Roy Cohn - Soviet Agent or Dupe? 2

7/30/2019 Roy Cohn - Soviet Agent or Dupe? 2

1/42

September 1, 1986 NEW SOLIDARITY Pages 5-8

Roy Cohn: Soviet Agent or Dupe?

by Scott Thompson

Part II

Roy Cohn, McCarthy's former counsel, with photographs of some of his

famous acquaintances, including Cardinal Spellman. Some say Spellman andothers were out to make McCarthy President.

It was early in January 1950, when Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wisc.) waschosen to spearhead the campaign later known as "McCarthyism." On thesurface, there are two very simple reasons that McCarthy accepted that role:the record shows that McCarthy liked evil for its own sake; also, McCarthy


2/42

was soon to face a tough 1952 re-election campaign. To save his saggingpolitical career, McCarthy desperately needed an electrifying issue.

Among the problems McCarthy's re-election campaign would have to face,four were outstanding:

1) McCarthy had been a Communist "fellow-traveler." He could not havebeen elected to the U.S. Senate in 1946, but for Milwaukee trade-unionsupport, mobilized by the Communist Party USA. During that campaign,McCarthy had praised Stalin publicly as "a man of peace."

2) McCarthy was known to his Senate colleagues to be financially corrupt.For example, he had taken a cash payment of $10,000 from the Lustronconstruction firm, one week after a Senate investigation (in which he was a

participant) was opened into Lustron.

3) McCarthy was known to the world as the principal apologist for those SSofficers who had committed the Malmedy atrocities against U.S. troops:McCarthy has rescued these SS officials from a Nuremberg-statutes death-sentence. McCarthy's actions in the Malmedy affair, only fueled propagandafor a Nazi revival; the German Communist Party (KPD) used his actions tostage massive demonstrations against U.S. occupation forces, on orders fromMoscow. The KPD was known to be in contact with McCarthy through theGerman Communist Rudolf Aschenauer!

4) McCarthy would soon be cited as a homosexual, in FBI,U.S. Counter-intelligence Corps (CIC) reports, and in published accounts in theLas VegasSun.

The reasons why McCarthy seized the offer of heading up what becameknown as "McCarthyism," are fairly obvious.

The questions are: Who set him in motion as an "anti-Communist"? Whatwere their motives? The key to the birth of "McCarthyism," is GeorgetownUniversity's famous Father Edmund Walsh, S.J., then Regent of the

Georgetown University Foreign Service School. Without Walsh's influenceon McCarthy, what became known as "McCarthyism" would not have comeinto existence.

While heading a 1922-1924 Papal Mission to Soviet Russia, this same Walshhad been an accomplice of leaders of a Soviet intelligence organizationknown as "The Trust." The same Walsh had also been a collaborator of the


3/42

circle which founded Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party, especially the Professor KarlHaushofer who supervised Rudolf Hess' collaboration with Hitler, includingHaushofer's hand in the writing ofMein Kampf.

Walsh's links to the Soviet intelligence nest inside the staff of McCarthy

homosexual Roy Cohn, and G. David Schinewere most visibly centered inthe figure of Frau Hede Massing.

Hede Massing was a member of the notorious Massing-Gerlach-Eisler ring,with which McCarthy had earlier liaison during the period of his inter-vention on behalf of the Malmedy murderers. This ring, which had majorconnections into 1930s and 1940s Hollywood and Mexico's Acapulco, was asubordinate element of the famous ring of Nazi-Communist intelligenceofficial Richard Sorge, a ring whose areas of principal operations wereintegrated with the Pacific organization of Communist master-spy M.N. Roy.

Alexander Helphand (Parvus) with Leon Trotsky (center) and Leon Deutsch

(right). Parvus was the key figure in the operation by "The Trust" which set

the Bolshevik Revolution in motion.

Sorge's rank in the Communist International's intelligence apparatus wasbased largely on the fact that he was the heir of Karl Marx's designatedsuccessor in leadership of the first Communist International. Sorge'snetwork overlapped the organization of Walsh's Nazi crony, geopoliticianKarl Haushofer. From the Moscow side of Sorge's apparatus, Walsh had

been a ground-floor accomplice of the Soviet "Trust" during the 1922-1924period.


4/42

Persons who were senior Western intelligence officials during the periodspreceding, during, and following "McCarthyism," have presented evidence,that McCarthy's group was being coordinated directly through a channel inthe Washington Soviet Embassy. The case of the Krivitsky assassination, isamong the cases which present very strong circumstantial evidence of adirect and witting connection between the Soviet Embassy and McCarthy'sstaff. For the purposes of this report, it is sufficient to limit our attention tothe one Soviet intelligence connection of which McCarthy and Cohn werefully witting, that of Hede Massing. The key point is, that the connections ofGeorgetown's geopolitician, Edmund Walsh, and the Soviet connections ofWalsh's tool, McCarthy, overlapped directly.

Walsh & Soviet Intelligence

On the surface, Soviet foreign intelligence, the Cheka's "Trust," was a directoutgrowth of an organization established when "the last Doge of Venice,"Volpi di Misurata, used Odessa-born Alexander Helphand ("Parvus") toarrange extensive German Imperial Foreign Office funding and technicalassistance for the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Not only were Parvus' twosons later part of the Soviet intelligence operation narrowly known as "TheTrust." All the Soviet officials involved in the establishing of "the Trust,"were either officials of Parvus' own pre-October 1917 spy-ring, or, like LeonTrotsky, had been members of either Parvus' organization or Volpi's othernetworks, earlier. At the center of this Parvus ring, were the famous chief of

the Cheka, Felix Dzerzhinsky, and Genoese Cheka agent Artuzov.

Some U.S. intelligence officers have recommended that counter-intelligencework on Soviet intelligence operations today, must be grounded in identi-fication of two principal divisions among the Western partners of Moscow inthe establishment of the "Trust." This analytical division, while not strictlyvalid at a deeper level, is convenient up to a point.

The first of these two, is a Venetian-Austrian-Swiss network, centeredaround Volpi di Misurata and his agent, Parvus. This includes such

Comintern leaders as Nikolai Bukharin and Karl Radek. The second of thetwo, overlapping the first, but distinct for purposes of emphasis, is principal-ly a Britain-centered network, which includes Leon Trotsky, the BritishSecret Intelligence Service's Sidney George Reilly, and Socialist Revolution-ary assassin Boris Savinkov.


5/42

Edmund Walsh, the man behind Sen. McCarthy's "anti-Communism," hadbeen a member of the Venetian network, which also penetrated certaincircles of the Vatican.

Richard Sorge, the Soviet superspy.

One of McCarthy's most famous

"sources" was directly tied into asubsidiary network of the Sorge

networks.

As Joseph Stalin rose to power from 1924 onward, he instituted purgesculminating, in the 1936-38 period, in wiping out most of the Western

oligarchy's "Trust" agents within the Bolshevik leadership. Stalin had nodisagreement with the idea of "world revolution"; his disagreements withthe Western Trust partners, and Western assets such as Trotsky and Bukhar-in, were chiefly two. He was unwilling to place the existence of Russiaitself at risk, as the Parvus-Trotsky dogma of "permanent revolution"implied. He was also unwilling to allow Bukharin's Western backers to lootthe Soviet economy to the degree they were doing during the 1920s. Stalin'sSoviet imperialist strategy, was to build up Soviet power at home, to reachthe position of power at which broader Soviet conquests could be safelysecured.

It was during the 1938-1953 period, when the former Okhrana agent andRussian Orthodox Church seminary student, Joseph Stalin, had consolidated

power, that the Western partners of the 1920-1929 Trust agreements began tomount an "anti-Communist" campaign whose purpose was to bring back a"Bolshevik" faction that would restore the "Trust."


6/42

In Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Edmund Walsh saw a tool, to mount an "anti-Communist" campaign that would destroy further official U.S. investigationsinto the higher levels of the "Trust."

One FBI document in Sen. McCarthy's file (62-96332-54) from Attorney

General Herbert Brownell to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, indicatesWalsh's probable accomplices. It is based upon a report to Brownell from asource known to C.D. Jackson, then President Eisenhower's director of

psychological warfare:

[X] claims that a group of Catholics in the United States led byCardinal Spellman is at odds with the Vatican regarding variousforeign issues. [X] referred to the Cardinal's followers as a"conspiracy" working to undermine the Eisenhower administra-tion and to eventually bring about the election of SenatorJoseph McCarthy as President. [X] claimed that McCarthy isreceiving the support of many wealthy Catholics, including

prominent individuals such as ex-Ambassador Joseph P.Kennedy and that the "conspiracy" group is sending toMcCarthy all sorts of individuals, such as emigres, who are

passing out fabricated information.

A 1979-80 investigation of Sen. McCarthy's chief counsel, Roy Cohn,confirmed the Spellman-McCarthy connection. Though publicly known as a

"Francoist" or "corporatist," Cardinal Spellman's leadership of the New YorkArchdiocese is also notable for his founding of the Maryknoll Order, whosemembers are in the forefront of the "Liberation Theologist" heresy in CentralAmerica today. He also played a role on behalf of the Jesuit-controlled FidelCastro's taking power in Cuba.

Unfortunately, the full facts on the central role played by Fr. Edmund Walshin selling the "anti-Communist" issue to Sen. McCarthy may be lost tohistory. A series of reorganizations have removed damaging informationfrom the Walsh papers in Georgetown University's "special collections."

With the recent reorganization now in progress, all that remains of theWalsh-McCarthy connection is what purports to be Fr. Walsh's scrawl upon a1954 article by columnist Drew Pearson, denying Pearson's charge that Fr.Walsh had sold McCarthy the "anti-Communist" issue.

A Georgetown University associate stated, that before the recent reorganiza-tion of the files, she had found three references to Fr. Walsh's germinal role


7/42

in his papers. Walsh's 1954 disclaimer may simply be his attempt at a cover-up, since it appears to date from the period the Army-McCarthy Hearingshad discredited McCarthy to public opinion.

However, two other sources substantiate Drew Pearson's charge against

Walsh. One is by a famous Walsh protege, Georgetown Foreign ServiceSchool Professor Carroll Quigley: in his bookTragedy and Hope. Theother is Sen. McCarthy's chief counsel, Roy Cohn, in his bookMcCarthy.Walsh's best friend, Fr. Louis J. Gallagher, S.J., thought so highly of CarrollQuigley's knowledge of Fr. Walsh, that he reprinted, on pp. 231-235 of his

biography,Edmund A. Walsh S.J., the entirety of Quigley's eulogy of Walsh,appearing in the June 1959 issue of Georgetown University'sProtocol.

Joe McCarthy (right) with an aide in 1947, shortly after he was elected to the

U.S. Senate with Communist backing. Who put him up to his "anti-

Communist crusade"?


8/42

Quigley, to whom we shall return later, states on p. 931 ofTragedy andHope: "Until early 1950, Communism meant little to McCarthy. He hadbeen elected to the Senate over the incumbent, LaFollette, in 1946, as aresult of Communist-controlled votes in the labor unions of Milwaukee. Assenator he collaborated in a joint Nazi and Communist plot to injure theUnited States and its army by reversing the convictions of German S.S.troops for atrocities committed on American prisoners of war captured in theBattle of the Bulge. But by January 1950, McCarthy was looking for anissue to be used for his reelection in 1952. At dinner with three men, two ofthem associates of mine, in the Colony Restaurant in Washington (Jan. 7,1950) he asked what issue he should use. After several suggestions, heseized upon Communism:

"That's it," he said. "The government is full of Communists.

We can hammer away at them."On Feb 9, 1950, Sen. McCarthy, who, in Quigley's words, was "without anyreal conception of what he was doing, and without any research or know-ledge of the subject," gave his famous "list of (57) 205 Communists "Wheeling, West Virginia speech, whose true nature was discussed in Part I ofthis series.

Although Roy Cohn claims an unnamed member of U.S. Army intelligence(G-2) may have first "sold" the "anti-Communist" issue to McCarthy, Cohn's

story of later developments dovetails that of Pearson and Quigley: On pp.10-11 of his book,McCarthy, Cohn states:

Why, quite specifically, did Joe McCarthy "buy thepackage"? . . . I am sure he saw the dramatic politicalopportunities connected with a fight on Communism. . . .

There have been many accounts of how McCarthy waslaunched on the Communist issue. According to one oft-toldversion, McCarthy telephoned William A. Roberts, a well-known Washington attorney, early in January 1950, and said hestood in need of a strong basic issue. Roberts thereuponarranged a dinner at the Colony Restaurant with the late FartherEdmund A. Walsh . . . and Professor [Colonel] Charles H.Kraus [described elsewhere as "a devoted friend of Fr.Walsh"S.T.], who taught political science at Georgetown. . . .At length, Father Walsh . . . suggested the subject of Soviet


9/42

imperialism's threat to the United States through widespreadsubversion. . . .

According to published reports, Professor Kraus wantedMcCarthy to meet the three, all of them Roman Catholics, in

order to "encourage in a young Catholic senator a seriousapproach toserious matters." Roberts, on the other hand, insiststhat McCarthy asked for the meeting "because he needed anissue and he got one there." Conceivably, the Senator wantedfurther information on Communism from the political-scienceexperts that night.

Walsh's second book on Soviet communism, his 1951 Total Empire, whichhe was writing at the time of the Welch-McCarthy confrontation, has one

particular, long section, which tries to answer those questions which mightbe raised by Sen. McCarthy in Congress:

Why should any American wish, much less conspire, to betraythe United States to the wardens who control the prison housethat Russia is and the satellites have become? . . . What makesa Communist or a sympathizer out of an American comfortably

placed, sometimes a millionaire, often a successful author, aplaywright, a Hollywood figure, a schoolteacher, a governmentemployee?

'The Lesser Evil?'

Thus, Soviet-linked Edmund Walsh is identified as one of the leading"intellectual authors" of "McCarthyism." The question remains: Why didhe choose Joe McCarthy?

Three years ago, the author spoke to an acquaintance, a leading conservativeserving as professor at the Jesuits' Fordham University. This man had been

part of the political circles around Cardinal Spellman, and a friend of Fr.Walsh as well. The author proposed to this acquaintance, denouncing Roy

Cohn for "flaming faggotry." The proposal was grounded on the sameprinciples cited, more recently, by John Cardinal O'Connor, now Archbishopof New York, when Cardinal O'Connor intervened on the issue of personalmorality in the 1984 Presidential elections. The professor responded: "Whyshould I do this? In hisDivine Comedy, Dante only places Sodomists in theSixth Circle of the Inferno, whereas Roy Cohn was the scourge of traitors:not only traitors to their country [e.g., Soviet espionage agentsS.T.], but


10/42

those Traitors to the Lord [e.g., "atheistic Communists"S.T.] who are inthe very maw of Satan, being gnashed by his teeth, at the bottom of thedarkest pit of Hell."

From Fr. Walsh's practice in other matters, it might be inferred, that had he

known about Sen. McCarthy's sexual deviance at the time he sold McCarthythe "anti-Communist" issue, he might probably have said: "So what? ASodomist, Hypocrite, Counsellor of Fraud, Sower of Discord, and Falsifier,like Sen, McCarthy is still a 'lesser evil' than Traitors!"

Unfortunately because of the rampant pragmatism in Washington, D.C.today, the doctrine of the "lesser evil" still prevails. Some would assume,that it was this idea, that it is permissible to use immoral means to fight anevil, which led FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and McCarthy's other"friends," to contain any scandal that might have toppled Sen. McCarthy.

Edmund Walsh's writings on the history of the Bolshevik Revolution and thenature of Communism, have had a tremendous impact upon leading "thinktanks" and government institutions in Washington, D.C. His writings,coupled with his actions when he was Papal representative to Russia, showthat he followed this doctrine of "lesser evil," as he made political bed-fellows with those satanic forces which had been responsible for theBolshevik Revolution, and which are part of the cultural matrix influencingBolshevik imperialism to this day.

It is fairly stated, that Walsh was what Dante called a "Traitor to the Lord."The continuing influence of Walsh (and his associates at GeorgetownUniversity) upon policy today, makes it important in several ways, that weexamine evidence showing Walsh's possible motives in recruiting Sen.McCarthy. Part of the key to understanding that, is the suspicious characterof the combined gross errors of omission and commission in Walsh'sanalysis of the rise of Bolshevism.

Ample grounds for doubts and suspicions concerning Edmund Walsh'sloyalty to Christian principles, were displayed during the period 1922-24,when he was Papal representative in Bolshevik Russia. According to hisassistant in Russia, and closest life-long friend, Fr. Louis Gallagher, S.J.,Walsh sought to pit "the pure soul of Orthodoxy" against "atheisticCommunism." Gallagher's apology for Walsh is found on p. 70 of theunabridged manuscript of his biography of Walsh: "The separation ofByzantium, resulting in the growth of the various branches of the Eastern


11/42

Church, the defections of the so-called Reformation, that gave rise to somany Protestant sects and even the residence at Avignon, were dislocationscausing the dismemberment of unity and increase of heresy, but the hereticswere still believers [handwritten in 'Xtians']. Atheistic Communism was thefirst human endeavor to destroy religion entirely with the purpose of

producing an unbelieving humanity."

