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 and others were out to make McCarthy President.

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

was soon to face a tough 1952 re-election campaign. To save his sagging political 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 have been elected to the U.S. Senate in 1946, but for Milwaukee trade-union support, 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 Lustron construction 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 SS officers who had committed the Malmedy atrocities against U.S. troops: McCarthy has rescued these SS officials from a Nuremberg-statutes deathsentence. McCarthy's actions in the Malmedy affair, only fueled propaganda for a Nazi revival; the German Communist Party (KPD) used his actions to stage massive demonstrations against U.S. occupation forces, on orders from Moscow. The KPD was known to be in contact with McCarthy through the German Communist Rudolf Aschenauer! 4) McCarthy would soon be cited as a homosexual, in FBI, U.S. Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) reports, and in published accounts in the Las Vegas Sun. The reasons why McCarthy seized the offer of heading up what became known as "McCarthyism," are fairly obvious. The questions are: Who set him in motion as an "anti-Communist"? What were their motives? The key to the birth of "McCarthyism," is Georgetown University's famous Father Edmund Walsh, S.J., then Regent of the Georgetown University Foreign Service School. Without Walsh's influence on McCarthy, what became known as "McCarthyism" would not have come into existence. While heading a 1922-1924 Papal Mission to Soviet Russia, this same Walsh had been an accomplice of leaders of a Soviet intelligence organization known as "The Trust." The same Walsh had also been a collaborator of the

circle which founded Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party, especially the Professor Karl Haushofer who supervised Rudolf Hess' collaboration with Hitler, including Haushofer's hand in the writing of Mein Kampf. Walsh's links to the Soviet intelligence nest inside the staff of McCarthy homosexual Roy Cohn, and G. David Schinewere most visibly centered in the 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 intervention on behalf of the Malmedy murderers. This ring, which had major connections into 1930s and 1940s Hollywood and Mexico's Acapulco, was a subordinate element of the famous ring of Nazi-Communist intelligence official Richard Sorge, a ring whose areas of principal operations were integrated 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 was based largely on the fact that he was the heir of Karl Marx's designated successor in leadership of the first Communist International. Sorge's network overlapped the organization of Walsh's Nazi crony, geopolitician Karl Haushofer. From the Moscow side of Sorge's apparatus, Walsh had been a ground-floor accomplice of the Soviet "Trust" during the 1922-1924 period.

Persons who were senior Western intelligence officials during the periods preceding, during, and following "McCarthyism," have presented evidence, that McCarthy's group was being coordinated directly through a channel in the Washington Soviet Embassy. The case of the Krivitsky assassination, is among the cases which present very strong circumstantial evidence of a direct and witting connection between the Soviet Embassy and McCarthy's staff. For the purposes of this report, it is sufficient to limit our attention to the one Soviet intelligence connection of which McCarthy and Cohn were fully witting, that of Hede Massing. The key point is, that the connections of Georgetown's geopolitician, Edmund Walsh, and the Soviet connections of Walsh's tool, McCarthy, overlapped directly. Walsh & Soviet Intelligence On the surface, Soviet foreign intelligence, the Cheka's "Trust," was a direct outgrowth of an organization established when "the last Doge of Venice," Volpi di Misurata, used Odessa-born Alexander Helphand ("Parvus") to arrange extensive German Imperial Foreign Office funding and technical assistance for the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Not only were Parvus' two sons later part of the Soviet intelligence operation narrowly known as "The Trust." All the Soviet officials involved in the establishing of "the Trust," were either officials of Parvus' own pre-October 1917 spy-ring, or, like Leon Trotsky, had been members of either Parvus' organization or Volpi's other networks, 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-intelligence work on Soviet intelligence operations today, must be grounded in identification of two principal divisions among the Western partners of Moscow in the establishment of the "Trust." This analytical division, while not strictly valid at a deeper level, is convenient up to a point. The first of these two, is a Venetian-Austrian-Swiss network, centered around Volpi di Misurata and his agent, Parvus. This includes such Comintern leaders as Nikolai Bukharin and Karl Radek. The second of the two, overlapping the first, but distinct for purposes of emphasis, is principally a Britain-centered network, which includes Leon Trotsky, the British Secret Intelligence Service's Sidney George Reilly, and Socialist Revolutionary assassin Boris Savinkov.

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

Richard Sorge, the Soviet superspy. One of McCarthy's most famous "sources" was directly tied into a subsidiary network of the Sorge networks.

As Joseph Stalin rose to power from 1924 onward, he instituted purges culminating, in the 1936-38 period, in wiping out most of the Western oligarchy's "Trust" agents within the Bolshevik leadership. Stalin had no disagreement with the idea of "world revolution"; his disagreements with the Western Trust partners, and Western assets such as Trotsky and Bukharin, were chiefly two. He was unwilling to place the existence of Russia itself at risk, as the Parvus-Trotsky dogma of "permanent revolution" implied. He was also unwilling to allow Bukharin's Western backers to loot the Soviet economy to the degree they were doing during the 1920s. Stalin's Soviet imperialist strategy, was to build up Soviet power at home, to reach the position of power at which broader Soviet conquests could be safely secured. It was during the 1938-1953 period, when the former Okhrana agent and Russian Orthodox Church seminary student, Joseph Stalin, had consolidated power, that the Western partners of the 1920-1929 Trust agreements began to mount an "anti-Communist" campaign whose purpose was to bring back a "Bolshevik" faction that would restore the "Trust."

In Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Edmund Walsh saw a tool, to mount an "antiCommunist" campaign that would destroy further official U.S. investigations into 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, indicates Walsh's probable accomplices. It is based upon a report to Brownell from a source 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 by Cardinal Spellman is at odds with the Vatican regarding various foreign issues. [X] referred to the Cardinal's followers as a "conspiracy" working to undermine the Eisenhower administration and to eventually bring about the election of Senator Joseph McCarthy as President. [X] claimed that McCarthy is receiving the support of many wealthy Catholics, including prominent individuals such as ex-Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy and that the "conspiracy" group is sending to McCarthy 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 York Archdiocese is also notable for his founding of the Maryknoll Order, whose members are in the forefront of the "Liberation Theologist" heresy in Central America today. He also played a role on behalf of the Jesuit-controlled Fidel Castro's taking power in Cuba. Unfortunately, the full facts on the central role played by Fr. Edmund Walsh in selling the "anti-Communist" issue to Sen. McCarthy may be lost to history. A series of reorganizations have removed damaging information from the Walsh papers in Georgetown University's "special collections." With the recent reorganization now in progress, all that remains of the Walsh-McCarthy connection is what purports to be Fr. Walsh's scrawl upon a 1954 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 reorganization of the files, she had found three references to Fr. Walsh's germinal role

in his papers. Walsh's 1954 disclaimer may simply be his attempt at a coverup, since it appears to date from the period the Army-McCarthy Hearings had 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 Service School Professor Carroll Quigley: in his book Tragedy and Hope. The other is Sen. McCarthy's chief counsel, Roy Cohn, in his book McCarthy. Walsh's best friend, Fr. Louis J. Gallagher, S.J., thought so highly of Carroll Quigley'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's Protocol.

