The Grand Design; A Lecture on U.S. Foreign Policy

By G. Edward Griffin

       Ladies and Gentlemen: It's really a pleasure to be able to welcome so many of you into my home - not only those of you who actually are here - but also those who are here indirectly through the medium of motion picture film.
       As you know, the title of this presentation is “The Grand Design.” But I should explain at the outset that the real subject behind this title is U.S. Foreign Policy. Now, I realize there are some who might think that I was trying to be funny or sarcastic with that statement, because for a long time there's been a generally accepted view that our foreign policy has been so bungled and confused it couldn't possibly have followed any design, much less a grand one. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, the purpose of this presentation is to show, not only that there is a Grand Design, but also that it has been the consistent, dominant force behind absolutely every major move by the United States in the foreign policy field since at least the end of World War II. This Grand Design has provided the motivation for all we have done in the past, and unless some basic changes are made, it will determine everything we shall do in the future. Regardless of one's opinion of this Grand Design, it's the outgrowth of a powerful and compelling argument, a profound statement of philosophy, and a deceptively attractive appeal to reason. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, unless we are able to counter this argument and to offer a superior philosophy, we'll continue to be like putty in the hands of its advocates.
       So, it's important, to say the least, for us to understand what the Grand Design is, to analyze it in color to discover its flaws, if any, and then to offer a superior alternative, if we can. These three requirements, then, will constitute the general outline of the material and the ideas to be presented here: First, identification; Second, analysis; and Third, solution.
       To plunge right into the core of this challenge, what I'm going to do now is advocate the Grand Design just as though I really believed in it - which, in all honesty, at one time I did. In fact, I'm going to teach it to you just the way it was taught to me - and accepted by me - at the University of Michigan.
       Following the form of what we might call an extended syllogism, here is how the argument begins: One: We are living in a new age - and, of course, you can hardly argue with that. We're always living in a new age. But nevertheless, we're reminded of that profound fact rather elaborately: We're living in an age of marvelous and incredible technological advances; an age in which men travel faster than the speed of sound, in which satellites forge communication links between continents, in which space itself has become a limitless frontier of exploration. And then, at the end of the list of all these wondrous and productive scientific achievements, always we are reminded, with ominous overtones, that we also have with us now something called The Bomb! End of step one, ready now for step two.
       By the way, everything up to this point not only is true, it's so obviously true that it's really not part of the argument at all. It's merely thrown in at the beginning as a kind of conditioner, to get us nodding our heads in agreement in hopes that the habit will carryover into the next step which is where the going gets tricky and where we need to be far more on our guard. The next step, then -the real premise of The Grand Design - is this: If all-out war should develop today between major powers, both sides would lose. No one could come out ahead in that kind of a war. Everyone would lose. It wouldn't make any difference who the good guys were or who the bad guys were. It wouldn't make any difference who started it, or even if it were started by accident. Both sides would lose.
       Having acknowledged existence of The Bomb, and having concluded that risking war is unthinkable in this modem age, we move now to step number three, which is this: Since the Communists have nuclear weapons, and since they certainly would use them in their own self-defense, that means, doesn't it, that victory over Communism is impossible. Now, we may wish that it were possible. We may wish that we were living in a by-gone era in which, if one had an enemy, he could meet him on the open battlefield and get it over with. We may wish that a lot of things were different in this old world. But instead of moaning and weeping and longing after those things which are no longer possible, let's grow up, be mature, intelligent human beings and face life the way it really is. Rather than living in a fantasy world, dreaming and longing after those things we want but can never have, instead let's find out what is the best we can get, and then work for that.
       All right, now the next step: It's not enough for us just to know that victory is impossible. For our own safety, we must conduct our foreign affairs in such a way as to reflect this knowledge to the other side. We must be extremely careful never to give the enemy any cause to question our benign intent. We must avoid using any words or committing any acts which might even suggest that we were pursuing a goal of victory. We can't afford to gamble on what the enemy might do in response. In other words, we mustn't frighten the Communists or give them any cause for self-defensive panic. In fact, to take it one step further, we must avoid the temptation even to embarrass the Soviets in the eyes of the world.
       You see; the argument is, that it's like being locked in a cage with a dangerous animal. You can't get out of the cage and you can't kill the animal. So what do you do when it becomes hungry and restless? You feed it - hoping that, if it is full and comfortable and contented, then it won't eat you.
        The people who have created U .S. Foreign Policy over the past two decades view the United States as being locked in a world-wide cage with a dangerous animal called Communism. We can't get out of the cage, obviously. And since victory is impossible, remember, we can't destroy the animal. So, to minimize the chances of Communism turning on us, these planners not only have avoided frightening the animal with any overt moves which it might mistakenly view as a threat to itself, but they've done everything possible to keep the beast fed, comfortable and content. It's in our own interest, they say, to see that Communist regimes remain reasonably stable. If they need wheat, or other agricultural commodities, send it to them. If they need industrial know how, invite their scientists and engineers to tour our factories so they can learn how best to produce. If they still can't manufacture the goods they need, then send our own people over there to build their plants and set up their production lines. If that doesn't work, then sell the products to them on easy credit terms, and don't really expect to get paid. In fact, if they need money, give that to them, too. Give them anything they need so they won't become restless and aggressive. And, yes, as harsh as it may seem on the surface, it's even in our best interest to see that Communist regimes can successfully put down internal anti-Communist revolts.
       None of this because we're pro-Communist, only because we're mature, objective, intelligent people who recognize that, in this modern nuclear age, we can't afford the risk to our own survival which would be inherent in having so powerful an adversary struggling defensively to maintain his position.
