Paul Hutchins
As the directors of the new Fund for the Republic, Hoffman and Hutchins immediately went to work suppressing in every way possible the strong spirit of anti-Communism which had exploded after the Hiss scandal and the frustrations of the Korean War. They spent $100,000 in a “study” of the Government’s loyalty-security program and helped to completely emasculate the peace-time defenses against subversive employees in Government. They also spent $300,000 on a “study” of the “influence of Communism in contemporary America.”
A key member of the staff for this study was Earl Browder, long-time National Secretary of the Communist Party.
Another “study” tried to discredit the efforts of concerned citizens who were stirring up public opinion to keep known Communists from propagandizing on radio, television and the motion picture screen. When concerned parents began objecting to hard-core Left-wing teachers in the state schools and colleges, the Fund for the Republic spent $150,000 to demonstrate that academic freedom was being suppressed by “over-zealous patriots.” When J. Robert Oppenheimer was fired as a security risk after he was found to have lied about his contributions to the Communist Party, the Fund for the Republic financed and promoted the showing of Edward R. Murrow’s propaganda broadside defending Oppenheimer. When the American Friends Service Committee was trying to whitewash the Communist seizure of China and get the United States to grant recognition, Hoffman went to the Ford Foundation and successfully obtained $1,134,000 to finance their campaign.
Hoffman soon depleted the $15 million given the Fund for the Republic, but he then married Mrs. Anna Rosenberg and took a key post at the United Nations where he helped get several millions in U.S. funds turned over in the name of the U.N. to Castro and otherwise supported a wide variety of Communist-sponsored projects.
Meanwhile Robert M. Hutchins had reorganized the Fund for the Republic and created a radical Left-wing propaganda organization in Santa Barbara, California, called the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. New financing had to be obtained, much of it through foundation grants. The activities of this Center became so notorious that the Ford Foundation would no longer admit whether or not it was providing additional financing.
By 1956 the Ford Foundation had spent more than one billion dollars in contributions to “education” and had thereby become a well-nigh all-encompassing influence over hundreds of colleges and universities.
McGeorge Bundy Becomes President of the Ford Foundation
By 1966 it was decided to place the Ford Foundation in the hands of McGeorge Bundy and many people—already concerned about the trend of this foundation’s expenditures—were alarmed to see it suddenly make its major project the financing of the newly radicalized revolutionary Left.
McGeorge Bundy
Who is McGeorge Bundy?
After graduation from Yale, Bundy was employed on the staff of the Council on Foreign Relations. In a short time he launched on an academic career and succeeded in becoming the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Harvard by the age of 34. From there he was drafted to serve as a top advisor to John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. They placed him in the leadership of the highly sensitive National Security Council.
In 1964 when the Communist elements tried to seize the Dominican Republic and U.S. forces had to be dispatched to prevent another Red Cuba from arising in the Caribbean, McGeorge Bundy was sent over to find a “political” solution. He selected Antonio Guzman, one of the top henchmen of the leader of the Communist coup as the man to support.
Some alert Washington correspondent went to work and publicized the fact that Guzman was not only the official negotiator for the Communist-dominated Bosch regime, but was under investigation for a $75 million theft from the Banco Agricultura which Guzman had managed during the short time Bosch was in power. A storm of protest broke in Congress when it was discovered what McGeorge Bundy was trying to do. Bundy returned quickly to Washington and was soon out of Government service. It was then announced that he was going to be the new President of the Ford Foundation.
(It was reminiscent of the handling of the Alger Hiss scandal. As the subversive career which Hiss had nurtured through the years began to be exposed, and embarrass the administration, he was quickly removed from his official assignment with the State Department and appointed President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.)
McGeorge Bundy accepted his new assignment with the Ford Foundation as very serious business. He soon announced that the militant “Black Revolution” was “the first of the nation’s problems.” Bundy’s solution was to pour vast quantities of funds into the hands of the professional Black revolutionists.
In New York City one of the foremost firebrands in the violent racial riots which have plagued that metropolis, has been Milton A. Galamison. He was the keynote speaker at the organizing convention of the Communist W.E.B. Dubois Clubs. In 1967 Bundy authorized $160,000 to underwrite Galamison’s revolutionary work.
A Black revolutionist, Herman B. Ferguson, identified himself with RAM, which turned out to be a Communist-front terror organization. In due time Ferguson was indicted in Queens, New York, on a charge of plotting the assassination of non-Communist Negro leaders and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. With such a serious charge pending against him, Ferguson was nevertheless hired by the Ford Foundation and he was still on the rolls of the Foundation when he was finally arrested for violating the terms of his bail.
LeRoi Jones made himself notorious as the author of a vulgar anti-white play called The Toilet. He was encouraged to go on with his revolutionary theatrical pornography when he was given access to a grant of $50,000 from the Ford Foundation. Later, Jones was arrested in Newark, New Jersey, while helping to lead the 1967 riots at Newark. He was heavily armed.
The National Urban League whose chief is Whitney M. Young, started out as a moderate Negro public service agency. But when it came out against non-violence and in favor of Black Power, the League received approximately $2 million from the Ford Foundation.
Floyd B. McKissick, Stokely Carmichael’s associate in the Black Power movement, obtained $175,000 from the Foundation for the anti-White racist organization, CORE. A year later (1968) the Ford Foundation gave CORE $300,000 more.
When Walter Reuther decided to “unionize” Welfare and Office of Economic Opportunity recipients so they could bring greater pressure on Government to insure increased stipends, the Ford Foundation initiated the program (called the “Citizens Crusade Against Poverty”) with a grant of $508,500. Reuther is the man who took a training job in the Soviet Union and wrote back to his friends, “Carry on the fight for a Soviet America.”
Official Ford Foundation reports show that millions upon millions are being poured into revolutionary, Communist-dominated or global collectivist organizations under the direction of McGeorge Bundy. Here are a few samples from recent reports. Anyone familiar with the Congressional reports on Un-American Activities will appreciate the significance of these organizations.
Council on Foreign Relations ($1,000,000)
Adlai E. Stevenson Institute of International Affairs ($1,000,000)
Institute of International Education ($1,625,000)
World Affairs Council ($102,000)
The National Committee on U.S.-China [Red China] Relations ($250,000)
The United Nations Association ($150,000)
Foreign Policy Research ($275,000)
American Friends Service Committee [Pro-Viet Cong] ($100,000)
Southern Regional Council [Communist staffed] ($648,000)
National Student Association ($315,000)
Southwest Council of La Raza [headed by identified Communist Madevie R. Barraza] ($630,000)
National Educational Television and Radio Center [NET] ($6,000,000)
Public Broadcast Laboratory ($7,900,000)
So much for the activities of the major foundations which “insider” Carroll Quigley says were “not shocking” to him at all.
<
br /> Dr. Quigley’s Assessment of Certain Prominent People on the U.S. