Chapter IX
Quo Vadis?
The dangers facing the United States and the countries friendly to us are becoming increasingly serious. We must recognize the fact that, as individuals, we are as responsible for what is happening today as were the people living peacefully at one time under Hitler, Hirohito and Stalin, and whom we heartily condemn for having allowed disastrous conditions to develop and get beyond their control.
Concerning the forces building up around us and the world today, we are still far too apathetic and complacent. Much of the responsibility for this must, of necessity, be placed upon our leadership. We know that America is the one bastion of freedom left in the world today, and that continued strength in it reflects the hope of the world—that is, of the free peoples of the world as well as those behind iron curtains everywhere who now know the true meaning of slavery which was sold to them in the guise of “security.”
Remaining strong entails a price. What is it? To me, above all, it requires faith in God, faith in our fellow man and faith in ourselves and other individuals of personal integrity. Meanwhile, we must first keep strong our foundations of initiative, self-reliance and individual responsibility for our actions with respect to our duties to our own country.
Unfortunately many people in America have believed the Henry Wallace theory that it was an “over-abundance” or “excessive production” which brought on the depression of the Thirties, or that has or ever could, cause any depression. But this is not true. Economists tell us today that “misdirected production, plus misdirected and over-stimulated consumption” aided our previous downfall, and that it was an abuse of our credit, both at home and abroad. But what does this mean? Was part of our trouble then, as now, caused by too many loans to foreign countries for goods bought here, and an abuse of credit to consumers (you and me) here at home? This did bring on the boom of the late Twenties and also the terrific maladjustment which the depression of the Thirties should have corrected, but which it could not, under the circumstances existing then. The “over-abundance” or “excess savings” theory—that we had so much that we could well afford to give it away—is dangerously misleading. It was invented to justify unwise, if not calculated, giving to foreign countries with the resultant weakening of our own country to a point where Social Security and many other “social laws,” including the limitation of productive effort were adopted as expediencies here at home. Outright charity to people has, throughout history, tended to destroy their moral fiber. Proud people will not, moreover, accept charity and will be determined to work out their own salvation. Finland is just such an example. Contrast that country’s attitude with France today, and even with England.
Our country, America, has always been a philanthropic one. No one, in his right mind, could or ever has, questioned the humanitarian feelings of the American body politic, but unless our assistance is selective and well timed, it cannot bring permanent relief, nor can it accomplish worthwhile objectives.
There are some who say that America has always had a hit-or-miss approach to most of her problems, and that Lady Luck has been on our side. This also is not quite so. In the 19th Century, we had a relatively free competitive society—not perfect, of course, but the best we’d ever had. The laws which govern human nature under a government of limited powers, such as we had under the Constitution before we began changing it, operated then. During that period these laws governing human nature were patterned on a system of checks and balances, remarkably similar to those dictated by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. The hit-or-miss approach became apparent only when we began to turn to government “to relieve us from our mistakes under freedom.”
We know that this nation came into being after the victory of the War of Independence. At this time, a Constitution was drawn up and ratified by the states. But there is more to it than that. A confusion in terms always has led to a misunderstanding in definition. There are some who feel quite strongly that “democracy” is a principle, and was never intended to become a form of government. The word “democracy” does not appear once in our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence. In our Salute to the Flag, known by every school boy and girl in America, it is the “Republic” for which we stand—not a “Democracy.” Of course the words are used almost interchangeably in the encyclopedia, and we know that the purest form of democracy envisions the realistic participation in the government on the part of all the governed. Town meetings were typical of this in the past, but as our society became more complex, it was found impractical to hold these, and as a result, representatives were selected, and a Republic evolved. It all boiled down to what might be called a practicing democracy, because people do have the opportunity today to make their desires known as to how and by whom they will be governed—that is, however, on condition that they express themselves at the voting polls.