        All right, now we're ready for the final step in The Grand Design, which concerns itself with the question of realistic, attainable goals. What is the best we can hope to achieve in this new age with all of its complexities? How do we resolve this dilemma before we all go up in a mushroom cloud of nuclear dust?
       The answer that is offered to us is this: We should encourage the Communist world gradually to move toward us – ideologically, politically and economically - while at the same time, we must be willing to move toward them - ideologically, politically and economically - to the point where, hopefully in the not-too-distant future, we'll be able to merge our system with theirs - and of course with those of the rest of the world -to form some kind of a world brotherhood, a world union, a World Government, to be exact, which, by definition, would hold a monopoly over all these weapons of mass destruction. And then nuclear war between nations finally would be impossible - for the simple reason that there no longer would be any nations, including our own. There would remain only a group of disarmed political subdivisions of an all-powerful world government.
       Of course, the Grand Designers scoff at the suggestion that such a concentration of power in one place might ideally be suited for a total consolidation of control into the hands of a small group of power-hungry world politicians. They particularly scoff at the possibility of this power falling into Communist hands through the tactics used so successfully by their agents working within every other coalition government in which they've participated. We are assured that, since this would be a world coalition government for that reason the Communists wouldn't try to seize power, they'd be content merely to share in it. Well, without going into that particular little fantasy, just for the sake of discussion, let's grant the point and assume that a world coalition government with the Communists really would result in a merger of our systems rather than the domination of theirs over ours. What then?
       First of all, we would have to be willing to give up certain things that we would rather retain - such as our sovereignty and our independence. In other words, we must be willing to abide by the political dictates of the majority of other nations - one man, one vote in a world democracy. We must merge our monetary system with those of other nations, eventually to form a world currency. We must willingly submit all international disputes to a World Supreme Court, and abide by those decisions regardless of the outcome. And, above all, we must turn over our most powerful weapons and even our armies to international control so that the new world government will possess sufficient military might to compel the various political subdivisions by force, if necessary, to comply with the dictates of its laws and the decrees of its Court.
       Now, to be sure, we'd prefer not to have to do any of these things because, obviously, if we're going to merge with other countries, other cultures, other legal systems and political ideologies, we can't expect the whole world to adopt our way of doing things. It'll be a give - and take situation in which we'll have to seek a common denominator, a middle-ground between our way of life and the way things are done in other parts of the world. And of course, the result of such a compromise of systems predictably would have to be a mixture of the volatile dictatorships of Latin America, the tribal customs of newly emerging Africa, and the Socialist regimes of Europe and Asia. Add to this concoction the necessity to absorb the doctrines and methods of Communist regimes, and it's rather obvious that we're just going to have to give up certain cherished traditions and customs, and learn to adjust to a way of life substantially different from that which we inherited. But it won't be so bad. We'll get used to it. And future generations won't know the difference. Besides, we really don't have any choice in the matter. It's that or The Bomb! So let's get on with the job of putting an end to our own nationhood, as it has been historically defined.
       Ladies and Gentlemen, the men who have formulated this Grand Design consider themselves to be part of the intellectual elite. In other words, in their opinion they're just a little smarter than the rest of us. They feel that the average American doesn't quite have the intelligence or the aptitude to understand the wisdom of their Grand Design. As a matter of fact, they're rather worried that, if enough of the American people suddenly discovered what was really going on, they might get out of hand and insist on their leaders doing something silly - like winning for a change!
       And so, in order to keep us contented at the polls, and to prevent us from asking too many questions, sometimes it's necessary for them to put on a pretty good show of standing firm against the Communists, to make some strong nationalistic statements now and then, and perhaps even to get us involved in some “limited” wars which, although they're clearly not waged to endanger the enemy or weaken his position in any way, still, with the daily loss of American lives in a “shooting” war against Communists, who would dare suggest that our foreign policy is soft on Communism!
       And in this way the Grand Designers are confident that the American people will remain satisfied that their leaders are really standing firm and doing all that is humanly possible. But in reality, Ladies and Gentlemen, they're merely buying time. It's their plan that the old-timers among us - those of you who've been raised with those old-fashioned and outmoded concepts of patriotism and love of country - that, in time, your generation will pass away or at least become the minority voice. And at the same time they're catching the younger generations coming up through the high schools and colleges - like they caught me - and the Grand Designers are confident that in just a few more years - especially if they can lower the voting age - the political majority of the American people can be conditioned to accept the total abandonment of our national sovereignty.
       I realize that, for those who have never before heard the Grand Design spelled out in detail like this, it's almost impossible to believe that it's real. And there may be some of you who are wondering if, perhaps, I haven't just dreamed up all this. So; let's turn now to the actual words and documents of the men who, not only fully endorse the Grand Design, but those who've been instrumental in creating it in the first place, and who helped put it into action.
       Now, I'm going to try not to bore you with a lot of long quotations, but in order to give you some idea of just how real and consistent this Grand Design is, I think it's necessary to offer concrete examples from a broad spectrum of American leadership and over a wide time span. For the philosophy which I've just summarized has been held and preached for many years by opinion - molders in the communications media, by Congressmen and Senators, by high ranking personnel in all agencies of the Federal Government, by Secretaries of State, Secretaries of Defense, Supreme Court Justices and even Presidents of the United States.
       A good place to begin is with a speech delivered by Joseph E. Johnson on February 2, 1959. Mr. Johnson, as you may recall, was formerly the number one man in charge of our State Department Policy Planning Division. But at the time of these remarks, he was President of the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace, one of the many tax-exempt foundations that, all together, spend millions of dollars each year just to promote the Grand Design. Speaking at a luncheon in New York, Joseph E. Johnson said:

       From now on, every decision facing the United States in this field must be taken in the light of the fact that a good part of this country could be destroyed ...We must be prepared to fight limited wars, limited as to weapons and as to goals, to stabilize the situation temporarily, tide things over. But victory is no longer possible. [1]
       Moving from the State Department to Pentagon, we come across this feature article syndicated by the Associated Press on February fourth, 1968 entitled Robert S. McNamara; Reflections After Seven Years on the Hot Seat. I think you'll find most revealing this direct quote from our former Secretary of Defense:
        It became clear that we couldn't win a strategic nuclear war, that nobody could… The concept of massive retaliation was ruled out… Then it was necessary to educate the public and the Congress that you cannot win a strategic nuclear war. We said it in different ways over a period of time. I consider getting that concept across our greatest single accomplishment. [2]
        In the transcript of hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February twenty-fifth, 1966, again we find McNamara, this time testifying officially as our Secretary of Defense. He said:
        To declare war [in Vietnam] would add a new psychological element to the international situation, since in this century declarations of war have come to imply dedication to the total destruction of the enemy. It would increase the danger of misunderstanding our true objectives… [3]
        The August second, 1961 issue of the Congressional Record contains a statement by Senator J. W. Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and long-time exponent of the Grand Design. Fulbright said:
In the long run it is quite possible that the principle problem of leadership will be… to restrain the desire of the [American] people to hit the Communists with everything we've got, particularly if there are more Cubas…[4]
        Returning to the State Department, we find that by 1962, the man who was then running the Foreign Policy Planning Division was Walt Rostow, President Kennedy's Special Advisor on Foreign Affairs. In a report to the President entitled “Basic National Security,” Rostow stated:
        Rising tensions or pleas … of the American public must be ignored in any crisis with Russia. The temptation must be avoided… to degrade or embarrass the Soviets in the eyes of the world. [5]
       If you've been wondering why it is that we can't seem to win any wars against the Communists, it's simply because it's our policy not even to embarrass them, much less defeat them!
       In 1963, the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency financed a report by the Peace Research Institute. Published in April of that year, here's what our tax dollars produced.
       Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we benefit enormously from the capability of the Soviet police system to keep law and order over the 200 million odd Russians and the many additional millions in the satellite states. The break-up of the Russian Communist Empire today would doubtless be conducive to freedom, but would be a good deal more catastrophic for world order… [6]
       In other words, Ladies and Gentlemen, according to the Grand Design, supposedly it's in our own self-interest for the Soviet police state to remain intact, to remain stable, and to maintain its death grip over the captive nations.
       That kind of reasoning leads us next to the pages of one of the most influential newspapers in the world, The New York Times. On August 16, 1961, the Times ran this editorial:
       We must seek to discourage anti-Communist revolts in order to avert bloodshed and war. We must under our principles live with evil even if by doing so we help to stabilize tottering Communist regimes, as in East Germany, and perhaps even expose citadels of freedom to slow death by strangulation.
        Shocking? Well, if you accept the premise of the Grand Design, it shouldn't be. It's then merely a cold and objective appraisal of our limited alternatives in this nuclear age.
       Now let's bring this philosophy to its ultimate conclusion and see what the world planners have to say about the future role of American sovereignty.
       Returning again to the words of Senator Fulbright, we find this most revealing book by him entitled Old Myths and New Realities. And bear in mind that this was written by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one of the most influential legislative committees in Washington.
On page 25, Fulbright says:
       The problem for American policy, however, is not in defining what we would like; it is rather, . . . how to live with the best we can get. Then, on page 87:
        Indeed, the concept of national sovereignty has become in our time a principle of international anarchy. ...Our survival in this century may well turn out to depend upon whether we succeed in transferring at least some small part of our feelings of loyalty and responsibility from the sovereign nation to some larger political community.
And so we don't miss the point he's trying to make, he repeats on page 108:
… the sovereign nation can no longer serve as the ultimate unit of personal loyalty and responsibility.[7]
        I think it's pretty obvious that many of our leaders in Washington long ago have transferred substantial portions of their personal loyalty and responsibility from the sovereign nation of the United States to the larger political community called the United Nations. In their own minds it's quite likely that they consider themselves to be citizens of the world first, and citizens of the United States second. In any decision where the interests of America are in direct conflict with those of the “larger political community,” you can be sure that America will wind up on the short end.
        Our former Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in a lecture at Ohio Wesleyan University entitled “Toward World Unity,” phrased it this way:
        The significance of what I initially propose … involves an organization dedicated to the general welfare - the peace and order of mankind - and the assuming of an allegiance to this goal superior to that of any national allegiance… [8]
        Returning again to the words of Walt Rostow, our former Chief of the State Department Policy Planning Division, we find an unusually open and frank summary of the objectives of the Grand Design spelled out in his book, The United States in the World Arena, which, incidentally, was subsidized by the C.I.A.[9] On page 549 Rostow states:
        It is a legitimate American national objective to see removed from all nations - including the United States - the right to use substantial military force to pursue their own interests. Since this residual right is the root of national sovereignty… it is therefore, an American interest to see an end to nationhood as it has been historically defined.
        Justice of the Supreme Court, William 0. Douglas, wrote an essay entitled The Rule of Law in World Affairs published in 1961 by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, which in turn is financed by another of those tax-exempt foundations, The Fund for the Republic. On page 32 Douglas wrote:
        There is no reason for us to get tangled up in legalisms that march inexorably to the conclusion that total and complete sovereignty must be retained. For we now know that when that claim is pressed by all nations, everyone faces extinction in a nuclear holocaust.[10]
        This is a very precise summary of the Grand Design. In just two sentences we're told that it's either World Government or The Bomb! Take your choice. By the way, the general theme and purpose of this pamphlet was to generate public support for increasing the power and prestige of the U.N. World Court, and also to lend support to a drive at that time for the repeal of the Connally Amendment.
        Without getting too involved in this, I should explain that, when the Senate ratified the U.N. Statute of the Inter- national court of Justice and agreed to commit the United States to accept the final decisions of the U.N. World Court, it was generally understood that the Court would never meddle into our purely domestic affairs. But, there were some who feared that, in time, the World Supreme Court would begin to find legalistic ways to declare that what we think is strictly our own business and no one elses, it's, in a larger sense, also the concern of “mankind.” So, to prevent the World Supreme Court from extending its jurisdiction into our local affairs the same way in which the Federal Supreme Court gradually has assumed jurisdiction over what was once considered to be the local affairs of our own States, the Senate voted for an amendment to the Statute proposed by Senator Tom Connally. This amendment still stands and simply says that what is or is not a domestic affair of the United States will be determined by the United States, not by other nations or by the World Court, itself.
