Communism In Action
by Dr. Fred C. Schwarz

The Communists have never aimed at the conversion of great masses of people to Communism.  Their whole concept is that of a small party, compact, mobile, disciplined and dedicated, consisting largely of an intellectual elite.  It is the task of this small group to utilize scientifically the social forces that move and direct the masses of the people so that the Communist Party may come to power over them, and impose forcibly the Communist program.  The program of Communism, then, is to recruit into the service of the Party great members of individuals, most of whom are unconscious that they are serving the Communist purpose.
      The Communist formula for effective action is a simple one.  It may be summed up: Discover what people want, promise it to them, and go to work to get it for them that you may come to power over them.  This is the Communist program of action in any situation.
      In Marxist schools the Communists study the groups that compose a given society.  They study the emotions of each group, their longings and their grievances, and they devise a program to exploit these ambitions and resentments.  They believe that each group of people is so short-sighted and so selfishly motivated that, provided you are working in the interests of their most pressing desires in the immediate environment, they will pay no attention to what you are promising and promoting at a distance.
      The Communist is not at all disturbed by the fact that he may be working simultaneously for two groups with conflicting interests and objectives.  This is not inconsistency; it is the application of science.
      The Communists have one objective–to come to power.  They will do whatever is necessary for them to achieve this goal.  In the economic realm, for example, they have no consistent economic program from country to country.  Communist economic policy is to find out what any group wants and promise it to them.  Classical Marxist economics advocated the collective ownership of land, but the Communists came to power in Russia and China by the reverse policy of the distribution of land, by making everybody a little Capitalist.  Communist policy is to do whatever is necessary to advance the Communist Party’s drive to dictatorial power.

      Speaking at a girls’ school in Dallas, Texas, I outlined to them the Communist formula for advance: Find out what people want, promise it to them, and go to work to get it for them in order to come to power over them.  One girl asked the very natural question, “If the Communists promise people all sorts of things but do not fulfill their promises when they come to power, why are they not thrown out?”  I replied, “If I get into this room by promising you girls that I have a lotion that will make each of you very beautiful, and if, as soon as I get in here, I pull out a machine gun and train it on you, why don’t you throw me out?”  Communism is, in essence, the technique of securing power by promising the immediate fulfillment of the dearest ambitions of the populace, and retaining power by the efficient use of force.
      The Communists go to the working man and promise him higher wages, shorter working hours and better conditions generally.  They approach the employer with the glittering prospect of industrial peace, good trading relations and higher profits.  To the colored man they promise first-class 
citizenship.  They will strive so that he may live where he wants to live, work where he wants to work, and marry whom he wants to marry.  They promise the opponents of the Negro that they will keep the colored man where he belongs.  To the Jew the vision they present is that they will end anti-Semitism for all time.  To the Arab they vow that they will eliminate the Jews.  They tell the Christian of glorious religious freedom and Christian revival under Communism.  Their promise to the Hindu is to aid in the conversion of every Christian and Moslem to the Hindu religion.  The Moslem is lured by the promise of assistance in promoting the cause of Islam.
      Their program of deception is so often successful for two reasons.  In the first place, as far as people can observe in the local situation, the Communists are sincere and keep their promises.  It is a characteristic of Communist conduct to work hard and sacrificially for the immediate needs of the group they are endeavoring to exploit.
      A Communist attorney will frequently accept a case without any charge, and will work tirelessly and effectively on behalf of his client in the courts of the land.  To the individual and his friends he appears a true angel of mercy.  They know nothing of the deeper motives that lie behind his conduct.
      An example of the effective and apparently sincere assistance Communism can render to oppressed minorities comes from Italy.  A missionary representing an evangelistic

Protestant denomination came into conflict with the local authorities and was prevented from conducting his Sunday evening services.  He was approached by the Communist leader of that city, who sympathized with him in his predicament and claimed that it was a violation of the Italian constitution which granted freedom of religion.
      To prove his sincerity he invited the missionary to utilize the facilities of the Communist Party headquarters to conduct his evening services.  Thus the preacher stood on the platform provided by the Communist Party under the photograph of the benign and smiling Joseph Stalin and proclaimed the Christian gospel.  It is easy to imagine how difficult it would be to convince such a man that Communism is incompatible with religious liberty.  His own experience assures him that they are the great practical supporters of religious liberty.  He is entirely oblivious to the fact that once Communism assumes power not only his liberty to preach but also his liberty to breathe would be in serious jeopardy.
      In the second place, the local objective advanced by the

