« A message from Ramsey Clark: If we let Bush be the "decider," he'll decide on war | Main | CODEX: C-51: ETC.: Don't Buy Into The 4th of July LIE--- Codex Wants Your Vitamins While the Airforce Wants Your "LOV"..... How to Protect Yourself! »
The Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations  + 1982 Interview w/ Norman Dodd by Edward J Griffin, Norman Dodd's Testimony on Regionalism , Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
Re: Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations,. Very important document. Unfortunately several pages are missing. Should be read in conjunction with the Cox and Reece Committee Transcripts. One excerpt follows: THE NEED FOR A PERMANENT STANDING Committee. The effect of the Dodd Report was electric. Moves were launched within a matter of hours to block an effective probe. On Capitol Hill, the Committee found itself confronted with obstacles at every turn, the Nation itself was deluged with stories which openly or by inference suggested that the investigation was futile, if not worse. The national board of Americans for Democratic Action (the A.D.A.) formally urged the House to disband its own committee-it was conducting "a frontal attack on learning itself ." Many citizens, on the other hand, believe that such a committee should be made a permanent Standing Committee of the House "to gather and weigh the facts."
Reece Committee on Foundations
NORMAN DODD, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
covering his direction of the Staff
THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
INVESTIGATE TAX EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS
the six months' period
November 1, 1953-April 30, 1954
* * *
Prepared in accordance with the suggestion which the Director of Research made to the Committee at its meeting in Washington, D. C. on Thursday, the 29th of April, 1954 for submission to:
HON. B. CARROLL REECE (TENN.), CHAIRMAN
HON. JESSE P. WOLCOTT (MICH.)
HON. ANGIER L. GOODWIN (MASS.)
HON. WAYNE L HAYS (
HON. GRACIE PFOST (
This is the original Dodd Report, in full.
It ends with the following words:
"I assume it is the purpose of this inquiry
to gather and weigh the facts ."
* * *
THE LONG HOUSE, INC.
, N. Y.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number : 5411186
* * *
Printed and bound in the
United States of America
As the report which follows may appear to have stressed one aspect of Foundation-giving to the exclusion of others, I take this opportunity to call attention to the fact that innumerable public benefits are traceable to the philanthropy in which Foundations have
been engaged. Both in volume and kind these benefits must appear to any student of this subject to have been without parallel. And in the vast majority of instances they must be regarded as beyond question either from the standpoint of their conformity to the intentions of their donors or from the standpoint of the truly American quality of their consequences.
I also wish to acknowledge the cooperation which, without exception, has been extended by Foundations to the staff whenever it was found necessary to solicit information from them either directly or in writing.
Finally, I take this opportunity to state that in the degree the following report appears to be critical, I sincerely hope it will be deemed by the Committee, Foundations, and the public alike to be constructively so. It was in this spirit that the work of which this report is a description was undertaken and completed.
<signed Norman Dodd>
[Note: Sorry, first few pages seem to be missing.]
Finally, I found that the subject included a myriad of Fellowships awarded to scholars and artists active in fields too numerous to mention, let alone classify for the purpose of accurate evaluation.
These studies also enabled me to settle upon the following definitions
Foundations-Those organizations resulting from the capitalization of the desire on the part of an individual, or a group of individuals, to divert his or their wealth from private use to public purpose.
Un-American and Subversive-Any action having as its purpose the alteration of either the principle or the form of the United States Government by other than constitutional means. (This definition is derived from a study of this subject made by the Brookings Institute at the request of the House Un-American Activities Committee.)
Political-Any action favoring either a candidacy for public office, or legislation or attitudes normally expected to lead to legislative action.
Propaganda-Action having as its purpose the spread of a particular doctrine or a specifically identifiable system of principles. (In use this word has come to infer half-truths, incomplete truths, as well as techniques of a covert nature.)
The purposes of Foundations were revealed by these studies to be generally of a permissive, rather than a mandatory character. Customarily, they were expressed to place the burden of interpretation on either trustees or directors. Such words as "educational",
"charitable", "welfare", "scientific", "religious", were used predominantly to indicate the areas in which grants were permitted. Phrases such as "for the good of humanity" and "for the benefit of mankind" occurred frequently. The advancement of such general concepts as "peace" and either "international accord" or "international understanding" was noticeable as a purpose for which Foundations had been established.
To illustrate the extent to which the burden of interpretation is frequently placed upon trustees of Foundations, I cite the following
" . . . administered and operated by the trustees exclusively for the benefit of, . . . [the] income therefrom shall be distributed by the trustees exclusively in the aid of, such religious, educational, charitable and scientific uses and purposes as, in the judgment of the trustees, shall be in furtherance of the public welfare and tend to assist,
encourage and promote the well-doing or well-being of mankind, or of any community."
COX COMMITTEE CRTTICISMS
There were eight criticisms leveled at the Cox Committee:
1) Time and facilities were inadequate.
2) Excuses concerning grants to Communists were too readily acceptable.
3) Trustees and officers were not under oath.
4) Only a few Foundations were investigated.
5) The propaganda activities of Foundations were not investigated.
6) Foundations were not asked why they did not support projects of a pro-American type.
7) Extensive evidence was not used.
8) The Ford Foundation was not investigated.
Our studies indicated very clearly how and why a critical attitude could have developed from the assumption that Foundations operating within the sphere of education had been guilty of favoritism in making their grants. After having analyzed responses relating to this subject from nearly 1,000 colleges in the
, it became evident that only a few have participated in the grants made.
However, when the uniqueness of the projects supported by Foundations was considered, it became understandable why institutions such as
had received monies in amounts far greater than had been distributed to others. Originally, scholars capable of handling these unique subjects were few. Most of them were members of
these seemingly favored institutions.
Now that these subjects no longer appear to be regarded as unique and sufficient time has elapsed within which to train such competent specialists, the tendency of Foundations to distribute grants over a wider area has become noticeable.
The purported deterioration in scholarship and in the techniques of teaching which, lately, has attracted the attention of the American public, has apparently been caused primarily by a premature effort to reduce our meagre knowledge of social phenomena to the level of an applied science.
As this report will hereafter contain many statements which appear to be conclusive, I emphasize here that each one of them must be understood to have resulted from studies which were essentially exploratory. In no sense should they be considered proved. I mention this in order to avoid the necessity of qualifying each as made.
Confronted with the foregoing seemingly justifiable conclusions and with the task of assisting the Committee to discharge its duties as set forth in H. Res. 217, within the seventeen month period, August 1, 1953-December 31, 1954, it became obvious to me that it would be impossible to perform this task if the staff were to concentrate on the internal practices and the grant-making policies of Foundations themselves. It also became obvious that if the staff was to render the service for which it had been assembled, it must expose those factors which were common to all Foundations, and reduce them to terms which would permit their effects to be compared with the purposes set forth in Foundation charters, the principles and the form of the United States Government, and the means provided by the Constitution for altering either these principles or this form.
In addition, these common factors would have to be expressed in terms which would permit a comparison of their effects with the activities and interests connoted by the word "political", and also with those ordinarily meant by the word "propaganda".
Our effort to expose these common factors revealed only one, namely--"the public interest". It further revealed that if this finding were to prove useful to the Committee, it would be necessary to define "the public interest". We believe this would be found in the principles and form of the Federal Government, as expressed in our Constitution and in our other basic founding documents.
This will explain why subsequent studies were made by the staff of the size, scope, form and functions of the Federal Government for the period 1903-1953, the results of which are set forth in detail in a report by Thomas M. McNiece, Assistant Research Director, entitled, The Economics of the Public Interest.
These original studies of “the public interest” disclosed that during the four years, 1933-1936, a change took place which was so drastic as to constitute a "revolution". They also indicated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred heavily to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; that a corresponding change in education had taken place from an impetus outside of the local community, and that this "revolution" had occurred without violence and with the full consent of an overwhelming majority of the electorate.