       And so it's understandable why the Grand Designers have felt the need to generate greater public support for the international World Court and to repeal the Connally Amendment.
       On April fourth, 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon issued a statement under the official letterhead and seal of his office[11] which read, in, part, as follows:
        Many well-intentioned people have raised the basic question - why have an international court in the first place? The answer, putting it in its simplest and bluntest terms, is that even nations that are friends are bound to have disputes. If those disputes are not settled by negotiation, the only alternatives left are to settle them either by force or by law. At a time when the use of force means unleashing nuclear weapons which would destroy civilization, all sensible people agree that we must find some alternative to force for settling international disputes.
        That's really an incredible statement, because, in passing, we should keep in mind that law also is force. If the courts don't have the police and the armies to back up their decisions, with force if necessary, then there's no law. Law is force, legalized. And so with this reality in mind, Mr. Nixon's statement continues:
        There are some today who believe that the prospect of the use of atomic weapons to settle international disputes is so terrible that we should set up a new, all-powerful world organization which would have jurisdiction over disputes between nations. I disagree with this approach. I believe that rather than setting up a new international institution we have to begin to use the one we already have.
        And then the Vice-President's statement concludes with strong assurances that we have nothing to fear and much to gain by repealing the Connally Amendment.
       The international institution we already have, of course, is the United Nations. Most Americans good-heartedly accept the U.N. as a kind of farcical debating society, but I can assure you that the Grand Designers have other thoughts and plans. The May, 1964 issue of the official U.N. Monthly Chronicle contains these glimpses into the future through the eyes of Secretary-General U Thant:
        If we are to make the next step toward world authority and then onward to a world government, it will be by the growth in authority and prestige of the institutions and agencies of the United Nations, and by the development of the… Statute of the International Court… Regulatory international machinery of Government in the true sense of the word is required… Such an authority cannot merely consist a paper constitution and must be based on a certain degree of power. [12]
        A “certain” degree of power doesn't sound very menacing. But just how much power would it take to make the vision of a world government come true? Obviously, it would take whatever amount is required to be superior to that of any political subdivision beneath it. It would have to be so powerful that no nation would be able to challenge it, without risking nuclear annihilation at the hands of the U.N. army. But if that happened of course no one could possibly object because it wouldn't be called an act of war, it would be a “peacekeeping” maneuver by a “peacekeeping” force, and the mushroom cloud would rise from a “peacekeeping” bomb.
        I know this must sound fantastic to some of you, so let's get back to the record. In 1961 the State Department published document 7277, a booklet entitled Freedom From War. The subtitle explains what it is: “The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in A Peaceful World.” This was our proposal submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations for disarming and transferring to the U. N. complete control over our atomic weapons, our missiles, and our national Army, Navy and Air Force as well - everything except what we might need for limited internal police function. After eighteen pages of detailed proposals to bring this about, we finally discover in plain language the ultimate goal of our disarmament programs - and this is a direct quote: “Disarmament… would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U. N. Peace Force.”
       Of course, 1961 was a long time ago, and it's true that State Department Publication 7277 is no longer our official position on disarmament. It was replaced by this one: Blueprint for the Peace Race, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Publication Four, General Series Three. And on page thirty-three we find the “new” position:
        The Parties to the Treaty would progressively strengthen the United Nations Peace Force… until it had sufficient armed forces and armaments so that no state could challenge it.
        And so it has gone, year after year, and revision after revision. The basic objective of our disarmament proposals has been - and is today - the objective of the Grand Design: The creation of a true world government with sufficient military force to compel all nations, including our own to obey.
       The January-February issue of Vista magazine, published by the United Nations Association, featured an exclusive interview with former President Eisenhower dealing with exactly this subject. The reporter, Mary Kersey Harvey, a senior editor of McCall's Magazine, wanted to get the President's reaction to a proposal by Grenville Clark which would establish a permanent U. N. world army. After outlining the Clark proposal for President Eisenhower, here is what Miss Harvey reported:
        The President studied the above plan quickly and, as I had expected, caught the ball and ran with it, You'd have, he began to plan out loud, world Marshals, comparable to our U.S. Marshals. Backed by armed forces similar to our National Guard… Non-compliance with U.N. law and you send in the U.N. forces, He orchestrated this point at some length.
        And too, he hammered away, the U.N. needs nuclear power. He bore down hard on the word “nuclear.” … Take this example, he hurried on. You have two countries in a border argument. The U.N. orders the matter to be taken to the International Court. One or both of the disputants refuses to submit to compulsory arbitration…
        The U.N., which by now has in its possession a fleet of submarines armed with nuclear missiles deployed around the world, orders one of the submarines to proceed to the area. The world is then told that if firing breaks out for any reason whatsoever, a tactical nuclear weapon will be delivered onto the disputed territory. If this threat fails to prevent armed conflict, you back it up with action. [13]
        And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the Grand Design for preventing nuclear war.
        That's all the quotations and exhibits that time permits–which, in a way, is unfortunate, because the examples I've used so far have been slightly top-heavy with Republicans. If we had more time, I could balance it out and then get everybody mad at me! Seriously, Ladies and Gentlemen, it's just as easy to find the sentiments expressed here within the top ranks of one major party as it is the other. The Grand Design has absolutely nothing to do with partisan politics.[14] These men aren't nearly as much Republicans or Democrats as they are world politicians, They've got bigger things to occupy their minds than mere party labels, To them, partisan politics is only a game to amuse the masses who crave the showmanship of big national conventions, the excitement of partisan campaigns, and the satisfaction of casting a vote in the illusion that, somehow, they're really helping to decide the important issues of the day, But, with precious few exceptions, for the past two decades the American voter has had to make his choice between Grand Designer A and Grand Designer B.
       It's always a source of amazement to me when I hear someone criticize our leaders for being confused in the area of foreign policy, or reversing their position, of bungling the job and not having any long-range goals, These men are not bungling the job, They're acting in accordance with a definite, well thought out plan, and they've been executing that plan with brilliant precision, We mayor may not like the plan, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that there isn't any. I, for one, don't like the plan, And you may wonder why not, As you recall, earlier I said that when I was first exposed to the Grand Design, it seemed like a compelling argument, After all, each of those steps do seem to progress logically, one to the other, So, having taken this much time merely to expound and explain a point of view which I no longer accept, I think the least I can do now is to offer the reasons for having changed my mind, and to expose what I consider to be the fatal flaws of the Grand Design.