Communists is frequently one which, taken in isolation, would merit support.  They go to religious groups, for example, in the name of peace.  They are ardent advocates of slum clearance and improved housing.  Today they are the exponents of a puritanical morality in contrast to their position some time back.
      In foreign countries, Christian missionaries teach the natives such Christian principles as “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” and “Love your enemies.”  The Communist then approaches the mission convert with a program which seems to do nothing but advance the immediate well being of his neighbor and therefore merits his support as a Christian.  He teams up with the Communist for this one purpose and the first step is taken on the bitter pathway of deviation and doom which Communism has marked out for his unwary feet.
      A knowledge of the true program of Communism and its strategy and tactics is the only protection good people of every sort have against the Communist snare.

The Face of Evil
by Ed Timperlake and William Triplett II

One of the most glorious moments in history was the tearing down brick by brick, slab by concrete slab of the Berlin Wall.
      The tangible remains of a discredited abomination of totalitarianism were spirited around the world as symbols of evil.  It was a joyous moment for humanity.  Now almost 10 years later a visible tangible symbol of murderous oppression is being offered to the world.  In a story out of Beijing on the front pages of The Washington Times, it is reported that the communist leadership of the People’s Republic of China will present “pieces of paving stone from Tiananmen Square” to 170 world leaders.
      There can be no deeper insult to freedom than the veneration of sordid remnants from the death square of Tiananmen.  After nearly having been beaten to death, Jonathan Mirsky, China correspondent for London’s Observer newspaper, filed a story on the “Bloodbath in Tiananmen.”  With a lead read around the world, Mr. Mirsky opened with searing prose.  “The People’s Liberation Army smashed its way in the center of Peking early today (June 4, 1989), breaching the heart of  the people’s revolt and starting a bloodbath that left more than 100 dead and hundreds more wounded.”

      As reporter after reporter filed, a description of monstrous horror emerged.  Anxious Chinese parents seeking word of their children were machine gunned directly in front of the Beijing Hotel.  Attacking from all four compass points, tanks, armored personnel carriers and PLA troops with automatic weapons killed everyone in their way; students with school banners, an old man with a bamboo bird cage, children.  And when an ambulance from Beijing’s Capital Hospital rushed to the scene, PLA troops murdered the white-gowned doctors and nurses as well.
      The communist press–before censorship took over and put out a cover story of just a little pushing and shoving–reported more than 5,000 killed and 30,000 wounded.  The massacre of unarmed innocents in Tiananmen Square should have shown the world the true face of the PRC, but tragically it is being forgotten.
      We suggest the world leaders, when offered a piece of the death square, accept but only if it is framed next to the pictures smuggled out of China that show in bloody graphic detail what children look like when run over by a tank.
      The unfinished business of this century is to sweep communism off the face of the Earth early in the next century.  Let’s start with the ruling thugs and despotic killers in Beijing.
      The Washington Times, January 9, 2000, p. B 5

