For a year I lived in hiding, sleeping by day and watching through the night with a gun or revolver within easy reach. * * * I had sound reason for supposing that the Communists might try to kill me. For a number of years I had myself served in the underground, chiefly in Washington, D.C. * * * I knew it at its top level, a group of seven or so men. * * * A member of this group * * * was Alger Hiss.” Several times Mr. Chambers emphasized that the aim of the group was “infiltration” of the Government rather than espionage. He said: “I should perhaps make the point that these people were specifically not wanted to act as sources of information.” Mr. Chambers said that the chief effort was to place Communists in positions of influence, that espionage was an “ultimate objective.” 2 -- THE DENIAL On Aug. 4, in a telegram to the subcommittee, Mr. Hiss asked an opportunity to testify “formally and under oath.” The next day, in the Washington hearing room, he read a statement declaring: “I am not and have never been a member of the Communist party. I do not and have not adhered to the tenets of the Communist party. * * * I have never followed the Communist party line. * * * To the best of my knowledge I never heard of Whittaker Chambers until 1947, when two representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked me if I knew him. * * * So far as I know I have never laid eyes on him, and I should like to have the opportunity to do so.” There were these exchanges: Robert Stripling, chief committee investigator: “I have here a picture which was made last Monday. * * * I understand from people who knew Mr. Chambers during 1934 and 1935 that he is much heavier * * * But I show you this picture, Mr. Hiss. * * *” Hiss: “I would much rather see the individual. * * * If this is a picture of Mr. Chambers he is not particularly unusual looking.” In view of the flat Chambers accusation and the flat Hiss denial, it was apparent that one of the two had committed perjury. The subcommittee now set about requestioning the two men, seeking circumstantial detail that might tend to corroborate the story of either Mr. Chambers or Mr. Hiss. 3 -- THE CHAMBERS REBUTTAL On Aug. 7, in the Federal Court House in New York, Mr. Chambers was questioned at an executive (non-public) subcommittee session. An investigator asked: “By what name did he [Mr. Hiss] know you?” Chambers: “He knew me by the party name of Carl. * * * To have questioned me [about my last name] would have been a breach of party discipline.” Mr. Chambers’ circumstantial statements included these: He and Mr. Hiss had been “close friends.” Mr. Chambers collected Mr. Hiss’ Communist party dues for two or three years. He stayed overnight at the Hiss home in Georgetown several times in the mid-Thirties. Mrs. Hiss had a son, “Timmy,” by a previous marriage. She called her husband “Hilly” and he called her “Dilly” and “Pross.” They had a cocker spaniel. They vacationed on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, were amateur ornithologists, went out mornings to watch birds along the Potomac and “once they saw, to their great excitement, a prothonotary warbler.” In 1936 Mr. Hiss gave a car—a “dilapidated” Ford roadster—to the Communist party. Mr. Chambers agreed to submit to a lie-detector test. 4 -- THE HISS REBUTTAL On Aug. 16, in Washington, Mr. Hiss was questioned, also at an executive session. He said he knew no such Carl as Mr. Chambers claimed to have been. But he declared he had been trying to think who might have been as familiar with his household as the Chambers testimony indicated. Mr. Hiss said: “I have written a name on the pad in front of me of a person whom I knew in 1933 and 1934 who not only spent some time in my house but sublet my apartment. * * * The name * * * is * * * George Crosley.” Mr. Hiss said he knew Crosley as a free-lance writer, “obviously not successful,” and with markedly discolored teeth. He said he sublet his apartment to Crosley, threw in an old Ford roadster as part of the deal, lent him money, and got nothing in return but a rug. He came to the conclusion that “I had been a sucker and he was sort of a deadbeat.” Among circumstantial statements made by Mr. Hiss were these: His stepson was called “Timmy.” Mr. Hiss called his wife “Prossy,” she called him “Hill” or “Hilly.” They had a cocker spaniel. They vacationed on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and were amateur ornithologists. He had seen a prothonotary warbler along the Potomac. Mr. Hiss refused to submit to a lie-detector test, on the ground that lie detectors had not been proven reliable. The big question now was that of “George Crosley.” The subcommittee moved to bring Mr. Hiss and Mr. Chambers face to face. 5 -- THE CONFRONTATION On the evening of Aug. 17, in Room 1400 of the Commodore Hotel in New York City, Representatives Richard M. Nixon and John McDowell held an executive session. Mr. Hiss appeared first. When Mr. Chambers entered the room, Mr. Hiss was asked whether he had “ever known that man before.” Hiss: “May I ask him to speak? * * * Chambers: “My name is Whittaker Chambers.” Mr. Hiss walked over to Mr. Chambers and said: “Would you mind opening your mouth wider?” Chambers: “I am senior editor of Time magazine.” Hiss: “I think this is George Crosley, but I would like to hear him talk a little longer.” Mr. Chambers said his teeth had been in “very bad shape” in the Thirties but had been treated, whereupon Mr. Hiss positively identified him as George Crosley. After a few moments Mr. Hiss again strode toward Mr. Chambers. Hiss: “May I say for the record at this point that I would like to invite Mr. Whittaker Chambers to make those same statements out of the presence of this committee without their being privileged for suit for libel? I challenge you to do it, and I hope you will do it damned quickly. (Addressing investigator) I am not going to touch him. You are touching me.” Investigator: “Please sit down, Mr. Hiss. * * * I want no disturbance.” Hiss: “I don’t ------.” McDowell: “Sit down, please.” Hiss: You know who started this,” After further sessions in Washington, the hearings recessed. Summarizing the hearings, the committee declared that Mr. Chambers had been a “forthright and emphatic” witness, while Mr. Hiss had been “evasive.” In discussing the events of a dozen years ago, for example, Mr. Hiss prefaced 198 statements with the phrase: “To the best of my knowledge.” The records were turned over to the Department of Justice, to determine which of the two might be prosecuted for perjury. Lacking further evidence, there was little likelihood that either could be indicted. 6 -- THE NEW CHAPTER Then, on Aug. 30, on a radio broadcast, Mr. Chambers repeated his charge that Mr. Hiss was a Communist. This statement was not protected by Congressional immunity. Mr. Hiss filed a slander suit in Baltimore, demanding $75,000 damages. The slander suit led to developments which put the mystery in a new and more sinister light. Three weeks ago in Baltimore, Mr. Chambers was questioned by Mr. Hiss’ attorney as a preliminary to the trial of the slander suit. Asked whether he could corroborate his charges against Mr. Hiss, Mr. Chambers produced a sheaf of documents which he said had been stolen from State Department and other Government files for transmission to Russia. Bykov Story Mr. Chambers said that in 1937 he introduced Mr. Hiss to a Russian agent named Colonel Bykov, and that thereafter Mr. Hiss “began a fairly consistent flow of such material as we have before us here.” He declared that the routine was for Mr. Hiss to bring the documents home, have Mrs. Hiss type copies, and then return the papers to the files. Where it was difficult to remove papers, Mr. Chambers charged, Mr. Hiss supplied notations in his own handwriting. There followed the dramatic events of the past nine days—the appearance of Un-American Activities Company investigators at Mr. Chambers’ farm in Maryland, with a subpoena for further evidence; his “surrender” of microfilms secreted in a pumpkin; the reopening of committee hearings and of the investigation by the Federal grand jury in New York.