THE GRAND DESIGN REFUTED

       Ladies and Gentlemen, there are at least two major fallacies that need to be understood if we're to overcome the arguments for containment, coexistence, accommodation, and ultimate merger with world Communism. First of all, the premise behind these arguments is wrong. And you know you can't do much with a piece of logic if you start out with a faulty premise. The premise underlying the entire Grand Design is this: “If all-out war should develop between major powers today…” Well, stop right there. We've already passed it. Back up all the way to the very first word “if.” If? Ladies and Gentlemen, when are we going to get it through our heads that all-out war is being waged against us right now-and has been for a long time. And by all-out war, I mean total war, not just military war. We're so used to thinking in terms of the old-fashioned concepts of warfare, in which the primary weapons were guns and bombs, we've failed to realize that, for the first time in history, we're facing an enemy that has mastered the concept of total warfare. World War III that rages around us right now is a political war, an economic war, a psychological war, a spiritual war and a military war, but the military aspect is the least important of all. The only way that military strategy plays a role in the Communist blueprint, is in the form of guerilla tactics aimed at creating internal chaos and anarchy, to create the kind of conditions conducive for the quick seizure of power-centers by a small group of organized and well-trained revolutionaries. That's the kind of military strategy you'll find in the Communist manuals, whether written by Lenin, Mao-tse Tung or Che Guevara. And even this kind of limited military activity could never succeed without the simultaneous waging of non-military war. The Communist guerilla bands wouldn't stand a chance of succeeding in most countries without other Communists operating secretly among people to create the appearance of popular support, operating within the communications media to generate propaganda, and operating inside the government itself to create the necessary corruption, bickering, and apparent inefficiency to prevent that government from moving strongly against the guerilla groups.
        In Cuba, for instance, almost everyone remembers that, when Batista fled the country, an army of over 45,000 soldiers surrendered without a fight to only about 1800 revolutionaries under Castro, But very few people were aware that the General who surrendered these forces was, himself, a member of the Communist Party in Cuba-a perfect example of the non-military strategy of infiltration and treason producing an apparent military victory. [15]
       The favorite weapons of Communist conquest are not engines of mass destruction in the hands of soldiers wearing a recognizable uniform, They are, instead, propaganda, the slanted view of history, the preaching of hatred to incite civil disorder, the tactics of internal subversion, treason, blackmail, the smear, political assassination – all committed by soldiers who wear no uniform and who claim to be loyal citizens of the target country marked for conquest from within, This is how Communism has spread across the globe, not with invading armies or bombs, And it's extremely unlikely that they'd abandon this non-military strategy, which has been so effective for them, right at the zenith of their success.
        Without a doubt, the Atomic Bomb is the most powerful weapon in the Communist arsenal. But it's as a psychological weapon, not a military one. The Soviets have gained more by using The Bomb as a psychological weapon than they ever could have using it as a military weapon. Under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation, we've accepted concessions, compromises and defeats one after another, which would have been unthinkable without that spectre of a giant mushroom cloud fixed deep in our subconscious. As a matter of fact, The Bomb, as a psychological weapon, is being dropped on the American people every single day. Movies such as On The Beach, Seven Days In May, Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, Planet of the Apes - these well-produced and entertaining movies have done really a professional job of strengthening, subconsciously at least, the premise of The Grand Design.
       Motion pictures of course, aren't the only source of this conditioning of the public mind. Radio, TV, books, magazines and newspapers have all played more than their part. The “message” that's been drummed into us all these years more or less follows the general pattern presented in this illustrated brochure entitled Let There Be A World, written by Felix Greene. [16] Greene is well known in ultra-Leftist circles as an importer of propaganda film from Red China, and for his lectures and motion pictures extolling the virtues of life under Communism in Asia. By the way, I picked this up not too long ago at the Communist book store in Los Angeles - the “Progressive Book Shop,” it's called. Every once in a while I browse around in there just to find out what the “progressives” and “intellectuals” are reading now a days. And this is a classic example: Page after page of beautifully reproduced photographs depicting in minute detail all the horrors of nuclear war and all the beauty of disarmament and “peace.”
       Just take a quick look at some of these, * Naturally, just for openers, we see the fireball and the mushroom cloud. Then the charred bodies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki – grim reminders of the pain and suffering of any war, but particularly of nuclear war. Then, for those of us with weak imaginations, we're shown what could happen to our own cities. According to this map, if one of the super-bombs were dropped on Manhattan Island, we could cross-off everything clear out to Bridgeport, Connecticut, and fall-out would take care of the rest, probably clear to California!

* Note: The text of this pamphlet is a verbatim transcript of a 16mm motion picture titled, “The Grand Design.” Documents discussed in this text were shown to the viewer.

        Speaking of fall-out, there's a special section here just for the ladies. Preserved in jars of formaldehyde, these are the grotesque remains, after autopsy, of tiny infants, stillborn and deformed supposedly as a result of radioactive fall-out. What woman can look at these - or what man for that matter without some kind of a lasting emotional reaction against even the mere thought of risking nuclear war? Here, rather graphically represented, supposedly is the only way to prevent this' from happening to us: Disarmament, of course! And finally, the appeal to the heartstrings, “Let There Be a World.” It's really quite well done, I think. You have to give these people credit for knowing how to merchandise an idea. By the way, these are generally the same people who like to label anti- Communists as “fright peddlers.”
        With regard to this particular book, I'm not saying that these pictures are phoney, or that the devastating effects of nuclear war have been exaggerated to the public for propaganda purposes – although there's now a great deal of evidence to support both of these contentions. But that's not the point. The point is that the motion picture producers, the TV commentators, and the publishers who are so creative in their ability to convey to us all the horrors of death under a nuclear bomb, for some reason, never get around to portraying the fact that there are other horrible ways to die. We're shown the mushroom cloud but not the mass graves or the torture devices that exist behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. We're shown the charred bodies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not the emaciated bodies of the living dead in Soviet concentration camps or the mutilated corpses of innocent civilians hacked to pieces by Communist terrorists in one country after another. It's not that there aren't pictures like this available, it's just that we're seldom allowed to see them or be reminded of them through the accepted channels of mass communication.
       Here are just two examples out of many that could be offered - two documents that have been readily available for a long time. Yet, they contain material which almost has been totally denied to the American people.
       The first is a government pamphlet entitled “Lest We Forget! A Pictoral Summary of Communism in Action.”[17] It consists primarily of photographs smuggled out of Eastern Europe, providing documentary proof of Communist atrocities committed in those lands in order to liquidate anti-Communist opposition and to terrorize the people into submission. There's no professional touch here, but the pictures still tell the story: The mass graves, the soundproofed torture rooms, and the pitiful victims of a deliberate program of mass starvation. It's hard to believe, but all of these children, even down to age two, were starved in this fashion in Communist forced-labor camps.
       The other example is a pamphlet entitled “On the Morning of March 15th” consisting of photographs and factual descriptions of the results of a Communist terrorist raid in Northern Angola on the morning of March 15, 1961.[18] Over 200 Europeans and 300 Africans were murdered on that one day alone. Over 50 widely separated places along a 400-mile front were attacked almost simultaneously. In most places, every man, woman, child and infant; every living creature - even the cats and dogs - were killed in the most brutal and sadistic manner imaginable.
       Here are some of the less nauseating photographs, which hardly need any verbal description.
       Seeing that picture of the infant in the basinet, reminds me of one account which, forgive me Ladies, I must relate even though it sickens me just to read it:

        On the morning of March 15, a group of some 400 terrorists attacked the experimental farm at M'Bridge. One of the few survivors of this attack, Manuel Lorrenco Alves, relates what happened:
        “The assault began at six in the morning and all the houses on the farm, whether they belonged to Europeans, Africans or mulattoes, were attacked simultaneously… [The] women were dragged out of their houses together with their children. In front of the mothers, the terrorists then proceeded to cut off the legs and arms of the children, and then started to play a grotesque game of football with the twitching bodies. The women and girls were then led away, stripped, raped, and cut-up.”
        Ladies and Gentlemen, I've discussed these scenes and shown these pictures, not because of any desire to be sensational, believe me, but merely to help balance the scales of our judgment; to emphasize the almost forgotten fact, now-a-days, that there are other horrible ways to die - ways, as a matter of fact, that makes the instant Hash of a nuclear bomb seem merciful by comparison. And keep in mind that these other horrible ways to die are not the result of an event that happened almost a quarter of a century ago. We're talking about events that are happening right now to thousands of helpless human beings, somewhere, every day, millions every year. And we're not examining the unfortunate by-product of an effort to bring an end to a long and bloody war. These incredible acts of brutality are the deliberate, premeditated works of men whose sole purpose is the destruction of human life and human values. But we're so saturated with peace propaganda and the spectre of the mushroom cloud that we seldom have occasion to ponder these facts. And because of this one-sided exposure, millions of Americans have been conditioned without their even knowing it, to fear the horror of a nuclear war far more than they fear the terror of a Communist peace.
       The Communists have been winning this war because they've mastered the art of total warfare, while we've been conditioned to cower in fearful expectation of a war limited only to weapons of mass destruction.
        And, so, the premise of the Grand Design starts right off with a faulty assumption. Instead of wondering what might happen if all-out war should develop, we must wake up to the fact that we are in an all-out war right now for our very survival. And instead of allowing ourselves to become afflicted with a nuclear war fixation, we must recognize that, because Communist strategy is what it is, the chances of this war ever involving an exchange of nuclear warheads is so remote as to be almost incalculable in the overall equation.
       But that isn't all that's wrong with the Grand Design. Another fallacy that needs to be exposed once and for all is the absurd conclusion that victory is impossible. Ladies and Gentlemen, victory not only is possible, it's inevitable. Let me repeat that because it's so important. If you remember nothing else I've said, remember this: Victory not only is possible, it is inevitable. The only question is, for which side? It's inconceivable that the forces of freedom and the forces of slavery can coexist side by side indefinitely. One or the other is going to triumph in our lifetime.[19] And, if you want to satisfy your curiosity as to which side it's going to be, all you have to do is take a pencil and a piece of graph paper, and mark off one side with the years starting 1945. On the other side, using whatever measure you wish, mark the relative level of prestige, power and influence of the United States and of World Communism. Chart the progress throughout the years right up to the present. And I think you'll find the resulting bar graph to be highly instructive. With hardly any deviation in the line, the power of World Communism has been moving steadily upward, while that of the United States has been sinking from one new depth to another. Take a ruler, then, and project both of these lines into the future; And you can see in very graphic form that, unless there are some drastic changes in U.S. foreign policy, a policy that has been followed consistently by all Administrations and both political parties since 1945, we are going to lose! It's as simple as that.
       Now, don't misunderstand what I mean. I'm not a prophet of doom. I'm not saying that we're going to lose. I'm saying only that, in order for us to have any chance to win, we must first wake up to the reality of that Grand Design that is U. S. foreign policy, and then we must set about to change it. And that, of course, leads us to the third and final question: Change it to what?
       Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, you'd better hang on tight for this next part, because I know from experience that the ground ahead gets pretty rough in places. Some of you are going to be shocked, and the rest probably scared right out of your wits, because I'm now going to propose my own “grand design.” I call it the Grand Design for Victory, and it's not for the faint-hearted.
       Step One in my Grand Design for Victory is the premise that we must be captains of our own ship. We must restore our military, economic and political independence from the strangling entanglements of that budding World Government called the United Nations.
       Instead of phasing out our best weapons, we should phase out all disarmament programs and those who propose them. As we should have learned at Pearl Harbor, disarmed and militarily unprepared nations are far more apt to become involved in war than those fully prepared to strike back. The best way to preserve the peace is to be prepared for war. And the best way to end the arms race is to move so far out in front that it ceases even to be a race.
       Instead of seeking ways to water down our principles and our traditions to the point where they can be accepted by and merged with those of the majority of the rest of the world, we should be striving actually to improve and upgrade our American way of life even beyond present standards, and then let the rest of the world follow our example, if they so wish.
       With regard to World Communism, we must face up to the reality that, whether we admit it or not, whether we like it or not, we are now engaged in World War III, a total war in which the stakes are nothing less than our lives and our freedoms. And in this war, our goal must not be containment of or coexistence with Communism, it must be Victory over Communism, in order for us even to survive. It's not that we want it that way, it's just that we have no other choice.
       Before you nod in agreement with this goal of victory over Communism, let me clarify just what that means. I'm not thinking in terms of those empty phrases and platitudes that so often fall from the lips of politicians. When I say victory over Communism I mean exactly that. Wherever the Communists choose to advance by overt military force-whether that force manifests itself in the form of a Berlin Blockade or a Vietnam guerilla war of so-called National Liberation-no matter what form it takes, it must be destroyed immediately by superior military force. And notice I didn't say checkmated, I said destroyed! International crime not only must be stopped, it must be punished.
       Of course, the question that rushes to mind at this point is what about the danger of escalation? Ladies and Gentlemen, the total objective of military warfare, once it breaks out, is to escalate it as rapidly as possible to beyond the endurance of the enemy so he'll quit fighting. Without escalation, the slaughter continues on and on with no end in sight and, in fact, no goal worthy of the sacrifice. “Come to the table,” we say to the Communist thugs, “We mean you no harm. All we ask is that you stop killing people for a while, long enough for us to hold a conference to see if we can't negotiate to you something that you want.” I wonder how many of you would be willing to give your lives for that? And yet, that is the goal for which we've asked over a million Americans in uniform to be willing to die if necessary. And I don't think it's worth a single drop of American blood. When you put a young man in uniform and ask him to face an enemy in mortal combat, you'd better give that boy every chance in the world to win so he can come home. And that, Ladies and Gentlemen means escalation!
       In Southeast Asia, instead of fighting the Communist forces on the ground in an exchange of manpower, we should have followed General MacArthur's proposal to take the war directly to the nerve-centers of the enemy's home base using our superior air power. Fighting on the ground, man-for-man, against the limitless population reserves of Communist Asia is just about the only way the United States possibly could lose a war. Destroy from the air the source of supplies and leadership. Then the guerilla fighting on the ground would soon wither to no more than a local police problem. When the enemy suddenly realizes that the cards are no longer stacked in his favor, that he no longer has privileged sanctuaries, and that he might even stand to lose something for starting a war, he'll come to that peace table so fast it'll make your head swim. And, when he gets there, there's only one thing we discuss with him-his surrender terms, nothing else!
        Any serious plan for victory over Communism must recognize the need to accept the help of all willing and trustworthy allies. Yet, in Korea and again in Vietnam, the Nationalist Chinese have begged us to accept over a half a million of their well-trained fully equipped, strongly motivated troops, either to fight along side our boys or to replace them altogether, and we decline to accept Why? Well, of course, it's not rea1Iy so hard to understand when you recall the Grand Design. If the Nationalist Chinese were ever allowed to get into what is basically their own battle against Red China, they just might get an uncontrollable urge to go home to the Mainland. They might not stop when they got to the Yalu or the D.M.Z. In fact, they might even try to win and that would ruin everything!