In seeking to explain this unprecedented phenomenon, subsequent studies pursued by the staff clearly showed it could not have occurred peacefully, or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the
had been prepared in advance to endorse it.
These findings appeared to justify two postulates:
1) that the policies and practices of institutions purporting or obliged by statute to serve "the public interest" would reflect this phenomenon, and
2) that Foundations whose trustees were empowered to make grants for educational purposes would be no exception, on the basis of which, after consultation with Counsel, I directed the staff to explore Foundation practices, educational procedures, and the operations of the Executive branch of the Federal Government since 1903 for reasonable evidence of a purposeful relationship between them. Its ensuing studies disclosed such a relationship and that it had existed continuously since the beginning of this 50-year period. In addition, these studies seem to give evidence of a response to our involvement in international affairs. Likewise, they seemed to reveal that grants had been made by Foundations (chiefly by Carnegie and Rockefeller) which were used to further this purpose by:
Directing education in the
toward an international viewpoint and discrediting the traditions to which, it [formerly) had been dedicated.*
Training individuals and servicing agencies to render advice to the Executive branch of the Federal Government.
Decreasing the dependency of education upon the resources of the local community and freeing it from many of the natural safeguards inherent in this American tradition.
Changing both school and college curricula to the point where they sometimes denied the principles underlying the American way of life.
Financing experiments designed to determine the most effective means by which education could be pressed into service of a political nature.
At this point the staff became concerned with:
Identifying all the elements comprising the operational relationship between Foundations, education and government, and determining the objective to which this relationship had been dedicated and the functions performed by each of its parts.
Estimating the costs of this relationship and discovering how these costs were financed.
Understanding the administration of this relationship and the methods by which it was controlled.
Evaluating the effect of this operational relationship upon "the public interest" and upon the social structure of the
Comparing the practices of Foundations actively involved in this relationship with the purposes for which they were
• This story. fully documented, is told in The Turning of the Tides, by Paul W Shafer and Jobn Howland Snow. (THE LONG HOUSE, INC., 1953. Library
Edition, $3.00. Paperbound, $2.00)
established and with the premises upon which their exemption from taxation by the Federal Government is based.
In substance, this approach to the problem of providing the Committee with a clear understanding of Foundation operations can best be described as one of reasoning from total effect to primary and secondary causes.
We have used the scientific method and included both inductive and deductive reasoning as a check against the possibility that a reliance upon only one of these might lead to an erroneous set of conclusions.
Neither the formal books and records maintained by Foundations operating within the educational sphere, nor any of their supplemental or less formal reports to the public, make it possible to appraise the effect of their grants with any degree of accuracy. We
needed to turn to the grantees-rather than the grantors-for the information required by the Committee to make the specific determinations requested by the Congress in H. Res. 217,
Have Foundations-used their resources for purposes contrary to those for which they were established?
-used their resources for purposes which can be classed as un-American?
-used their resources for purposes which can be regarded as subversive?
-used their resources for political purposes?
-resorted to propaganda in order to achieve the objectives for which they have made grants?
To insure these determinations being made on the basis of impersonal facts, I directed the staff to make a study of the development of American education since the turn of the century and of the trends in techniques of teaching and of the development of curricula since that time. As a result, it became quite evident that this study would have to be enlarged to include the accessory agencies to which these developments and trends had been traced.
The work of the staff was then expanded to include an investigation of such agencies:
The American Council of Learned Societies, the National Research Council, the Social Science Research Council, the American Council on Education, the National Education Association, the League for Industrial Democracy, the Progressive Education Association, the American Historical Association, John Dewey Society, and the Anti-Defamation League.
To characterize some of these briefly:
The American Council of Learned Societies was founded in 1919 to encourage humanistic studies, including some which today are regarded as social sciences. It is comprised of 24 constituent member associations. In its entirety, it appears to dominate this division of scholarship in the United States.
The National Research Council was established in 1916, originally, as a preparedness measure in connection with World War I. Its charter was renewed in 1919, since which time, on behalf of its 8 member associations, it has been devoted to the promotion of research within the most essential areas ordinarily referred to as the exact and applied sciences.
The Social Science Research Council was established in 1923 to advance research in the social sciences. It acts as spokesman for 7 constituent member associations representing all of the subdivisions of this new field of knowledge, i.e., history, economics, sociology,
psychology, political science, statistics, and anthropology.
The American Council on Education was founded in 1918 "to coordinate the services which educational institutions and organizations could contribute to the Government in the national crisis brought about by World War I." Starting with 14 constituent or
founding organizations, this formidable and influential agency has steadily expanded until today its membership is reported to consist of:
79 constituent members (national and regional educational associations),
64 associate members (national organizations in fields related to education),
954 institutional members (universities, colleges, selected private school systems, educational departments of industrial concerns, voluntary associations of colleges and universities within the states, large public libraries, etc.)
The National Education Association was established in 1857 to elevate character, advance the interests of the teaching profession and to promote the cause of popular education in the United States. Broadly speaking, this powerful entity concentrates on primary and secondary schools. Its membership is reported to consist of 520,000 individuals who include in addition to teachers-superintendents, school administrators and school secretaries. It boasts that it is "the only organization that represents or has the possibility of representing the great body of teachers in the United States", thus inferring a monopolistic aim.
The League for Industrial Democracy came into being in 1905, when it was known as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, for the purpose of awakening the intellectuals of this country to the ideas and benefits of socialism. This organization might be compared to
the Fabian Society in England, which was established in 1884 to spread socialism by peaceful means.
The Progressive Education Association was established around 1880. Since then it has been active in introducing radical ideas to education which are now being questioned by many. They include the idea that the individual must be adjusted to the group as a result of his or her educational experience, and that democracy is little more than a system for cooperative living.
The American Historical Association was established in 1889 to promote historical studies. It is interesting to note that after giving careful consideration, in 1926, to the social sciences, a report was published under its auspices in 1934 which concluded that the day of the individual in the United States had come to an end and that the future would be characterized, inevitably, by some form of collectivism and an increase in the authority of the State.
The John Dewey Society was formed in February 1936, apparently for the two-fold purpose of conducting research in the field of education and promoting the educational philosophy of John Dewey, in honor of whom the society was named. It could be supposed that those who were members of this organization would be devoted to the
premises upon which Dr. Dewey had based his experiments in education since 1896. Basically, these were pragmatic and a stimulus to empirical thinking. He held that ideas were instruments and that their truth or falsity depended upon whether or not they worked successfully .
The broad study which called our attention to the activities of these organizations has revealed not only their support by Foundations but has disclosed a degree of cooperation between them which they have referred to as "an interlock", thus indicating a concentration of influence and power. By this phrase they indicate they are bound by a common interest rather than a dependency upon a single source for capital funds. It is difficult to study their relationship without confirming this. Likewise, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that their common interest has led them to cooperate closely with one another and that this common interest lies in the planning and control of certain aspects of American life through a combination of the Federal Government and education.
This may explain why the Foundations have played such an active role in the promotion of the social sciences, why they have favored so strongly the employment of social scientists by the Federal Government and why they seem to have used their influence to
transform education into an instrument for social change.
We wish to stress the importance of questioning change only when it might involve developments detrimental to the interests of the American people, or when it is promoted by a relatively small
and tightly knit group backed by disproportionately large amounts of money which could threaten the American ideal of competition.
In summary, our study of these entities and their relationship to each other seems to warrant the inference that they constitute a highly efficient, functioning whole. Its product is apparently an educational curriculum designed to indoctrinate the American student from matriculation to the consummation of his education. It contrasts sharply with the freedom of the individual as the cornerstone of our social structure. For this freedom, it seems to substitute the group, the will of the majority, and a centralized power to enforce this will-presumably in the interest of all. Its development and production seems to have been largely the work of those organizations engaged in research, such as the Social Science Research Council and the National Research Council.
The demand for their product seems to come from such strong and sizeable aggregations of interests as the National Education Association and the American Council on Education, whose authorities seem to see in it the means by which education can render a
national service. They make frequent reference to this service as synonymous with "the cause of education" and tend to criticize strongly anyone who dares to doubt the validity of their conclusions.
