- FT: 1962-Dan Smoot: The Invisible Government
Through many interlocking organizations, the Council on Foreign Relations „educates“ the public–and brings pressures upon Congress–to support CFR policies. All organizations, in this incredible propaganda web, work in their own way toward the objective of the Council on Foreign Relations: to create a one-world socialist system
and to make America a part of it. All of the organizations have federal tax-exemption as „educational“ groups; and they are all financed, in part, by tax-exempt foundations, the principal ones being Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie. Most of them also have close working relations with official agencies of the United States Government.
The CFR does not have formal affiliation–and can therefore disclaim official connection with–its subsidiary propaganda agencies (except the Committees on Foreign Relations, organized by the CFR in 30 cities throughout the United States); but the real and effective interlock between all these groups can be shown not only by their common objective (one-world socialism) and a common source of income (the foundations), but also by the overlapping of personnel: directors and officials of the Council on Foreign Relations are also officials in the interlocking organizations.
The Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center, 345 East 46th Street, New York 17, New York, is probably the most influential of all the agencies which can be shown as propaganda affiliates of the Council on Foreign Relations in matters concerned primarily with American foreign policy.
On April 29, 1960, the March-April Term Grand Jury of Fulton County, Georgia, handed down a Presentment concerning subversive materials in schools, which said: „An extensive investigation has been made by the Jury into the Foreign Policy Association of New York City and its ‚Great Decisions Program,‘ which it is sponsoring in our area…. „This matter was brought to our attention by the Americanism Committee of the Waldo M. Slaton Post 140, American Legion, and several other local patriotic groups. We were informed that the Great Decisions Program was being taught in our public high schools and by various well-meaning civic and religious groups, who were not aware of the past records of the leaders of the Foreign Policy Association, nor of the authors of the
textbooks prescribed for this Great Decisions program.
„Evidence was presented to us showing that some of these leaders and authors had a long record, dating back many years, in which they either belonged to, or actively supported left-wing or subversive organizations. „We further found that invitations to participate in these ’study groups‘ were being mailed throughout our county
under the name of one of our local universities…. We learned that the prescribed booklets were available upon request in our local public libraries….
„The range of the activity by this organization has reached alarming proportions in the schools and civic groups in certain other areas in Georgia. Its spread is a matter of deep concern to this Jury and we, therefore, call upon all school officials throughout the state to be particularly alert to this insidious and subversive material. We further recommend that all textbook committee members–city, county and state–recognize the undesirable features of this material and take action to remove it from our schools.“
„Finally, we urge that all Grand Juries throughout the State of Georgia give matters of this nature their serious consideration.“
On June 30, 1960, the May-June Term Grand Jury of Fulton County, Georgia, handed down another Presentment, which said:
„It is our understanding that the Foreign Policy Association’s Great Decisions program, criticized by the March-April Grand Jury, Fulton County, has been removed from the Atlanta and Fulton County schools…. „Numerous letters from all over the United States have been received by this grand jury, from individuals and associations, commending the Presentment of the previous grand jury on the Foreign Policy Association. Not a single letter has been received by us criticizing these presentments.“
In September, 1960, the Americanism Committee of Waldo M. Slaton Post No. 140, The American Legion, 3905 Powers Ferry Road, N.W., Atlanta 5, Georgia, published a 112-page mimeographed book entitled The Truth About the Foreign Policy Association (available directly from the Post at $1.00 per copy). In the Foreword to this book, the Americanism Committee says:
„How can we account for our apathetic acceptance of the presence of this arch-murderer (Khrushchev, during his tour of the United States at Eisenhower’s invitation) in America? What has so dulled our sense of moral values that we could look on without revulsion while he was being wined and dined by our officials? How could we dismiss with indifference the shameful spectacle of these officials posing for pictures with this grinning
Russian assassin–pictures which we knew he would use to prove to communism’s enslaved populations that the Americans are no longer their friends, but the friends of Khrushchev?