       But this is precisely my point. Instead of cowering and trembling in fear at the dreaded possibility of Red China coming into a war, we should hope and pray that the anti-Communist Chinese and Koreans and Vietnamese would drag Red China into a war screaming and kicking, and then, by triggering internal revolts, liberate her people from the yoke of Communist slavery once and for all! And we mustn't back away from this one bit, if we're really serious about victory. For our goal must not be merely to keep the Communists out of South Korea or South Vietnam - that isn't victory, that's containment. It must include removing the Communists from North Korea, North Vietnam, Red China, Cuba, Eastern Europe and from the very first captive nation, Russia, itself. Just as we could not rest in World War II, until every last vestige of Nazism was stamped out everywhere, for ten times that reason we can never hope today to have peace or security until every last Communist regime is removed from the face of the earth.
       Ladies and Gentlemen, if this sounds risky, it's because it is! Let's not kid ourselves. The proposal I have just outlined is very risky business. The only thing more risky is the Grand Design we are now following. For if we continue on that course, we'll have no odds at all for survival!
       This doesn't mean that we have to invade all these countries with soldiers, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should go around dropping The Bomb on everybody. And if you're thinking that this is what my proposal implies, then that's a pretty good indication that you're still thinking in terms of old-fashioned warfare. It's true that, occasionally, whenever the conditions seem ripe, the Communists do resort to brute force and semi-military tactics to advance their cause. When this happens, then the contest clearly must be won with military means. But, because of the very nature of Communist strategy, these “hot spots” never have been and never will be more than diversionary tactics to implement their larger strategy in the total war, which is predominantly non-military. Just as we are losing this war through non-military means, if we ever hope to win it, we'll have to do it through exactly those same non-military means. Let me give you a few quick examples of how this can be achieved.
       First of all-and the most obvious of all-we must stop all trade with and aid to Communist regimes. Let these so called socialist paradises try to exist on their own unproductive and bureaucracy-bound systems for a change, without being able to run to Uncle Sugar every time they're in trouble, and then see how long they last. I don't think they'd make it two years.
       Secondly, I propose that we recognize all Communist regimes-for what they are-our mortal enemies! And if we do that, then we withdraw diplomatic recognition from them, no longer invite their leaders to dine in the White House, and we send their espionage agents, posing as diplomats, packing from our shores!
       Our non-military strategy for victory over World Communism must take into account that our strongest allies and our greatest army already is within the enemy camp. But these captive peoples behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains have learned the hard way that, although American leaders talk a good line about world freedom, when the chips are down, they don't deliver the goods. Do you want to meet some bitter people? Talk to a few Hungarian Refugees, or some Cubans whose loved ones were abandoned at the Bay of Pigs.
       I'll never forget one conversation with a young Hungarian Freedom Fighter. He described how, for months prior to the revolt, American radio transmitters in Europe had been beaming broadcasts into Hungary encouraging the people to revolt, and promising full support. To men and women who are fighting for their lives, full support does not mean moral support and good wishes, it means guns and ammunition. And so, when the revolt finally broke out, this young man told how sure he and his friends were that America would come to their help. After all, we promised! Each day, they'd radio a desperate plea to the free world for military supplies-particularly bazookas and hand grenades, something that would be effective against the Soviet tanks that were forming an iron ring around Budapest. And then they'd go to the airport and wait.
       Finally, on about the fourth day, an American transport plane circled the field for landing. And when they looked up and saw that big beautiful American Star on the side of the plane, he said they began to cry like babies, because at last, Americans had come through! When the plane landed, they were so anxious to find out what kind of weapons had been sent, they scrambled aboard and began to pry open the wooden crates with their bare hands. Do you know what they found? Powdered milk. They were stunned. They just couldn't believe it. And then one of them got the idea that maybe the Americans had been clever enough to camouflage their shipment by hiding hand grenades or at least bullets inside the cans. And so they got a can opener and began desperately to open one can after another, but each was the same, powdered milk.
       Actually, it was disclosed later that, at the same time we were declining to offer any real help to the Hungarian Freedom Fighters, our State Department sent a communique to Communist Yugoslavia, and thus indirectly to the whole Communist world, that made it clear we would not take any action to prevent the Soviets from putting down this revolt in Hungary. The message read as follows: “The United States looks with disfavor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the Soviet Union.”[20] And, since Hungary lies on the border of the Soviet Union, with the assurance of non-intervention from us, the fate of the Hungarian Freedom fighters was sealed.
       But, returning to the young refugee telling the story, after describing the scene at the airport, he looked at me and he said, “When we needed your help, you chose, instead, to be friends with the Soviets. My people will never trust the United States again-or, at least as long as the American flag flies over your Embassy in Budapest as a reminder to us that your ambassador of good will continues to exchange cordial greetings with our hated masters. On the day that you lower your flag and call home your Ambassador, on that day, my people will fight again.” And these are just about the exact words that he used.
       I've had reason to reflect on that statement many times since. And I've come to the conclusion that, if the captive peoples behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains were ever given any reason to believe that we were really on their side instead of seeking an accommodation with their masters, it's my conviction that they would take courage, rise up as one, and topple their Communist regimes the same way they were imposed in the first place-from the inside. And we wouldn't have to fire a shot. But we do have to stop helping the Communists, we do have to stop dignifying their leaders as legitimate representatives of the people, and we do have to stand firm for a change and declare openly in word and deed our uncompromising dedication to victory over Communism everywhere in the world!
       Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, that probably would be an easy place for me to end-three cheers for victory! But it's not quite that simple. I'd be less than honest with you if I closed it off at this point, because we still are missing one final but very important consideration. Even though it's true that The Bomb is primarily a psychological weapon today, and even though the chances are microscopically small that The Bomb would be used in either our victory or our defeat, nevertheless, we can't entirely rule out the possibility. No matter how remote, it still exists. So now what is our position? Do we give up the whole idea and return blindly to the hope that, somehow, we can coexist-at least for a little while longer so we can enjoy life to the fullest in the time we have left? I think not. I have too much faith in the American people, once they fully understand what the choice is.
       Putting it very bluntly, Ladies and Gentlemen, if we are not willing to risk our lives, our beautiful cities, and all the material things which we value for those principles in which we believe, then how can we have the audacity to send our sons onto a foreign battlefield and ask them to give their lives for those principles? Are their lives any less precious than ours? As far as I'm concerned, Ladies and Gentlemen, when we send that first American soldier into battle, when we first ask him to be willing to lay down his life for us, we put the whole nation right on the line behind him. And if we are not willing to, then this is no longer the home of the brave, nor much longer the land of the free.
       These are the heavy thoughts I leave with you. And I don't know quite how to close this presentation without running the risk of sounding corny, because the sentiment I want to express has been ridiculed by some as being just that. But, to me, it's far from corny. It's an article of faith that needs to be reaffirmed in the public mind openly without shame or embarrassment, and it's simply this: As Americans today, we are truly a privileged people in a privileged land. But with our blessings come responsibilities, and with responsibilities come risks. The challenge of our time is that we must accept both the responsibilities of our blessings and the risks involved in defending them for ourselves and for future generations. And we must do this without hesitation if we are to be worthy benefactors of that precious heritage of freedom passed on to us, through the epic sacrifices of those who have gone before. That is not flag-waving, and it is not cliched patriotism. That's a simple statement of the obligations of citizenship in this glorious land-our land-which, with God's help, we shall preserve.