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 "antiCommunist crusade"?

Quigley, to whom we shall return later, states on p. 931 of Tragedy and Hope: "Until early 1950, Communism meant little to McCarthy. He had been elected to the Senate over the incumbent, LaFollette, in 1946, as a result of Communist-controlled votes in the labor unions of Milwaukee. As senator he collaborated in a joint Nazi and Communist plot to injure the United States and its army by reversing the convictions of German S.S. troops for atrocities committed on American prisoners of war captured in the Battle of the Bulge. But by January 1950, McCarthy was looking for an issue to be used for his reelection in 1952. At dinner with three men, two of them associates of mine, in the Colony Restaurant in Washington (Jan. 7, 1950) he asked what issue he should use. After several suggestions, he seized 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 any real conception of what he was doing, and without any research or knowledge of the subject," gave his famous "list of (57) 205 Communists " Wheeling, West Virginia speech, whose true nature was discussed in Part I of this 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 the package"? . . . I am sure he saw the dramatic political opportunities connected with a fight on Communism. . . . There have been many accounts of how McCarthy was launched on the Communist issue. According to one oft-told version, McCarthy telephoned William A. Roberts, a wellknown Washington attorney, early in January 1950, and said he stood in need of a strong basic issue. Roberts thereupon arranged a dinner at the Colony Restaurant with the late Farther Edmund 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

imperialism's threat to the United States through widespread subversion. . . . According to published reports, Professor Kraus wanted McCarthy to meet the three, all of them Roman Catholics, in order to "encourage in a young Catholic senator a serious approach to serious matters." Roberts, on the other hand, insists that McCarthy asked for the meeting "because he needed an issue and he got one there." Conceivably, the Senator wanted further information on Communism from the political-science experts that night. Walsh's second book on Soviet communism, his 1951 Total Empire, which he was writing at the time of the Welch-McCarthy confrontation, has one particular, long section, which tries to answer those questions which might be raised by Sen. McCarthy in Congress: Why should any American wish, much less conspire, to betray the United States to the wardens who control the prison house that Russia is and the satellites have become? . . . What makes a Communist or a sympathizer out of an American comfortably placed, sometimes a millionaire, often a successful author, a playwright, a Hollywood figure, a schoolteacher, a government employee? 'The Lesser Evil?' Thus, Soviet-linked Edmund Walsh is identified as one of the leading "intellectual authors" of "McCarthyism." The question remains: Why did he choose Joe McCarthy? Three years ago, the author spoke to an acquaintance, a leading conservative serving 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 same principles cited, more recently, by John Cardinal O'Connor, now Archbishop of New York, when Cardinal O'Connor intervened on the issue of personal morality in the 1984 Presidential elections. The professor responded: "Why should I do this? In his Divine Comedy, Dante only places Sodomists in the Sixth 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

those Traitors to the Lord [e.g., "atheistic Communists"S.T.] who are in the very maw of Satan, being gnashed by his teeth, at the bottom of the darkest 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 McCarthy the "anti-Communist" issue, he might probably have said: "So what? A Sodomist, 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 an evil, 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 the nature of Communism, have had a tremendous impact upon leading "think tanks" and government institutions in Washington, D.C. His writings, coupled with his actions when he was Papal representative to Russia, show that he followed this doctrine of "lesser evil," as he made political bedfellows with those satanic forces which had been responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution, and which are part of the cultural matrix influencing Bolshevik 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 Georgetown University) upon policy today, makes it important in several ways, that we examine evidence showing Walsh's possible motives in recruiting Sen. McCarthy. Part of the key to understanding that, is the suspicious character of the combined gross errors of omission and commission in Walsh's analysis of the rise of Bolshevism. Ample grounds for doubts and suspicions concerning Edmund Walsh's loyalty to Christian principles, were displayed during the period 1922-24, when he was Papal representative in Bolshevik Russia. According to his assistant in Russia, and closest life-long friend, Fr. Louis Gallagher, S.J., Walsh sought to pit "the pure soul of Orthodoxy" against "atheistic Communism." Gallagher's apology for Walsh is found on p. 70 of the unabridged manuscript of his biography of Walsh: "The separation of Byzantium, resulting in the growth of the various branches of the Eastern

Church, the defections of the so-called Reformation, that gave rise to so many Protestant sects and even the residence at Avignon, were dislocations causing the dismemberment of unity and increase of heresy, but the heretics were still believers [handwritten in 'Xtians']. Atheistic Communism was the first 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 know of how the Eastern monastic orders had spawned such Pan-Slavic "bloodand-soil" cults as the Raskolniki ("Old Believers"). He also knew the connection between these Byzantine mystical currents and "atheistic communism." For example, Walsh wrote, in his book, Total Empire, that the reactionary Raskolniki gave rise to revolutionary currents in Russia, culminating in Bolshevik rule. Quite true: the source of Soviet communism, is not Karl Marx; it is the Russian mystic's notion of the conception of the peasant commune, which the Bolsheviks, to this day, associate with a mystical connotation of the word Mir. Walsh knew, that throughout the history of Western Christianity, the chief threat to civilization has been the same kind of irrationalist oriental mysticism typified by the Russian Raskolniki. Even before Christianity, this Eastern cultural matrix was the mother of all totalitarian threats to civilization. One of the early efforts to free civilization from this oligarchical evil, was that of Plato's Academy in Athens. That Academy's nearly successful effort, Alexander the Great's defeat of the Syrian Magi who ruled the Persian Empire, was aborted, when Aristotle's network assassinated Alexander by poisoning. The effort to free man from this evil, by Plato's circles, was postponed, until it was resumed by such Christian leaders as St. Augustine, who attempted to free mankind from that evil tradition of imperial Rome which was being continued by the emperors of Byzantium, from Diocletian and Constantine, through Photius, and by Byzantium's chief penetration of the West, Venice. The history of the wars of Athens against the Syrian Magi, and the Augustinian tradition's fight against that same evil, is a history which enables one to understand better the wicked role of McCarthyism's father, Edmund Walsh. This historical perspective is key for assessing proposals to enlist the anti-Catholic cults of the Soviet church against the Bolsheviks' "dialectical materialism." Edmund Walsh's adult life's work, merely

