In Lippmann’s early writings, he stated that the masses functioned as a “bewildered herd” who must be governed by “a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality.” Later, he wrote, “The elite class of intellectuals and experts were to be a machinery of knowledge to circumvent the primary defect of democracy, the impossible ideal of the ‘omnicompetent citizen.’” Not only was this attitude in line with contemporary socialist thinking, but in the right light conjures up the most frightening doctrines of fascism and Russian communism, the notion of a ruling class of intellectuals that would dictate and interpret their ideas to the ignorant multitudes.
The Vassiliev Notebooks indicate that Lippmann was a “Soviet intelligence source as late as 1944,” with KGB cover names “Imperialist” (1941–44), and “Bumblebee” (late 1944 and ’45), however, there is no evidence that Lippmann progressed beyond his socialist beliefs to actually become a member of the Communist Party.
Aside from Lippmann’s imperial position in the literary world, there are additional disturbing elements to be found. Until 1943, Lippmann’s secretary was Mary Price, a Soviet agent. In 1935, she and her sister, Mildred, visited the Soviet Union and were “impressed by the prosperity and efficiency.” Upon their return, Mary joined the Communist Party (it is believed her sister was a prior member). The Venona and Vassiliev files show they were designated as secret communists, the same designation given Orville. Mary’s KGV code name was DIR. Soviet Spartacus Educational quotes her, “I didn’t do it for financial reasons or self-aggrandizement, but the whole experience has made a difference in my kind of life and it has made it worthwhile for me.”
From 1941 to 1944, she worked for the NKVD and allegedly agreed to furnish to Jacob Golos, controller of the secret apparatus of the Communist Party USA, all the information she could concerning the material Lippmann was writing, along with his contacts, all on behalf of the Soviet Union. Lippmann had extensive connections with the highest levels of the US government, and his files contained a great deal of sensitive information that never went into his columns. The NKVD thus greatly valued Price’s work. In addition to her own espionage, Price also recruited Duncan Lee, an officer with the OSS, forerunner of the CIA, as a Soviet source. Price served as his contact and handler, a relationship greatly complicated by the fact that the two had an affair.
Mary Price’s apartment in Washington eventually became the rendezvous point for meetings between Golos’ courier and the Perlo Espionage Group. There, various members, including Victor Perlo, Charles Kramer, and Edward Fitzgerald, met with Elizabeth Bentley every two or three weeks, delivering stolen intelligence materials. After Price’s release from her Soviet handlers, she returned to North Carolina and in 1948 became the head of the state’s Progressive Party, where she ran for governor.
The career of Walter Lippmann is complicated and difficult to follow along a linear course. In later years, he moved more to the right, beginning with his opposition to FDR’s New Deal and his concern that Roosevelt was placing the American constitutional system in danger by setting illegal precedents; yet a few years earlier he was advising Roosevelt that he may have to assume “dictatorial powers.” He also became an opponent of globalism or excessive involvement around the world, as his earlier idealism turned to realism. But at the same time, after Roosevelt’s 1946 removal of Henry Wallace as vice president, Lippmann became the leading public advocate of the need to respect a Soviet sphere of influence in Europe instead of a policy of containment.
His influence on American foreign policy was powerful. In the 1960s, he was an articulate opponent on the war in Vietnam, saying it weakened America’s ability to fight the true Soviet adversary. As Lippmann’s general opinions migrated away from the hard left, Orville’s adulation of him waned; still, he gave considerable weight to those opinions that suited his world view; there was a large body of Lippmann anti- US invective from which to choose. History will ultimately be the judge of Lippmann, and his effect on American policy in the 20th century, as more evidence continues to be revealed.
Reflections on the press: What has been the collective legacy of leftist writers Seldes, Stone, Duranty, and many others? In their masquerading as open-minded, courageous men, they appeared to be watchmen for the American citizen. The unhappy truth is that they were heavily influenced and in some cases directed by Soviet Russia. Their histories and influence must be studied in light of what has been revealed in the decades since they plied their trade.
Much of their work was not only inaccurate, but even worse, deceptive, the purpose of which was to shape and mold public opinion, while at the same time covering up subversive activity in the country. Beyond the adverse effects on the population at the time, it also affected me personally. Orville’s “teachings” were directly drawn from these writers, who were presented to me during my formative years, as purveyors of truth; the righteous truth, in fact.
The writers mentioned here stand as clear examples not only of the power of the press, but also as a cautionary tale that argues for diligence on the part of the public to be discerning when presented with media reporting of all kinds. There is boundless evidence that today we are being served up a partisan, and even distorted, meal; one-sided, non-probing, and beholden to leftist political interests.
Walter Lippmann, the dean of leftist American writers, epitomized a disturbing and dangerous notion of journalism’s purpose: he did not assume that news and truth are synonymous. And as mentioned, his belief was that an “elite class of intellectuals” would communicate to “the bewildered herd” their interpretation of current events. Modern journalism too often subscribes to this philosophy, seeing its role as the interpreter of events rather than presenters of facts.