Its promotion appears to have been managed by such organizations as the Progressive Education Association, the American Historical Association, the League for Industrial Democracy, the John Dewey Society and the Anti-Defamation League. Supplementing
their efforts were others, such as: the Parent-Teachers Association, the National Council of Churches, and the Committee for Economic Development, each of which has played some part in adjusting the minds of American citizens to the idea of planning and to the marked changes which have taken place in "the public interest".
Others, too, are engaged in the dissemination of this idea as being essential to the security of this country. Neither time nor funds have permitted me to direct the attention of the staff to the operations and influence of any but a few of these, beyond taking notice of their existence and the purposes which they serve.
From our studies, it appears that the overall administration of this functioning whole and the careful selection of its personnel seem to have been the peculiar interest of the American Council of Learned Societies. It is interesting to note that, by legislative action recently, another entity has been brought into being known as the National Science Foundation, whose purpose is to develop a national policy with respect to science. Its additional purpose is to serve our Government in an advisory capacity in connection with
the huge appropriations now being made for research in the interest of effective controls. Evidence exists of close cooperation between privately endowed Foundations, the agencies through which they have operated and the educational institutions through which they have been accustomed to make grants for research. This process may contribute to an undesirable degree of concentrated power.
It is also interesting to note that by comparison with funds for research provided by Foundations, those now flowing from our Government are so large that they dwarf Foundation contributions. This promises to be true for some time to come and indicates that Foundations may extend their influence over a wider area than in the past.
The result of the development and operation of the network in which Foundations have played such a significant role seems to have provided this country with what is tantamount to a national system of education under the tight control of organizations and persons, little known to the American public. Its operations and ideas are so complex as to be beyond pubic understanding or control. It also seems to have resulted in an educational product which can be traced to research of a predominantly empirical character in the inexact or social sciences.
In these fields the specialists, more often than not, seem to have been concerned with the production of empirical data and with its application. Principles and their truth or falsity seem to have concerned them very little.
In what appears from our studies to have been zeal for a radically new social order in the United States, many of these social science specialists apparently gave little thought to either the opinions or the warnings of those who were convinced that a wholesale acceptance of knowledge acquired almost entirely by empirical methods would result in a deterioration of moral standards and a disrespect for principles. Even past experience which indicated that such an approach to the problems of society could lead to
tyranny, appears to have been disregarded.
'For these reasons, it has been difficult for us to dismiss the suspicion that, latent in the minds of many of the social scientists has lain the belief that, given sufficient authority and enough funds, human behavior can be controlled, and that this control can be exercised without risk to either ethical principles or spiritual values and that therefore, the solution to all social problems should be entrusted to them.
In the light of this suspicion and the evidence which supports it, it has been difficult to avoid the conclusion that social scientists of the persuasion I have been discussing have been accepted by Foundations, Government and education as though their claims were true-this in the face of the fact that their validity has been disputed by men well trained in these same disciplines.
In spite of this dispute within his own ranks, the social scientist is gradually becoming dignified by the title "Social Engineer". This title implies that the objective viewpoint of the pure scientist is about to become obsolete in favor of techniques of control. It also suggests that our traditional concept of freedom as the function of natural and constitutional law has already been abandoned
by the "social engineer" and brings to mind our native fear of controls-however well intended.
In the face of this, it seems strange that Foundations made no reference in their reports to the consequences to be expected from a new science of society founded upon empiricism and undisciplined by either a set of principles or proved experiments. Apparently they were content to operate on the theory that they would produce usable data for others to employ and rely upon them to account for the effects. It may not have occurred to their trustees that the power to produce data in volume might stimulate others to use it in an undisciplined fashion without first checking it against principles discovered through the deductive process.
Their position that they need not closely follow the effects of their support of such grants also seems strange. Their reports often show that they were supporting such a new "science". The descriptions, however, made it very difficult to judge the ultimate purposes for which this support was being given.
To summarize, both the general and the specific studies pursued by the staff during the past six months lead me to the tentative conclusion that, within the social science division of education, the Foundations have neglected "the public interest" to a severe degree.
In my judgment, this neglect may be found by the Committee to have stemmed from:
The willingness of Foundations-
to support experiments in fields which defied control;
to support these uncontrollable experiments without first having proved them to be "in the public interest"; and
to extend this support without reporting its purpose in language which could be readily understood.
I suggest that the Committee give consideration to the tendency of Foundation trustees to abdicate responsibility. To illustrate: The following statement has been taken from An American Dilemma, The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, by Gunnar Myrdal, with the assistance of Richard Sterner and Arnold Rose, Volume II :
"This study was made possible by funds granted by Carnegie Corporation of New York. That corporation is not, however, the author, owner, publisher, or proprietor of this publication, and is not to be understood as approving by virtue of its grant any of the statements made or views expressed therein."
While this refers to but one project out of many, it becomes significant when it is realized that the project to which these books relate involves some $250,000, and led to the
publication of statements which were most critical of our Constitution.
The similar tendency to delegate responsibility will be seen in the support given by Foundations to agencies such as the Social Science Research Council, which disregards the legal concept: "He who acts through an agent, acts himself."
THE FORD FOUNDATION
Finally, I suggest that the Committee give special consideration to the Ford Foundation. This Foundation gives ample evidence of having taken the initiative in selecting purposes of its own. Being of recent origin, it should not be held responsible for the actions or accomplishments of any of its predecessors. It is without precedent as to size, and it is the first Foundation to dedicate itself openly to "problem solving" on a world scale.
In a sense, Ford appears to be capitalizing on developments which took place long before it was founded, and which have enabled it to take advantage of:
the wholesale dedication of education to a social purpose-
the need to defend this dedication against criticism-
the need to indoctrinate adults along these lines-
the acceptance by the Executive branch of the Federal Government of responsibility for planning on a national and international scale-
the diminishing importance of the Congress and the states and the growing power of the Executive branch of the Federal government-and
the seeming indispensability of control over human behavior.
As if they had been influenced directly by these developments, the trustees established separate funds for use in the fields of education, national planning, and politics. They set up a division devoted to the Behavioral Sciences, which includes a Center for Advanced Study, a program of research and Training Abroad, an Institutional Exchange Program, and miscellaneous grants-in-aid .
Supplementing these major interests are such varied activities as: a TV Radio Work Shop, "external grants", inter-cultural publications, and an operation called the East European Fund, which is about to be terminated.
When it is considered that the capital resources of this Foundation approach, or may exceed, $500,000,000, and that its income approximates $30,000,000, each year, it is obvious that before embarking upon the solution of "problems", some effort should be
made by the trustees to make certain that their solution is "in the public interest".
It is significant that the policies of this Foundation include making funds available for certain aspects of secret Military re-
search and for the education of the Armed Forces. It becomes even more significant when it is realized that the responsibility for the selection of the personnel engaged in these projects is known to rest on the Foundation itself-subject as it may be to screening by our Military authorities.
In this connection, it has been interesting to examine what the educational aspect of these unprecedented Foundation activities can be expected to produce. The first example is a pamphlet in which the Declaration of Independence is discussed as though its importance lay in the fact that it had raised two, as yet unanswered, questions:
1) Are men equal? and do we demonstrate this equality?
2) What constitutes "the consent of the governed"? and what does this phrase imply in practice?
By inference, the first question is subtly answered in the negative. By direct statement, the second is explained as submitting to majority rule-but the restriction of the majority by the Constitution is not mentioned. Only an abridged version of the Declaration is printed. It is interesting that this should omit the list of grievances which originally made the general concepts of this Document reasonable.
It seems incredible that the trustees of typically American fortune-created foundations should have permitted them to be used to finance ideas and practices incompatible with the fundamental concepts of our Constitution. Yet there seems evidence that this may have occurred.
I assume it is the purpose of this inquiry to gather and weigh the facts.