The framers of our Constitution sought to give each department of government its due share of power, and to prevent any one of them from making itself supreme. In his “Back to the Republic,” Harry E. Atwood comments: “Almost daily Russia is spoken of as ‘the new republic.’ That phrase is as inaccurate as it would be to speak of a drunken man as a new example of temperance. To speak of Mexico as a ‘republic’ is as inaccurate as it would be to speak of fanaticism as a new form of reverence. To call Communist China a ‘republic’ is as far-fetched as it would be to speak of insomnia as a new form of rest ... for at the present time, these are all types of democracy, they are not republics....”
In the “Federalist,” James Madison said of our government: “The true distinction between these forms (democracy and republic) is that in a democracy the people meet and exercise the government in person. In a republic they assemble and administer it by their representative agents.... The first question that offers itself is whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican? It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the American people.”
We know from the experiences of other nations that perfection in government never has been found via the route of mob rule. If we think otherwise we play right into the hands of the Communists and all others who oppose our government. Unethical procedure in any established order is brought about little by little. The theory of lesser concessions is always active. In our trend toward paternalism in government we must constantly guard against the ogre of an established bureaucracy, a denying to the individual those “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” so definitely vouchsafed to him in the Republican form of government which was established in this country “under God.” With any impairment of our system of checks and balances, all power to protect every man’s God-given rights is rendered impotent.
Everywhere people are expressing the thought that, “Things just can’t go on like this,” and “What is going to happen?” Is there then, a sense of impending judgment in the very atmosphere itself? Let me illustrate the theory of lesser concessions mentioned above. Back in September, 1932, during a campaign speech at Sioux City, President Roosevelt accused the Hoover administration of being the greatest spendthrift in U. S. history; that bureaus and bureaucrats had been retained at the taxpayers’ expense, and then he proceeded to out-Hoover Hoover with alphabetical agencies to the point where cartoonists branded us “alphabetical goofs.”
The Foundation for Economic Education at Irvington-on-Hudson, has compiled some interesting statistics:
| “Expended by all Presidents up to Lincoln | $1,795,319,694 |
| “Expended by Lincoln (including the Civil War) | 3,252,380,410 |
| “Spent by Johnson thru Taft | 19,373,146,217 |
| “Wilson (including World War I) | 47,938,260,143 |
| “Warren G. Harding | 6,667,235,429 |
| “Calvin Coolidge | 18,585,549,115 |
| “Herbert Hoover | 15,490,476,636 |
| “Franklin D. Roosevelt (including eight years of peace) | 67,518,746,001 |
| “Total expended by all Presidents from the beginning to July 1, 1945 | $179,630,113,645 |
| “Total spent by Harry S. Truman from July 1, 1945, to September 1, 1949 | $191,081,394,191” |
With constantly rising taxes and increased government spending, the dollar bill soon will be worthless, as will be the paper on which it is printed. A mathematician figuring hurriedly on his cuff, comments: “We’ll be back to where the South was in 1865, with its worthless Confederate money.” Why? Little by little our executive branch has usurped the functions of Congress, under the flimsy guise of a so-called “mandate” from us, the people. Unless we become aware of what we have permitted to happen in our midst, and elect people to Congress who will make the government their servant and not their master, we will soon be where the Germans were under Hitler, the Italians under Mussolini, and where the Russians are today, under Stalin—and the British to a lesser degree, under their socialist regime.
For the first time in global history, the forces are drawn between two distinct ways of life—Christianity and Barbarism. Through the cobwebs of confusion and the roadblocks of distortion we now know that our one enemy is Stalin and his particular brand of thuggery. Modern, civilized peoples throughout the universe, including those behind the iron curtain, have but one common enemy—Communism. If we do indeed believe what we profess, as Christians, to believe, “Man cannot serve God and Mammon,” how can we expect a United Nations to succeed in anything so long as the head of the Communist Governments, the world over, is represented in its midst?