including his connection to "McCarthyism," represents a very specific quality of wickedness: the effort to destroy the Augustinian tradition within both religion and culture, and this for the advantage of a combination of Eastern mysticism and feudalistic traditions. In matters of relations with the Soviet church, Walsh's policies of the 1922-1924 period of his Mission to Soviet Russia, and later, are the same policy of Soviet appeasers in Western religious bodies today: throw out of Western Christianity, Catholic and Protestant alike, any points of even the most fundamental doctrine, especially the "Filioque" of the Latin Nicene Creed and English Book of Common Prayer, which are offensive to the Soviet state church. On culture, Walsh was consistently close to the kind of Nietzschean "New Age" thinking typified 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 of the Soviet Trust's organization. Walsh's political origins were identical with those of the Western partners of the Trust. The Western partners of Parvus and the Soviet Trust organization, are a combination of wealthy aristocrats and financier interests which have adopted the same policies characteristic of 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-

centered element of the two Western currents who dominated the ranks of the Trust's partners. To find Walsh's and Parvus' roots, one has but to ask: What influential circles in the West had ever proposed, before the Bolshevik Revolution, to make Russia "the policeman of Europe"? Any literate student recognizes immediately, that this is none other than the policy of the Holy Alliance founded at Vienna in 1815. This was the policy of those two historic figures most admired by Henry A. Kissinger, Austria's Clement Prinz Metternich, and Britain's Lord Castlereagh. These two prominent figures of the period were not, however, the architects of the Holy Alliance. The chief architect on 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 the agreements of the 1815 Congress as aimed to eradicate the American Revolution of 1776-1789, and the influence of that Revolution on the thinking and institutions of both the Americas and Europe. The "hordes of Russia," 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 the American Revolution epitomized for all the republicans of Europe and the Americas. These same aristocratic and financier circles, through their descendants, sponsored and attempted to control the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, and the Bolsheviks' empire, for the same general purpose. The prevailing view of McCarthyism to this day, is that Joseph McCarthy was essentially a fascist, a kind of Savonarola of the extreme right. On closer inspection, this same McCarthy had been a left-wing communist fellow-traveler, and was used by a Soviet intelligence network during the period of "McCarthyism." Walsh, similarly, was an accomplice of the Trust during his youthful years, and also a crony of the creators of Nazism. To understand a McCarthy or a Walsh, it is indispensable to discard the popularized 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 100 generations of European civilization, real politics has been a division

between two forces. On our side, we draw a line, forwards and backwards, through the reference-points of St. Augustine and the 1776-1789 American Revolution. On the opposing side, the common enemies of Augustine and the American Revolution, we find the heritage of sodomy-ridden Spartan slave-society, the Syrian Magi, and the Roman and Byzantine empires. There is some doubt of the degree to which Edmund Walsh understood this division; there is no doubt that those who steered Walsh did understand it very well. For them, the dionysiac brutishness of Bolshevism, and also fascism, were useful battering-rams to be deployed against those institutions which 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" to be encouraged as a weapon against the tradition of St. Augustine. Joseph McCarthy, a degenerate with no conscious purpose but his own greed for wealth and power, was also, a "lesser evil," to be disowned by Walsh when no longer useful. Walsh's view of the Eastern monastic orders and the Soviet state church, is also a "lesser evil" view. Walsh, both in his 1928 book, The Fall of the Russian Empire, and his 1951 Total Empire, acknowledges the dangers carried within Orthodoxy, but defends its "pure soul" from every effort to impose the Augustinian outlook upon ("Westernize") the Russian cultural matrix. Walsh On Russia There is a lie perpetrated in Walsh's writings, which has a direct bearing upon the origin of that Bolshevik imperialism which threatens world conquest today. Walsh was almost truthful in identifying the origins of Bolshevism, but lies about the result. Walsh writes a "delphic" history of the origin of Bolshevism, that protects Orthodoxy by blaming the state, rather than the cultural matrix that shapes the state, as the cause. He traces the issue from 1453, when the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine Paleologue, fell before the armies of Venice's ally, the Ottoman Mohammed. In 1472, Zoe, daughter of the last Byzantine Emperor, who had found shelter for 10 years with the Venetian Pope in Rome, married Ivan III, assuming the name Sophia. Through Sophia, Ivan assumed the Byzantine titles of Czar, the Muscovite Russian translation of "Caesar," adopting fully Byzantium's totalitarian imperial system. Walsh says of this, that the ultimate symbol of this cultural shift, came when Czar Ivan III "proclaimed

Holy Moscow the 'Third Rome.' The first had perished; the second, Constantinople, had now fallen; 'the third, Moscow, now stands, and a further 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," as successor to both Rome and Constantinople, that the principal propagator of this thesis in the early 16th century was a Russian Orthodox priest, Philotheos of Pskov. Walsh echoes the Bolsheviks' hatred of the Romanov dynasty, which Walsh identifies, inaccurately, as the main conveyors of this doctrine of "Third Rome" imperialism. Walsh puts the cart before the horse. On the matter of the ancient Russian cultural origins of Bolshevism, Walsh is somewhat more accurate. Walsh claims that the Bolshevik revolution was merely one of a long series of insurrections against the Romanov dynasty, carried out in reaction against a mystical current in Russian life called the Raskolniki ("Old Believers"). But, it was the Raskolniki who led a series of such revolutions. The 18thcentury insurrection against Czarina Catherine the Great, by the Raskolnik Pugachev, is only the most famous of these pre-Bolshevik Raskolniki uprisings. The 19th-century Russian nihilists, were simply another such Raskolniki 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 and immediately following Peter's reign, the Romanovs adopted the economicdevelopment program elaborated by Gottfried Leibniz, and, as a result, the Russian urban economy reached a higher level than Britain's, until Peter's reforms were repealed, and serfdom restored. After Peter the Great, the other 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 Russia shows, that he worked intimately with the main associates of the notorious Alexander Helphand ("Parvus"). Parvus was the Venetian agent identified above, as arranging the transfer of German Imperial funds for the Bolshevik