Norman Dodd, Director of Research
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
TAX EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS
May 10, 1954
THE NEED FOR A PERMANENT STANDING COMMITTEE
The effect of the Dodd Report was electric. Moves were launched within a matter of hours to block an effective probe. On Capitol Hill, the Committee found itself confronted with obstacles at every turn; the Nation itself was deluged with stories which openly or by inference suggested that the investigation was futile, if not worse. The national board of Americans for Democratic Action (the A. D. A.) formally urged the House to disband its own committee-it was conducting "a frontal attack on learning itself."
Many citizens, on the other hand, believe that such a committee should be made a permanent Standing Committee of the House-"to gather and weigh the facts."
Two quick, effective steps can bring this about. These are:
1) Immediate, widespread reading of this Report-through friends, clubs, organizations;
2) A steady flood of mail to Congress, including, specifically, formal Resolutions from organizations of every kind.
Address: Hon. ……………………………………………………
House Office Building,
Washington, D. C.
* * *
The Dodd Report is available at the following Quantity Prices. Plain white envelopes, for mailing, are included in all shipments of five or more copies. If it is more convenient to have us mail them separately for you, we will do so to whatever list you supply*. Gift cards will be enclosed if you send them to us.
Single copy………..Twenty-five cents to your list:
5 copies……...... $1.00 $1.25
25 copies……….. 5.00 6.25
50 copies……….. 9.00 11.50
100 copies……….. 17.50 22.50
T HE LONG HOUSE INC.
P U B L I S H E R S
P. O. Box 1103, Grand Central Annex,
New York 17, N. Y.
The Hidden Agenda
NORMAN DODD: Rowan Gaither was at that time president of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York, asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did, and on arrival after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said: “Mr. Dodd, we've asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of the foundations such as ourselves.” Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on and said: “Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
ANNOUNCER: Warning! You are about to enter The Reality Zone, a place where truth is stranger than fiction, where knowledge is king, where myths are shattered, and deceptions exposed. It's a place where the lessons of history are found and where true-life adventures reveal the hidden nature of man. If you proceed, you will not be able to return to the twilight zone from which you came. You have five seconds remaining to escape.
ED GRIFFIN: Welcome to The Reality Zone. I'm Ed Griffin. The story we are about to hear represents a missing piece in the puzzle of modern history. We are about to hear a man tell us that the major tax-exempt foundations of America since at least 1945 have been operating to promote a hidden agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with the surface appearance of charity, good works, or philanthropy. This man will tell you that the real objective has been to influence American educational institutions and to control foreign policy of the federal government. The purpose of this control has been to condition Americans to accept the creation of world government. That government is to be based on the principle of collectivism, which is another way of saying socialism, and it is to be ruled from behind the scenes by those same interests which control the tax-exempt foundations. Is this a believable scenario? Well, the man who tells this story is none other than Mr. Norman Dodd, who in 1954 was the staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-exempt Foundations, sometimes referred to as the Reece Committee, in recognition of its chairman, Congressman Carol Reece. The interview we are about to hear was conducted by me in 1982. I had no immediate use for the material at that time, but I realized that Mr. Dodd's story was of great importance, and since he was advanced in age and not in good health, I wanted to capture his recollections on videotape while he was still with us. It was a wise decision, because Mr. Dodd did pass away just a short time afterwards. In later years there was a resurgence of interest in Mr. Dodd's story, and we released the videotape to the public in 1991. And so what now follows is the soundtrack taken from the full, unedited interview, broken occasionally only for a tape change or to omit the sound of a passing airplane. It stands on its own as an important piece in the puzzle of modern history.
(THE INTERVIEW FOLLOWS)
ED GRIFFIN: Mr. Dodd, let's begin this interview with a brief statement. For the record, please tell us who you are, what is your background and your qualifications to speak on this subject.
NORMAN DODD: Well, Mr. Griffin, as to who I am, I am just, as the name implies, an individual born in New Jersey and educated in private schools, eventually in a school called Andover in Massachusetts and then Yale university. Running through my whole period of being brought up and growing up, I have been an indefatigable reader. I have had one major interest, and that was this country as I was lead to believe it was originally founded. I entered the world of business knowing absolutely nothing about how that world operated, and realized that the only way to find out what that world consisted of would be to become part of it. I then acquired some experience in the manufacturing world and then in the world of international communication and finally chose banking as the field I wished to devote my life to. I was fortunate enough to secure a position in one of the important banks in New York and lived there. I lived through the conditions which led up to what is known as the crash of 1929. I witnessed what was tantamount to the collapse of the structure of the United States as a whole.
Much to my surprise, I was confronted by my superiors in the middle of the panic in which they were immersed. I was confronted with the question: “Norm, what do we do now?” I was thirty at the time and I had no more right to have an answer to that question than the man in the moon. However, I did manage to say to my superiors: “Gentlemen, you take this experience as proof that there's something you do not know about banking, and you'd better go find out what that something is and act accordingly.” Four days later I was confronted by the same superiors with a statement to the effect that, “Norm, you go find out.” And I really was fool enough to accept that assignment, because it meant that you were going out to search for something, and nobody could tell you what you were looking for, but I felt so strongly on the subject that I consented.
I was relieved of all normal duties inside the bank and two-and-half years later I felt that it was possible to report back to those who had given me this assignment. And so, I rendered such a report; and, as a result of the report I rendered. I was told the following: “Norm, what you're saying is we should return to sound banking,” and I said, “Yes, in essence, that's exactly what I’m saying.” Whereupon I got my first shock, which was a statement from them to this effect: “We will never see sound banking in the United States again.” They cited chapter and verse to support that statement, and what they cited was as follows: “Since the end of world war one we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalizing of conflicting interests, and they are so prevalent inside this country that they can never be resolved.”
This came to me as an extraordinary shock because the men who made this statement were men who were deemed as the most prominent bankers in the country. The bank of which I was a part, which I’ve spoken of, was a Morgan bank and, coming from men of that caliber, a statement of that kind made a tremendous impression on me. The type of impression that it made on me was such that I wondered if I, as an individual and what they call a junior officer of the bank, could with the same enthusiasm foster the progress and policies of the bank. I spent about a year trying to think this out and came to the conclusion that I would have to resign.
I did resign; and, as a consequence of that, had this experience. When my letter of resignation reached the desk of the president of the bank, he sent for me, and I came to visit with him, and he stated to me: “Norm, I have your letter, but I don't believe you understand what's happened in the last 10 days.” And I said, “No, Mr. Cochran, I have no idea what's happened.” “Well,” he said, “the directors have never been able to get your report to them out of their mind; and, as a result, they have decided that you as an individual must begin at once and you must reorganize this bank in keeping with your own ideas.” He then said, “Now, can I tear up your letter?” Inasmuch as what had been said to me was offering me, at the age of by then 33, about as fine an opportunity for service to the country as I could imagine, I said yes. They said they wished me to begin at once, and I did.
Suddenly, in the span of about six weeks, I was not permitted to do another piece of work and, every time I brought the subject up, I was kind of patted on the back and told, “Stop worrying about it, Norm. Pretty soon you'll be a vice president, and you'll have quite a handsome salary and ultimately be able to retire on a very worthwhile pension. In the meantime you can play golf and tennis to your heart's content on weekends.” Well, Mr. Griffin, I found I couldn't do it. I spent a year figuratively with my feet on the desk doing nothing and I couldn't adjust to it so I did resign and, this time, my resignation stuck.
Then I got my second shock, which was the discovery that the doors of every bank in the United States were closed to me, and I never could again get a job, as it were, in the banks. I found myself, for the first time since I graduated from college, out of a job.
From there on I followed various branches of the financial world, ranging from investment counsel to membership of the stock exchange and finally ended as an adviser to a few individuals who had capital funds to look after. In the meantime, my major interest became very specific, which was to endeavor by some means of getting the educational world to actually, you might say, teach the subject of economics realistically and move it away from the support of various speculative activities that characterize our country. I have had that interest, and you know how, as you generate a specific interest, you find yourself gravitating toward persons with similar interests, and ultimately I found myself in the center of the world of dissatisfaction with the directions that this country was headed. I found myself in contact with many individuals who on their own had done a vast amount of studying and research in areas, which were part of the problem.