The Pioneer Fund and the Council for Nazional Policy... The Pioneer Fund served as a small part of "a multimillion dollar political empire of corporations, foundations, political action committees and ad hoc groups" active in 1980s (Washington Post, March 31, 1985, p. 1; A16) developed by Tom Ellis, Harry Weyher, Marion Parrott, Carter Wrenn and Jesse Helms. The Fund has served as a nexus between academic theory and practical political ideology. It's leadership, especially, Harry Weyher, Thomas F. Ellis and Marion A. Parrott are part of an interlocking set of directorates and associates linking the Pioneer Fund to Jesse Helms' high-tech political machine. Ellis, for example, simultaneously served as Chairman of the National Congressional Club and the Coalition for Freedom, co-founder of Fairness in Media, a board member of the Educational Support Foundation and Director of the Pioneer Fund. Harry Weyher, president of the Pioneer Fund served as lead counsel for Fairness in Media. 5 Recipients of Pioneer grants have included most of the leading Anglo-American academic race-scientists of the last several decades have been funded by the Pioneer, including William Shockley, Hans J. Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Roger Pearson, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, R. Travis Osborne, Linda Gottfredson, Robert A. Gordon, Daniel R. Vining, Jr., Michael Levin, and Seymour Itzkoff - all cited in The Bell Curve. (1)" 6 Founder of the Pioneer Fund, "Colonel Draper, as he was often called by his friends and admirers was a man searching for a way to restore an older order. Draper believed geneticists could scientifically prove the inferiority of Negros.... Under his direction, the Pioneer Fund's original charter outlined a commitment to "improve the character of the American people" by encouraging the procreation of descendants of the original white colonial stock." Draper turned more and more to academic irredentists still dedicated to white supremacy and eugenics. Most prominent among these early recruits was Henry Garrett, Chair of Psychology at Columbia University from 1941-1955. A Virginia born segregationist, Garrett was a key witness in defending segregation...Garrett helped to distribute grants for Draper and was one of the founders of the International Association for the Advancement of Eugenics and Ethnology (IAAEE) in 1959. The IAAEE brought together academic defenders of segregation in the U.S. and apartheid in South Africa. The Pioneer Fund supported the IAAEE and other institutions working to legitimising race science, including the IAAEE's journal, Mankind Quarterly..." 7 The Pioneer Fund has changed little since its inception. An article in the New York Times on December 11, 1977 characterized it as having "supported highly controversial research by a dozen scientists who believe that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites." In the 1960s Nobel Laureate William Shockley (1910-1989), a physicist at Stanford University best known for his "voluntary sterilization bonus plan" received an estimated $188,710 from the Pioneer Fund between 1971 and 1978. Arthur Jensen, an educational psychologist, garnered more than a million dollars in Pioneer grants over the past three decades. Three years after being recruited by Shockely, Jensen published his now famous attack on Head Start in the prestigious Harvard Education Review. Jensen claimed the problem with black children was that they had an average IQ of only 85 and that no amount of social engineering would improve their performance. Jensen urged "eugenic foresight" as the only solution. (7)" 8 Roger Pearson, whose Institute for the Study of Man has been one of the top Pioneer beneficiaries over the past twenty years ($870,000 from 1981-1996) is the clearest example of the extremist ideology of the Fund's leadership...Taking account of all groups linked to Pearson, Pioneer support between 1975-1996 exceeds one million dollars - nearly ten percent of the total Pioneer grants for that period. 9 "For an overview on 'race and intelligence,' Murray and Herrnstein recommend two books by three Pioneer Fund recipients: Audrey Shuey, Frank C. J. McGurk, and R. Travis Osborne. McGurk is the main authority they cite to 'prove' that IQ tests are not racially biased. He was one of the 'scientific' mainstays of the segregationist movement in the southern US. In 1959 McGurk and Shuey became leading members of the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics, first publisher of Mankind Quarterly 10 Other members included Senator Jesse Helms and the oil billionaire Hunt brothers. Arch-racists in the South introduced Shuey's book in court during the 1960s to argue for continuing school segregation and denying the vote to black people. University of Georgia professor Osborne also testified in court against school integration. Osborne was still, in 1992, trying to prove the long-discarded theory that brain size is somehow related to intelligence." 11 Much of The Bell Curve's racist drivel comes from Mankind Quarterly, whose principle is that the "Negroid" race is inferior to all others, and from professors funded by the pro-Nazi Pioneer Fund (PF). Behind this fascist gang stand important members of the US ruling class. Seventeen authors cited in The Bell Curve are Mankind Quarterly (MQ) contributors. Ten are former or present editors or members of its editorial advisory board. MQ's avowed purpose is to counter "Communist" and "egalitarian" influences in anthropology. From its start in 1960, its founders and funders believed that white people were genetically superior. Robert Gayre was the founder of MQ and its editor-in-chief until 1978. As a champion of South African apartheid and a member of the ultra-right Candour League of white-ruled Rhodesia, he testified in court in 1968 that black people as a group are "worthless." Other MQ contributors have included Henry Garrett of Columbia University, who wrote pamphlets for the pro-segregation White Citizens Councils; Corrado Gini, the leader of fascist Italy's eugenics movement; and Ottmar von Verschner, a leading Nazi race-scientist and academic mentor of the concentration camp butcher Joseph Mengele. The key figure in the PF network is Roger Pearson, who is close to Jesse Helms. Sam Crutchfield, a lawyer for Helms, has been the lawyer for Pearson's Institute for the Study of Man. The PF has given Pearson over $787,400, mostly for editing Mankind Quarterly and The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies. The last publishes articles by PF recipients, notably Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, and Richard Lynn. Thomas Ellis, a PF director, is a long-time friend and campaign manager for Helms. 12 In 1958, Pearson, living in London, led the Northern League. This white-power organization included former Nazi SS officials. Willis Carto, founder of the anti-black and anti-semitic Liberty Lobby, arranged a 1959 U.S. speaking tour for him. Pearson soon moved to the U.S. to edit the neo-Nazi publication Western Destiny. In Eugenics and Race he asserted: "If a nation with a more advanced, more specialized, or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide. " This track record won Pearson influence in Washington, DC. In 1975 he became editor of the journal of the American Security Council...Pearson also headed the U.S. chapter of the World Anti-Communist League (WACL). In 1977 he became the international chair of this nest of fascist vipers. He organized its 1978 convention, which featured two U.S. Senators as keynote speakers. Then he was exposed as having recruited open neo-Nazis to WACL, and was forced to resign. Four years later,[1982] President Reagan personally thanked Pearson for his "substantial contributions to promoting and upholding those ideals and principles that we value at home and abroad." 13 "Pearson eventually replaced Gayre as editor of The Mankind Quarterly. Pearson, more than most, saw the potential in manipulating genetics for political goals when, in 1959, he wrote Eugenics and Race. He argued that the white race is endangered by inferior genetic stock, but with proper use of modern biological technology "a new super-generation" descended from "only the fittest" of the previous generation can be produced. Whoever adopted such a scientific breeding program "would dominate the rest of the world". Moving to the United States Pearson quickly became involved in far-right politics, first editing Western Destiny and later the short-lived The New Patriot, a magazine designed to conduct "a responsible but penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question". It included articles such as "Zionists and the Plot Against South Africa", "Early Jews and the Rise of Jewish Money Power", and "Swindlers of the Crematoria". Despite his fascist connections, Pearson became increasingly well connected with the Republican Party and the right-wing think-tank, The Heritage Foundation. 14 "Henry Garrett, Chair of Psychology at Columbia University from 1941 to 1955. A Virginia born segregationist, Garrett was a key witness defending segregation in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. During the 1950s and 1960s, Garrett helped to distribute grants for the Pioneer Fund and was one of the founders of the International Association for the Advancement of Eugenics and Ethnology (IAAEE) in 1959. The IAAEE brought together academic defenders of segregation in the USA and apartheid in South Africa. The Pioneer Fund supported the IAAEE and other institutions working to legitimise race-science, including the IAAEE's journal, The Mankind Quarterly." 15 Roger Pearson was a writer and organizer for the Nazi Northern League of northern Europe, who in 1977 joined the editorial board of Policy Review, the monthly Heritage Foundation publication. William Shockley, Arthur Jensen and Roger Pearson, who has written that "inferior races" should be "exterminated" were funded while Tom Ellis was director on the Pioneer board. At that same time, Ellis served on the CNP's thirteen-member executive committee with Holly Coors, Paul Weyrich, and Heritage Foundation president, Edwin Feulner until June 1989. Oliver North and Reed Larson also joined the executive committee. Recall that in order to be a CNP member, a biography/resume must be submitted by a CNP member and the executive must have a unanimous vote in order for an individual to be asked to be a member. CNP's Gary North writes of the formation years of the CNP including himself with Timothy LaHaye, Terry J. Jeffers and Terry Dolan, in the article Gary North on the CNP In the United States, WACL's first chairman was Roger Pearson, a white supremacist, eugenicist and neo-Nazi. Pearson was the editor of Willis Carto's anti-Semitic rag, Western Destiny, the forerunner of the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight tabloid. By the mid 1970s, Pearson served on the editorial boards of both the Heritage Foundation 15a and the American Security Council. Pearson, who has described himself as a "mainstream conservative," boasted to an associate about his alleged role in hiding Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, the "Angel of Death" who directed Nazi "medical experiments" at the Auschwitz extermination camp. With degrees in anthropology and economics, Pearson is the author several books on eugenics. His most "popular" are Eugenics and Race and Race and Civilization. He credits Professor Hans F. K. Gunther, a Nazi racial theoretician, as the inspiration behind the latter volume. Under Pearson's tutelage, WACL added Western European chapters that were drawn from the ranks of Nazi war criminals, Third Reich collaborators, neo-Nazis and right-wing terrorists. Western European affiliates included the racist British League of Rights and Italy's Italian Social Movement (MSI). Pino Rauti, the founder of the outlawed group, Ordine Nuovo was a key WACL Western European contact.... Rauti and countless other Italian fascists including the war criminal, June Valerio "Black Prince" Borghese, and key members of the Italian general staff, were "rehabilitated" Nazi collaborators recruited by the CIA into NATO's "stay behind" anti-communist terror network, also known as "Gladio."... 15b The National Congressional Club was Jesse Helms' PAC based in Raleigh and directed by Helms' senior advisor, attorney Tom Ellis. National Congressional Club, raised $9.8 million in the 1982 election cycle. In the 1984 cycle, the club raised $5.7 million while Helms campaign committee raised $13.99 million, 16 The Club dissolved in the 1990's, with many staffers absorbed into other campaigns. The Congressional Club began after the 1972 Senate campaign, when Ellis retained Richard Viguerie (CNP) to help pay off the Helms campaign debt. Ellis and Viguerie built the Congressional Club mailing list to more than 300,000 regular contributors -- a constituency for Helms and a major financial resource within the conservative movement... Besides Viguerie, Phillips [Howard Phillips], and Dolan [ John T. (Terry) Dolan] connections, Helms is actively represented in Weyrich's [Paul Weyrich] coordinating groups. 17.