„There is only one explanation for this lapse from the Americanism of f rmer days: we are being brainwashed into the belief that we can safely do business with communism–brainwashed by an interlocked group of so-called ‚educational‘ organizations offering ‚do-it-yourself‘ courses which pretend to instruct the public in the intricacies of foreign policy, but which actually mask clever propaganda operations designed to sell ‚co-existence‘ to Americans. There are many of these propaganda outfits working to undermine Americans‘ faith in America, but none, in our opinion, is as slick or as smooth or as dangerous as the Foreign Policy Association of Russian-born Vera Micheles Dean…. „This documented handbook has been prepared in response to numerous requests for duplicates of the file which formed the basis of the case (before the Fulton County Grand Juries) against the Foreign Policy Association. We hope that it will assist patriots everywhere in resisting the un-American propaganda of the Red China appeasers, the pro-Soviet apologists, the relativists, and other dangerous propagandists who are weakening Americans‘ sense of honor and their will to survive.“
The Truth About The Foreign Policy Association sets out the communist front record of Vera Micheles Dean (who was Research Director of the FPA until shortly after the Legion Post made this exposure, when she resigned amidst almost-tearful words of praise and farewell on the part of FPA-WAC officials). The Legion Post booklet sets out the communist front records of various other persons connected with the FPA; it presents and analyzes several publications of the FPA, including materials used in the Great Decisions program; it reveals that FPA establishes respectability and public acceptance for itself by publicizing „endorsements“ of prominent Americans; it shows that many of the FPA’s claims of endorsements are false; it shows the interlocking connections and close working relationships between the Foreign Policy Association and other organizations, particularly the National Council of Churches; and it presents a great deal of general documentation on FPA’s activities, operations, and connections.
The Foreign Policy Association was organized in 1918 and incorporated under the laws of New York in 1928 (the Council on Foreign Relations was organized in 1919 and incorporated in 1921). Rockefeller and Carnegie money was responsible for both FPA and CFR becoming powerful organizations.
The late U. S. Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Pennsylvania), as early as 1934, said that the Foreign Policy Association, working in close conjunction with a comparable British group, was formed, largely under the aegis of Felix Frankfurter and Paul Warburg, to promote a „planned“ or socialist economy in the United States, and to
integrate the American system into a worldwide socialist system. Warburg and Frankfurter (early CFR members) were among the many influential persons who worked closely with Colonel Edward M. House, father of the Council on Foreign Relations.
From its early days, the Foreign Policy Association had interlocking personnel, and worked in close co-operation with the Institute of Pacific Relations, which was formed in 1925 as a tax-exempt educational organization, and which was financed by the great foundations–and by the same groups of businessmen and corporations which have always financed the CFR and the FPA.
The IPR played a more important role than any other American organization in shaping public opinion and influencing official American policy with regard to Asia. For more than twenty years, the IPR influenced directly or indirectly the selection of Far Eastern scholars for important teaching posts in colleges and universities–and the selection of officials for posts concerning Asia in the State Department. The IPR publications were standard materials in most American colleges, in thirteen hundred public school systems, and in the armed forces; and millions of IPR publications were distributed to all these institutions. Along toward the end of World War II, there were rumblings that the powerful IPR might be a communist front, despite its respectable façade–despite the fact that a great majority of its members were Americans whose patriotism and integrity were beyond question.
In 1951, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, under the chairmanship of the late Pat McCarran (Democrat, Nevada) began an investigation which lasted many months and became the most important, careful, and productive investigation ever conducted by a committee of Congress.
The McCarran investigation of the IPR was predicated on the assumption that United States diplomacy had never suffered a more disastrous defeat than in its failure to avert the communist conquest of China. The communist conquest of China led to the Korean war; and the tragic mishandling of this war on the part of Washington and United Nations officialdom destroyed American prestige throughout Asia, and built Chinese communist military power into a menacing colossus. The Senate investigation revealed that the American policy decisions which produced these disastrous consequences were made by IPR officials who were traitors, or under the influence of traitors, whose allegiance lay in Moscow.