ED GRIFFIN: At what point in your career did you become connected with the Reece Committee?
NORMAN DODD: 1953.
ED GRIFFIN: And what was that capacity, sir?
NORMAN DODD: That was in the capacity of what they called Director of Research.
ED GRIFFIN: Can you tell us what the Reece Committee was attempting to do?
NORMAN DODD: Yes, I can tell you. It was operating and carrying out instructions embodied in a resolution passed by the House of Representatives, which was to investigate the activities of foundations as to whether or not these activities could justifiably be labeled un-American without, I might say, defining what they meant by "un-American". That was the resolution, and the committee had then the task of selecting a counsel, and the counsel in turn had the task of selecting a staff, and he had to have somebody who would direct the work of that staff, and that was what they meant by the Director of Research.
ED GRIFFIN: What were some of the details, the specifics that you told the Committee at that time?
NORMAN DODD: Well, Mr. Griffin, in that report I specifically, number one, defined what, to us, was meant by the phrase, "un-American." We defined that in our way as being a determination to effect changes in the country by unconstitutional means. We have plenty of constitutional procedures, assuming we wish to effect a change in the form of government and that sort of thing; and, therefore, any effort in that direction which did not avail itself of the procedures which were authorized by the Constitution could be justifiably be called un-American. That was the start of educating them up to that particular point. The next thing was to educate them as to the effect on the country as a whole of the activities of large, endowed foundations over the then-past forty years.
ED GRIFFIN: What was that effect?
NORMAN DODD: That effect was to orient our educational system away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and implemented in the Constitution; and the task now was the orientation of education away from these briefly stated principles and self-evident truths. That's what had been the effect of the wealth, which constituted the endowments of those foundations that had been in existence over the largest portion of this span of 50 years, and holding them responsible for this change. What we were able to bring forward, what we uncovered, was the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, to actually get control over the content of American education.
ED GRIFFIN: There's quite a bit of publicity given to your conversation with Rowan Gaither. Would you please tell us who he was and what was that conversation you had with him?
NORMAN DODD: Rowan Gaither was, at that time, president of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York, asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did. Upon arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said: “Mr. Dodd, we've asked you to come up here today because we thought that possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves?” Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on voluntarily and said:
“Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience either with the OSS during the war or the European Economic Administration after the war. We've had experience operating under directives, and these directives emanate and did emanate from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such directives. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?”
I said, “Mr. Gaither, I’d like very much to know,” whereupon he made this statement to me: “Mr. Dodd, we are here operate in response to similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
Well, parenthetically, Mr. Griffin, I nearly fell off the chair. I, of course didn't, but my response to Mr. Gaither then was: “Well, Mr. Gaither I can now answer your first question. You've forced the Congress of the United States to spend $150,000 to find out what you've just told me.” I said: “Of course, legally, you're entitled to make grants for this purpose, but I don't think you're entitled to withhold that information from the people of the country to whom you're indebted for your tax exemption, so why don't you tell the people of the country what you just told me?” And his answer was, “We would not think of doing any such thing.” So then I said, “Well, Mr. Gaither, obviously you've forced the Congress to spend this money in order to find out what you've just told me.”
ED GRIFFIN: Mr. Dodd, you have spoken before about some interesting things that were discovered by Katherine Casey at the Carnegie Endowment. Can you tell us that story, please?
NORMAN DODD: Yes, I’d be glad to, Mr. Griffin. This experience that you just referred to came about in response to a letter that I had written to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, asking certain questions and gathering certain information. On the arrival of that letter, Dr. Johnson, who was then president of the Carnegie Endowment, telephoned me and said, did I ever come up to New York. I said yes, I did more or less each weekend, and he said, “Well, when you're next here, will you drop in and see us?” Which I did.
On arrival at the office of the endowment I found myself in the presence of Dr. Joseph Johnson, the president - who was the successor to Alger Hiss - two vice presidents, and their own counsel, a partner in the firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. Dr. Johnson said, after again amenities, Mr. Dodd, we have your letter. We can answer all those questions, but it would be a great deal of trouble, and we have a counter suggestion. Our counter suggestion is: If you can spare a member of your staff for two weeks and send that member up to New York, we will give to that member a room in the library and the minute books of this foundation since its inception, and we think that whatever you want to find out or that Congress wants to find out will be obvious from those minutes.
Well, my first reaction was they'd lost their minds. I had a pretty good idea of what those minutes would contain, but I realized that Dr. Johnson had only been in office two years, and the other vice presidents were relatively young men, and counsel seemed to be also a young man, and I guessed that probably they'd never read the minutes themselves. So I said I had somebody; I would accept their offer.
I went back to Washington and I selected a member of my staff who had been a practicing attorney in Washington. She was on my staff to see to it that I didn't break any congressional procedures or rules, in addition to which she was unsympathetic to the purpose of the investigation. She was level-headed and a very reasonably brilliant, capable lady. Her attitude toward the investigation was: What could possibly be wrong with foundations? They do so much good.
Well, in the face of that sincere conviction of Katherine's I went out of my way not to prejudice her in any way, but I did explain to her that she couldn't possibly cover 50 years of written minutes in two weeks, so she would have to do what we call spot reading. I blocked out certain periods of time to concentrate on, and off she went to New York. She came back at the end of two weeks with the following on dictaphone tapes:
We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity.
So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: “How do we involve the United States in a war?”
Well, I doubt at that time if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. Then, finally, they answered that question as follows:
“We must control the State Department.” That very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying: “We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country.” And, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.
Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.
Finally, of course, the war is over. At that time their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914 when World War I broke out. At that point they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, “we must control education in the United States.” They realize that that's a pretty big task. It is too big for them alone, so they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion that that portion of education which could be considered domestic be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation and that portion which is international should be handled by the Endowment. They then decide that the key to success of these two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history.
So they approach four of the then-most prominent teachers of American history in the country - people like Charles and Mary Byrd - and their suggestion to them is: will they alter the manner in which they present their subject? And they got turned down flat. So they then decide that it is necessary for them to do as they say, “build our own stable of historians.”
Then they approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in fellowships, and say: “When we find young men in the process of studying for doctorates in the field of American history and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant them fellowships on our say-so?” And the answer is yes. So, under that condition, eventually they assemble twenty, and they take this twenty potential teachers of American history to London, and there they're briefed on what is expected of them when, as, and if they secure appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have earned. That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes the nucleus of the American Historical Association.
Toward the end of the 1920's, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 for a study of our history in a manner which points to what can this country look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is: The future of this country belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency. That's the story that ultimately grew out of and, of course, was what could have been presented by the members of this Congressional committee to the congress as a whole for just exactly what it said. They never got to that point.
ED GRIFFIN: This is the story that emerged from the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment?
NORMAN DODD: That's right. It was official to that extent.
ED GRIFFIN: Katherine Casey brought all of these back in the form of dictated notes from a verbatim reading of the minutes?
NORMAN DODD: On dictaphone belts.
ED GRIFFIN: Are those in existence today?
NORMAN DODD: I don't know. If they are, they're somewhere in the Archives under the control of the Congress, House of Representatives.
ED GRIFFIN: How many people actually heard those, or were they typed up, a transcript made of them?
NORMAN DODD: No.
ED GRIFFIN: How many people actually heard those recordings?
NORMAN DODD: Oh, three maybe. Myself, my top assistant, and Katherine. I might tell you, this experience, as far as its impact on Katherine Casey was concerned, was she never was able to return to her law practice. If it hadn't been for Carol Reece's ability to tuck her away into a job in the Federal Trade Commission, I don't know what would have happened to Katherine. Ultimately, she lost her mind as a result of it. It was a terrible shock. It's a very rough experience to encounter proof of these kinds.