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 the lead of the Russian Revolution. Fr. Walsh's earliest reports to the Vatican Secretariat of State from Russia have disappeared in earlier reorganizations of papers at Georgetown University. The available fragments which appear in the unabridged manuscript of Fr. Gallagher's Walsh biography, include a massively falsified

portrayal of Walsh's relations with the Soviet secret-police, the Cheka (the forerunner of the KGB). One fragment appearing on p. 69 this biography quotes from a Sept. 10, 1922 report of Fr. Walsh to the effect that "The Soviet Government has come to realize the impossibility of the [Communist S.T.] system and is now inaugurating what they call 'The new economic system,' 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 Felix Dzerzhinsky circulate through the "Trust," to discourage anti-Bolshevik operations, and to recruit Western industrialists to support the floundering Russian economy. The Bolshevik leader with whom Fr. Walsh worked most closely, was Georgii Chicherin, Commissar of Foreign Affairs. On p. 148 of the unabridged biography, Fr. Gallagher says: "Of all the officials with whom the Mission had to deal with in Russia, Mr. Tchitcherine made the nearest approach to being a gentleman." Again, on p. 125, he says: "George Tchitcherine was never an out-and-out Bolshevik. He was a former Tsarist diplomat 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 his official position he moved slowly and cautiously. . . . He went on this way for twenty years, until the old-time, founding fathers of the Bolshevik State were corralled and liquidated in the Stalin purge of 1937." Fr. Gallagher's endorsement of Chicherin is doubly curious for a priest: not only was Chicherin the most brilliant strategist of Bolshevism's early imperialist schemes, but, as a Czarist officer, he was most closely allied with Pobeonostsev, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, who ran Fyodor Dostoevsky as his agent. In his Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky takes the side of the Grand Inquisitor over Christ. It may only be coincidence, but one of Sen. McCarthy's consultants, the Hede Massing of the Soviet Massing-Gerlach-Eisler ring, hired by Roy Cohn, was a co-founder of the Frankfurt School, through which the Bolshevik Georg Lukacs mounted a "Dostoevsky Project," explicitly dedicated to supplant the Western cultural matrix of the Book of Genesis with that of the Brothers Karamazov. The Vatican Secretariat of State, endorsed Fr. Walsh's view of Chicherin. In his May 18, 1923 communication to Fr. Walsh (Vatican Secretariat No. 17390/49), Msgr. Pizzardi (later Cardinal), orders Fr. Walsh to: "Maintain cordial and frequent

communication with the German Ambassador." This message is a signal that 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 all but ordinary communications, had been the principal collaborator of Parvus within the German Imperial Foreign Office. This was publicly charged by the press at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, and it was confirmed with the 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 civilized west, and placed the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church under his thumb. Condemning the Russian Orthodox Church for their "Byzantine obsequiousness" to state control, Walsh says, on pp. 157-159 of his Fall of the Russian Empire:

It was a spurious civilization! What, in the last analysis, was the influence of Peter's reform on the final destiny of Russia? . . . "Ruinous," reply the Slavophils. "Necessary and glorious," maintain the Westernizers. The truth lies somewhere between, but probably nearer the Slavophils. . . The Orthodox Church of Peter's day would have done better to perish fighting. Today, the Romanov dynasty is gone, but the byzantine oligarchical social order of Czarist Russia still rules, in the form of the ruling Nomenklatura of the Soviet Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Russian Orthodox Church is now controlled by the Raskolniki, and has has resumed its old position as part of the state. Among those members of the Soviet oligarchy reported to be the closest to the Russian Orthodox Church, like Soviet Marshall 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 was chosen, allegedly by Pope Pius XI, to be both head of the Papal Relief Mission 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 of Russia, alone, gave them refuge. There, supported by the Czar Paul I known as the "Crowned Madman of Europe," the Jesuits sought a "Union of the Churches" among Orthodox, Oriental Rite, and Roman Catholics, treating the matter as if the fundamental doctrinal issues among those churches did not exist. The killing of Paul I by "ultra-Orthodox" assassins derailed this Jesuit scheme, until recent years. The Jesuits remained in Russia, creating schools and other institutions, until Pope Innocent was poisoned. Then, they returned to the West, where the Jesuit Joseph de Maistre created the University of Louvain, Switzerland (among others), to found new synthetic ideologies, including Solidarism and Syndicalism, in support of the Venetian design of the Holy Alliance. As reported earlier, Capo d'Istria was officially the representative of a Czar Alexander I as mad as his father, Paul 1, had been.

The Jesuit-Capo d'Istria Holy Alliance is the model for all later attempts at what Lord Bertrand Russell and others proposed as a one-world federalist empire. This scheme has been peddled by like-minded oligarchs in such guises as the League of Nations and United Nations. De Maistre's Jesuits supported the efforts against such republicans as Mozart, Franklin, Schiller, while also supporting a system that permitted Czar Alexander's Russian Army 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, then Ambassador to Denmark, which states: I have now got to know Helphand better, and I think that there can be no question that he is an extraordinarily important man

whose unusual powers I feel we must employ for the duration of 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, and intertwine with Walsh's mission in Russia, is pivotal to understanding the Soviet intelligence connections into both Walsh and Walsh's Senator McCarthy. Born in the grain-trading port of Odessa, Parvus had acted at the turn-of-thecentury as the main liaison between the German Social Democracy and the Russians, when Lenin published his newspaper Iskra in Munich. Parvus was among those who trained Leon Trotsky, concocting Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, and sponsoring Trotsky as a leader of the 1905 Russian 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 antimissile defense.