All doubt and uncertainty has been dispelled as to who, where and how our enemy operates. In China we have seen the Communist system operate to the complete disintegration of human rights. Here in the United States we do not know precisely how many Communists are among us, or exactly where and how they connive. We are told on good authority (J. Edgar Hoover) that they are growing in strength and numbers as well as going underground, but we are unable to put our fingers on enough of them. Communism operates and succeeds by deception here as in the early phases of China’s recent history. It bores from within. Frequently its voice is soft and seductive, like the voice of Delilah, and equally treacherous. As we have seen though, once it has the situation in hand, it does not hesitate to use brute force.
In contrast, what we call Democracy makes its mistakes openly for all to see and endeavor to correct. Democracy, to us, means complete personal liberty, the right to live, work and play how, when and where one chooses, in open competition, and is maintained by a process of checks and balances or trial and error. We who live in this atmosphere of free enterprise, take these things for granted, while treason catches us off guard. Until we recognize this, we will continue to be at the mercy of organized political traitors both foreign and domestic. We can no longer afford to assume a casual attitude, even though history reveals that the Communism of Stalin, like other world shaking movements in the past, if given sufficient time, will fall of its own weight.
“Well,” you may ask: “If Communism is going to fall anyway, (or be pushed), why bother to do anything about it now?” The answer is simple. We must do something about it now because generations, even centuries, may elapse before it collapses without help other than human intervention. In the meantime, what will happen to us and to our children? Do we realize the long period of humiliation and degradation, with increasing controls by the Communists, that this means?
War, a global holocaust, in the not too distant future seems a much more likely turn of events. We know that Russia is expanding and improving her military force, including long range submarines and airplanes as well as ultra-destructive weapons. She has more planes than the United States and other democracies put together. We are told that Russia is making A bombs and has already had at least one atomic explosion behind the Iron Curtain. The H bomb is a logical sequel. She is capable, we understand, of delivering a surprise atomic attack against any part of the United States, while we have no sure defense against such an attack. Her submarine fleet rapidly is being patterned after Germany’s and this, with her other combat ships will make her the third greatest Naval Power. She has an army of two and one-half million uniformed troops and thousands of undercover agents to act as spies or scouts. We know that she is on a complete war footing, just as England was during the latter days of World War II and as we made an attempt to be.
This is grave food for thought. If our most responsible leaders are assured that Russia is intending to attack us within a short time, then should we not prepare and attack first, trying with the initial blow, so to paralyze the enemy that she will be unable to retaliate. This would be a terrible decision to have to make, and we may not have the chance, but we must give it serious thought.
As long as Russia feels that she is winning the cold war, however, she would be a fool to start a hot one she might lose. I do not believe that she would even let herself be goaded into it. When she is ready to strike, she will strike, of that we may be sure. It may be possible that the men in the Kremlin are hesitant about upsetting their present position, fearing counter-revolution at home and abroad. Perhaps the mighty armada is for propaganda purposes and to hold the Red Empire together. If this is so, we must never relax our own efforts behind the Iron Curtains everywhere in order to enlist the support of the unhappy 90 per cent of the enslaved people, without whose help we cannot hope to defeat the Soviet Union. Our most powerful secret weapon is not the A or the H bomb, but this same overwhelming majority of victims who fought and won a revolution only to find that they had been sold down the river at the moment of their victory.
These terrorized victims in every country are our most powerful potential allies, and we must do all in our power to make them understand that we are in sympathy with them—with their hopes and prayers for liberation—and that the only thing we reject is Communist despotism. All peoples who are denied the basic freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly—immediately become enormous whispering galleries. There is greater “lure” in suppressed facts and ideas than there is in political propaganda. Even the threat of death will not keep people from reading forbidden material when they are hungry for news from those who may be sympathetic to their plight. But all this would take well-trained counter espionage, and it would cost money.
It would make sense to me if, first of all, we saw to it that our homeland was protected—but not by an armed camp or maintained by a disproportionate amount of military might that would hamstring our economy or deprive us of too many of our liberties. Our military forces should be trained and equipped to provide a reasonable degree of military security for the United States. Then, bring about this same type of coordination in Canada and the Latin American countries, thereby creating a modicum of safety throughout the Western Hemisphere.