ED GRIFFIN: Mr. Dodd can you summarize the opposition to the Committee, the Reece Committee and particularly the efforts to sabotaging the Committee?
NORMAN DODD: Well, they began right at the start of the work of an operating staff, Mr. Griffin, and it began on the day in which the Committee met for the purpose of consenting to or confirming my appointment to the position of Director of Research. Thanks to the abstention of the minority members of the committee, that is, the two Democratic members, from voting, technically I was unanimously appointed.
ED GRIFFIN: Wasn't the White House involved in opposition?
NORMAN DODD: Not at this particular point, sir. Mr. Reece ordered counsel and myself to visit Wayne Hayes. Wayne Hayes was the ranking minority member of the Committee as a Democrat, so we came to him, and I had to go down to Mr. Hayes's office, which I did. Mr. Hayes greeted us with the flat statement directed primarily to me, which was that “I am opposed to this investigation. I regard it as nothing but an effort on the part of Carol Reece to gain a little prominence, so I'll do everything I can to see that it fails.” Well, I have a strange personality in that a challenge of that nature interests me. Our counsel withdrew. He went over and sat on the couch in Mr. Reece's office and pouted, but I sort of took up this statement of Hayes as a challenge and set myself the goal of winning him over to our point of view. I started by noticing on his desk that there was a book, and the book was of the type that - there were many in these days - that would be complaining about the spread of Communism in Hungary, that type of book. This meant to me at least he has read a book, and so I brought up the subject of the spread of the influence of the Soviet world. For two hours, I discussed this with Hayes and finally ended up with his rising from his desk and saying: “Norm, if you will carry this investigation toward the goal as you have outlined to me, I'll be your biggest supporter.” I said: “Mr. Hayes, I can assure you that I will not double-cross you.”
Subsequently Mr. Hayes sent word to me that he was in Bethesda Hospital with an attack of ulcers, but would I come and see him, which I did. He then said: “Norm, the only reason I’ve asked you to come out here is I just want to hear you say again you will not double-cross me.” I gave him that assurance, and that was the basis of our relationship. Meantime, counsel took the attitude expressed in these words: “Norm, if you want to waste your time with this guy,” as he called him, “you go ahead and do it, but don't ever ask me to say anything to him under any conditions on any subject.” So, in a sense, that created a context for me to operate in relation to Hayes on my own. As time passed, Hayes offered friendship, which I hesitated to accept because of his vulgarity, and I didn't want to get mixed up with him socially under any conditions.
Well, that was our relationship for about three months, and then, eventually, I had occasion to add to my staff a top-flight intelligence officer. Both the Republican National Committee and the White House were resorted to, to stop me from continuing this investigation in the directions Carol Reece had personally asked me to do, which was to utilize this investigation, Mr. Griffin, to uncover the fact that this country had been the victim of a conspiracy. That was Mr. Reece's conviction. I eventually agreed to carry it out. I explained to Mr. Reece that Hayes's own counsel wouldn't go in that direction. He gave me permission to disregard their counsel, and I had then to set up an aspect of the investigation outside of our office, more or less secret. The Republican National Committee got wind of what I was doing and they did everything they could to stop me. They appealed to counsel to stop me, and finally they resorted to the White House.
ED GRIFFIN: Was their objection because of what you were doing or because of the fact that you were doing it outside of the official auspices of the Committee?
NORMAN DODD: No, their objection was, as they put it, my devotion to what they called anti-semitism. That was a cooked up idea. In other words, it wasn't true at all, but anyway, that's the way they expressed it.
ED GRIFFIN: Why did they do that? How could they say that?
NORMAN DODD: Well, they could say it, Mr. Griffin, but they had to have something in the way of a rationalization of their decision to do everything they could to stop the completion of this investigation in the directions that it was moving, which would have been an exposure of this Carnegie Endowment story and the Ford Foundation and the Guggenheim and the Rockefeller Foundation, all working in harmony toward the control of education in the United States. Well, to secure the help of the White House in the picture, they got the White House to cause the liaison personality between the White House and the hill, a Major Person, to go up to Hayes and try to get him to, as it were, actively oppose what the investigation was engaged in. Hayes very kindly then would listen to this visit from Major Person; then he would call me and say, “Norm, come up to my office. I have a good deal to tell you.” I would go up. He would tell me, “I’ve just had a visit from Major Person, and he wants me to break up this investigation.” I then said, “Well, what did you do? What did you say to him?” He said, “I just told him to get the hell out.” He did that three times, and I got pretty proud of him in the sense that he was, as it were, backing me up. We finally embarked upon the hearing at Hayes's request, because he wanted to get them out of the way before he went abroad for the summer.
ED GRIFFIN: Why were the hearings finally terminated? What happened to the Committee?
NORMAN DODD: What happened to the Committee or the hearings?
ED GRIFFIN: The hearings.
NORMAN DODD: Oh, the hearings were terminated. Carol Reece was up against such a furor with Hayes through the activity of our own counsel. Hayes became convinced that he was being double-crossed and he put on a show in a public hearing room, Mr. Griffin, that was an absolute disgrace. He called Carol Reece publicly every name in the book, and Mr. Reece took this as proof that he couldn't continue the hearings. He actually invited me to accompany him when he went down to Hayes's office and, in my presence with tears rolling down his face, Hayes apologized to Carol Reece for what he had done and his conduct, and apologized to me. I thought that would be enough and that Carol would resume, but he never did.
ED GRIFFIN: The charge of anti-semitism is intriguing. What was the basis of that charge? Was there a basis for it at all?
NORMAN DODD: The basis of what the Republican National Committee used was that the intelligence officer I’d taken on my staff when I oriented this investigation to the exposure and proof of a conspiracy was known to have a book, and the book was deemed to be anti-semitic. This was childish, but this was the second in command of the Republican National Committee, and he told me I’d have to dismiss this person from my staff.
ED GRIFFIN: Who was that person?
NORMAN DODD: A Colonel Lee Lelane.
ED GRIFFIN: And what was his book? Do you recall?
NORMAN DODD: The book they referred to was called Waters Flowing Eastward, which was a castigation of the Jewish influence in the world.
ED GRIFFIN: What were some of the other charges made by Mr. Hayes against Mr. Reece?
NORMAN DODD: Just that Mr. Reece was utilizing this investigation for his own prominence inside the House of Representatives. That was the only charge that Hayes could think of.
ED GRIFFIN: How would you describe the motivation of the people who created the foundations, the big foundations, in the very beginning? What was their motivation?
NORMAN DODD: Their motivation? Well, let's take Mr. Carnegie as an example. He has publicly declared that his steadfast interest was to counteract the departure of the colonies from Great Britain. He was devoted to just putting the pieces back together again.
ED GRIFFIN: Would that have required the collectivism that they were dedicated to?
NORMAN DODD: No, no, no. These policies, the foundations’ allegiance to these un-American concepts, are all traceable to the transfer of the funds into the hands of trustees, Mr. Griffin. It's not the men who had a hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment for what we would call public purposes.
ED GRIFFIN: It's a subversion of the original intent, then?
NORMAN DODD: Oh, yes, completely, and that’s how it got into the world traditionally of bankers and lawyers.
ED GRIFFIN: How do you see that the purpose and direction of the major foundations has changed over the years to the present? What is it today?
NORMAN DODD: Oh, it’s a hundred percent behind meeting the cost of education such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of the United States on the subject of our history as proving our original ideas to be no longer practicable. The future belongs to collectivistic concepts, and there's just no disagreement on that.
ED GRIFFIN: Why do the foundations generously support Communist causes in the United States?
NORMAN DODD: Well, because to them, Communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly, that is, an organization of, say, a large-scale industry into an administerable unit.
ED GRIFFIN: Do they think that they will be the ones to benefit?
NORMAN DODD: They will be the beneficiaries of it, yes.