The most mysterious period in Parvus' life was his re-emergence in 1909 in Vienna, Austria, where the Foreign Office requested his transfer to Constantinople at the time of the Balkans War. During that war, Parvus amassed a fortune in the millions, dealing with the enigmatic Odessa Jew Sir Basil Zaharoff, German industrialist Hugo Stinnes, and others. It was in Constantinople that he became the agent of Count Carlo Sforza, officially the Italian Government's "Political Attache." Sforza was, actually, the unofficial minister of Eastern Affairs for "the last Doge of Venice," Volpi di Misurata. Another professor at Georgetown University whom the McCarthy biographer Richard Rovere alleges was an adviser to the Senator, is Stefan Possony. Possony has direct bearing on this matter. The Austrian-born emigre Possony, is one of the few U.S. authors who identifies the significance of Parvus to the Bolshevik Revolution, in his book Lenin: The Compulsive Revolutionary. Yet, Possony has rejected, rather hysterically, any suggestion of links between Parvus and Volpi di Misurata, claiming Parvus was simply a German agent. Ironical is the fact, that in 1942 Possony was a member of a private psychological warfare group called the Committee for National Morale, whose members included the same Count Carlo Sforza of Venice who had been Parvus' controller. Other members of this group include the founders of the Aquarian "New Age" movement inside the postwar United States, such as: the self-avowed sorcerer Gregory Bateson; Bateson's one-time wife, Margaret Mead; and, the notorious Kurt Lewin. There are two subjects on which the knowledgeable Possony is consistently irrational to the point of hysteria. One, is any attack on the powerful "families" as a ruling institution of Western society. The second, is any exposure of what Possony himself admits to be Venice's key role in ruling the world today. Although Possony defers to the so-called American "families," including the Rockefellers, his essential loyalties are to the southcentral 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 of Walsh at Georgetown University, whose loyalties would compel them to deny 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 along the Venice-Salonika-Aleppo-Odessa grain-trade axis: in other words, the

Venetian oligarchy. Like Count Capo d'Istria earlier, Volpi di Misurata was recruited to his position of power in Venice from among the local aristocracy of the predominantly Greek regions which Venice had acquired as a gift from the Ottoman dynasty, as compensation for services in connection with the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. Helphand-Parvus of Odessa, like Churchill's Sidney Reilly from the same Odessa, was a talented plebeian hanger-on of these families, and rose to his position through their recurring sponsorship. It was with the backing of these families, which controlled the Black Sea grain-trade monopoly, that Parvus accumulated his initial millions in the grain and weapons traffic. At the time, Volpi di Misurata, was the leader of this particular interest, and thus the owner of Parvus. This was the same Volpi di Misurata, who, in addition to being the key figure 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 his background, 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 Imperial Foreign Office, titled "Preparations for a Political Mass Strike in Russia." Some highlights of this plan, which led the German Government to support the Bolshevik Revolution (as an expedient way to knock out Russia on the Eastern Front), include: Preparations are to be made for a political mass strike in Russia. . . . The task can only be fulfilled under the leadership of the Russian Social Democrats [Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, and their alliesS.T.]. . . . Agitation must also be begun . . . in Odessa . . . in Baku . . . in Siberia . . . in North America . . . in the neutral states . . . in the Ukraine . . . in Finland . . . in the Caucasus. . . . Thus the armies of the Central Powers and the revolutionary movement will shatter the colossal political centralization which is the embodiment of the Tsarist Empire and which will be a danger to world peace for as long as it is allowed to survive. Count Brockdorf-Rantzau was not the only collaborator of Parvus in this scheme whom Fr. Walsh later worked with in Russia. The German Ambassador to the Vatican, who was on the receiving end of Fr. Walsh's confidential communiques, was

Diego von Berzen. Captured German Imperial Foreign Office documents show that, as Minister of political subversion in Russia during World War I, von Berzen had passed 15 million DM through Count Brockdorf-Rantzau to Parvus' agents for the above-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.

There was another man with whom Fr. Walsh dealt in Russia who was part of this scheme. This is Jakob Fuerstenberg (alias Hanecki, Ganecki, Ganteski, Kuba), who emerged after the Revolution as Commissar Chicherin's principal deputy. Walsh had several meetings with this same Hanecki, 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 very center of Parvus' organization, and placed there by an oligarchic circle in the Vatican Secretariat of State. Parvus's biographers, Z.A.B. Zeman and W.B. Scharlau state, in Merchant of Revolution, that before Parvus' death in 1924, he sought to mount a revolution against Germany, from Switzerland, working with the Comintern's Willi Muenzenberg and the "gentleman" George Chicherin. Through the journal Wiederaufbau, Parvus also called for economic policies that presaged the Young Plan, Dawes Plan, and Rentenmark looting of the German economy, which created conditions for mass recruitment by Adolf Hitler. Parvus next made contact with certain Catholic oligarchic circles around von Bergen, before becoming one of the leading German advocates of the Rapallo treaty between Germany and Russia. The same Msgr. Pizzardi of the Vatican Secretariat of State, who ensured that all Walsh's principal contacts of that period were from this network, took a direct part in this Rapallo plan, attending the Genoa Conference that set the framework for Rapallo, where he met with the same Georgii Chicherin. Apart from his associations with the Trust networks of Parvus, the direct indication of a Walsh role in the Genoa-Rapallo developments, was the Cheka information, that what Walsh had reported to the Vatican about Lenin's New Economic Policy being "a retreat from Communism" may have duped other Vatican officials to seek a deal along these lines. At the Genoa Conference Chicherin arranged new sources of credit, and, it is notable that Franco Marinotti, the leading Italian Rapallist, had been the man who managed investment of those sums received by the Vatican from Benito Mussolini under the Lateran Pact. Fr. Walsh's other principal operation in Russia, apart from food relief, is to be compared with Walsh's insistence, that the Russian Orthodox Church represents a natural ally against the Bolsheviks. Fragmentary evidence