Walsh wrote this in apparent disregard for what he had been trained to knowof how the Eastern monastic orders had spawned such Pan-Slavic "blood-and-soil" cults as theRaskolniki ("Old Believers"). He also knew theconnection between these Byzantine mystical currents and "atheisticcommunism."

For example, Walsh wrote, in his book, Total Empire, that the reactionaryRaskolniki gave rise to revolutionary currents in Russia, culminating inBolshevik rule. Quite true: the source of Soviet communism, is not KarlMarx; it is the Russian mystic's notion of the conception of the peasantcommune, which the Bolsheviks, to this day, associate with a mysticalconnotation of the wordMir.

Walsh knew, that throughout the history of Western Christianity, the chiefthreat to civilization has been the same kind of irrationalist orientalmysticism typified by the RussianRaskolniki. Even before Christianity, thisEastern cultural matrix was the mother of all totalitarian threats to

civilization. One of the early efforts to free civilization from thisoligarchical evil, was that of Plato's Academy in Athens. That Academy'snearly successful effort, Alexander the Great's defeat of the Syrian Magiwho ruled the Persian Empire, was aborted, when Aristotle's networkassassinated Alexander by poisoning. The effort to free man from this evil,

by Plato's circles, was postponed, until it was resumed by such Christianleaders as St. Augustine, who attempted to free mankind from that eviltradition of imperial Rome which was being continued by the emperors ofByzantium, from Diocletian and Constantine, through Photius, and byByzantium's chief penetration of the West, Venice.

The history of the wars of Athens against the Syrian Magi, and theAugustinian tradition's fight against that same evil, is a history whichenables one to understand better the wicked role of McCarthyism's father,Edmund Walsh. This historical perspective is key for assessing proposals toenlist the anti-Catholic cults of the Soviet church against the Bolsheviks'"dialectical materialism." Edmund Walsh's adult life's work, merely


12/42

including his connection to "McCarthyism," represents a very specificquality of wickedness: the effort to destroy the Augustinian tradition within

both religion and culture, and this for the advantage of a combination ofEastern mysticism and feudalistic traditions. In matters of relations with theSoviet church, Walsh's policies of the 1922-1924 period of his Mission toSoviet Russia, and later, are the same policy of Soviet appeasers in Westernreligious bodies today: throw out of Western Christianity, Catholic andProtestant alike, any points of even the most fundamental doctrine,especially the "Filioque" of the Latin Nicene Creed and English Book ofCommon Prayer, which are offensive to the Soviet state church. On culture,Walsh was consistently close to the kind of Nietzschean "New Age" thinkingtypified most efficiently by Hitler's patron, the "geopolitician" Haushofer.

The Russian Emperor Alexander

II, who freed the serfs, was

bitterly hated by key figures of

the dominant Russian religious

and cultural matrix inherited

from the Byzantine Empire, who

repudiated all "westernizing"tendencies.

The point is not merely, that we shall show that Walsh was an accomplice ofthe Soviet Trust's organization. Walsh's political origins were identical withthose of the Western partners of the Trust. The Western partners of Parvusand the Soviet Trust organization, are a combination of wealthy aristocratsand financier interests which have adopted the same policies characteristicof Walsh's adult life. Walsh's 1922-1924 role as accomplice of the Trust,was not some youthful aberration. Walsh was an instrument of the Venice-


13/42

centered element of the two Western currents who dominated the ranks ofthe Trust's partners.

To find Walsh's and Parvus' roots, one has but to ask: What influentialcircles in the West had ever proposed, before the Bolshevik Revolution, to

make Russia "the policeman of Europe"? Any literate student recognizesimmediately, that this is none other than the policy of the Holy Alliancefounded at Vienna in 1815. This was the policy of those two historic figuresmost admired by Henry A. Kissinger, Austria's Clement Prinz Metternich,and Britain's Lord Castlereagh. These two prominent figures of the periodwere not, however, the architects of the Holy Alliance. The chief architecton the scene was a Venetian nobleman whom Venice had made the foreign

plenipotentiary of the mad Czar Alexander I, John Count Capo d'lstria;Capo d'Istria was the "Volpi di Misurata" of the 1815 Congress of Vienna.

As Kissinger, in his book written under the patronage of McGeorge Bundy,A World Restored, praises Metternich on this point, Metternich saw theagreements of the 1815 Congress as aimed to eradicate the AmericanRevolution of 1776-1789, and the influence of that Revolution on thethinking and institutions of both the Americas and Europe. The "hordes ofRussia," under mad Czar Alexander I, were seen as the force of barbarism to

be used against the ideas of political equality, of sovereignty of nation-states,and commitment to technological progress, which the success of theAmerican Revolution epitomized for all the republicans of Europe and the

Americas. These same aristocratic and financier circles, through theirdescendants, sponsored and attempted to control the Russian revolutions of1905 and 1917, and the Bolsheviks' empire, for the same general purpose.

The prevailing view of McCarthyism to this day, is that Joseph McCarthywas essentially a fascist, a kind of Savonarola of the extreme right. Oncloser inspection, this same McCarthy had been a left-wing communistfellow-traveler, and was used by a Soviet intelligence network during the

period of "McCarthyism." Walsh, similarly, was an accomplice of the Trustduring his youthful years, and also a crony of the creators of Nazism. To

understand a McCarthy or a Walsh, it is indispensable to discard thepopularized delusion, the silly belief that politics is divided among left,right, and center.

It is somewhat misleading to see Walsh as an advocate of the "lesser evil"doctrine in politics. What was Walsh actually for? For more than 100generations of European civilization, real politics has been a division


14/42

between two forces. On our side, we draw a line, forwards and backwards,through the reference-points of St. Augustine and the 1776-1789 AmericanRevolution. On the opposing side, the common enemies of Augustine andthe American Revolution, we find the heritage of sodomy-ridden Spartanslave-society, the Syrian Magi, and the Roman and Byzantine empires.There is some doubt of the degree to which Edmund Walsh understood thisdivision; there is no doubt that those who steered Walsh did understand itvery well. For them, the dionysiac brutishness of Bolshevism, and alsofascism, were useful battering-rams to be deployed against those institutionswhich either represented, or were infected by, St. Augustine's tradition.They were neither communists nor fascists; they used both. They regarded

both as the political equivalent of biological warfare, as the "lesser evil" tobe encouraged as a weapon against the tradition of St. Augustine.

Joseph McCarthy, a degenerate with no conscious purpose but his own greedfor wealth and power, was also, a "lesser evil," to be disowned by Walshwhen no longer useful. Walsh's view of the Eastern monastic orders and theSoviet state church, is also a "lesser evil" view.

Walsh, both in his 1928 book, The Fall of the Russian Empire, and his 1951Total Empire, acknowledges the dangers carried within Orthodoxy, butdefends its "pure soul" from every effort to impose the Augustinian outlookupon ("Westernize") the Russian cultural matrix.

Walsh On RussiaThere is a lie perpetrated in Walsh's writings, which has a direct bearingupon the origin of that Bolshevik imperialism which threatens worldconquest today. Walsh was almost truthful in identifying the origins ofBolshevism, but lies about the result. Walsh writes a"delphic" history of theorigin of Bolshevism, that protects Orthodoxy by blaming the state, ratherthan the cultural matrix that shapes the state, as the cause.

He traces the issue from 1453, when the last Byzantine Emperor, Constan-tine Paleologue, fell before the armies of Venice's ally, the OttomanMohammed. In 1472, Zoe, daughter of the last Byzantine Emperor, who hadfound shelter for 10 years with the Venetian Pope in Rome, married Ivan III,assuming the name Sophia. Through Sophia, Ivan assumed the Byzantinetitles of Czar, the Muscovite Russian translation of "Caesar," adopting fullyByzantium's totalitarian imperial system. Walsh says of this, that theultimate symbol of this cultural shift, came when Czar Ivan III "proclaimed


15/42

Holy Moscow the 'Third Rome.' The first had perished; the second,Constantinople, had now fallen; 'the third, Moscow, now stands, and afurther there will not be.' "

In fact, it was after the Venetian Senate wrote Ivan III, urging him that now

he had become Czar, he should get on with founding the "Third Rome," assuccessor to both Rome and Constantinople, that the principal propagator ofthis thesis in the early 16th century was a Russian Orthodox priest, Philo-theos of Pskov.