In doing the above, we’d be licked before we started unless we made assurance doubly sure that we, the people, knew beyond all possibility of doubt, what was going on and why. Once we are possessed of complete understanding, and support the purpose for which we may be called upon to make the greatest sacrifices of our lives—even including our lives if need be—our objectives will thus be constantly in view. We know this would require a rebirth or a resurgence of courageous leadership, honesty and integrity—and an old fashioned “patriotism” too long lacking in our leaders. But are not these qualities still inherent within us? They were, certainly, until clever and sinister propaganda infiltrated our very marrow.
To go a step further. We know that we cannot stop with our own Western Hemisphere. Our thinking and our responsibility is now global. There’s “no hidin’ place” anywhere. Therefore we must improve our position, militarily, economically and psychologically throughout Europe and Asia by helping nations and peoples there to help themselves to keep their few remaining freedoms. Of course we have to protect certain sea and air routes to and from our best sources of raw materials.
To me, it is sheer nonsense to give, indiscriminately, whether it be money or military aid, without stipulating that we get something for it. To do otherwise is contrary to individual human nature, and yet as a nation, we have given billions in money and material—not to mention thousands of lives in Korea—without demanding anything in return. To keep on throwing good money, things and men into the hopper will bring no permanent relief, nor will it accomplish any outright objective.
We need oil from the Middle East, uranium from the Belgian Congo, or anywhere else we can get it, and we need tin and rubber from southeast Asia, plus other important things. But if we are cut off and cannot get them, then we can use our almost unprecedented ingenuity in the department of synthetics. Germany demonstrated what can be accomplished with ersatz.
I agree heartily with Generals MacArthur and Wedemeyer, and others, who have not expressed their views openly, or who have so indicated and been severely reprimanded for it, that we must have areas of operation such as the British Isles, Formosa, the African coast, Philippines, Japan, the Scandinavian Peninsula, Denmark, Iberian Peninsula and Saudi Arabia. These could be held or taken, if need be, with a minimum of manpower, for we know our weapons are far superior to those of our enemy, both in mechanics and quality, while their manpower is far in excess of anything that we can muster. From these so-called “islands” it would be possible for the allied forces to rain ultimate death and destruction on the enemy, and without them we are powerless to strike except from long range.
To those who, like General Marshall, insist that we must have an enormous land army, or armies, to go in and occupy conquered territory so as to be able to control the people, I give this answer, or make this suggestion. Why not establish colonies of people of all nationalities, who would be charged with responsibilities of teaching people how to produce or earn a living and to study forms of government suitable for creating small civil communities that could be transplanted into any conquered territory after organized resistance had been broken by the military? This would be entirely within the realm of possibility, and it would definitely conserve our most precious potential—manpower.
It has been said that: “Every despotism has an especially known and hostile instinct for whatever keeps up human dignity and independence. Materialism is the sister doctrine of every tyranny, whether of the one or of the many. To crush what is spiritual, moral, human in a man by specializing him; to form more wheels of the great social machine, instead of perfecting individuals ... is the dominant drift of our epoch.... The test of every religious, political or educational system, is what it does to man. If it injures his intelligence, it is bad. If it injures his character, it is vicious. If it injures his conscience, it is criminal.”
Expediency is the voice of danger. We must do away with the false idea that immediate and temporary gain is a substitute for moral principle. We can recognize, as did Thomas Jefferson, that: “Whenever a man casts a longing eye on office, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” We must become aware that slavery develops in direct proportion as government control becomes a substitute for self-control and responsibility. Search for the solution at the spiritual instead of the material level.
Aristotle, the philosopher, has told us: “There are a million ways to be wrong, but only one way to be right.” A principle is a very tangible “element” that we treasure as an active force of life or nature or—God. If we know, in our hearts, that a thing is right, even though the results of such thought or action may not become evident within the span of our own lifetime, and we go ahead and sacrifice the principle for expediency, ours is a crime far greater than that which was committed by the hand that “all the perfumes of Arabia could not sweeten!”