indicates that Walsh sought a "Union of the Churches" similar to that proposed by the Jesuits during their Russian exile. It appears that he used the Uniate Oriental Rite, led by Fr. Walsh's friend, Exarch Leonidas Feodorov, as the lure for the Russian Orthodox Church, then under Patriarch Tychon. British Secret Intelligence Service also thought that Tychon was the leading potential enemy of the Bolsheviks (after the collapse of the British favorites, the Socialist Revolutionaries). One letter transmitted by Fr. Walsh to Pope Pius XI from the Extraordinary Delegate of the Metropolitan of Mohileff in 1922 explicitly states: "The events of the recent times in Russia have significantly advanced the question of the union of the Orthodox and the Catholic Church." But, the writer then shows the "blood-and-soil" Gnosticism of the Church, by telling the Pope that 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 of the same blood" of Holy Mother Russia as its agents. Ironically, one of the first acts of the Bolsheviks was to free the Russian Orthodox Church from that subservience to the State initiated by Peter the Great, while also moving the capital back to Holy Moscow. When steps were taken toward a "Union of the Churches" against the Bolsheviks, in 1923, 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 been Trotsky'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 of Walsh, on p. 52: For Exarch Feodorov, ten years in prison, with the following remark, "He is judged not only for what he has done but for what he can do." This statement probably referred to the Union of the Churches. After dealing with the Polish priests and Exarch Feodorov, the Bolsheviks next arrested Patriarch Tychon, and, while he was in prison, organized a socalled "Living Church" under state control, through Krassikoff, the head of the Department of Religious Affairs in the Commissariat of Justice. This arch-Bolshevik "Third Romer" told the Churches: "The days of Julian the Apostate are upon you. . . . The Pope in Rome shall not last more than three years."

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 a complete recantation of his previous opinions and . . . on his promise to support the Government he has been released." One price extracted by the Bolsheviks to "aid him against the 'Living Church' " is that he publicly attack the Pope of Rome, which he readily did do. The Patriarch's attack was followed by an Izvestia article in which Trotsky called for the Pope in

Rome to be tried in absentia. Although Fr. Walsh later told the Vatican that Patriarch Tychon really did not mean his recantation, a Bolshevik partnership with the Russian Orthodox Church was fully sealed by the former Okhrana agent and Orthodox seminary student, Joseph Stalin, at a ceremony in St. Basil's Cathedral, Moscow in 1943. Fr. Walsh and Karl Haushofer There is another area of the broader "Trust" networks in which Fr. Walsh played a central role in running a cover-up. In 1945 Fr. Walsh was selected to head that part of of the Nuremberg Tribunal team, to handle the case of Karl Haushofer, the head of the German Geopolitical Institute, who developed the idea of war for Lebensraum (living space) used in Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Walsh's correspondence with Karl Haushofer during the 1930s period, when the Nazis consolidated power, has also disappeared from Georgetown University'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 to McCarthy's Soviet connections, had been recruited to Soviet military intelligence (GRU) by Richard Sorge. To make a long story short, it is typical of the Sorge-Haushofer connection, that Sorge, a direct descendant of a Marx's designated heir as head of the first communist international, not only had one article reprinted in Haushofer's journal Zeitschrift fuer Geopolitik but, he obtained letters of introduction from him to Japanese leaders. Karl Haushofer and his prize pupil, Deputy Reichsfuehrer Rudolf Hess, had earlier written a book on espionage in Japan. The connections between Bolsheviks and Nazis, back during the early 1920s, were frequent, and often most intimate. In 1920, Rudolf Hess, and anthroposophy leader Rudolf Steiner, showed up as Soviet intelligence assets, 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 northern Germany, but the Cheka itself had directly supported the Nazis' insurgency efforts, into the period leading into Hitler's famous beer-hall adventure. That Parvus should have been a co-founder of the Soviet intelligence service, and should have been sponsored by the same Volpi di Misurata who put Mussolini into power, is consistent with the customs of the times.

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) When Haushofer was confronted with his prize pupil Rudolf Hess, who had conduited his theories into the pages of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, Hess pretended to be suffering from "amnesia," possibly because of his "treatment" by John Rees, a founder of Britain's wartime psychological warfare service; and, 3) Walsh did not interrogate Karl Haushofer intensively, because Haushofer claimed to have a bad hearta fact never verified 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 satanic Thule Society. The Thule Society was led by Count Sebattendorf, a German Imperial Foreign Service contemporary of Parvus in Constantinople. Leading members of the Thule Society (drawn from Aleister Crowley's Mystical Order of the Golden Dawn, through "race-scientist" Houston Stewart Chamberlain) include: a member of the Venetian imperial family of Thurn und Taxis; Alfred Rosenberg, the Baltic-Russian race scientist who helped the Benedictine-trained Adolf Hitler develop his inner satan cult religion; Rudolf Hess; and, Karl Haushofer. Backing the Thule circle, was the Catholic Bavarian House of Wittelsbach, who were lesser royal house, cousins of Kissinger's idol, Lord Castlereagh, within the Venetian Holy Roman Empire's aristocracy. Had Haushofer answered probing questions about this Thule Society, candid replies 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" mysticism underlying Haushofer's geopolitics. Or, as Karl Haushofer put it more cautiously in his journal Zeitschrift fur Geopolitik, 1935, No. 12, pp. 443-48: Geopolitics is the duty to safeguard the right to the soil, to the land in the widest sense, not only the land within the frontiers of the Reich, but the right to the more extensive folk and cultural lands.

One reason for Walsh's hesitation might be, that he, himself, was an advocate of this pseudo-science. We have Karl Haushofer's own word, as reported by Walsh, on pp. 10-11 in his 1948 book, Total Empire: Walsh was a "specialist in geopolitics." Another American specialist cited by Haushofer was Owen Lattimore, whose role with the Communist-infiltrated Institute for Pacific Relations (IPR), which influenced the Japanese to strike against the United States instead of Russia, through Richard Sorge's network. IPR and Lattimore became a major focus of Pat McCarran's Senate Internal Security 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, Haushofer agreed with the thesis of Mackinder's 1904 lecture, The Pivot of History, which states: Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland ['the vast inner land mass of EurasiaEW']; who rules the Heartland commands the world island; who rules the world island commands the 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 strategic area became thereafter the central theme in his geopolitics." So, too, it would appear from Walsh's 1951 book, Total Empire (after he had claimed to reject 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 Haushofer about, included the question of how Haushofer applied this theory of the pivot to geopolitics. Walsh claimed the mere mention caused heart palpitations. In his journal Zeitschrift fuer Geopolitik Haushofer wrote that he concluded from MacKinder's writing that: "It is of vital importance that Russia and Germany unite their forces." Since Lenin, the Bolsheviks themselves had believed that: "Whoever has Germany has Europe." They were natural geopolitical allies, or enemies, according to this thinking, which is also the basis of Rapallo. So, consistently and accurately, Walsh notes, Haushofer "applauded the Russo-Nazi Pact of 1939 as a triumph of

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 GermanRusso-Japanese alliance that would strike against both Britain and the United States. It was not until Hitler's decision to launch the "Operation Barbarossa" invasion of Russia, that Karl Haushofer began to lose influence with the Nazis, eventually spending eight months in a concentration camp. The surviving evidence suggests that Walsh was protecting this scheme of Karl Haushofer. In his own interpretation of geopolitics, Walsh states on pp. 156-157 of Total Empire:

Stalin shakes hands with Hitler's Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop, upon signing the Hitler-Stalin Pact.