Walsh echoes the Bolsheviks' hatred of the Romanov dynasty, which Walshidentifies, inaccurately, as the main conveyors of this doctrine of "ThirdRome" imperialism. Walsh puts the cart before the horse. On the matter ofthe ancient Russian cultural origins of Bolshevism, Walsh is somewhat moreaccurate.

Walsh claims that the Bolshevik revolution was merely one of a long seriesof insurrections against the Romanov dynasty, carried out in reaction againsta mystical current in Russian life called theRaskolniki ("Old Believers").But, it was the Raskolniki who led a series of such revolutions. The 18th-century insurrection against Czarina Catherine the Great, by the RaskolnikPugachev, is only the most famous of these pre-Bolshevik Raskolnikiuprisings. The 19th-century Russian nihilists, were simply another suchRaskolniki insurgency. Fyodor Dostoevsky was a self-professed ideologue

of the Raskolniki cause.The most hated Romanov in Raskolniki tradition, is Peter the Great, the"westernizer" of Russia, the first czar to abolish serfdom. During andimmediately following Peter's reign, the Romanovs adopted the economic-development program elaborated by Gottfried Leibniz, and, as a result, theRussian urban economy reached a higher level than Britain's, until Peter'sreforms were repealed, and serfdom restored. After Peter the Great, theother Romanov most hated by the Raskolniki, was Czar Alexander II, who

backed the United States against Britain and France in the 1860s, who freed

the Russian serfs, and who launched the nineteenth-century effort to"westernize" Russia's economy and social order.

The record of Fr. Walsh's 17-month stay as Papal representative in Russiashows, that he worked intimately with the main associates of the notoriousAlexander Helphand ("Parvus"). Parvus was the Venetian agent identifiedabove, as arranging the transfer of German Imperial funds for the Bolshevik


16/42

The Venetian diplomat and controller of Parvus, Volpi di Misurata, who

represented the families behind the Black Sea grain trade. Later he served as

Mussolini's finance minister. A quintessential figure of "The Trust."

Revolution, as well as arranging a "sealed train" for Lenin and his fellow

Bolshevik leaders to pass through Germany in World War I, and take thelead of the Russian Revolution.

Fr. Walsh's earliest reports to the Vatican Secretariat of State from Russiahave disappeared in earlier reorganizations of papers at GeorgetownUniversity. The available fragments which appear in the unabridgedmanuscript of Fr. Gallagher's Walsh biography, include a massively falsified


17/42

portrayal of Walsh's relations with the Soviet secret-police, the Cheka (theforerunner of the KGB). One fragment appearing on p. 69 this biographyquotes from a Sept. 10, 1922 report of Fr. Walsh to the effect that "TheSoviet Government has come to realize the impossibility of the [Communist

S.T.] system and is now inaugurating what they call 'The new economicsystem,' which in plainer terms is a retreat from Communism and a return to

private ownership."

This argument by Walsh, is the same disinformation which Lenin had FelixDzerzhinsky circulate through the "Trust," to discourage anti-Bolshevikoperations, and to recruit Western industrialists to support the flounderingRussian economy.

The Bolshevik leader with whom Fr. Walsh worked most closely, wasGeorgii Chicherin, Commissar of Foreign Affairs. On p. 148 of theunabridged biography, Fr. Gallagher says: "Of all the officials with whomthe Mission had to deal with in Russia, Mr. Tchitcherine made the nearestapproach to being a gentleman." Again, on p. 125, he says: "GeorgeTchitcherine was never an out-and-out Bolshevik. He was a former Tsaristdiplomat who went over to the Bolsheviks, thinking he could do more for his

people as a government official than he could in a prison cell. . . . In hisofficial position he moved slowly and cautiously. . . . He went on this wayfor twenty years, until the old-time, founding fathers of the Bolshevik Statewere corralled and liquidated in the Stalin purge of 1937."

Fr. Gallagher's endorsement of Chicherin is doubly curious for a priest: notonly was Chicherin the most brilliant strategist of Bolshevism's early imper-ialist schemes, but, as a Czarist officer, he was most closely allied withPobeonostsev, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, who ran Fyodor Dostoev-sky as his agent. In hisBrothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky takes the side ofthe Grand Inquisitor over Christ.

It may only be coincidence, but one of Sen. McCarthy's consultants, theHede Massing of the Soviet Massing-Gerlach-Eisler ring, hired by Roy

Cohn, was a co-founder of the Frankfurt School, through which theBolshevik Georg Lukacs mounted a "Dostoevsky Project," explicitlydedicated to supplant the Western cultural matrix of the Book of Genesiswith that of theBrothers Karamazov. The Vatican Secretariat of State,endorsed Fr. Walsh's view of Chicherin. In his May 18, 1923communication to Fr. Walsh (Vatican Secretariat No. 17390/49), Msgr.Pizzardi (later Cardinal), orders Fr. Walsh to: "Maintain cordial and frequent


18/42

communication with the German Ambassador." This message is a signalthat Fr. Walsh was being placed at the center of Venetian agent Parvus'networks within the Trust.

Count Brockdor-Rantzau, the German Ambassador to Russia at this time,

through whom the Vatican Secretariat of State urged Fr. Walsh to send allbut ordinary communications, had been the principal collaborator of Parvuswithin the German Imperial Foreign Office. This was publicly charged bythe press at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, and it was confirmed withthe capture of German Imperial Foreign Office documents in 1945.

Prince Metternich, whose policy of the Holy

Alliance, to have Russia serve as "the

policeman of Europe," was to be continued

by "The Trust."

Walsh adopts the Raskolnikis' attacks on Peter the Great as his own view.

Peter established Petersburg, as a new capital opening Russia to the civilizedwest, and placed the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Churchunder his thumb. Condemning the Russian Orthodox Church for their"Byzantine obsequiousness" to state control, Walsh says, on pp. 157-159 ofhisFall of the Russian Empire:


19/42

It was a spurious civilization! What, in the last analysis, was theinfluence of Peter's reform on the final destiny of Russia? . . .

"Ruinous," reply the Slavophils.

"Necessary and glorious," maintain the Westernizers. The truthlies somewhere between, but probably nearer the Slavophils. . .

The Orthodox Church of Peter's day would have done better toperish fighting.

Today, the Romanov dynasty is gone, but the byzantine oligarchical socialorder of Czarist Russia still rules, in the form of the rulingNomenklatura ofthe Soviet Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Russian OrthodoxChurch is now controlled by the Raskolniki, and has has resumed its old

position as part of the state. Among those members of the Soviet oligarchyreported to be the closest to the Russian Orthodox Church, like SovietMarshall Ogarkov, are the leading advocates of Bolshevik imperial conquest,to make Holy Moscow the "Third and Final Rome."

Fr. Walsh Goes to Russia

In 1922, Walsh was in his final Jesuit studies. At this point, he was waschosen, allegedly by Pope Pius XI, to be both head of the Papal ReliefMission to Russia, and to be Papal representative in that Mission.

It was natural to select a Jesuit priest for a mission in Russia.

When Pope Innocent outlawed the hated Jesuit order in 1773, the Czar ofRussia, alone, gave them refuge. There, supported by the Czar Paul I knownas the "Crowned Madman of Europe," the Jesuits sought a "Union of theChurches" among Orthodox, Oriental Rite, and Roman Catholics, treatingthe matter as if the fundamental doctrinal issues among those churches didnot exist. The killing of Paul I by "ultra-Orthodox" assassins derailed thisJesuit scheme, until recent years.

The Jesuits remained in Russia, creating schools and other institutions, untilPope Innocent was poisoned. Then, they returned to the West, where theJesuit Joseph de Maistre created the University of Louvain, Switzerland(among others), to found new synthetic ideologies, including Solidarism andSyndicalism, in support of the Venetian design of the Holy Alliance. Asreported earlier, Capo d'Istria was officially the representative of a CzarAlexander I as mad as his father, Paul 1, had been.


20/42

The Jesuit-Capo d'Istria Holy Alliance is the model for all later attempts atwhat Lord Bertrand Russell and others proposed as a one-world federalistempire. This scheme has been peddled by like-minded oligarchs in suchguises as the League of Nations and United Nations. De Maistre's Jesuitssupported the efforts against such republicans as Mozart, Franklin, Schiller,while also supporting a system that permitted Czar Alexander's RussianArmy to march across Europe, should a republican revolution erupt in Spain,for example.

(Left) Georgii Chicherin, Foreign Minister in the early years of the Soviet

Union. Fr. Edmund Walsh, the Georgetown Jesuit who set McCarthy in

motion, was his close collaborator.

(Right) The knowledgeable Stefan Possony was reputedly a consultant to

McCarthy. Possony becomes hysterical when the role of Venice in arranging

major historical events is mentioned.