Hans J. Eysenck, 81, a popular, pioneering and controversial German-born British behavioral psychologist best known as a champion of the statistical analysis method and his opposition to the discipline of psychoanalysis, died Sept. 4 at a hospice in London. He had cancer. Life history Since the 1950s, Dr. Eysenck had vocally propounded the view that the experimental methods used in the physical sciences, particularly statistical tests, should be applied in psychology, psychotherapy and especially psychoanalysis. Dr. Eysenck, who spent decades as head of the Psychology Department of the University of London's Institute of Psychiatry, was a pioneer in the development of "behavior therapy." That is a method of treating patients by addressing their immediate problems, a process he said could be done in a limited number of sessions rather than the seemingly unending, indirect method of psychoanalysis. He also developed radical and immensely controversial theories on subjects ranging from tobacco and cancer to crime and the occult to IQ testing and genetics. He spread his views in more than 75 books and a thousand technical articles. His writing gained him a worldwide audience of general readers as well as scientists. He once explained that his books ranged from "Uses and Abuses of Psychology," which he wrote in two weeks and which sold millions of copies, to the scholarly, scientific and academic "Reminiscence, Motivation, and Personality: A Case Study in Experimental Psychology," which he said took him 15 years of research and writing and sold "several hundred" copies. In the words of a true scholar, he announced that he had deduced a "strong negative correlation between sales and the time taken to write a book." His more popular books included works published by Penguin Books, such as "Sense and Nonsense in Psychology" and "Check Your Own IQ." In 1971, he published "The IQ Argument: Race, Intelligence and Education," in which he suggested that it was possible that genetics might explain differences in IQ scores between blacks and whites. This resulted in his becoming a target of student protesters in Great Britain and the United States. Although many scientists attacked this finding on scientific or philosophical grounds, few accused Dr. Eysenck, who had left his native Germany rather than join the Nazi Party, of any kind of racism. Other controversial works included his 1965 book "Smoking, Health and Personality," which propounded that smoking does not cause cancer but is a symptom, along with cancer, of mysterious hereditary and emotional illnesses. In addition to his books and articles, he edited the standard "Handbook of Abnormal Psychology" and the three-volume "Readings in Extroversion and Introversion." He also contributed articles to the "Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences." In 1962, he founded and began a long stint as editor of the journal Behavior Research and Therapy. His 1952 book "The Structure of Human Personality," in which he posited that human personality can be defined in terms of intelligence, neuroticism, introversion-extroversion and psychoticism, led to the development of the Maudsley Personality Inventory. Also known as the Eysenck Personality Inventory, the psychological battery became widely used in Britain. Hans Jurgen Eysenck was born in Berlin. Both his parents acted, and the future psychologist himself appeared in a film at age 3. Refusing to join the Nazi Party to attend college, he went to France and studied French literature and history at the University of Dijon and then to England, where he studied British history and literature at Exeter University. He then decided he wanted to become a physicist, so he enrolled in the University of London. While registering, he was informed that German science credits were not acceptable for London but that he would be admitted to study psychology. Although, he later claimed, he did not even know what psychology was, he heartily accepted. Dr. Eysenck fell in love with the subject and was fortunate in being able to study under Sir Cyril Burt, the noted psychologist who was an early advocate of statistical studies, and the legendary statistician Karl Pearson. Dr. Eysenck graduated in 1938 and received his doctorate, also from the University of London, in 1940. During World War II, he was a research psychologist at an emergency hospital near London that treated mentally disturbed service personnel. After the war, he joined the staff of London's famed Maudsley Hospital, perhaps Britain's leading psychiatric training ground. In 1947, he became head of the hospital's psychology department, and the next year, he joined the faculty of the University of London. In 1950, he became head of the university's new psychiatry institute, located at Maudsley Hospital. In addition to his work in Britain, he served as a visiting professor at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California-Berkeley. Early in his career, he became known for his interests in behavior modification and personality and for his lack of enthusiasm for Freudian psychoanalysis. In the early 1950s, he began attacking psychoanalysis in the profession's own journals, maintaining that there was no statistical evidence to prove that the treatment actually worked. His marriage to the former Margaret Malcolm Davies ended in divorce. Survivors include his wife, the former Sybille Bianca Giulietta Rostal, whom he married in 1950 and who lives in London; a daughter from his second marriage, Connie Eysenck of Bethesda; a son from his first marriage; three sons from his second marriage; and eight grandchildren

Eysenck progeny still in London New York Times, September 10, 1997 Hans J. Eysenck, 81, a Heretic In the Field of Psychotherapy By WILLIAM H. HONAN Hans J. Eysenck, one of the most distinguished, prolific and maddeningly perverse psychologists of his generation, died on Sept. 4 at a hospice in London. He was 81. Dr. Eysenck had been suffering from a malignant brain tumor for about a year, said Shirley Chumbley, his longtime secretary. In the course of a career at the department of psychology of the Institute of Psychiatry at London University, Dr. Eysenck published some 80 books and 1,600 journal articles, and managed to offend a great many people. Among other things, he argued that psychotherapy was virtually worthless, that blacks scored lower on I.Q. tests than whites at least partly because of their genetic makeup, and that there is no demonstrable correlation between smoking and lung cancer. At the height of the controversy over race and I.Q. tests in 1971, Dr. Eysenck and Arthur R. Jensen, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who held similar views, were escorted by bodyguards for their safety. "He was always willing to stick his neck out," Professor Jensen said on Monday. "I don't think he would agree with my saying this now, but I think he enjoyed controversy. He was always polite yet intellectually aggressive." Dr. Eysenck's daughter, Connie, took exception to this view. "He never tried to be controversial for its own sake," she said on Monday. "He wanted to tell the scientific truth." Professor Eysenck's professional reputation was worldwide, not because of his sometimes provocative opinions but because of his pioneering empirical approach to the problems of psychology. His analysis of the layers of personality led to his coining the terms extroversion and introversion, and attracted students and collaborators from around the world. Frank Farley, a professor of psychology at Temple University in Philadelphia and former president of the American Psychological Association, said that in terms of influence, Dr. Eysenck was the British equivalent of B. F. Skinner. Professor Farley said Dr. Eysenck "led the way in defining the structure of human personality." Critics who denounced Dr. Eysenck as racist because of his views on the results of I.Q. testing were often baffled to learn that he had fled Nazi Germany in the early 1930's because of his opposition to Nazi racist ideology. "He was violently opposed to Nazism," said his daughter. "It came to the point where he would have had to join the Nazi Party in order to hold a post at the University of Berlin, and so that left him no choice but to leave the country." Dr. Jensen said Dr. Eysenck's first brush with controversy came in the early 1950's when he published an article declaring that psychotherapy had no beneficial effect on individuals. Predictably, there was a storm of protest. Over the years, Dr. Jensen said, Dr. Eysenck modified his views and eventually came to the conclusion that some forms of psychotherapy could have limited beneficial effects. Dr. Eysenck aroused the most heated controversy of his career when he supported Dr. Jensen's article in The Harvard Education Review in 1969. It argued that the 15-point average difference between the scores of blacks and whites on I.Q. tests could be explained by genetic as well as environmental factors. "I came under a lot of fire from the Progressive Labor Party, the Students for a Democratic Society and other student protester groups which are now defunct," Dr. Jensen recalled. "But Eysenck published a book called ' Race, Intelligence and Education' (1971), which explained my article and defended it. That was when we both had to have bodyguards. He never changed his view on that." Daniel Schacter, chairman of the department of psychology at Harvard University, said on Monday that Dr. Eysenck's argument "still comes up from time to time and is a controversial issue although the majority opinion is probably unfavorable to it." The third and final dispute that occupied Dr. Eysenck came when he argued that smoking did not cause lung cancer. "He surveyed all the literature on the subject," said Dr. Jensen, "and came to the conclusion that certain personality types were drawn to smoking and that they had a weakness to its ill effects. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence against his position is overwhelming. The only ones who accept it today are the tobacco industry." Dr. Eysenck also raised eyebrows by writing about such subjects as astrology and the paranormal. He retired from London University in 1983. Born in Berlin, Hans Jurgen Eysenck was the son of successful actors. Since his parents traveled frequently, he was brought up chiefly by his grandmother. He left Germany in 1934 to continue his education in Britain, and later said that he came to concentrate on psychology by taking a required course in the subject at the University of London. In addition to his daughter, Connie, who lives in Washington, Dr. Eysenck is survived by his second wife, Dr. Sybil Eysenck of London, and four sons: Gary and Kevin, of Surrey, England; Darrin, of London, and Michael, also of London, from his first marriage.