I believe the unknown geopoliticians behind the Iron Curtain have adapted MacKinder's formula to the new circumstances of the air age. They have probably changed and shifted some elements and emphasized others, so that their consolidation of land power in central and eastern Europe now leaves them free to accelerate control of marginal lands on the rim of the world island. It may well be that they are saying: "Who controls the rimlands of Europe and Asia can protect the Heartland of the World 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 . . . and the teeming lands that stretch into southern and southeastern Asia"; and, 2) "that area of North America which includes the eastern regions of the United States 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's prominent protege, published a 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope. Quigley devotes an entire section, "American Confusions, 1945-50," of this book to

denouncing the "Radical Right" led by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, for the attacks led against the liberal Eastern Establishment by the likes of Sen. McCarthy: Quigley's smoke-screen covering Walsh's role in instigating McCarthy's "anti-Communist" crusade. Any evidence of earlier contact between Fr. Walsh's two proteges could be of historic significance for two reasons. Quigley's book is seen by some critics, as a call to arms for the forces of Cecil Rhodes' Round Table, to reveal itself fully to the public, and to assume domination of an AngloAmerican empire openly. In this book, Quigley writes an astonishing defense of those members of the same Eastern Establishment, led by the Morgan Bank interests, who, like Walsh in Russia, had been active collaborators of the Trust. On p. 938 of Tragedy and Hope, Quigley tells a falsehood so absurd that it underlines 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 infiltrate the Left-wing political movements in the United States. . . . The purpose was not to destroy, dominate, or take over but was really threefold: (1) to keep informed on the thinking of the Left-wing or liberal groups; (2) to provide them with a mouthpiece so that they could "blow off steam"; and (3) to have a final veto on their publicity and possibly on their actions, if they ever went "radical." There was nothing really new about this decision. . . . What made it decisively important this time . . . at a time when the ultimate of Left-wing radicalism was about to appear under the banner of the Third International. Just as Sen. McCarthy was urged by the Tydings Committee to make at least one of his 205, 81, or 57 cases, or else shut up, Carroll Quigley sets out to defend the "Wall Street Reds" by defending one of the most notorious contemporary cases of a Soviet collaborator from this social set. From an available list, which includes Averell Harriman, Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Thomas Lamont, Corliss Lamont, and others, Quigley chooses the case of Michael Straight, the former editor of the New Republic. On pp. 938-944 of Tragedy and Hope, Quigley makes his case, highlights of which include:

The best example of this alliance of Wall Street and Left-wing publications was The New Republic, a magazine founded by ["Morgan agent"C.Q.] Willard Straight, using Payne Whitney money, in 1914 . . . [Willard's sonS.T.]. Mike Straight was deeply 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 misjudged very easily. The anti-Communist Right had a very simple explanation of it: Wallace and Straight were Communists and hoped to elect Wallace President. Nothing could be further from the truth. We shall soon see how true was the charge that the New Republic's Michael Straight was a communist. But, for a moment, permit Quigley to continue to hang himself: Straight continued to work for Wallace for President, and The New Republic remained the center of the movement for almost four more months, but something had changed. . . . As a consequence of [the Wallace campaignS.T.], the Communists were destroyed and eventually driven out of such organizations notably from the CIO-PAC (the greatest political alignment of labor and progressive groups). . . . This ended Communism as a significant political force in the United States. . . . If Mike Straight planned to do what he did do to the Communists in 1946-48, that is, to get them out of progressive movements and unions, he pulled off the most skillful political coup in twentieth century American politics. A review of Michael Straight's 1983 book, After Long Silence, with other material, shows that he had worked with associates of former CPUSA general secretary Jay Lovestone to drive the CP out of various fronts in the 1940s. But, both Straight and Lovestone were agents of "The Trust." After being thrown out of the CPUSA by Stalin, Lovestone worked with Soviet intelligence until at least the 1938 purges of GPU chief Yagoda and Bukharin. Imagine the glee that Michael Straight had, knowing, as he did, of Quigley's analysis, when he announced in his 1983 book, After Long Silence, that he had been recruited by Cambridge Apostle Sir Anthony Blunt into the same

espionage cell as H.A.R. "Kim" Philby, the latter, by 1983, a KGB General in Moscow! Imagine Straight's glee in revealing, that as a "volunteer" employee in the State Department, he had become a "good friend" of Alger Hiss, who was convicted of perjury for denying that he had given State Department documents to Soviet intelligence! Imagine his glee in boasting that his sister, Biddy, had married a Louis Dolivet, who was later discovered to be an important Romanian Comintern agent, Ludovicu Brecher, who later collaborated with Willi Muenzenberg's Rassemblement Universel pour la Paix.

McCarthy in his heyday. One hopes, we shall finally rid our institutions of leftovers of what McCarthy represented.

When Dolivet was denied re-entry to the United States by the State Department in 1948 as an undesirable alien, the case attracted sufficient publicity that Carroll Quigley should have known of it, if he had actually researched the case of Michael Straight.