[END OF INTERVIEW]
Testimony on Regionalism
In 1978 the legislature of Illinois created a committee to study Regionalism in Illinois. The Committee held three hearings - the first in Springfield, Illinois, April 11, 1978; the second in Chicago, July 10, 1978; and the third and final hearing in Edwardsville, on September 26, 1978. The following is a transcript - from the September 26th hearing - of the testimony of Mr. Norman Dodd, beginning on page 51 and ending on page 61. Mr. Dodd was chief investigator in 1953 for U.S. Congressman, B. Carroll Reece, whose committee (referred to as the Reece Committee) investigated tax-exempt foundations.
The investigation was eventually narrowed down to about 10 foundations, chiefly among them being Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie Foundations, their sub- foundations, and the Rhodes Scholarship Fund. Mr. Rene Wormser, Council for the Reece Committee subsequently wrote a book - titled "Foundations - Their Power and Influence", which relates information uncovered during the hearings, as well as the difficulties and roadblocks encountered throughout. Congressman Cox had begun this process in the previous Congressional Session and died suddenly, bringing the hearings to a halt. Reece braved it out and the results are staggering to the mind of an American who once believed in a "free" America, under the Constitution.
In his book Wormser listed, among the major instruments of these foundations, the CFR, United Nations Association, Foreign Policy Association and Institute of Pacific Relations. From pg 200-201 of "Foundations...": (remember, this was 1953)
"It would be difficult to find a single foundation-supported organization of any substance which has not favored the United Nations or similar global schemes; fantastically heavy foreign aid at the burdensome expense of the taxpayer; meddling in the colonial affairs of other nations; and American military commitments over the globe... The influence of the foundation complex in internationalism has reached far into government, policymaking circles of Congress and State Department".
"Foundations" is available through Covenant House Press; P.O. Box 4690, Sevierville, Tenn.; 37864. Regionalism is a plan which emanates from the United Nations, is taking place on a world scale, and its ultimate aim is to organize populations into groups small enough that no people can challenge a World Government. The 50 Sovereign States united in America have been unconstitutionally divided into ten federal Regions with populations a little over 20 million in each - comparable to the Regional population divisions in all other countries.
We, in America, are the last bastion of hope. Although the Regional Plan is deeply entrenched, although we are indeed at the 11th Hour... we can, by the loving Grace of God and our intelligent activity - stop and reverse the process. The transcripts of the Illinois hearings are relevant to the further understanding of the plan to eliminate the states and to transform America into a region of the world government.
Transcript of Public Hearing - Joint Committee on Regional Government - September 26, 1978, Edwardsville, Illinois Norman Dodd - pgs 51-61 [pg 51]
Mr. Dodd: Mr. Chairman. After listening to the very able descriptions of how complex the question that is before the Committee is, I have been thinking in terms of drawing on my own experiences that relate to the development of the proposal called "regional government", which might be helpful to the Committee. I think the Committee deserves to understand and have a first-hand look at the origin of the idea of regional government, and also to be made aware of the purpose for which the idea has been introduced, so I would like to share with the Committee two experiences.
One of them... and these experiences are traceable to a position that I, at one time, held as the Executive Director of a Congressional Committee that was called upon to investigate the relationship of the economy, really, and wealth in this country to the purpose represented by the Constitution of the United States. As a result of that investigation, experiences began to accrue, and one of them stemmed from the entity – or the head of the entity – responsible for the proposition which you all now face called regional government.
This individual was the head of the Ford Foundation, and this experience took place back in 1953. It took the form of an invitation from the President of the Ford Foundation to me to visit the Foundation's offices, all of which I did, and on arrival, was greeted by the President of the Ford Foundation with this statement:
"Mr. Dodd, we have invited you to come to New York and stop in and see us in the hope that, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress of the United States should be interested in an operation such as ours".
Before I could think of just exactly how I would reply, Mr. Gaither volunteered the following information, and these are practically in his exact words:
"Mr. Dodd, we operate here under directives which emanate from the White House. Would you like to know what the substance of these directives is?"
I said, "Indeed, I would, Mr. Gaither". Whereupon he then said the following:
"We, here, operate and control our grant-making policies in harmony with the directives, the substance of which is as follows: We shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union".
This is a shocking, almost unbelievable attitude that you can run across. Nevertheless, this is what clarified the nature of the grants of this Foundation, which incidentally, of course, was the largest aggregation of privately-directed wealth in the United States.
Now, the second experience that I would like to share with you... oh, and incidentally, it is the Ford Foundation's grants which are responsible for the formulation of this idea of regional government, and also the idea that given regional government, we must, in turn, develop and accept and agree to a totally new Constitution which has already been drawn up, as was mentioned just a few minutes ago. [previous testimony]
The next experience ran this way. This followed an invitation from the head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Also, it entailed visiting their offices, all of which I did. The invitation itself came because of a letter which I had written to the Carnegie Endowment, asking them certain questions which would clarify the reasons for many of the grants which they had made over a period of time. On arrival at the office of the President, I was greeted with this statement:
"Mr. Dodd, we have received your letter. We can answer all the questions, but it will be great deal of trouble. The reason it will be a great deal of trouble is because, with the ratification by the Senate of the United States of the United Nations Treaty, our job was finished, so we bundled all our records up, spanning, roughly speaking, fifty years, and put them in the warehouse. But we have a counter-suggestion, and that counter-suggestion is that if you will send a member of your staff to New York, we will give them a room in our library and the minuted books of this organization since its inception in 1908".
My first reaction to that suggestion was that these officers had more or less lost their minds. I had a pretty good idea, by that time, of what those minute books might well have shown. The executives who made this proposal to me were relatively recent, in terms of their position, and I was satisfied that none of them had ever read the minutes.
To make a long story short – as short as possible – a member of my staff was sent to New York and spent two weeks there, and did what they call "spot reading" of the minutes of this organization.
Now, we are back in the period of 1908, and these minutes reported the following: The Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment bring up a single question; namely, if it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war to gain that end? And they discuss this question at a very high academic and scholarly level for a year, and they come up with an answer-- there are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people.
That leads, then, to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war?
This was in 1909. I doubt if there was any question more removed, or any idea more removed from the minds of us, as a people, at that time than war. There were certain of what we call "intermittent shows" in the Balkans, and I also doubt if very many of us knew, really, where the Balkans was, or their relation or possible effect on us.
We jump, then, to the time when we are in a war, and these Trustees. . . oh, before that, the Trustees then answered the question of how to involve us in a war by saying, "We must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States"; and then that brings up the question of how to secure that control, and the answer is we must control the State Department.
Now, at that point, research discloses a relationship between the effort to control the State Department and an entity which the Carnegie Endowment set up – namely, the Council of Learned Societies. And through that entity are cleared all of the appointments – high appointments in the State Department, and they have continued to be cleared that way since then.
Now, finally, we are in a war. Eventually, the war is over, and the Trustees turn their attention, then, to seeing to it that life does not revert in this country to what it was prior to 1914; and they hit upon the idea that in order to prevent that reversion, they must control education in this country. They realized that that is a perfectly tremendous, really stupendous and complex task – much too great for them alone. So they approached the Rockefeller Foundation, with the suggestion that the task be divided between the two of them.
The Carnegie Endowment takes on that aspect of education which is a domestic in its relationship. These two run along in tandem that way, disciplined by a decision – namely, that the answer lies entirely in the changing of the teaching of the history of the United States. They then approached the... five of the then most prominent historians in this country with the proposition that they alter the manner of the teaching of the subject, and they get turned down flatly; so they realized then they must build their own stable of historians, so to speak.
They approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in Fellowships, and suggest to them that when they locate a relatively young potential historian, will the Guggenheim Foundation give that person a Fellowship, merely on their say-so... and the answer is, they will.
Ultimately, a group of twenty are so assembled, and that becomes the nuclei of the policies which emanate to the American Historical Association. Subsequently, around 1928, the Carnegie Endowment granted to the American Historical Association $400,000 in order to make a study of what the future of this country will probably turn out to be and should be. They came up with a seven-volume set of books, the last volume being a summary and digest of the other six. In the last volume, the answer is as follows:
"The future belongs to the United States..... the future in the United States belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency".