Hmmm... Wickliffe Draper and The American Mercury headquarters were both located on West and East 57th Streets at around that time. Verrry interesting. By 1961 the CIA staff had tired of Queens and moved the Society back into Manhattan to 201 East 57th Street. In 1965 as the Agency was closing down the front, it switched its headquarters to 183i Connecticut Avenue N.W. in Washington, the same building owned by Dr. Charles Geschickter that housed another MKULTRA conduit, the Geschickter Fund for Medical Research

Hans Jürgen Eysenck (March 4, 1916 in Berlin, Germany - September 4, 1997 in London, UK) was a psychologist best remembered for his work on intelligence and personality, though he worked in a wide range of areas. At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals. [1] Hans Eysenck was born in Germany, but moved to England as a young man in the 1930s because of his (alleged) opposition to the Nazi party. Eysenck was the founding editor of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, and authored over 50 books and over 900 academic articles. He aroused intense debate with his controversial dealing with variation in IQ among racial groups (see race and intelligence). Contents [hide] 1 Life and work 1.1 Eysenck's model of personality (P-E-N) 1.2 Comparison with other theories 1.2.1 Psychometric scales relevant to Eysenck's theory 1.2.2 Eysenck's later work 2 Selected works 3 References 4 External links [edit] Life and work Eysenck was Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry (IoP) from 1955 to 1983. He was a major contributor to the modern scientific theory of personality and a brilliant teacher who also played a crucial role in the establishment of behavioural treatments for mental disorders. However, Eysenck's work was often controversial. Publications in which Eysenck's views have roused controversy include (chronologically): A paper in the 1950s [1] concluding that available data "fail to support the hypothesis that psychotherapy facilitates recovery from neurotic disorder". A chapter in Uses and Abuses of Psychology (1953) entitled "What is wrong with psychoanalysis". Race, Intelligence and Education (1971) (in the US: The IQ Argument) Sex, Violence and the Media (1978). Astrology - Science or Superstition? (1982) Smoking, Personality and Stress (1991) Eysenck also earned criticism for accepting funding from the Pioneer Fund, a eugenics organization that has been controversial. By far the most acrimonious of the debates has been that over the role of genetics in IQ differences (See Genetics vs. environment), which led to Eysenck famously being punched on the nose during a talk at the London School of Economics. Eysenck's attitude is summarised in his autobiography Rebel with a Cause (Transaction Publishers (1997), ISBN 1-56000-938-1): "I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts." [edit] Eysenck's model of personality (P-E-N) Eysenck was one of the first psychologists to study personality with the method of factor analysis, a statistical technique introduced by Charles Spearman. Eysenck's results suggested two main personality factors. The first factor was the tendency to experience negative emotions, and Eysenck referred to it as Neuroticism. The second factor was the tendency to enjoy positive events, especially social events, and Eysenck named it Extraversion. The two personality dimensions were described in his 1947 book Dimensions of Personality. It is common practice in personality psychology to refer to the dimensions by the first letters, E and N. E and N provided a 2-dimensional space to describe individual differences in behaviour. An analogy can be made to how latitude and longitude describe a point on the face of the earth. Also, Eysenck noted how these two dimensions were similar to the four personality types first proposed by the Greek physician Hippocrates. High N and High E = Choleric type High N and Low E = Melancholic type Low N and High E = Sanguine type Low N and Low E = Phlegmatic type The third dimension, psychoticism, was added to the model in the late 1970s, based upon collaborations between Eysenck and his wife, Sybil B. G. Eysenck[2], who is the current editor of Personality and Individual Differences. The major strength of Eysenck's model was to provide detailed theory of the causes of personality. For example, Eysenck proposed that extraversion was caused by variability in cortical arousal: "introverts are characterized by higher levels of activity than extraverts and so are chronically more cortically aroused than extraverts"[3]. While it seems counterintuitive to suppose that introverts are more aroused than extraverts, the putative effect this has on behaviour is such that the introvert seeks lower levels of stimulation. Conversely, the extravert seeks to heighten his or her arousal to a more optimal level (as predicted by the Yerkes-Dodson Law) by increased activity, social engagement and other stimulation-seeking behaviours. [edit] Comparison with other theories The major alternative to Eysenck's three factor model of personality is a model that makes use of five broad traits, often called the Big Five model (see big five personality traits). The traits in the Big Five are as follows: Openness to experience Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism Extraversion and Neuroticism in the Big Five are similar to Eysenck's traits of the same name. However, what Eysenck calls the trait of Psychoticism corresponds to two traits in the Big Five model: Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. Eysenck's personality system did not address Openness to experience. He argued that his approach was a better description of personality (Eysenck, 1992a; 1992b). Another important model of personality is that of Jeffrey Alan Gray, a former student of his. Eysenck always insisted that his use of the term "extraversion" does not correspond to the usage adopted by Carl Jung, and has also challenged the popular belief that Jung coined the term. [edit] Psychometric scales relevant to Eysenck's theory Eysenck's theory of personality is closely linked with the scales that he and his co-workers developed. These include the Maudsley Medical Questionnaire, Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) and Sensation Seeking Scale (developed in conjunction with Marvin Zuckerman). The Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP) breaks down different facets of each trait considered in the model. There has been some debate about whether these facets should include impulsivity as a facet of extraversion as Eysenck declared in his early work; or psychoticism. Eysenck declared for the latter, in later work. [edit] Eysenck's later work In 1994 he was one of 52 signatories on "Mainstream Science on Intelligence," an editorial written by Linda Gottfredson and published in the Wall Street Journal, which defended the findings on race and intelligence in The Bell Curve. [4] Eysenck made early contributions to fields such as personality by express and explicit commitment to a very rigorous adherence to scientific methodology, as Eysenck believed that scientific methodology was required for progress in personality psychology. He used, for example, factor analysis, a rigorous statistical method, to support his personality model. His early work showed Eysenck to be an especially strong critic of psychoanalysis as a form of therapy, preferring behaviour therapy. Despite this strongly scientific interest, Eysenck was not shy, in later work, of giving attention to parapsychology and astrology. Indeed, he believed that empirical evidence supported the existence of paranormal abilities. [edit] Selected works Dimensions of Personality (1947) The Scientific Study of Personality (1952) The Structure of Human Personality (1952) and later editions Uses and Abuses of Psychology (1953) The Psychology of Politics (1954) Psychology and the Foundations of Psychiatry (1955) Sense and Nonsense in Psychology (1956) The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria (1957) Perceptual Processes and Mental Illnesses (1957) with G. Granger and J. C. Brengelmann Manual of the Maudsley Personality Inventory (1959) Handbook of Abnormal Psychology (1960) editor, later editions Experiments in Personality (1960) two volumes, editor Behaviour Therapy and Neuroses (1960) editor Know Your Own I.Q. (1962) Experiments with Drugs (1963) editor Experiments in Motivation (1964) editor Crime and Personality (1964) and later editions Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (1964) with S. B. G. Eysenck The Causes and Cures of Neuroses (1965) with S. Rachman Fact and Fiction in Psychology (1965) Smoking, Health and Personality (1965) Check Your Own I.Q. (1966) The Effects of Psychotherapy (1966) The Biological Basis of Personality (1967) Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1969). Personality Structure and Measurement. London: Routledge. Readings in Extraversion/Introversion (1971) three volumes Race, Intelligence and Education (1971) in US as The IQ Argument Psychology is about People (1972) Lexicon de Psychologie (1972) three volumes, with W. Arnold and R. Meili The Inequality of Man (1973) Eysenck on Extraversion (1973) editor The Measurement of Intelligence (1973) editor The Experimental Study of Freudian theories (1973) with G. D. Wilson Case Histories in Behaviour Therapy (1974) editor Know Your Own Personality (1975) with G. D. Wilson Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (1975) with S. B. G. Eysenck A Textbook of Human Psychology (1976) with G. D. Wilson Sex and Personality (1976) The Measurement of Personality (1976) editor Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1976). Psychoticism as a Dimension of Personality. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Reminiscence, Motivation and Personality (1977) with C. D. Frith You and Neurosis (1977) Die Zukunft der Psychologie (1977) The Psychological Basis of Ideology (1978) editor, with G. D. Wilson Sex Violence and the Media (1978) with D. Nias The Structure and Measurement of Intelligence (1979) The Psychology of Sex (1979) with G. D. Wilson The Causes and Effects of Smoking (1980) A Model for Personality (1981) editor Mindwatching (1981) with M. W. Eysenck, and later editions The Battle for the Mind (1981) with L. J. Kamin, in US as The Intelligence Controversy Personality, Genetics and Behaviour (1982) Explaining the Unexplained (1982) with Carl Sargent H.J. Eysenck & D.K.B. Nias, Astrology: Science or Superstition? Penguin Books (1982) ISBN 0-14-022397-5 A Model for Intelligence (1982) editor Know Your Own Psi-Q (1983) with Carl Sargent …'I Do'. Your Happy Guide to Marriage (1983) with B. N. Kelly Personality and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach (1985) with M. W. Eysenck Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire (1985) Rauchen und Gesundheit (1987) Personality Dimensions and Arousal (1987) editor, with J. Strelau Theoretical Foundations of Behaviour Therapy (1988) editor, with I. Martin The Causes and Cures of Criminality (1989) with G. H. Gudjonsson Genes, Culture and Personality: An Empirical Approach (1989) with L. Eaves and N. Martin Suggestion and Suggestibility (1989) editor, with V. A. Gheorghiu, P. Netter, and R. Rosenthal Eysenck, H.J. (1992). A reply to Costa and McCrae. P or A and C - the role of theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 867-868. Eysenck, H.J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667-673. [edit] References ^ Haggbloom, S.J. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6, 139-152. ^ e.g., Eysenck & Eysenck, 1969; 1976 ^ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) ^ Gottfredson, Linda (December 13, 1994). Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Wall Street Journal, p A18. [edit] External links Official homepage Obit by Chris Brand [hide]v • d • ePsychology Portal · History · Psychologist Research Quantitative psychological research · Qualitative psychological research · Biological · Cognitive · Comparative · Developmental · Evolutionary · Experimental · Mathematical · Neuropsychology · Personality · Physiological · Social · Positive · Psychopathology · Psychophysics · Transpersonal Applied Assessment · Clinical · Counseling · Educational · Forensic · Legal · Health · Industrial and organizational · Relationship counseling · School · Sport Orientations Behaviorism · Cognitivism · Cognitive