* * *
CHAPTER 11
THE UNITARIAN CHURCH
After moving to California, Orville and my mother joined the Unitarian Church, not because of any interest in religion, as they were committed atheists, but the Los Angeles church, was a political hub where communists and allied leftists could gather. Orville’s earlier view toward Christianity was that Jesus was an absurd fiction created by the rich to repress the poor, and to absolve the rich of all the hypocrisy and bad deeds they indulged in. But later, he conceded to me that Jesus may have lived, but was just an ordinary guy with a robe and sandals who had some good humanitarian ideas. However, anything having to do with the supernatural or mystical realm was nothing more than nonsense and hocus-pocus.
The First Unitarian Church was located in dark, unadorned concrete buildings in a somewhat run-down area of the city. It was headed by Rev. Stephen Fritchman, an outspoken communist sympathizer who was revered by the congregation for his intellectual acuity, his writings, his public speaking abilities, his stand against McCarthy, and his vocal anti- US positions. His church became a magnet for radical leftists. The political gathering place was a natural draw for Orville and my mother, and it became a regular social outing for them. To me, however, it was a slightly foreboding and vaguely menacing place, humorless and grim.
During the 50s, FBI agents regularly monitored the activities of this institution. In fact, I recall Rev. Fritchman frequently pointing out agents sitting in the rear of the congregation who would nod and wave back. Well-known personalities also occasionally visited, such as Nobel chemist and outspoken atheist, Linus Pauling, opera star Paul Robeson, and others.
Fritchman, a former Quaker and Methodist Minister, wore vestments and maintained a certain amount of religious protocol. There were always a few obligatory pseudo-prayers, but it was explained to me by Orville and my mother that this was only to keep up appearances to maintain their tax-exempt status. Prayers or not, the singular purpose of the church was to promote leftist idealism.
I don’t remember meeting a single member of our congregation who believed in God, or considered themselves religious in any way, other than their religious zeal toward political activism. If any were actual believers, however, they would have been considered by
Orville and my mother as the saddest dupes of all.
The Sunday sermons were not about worship; they were diatribes against such things as the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the evil ways of our government, and America, in general. This was in keeping with the official goals of the Los Angeles church, to embrace progressive and radical causes as their core focus.
Sunday school activities for the older kids were also based on politics. They sometimes consisted of lectures on such topics as the Holocaust, the callousness of the US, racism in the South, and the exploitation of blacks and the lower classes. The general message was that we lived in a despicable, racist society that needed uprooting, replacement and fundamental change in all areas.
I remember one Sunday, we were transported to a west-side high school where we watched captured Nazi films of old men and women being strapped down on gurneys and rolled into domed crematorium ovens. I vividly recall one old man waving his arms pathetically as he was rolled into the flames. It truly horrified me and gave me nightmares. To this day, it makes my flesh crawl whenever I conjure up the image. It is not that this information isn’t relevant to all mankind, especially in a world where Muslim leaders in Iran deny that the Holocaust even happened, but my question is whether viewing of such films was an appropriate activity for young people. I say “no.” But it apparently made perfect sense within the leftist/communist agenda, in order to mold young people’s minds.
In my junior high and high school years, when a form required the declaration of religious affiliation, I was instructed to write Atheist in the appropriate box. The unwanted attention this caused eventually led my mother and Orville to advise putting in Unitarian, which gave the illusion of our being mainstream churchgoers.
As further validation of the value and legitimacy of the church, I was told Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers had been Unitarians, which gave the impression they, like our family, were atheists, too. As an adult, I learned that the American Unitarian Association wasn’t formed until 1825, well after Franklin’s death, but the story sounded good and seemed rooted in unimpeachable scholarly trappings. It is true that Franklin occasionally attended services in Boston, officiated by non-Trinitarian ministers, but this was not the Unitarian denomination.
To equate Franklin’s strong religious beliefs, evidenced by his statement that Jesus’ “system of Morals and Religion was as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw,” with that of modern Unitarian thought, or at least the thinking of Rev. Fritchman’s church, is disingenuous. In 1790, Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, declaring, “I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That he ought to be worshipped.” Orville conveniently left this out of his Franklin comparison, as it didn’t fit well with the communist/atheist narrative.
Historically, the vast majority of Americans who identified themselves as Unitarians held strong theological beliefs, as part of a greater Christian worldview. But by the 1950s, many people had come to consider Unitarian/Universalism a separate religion, no longer having any ties to Christianity. The organization had morphed to its present status, which is strongly secular; more a “society” than a church.
Throughout my college years at the University of Southern California, I revered Fritchman, and maintained some level of connection with the church. In fact, Dr. Fritchman presided over my first marriage in 1964. Paul Robeson happened to be visiting Fritchman on a return trip from Russia at the time my fiancée and I were meeting to set up our wedding plans. Still being in awe of Robeson, I asked Rev. Fritchman if he thought the performer might sing at my wedding. I’m relieved now that he was unavailable.
Turmoil struck the church in 1954, when Dr. Fritchman and the congregation refused to sign a loyalty oath in order to preserve their aforementioned tax-exempt status. Loyalty oaths were branded as Hitlerian and anti-American by Fritchman and the left. However, this was during the height of the Cold War and the hearings with the HCUAA, when national concerns regarding espionage and subversive activities aimed at the government were very real, and proving to be warranted. The oath stated that the church would, “not advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States, and of the State of California, by force or violence or other unlawful means, nor advocate the support of a foreign government in the event of hostilities.”