continued from page 1

      Tigrett knew personally such remarkable high rollers as J. Paul Getty, Nelson Bunker Hunt, Howard Hughes, Jimmy Hoffa and Sir James Goldsmith.  But he says Hammer took the cake.  “His mind was the most devious I have ever encountered,” Tigrett wrote, adding that Hammer had “no conscience.”
      As further evidence of Hammer’s ties to top Soviets, Tigrett describes a note issued to Hammer by Leonid Brezhnev that advised notoriously balky and greedy Kremlin bureacrats to “come and see me” if they could not grant anything Hammer might request.  Those familiar with the workings of the Soviet system will appreciate that the note guaranteed fawning cooperation.  This carte blanche treatment was nothing new for Hammer.  The note echoed one previously given to him by Communist patriarch Vladimir Lenin, who ordered underlings to “make note of Armand Hammer and in every way help him on my behalf if he applies.”
      Epstein, the biographer most often quoted in the press, provides proof from Soviet files that Hammer was working on orders from Soviet masters, including Lenin and Leon Trotsky, and that he served as a conduit for Soviet funds sent to the United States to establish and promote espionage activities. Several other biographers have taken Hammer through the wringer on his service as errand boy for the Soviets, including Carl Blumay and Henry Edwards in Hammer: The Dark Side of Power, Steve Weinberg in Armand Hammer: The Untold Story and Joseph Finder in his book Red Carpet.
      Hammer’s Soviet connection traces to his father’s efforts to get the Communist Party established in the United States.  Julius Hammer was an immigrant New York City abortionist who headed a firm dealing in pharmaceuticals and chemicals.  He also was close to Trotsky, who was Lenin’s commisar of war.
      Blumay, who worked as an image-polisher for Hammer for 25 years, claims Hammer wanted to “punish” the United States for jailing his father when an illegal abortion resulted in the death of the mother.  Epstein, in his book asserts that it was young Armand who actually performed the abortion and his father took the rap because consequences for Armand, then a medical student, would have been more severe.  What sort of “punishment” for the United States did Hammer envision?  Blumay, who certainly knew the man as well as anyone, euphemizes that he wanted the Soviets to win the Cold War.
      Hammer’s role in laundering and channeling money for Soviet espionage and recruitment and placement of spies in the United States long had been known to J. Edgar Hoover, the bulldog boss of the FBI, but Hoover held back from a full-scale assault because of Hammer’s influential

“protectors” in Washington.  While Hoover kept his mouth strategically shut, the enigmatic superspook, James Jesus Angleton, had no such inhibitions. Angleton paid quite a price for his paranoia, painted as a witch-hunter in the press and maneuvered out of the CIA by his enemies.  It was Angleton who put biographer Epstein on the trail of documentary evidence of Hammer’s role as financial errand boy for the Soviet Union.  And, writing in the New Republic, author Joseph Finder said “James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s legendary chief of counter-intelligence told me in 1981 that Armand Hammer was an agent of Soviet intelligence.  Angleton’s source was said to be Soviet defector Anatoly Golitisyn, who spoke of a highly valued ‘Capitalist Prince’ whose profile matched Hammer with remarkable precision.”
      Finder was among the first to attempt a biography of Hammer without authorization.  When Hammer was unsuccessful at derailing Finder’s efforts, he bought every copy of the published book, Red Carpet, that he could acquire.  While this tactic may have limited the impact of the book, it sat well with the publisher, who scored a “sell-through.”
      With the exception of Epstein’s work, most biographies of Hammer are out of print, available only through secondhand dealers.
      Insight, May 22, 2000, p. 12-13

_________________________________________

MISSION TO KIEV, UKRAINE

I want to take a few paragraphs in this Report to share with you an opportunity that has significant consequences for the  Christian Anti-Communism Crusade.  As some of our longtime readers know, the Crusade has supported mission projects in Africa and India for many, many years. 
      There is now a mission project in the Ukraine that I  would love to interest some of our Crusade family to help bring this particular vision to reality.  Understanding the Times (abridged edition) has been translated into Russian and I have been to Russia and the Ukraine in the last few years teaching grade school and high school teachers how to teach their students to discern and develop the Christian worldview, contrasting it with the Communist worldview. 
      We have a wonderful opportunity in Kiev, Ukraine to establish a headquarters with enough room to educate hundreds of teachers from around the area (including the Baltic states).  The property and its unfinished building can be purchased for $47,000.
      If you are interested in helping us please send me your name and address and express your interest in this project.  Do not send money until I contact you.  Write: David A. Noebel (Kiev Project), P.O. Box 129, Manitou Springs, CO 80829.