And that becomes the policy which is finally picked up and manifests itself in the expression of collectivism all along the line, of which the dividing of this country into regions, using all of the logic which supports the ultimate idea that in order that regional government, in turn, be effective, there must be a new Constitution of the United States.
That is the background, gentlemen, of this very serious question with which you all are now wrestling. I felt that, possibly, that might tend to help a little bit as you take on this high responsibility, which is tremendous. You must have been thoroughly impressed with the complexities which arrive and confront you if you do not go at this problem in terms of the origin of the idea and the real purpose behind that idea; and skipping all the way over to try to distill a system, or a working plan, whereby our society can cope with these complexities, such as they exist today. I am very appreciative of the opportunity to be with you. I wanted to make these points as brief as possible...
Rep. Lucco : Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. Will you please speak into the mike? I am not able to hear you.
Mr. Dodd: Oh, yes. I beg your pardon. I was saying that I appreciate very much the privilege of being with you. I wanted to give you these two bits of experience which tend to focus on the difficulty of discharging the responsibility which has been presented to you.
Rep. Hudson : Thank you very much, Mr. Dodd, for your testimony, and coming such a distance -- as I believe you must have -- to do so. Now, are there questions from the Committee membership?
Rep. Lucco : Yes, Mr. Dodd... Mr. Chairman, first.
Rep Hudson : Yes.
Rep. Lucco : Mr. Dodd, I shouldn't use the word "amaze", but I am thoroughly amazed at your ability to recall and take us through history, which you have done, and I congratulate you on that. If you could, very briefly, for my edification -- I'm just a little coal miner's son, and I haven't been around, except to two County Fairs and a Rodeo -- but I would like to know a little bit about you, sir. Could you, in a brief capsule, tell me -- what have you done since, let's say the age of 25?
Mr. Dodd : Yes, indeed, I can, sir. My life has been spent in pretty nearly every phase of the world of finance that you can think of; that is, commercial banking, what they know as fiduciary banking, investment advisory work, membership in a firm that was a member of a Stock Exchange... Rep.
Lucco : Let me interrupt you, please, sir, if I might. As that type of background, how do you feel about holding companies and cartels and consolidation, branch banking, etc?
Mr. Dodd : Good gracious, you don't want me to start in on anything such as that.... Rep. Lucco: Well, to me it's relative because we are talking about regionalism, and to me, if regionalism is bad, then these other things could be bad. Mr. Dodd: They not only could be, sir, but in my opinion, they are detrimental to the objectives of the founding fathers of this country.
Rep. Lucco : Fine. You've answered my question. Now, another thing. You took us back to 1908, and I came on the scene in 1912, about the time of the Balkan Wars, which you alluded to, and World War I. Now, today, and you said that we actually created -- or "they", whoever "they" are - actually created the situation of a war. Now that we have the...
Mr. Dodd : Wait, now. You deserve to know who the "they" are.
Rep. Lucco : I was going to ask you that.
Mr. Dodd : The "they" in this instance are the Trustees. . . were the Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. They were men who were prominent lawyers in New York; men like Nicholas Murray Butler, the head of Columbia University; also, and subsequently, Allen and Foster Dulles, as attorneys -- that caliber of gentlemen.
[CDR Note: "Global Tyranny ...Step by Step", by William Jasper, quotes Allen W. Dulles from a UN booklet, Headline Series #59 - New York: The Foreign Policy Association, Sept-Oct, 1946- page 46... "There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time - a long time - will be needed before world government is politically feasible... This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country..."]
Rep. Lucco : Then I'm trying to collate what you are talking about -- 1912 -- with 1978, the meeting at Camp David, the problems in the Middle East, the Sino-, or Chinese-Russian situation--are they now getting us ready for a third world war? Mr. Dodd: My answer to that, sir, is that they have set forces in motion, and these forces cannot help but culminate in World War III. I happen to personally believe that it is possible to prevent it from working out that way, but I'm alone in my beliefs. Rep. Hudson: Apparently you're not alone, Mr. Dodd.
Rep Lucco : No. I was in public education for 39 years. I basically am a history teacher. When I walk into a classroom today, I don't see American History taught -- as you alluded to -- as we used to teach it. American History, in fact, is not a course any more. We have a general smattering of human relations, or what not, but not American History. That's what I was saying, and I agree with you on that.
Now, what I was going to ask. I came from a small community of about 700 people. I graduated from a High School of 110. When I graduated, in 1929 -- of course, you know, in those days we graduated real young; I was only 7, being only 39 now -- but there were 7 of us in my graduating class, and I was the only [pg 60] boy. The 6 girls elected me President, and I have been trying to make up for that ever since. But the idea is that today we are doing away with these small, community schools. The problem, as I see it, is not only of regional government, but of consolidation of schools.
[Consolidation of schools IS Regional Governance in action.]
I was Principal of a High School here that had 1,900 students. When I came here, there were 550 students in this High School, and we had a lovely school, I thought. Then we got 1,000 and I thought we'd reached our peak; and from then on -- and I'm not trying to be critical of anyone in the school administration -- but I'm just saying that I think we've gotten too big; and with 1,950 students in our present High School in this community, we have problems that did not exist, and I don't think individuals have changed that much.
It is a matter of groupings and numbers of people; and you get too many people here. So I think you and I would be in agreement that possibly regionalism might lead, and is leading, and has led to consolidation of schools doing away with the small schools on the idea that they can't get a good education there. As I say, in my background (and I don't claim to be successful, by any means) but, coming from a coal-mining town, from a coal-mining family, from an ethnic background of Italian immigrants, I think we've done real well through the Depression, and all that, in the small school.
And so, I agree whole-heartedly with you with the idea that regionalism may -- I mean , I'm talking about regional government -- may lead to the wiping out of such things, and we have so much busing, so much transportation, so much taxation, so big, so much budget, that I don't know whether we can continue living with it. Thank you very much.
Rep Hudson : Mr. Dodd, I have one question. You mentioned a proposed new Constitution, or federal charter, for this country, sort of waiting in the wings, you might say.
Mr. Dodd : Yes.
Rep Hudson: Is that the one... I have heard tell of a Tugwell type. Is that the one you refer to?
Mr. Dodd : That's it, sir.
Rep. Hudson : Thank you. All right, well, thank you very much, Mr. Dodd. We are grateful for your being here.
End of Dodd Testimony. Further critical testimony will be forthcoming. We urge you to share this information with State legislators who are implementing Regional Governance through the many bills they pass, unknowingly.
Permission is granted and we urge you to redistribute to lists, web sites, etc. Because of evidence presented in the hearings which convinced the Illinois Committee members of the dangers of Regionalism, the Committee proposed, and the Illinois General Assembly passed, legislation which would create a standing committee. The duties of the standing Committee were to STOP any further encroachment of Regional Governance in Illinois and to begin repealing legislation which had already been passed by the General Assembly implementing the Regional Plan. The legislation was vetoed by the Governor, and there were evidently insufficient votes (2/3) to over- ride the veto. The rest is history.
Jackie Patru - CDR
P.O. Box 190
Millerton, Pennsylvania 16936
The following book with forever change the way you look at your child's education,.
the deliberate dumbing down of america by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
Refs: https://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/ [download book for free]
Transcript of 'The Enemy Within' interview with Norman Dodd by Dr. Stan Monteith circa 1980s on Radio Liberty
The State of Public Education
The Cox Committee Congressional Hearings on Tax-Exempt Foundations (1952)
The Reece Committee Congressional Hearings on Tax-Exempt Foundations (1953-4)
Teknosis needs your help. * Help Teknosis.
Join my Infowars Business Team!
July 2, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Dodd Report to the Reece Committee on Foundations  + 1982 Interview w/ Norman Dodd by Edward J Griffin, Norman Dodd's Testimony on Regionalism , Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt:
The comments to this entry are closed.