A Catholic who has studied the case of Fr. Walsh, claims that Walsh's closest

European political ties were with the same University of Louvain network,set up once the Jesuits returned from Russia.

These documents include a memo from Count Brockdorf- Rantzau, thenAmbassador to Denmark, which states:

I have now got to know Helphand better, and I think that therecan be no question that he is an extraordinarily important man


21/42

whose unusual powers I feel we must employ for the durationof the war and should, if at all possible, continue to use later on

whether we personally agree with his convictions or not.

Who was this mysterious Helphand-Parvus, the eminence grise of the

Bolshevik Revolution? This Parvus, whose last years overlap, andintertwine with Walsh's mission in Russia, is pivotal to understanding theSoviet intelligence connections into both Walsh and Walsh's SenatorMcCarthy.

Born in the grain-trading port of Odessa, Parvus had acted at the turn-of-the-century as the main liaison between the German Social Democracy and theRussians, when Lenin published his newspaperIskra in Munich. Parvuswas among those who trained Leon Trotsky, concocting Trotsky's theory of

permanent revolution, and sponsoring Trotsky as a leader of the 1905Russian Revolution's operations in Petrograd. That 1905 Revolution had

been sparked by the Russian Orthodox priest and Okhrana agent, Fr. Gapon,in an effort to topple the pro-industrialized faction of Count (Sergei) Witte.

Patriarch Pimen of the

Russian Orthodox

Church, at a 1982

conference where he

was the first Soviet

leader to voice violent

objections to proposals

for a strategic anti-

missile defense.


22/42

The most mysterious period in Parvus' life was his re-emergence in 1909 inVienna, Austria, where the Foreign Office requested his transfer to Constan-tinople at the time of the Balkans War. During that war, Parvus amassed afortune in the millions, dealing with the enigmatic Odessa Jew Sir BasilZaharoff, German industrialist Hugo Stinnes, and others. It was in Constan-tinople that he became the agent of Count Carlo Sforza, officially the ItalianGovernment's "Political Attache."

Sforza was, actually, the unofficial minister of Eastern Affairs for "the lastDoge of Venice," Volpi di Misurata.

Another professor at Georgetown University whom the McCarthybiographer Richard Rovere alleges was an adviser to the Senator, is StefanPossony. Possony has direct bearing on this matter. The Austrian-bornemigre Possony, is one of the few U.S. authors who identifies the signifi-cance of Parvus to the Bolshevik Revolution, in his bookLenin: TheCompulsive Revolutionary. Yet, Possony has rejected, rather hysterically,any suggestion of links between Parvus and Volpi di Misurata, claimingParvus was simply a German agent. Ironical is the fact, that in 1942Possony was a member of a private psychological warfare group called theCommittee for National Morale, whose members included the same CountCarlo Sforza of Venice who had been Parvus' controller. Other members ofthis group include the founders of the Aquarian "New Age" movement insidethe postwar United States, such as: the self-avowed sorcerer Gregory

Bateson; Bateson's one-time wife, Margaret Mead; and, the notorious KurtLewin.

There are two subjects on which the knowledgeable Possony is consistentlyirrational to the point of hysteria. One, is any attack on the powerful"families" as a ruling institution of Western society. The second, is anyexposure of what Possony himself admits to be Venice's key role in rulingthe world today. Although Possony defers to the so-called American"families," including the Rockefellers, his essential loyalties are to the south-central European aristocratic families, and to Venice. These are the same

circles which controlled Walsh. Whether or not he was an adviser to Sen.McCarthy as Rovere charges, Possony counts among those associates ofWalsh at Georgetown University, whose loyalties would compel them todeny publicly what they know to be Volpi di Misurata's control over Parvus.

In point of fact, Parvus was controlled by a group of wealthy families alongthe Venice-Salonika-Aleppo-Odessa grain-trade axis: in other words, the


23/42

Venetian oligarchy. Like Count Capo d'Istria earlier, Volpi di Misurata wasrecruited to his position of power in Venice from among the local aristocracyof the predominantly Greek regions which Venice had acquired as a giftfrom the Ottoman dynasty, as compensation for services in connection withthe Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. Helphand-Parvus of Odessa, likeChurchill's Sidney Reilly from the same Odessa, was a talented plebeianhanger-on of these families, and rose to his position through their recurringsponsorship. It was with the backing of these families, which controlled theBlack Sea grain-trade monopoly, that Parvus accumulated his initial millionsin the grain and weapons traffic. At the time, Volpi di Misurata, was theleader of this particular interest, and thus the owner of Parvus.

This was the same Volpi di Misurata, who, in addition to being the keyfigure in orchestrating the Balkan Wars triggering World War I, was later the

key controller of, and finance minister for fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.The full story of Parvus, is a book in itself; these indications of hisbackground, are sufficient for our purposes here.

It was while Parvus was still in Constantinople, that Parvus presented a plan,presented in a March 9, 1915, memorandum for the German ImperialForeign Office, titled "Preparations for a Political Mass Strike in Russia."Some highlights of this plan, which led the German Government to supportthe Bolshevik Revolution (as an expedient way to knock out Russia on theEastern Front), include:

Preparations are to be made for a political mass strike in Russia.. . . The task can only be fulfilled under the leadership of theRussian Social Democrats [Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and theiralliesS.T.]. . . . Agitation must also be begun . . . inOdessa . . . in Baku . . . in Siberia . . . in North America . . . inthe neutral states . . . in the Ukraine . . . in Finland . . . in theCaucasus. . . . Thus the armies of the Central Powers and therevolutionary movement will shatter the colossal politicalcentralization which is the embodiment of the Tsarist Empire

and which will be a danger to world peace for as long as it isallowed to survive.

Count Brockdorf-Rantzau was not the only collaborator ofParvus in this scheme whom Fr. Walsh later worked with inRussia. The German Ambassador to the Vatican, who was onthe receiving end of Fr. Walsh's confidential communiques, was


24/42

Diego von Berzen. Captured German Imperial Foreign Officedocuments show that, as Minister of political subversion inRussia during World War I, von Berzen had passed 15 millionDM through Count Brockdorf-Rantzau to Parvus' agents for theabove-mentioned "political mass strike."

Adolf Hitler announces the beginning of World War II. Until 1938, "The

Trust" argued that Hitler was "the lesser evil" than a Soviet state under

Stalin, who carried out massive purges of Trust figures in the USSR.


25/42

There was another man with whom Fr. Walsh dealt in Russia who was partof this scheme. This is Jakob Fuerstenberg (alias Hanecki, Ganecki,Ganteski, Kuba), who emerged after the Revolution as CommissarChicherin's principal deputy. Walsh had several meetings with this sameHanecki, who had earlier been Parvus' main financial and political "cutout"to Lenin, with whom Hanecki had lived for two years, in Poland.

It is clear, that youthful Fr. Walsh, wittingly or not, was placed in the verycenter of Parvus' organization, and placed there by an oligarchic circle in theVatican Secretariat of State.

Parvus's biographers, Z.A.B. Zeman and W.B. Scharlau state, inMerchant ofRevolution, that before Parvus' death in 1924, he sought to mount a revolu-tion against Germany, from Switzerland, working with the Comintern's WilliMuenzenberg and the "gentleman" George Chicherin. Through the journalWiederaufbau, Parvus also called for economic policies that presaged theYoung Plan, Dawes Plan, andRentenmarklooting of the German economy,which created conditions for mass recruitment by Adolf Hitler. Parvus nextmade contact with certain Catholic oligarchic circles around von Bergen,

before becoming one of the leading German advocates of the Rapallo treatybetween Germany and Russia.

The same Msgr. Pizzardi of the Vatican Secretariat of State, who ensuredthat all Walsh's principal contacts of that period were from this network,

took a direct part in this Rapallo plan, attending the Genoa Conference thatset the framework for Rapallo, where he met with the same GeorgiiChicherin.

Apart from his associations with the Trust networks of Parvus, the directindication of a Walsh role in the Genoa-Rapallo developments, was theCheka information, that what Walsh had reported to the Vatican aboutLenin's New Economic Policy being "a retreat from Communism" may haveduped other Vatican officials to seek a deal along these lines. At the GenoaConference Chicherin arranged new sources of credit, and, it is notable that

Franco Marinotti, the leading Italian Rapallist, had been the man whomanaged investment of those sums received by the Vatican from BenitoMussolini under the Lateran Pact.