U.S. vs. Castro
by Georgie Anne Geyer

There is not even any attempt to hide the Cuban message now that the “lost” Elian Gonzalez is back in Cuba.
      Indeed, the first salvos from Havana after the charming little boy’s return last week rang clear: The American embargo against Cuba must go; the “Free Elian” public rallies and televised discussions that enlivened Cuba during his “kidnapping” by America will continue; and Fidel Castro has every intention of continuing to use the case to rekindle his failing revolution.  (In one of its more perverse arguments, the Cuban government even theatrically blames the death of Elian’s mother on the embargo.  It is not his own manifold failures that force Cubans to risk their lives at sea, Mr. Castro says, but the embargo, which weakens the Cuban economy.)
      Once we stop floundering in all of this cant and dissimulation, we must examine the American side of this equation–and what these changes mean to the United States.
      For the mood between the two countries has changed from night to day in those mere seven months since Elian was found floating desperately off Miami.  The tremendous power that the Cuban-American community in Miami has exercised since 1959 has been tarnished and diminished as never before, while Cubans like Elian’s father (and thus, Mr. Castro himself) now come across as the reasonable ones.  And the Clinton administration is emboldened once again to attempt to make peace with Mr. Castro–this time backed by American agricultural interests wanting to sell to Cuba.
      This new “make peace with Cuba” lobby is to be found every day in the press and in Congress arguing that the lifting of the embargo would serve to open up Cuba, to give the Cuban people a whiff of freedom, and to introduce free trade (and American profits) to the closed island.  But is that really true?
      Oddly enough, until now the embargo has been defined in the U.S. almost exclusively in terms of ideological preference and/or commercial wish fulfillment, and pathetically little research has been done on what the lifting of the trade embargo would really mean.  But now, we have a major “occasional paper” on the subject, which clarifies the results, were the embargo to be lifted.  Professor Jaime Suchlicki, director of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, says lifting the embargo and travel ban, without meaningful changes in Cuba, will:  

•        Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structures.
•        Strengthen state enterprises, since money will flow into businesses owned by the Cuban government.
•     Lead to greater repression and control since Mr. Castro and the leadership will fear that U.S. influence will subvert the revolution.

•     Delay instead of accelerate a transition to democracy on the island.
•     Allow Mr. Castro to borrow from international organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, etc.  Since Cuba owes billions of dollars and has refused in the past to acknowledge or pay these debts, new loans will be wasted by Mr. Castro’s inefficient system and will be uncollectible.
•        Perpetuate the control that the military holds over the economy and foster the further development of mafia-type groups.
•     Negate the basic tenets of U.S. policy in Latin America, which emphasize democracy, human rights and market economies.
•     Send the wrong message to the enemies of the United States: that a foreign leader can seize U.S. properties without compensation, allow the use of his territory for the introduction of nuclear missiles aimed at the U.S., espouse terrorism and anti-U.S. causes throughout the world; and eventually the U.S. will “forget and forgive,” and reward him with tourism, investments and economic aid.

      It is likely that, if we were to open trade, tourism and perhaps even diplomatic relations with Cuba for the first time since the early 1960s, we would be in the same situation we find ourselves in with Russia.  Remember the early 90s, when Washington was going to transform Russia through the same vehicles?  Instead, Russians today angrily blame the U.S. for their failures.  That is a very real risk of meddling innocently with totalitarian structures.
      We can also be assured that thousands of well-meaning Americans would attempt to get to Cuba to save the Cubans from themselves.  But Mr. Castro, one of the coolest and most manipulative customers of the 20th century, will involve these new “americanos” in Cuba and ensure that they cannot leave with their reputations intact.  Then he will also have another guilty ready-made lobby to Washington, even while the “Free Elian” rallies continue.
      Finally, the United States does not have diplomats with enough shrewdness or savvy to deal effectively with Mr. Castro.  Our present-day diplomats tend to want, above all, to make peace and to do good.  There is almost an embarrassment, particularly in this administration, with the ideal of representing American interests, much less with having the toughness to force through quid-pro-quo policies and programs that might seriously initiate change in Cuba. 
      All we would succeed in doing then is to help Mr. Castro cement his power–and, by the way, to look once again like a clueless super-power.
      That is why, when Americans now talk so enthusiastically about opening up Cuba and about liberalizing the communist state, I check for my wallet.  I know who is already reaching for it.
      Washington Times, July 7, 2000, p. A 15