This is the day of the individual. Only you and I, as independent units, can right the wrongs that have beset our nation and the world. This is encouraging, isn’t it? Dean Russell tells us: “Fortunately for the cause of freedom, it is only as an individual that you or I can do anything at all. This is the voluntary way of accomplishing a desired objective. It is the only method that is in accord with freedom.” The opposite side of the coin is that people who have agreed to accept a bad idea band themselves together to force—by vote or otherwise—their ideas upon other people. It may all be perfectly legal, but it is dishonest. We are at perfect liberty to vote ourselves into serfdom. But it is very dangerous to believe that freedom automatically is safe because the individual vote has become so popular in America, where the “democratic” way prevails. When we vote money into our pockets, old age pensions, farm subsidies, price parities and a million other “props” to lean on, we are voting paralysis to our brains and slavery to our physical beings.
It is a dangerous thing to do, but I would like to make one prediction. Each day we live we draw nearer to a climax in human history. The immediate future is dark. Bitter conflicts at home and abroad are on the horizon. I believe that the armies of all nations will, during the next two years, be drawn inevitably toward the countries in and around the Great Pyramid of Egypt. The crisis precipitated in Iran over the nationalization of her oil industry, makes this highly probable, in my opinion. Let me substantiate further.
Toward the end of 1949, England received warning from Iran on this impending move, for she believed that only a violent act on her part could meet this extreme emergency. London correspondent Kenneth de Courcy, cabling to Intelligence Digest on April 1, 1951, stated:
“More than a year ago, a prominent Persian statesman gave Britain his final confidential warning. He said that only drastic action could save the situation. A Persian statesman flew to America and remained there for several days in an effort to lay all the facts before Mr. Truman. Attempt after attempt was made to arrange a meeting. The envoy, although carrying high credentials, was refused an interview. The Persian statesman had been one of his country’s most important and successful Prime Ministers. His prestige and influence were considerable....”
De Courcy concluded:
“The Persian situation has now been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that no politician there dares oppose the popular movement which has been whipped up by the extremely clever work of Soviet agents. Some of the highest officials, moreover, are on Russia’s payroll, and this has been allowed to happen right under our noses.”
On Saturday morning, June 2, 1951, the following headline appeared in The Los Angeles Times:
“Truman Intervenes in Iran Oil Row.” The Associated Press dispatch datelined Tehran, June 1, 1951, continued in part:
“President Truman took a hand personally today in the British-Iranian oil dispute by sending letters to Premier Mohammed Mossadegh and Prime Minister Attlee reportedly urging moderation on both sides. The unusual move by the President indicated the extreme seriousness with which the U. S. government views the oil crisis.”
A member of Iran’s Senate who declined to reveal his name, was quoted by The Los Angeles Times article as saying:
“Why should Truman belittle himself by sending such a message?”
In my humble opinion, therefore, World War III began on June 25, 1950. Our entry into it was two days later. There will be no peace, of any importance, as I see it, until 1953 or thereabouts. I say this with a heavy heart. This war that is so pointless and was so unnecessary, had its birth in our Administration’s betrayal of China. It will have its death on a bloody battlefield in Palestine.
What a heritage we have, on the one hand, and what means for destruction on the other! How far we are today from Chaos, no man knows. It may be far later than we think. Until the time of greater enlightenment we know that a strong and forceful public opinion can be the result only of strong and forceful individual opinions. We are not, as yet, God-like creatures, but by making a supreme and prayerful effort we might become more nearly creatures like God. One small voice crying in the wilderness can be doubled and quadrupled into millions until, finally, it becomes the deafening roar of all freedom-loving peoples the world over.
“The journey of a thousand miles,” the Chinese say, “begins with just one step.” If each of us will take that one step now, toward a better understanding of how to protect our country from its enemies, both within and without, America will remain the light to which the whole world turns in the blackness of its oppression. And let us each remember that, as individuals, “it is better to light one candle, than to curse the darkness.”
In the words of our own beloved National Anthem:
“Oh! thus be it ever, when free men shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph SHALLwave
O’er the land of the Free and the home of the Brave!”