Fr. Walsh's other principal operation in Russia, apart from food relief, is tobe compared with Walsh's insistence, that the Russian Orthodox Churchrepresents a natural ally against the Bolsheviks. Fragmentary evidence


26/42

indicates that Walsh sought a "Union of the Churches" similar to thatproposed by the Jesuits during their Russian exile. It appears that he usedthe Uniate Oriental Rite, led by Fr. Walsh's friend, Exarch LeonidasFeodorov, as the lure for the Russian Orthodox Church, then under PatriarchTychon. British Secret Intelligence Service also thought that Tychon was theleading potential enemy of the Bolsheviks (after the collapse of the Britishfavorites, the Socialist Revolutionaries).

One letter transmitted by Fr. Walsh to Pope Pius XI from the ExtraordinaryDelegate of the Metropolitan of Mohileff in 1922 explicitly states: "Theevents of the recent times in Russia have significantly advanced the questionof the union of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church." But, the writer thenshows the "blood-and-soil" Gnosticism of the Church, by telling the Popethat a pre-condition for Union must be that the Vatican sends no more Polish

missionaries, but only uses those who are "bone of the same bone, blood ofthe same blood" of Holy Mother Russia as its agents.

Ironically, one of the first acts of the Bolsheviks was to free the RussianOrthodox Church from that subservience to the State initiated by Peter theGreat, while also moving the capital back to Holy Moscow. When stepswere taken toward a "Union of the Churches" against the Bolsheviks, in1923, that effort was upended by a faction which Walsh believed to have

been led by Leon Trotsky. As a result of what Walsh believed to have beenTrotsky's actions, the Polish Archbishop of Petrograd Cieplak, his priests,

and Exarch Feodorov, were sent to trial.

Fr. Gallagher references the sentencing of Feodorov, in his biography ofWalsh, on p. 52:

For Exarch Feodorov, ten years in prison, with the followingremark, "He is judged not only for what he has done but forwhat he can do." This statement probably referred to the Unionof the Churches.

After dealing with the Polish priests and Exarch Feodorov, the Bolsheviksnext arrested Patriarch Tychon, and, while he was in prison, organized a so-called "Living Church" under state control, through Krassikoff, the head ofthe Department of Religious Affairs in the Commissariat of Justice. Thisarch-Bolshevik "Third Romer" told the Churches: "The days of Julian theApostate are upon you. . . . The Pope in Rome shall not last more than threeyears."


27/42

Faithful followers of Pimen: Russian peasants of the 19th century. The link

that ties them to "Soviet communism" is the collective soul of the Russian

mir, the peasant village.

In a July 17, 1923 report to the Vatican Secretariat of State (No. 56), marked"Urgentissime," Walsh stated that "the Patriarch Tychon has actually made acomplete recantation of his previous opinions and . . . on his promise tosupport the Government he has been released." One price extracted by theBolsheviks to "aid him against the 'Living Church' " is that he publiclyattack the Pope of Rome, which he readily did do. The Patriarch's attackwas followed by anIzvestia article in which Trotsky called for the Pope in


28/42

Rome to be tried in absentia. Although Fr. Walsh later told the Vatican thatPatriarch Tychon really did not mean his recantation, a Bolshevik partner-ship with the Russian Orthodox Church was fully sealed by the formerOkhrana agent and Orthodox seminary student, Joseph Stalin, at a ceremonyin St. Basil's Cathedral, Moscow in 1943.

Fr. Walsh and Karl Haushofer

There is another area of the broader "Trust" networks in which Fr. Walshplayed a central role in running a cover-up. In 1945 Fr. Walsh was selectedto head that part of of the Nuremberg Tribunal team, to handle the case ofKarl Haushofer, the head of the German Geopolitical Institute, whodeveloped the idea of war forLebensraum (living space) used in AdolfHitler'sMein Kampf.

Walsh's correspondence with Karl Haushofer during the 1930s period, whenthe Nazis consolidated power, has also disappeared from GeorgetownUniversity's "special collection."

The relevance of Walsh's knowledge of Karl Haushofer, to the story of Sen.McCarthy, is that one of McCarthy's consultants, Hede Massing, key toMcCarthy's Soviet connections, had been recruited to Soviet militaryintelligence (GRU) by Richard Sorge. To make a long story short, it istypical of the Sorge-Haushofer connection, that Sorge, a direct descendant ofa Marx's designated heir as head of the first communist international, not

only had one article reprinted in Haushofer's journalZeitschrift fuerGeopolitikbut, he obtained letters of introduction from him to Japaneseleaders. Karl Haushofer and his prize pupil, Deputy Reichsfuehrer RudolfHess, had earlier written a book on espionage in Japan.

The connections between Bolsheviks and Nazis, back during the early1920s, were frequent, and often most intimate. In 1920, Rudolf Hess, andanthroposophy leader Rudolf Steiner, showed up as Soviet intelligenceassets, at the Comintern's 1920 conference at Baku. During the early 1920s,not only had the Comintern head for Germany, old Parvus agent Karl Radek,committed the Comintern to support fascist movements in northernGermany, but the Cheka itself had directly supported the Nazis' insurgencyefforts, into the period leading into Hitler's famous beer-hall adventure. ThatParvus should have been a co-founder of the Soviet intelligence service, andshould have been sponsored by the same Volpi di Misurata who putMussolini into power, is consistent with the customs of the times.


29/42

Walsh's cover-up of the Haushofer case was excused for three reasons: 1)Haushofer was separated from the other major Nuremberg criminals,

because Justice Jackson ruled that his crimes were only those of "ideology,"which smacked of trying a man for his "beliefs" or "writings"; 2) WhenHaushofer was confronted with his prize pupil Rudolf Hess, who hadconduited his theories into the pages of Adolf Hitler'sMein Kampf, Hess

pretended to be suffering from "amnesia," possibly because of his"treatment" by John Rees, a founder of Britain's wartime psychologicalwarfare service; and, 3) Walsh did not interrogate Karl Haushoferintensively, because Haushofer claimed to have a bad hearta fact neververified by Allied physicians. Soon, Walsh was saved from embarrassment:Haushofer committed suicide, apparently with the permission of his guards.

One question which Fr. Walsh avoided, one could fairly describe the evasion

as bordering upon hysteria, was Karl Haushofer's membership in the satanicThule Society. The Thule Society was led by Count Sebattendorf, a GermanImperial Foreign Service contemporary of Parvus in Constantinople.Leading members of the Thule Society (drawn from Aleister Crowley'sMystical Order of the Golden Dawn, through "race-scientist" HoustonStewart Chamberlain) include: a member of the Venetian imperial family ofThurn und Taxis; Alfred Rosenberg, the Baltic-Russian race scientist whohelped the Benedictine-trained Adolf Hitler develop his inner satan cultreligion; Rudolf Hess; and, Karl Haushofer. Backing the Thule circle, wasthe Catholic Bavarian House of Wittelsbach, who were lesser royal house,

cousins of Kissinger's idol, Lord Castlereagh, within the Venetian HolyRoman Empire's aristocracy.

Had Haushofer answered probing questions about this Thule Society, candidreplies would have unmasked those "Old Nazis" that were never tried at

Nuremberg, though it was they who were initially the chief promoters of"the Austrian hippie," Adolf Hitler.

The Thule leads would also have unmasked the "blood-and-soil" mysticismunderlying Haushofer's geopolitics. Or, as Karl Haushofer put it more

cautiously in his journalZeitschrift fur Geopolitik, 1935, No. 12, pp. 443-48:

Geopolitics is the duty to safeguard the right to the soil, to theland in the widest sense, not only the land within the frontiersof the Reich, but the right to the more extensive folk andcultural lands.


30/42

One reason for Walsh's hesitation might be, that he, himself, was anadvocate of this pseudo-science. We have Karl Haushofer's own word, asreported by Walsh, on pp. 10-11 in his 1948 book, Total Empire: Walsh wasa "specialist in geopolitics." Another American specialist cited by Haushoferwas Owen Lattimore, whose role with theCommunist-infiltrated Institutefor Pacific Relations (IPR), which influenced the Japanese to strike againstthe United States instead of Russia, through Richard Sorge's network. IPRand Lattimore became a major focus of Pat McCarran's Senate InternalSecurity Committee.

The only significant differences among the various schools dealing with this"blood-and-soil" mumbo jumbo known as geopolitics, depend upon to which

power the particular geopolitician attempts to peddle his services.

Karl Haushofer saw as his own leading competitor, Sir Halford Mackinder,the geopolitician of Cecil Rhodes' "Arthurian" Round Table. But, Haushoferagreed with the thesis of Mackinder's 1904 lecture, The Pivot of History,which states:

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland ['the vast innerland mass of EurasiaEW']; who rules the Heartland com-mands the world island; who rules the world island commandsthe world.