This, of course, they couldn’t have signed without committing perjury, as there were tomes of recorded sermons over the years with railings against US foreign policy, as well as expressing support for communist countries such as Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and China. Huge fundraising programs for legal fees were instituted to keep the old and musty church in business while they sorted their issues out with the government, eventually winning in later years when the definition of what constituted a church was relaxed.
Before arriving at the Unitarian Church in Los Angeles in 1948, Fritchman had become a controversial figure in the organization as a result of his confrontational Marxist positions. In retired Unitarian minister Rev. Charles W. Eddis’s book, Stephen Fritchman: The American Unitarians and Communism, he documents Fritchman’s leftist political views and controversial role within the church from the late 30s through 1947.
As late as June 22, 1941, Eddis reports, Donald Harrington, minister of the Community Church of New York, attended a conference where Fritchman voiced strong opposition to the United States going to war against Germany; but by the middle of the week, with the news that Germany had invaded the Soviet Union, Fritchman immediately turned 180 degrees, demanding the US enter the war. This was the common about-face taken by many on the left at the time.
Eddis chronicles Fritchman’s deep involvement with both Unitarian and worldwide youth movements, whose leadership he actively packed with communists. At a 1946 conference for Unitarian youth, dealing with postwar reconciliation, he arranged for Marxist speakers that included lifelong Marxist and MIT mathematics professor, Dirk Struik, Martha Fletcher, who headed a communist cell in Boston, and Herta Tempi who was a member of the German Communist Party.
Fritchman’s other prominent role was as the longtime editor of The Christian Register, a prominent publication of the church, where he maintained rigid Stalinist positions. An example of his pro-Russian sympathies was his opposition to the Truman Doctrine, aimed at stopping the spread of communism and the political hegemony of the Soviet Union.
The church as a whole was strongly dedicated to political involvement, and also prided itself on its openness to all forms of religious, quasi-religious, and non-religious beliefs within its walls. Fritchman, however, consistently refused any proposed articles that carried anti-communist opinions, thus squelching any attempts at balance. In 1947, as a result of his intractable behavior, he was ousted from his editor’s position.
In regard to this incident, Eddis cites a 1947 manuscript from Melvin Arnold, director of the AUA division of Publications (Unitarian press) entitled Unitarians Reject Dictation by Political Creedalist, in he which states:
As officer, board member, or sponsor of over 25 alleged communist-front organizations during the last ten years, his (Fritchman’s) procommunist sympathies were well known, and acknowledged by his friends. His use of the pages of the denominational journal to promote those agencies and their leading personalities was notorious, and evident to anyone knowing the agencies (to be) communist-controlled.
Rev. Fritchman repeatedly denied he was a communist, even when called before the HCUAA hearings in 1949. However, Eddis notes that ex-FBI agent, Linscott Tyler, a congregant of a Unitarian Church in Hingham, Mass., reported Fritchman was a member of the Communist Party, was being closely watched, and his phone wires tapped. Additionally, the Unitarian Universalist History & Heritage Society recounts:
The Fritchman controversy, however, occurred in the 1940s, when the US Communist Party controlled most communist activity and was itself under the control of the Soviet Union, and ultimately Joseph Stalin. A close
scrutiny of the record for those days indicates the high probability that Stephen Fritchman was a valued insider in the Community Party, whether or not he carried a membership card. What he did is clear. Just what he thought he was doing is not.
Rev. Eddis provided me with a video of a discussion before assembled Unitarian Church delegates at the 1978 National Convention, between Fritchman and James Luther Adams, the leading Unitarian theologian of the past century, also a man that can be loosely placed in the socialist/Marxist/humanist arena. The two men appeared to have many of the same political points of view.
The topic of the seminar was “Heresy in Faith.” Fritchman described some of his personal history, how after graduation from Wesleyan, he was a socialist under the influence of the Farmer-Labor Party, and then his later growth as a humanist and Marxist. Like Elmer Benson, he boasted of his 760-page FBI file, which brought admiration from the audience. He avoided any of his former militant positions supporting Stalin, Mao, Castro and other communist governments, and contained his remarks to more general Marxist values.
During the talk, both men agreed that what this country needs is a progressive coalition between progressive liberals, progressive evangelicals and leftist Roman Catholics who are promoting Marxism. Fritchman’s somewhat rambling soliloquy included his belief that “Marx and Lenin are now respectable” because they are now seen as being in the past and therefore irrelevant. To him, this was unfortunate, but he added that the workers’ future efforts will eventually cost the greedy and barbarous capitalists their political and economic power; “that is where the friction lies and where we (the church) will have to be counted.” Both men offered their unending antagonism towards capitalism and corporations. Fritchman referred to a quote from communist editor/writer, Paul Sweezy, that capitalism only has another one hundred years before its destruction (from 1978). Both Adams and Fritchman agreed that a “new structure of society is required.”
Immersed In Red Page 16