Communist Subversion of Religion
by Christopher Story, Part 1

Canon Wright invites a KGB Agent to Coventry
In 1979, a British clergyman purporting to be a priest of Christ called Canon Kenyon Wright occupied the post of ‘Director of the International Ministry’ at Coventry Cathedral, arguably the most pagan of the British Anglican cathedrals (and the location of a televised parade of clerics who danced in a snakelike formation behind a fanged Chinese dragon on 23rd March 1998).  He organised a conference on ‘Disarmament and Hunger’ under the joint auspices of the Christian Peace Conference [CPC], a Soviet front, and the Cathedral–inviting a Vice-President of the CPC, Metropolitan Gregarios of the KGB-penetrated Russian Orthodox Church, to speak.  All propaganda activities of the Russian Orthodox Church, of which this appearance was on, ‘were’ organised by the Department of External Church Relations [DECR] of the Moscow Patriarchate, established in 1946 under Stalin, a former trainee priest himself.  In 1943, Stalin had made a ‘concordat’ with the Russian Orthodox hierarchy under which, in return for the restoration of certain earthly rights, they promised to support Soviet foreign policy.  He then set up a State Bureau, the ‘Council for the Affairs of Religion’, which effectively placed the activities of the Church under the control of the NKVD (later the KGB).
      This in turn ensured that only those clergy willing to promote Soviet propaganda and the Party’s ‘General Line’ (grand strategy) were appointed Metropolitans (Bishops).   Therefore, in inviting Metropolitan Gregarios, Canon Wright (a long-term fan and supporter of the Soviets) knew precisely that he was inviting a KGB-approved church official.  We have ourselves separately proved that Catholicos Patriarch Ilya II, the friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the far left Bishop Richard Harries of Oxford, has been a KGB agent since 1962.  It is a certainty, therefore, that Gregarios was likewise.
      In 1981, Wright was appointed General Secretary of the Scottish Churches Council, an office he held until 1990.  At the same time, he was a Vice-President of the British Regional Group of the CPC, as well as being a member of the international Committee of the CPC.  Canon Wright has all along been hyperactive in his commitment to the penetration, politicisation and subversion of the ecumenical movement: for instance, in 1982, he drafted the important theme-setting
‘conference message’ along with Metropolitan Gregarios for

a conference called by the Russian Orthodox Church for ‘Religious Workers for Peace for Saving the Sacred Gift of Life from Nuclear Catastrophe’, attended by representatives of Buddhism, false Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Talmudic Judaism, Shintoism, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism.  The draft text reiterated the contemporaneous Soviet line demanding world disarmament.
      After this initial period of direct collaboration with the KGB front, Canon Wright was given a key role at a Moscow-based propaganda event, incorporating attendees from 90 countries.  In 1984, the CPC organised an international seminar entitled ‘Towards a Theology of Peace’ in Budapest, which was attended by representatives of 19 ‘Christian’ denominations from 30 countries.  The main discussion group at this event was chaired by Wright.  And, underling Wright’s emergence as a senior CPC official, he took part that same year in a CPC delegation to Sweden, Finland and Germany with the aim of winning support from leading churchmen for Soviet disarmament policy.  His fellow-delegates included the Chairman of the Christian Peace Conference, Karoly Toth; its Secretary-General, Lubomir Mireojovsky; and Metropolitan Filaret, one of the CPC’s KGB controllers.

Orthodox KGB Agents Exposed on Purpose
Under ‘glasnost’, the Soviets later revealed that Metropolitan Filaret, along with A.S. Buyevsky, the ‘Lay Secretary’ of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department of External Church Affairs, were KGB agents, and that Buyevsky was a member of the World Council of Churches’ Executive and had used his position to influence the policy of the World Council so that it reflected the Soviet ‘line’ in all respects.
      These exposés were made as a means of throwing Western observers off the scent– a standard Soviet deception method, based on the correct assumption that weak-minded Western analysts would be ‘satisfied’ with such revelations, assuming them to represent a break with the past; thus, the West could be relied upon to overlook the fact that Russian Orthodox Church leaders have never, over the past 57 years, acknowledged their subservience to Soviet intelligence on the instructions of the Party, and their long-term compliance with Stalin’s requirement that in exchange for the ‘restoration’ of certain previously confiscated ‘privileges’, they must ensure the total subservience of their stance and propaganda to that of the Soviet Party-State and its world revolutionary agenda.  A.S. Buyevsky, by the way, was appointed ‘Lay Secretary’ of the DECR in 1946, and remained in his position for 40 years.
      The genuine KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn has revealed