Owen Lattimore, guiding light of the IPR during its most important years (and also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations), was termed a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet international conspiracy. Alger Hiss (a CFR member who was later identified as a Soviet spy) was closely tied in with the IPR during his long
and influential career in government service. Hiss became a trustee of the IPR after his resignation from the State Department. The secret information which Hiss delivered to a Soviet spy ring in the 1930’s kept the Soviets apprised of American activity in the Far East.
Lauchlin Currie (also a member of the CFR) was an administrative assistant to President Roosevelt. Harry Dexter White virtually ran the Treasury Department under both Roosevelt and Truman. Both Currie and White had strong connections with the IPR; and both were Soviet spies–who not only channeled important American secrets to Soviet military intelligence, but also influenced and formulated American policies to suit the Soviets. By the time the McCarran investigation ended, the whole nation knew that the IPR was, as the McCarran committee had characterized it, a transmission belt for Soviet propaganda in the United States.
The IPR, thoroughly discredited, had lost its power and influence; but its work was carried on, without any perceptible decline in effectiveness, by the Foreign Policy Association. The FPA did this job through its Councils on World Affairs, which had been set up in key cities throughout the United States. These councils are all „anti-communist.“ They include among their members the business, financial, social, cultural, and educational leaders of the community. Their announced purpose is to help citizens become better informed on international affairs and foreign policy. To this end, they arrange public discussion groups, forums, seminars in connection with local schools and colleges, radio-television programs, and lecture series. They distribute a mammoth quantity of expensively produced material–to schools, civic clubs, discussion groups, and so on, at little or no cost.
The Councils bring world-renowned speakers to their community. Hence, Council events generally make headlines and get wide coverage on radio and television. The Foreign Policy Associations‘ Councils on World Affairs, through the parent organization, through the Council on Foreign Relations, and through a multitude of other channels, have close working relationships with the State Department.
Hence, many of the distinguished speakers whom the Councils present are handpicked by the State Department; and they travel (sometimes from distant foreign lands) at United States taxpayers‘ expense.
To avert criticism (or to provide themselves with ammunition against criticism when it arises) that they are nothing but internationalist propaganda agencies, the Councils on World Affairs distribute a little literature which, and present a few speakers who, give the general appearance of being against the internationalist program of one-world socialism. But their anti-internationalism presentations are generally milk-and-water middle-of-the-roadism which is virtually meaningless. Most Councils-on-World-Affairs presentations give persuasive internationalist propaganda.
Thus, the Foreign Policy Association, through its Councils on World Affairs–and another affiliated activity, the Great Decisions program–has managed to enroll some „conservative“ community leadership into an effective propaganda effort for one-world socialism.
The World Affairs Center was set up with national headquarters at 345 East 46th Street in New York City, as a formal affiliate of the Foreign Policy Association, to handle the important job of directing the various „independent“ Councils on World Affairs, located in major cities throughout the nation. In March, 1960, the FPA merged with the World Affairs Center to form one organization: the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center.
The FPA-WAC describes its Great Decisions program as an annual nation-wide review, by local groups under local sponsorship, of problems affecting United States Foreign Policy. FPA-WAC provides Fact Sheet Kits, which contain reading material for these local discussion groups. These kits present what FPA calls a „common fund of information“ for all participants. They also provide an „opinion“ ballot which permits each participant, at the end of the Great Decisions discussion program, to register his viewpoint and send it to officials in Washington.
The old IPR line (fostering American policies which helped communists take over China) was that the Chinese communists were not communists at all but democratic „agrarian reformers“ whom the Chinese people loved and respected, and whom the Chinese people were going to install as the rulers of new China, regardless of what
America did; and that, therefore, it was in our best interest to be friendly with these „agrarian reformers“ so that China would remain a friendly power once the „reformers“ took over.