Benito Aquino - another Cline victim The “people power” revolution that brought Corazon Aquino, widow of assassinated opposition leader Benito Aquino, to the presidency of the Philippines seemed to promise a new era in the troubled history of that nation. The downfall of the Marcos regime and the advent of a new leadership inspired by an apparent idealism and concern for pressing social problems were met with international enthusiasm and optimism. Although Cory Aquino came to the presidency by projecting the image of a bereaved widow unsophisticated in political matters and inspired by a vision of a new and better Philippines, in reality she was almost as unwilling as her predecessor to deliver many of the reforms necessary for her country’s advancement beyond poverty and corruption. The Aquino presidency ultimately proved ineffectual. Robert H. Reid and Eileen Guerrero, both seasoned journalists, reported on the political scene in the Philippines throughout the Aquino administration, and their in-depth analysis in Corazon Aquino and the Brushfire Revolution offers a vivid, insightful record of those turbulent years. Using a wealth of interview sources, primary and secondary documents, and their own close familiarity with Filipino society and government, the authors describe and evaluate the complex political world of the Philippines. The role of the United States as the dominant foreign nation in Philippine affairs is thoroughly chronicled in Corazon Aquino and the Brushfire Revolution. Reid and Guerrero provide an insiders’ account of a country that is unfamiliar to most Americans yet has been a close ally for most of its existence. Reid and Guerrero do not simply recount the events of the “brushfire revolution.” They demonstrate how the turmoil that marked the Aquino presidency exemplifies the problems faced by countries everywhere seeking to build democracy on the wreckage of authoritarianism. The authors indicate that such governments come to power with great expectations and no small degree of naivete. This valuable analysis of one of the most intriguing and tumultuous eras in Philippine history exposes the contradiction between the international image of the Aquino movement and its leader and the reality of politics and government in an enigmatic and unusual country. Robert H. Reid has served as Chief of Bureau, Associated Press, in Manila since September, 1986. As a reporter, he has covered the fall of the Shah of Iran, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq war, and the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Eileen Guerrero, a freelance writer and contributor to publications in Hong Kong and elsewhere, was news editor of the Associated Press in Manila during the Aquino administration. She is a native Filipino. ISBN: 0-8071-1980-6 cloth ISBN13: 978-0-8071-1980-8 Published 1995 248 pages, 20 halftones, 9 maps, 6 x 9

Óscar Romero - one of Cline's victims From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Oscar Romero)• Learn more about citing Wikipedia •Jump to: navigation, search Archbishop Óscar A. Romero Denomination Roman Catholic Church Senior posting See San Salvador Title Archbishop of San Salvador Period in office 1977–1980 Consecration 23 February 1977 Predecessor Luis Chávez y González Successor Arturo Rivera y Damas Religious career Priestly ordination 4 April 1942 Previous bishoprics Bishop of Santiago de María Previous post Bishop Personal Date of birth 15 August 1917 Place of birth Ciudad Barrios Date of death 24 March 1980 Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez (August 15, 1917 – March 24, 1980), commonly known as Monseñor Romero or Padre Romero, was a priest of the Roman Catholic Church in El Salvador. He later became the fourth Archbishop of San Salvador, succeeding the long-reigning Luis Chávez y González. As archbishop, he witnessed ongoing violations of human rights and started a group which spoke out to the poor and also victims of the country's civil war. Chosen to be archbishop for his conservatism, once in office his conscience led him to embrace a non-violent form of liberation theology, a position that has led to comparisons with Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Later, in 1980, he was assassinated by gunshot shortly after his homily. His death provoked international outcry for human rights reform in El Salvador. After his assassination, Romero was succeeded by Msgr. Arturo Rivera y Damas. In 1997, a cause for beatification and canonization into sainthood was opened for Romero, and Pope John Paul II bestowed upon him the title of Servant of God. The process continues.[1] He is considered by some the unofficial patron saint of the Americas and El Salvador and is often referred to as "San Romero" by the Catholic workers in El Salvador. Outside of Catholicism, Romero is honored by other religious denominations of Christendom, including the Church of England through its Common Worship. He is one of the ten 20th-century martyrs from across the world who are depicted in statues above the Great West Door of Westminster Abbey, London.[2] Contents [hide] 1 Childhood 2 Seminarian 3 Priest 4 Bishop 5 Archbishop 6 Church Persecution 7 Assassination and funeral 8 Canonization Cause 8.1 Spiritual life 8.2 Process of Canonization 9 Romero in popular culture 9.1 Television and film 9.2 Visual arts 9.3 Poetry and song 10 Notes 11 References 12 External link [edit] Childhood Arms of Archbishop Oscar A. RomeroRomero entered public school, which only offered grades one through three. When finished with public school, Romero was privately tutored by Anita Iglesias until age twelve or thirteen. Throughout this time Óscar's father, Santos, had been training Romero in carpentry. Romero showed exceptional proficiency as an "apprentice". Santos wanted to offer his son the skill of a trade, because in El Salvador studies seldom led to employment. [edit] Seminarian In 1930, at age 13, Romero entered the minor seminary run by the Claretians in San Miguel. He remained in San Miguel for seven years, when in 1937 he left for the national seminary run by the Jesuits in San Salvador. There he began his studies in theology when shortly after arriving Óscar's father died. Halfway through his first year Romero was sent to continue his studies in Rome in the Gregorian University, living in a dorm with other Latin American seminarians at the Latin American College. He continued his studies in theology and excelled academically. However, by 1939, World War II was spreading throughout Europe. Italy found itself right in the middle of conflict, having officially entered the war by 1940. Many of Romero's fellow seminarians chose to return home before the conflict worsened, but Romero and several others stayed on. In the 1940 to 1941 school year, while war and uncertainty weighed heavily on his mind, Romero managed to earn his licentiate degree in theology cum laude. [edit] Priest On April 4, 1942, Romero was ordained a Catholic priest in Rome. Romero remained in Rome to obtain doctoral degrees in theology, working on ascetical theology. In 1943, before finishing, he was summoned back home from Fascist Italy by the bishop at age 26. He traveled home with his good friend Fr. Valladares, who had graduated in 1940 and was also doing doctoral work in Rome. In route home they made stops in Spain and Cuba, being detained by Cuban police for having come from Mussolini's Italy and placed in an internment camp. After several months in prison Valladares became sick, and some priests of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer helped to have the two transferred to a hospital. From the hospital they were released from Cuban custody and allowed back home, where they sailed for Mexico and traveled back home to El Salvador. He began working as a parish priest in Anamorós but then moved to San Miguel where he worked for over 20 years. He promoted various apostolic groups, started an Alcoholics Anonymous group, helped in the construction of San Miguel's cathedral and supported devotion to the Virgin of the Peace. He was later appointed Rector of the inter-diocese seminary in San Salvador. In 1966, he began his public life when he was chosen to be Secretary of the Episcopal Conference for El Salvador. He also became Director of "Orientación", the archdiocesan newspaper, which became fairly conservative while he was editor, defending the traditional magisterium of the Catholic Church. [edit] Bishop In 1970 he was appointed auxiliary bishop to San Salvador Archbishop Luis Chávez y González, a move not welcomed by the more progressive members of the Priesthood in El Salvador. He took up his appointment as Bishop of the Diocese of Santiago de María in December 1975.[3] [edit] Archbishop A bust of Óscar RomeroOn February 23, 1977, he was appointed Archbishop of San Salvador; his appointment was met with surprise, dismay and even incredulity among various groups. While this appointment was welcomed in government circles, it was met with disappointment by those priests (especially those openly aligning with Marxism) who feared that with his conservative reputation he would put the brakes on their liberation theology commitment to the poor. On March 12, a progressive Jesuit priest and personal friend Rutilio Grande, who had been creating self-reliance groups among the poor campesinos, was assassinated. His death had a profound impact on Romero who later stated "When I looked at Rutilio lying there dead I thought 'if they have killed him for doing what he did, then I too have to walk the same path". Romero urged the government of Arturo Armando Molina to investigate the crime, but they ignored his calls. The press, which was censored, also remained silent. Tension was noted by the closure of some schools and the absence of Catholic priests being invited to participate in governmental acts. In his response to Fr. Rutilio's murder, Romero revealed a radicalism that had not been evident before. He began to speak out against the poverty, social injustice, assassinations and torture taking place in the country. As a result, Romero began to be noticed internationally. In February 1980, he was given an honorary doctorate by the Catholic University of Leuven. On his visit to Europe to receive this honour, he met Pope John Paul II and expressed his concerns at what was happening in his country. Romero argued that it was problematic to support the government in El Salvador because it legitimized the terror and assassinations being committed. In 1979, the Revolutionary Government Junta came to power amidst a wave of human rights abuses by paramilitary right-wing groups as well as by the government. Romero spoke out against U.S. military aid to the new government and wrote to President Jimmy Carter in February 1980, warning that increased military aid would "undoubtedly sharpen the injustice and the repression inflicted on the organized people, whose struggle has often been for their most basic human rights". Carter, concerned that El Salvador would become "another Nicaragua", ignored Romero's pleas. [edit] Church Persecution Archbishop Romero denounced what he characterized as the persecution of his Church: In less than three years, more than fifty priests have been attacked, threatened and slandered. Six of them are martyrs, having been assassinated; various others have been tortured, and others expelled from the country. Religious women have also been the object of persecution. The archdiocesan radio station, Catholic educational institutions and Christian religious institutions have been constantly attacked, menaced, threatened with bombs. Various parish convents have been sacked.[4] Catholic priests assassinated in El Salvador during Óscar Romero's archbishopric (1977 - 1980): Rutilio Grande García, S.J. - assassinated March 12, 1977 Alfonso Navarro Oviedo - assassinated May 11, 1977 Ernesto Barrera - assassinated November 28, 1978 Octavio Ortiz Luna - assassinated January 20, 1979 Rafael Palacios - assassinated June 20, 1979 Alirio Napoleón Macías - assassinated August 4, 1979 [edit] Assassination and funeral Left to right: Archbishop Luis Chávez; his successor Óscar Romero; Romero's successor Arturo Rivera; and Fr. Rutilio Grande, pictured in 1970.Romero was shot to death with a single shot to the heart on March 24, 1980 while celebrating Catholic Mass at a small chapel near his cathedral, after he gave a sermon in which he called on Salvadoran soldiers, as Christians, to obey God's higher order and to stop carrying out the government's repression and violations of basic human rights. According to an audio-recording of the Mass, he was shot moments after the homily, which he had concluded with an improvised pre-Eucharistic prayer thanking God (the homily in the Roman Catholic Rite more or less signifies the end of the Liturgy of the Word and the beginning of the Liturgy of the Eucharist or Mass of the Faithful). When he was shot, his blood was spilled over his own altar and some of the congregation say it went into the communion wine. It is believed that his assassins were members of Salvadoran death squads, including two graduates of the U.S.