"It was a challenging vision not lost on Haushofer," says Walsh on p. 5 of

Total Power. Walsh added, that "control and organization of this strategicarea became thereafter the central theme in his geopolitics." So, too, itwould appear from Walsh's 1951 book, Total Empire (after he had claimed toreject the premises of geopolitics, in his book of three years earlier), that Fr.Walsh was also struck by this "challenging vision."

Among the issues which Walsh backed off from interrogating Haushoferabout, included the question of how Haushofer applied this theory of the

pivot to geopolitics. Walsh claimed the mere mention caused heartpalpitations. In his journalZeitschrift fuer GeopolitikHaushofer wrote thathe concluded from MacKinder's writing that: "It is of vital importance thatRussia and Germany unite their forces." Since Lenin, the Bolsheviksthemselves had believed that: "Whoever has Germany has Europe." Theywere natural geopolitical allies, or enemies, according to this thinking,which is also the basis of Rapallo. So, consistently and accurately, Walshnotes, Haushofer "applauded the Russo-Nazi Pact of 1939 as a triumph of


31/42

geopolitical statesmanship."(Zeitschrift fuer Geopolitik, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp.44-55.).

Other students of Karl Haushofer state that his full vision was for a German-Russo-Japanese alliance that would strike against both Britain and the

United States. It was not until Hitler's decision to launch the "OperationBarbarossa" invasion of Russia, that Karl Haushofer began to lose influencewith the Nazis, eventually spending eight months in a concentration camp.

The surviving evidence suggests that Walsh was protecting this scheme ofKarl Haushofer.

In his own interpretation of geopolitics, Walsh states on pp. 156-157 ofTotalEmpire:

Stalin shakes hands with Hitler's Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop, upon

signing the Hitler-Stalin Pact.


32/42

I believe the unknown geopoliticians behind the Iron Curtainhave adapted MacKinder's formula to the new circumstances ofthe air age. They have probably changed and shifted someelements and emphasized others, so that their consolidation ofland power in central and eastern Europe now leaves them freeto accelerate control of marginal lands on the rim of the worldisland. It may well be that they are saying: "Who controls therimlands of Europe and Asia can protect the Heartland of theWorld Revolution."

Walsh then says, that this concentration of natural and political power"stretching from Russia to England, can be countered by two other "natural

power centers" (i.e. empires) that include: 1) "China, Korea, Japan . . . andthe teeming lands that stretch into southern and southeastern Asia"; and, 2)

"that area of North America which includes the eastern regions of the UnitedStates and southeastern Canada."

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were executed supposedly for "passing the secret

of the atom bomb to the Soviets." But the real criminals got away.

Quigley's Straight Lie

Georgetown Foreign Service School professor Carroll Quigley, Walsh'sprominent protege, published a 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope. Quigleydevotes an entire section, "American Confusions, 1945-50," of this book to


33/42

denouncing the "Radical Right" led by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, for theattacks led against the liberal Eastern Establishment by the likes of Sen.McCarthy: Quigley's smoke-screen covering Walsh's role in instigatingMcCarthy's "anti-Communist" crusade.

Any evidence of earlier contact between Fr. Walsh's two proteges could beof historic significance for two reasons. Quigley's book is seen by somecritics, as a call to arms for the forces of Cecil Rhodes' Round Table, toreveal itself fully to the public, and to assume domination of an Anglo-American empire openly. In this book, Quigley writes an astonishingdefense of those members of the same Eastern Establishment, led by theMorgan Bank interests, who, like Walsh in Russia, had been activecollaborators of the Trust.

On p. 938 ofTragedy and Hope, Quigley tells a falsehood so absurd that itunderlines the importance of focusing upon whom Quigley's teacher, Walsh,was dealing with in Bolshevik Russia:

More than fifty years ago the Morgan firm decided to infiltratethe Left-wing political movements in the United States. . . .The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but wasreally threefold: (1) to keep informed on the thinking of theLeft-wing or liberal groups; (2) to provide them with amouthpiece so that they could "blow off steam"; and (3) to

have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on theiractions, if they ever went "radical." There was nothing reallynew about this decision. . . . What made it decisively importantthis time . . . at a time when the ultimate of Left-wingradicalism was about to appear under the banner of the ThirdInternational.

Just as Sen. McCarthy was urged by the Tydings Committee to make at leastone of his 205, 81, or 57 cases, or else shut up, Carroll Quigley sets out todefend the "Wall Street Reds" by defending one of the most notorious

contemporary cases of a Soviet collaborator from this social set. From anavailable list, which includes Averell Harriman, Frederick Vanderbilt Field,Thomas Lamont, Corliss Lamont, and others, Quigley chooses the case ofMichael Straight, the former editor of theNew Republic.

On pp. 938-944 ofTragedy and Hope, Quigley makes his case, highlights ofwhich include:


34/42

The best example of this alliance of Wall Street and Left-wingpublications was The New Republic, a magazine founded by["Morgan agent"C.Q.] Willard Straight, using Payne Whitneymoney, in 1914 . . . [Willard's sonS.T.]. Mike Straight wasdeeply anti-Communist but he frequently associated with them,sometimes as a collaborator, frequently as an opponent. . . .The relationship between Straight and the Communists in

pushing Wallace into his 1948 adventure may be misjudgedvery easily. The anti-Communist Right had a very simpleexplanation of it: Wallace and Straight were Communists andhoped to elect Wallace President. Nothing could be furtherfrom the truth.

We shall soon see how true was the charge that theNew Republic's Michael

Straight was a communist. But, for a moment, permit Quigley to continue tohang himself:

Straight continued to work for Wallace for President, and TheNew Republic remained the center of the movement for almostfour more months, but something had changed. . . . As aconsequence of [the Wallace campaignS.T.], the Communistswere destroyed and eventually driven out of such organizationsnotably from the CIO-PAC (the greatest political alignment oflabor and progressive groups). . . . This ended Communism as

a significant political force in the United States. . . . If MikeStraight planned to do what he did do to the Communists in1946-48, that is, to get them out of progressive movements andunions, he pulled off the most skillful political coup intwentieth century American politics.

A review of Michael Straight's 1983 book,After Long Silence, with othermaterial, shows that he had worked with associates of former CPUSAgeneral secretary Jay Lovestone to drive the CP out of various fronts in the1940s. But, both Straight and Lovestone were agents of "The Trust." After

being thrown out of the CPUSA by Stalin, Lovestone worked with Sovietintelligence until at least the 1938 purges of GPU chief Yagoda andBukharin.

Imagine the glee that Michael Straight had, knowing, as he did, of Quigley'sanalysis, when he announced in his 1983 book,After Long Silence, that hehad been recruited by Cambridge Apostle Sir Anthony Blunt into the same


35/42

espionage cell as H.A.R. "Kim" Philby, the latter, by 1983, a KGB Generalin Moscow!

Imagine Straight's glee in revealing, that as a "volunteer" employee in theState Department, he had become a "good friend" of Alger Hiss, who was

convicted of perjury for denying that he had given State Departmentdocuments to Soviet intelligence! Imagine his glee in boasting that hissister, Biddy, had married a Louis Dolivet, who was later discovered to be animportant Romanian Comintern agent, Ludovicu Brecher, who latercollaborated with Willi Muenzenberg'sRassemblement Universel pour la

Paix.

McCarthy in his

heyday. One hopes,

we shall finally rid

our institutions ofleftovers of what

McCarthy

represented.

When Dolivet was denied re-entry to the United States by the StateDepartment in 1948 as an undesirable alien, the case attracted sufficient

publicity that Carroll Quigley should have known of it, if he had actuallyresearched the case of Michael Straight.


36/42

What is undoubtedly the greatest cause of glee for Soviet agent MikeStraight, is that, after he "bared his soul" to the FBI and CIA, following thedefection of H.A.R. "Kim" Philby in 1963, he, like Sir Anthony Blunt, whohad been named Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures, was never touched by histreason. Such is the magic of the Morgan-Straight name.

Two real spies: Donald Maclean and Harold "Kim" Philby, who from top

positions in British intelligence gave U.S. secrets to their Soviet masters.

After this display, the question to ask is: what might be hidden by Quigley'sfalse insistence, that the Morgan interests sought nothing more than a

window to observe the Bolshevik Revolution?