A major objective of the FPA-WAC–since it fell heir to the work of the IPR–is to foster American diplomatic recognition of red China. The FPA-WAC, and its subordinate Councils on World Affairs, do this propaganda job most cleverly. Most FPA spokesmen (except a few like Cyrus Eaton, who is a darling of the FPA and occasionally writes for its publications) are „anti-communists“ who admit that the Chinese communists are real communists. They admit that it is not pleasant (in the wake of our memories of Korea) to think of extending diplomatic recognition to red China; and they do not always openly advocate such a move; but their literature and Great Decisions operations and other activities all subtly inculcate the idea that, however much we may dislike the Chinese communists, it is highly probable that we can best promote American interests by „eventually“ recognizing red China.
In this connection, the FPA-WAC Great Decisions program for 1957 was especially interesting. One question posed that year was „Should U. S. Deal With Red China?“ Discussion of this topic was divided into four corollary questions: Why Two Chinas? What are Red China’s goals? Does Red China threaten ‚uncommitted‘ Asia? Red China’s record–what U. S. Policy?
The FPA-WAC Fact Sheet Kit, which sets out background information for the „study“ and „voting“ on the red China question, contains nothing that would remind Americans of Chinese communist atrocities against our men in Korea or in any way make Americans really angry at the communists. In the discussion of the „two Chinas,“ the communists sound somewhat more attractive than the nationalists. In the discussion of red China’s „goals,“ there is nothing about the communist goal of enslaving all Asia; there are simply statistics showing how much more progress red China has made than „democratic“ India–with less outside help than „democratic“ India has received from the United States.
In the discussion of whether red China threatens the rest of Asia, the FPA-WAC material makes no inference that the reds are an evil, aggressive power–but it does let the reader know that the reds in China are a mighty military power that we must reckon with, in realistic terms. Nothing is said in the FPA-WAC Fact Sheet Kit about the communist rape of Tibet. Rather, one gets the impression that Tibet is a normal, traditional province of China which has now returned to the homeland.
After studying the problems of communist China from this FPA-WAC „Fact Sheet,“ Great Decisions participants were given an opportunity to cast an „Opinion Ballot“ on the four specific questions posed. The „Opinions“ were already written out on the FPA-WAC ballot. The voter had only to select the opinion he liked best, and mark it. Here are the five choices of opinions given voters on the Foreign Policy Association’s Great Decisions 1957 Opinion Ballot, concerning U. S. diplomatic recognition of red China.
„a. Recognize Peiping now, because we can deal with Far East political and other problems more easily if we have diplomatic relations with Peiping.
„b. Go slow on recognizing them but agree to further talks and, if progress is made, be willing to grant recognition at some future date.
„c. Refuse to recognize them under any circumstances.
„d. Acknowledge that the Peiping government is the effective government of China (recognition de facto) and deal with it as much as seems useful, on this basis, but avoid full diplomatic relations for the present.
General purposes of the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center are rather well indicated in a fund-raising letter, mailed to American businessmen all over the nation, on February 23, 1961. The letter was on the letterhead of Consolidated Foods Corporation, 135 South La Salle Street, Chicago 3, Illinois, and was signed by Nathan Cummings, Chairman of the Board. Here is a part of Mr. Cummings‘ appeal to other businessmen to contribute money to the FPA-WAC:
„In his inaugural address which I had the privilege of personally hearing in Washington, President Kennedy summoned the American people to responsibility in foreign policy: … „This call for individual initiative by the President characterizes the kind of citizen responsibility in world affairs which the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center has been energetically trying to build since its founding in 1918…. „
The FPA-WAC’s national program for informing the American public of the urgent matters of foreign policy such as those mentioned by the President–’the survival and the success of liberty,‘ ‚inspection and control of arms,‘ the forging of ‚a grand and global alliance‘ to ‚assure a more fruitful life for all mankind’–is making remarkable progress.
„The enclosed ‚Memorandum: 1960-61‘ describes the program and past achievement of this 42-year-old organization. Particularly worthy of mention is their annual ‚Great Decisions‘ program which last year engaged more than a quarter of a million Americans in eight weeks of discussion of U. S. foreign policy and reached hundreds of thousands of others with related radio, television and newspaper background programs and articles on these important topics.