-run School of the Americas, who were acting on orders of the Salvadoran military. This view was supported in 1993 by an official U.N. report, which identified the man who ordered the killing as Major Roberto D'Aubuisson,[5] who had founded the political party Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA), and organized death squads that systematically carried out politically-motivated assassinations and other human rights abuses in El Salvador. Rafael Alvaro Saravia, a former captain in the Salvadorian Air Force, was chief of security for Roberto D'Aubuisson and an active member of these death squads. In 2004, Mr. Saravia was found liable by a U.S. District Court under the Alien Tort Claims Act ("ATCA") (28 U.S.C. § 1350) for aiding, conspiring, and participating in the assassination of Archbishop Romero. Mr. Saravia was ordered to pay $10 million dollars for extrajudicial killing and crimes against humanity pursuant to the ATCA. Doe v. Rafael Saravia, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (E.D. Cal. 2004) (providing an excellent account of the events leading up, and subsequent, to Archbishop Romero's death). Romero is buried in the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Holy Savior (Catedral Metropolitana de San Salvador). The funeral mass (rite of visitation and requiem) on March 30, 1980, in San Salvador was attended by more than 250,000 mourners from all over the world. Viewing this attendance as a protest, Jesuit priest John Dear has said, "Romero’s funeral was the largest demonstration in Salvadoran history, some say in the history of Latin America." During the ceremony, a bomb exploded on the Cathedral square (Plaza Barrios) and subsequently there were shots fired that probably came from surrounding buildings. While no one died from the bomb-blast or the shots, many people were killed during the following mass panic; official sources talk of 31 overall casualties, journalists indicated between 30 and 50 dead.[6] Some witnesses claimed it was government security forces that threw bombs into the crowd, and army sharpshooters, dressed as civilians, that fired into the chaos from the balcony or roof of the National Palace. However, there are contradictory accounts as to the course of the events and "probably, one will never know the truth about the interrupted funeral"[7] Twenty-five years later, the BBC recalled the horror: "Tens of thousands of mourners who had gathered for Romero's funeral Mass in front of the cathedral in San Salvador were filmed fleeing in terror as army gunners on the rooftops around the square opened fire. ... One person who was there told us he remembered the piles of shoes left behind by those who escaped with their lives." As the gunfire continued, the body was buried in a crypt beneath the sanctuary. Even after the burial, people continued to line up to pay homage to their martyred prelate.[8][9][10][11][12] [edit] Canonization Cause [edit] Spiritual life Romero noted in his diary on February 4, 1943: "In recent days the Lord has inspired in me a great desire for holiness.... I have been thinking of how far a soul can ascend if it lets itself be possessed entirely by God." Commenting on this passage, James R. Brockman, S.J., Romero's biographer and author of Romero: A Life, said that "All the evidence available indicates that he continued on his quest for holiness until the end of his life. But he also matured in that quest." [13] According to Brockman, Romero's spiritual journey had some of these characteristics: (1) love for the Church of Rome, shown by his episcopal motto, "to be of one mind with the church", a phrase he took from St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises, (2) a tendency to make a very deep examination of conscience, (3) an emphasis on sincere piety, (3) mortification and penance through his duties, (4) providing protection for his chastity, (5) spiritual direction (Romero said he "entrusted with great satisfaction the spiritual direction of my life and that of other priests" to priests of Opus Dei), (6) "being one with the church incarnated in this people which stands in need of liberation," (7) eagerness for contemplative type of prayer and also finding God in others, (8) fidelity to the will of God, (9) self-offering to Jesus Christ. [edit] Process of Canonization On the tenth anniversary of the assassination, the sitting prelate archbishop of San Salvador, Msgr. Arturo Rivera y Damas, appointed a postulator to prepare documentation for a cause of beatification and canonization of Romero. The documents were formally accepted by Pope John Paul II and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 1997, and Romero was given the title of "Servant of God". The process continues today with further investigation of the heroism and martyrdom of Romero. Upon the declaration of heroism and martyrdom, it is expected that Romero will achieve the title of "Venerable". Thereafter, miracles must be attributed to Romero in order for him to be declared Blessed and added to the Liturgy of the Hours. Twenty-six years after Romero's assassination, the canonization cause is stalled. In March 2005, Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, the Vatican official in charge of the drive, announced that Romero's cause had cleared an unprecedented hurdle, having survived a theological audit by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the time headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later proclaimed Pope Benedict XVI) and that beatification could follow within six months.[14] Dramatically, Pope John Paul II died within weeks of those remarks. Predictably, the transition of the new Pontiff slowed down the work of canonizations and beatifications. Moreover, the new pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, instituted liturgical changes that had the overall effect of reining in the Vatican's so-called "factory of saints".[15] Later that year, an October 2005 interview by Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, appeared to stall the prospect of an impending Romero beatification. Asked if Msgr. Paglia's predictions checked out, Cardinal Saraiva responded, "Not as far as I know today".[16] In November 2005, a Jesuit magazine signaled that Romero's beatification was still "years away".[17] Many suspect that the delay in the declaration of heroism and martyrdom is due to the fact that Romero is closely tied to, but not directly involved with, the liberation theology movement espoused especially by the Jesuits of Latin America. The charge has been dismissed by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints who have pointed out that Romero has not yet met certain criteria to move on to the next levels of the inquests, processes which have historically taken decades to roll into motion. [edit] Romero in popular culture [edit] Television and film The film Romero (1989) was based on the Archbishop's life story. It was directed by John Duigan and starred Raúl Juliá and produced by Paulist Productions (a film company run by the Paulist Fathers, a group of Catholic Priests). Timed for release ten years after Romero's death, it was the first Hollywood feature film ever to be financed by the Roman Catholic Church. The film received respectful, if less than enthusiastic, reviews. Roger Ebert typified the critics who acknowledged that "[t]he film has a good heart, and the Julia performance is an interesting one, restrained and considered ... The film's weakness is a certain implacable predictability." Although the film depicts Romero's assassination as occurring during the Consecration of the Eucharistic wine, he was actually killed after giving the homily. Also, Romero was never sent to jail as was in the movie, rather, he was just detained at a detainment camp. Oliver Stone's 1986 film, Salvador, contains a dramatisation of the assassination of Archbishop Romero (played in the movie by José Carlos Ruiz). The film tells the true story of sleazy photojournalist Richard Boyle (James Woods), who undergoes a spiritual conversion while covering the death squad killings in El Salvador during the Civil War. Romero was also featured in the made-for-TV movie, Choices of the Heart (NBC, 1983, René Enríquez as Romero) about the murder of four U.S. churchwomen in El Salvador Romero was also depicted in two biopics about the papacy of Karol Wojtyła, the U.S. television biopic Have No Fear: The Life of Pope John Paul II (ABC, 2005, Joaquim de Almeida as Romero) and the Italian biopic "Karol, un papa rimasto uomo" (2006, Carlos Kaniowsky as Romero). [edit] Visual arts From the Gallery of 20th century martyrs at Westminster Abbey- Mother Elizabeth of Russia, Revd. Martin Luther King, Archbishop Óscar Romero and Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer. A statue of Oscar Romero sculpted by John Roberts fills a prominent niche on the western facade of Westminster Abbey in London. The statue was unveiled in the presence of Queen Elizabeth in 1998. Barry Woods Johnston sculpted the statue of Oscar Romero displayed in the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. The Italian sculptor, Paolo Borghi crafted the catafalque that covers Romero's tomb in the crypt of the San Salvador cathedral and shows Romero "sleeping the sleep of the just" as four Evangelists stand guard. Br. Robert Lentz, OFM, painted a now-famous "icon" of Archbishop Romero based on traditional church iconography but with updated the conventional elements. For example, traditional angels are replaced with military helicopters over red tiled roofs. Frank Diaz Escalet executed a series of "outsider art" paintings on Archbishop Romero, now exhibited in the permanent collection of the Organization of the American States Museum, in Washington, D.C.; the permanent collection of the Art Museum of Southeast Texas, Beaumont, Texas; the Ella Noel Museum of Odessa, Texas; and Maryknoll galleries in New York. [edit] Poetry and song The most famous reference to Romero's death in Spanish language songs is "El Padre Antonio y el monaguillo Andres", by Panamanian singer Ruben Blades. This song fictionally describes the violent deaths of Padre Antonio (representing Romero) and monaguillo Andres during mass. Brazilian Bishop Dom Pedro Casaldáliga immortalized Romero as "San Romero de América" ('St. Romero of the Americas') in a famous poem by that name written shortly after the assassination. The poem, a variation on the Angelus, popularized the use of the phrase "San Romero" (as opposed to "St. Oscar") throughout Latin America (as, for example, in the "San Romero" paintings by Escalet, or the "San Romero de America" UCC Church in New York City). Also, salsa singer Rubén Blades wrote and sings the song "El Padre Antonio y el Monaguillo Andrés", a song in which an idealist Spanish priest arrives to a Latin American country, giving sermons in which he condemns violence, talks about love and justice, and at the end is murdered during a mass. Blades has said he wrote this song referring to Romero, so that "the death of Romero is not forgotten". Song "Romero" by Jolie Rickman, documents his last sermon before his assassination. Available on the CD "Sing It Down" via SOA Watch, http://www.soaw.org/new/sub.php?id=2. Welsh singer-songwriter Dafydd Iwan wrote about Romero's assassination in his song "Oscar Romero".[18] Richard Gilpin wrote the song "Oscar Romero" which appeared on his album "Loose Ends". Oscar Romero is a character in Elizabeth Swados' musical/theater piece, "Missionaries," about the murder of four church women in El Salvador. [edit] Notes ^ http://romeroes.com/canonizacion/canonizacion.html Proceso de Canonización Monseñor Romero ^ http://www.westminster-abbey.org/history-r...es/people/13679 Westminster Abbey (Oscar Romero) ^ http://romeroes.com/biografia/ingles.htm, Romerobobby biography from Archdiocese of San Salvador canonization site. ^ Speech at Lovaine University, Belgium, (Feb. 2, 1980). ^ Morozzo p. 351-2 ^ Morozzo p. 354 ^ Morozzo p. 364 ^ http://kellogg.nd.edu/romero/PDF%27s/Chronology.pdf Chronology of the Salvadoran Civil War, Kellogg Institute, University of Notre Dame ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/4376733.stm Requiem for Romero, BBC Radio 4, March 23, 2005 ^ http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0324-21.htm Oscar Romero, Presente!, John Dear, CommonDreams.org, March 24, 2005 ^ http://kellogg.nd.edu/romero/pdfs/Biography.pdf Romero biography, Kellogg Institute, Notre Dame University (accessed 2006-08-21) ^ http://www.creighton.edu/CollaborativeMini...wp-3-31-80.html "40 Killed in San Salvador: 40 Killed at Rites For Slain Prelate; Bombs, Bullets Disrupt Archbishop's Funeral," by Christopher Dickey,Washington Post Foreign Service, Monday, March 31, 1980; Page A1 ^ http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/904242brock.html James Brockman, S.J. The Spiritual Journey of Oscar Romero ^ http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=35989 Beatification cause advanced for Archbishop Romero ^ http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/pr...1059021,00.html Will the Pope Make Fewer Saints? ^ http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9359 Interview with Cardinal José Saraiva Martins ^ http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506300.htm Magazine says Archbishop Romero was killed for actions of faith ^ James, E. Wyn (2005), "Painting the World Green: Dafydd Iwan and the Welsh Protest Ballad", Folk Music Journal 8 (5): 594-618, <http://www.cf.ac.uk/insrv/libraries/scolar/digital/welshballads/painting.html> [edit] References San Romero – a multi-lingual discussion group dedicated to Romero. Remembering Archbishop Oscar Romero (several contemporary and memorial articles gathered) Article on Romero, contains picture of Lentz icon Romero A description of the pursuit of justice for Oscar Romero Roanoke Catholic Ciudad Romero A Salvadoran town reborn and named for Oscar Romero. Morozzo della Rocca, Roberto. Primero Dios. Vita di Oscar Romero. Milan 2005: Mondadori.