What is undoubtedly the greatest cause of glee for Soviet agent Mike Straight, is that, after he "bared his soul" to the FBI and CIA, following the defection of H.A.R. "Kim" Philby in 1963, he, like Sir Anthony Blunt, who had been named Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures, was never touched by his treason. 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's false 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 an exhaustive compilation from State Department documents in the National Archives, which he used to write Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, and also a three-volume set for Hoover Institution, titled Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. Sutton was asked to leave the Hoover Institution, because that institution considered itself to be most displeased by Sutton's insistence, that the collaboration of the Morgan interests (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 in Anthony Sutton's works (supplemented by additional State Department Archives documents), is that: 1) the Morgan interests, through Col. House and others, helped send Parvus' agent Leon Trotsky back to Russia to lead the Bolshevik Revolution; and, 2) the Morgan interests broke the State

Department ban upon loans to Russia, the latter a key financial warfare part of Allied efforts to set up a cordon sanitaire around Russia. When the U.S. government decides, Morgan does as it pleases; the New York Times finds it an 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 documents could expose it. Under Lenin's "New Economic Policy," Max May, a vice-president of Morgan Guaranty and Trust, became director of the foreign division of the first Bolshevik central bank, Vneshtorg, whose honorary chairman was Olof Aschberg. This same Aschberg had earlier been head of the Nye Bank in Sweden, through which Count Brockdorf-Rantzau, German Minister in Copenhagen, conduited funds to Alexander Helphand Parvus' agent Fuerstenberg (a.k.a. Hanecki) in Russia. Hanecki then deposited these funds for the Bolshevik Revolution in Sumenson's Russo-Asiatic Bank in Petrograd. 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 Morgan Guaranty Trust in the United States and by Nye Bank in Sweden. Is this one of the reasons Quigley falsified the facts about the Morgan interests? Did Quigley falsify the Straight story as a favor to Morgan, or was Quigley's concern to help bury the fact of his patron's, Walsh's ties with those who had been among the chief collaborators of Alexander Helphand "Parvus," in launching the Bolshevik Revolution? How McCarthy Helped Moscow Before the British intelligence services took charge of the U.S. intelligence services, beginning 1938-1940, the United States had a small intelligence service of excellent professional quality, centered in the military intelligence services. Looking at some of the old military intelligence files from the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, the assessments of certain among the important present-day points of intelligence interest, are far more competent than recent official intelligence estimates on the same topical areas. The best quality of U.S. intelligence capabilities, among all periods of our national history since 1789, is found during the period 1815-1865, especially from about 1818 to about 1848, during the period we knew that Castle-

reagh's Britain and Metternich's Holy Alliance were the enemies on whom we must spy, and must defeat. During the period between two World Wars, and until McCarthyism wrecked some of our best anti-Soviet intelligence capabilities, our best knowledge of the problems posed by the Soviet empire, was concentrated in a network intersecting two points of reference, our military intelligence and a circle around the old Dies Un-American Activities Committee of the House of Representatives. McCarthy's rampage made two immensely important gifts to the Soviet empire. It wrecked large chunks of our best anti-Soviet intelligence capabilities. It transformed many embittered victims of McCarthyism, and their 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, "Have you no shame?" attack on the Senator, transformed McCarthy into a pariah among all but a dwindling hard-core of the desperately still-believing. However, the real issues were never attacked; the damage done was never repaired: 1. McCarthy's circus performances had been tolerated long enough, so that competent specialists in Soviet intelligence were displaced by "McCarthyites" in key positions, a destruction of competence which is typified by the Senate position of Joel Lisker today. 2. As Michael Straight bragged in his 1983 confessions, the Soviet penetration of our Wall Street and Boston crowd emerged from the period of "McCarthyism" more securely entrenched than ever before. 3. U.S. analytical doctrine for analysis of the Soviet empire, is today predominantly that laid down by Georgetown's Father Edmund Walsh, a tradition which has dominated the U.S. State Department's professionals, the FBI, 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 be charged next. Worse, overall, the true nature of Soviet penetration was never openly addressed. How could it be? After all, McCarthy himself typified real Soviet methods of high-level penetration.

New Republic editor Michael Straight, a Morgan agent. Georgetown's Carroll Quigley portrayed Straight as a clever anticommunist; but in 1983 Straight admitted 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 domestic political reasons in the crudest sense of the term. A Jewish judge and Jewish prosecutors fried a pair of Jews. One thing the Rosenbergs certainly did not do, was to deliver the secrets of the atom bomb to Soviet Russia. To the degree the Soviets needed to know certain important secondary, design features of fission weapons (the Soviet "Atom Project" group headed by Academician Vernadsky already knew all the basic scientific principles), this was transmitted by fellows such as Dr. Klaus Fuchs, or through such privileged channels of British intelligence as the Donald Maclean sitting with access to U.S. top secrets in Washington at the time. Yet, the Rosenbergs were executed because Judge Irving Kaufman told the jury, and probably believed himself, that the Rosenbergs had been the ones to deliver the key secrets. The Rosenbergs were fried, while Donald Maclean, Klaus Fuchs, and Philby escaped, by aid of deliberate cover-up within both the British and U.S. intelligence establishments.

Bungled intelligence, prejudice or outright political corruption of U.S. Attorney and Federal Judge, are a twofold injustice. They invariably tend to impose monstrous injustices on the individual victims of such investigations and 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.

As a corollary, often that which, at least incidentally, affords long-delayed justice to the victims of injustice, is consistent with the most fundamental interest of our government and the nation as a whole. Why should it be otherwise, either way? The lie was that an "atheistic communism," concocted by (a much-overrated Karl Marx), had subverted Russia, and was spreading its opposition to respectable bankers and to churches generally, all over the world. Until about 1938, the lie was, that fascism was a "lesser evil," to be supported critically in the fight against the main enemy, communism. The truth was, and is, that corrupted factions of churches, feudalistic aristocrats, and wealthy financier interests, had created the Bolshevik Revolution, and that, quarrels inside the partnership duly considered, these bankers, aristocrats, and corrupted church circles had a policy of partnership with the Bolshevik ruling oligarchy. The truth was, that these partners of Moscow represented the same European interests against which the American Revolution had been fought, the same interests which established the Holy Alliance at the 1815 Congress of Vienna. "Know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Lyndon LaRouche's father adopted that Biblical passage, back during the 1930s, as the theme of his own attack against the Soviet appeasers within the liberal American Friends Service Committee. Later, the same text became the slogan of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. It is a good slogan, worth following to the limit. Walsh, McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover, among others, saw to it that we did not. Among those three, the greatest, most lasting damage, on this account, was done by Edmund Walsh. We restate the estimate by one very senior European intelligence specialist The Soviets knew, that the United States would become strongly anti-Soviet after the war. Rather than simply watch this occur, Moscow decided to use some of its assets inside the United States, to take leadership of the antiSoviet sentiment, and to direct anti-Soviet moods into actions which would work to longer-range Soviet strategic advantage. Senator Joseph McCarthy was one of their most successful operations of this sort. To remain free, we must face the truth of McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and Georgetown's Father Edmund Walsh. There is much more, we already know, than we have begun to tell in this report. If what we have written merely begins the process of destroying the

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