„Of the basic budget for 1960-61 of $1,140,700, nearly one-third must be raised from individual and corporate sources to meet minimal operating needs. The fact that over 400 major corporations, some of whom contribute as much as $5,000, already support FPA-WAC is evidence of the effectiveness and vitality of its educational program…. „I hope that you and your company will join ours in generously supporting this work.“ Erwin D. Canham, editor of The Christian Science Monitor, has caustically denounced the American Legion Post in Atlanta for its „attack“ on the FPA.
Mr. Canham, in a letter dated April 25, 1961, accused the American Legion Post of making a „completely false“ statement when the Post contended that Mr. Canham and the Monitor advocated the seating of red China in the UN. Mr. Canham said:
„This newspaper’s editorial policy has never espoused any such position.“ I have in my file a letter which Mr. Canham wrote, April 29, 1960, as editor of The Christian Science Monitor, on the Monitor’s letterhead. In this letter, Mr. Canham says: „I believe that the United States should open diplomatic relations with communist China.“ The interesting thing here is the coincidence of Mr. Canham’s policy with regard to red China, and the policy of the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center.
The Great Decisions program for 1957 (discussed above) was obviously intended to lead Americans to acceptance of U. S. diplomatic recognition of red China. The same material, however, made it clear that the invisible government was not yet advocating the seating of red China in the UN! Do these backstairs formulators and managers of United States opinion and governmental policies have more respect for the UN than they have for the US? Or, do they fear that bringing red China into the UN (before U. S. recognition) would finish discrediting that already discredited organization and cause the American people to demand American withdrawal?
Christian Scientists (through Mr. Canham and the Monitor), Protestants (through the National Council of Churches), Committee), and Jews (through the American Jewish Committee, The Anti-Defamation League, and other organizations) are among the religious groups which have publicly supported activities of the Foreign Policy
Association. Powerful Catholic personalities and publications have endorsed FPA work, too.
On December 9, 1959, The Right Rev. Timothy F. O’Leary, Superintendent of Catholic Schools for the Archdiocese of Boston, wrote to all Catholic schools in the district, telling them that he was making plans for their participation with the World Affairs Council and the Foreign Policy Association in the Great Decisions 1960 Program.
On November 27, 1960, Our Sunday Visitor (largest and perhaps most influential Catholic newspaper in America) featured an article by Frank Folsom, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Radio Corporation of America, and a leading Catholic layman. Mr. Folsom was effusive in his praise of the FPA-WAC Great Decisions program.
The interlock between the Council on Foreign Relations and the Foreign Policy Association-World Affairs Center can be seen in the list of officers and directors of the FPA-WAC:
Eustace Seligman, Chairman of the FPA-WAC, is a partner in Sullivan and Cromwell, the law firm of the late John Foster Dulles, a leading CFR member. John W. Nason, President of FPA-WAC, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Walter H. Wheeler, Jr., President of Pitney-Bowes, Inc., is Vice Chairman of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. Gerald F. Beal, of the J. Henry Schroeder Banking Corporation of New York, is Treasurer of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Mrs. Andrew G. Carey is Secretary of FPA-WAC. Her husband is a member of the CFR. Emile E. Soubry, Executive Vice President and Director of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, is Chairman of the Executive Committee of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. Benjamin J. Buttenwieser, of Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, in New York, is a member of the Executive Committee of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. Joseph E. Johnson (old friend of Alger Hiss, who succeeded Hiss as President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) is a member of the Executive Committee of the FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. Harold F. Linder, Vice Chairman of the General American Investors Company, is a member of the Executive Committee of FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR. A. William Loos, Executive Director of the Church Peace Union, is a member of the Executive Committee of the FPA-WAC. Mr. Loos attended the CFR meeting with high communist party officials in the Soviet Union in May, 1961. Henry Siegbert, formerly a partner in the investment banking firm of Adolph Lewisohn & Sons, is a member of the Executive Committee of the FPA-WAC, and also a member of the CFR.