From John Marks in The Search for The Manchurian Candidate... "If the CIA had not tried to find out what the Russians were doing with mind-altering drugs in the early 1950s, I think the then-Director should have been fired," says Ray Cline, a former Deputy Director of the Agency. And here is one of the ground breaking revelations linking a Pioneer Fund funding recipient, Dr. Hans J. Eysenck, who had been picketed in Australia for his history as an unrepentant Nazi, to the CIA and the Human Ecology Society and the Human Ecology Fund. THIS IS, IMHO, PROOF POSITIVE THAT THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE STYLE OF MIND CONTROL SLIPPED OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE CIA AND INTO THE DEVIOUS AND DUPLICITOUS HANDS OF WICKLIFFE P. DRAPER AND HIS PIONEER FUND JUST IN TIME FOR HIM TO USE THIS SURREPTITIOUS PROGRAM AS BLACKMAIL AGAINST THE CIA FOLLOWING THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY ORCHESTRATED BY DRAPER AND THE GANG OF FIVE. "Similarly, the (Human Ecology) Society gave grants of $26,000 to the well-known University of London psychologist, H. J. Eysenck, for his work on motivation. An MKULTRA document acknowledged that this research would have "no immediate relevance for Agency needs," but that it would "lend prestige" to the Society. The grants to Eysenck also allowed the Society to take funding credit for no less than nine of his publications in its 1963 report." Here is John Simkin on Ray Steiner Cline who was chief of the Mukden, China OSS desk. Robert Emmett Johnson was a Marine stationed in Tsingtao in 1948 when Anastase Vonsiatsky, The Manchurian Candidate from Richard Condon's book of the same name, was still active in the nether worlds of nearby Harbin, Manchuria once known as Manchuoko during the Japanese occupation. George de Mohrenschildt's wife Jeanne was even born in Harbin during the Czarist's anti-Communist diaspora. George himself reported to Anastase as did his convicted World War II Nazi spy and close relative Baron Constantine de Maydell. And George used the pseudonym Philip Harbin during his sojourns into the Dominican Republic and Haiti apparently. It is interesting to note, but not yet conclusive, that a database proximity scan I just ran also finds Robert Emmett Johnson involved with either George and/or Ray Steiner Cline in the Haiti/DR nexus of characters involved with plots against Papa Doc Duvalier, and later with Cline at WACL for the Archbishop Romero and other assassination plots. Johnson even wrote magazine articles for True in the late 1960's titled "I stuck pins in a Voodoo Dictator" and "For a Million Bucks I would assassinate Castro". Cline himself shows up in the novel, The Manchurian Candidate in 1958, as "John E. is Rey S. Kline" or Johnny is Ray S. Cline, after decomposing the letters in what turns out to be a perfect anagram: "John Yerkes Iselin" who was known as Johnny. So from 1948 to 1988 Cline and Johnson were closely associated with each other across the globe. Was Johnson a programmed assassin or just a good killer? Probably a little bit of both. Cline was also in Taiwan when Oswald was there and in the Phillipines when Benito Aquino was murdered according to a career State Dept. employee in the family. Did Cline turn into a contract killer just for the money? Or were some or all of these campaigns done under the auspices of and with the approval of the CIA? Cline certainly was one of the shadiest and most secretive characters ever to have lived. He took over the spot once reserved for James J. Angleton. Here is John Simkin on Cline... Ray Steiner Cline was born in 1919. He studied at Harvard University before joining the Office of Strategic Services during the Second World War. In 1944 he was appointed as Chief of Current Intelligence. Later he was sent to China where he worked with John K. Singlaub, Richard Helms, E. Howard Hunt, Mitchell WerBell, Paul Helliwell, Robert Emmett Johnson and Lucien Conein. Others working in China at that time included Tommy Corcoran, Whiting Willauer and William Pawley. In 1946 Cline was assigned to the Operations Division of the War Department General Staff to write its history. Cline joined the Central Intelligence Bureau in 1949 and eventually became Chief of the Office of National Estimates. He also served in Britain (1951-53) under Brigadier General Thomas Betts. Cline became Chief of station in Taiwan in 1957. A post he held for over four years. In 1962 Cline was appointed as Deputy Director for Intelligence for the CIA. He became disillusioned with Lyndon B. Johnson and he requested a move from Washington. In 1966 Richard Helms managed to arrange for Clines to become Special Coordinator and Adviser to the Ambassador in the U.S. Embassy in Bonn. From 1969 until his retirement in 1973, he was Director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the Department of State during the Richard Nixon administration. Cline played an important role in the forming of right-wing organizations such as the World Anti-Communist League and its U.S. chapter, the U.S. Council for World Freedom.

Sunday, October 07, 2007 The American Liberty League and coup plotting Antiwar general Smedley Butler ratted on wealthy American fascist wannabes When Franklin Roosevelt came to power in 1933 and it quickly became apparent that he didn't plan to restrict his economic recovery measures to balancing the federal budget and preaching optimism, a lot of the most wealthy Americans got very nervous about this whole "New Deal" business. In August, 1934, some of them formed a lobby group called The American Liberty League to defend the interests of the "economic royalists", as FDR came to call them. The most dramatic event involving the Liberty League, at least indirectly, was a charge made by antiwar retired Gen. Smedley Butler, who was a popular figure at the Bonus Army protest during the Hoover Administration which had been put down by troops under the command of Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur. He testified before a Congressional Committee about being approached by a representative of wealthy plotters wanting him to front a military coup against the federal government. He claimed that it was the some of the same people who went on to form the Liberty League that was behind the plotting. Apparently, there is no hard evidence that the people guiding the Liberty League were directly involved in the plot testified to by Butler. And it's not clear how serious the plot was, although the people directly involved seemed to have taken the idea very seriously. The Liberty League's main influence was in its anti-New Deal propaganda and its support for legal action against pro-labor legislation, primarily from its founding in 1934 through the Presidential election of 1936. Roosevelt's landslide victory against Republican Alf Landon pretty much took the wind out of the Liberty League's sails. Though the organization lingered on until 1940, its main activity ended with the 1936 election, in which they "unofficially" supported Landon against That Man Roosevelt. Since I discovered I have access to the JSTOR periodical database through the public library, I've been poking around in some older periodicals. One of the more interesting pieces I've come across is "The American Liberty League, 1934-1940" by Frederick Rudolph The American Historical Review Oct 1950. Rudolph tells the story of the League (without mentioning Butler's coup allegations) and analyzes its failure. With the Cheney-Bush administration seriously pushing Social Security phaseout as recently as 2005 using much the same arguments the 1936 Republican Party platform used against the then-new program, the Liberty League's mossback ideas still have some relevance. Despite the fact that they were reactionary even in 1934. First, who backed the Liberty League? Rudolph gives this rundown: At a time when economic distress encouraged an increasing emphasis upon the forgotten man and the common man, it came to the defense of the uncommon man who stood at the pinnacle - the uncommon man, whose freedom to follow the bent of his natural talents, unfettered by government regulation and control, had long been an ingrained tenet of the American faith. The roster of its officers and of its chief financial contributors is a roster of the uncommon men of the time, the men whose ambitions and abilities had been rewarded with the success, the power, and the prestige to which Americans of every background have been traditionally conditioned to aspire: Irknke, Pierre, and Lammot du Pont, controllers of a vast industrial empire; Ernest T. Wier, steel man; Will L. Clayton, Texas cotton broker; Alfred P. Sloan, president of General Motors; Edward F. Hutton, chairman of General Foods; J. Howard Pew, president of Sun Oil; William S. Knudsen, also of General Motors; Joseph E. Widener, Philadelphia transportation magnate; Sewell L. Avery of Montgomery Ward; George H. Houston, president of Baldwin Locomotive. And with them were corporation lawyers, professional politicians, some academicians, and others who represented a mixture of business with politics or business with academics. They were men who subscribed, out of conviction or experience, to that combination of social Darwinism and American experience which evoked a constant stream of leaflets, pamphlets, radio addresses, and press releases from the offices of the Liberty League. Its spokesmen included Alfred E. Smith, 1928 presidential candidate of the Democratic party, whose biography was a story out of Horatio Alger; John W. Davis, 1924 presidential candidate of the Democratic party and chief counsel for J. P. Morgan; Bainbridge Colby, Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson and attorney for William Randolph Hearst; Neil Carothers, director of the College of Business Administration at Lehigh; Edward W. Kemmerer, professor of international finance at Princeton; Albert G. Keller, professor at Yale and student of William Graham Sumner [the chief advocate of Social Darwinism], who constructed a Science of Society which was shot through with the transfer of Darwinian analysis to social institutions; and Samuel Harden Church, head of the Carnegie Institute in Pittsburgh. (my emphasis) The fact that the Democratic Presidential nominees of 1924 and 1928 both became spokespeople for this reactionary anti-New Deal group is a sign of how completely corporate interests dominated both parties in the 1920s. It's also a reminder that in the 1930s, ideological differences strongly cut across party lines. Some of the strongest supporters of New Deal measures, such as Sen. George Norris, were Republicans. Conventional histories of the New Deal will sometimes talk about "Thunder on the Left" faced by Roosevelt in 1933-36. There was certainly pressure on Roosevelt from the left by the labor movement and various reformers. But many of the groups that are categorized as part of the so-called Thunder on the Left were actually rightwing demagogues. Rudolph