Professor Anthony Sutton, a metallurgical engineer by training, did anexhaustive compilation from State Department documents in the NationalArchives, which he used to write Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,and also a three-volume set for Hoover Institution, titled WesternTechnology and Soviet Economic Development. Sutton was asked to leavethe Hoover Institution, because that institution considered itself to be mostdispleased by Sutton's insistence, that the collaboration of the Morganinterests (among others) during the period of Lenin's New Economic Policy,constituted a clear case of "treason" as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Among the operations by the Morgan interests, which can be found inAnthony Sutton's works (supplemented by additional State DepartmentArchives documents), is that: 1) the Morgan interests, through Col. Houseand others, helped send Parvus' agent Leon Trotsky back to Russia to leadthe Bolshevik Revolution; and, 2) the Morgan interests broke the State


37/42

Department ban upon loans to Russia, the latter akey financial warfare partof Allied efforts to set up a cordon sanitaire around Russia. When the U.S.government decides, Morgan does as it pleases; theNew York Times finds itan intolerable scandal, only when the government displeases Morgan.

There is an immediate feature of these documents which suggests why Fr.Walsh's protege, Carroll Quigley, was insistent upon a cover-up so blatant,that anyone with access to these State Department Archives documentscould expose it.

Under Lenin's "New Economic Policy," Max May, a vice-president ofMorgan Guaranty and Trust, became director of the foreign division of thefirst Bolshevik central bank, Vneshtorg, whose honorary chairman was OlofAschberg. This same Aschberg had earlier been head of the Nye Bank inSweden, through which Count Brockdorf-Rantzau, German Minister inCopenhagen, conduited funds to Alexander Helphand Parvus' agentFuerstenberg (a.k.a. Hanecki) in Russia. Hanecki then deposited these fundsfor the Bolshevik Revolution in Sumenson's Russo-Asiatic Bank inPetrograd.

One of the major stockholders in the Russo-Asiatic was a Mr. Givatovsky,who was a cousin of Leon Trotsky. The Bank was also financed by MorganGuaranty Trust in the United States and by Nye Bank in Sweden. Is this oneof the reasons Quigley falsified the facts about the Morgan interests? Did

Quigley falsify the Straight story as a favor to Morgan, or was Quigley'sconcern to help bury the fact of his patron's, Walsh's ties with those who hadbeen among the chief collaborators of Alexander Helphand "Parvus," inlaunching the Bolshevik Revolution?

How McCarthy Helped Moscow

Before the British intelligence services took charge of the U.S. intelligenceservices, beginning 1938-1940, the United States had a small intelligenceservice of excellent professional quality, centered in the military intelligenceservices. Looking at some of the old military intelligence files from the1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, the assessments of certain among the important

present-day points of intelligence interest, are far more competent thanrecent official intelligence estimates on the same topical areas.

The best quality of U.S. intelligence capabilities, among all periods of ournational history since 1789, is found during the period 1815-1865, especiallyfrom about 1818 to about 1848, during the period we knew that Castle-


38/42

reagh's Britain and Metternich's Holy Alliance were the enemies on whomwe must spy, and must defeat. During the period between two World Wars,and until McCarthyism wrecked some of our best anti-Soviet intelligencecapabilities, our best knowledge of the problems posed by the Soviet empire,was concentrated in a network intersecting two points of reference, ourmilitary intelligence and a circle around the old Dies Un-AmericanActivities Committee of the House of Representatives.

McCarthy's rampage made two immensely important gifts to the Sovietempire. It wrecked large chunks of our best anti-Soviet intelligencecapabilities. It transformed many embittered victims of McCarthyism, andtheir children, into potential recruits for the Soviet intelligence services.

McCarthy himself was done in by the televised Army-McCarthy hearings.Attorney Welch's brilliant performance, especially his memorable, "Haveyou no shame?" attack on the Senator, transformed McCarthy into a pariahamong all but a dwindling hard-core of the desperately still-believing.However, the real issues were never attacked; the damage done was neverrepaired:

1. McCarthy's circus performances had been tolerated long enough, so thatcompetent specialists in Soviet intelligence were displaced by "McCarthy-ites" in key positions, a destruction of competence which is typified by theSenate position of Joel Lisker today.

2. As Michael Straight bragged in his 1983 confessions, the Soviet penetra-tion of our Wall Street and Boston crowd emerged from the period of "Mc-Carthyism" more securely entrenched than ever before.

3. U.S. analytical doctrine for analysis of the Soviet empire, is todaypredominantly that laid down by Georgetown's Father Edmund Walsh, atradition which has dominated the U.S. State Department's professionals, theFBI, and the Soviet section at CIA.

Some among those targeted by various governmental agencies during the

period of "McCarthyism," either by McCarthy's squads or by other agencies,were essentially guilty as charged. Many charged were innocent victims;more numerous, were the unnamed innocent who feared that they might becharged next. Worse, overall, the true nature of Soviet penetration was neveropenly addressed. How could it be? After all, McCarthy himself typifiedreal Soviet methods of high-level penetration.


39/42

New Republic editor Michael

Straight, a Morgan agent.

Georgetown's Carroll Quigley

portrayed Straight as a clever anti-

communist; but in 1983 Straightadmitted he had been working for

Soviet intelligence.

Take the famous case of the Rosenbergs. Whatever either of them did, or

did not do, they were electrocuted not for what they did, but for domesticpolitical reasons in the crudest sense of the term. A Jewish judge and Jewishprosecutors fried a pair of Jews. One thing the Rosenbergs certainly did notdo, was to deliver the secrets of the atom bomb to Soviet Russia. To thedegree the Soviets needed to know certain important secondary, designfeatures of fission weapons (the Soviet "Atom Project" group headed byAcademician Vernadsky already knew all the basic scientific principles), thiswas transmitted by fellows such as Dr. Klaus Fuchs, or through such

privileged channels of British intelligence as the Donald Maclean sittingwith access to U.S. top secrets in Washington at the time. Yet, the

Rosenbergs were executed because Judge Irving Kaufman told the jury, andprobably believed himself, that the Rosenbergs had been the ones to deliverthe key secrets. The Rosenbergs were fried, while Donald Maclean, KlausFuchs, and Philby escaped, by aid of deliberate cover-up within both theBritish and U.S. intelligence establishments.


40/42

Bungled intelligence, prejudice or outright political corruption of U.S.Attorney and Federal Judge, are a twofold injustice. They invariably tend toimpose monstrous injustices on the individual victims of such investigationsand other proceedings, but do a greater injury to the government itself.

"That's The Kind We WantYou Can See Just What He's Not Thinking"

This Herblock cartoon shows the atmosphere that dominated Washington,

D.C. after McCarthy got through with it. The U.S.A. is still paying the price.


41/42

As a corollary, often that which, at least incidentally, affords long-delayedjustice to the victims of injustice, is consistent with the most fundamentalinterest of our government and the nation as a whole. Why should it beotherwise, either way?

The lie was that an "atheistic communism," concocted by (a much-overratedKarl Marx), had subverted Russia, and was spreading its opposition torespectable bankers and to churches generally, all over the world. Untilabout 1938, the lie was, that fascism was a "lesser evil," to be supportedcritically in the fight against the main enemy, communism.

The truth was, and is, that corrupted factions of churches, feudalisticaristocrats, and wealthy financier interests, had created the BolshevikRevolution, and that, quarrels inside the partnership duly considered, these

bankers, aristocrats, and corrupted church circles had a policy of partnershipwith the Bolshevik ruling oligarchy. The truth was, that these partners ofMoscow represented the same European interests against which theAmerican Revolution had been fought, the same interests which establishedthe Holy Alliance at the 1815 Congress of Vienna.

"Know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Lyndon LaRouche'sfather adopted that Biblical passage, back during the 1930s, as the theme ofhis own attack against the Soviet appeasers within the liberal AmericanFriends Service Committee. Later, the same text became the slogan of the

U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. It is a good slogan, worth following to thelimit. Walsh, McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover, among others, saw to it thatwe did not. Among those three, the greatest, most lasting damage, on thisaccount, was done by Edmund Walsh.

We restate the estimate by one very senior European intelligence specialistThe Soviets knew, that the United States would become strongly anti-Sovietafter the war. Rather than simply watch this occur, Moscow decided to usesome of its assets inside the United States, to take leadership of the anti-Soviet sentiment, and to direct anti-Soviet moods into actions which would

work to longer-range Soviet strategic advantage. Senator Joseph McCarthywas one of their most successful operations of this sort.

To remain free, we must face the truth of McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, andGeorgetown's Father Edmund Walsh.

There is much more, we already know, than we have begun to tell in thisreport. If what we have written merely begins the process of destroying the


42/42

popularized myth of Joseph McCarthy, a very important bit of truth hascome out into the open, at last Some long-overdue justice has been done.One hopes, we shall rid our institutions of leftovers of what McCarthyrepresented, and bring back that spirit of competence in Soviet intelligence,needed so urgently today.

Documents

Roy Cohn - Soviet Agent or Dupe? 2