that in 1958, Khrushchev summoned the top leadership of the intelligence community to examine alternative means of achieving the Soviet Party’s aim of dominating the world by methods other than nuclear war–an encounter which gave rise to the momentous refurbishment of revolutionary strategy referred to by Golitsyn as the ‘long-range strategy’ which has reached an advanced stage of development under Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin (selected by the strategic collective to front successive stages of the strategy).  The intelligence community reported that they had so many agents and agents of influence in place throughout the West that they could be deployed in a strategy of global deception [Peter Wright, Spycatcher, Heinemann Australia, 1987].  In Golitsyn’s more precise terms, the Party instructed the KGB to realise its full strategic revolutionary potential, and mass two-way penetration of the Party and the intelligence services then took place, to facilitate this momentous development.
      In 1987, the KGB officer Mikhail Gorbachev–who had attended the crucial 21st CPSU Congress in 1961 as one of 5,000 hand-picked delegates–presided over a conference in Moscow, attended by 1,000 personalities from all over the world, to support his call for a ‘nuclear-free world for the survival of humanity.’  The purpose of this meeting, as with all Soviet influence-building operations, was to create and galvanise a ‘constituency’ which could be relied upon to ‘call for’ the line being espoused by the Soviet strategists.  ‘Useful idiots’ like Yoko Ono, Graham Greene, and Peter Ustinov, vociferously supported this event.
      The attendees were divided into groups, and the subdivision for ‘religious personality’ was organised by the top leadership of the KGB-controlled Christian Peace Conference.  On his return from this event, Canon Kenyon Wright gave an account of it on a local radio show.  In that interview, Wright boasted of having spoken with President Gorbachev, Raisa Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze; and Wright even conveyed a message of good will from Gorbachev to the people of Scotland.  Throughout the interview, Wright enthusiastically supported Soviet disarmament propaganda.
      In September 1990, it was announced that the Christian Peace Conference, the Soviet front, was closing down and that (nevertheless) Canon Kenyon Wright was to be its ‘Interim Secretary’.  This of course raised all kinds of questions.  What was a Church of England Canon doing acting in an official capacity for a KGB front–and which was supposed to be ‘closing down’?  As it happened, Wright was now at a critical stage of his service to the Soviet KGB.  For in parallel with his ‘ecumenical’ activities, Canon Wright was simultaneously agitating behind-the-scenes for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, and had been using his influence in international and domestic ecumenical foray to orientate ‘religious’ constituencies in favour of Soviet

disarmament strategy.
      We will show that Wright’s ‘new’ interest in Scotland reflected the KGB-GRU’s ultimate objective–the closure of the United Kingdom’s Trident nuclear submarine bases, which are located there.  The even greater objective is the dismemberment of the United Kingdom itself, in fulfillment of Lenin’s sub-strategy of ‘separation precedes federation’, which would mean that the international legal doctrine of Impossiblity of Performance would apply, given that the original signatory of innumerable treaties and accords, the United Kingdom, would have ceased to exist.

British Churchmen Activated by the KGB
The truly mind-blowing dimension of this long-term KGB offensive operation against Britain and the West is that it has been fronted all along by Canons of the Church of England, who have been exploiting and influencing ‘soft ecumenical’ opinion in favour of Soviet disarmament strategy.  And the Soviets have been exceptionally thorough, as always, with their influence-building and penetration operations in the loose, flaccid ecumenical movement.  For instance, the once respected Keston College, Oxford, which specialises inter alia in religious affairs in the ‘former’ Soviet Bloc, has been thrown off course by the far-Leftist Canon Oestreicher, of the British Council of Churches.  We discovered this when checking whether the Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, had been briefed by Keston College, in advance of their trip to Tbilisi in 1993, that Catholicos Patriarch Ilya II of Georgia had been a KGB agent since 1962.  The Canon in charge of ‘foreign affairs’ at Lambeth Palace, headquarters of the Church of England, confirmed to us that Keston College had failed to provide this crucial information.
      Canon Keynon Wright moved from Coventry to Scotland in 1981, which significantly was the year when NATO and the British Government decided to base Britain’s Trident submarines there.  He immediately set about using his ecumenical clout to leverage the setting up of a Scottish Parliament, which now threatens Trident and therefore the security of the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe.
      Today, Canon Wright is involved in agitation for a ‘Civic Forum’–linking all Scottish local Councils, Trade Unions, voluntary organisations and of course ‘soft’ ecumenical groupings–which is intended to ‘advise’ the Scottish Parliament.  In due course, this body will agitate for the removal of the Trident bases, claiming (falsely) to represent Scottish opinion, and thus providing the Parliament with what could be interpreted as a ‘mandate’ legitimising any call for the removal of Trident the Parliament any make in due course.

Part 2 will appear in the September Schwarz Report.