End Of Report




[1] “New Factor Seen in Foreign Policy,” New York Times, Feb. 2, 1959. At a news conference on October 12, 1967, Secretary of State Dean Rusk said: “It is not easy for our people to wage a struggle by limited means for limited objectives. We Americans are an impatient people. …But our overriding object is - and must be in this modem world - the establishment of a reliable peace... It is easy to rush into total catastrophe. It requires courage and determination to act with both firmness and restraint in the interest of peace.” See “Rusk: 'Our Commitment Is Clear',” U.S. News & World Report, October 23, 1967, p. 40.

[2] “Robert S. McNamara; Reflections After 7 Years on the Hot Seat as The Secretary of Defense,” by Saul Pett, L.A. Herald Examiner, Feb. 4, 1968, p. A-3.

[3] It is interesting to note that, over a year later, Secretary of State Dean Rusk used exactly the same phraseology. Testifying on July 31, 1967 before a joint subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees; Rusk declared: “In this century, declarations of war have come to imply dedication to the total destruction of the enemy.” See “Rusk Says No to War Declaration,” L.A. Herald Examiner, July 31,1967, p. A-6.

[4] “Memorandum On Propaganda Activities of Military Personnel Directed at the Public” (The “Fulbright Memorandum”) Congressional Record, August 2, 1961, pp. 13434,13437.

[5] See “Rostow Outline Raising A Storm” by Max Frankel, New York Times, June 22, 1962, p. 7. Also see “Drafts Foreign Policy Revision Bowing to Reds,” and “Rostow Backs 'Education' on Soft Red Line,” by Willard Edwards, The Chicago Tribune, June 17 and 18, 1962.

[6] “The Political Control of An International Police Force,” by Walter Millis. Published by the Peace Research Institute, Inc. April 1963 under U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Grant ACDA/IR-8, Volume II, p. A-14.

[7] Fulbright. Old Myths and New Realities, (Random House, New York, 1964).

[8] Dulles, “Toward World Order” (pamphlet), A Merrick-McDowell Lecture delivered at Ohio Wesleyan University on March 5, 1942, on the occasion of the Conference called by authority of the Federal Council of Churches to study the Bases for a Just and Durable Peace, p. 19, as quoted by Alan Stang, The Actor; The True Story of John Foster Dulles, (Western Islands, Boston, Mass., 1968) p. 102.

[9] Rostow, The United States in The World Arena, (Harper & Brothers, New York, 1960).

[10] Douglas, “The Rule of Law in World Affairs,” (Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Santa Barbara, Calif., 1961) p. 32.

[11] This was printed form letter and was sent to anyone who inquired into Mr. Nixon's stand on the Connally Amendment.

[12] Thant, “The League of Nations and The United Nations,” and “Strengthening the United Nations,” U.N. Monthly Chronicle, May 1964, pp. 75, 84.

[13] “Of War and Peace and the U.N.” by Mary Kersey Harvey, Vista magazine. ]an.-Feb., 1968, pp. 32-33.

[14] As Secretary of State Dean Rusk phrased it: “The abiding goal of American policy is the kind of world envisaged in the preamble and articles one and two of the Charter of the United Nations… That is the kind of world which … we are trying to bring into being. And by 'we' I mean not just one president or one political party… Four successive Presidents of both parties, and most of our major national leaders have supported the basic policies intended to build this kind of world.” See “The United States and Japan; Common Interests in the Building of A Peaceful World, Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 17, 1964, p. 231.

[15] My very good source for this statement is none less than Fidel Castro's former Chief of Air Force. Major Pedro Diaz Lanz, Major Lanz was the first Cuban official high in Castro's organization to discover that he was a Communist and to expose him publicly. After denouncing Castro, Lanz then fled to an incredulous America where he was labeled as an extremist for falsely defaming the “Robin Hood of Cuba.” In time, of course, Major Lanz was vindicated, and the truth of his words now has become painfully obvious to all Americans. When I talked to Major Lanz over the telephone recently, I asked if he had any documentation to “prove” that the man was a Communist. After a moment of tactful silence, he replied, “You know, they asked me that same question when I told them in 1961 that Castro was a Communist. And I must apologize for making the same oversight as I did then. It was so thoughtless of me, of Course, but when I left Cuba fleeing for my life somehow I forgot to ask Castro for a photographic copy of his Party card so I could 'prove' to the American people that he was a Communist. How thoughtless of me not to do that.” Major Lanz's point was well made, and I do not hesitate to stand on his statement alone as ample authority.

[16] Greene, “Let There Be A World,” (The Fulton Publishing Co., Palo Alto, Calif., 1963).

[17] Consultation with Mr. Klause Samuli Gunnar Romppanen, House Committee on Un-American Activities, January 13, 1960.

[18] This pamphlet was published by the Portuguese-American Committee on Foreign Affairs, 20 Pemberton Square, Boston, Mass. (Now out of print)

[19] The Communists are very realistic on this point. While their agents in our midst encourage the American people to dream of a peaceful merger of our rival systems, the leaders and the theoreticians of World Communism make it clear in their own doctrine that they, themselves, have no such illusions. As one Communist spokesman phrased it, “The concept of a future in which capitalism and communism will 'converge' on an 'equal footing’ is utopian through and through. The time will come, of course, when there will be a world government, but it will be the government of a world Socialist (Communist) community…” See “Speaking Different Languages” by A Solodovnikov, Internationl Affairs No.11. Nov. 1963. p. 48.

[20] Entered into The Congressional Record by the Honorable Michael Feighan on August 31, 1960, p. 17407.



Grand Design Transcript
granddesign1