observes that the country-club reactionary nature of the Liberty League's propaganda had limited popular resonance during the Great Depression: Caring no more for the common man than the minimum requirements of public relations demanded, the Liberty League, nonetheless, could have built a larger popular following had it adopted the techniques of the demagogues who were amassing a more impressive membership in such groups as the Townsend clubs, Share-the-Wealth clubs, and in the Union for Social Justice [led by Charles Coughlin]. Its appeal, however, was pitched on a level which placed its emphasis upon the defense of something which most Americans had very little of property. The truly popular movements of the decade, the New Deal included, promised something specific for the common man, for the aged, for the economically underprivileged, while the Liberty League offered rather to protect property holders from the people and from their government in Washington. (my emphasis) The "Share-the-Wealth" movement was begun by Louisiana Sen. Huey Long, who I think is rightly considered by many as the closest thing the United States had to an Adolf Hitler type figure in that period. He did have a significant public appeal. Although he ran Louisiana like a thoroughly corrupt personal dictatorship, he also put the unemployed to work on building roads and other public works (with the obligatory kickbacks, of course) and provided free public school textbooks for the first time in his state. But after Long's assassination in 1935, the leadership his movement was taken over by Gerald L. K. Smith and it took a more overtly reactionary tone. Smith became a raving anti-Semite and fascist sympathizer. Rudolph points out that the League in its propaganda relied on themes such as "individualism" that had strong resonance in American tradition. In my favorite part of his article, he writes that "the American Liberty League learned the very hardest way that the common man, who started on his way up under the auspices of Andrew Jackson had replaced the industrial leader in giving the directions in American life". (Sadly, Jacksonian democracy has been in eclipse in the US since 1969.) The tone of his article makes me think that Rudolph himself didn't want to appear as overly approving of the Jacksonian moment of the 1930s. But this observation is a reasonable one: The emotive symbols which [the League] used - the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Declaration of Independence - and the American heroes to whom it appealed for sanction - Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln - have generally been extremely useful in manufacturing mass opinion in the United States, but the symbols and the sanctions must also have been put to use for something the people wanted. In the 1930's the cult of the common man had become sufficiently embedded in American society to make clear that any pressure group or political organization must disregard it at its own peril... As Rudolph also notes, the League "discovered that Thomas Jefferson proved to be a more effective symbol for the left than for the right." I should hope so. Certainly, no one during Jefferson's lifetime mistook him for a conservative, much less a flaming reactionary like the Liberty League's backers. I'll close with a long paragraph from Rudolph's summary of how the Liberty League managed to frame their message in the Jacksonian climate of 1936 in a way that made it sink like a lead balloon: The [political] performance of the League was little better designed to bring the desired results than was its [propaganda] approach. Its first and almost only practical alternative to the New Deal was to suggest that the Red Cross be commissioned to handle all direct relief. The effect of its pronouncements on the unconstitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act was to encourage industrialists to disregard the collective bargaining provisions of the legislation, throwing struggling unions into courts all over the country and leading eventually to the sit-down strikes of 1936. ... The presence of twelve Du Ponts at its 1936 dinner at which A1 Smith spoke destroyed the desired effect of the presence of the boy from the streets of the East Side [i.e., Al Smith]; indeed, when Smith spent the summer of 1936 in a more concerted attack on the New Deal, he carefully refrained from accepting Liberty League sponsorship. In 1936, too, the Republican party asked the Liberty League, by then a political liability, to "stay aloof from too close alliance with the Landon campaign": the League co-operated by announcing that it would remain nonpartisan during the campaign, and it never did endorse Landon. When the League sponsored a six-day institute at the University of Virginia on "The Constitution and the New Deal," Virginius Dabney, the Richmond editor, reported that "the audiences were so openly hostile to the League and its spokesmen that the round table proved something of a boomerang." Congressional investigations disclosed that the guiding figures of the League were large contributors to all and sundry anti-New Deal groups; the Du Pont brothers, Alfred Sloan, and John J. Raskob were the principal financial backers, for instance, of the Southern Democratic convention at Macon in 1936, when Eugene Talmadge made his bid for the presidency, with the assistance of Gerald L. K. Smith, inheritor of the toga of Huey Long; lesser right-wing groups like the Crusaders, Sentinels of the Republic, National Conference of Investors, and the Farmers' Independence Council - most of them masthead organizations, operated by professional publicists and lobbyists, many of whom, like the principal officers and backers of the League, were veterans of the prohibition repeal movement - owed substantial financial backing to the same small group of industrialists who sponsored the Liberty League. A [New York] Times editorial observed at the time that the League's founders were making some rather poor investments." (my emphasis) Other online resources: New Deal Nemesis: The Liberty League was star-studded, wealthy, professional, and a flop by David Pietrusza Reason Magazine Jan 1978: a "libertarian" treatment which shows appreciation for the League's free-market dogmas, praising it for its "a remarkably coherent libertarian position". Indeed it was, in the contemporary meaning of rightwing "libertarianism". The American Liberty League by Richard Sanders, Editor, Press for Conversion! n.d. Web site of the Canadian Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) Responses to the Great Depression 1929-1939 History Department at the University of San Diego, n.d. includes this brief description of the League: The "Old Right" emerged in the 1930's in opposition to Roosevelt and the New Deal. The American Liberty League founded in August, 1934, as a bipartisan anti-FDR coalition of the rich and corporate oligarchy, led by the duPonts as the leading contributors - organizers were John J. Raskob, John Davis, Nathan Miller, Irenee duPont, James Wadsworth - supported by Al Smith who opposed the New Deal and declared in Nov. 1935 that he was going to "take a walk" - spent $1m 1934-36 to defeat FDR, especially with propaganda sent to newspapers - Postmaster General Jim Farley called it the "American Cellophane League" because it was a DuPont product you could see right through - but Liberty League financed lawsuits against the New Deal, especially the 1935 Wagner Act that required collective bargaining (my emphasis) BBC report on Butler's coup allegations by Mike Thompson BBC Radio 4 07/23/07, whose text introduction says: The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression. Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy. At about 20:30ff, the report discusses the pro-German activism in the later 1930s of Hamburg-America Lines, of which one of the senior managers was Prescott Bush, future Senator from Connecticut and father and grandfather of US Presidents. The text of Smedley Butler's 1935 antiwar tract War Is A Racket is available at this Scuttlebutt and Small Chow site online. Tags: american liberty league, authoritarianism, libertarianism, new deal, prescott bush, smedley butler Posted by Bruce Miller at 11:35 PM Labels: american liberty league, authoritarianism, libertarianism, new deal, prescott bush, smedley butler 1 comments: brendan.chan said... The Democracy 2.0 Declaration is Here! On behalf of the 1,581 Democracy 2.0 survey respondents, 47 participants of the Democracy 2.0 Summit, and those 12 that worked 15 hours to draft a document we're proud of, stand behind and will mobilize around, it's my pleasure and honor to announce our generation's Democracy 2.0 Declaration: Democracy is an unfinished project. It’s time we upgrade. We, the Millennial Generation, are uniquely positioned to call attention to today’s issues and shape the future based on the great legacy we have inherited. Our founding fathers intended for every generation to build, indeed to innovate, on the American experience. We realize that as young people we are expected to be the leaders of tomorrow, but we understand that as citizens we are called to be the leaders of today. We are compelled by the critical state of our present democracy to establish a new vision. In a world often damaged by conflict and intolerance, we must commit to develop common ground through equality and open mindedness. In a world often damaged by social isolation and materialism, we must commit to community at the family, local, national and global levels. In a world often damaged by instant gratification, we must commit to creating sustainable solutions. In a world often damaged by apathy and disillusionment, we must commit to civic participation and inclusion of all voices. The present state of our democracy impedes opportunity for real change. We must connect the specific issues failing our population with their underlying systemic causes. Our government seems unable or unwilling to adequately address our broadest problems, including economic inequality, America’s role in the world, and the effect of money on the democratic process. But we must remember, our government is only as effective as the sum of its citizens. Low civic participation means the most disadvantaged people in society are neglected and we overlook many potential solutions to our problems. Our generation is telling a different story. We are uniquely positioned to foster community engagement through social networks of all kinds. It is our responsibility to use information and technology to upgrade democracy, transform communication and advance political engagement and civic participation. We are social networkers, we are multi-taskers, we are communicators and we are opinionated. The informality of our generation breaks down traditional barriers and opens doors for inclusiveness and equality. Most importantly, we are leaders in a society that yearns for leadership. It’s our democracy, it’s time to act.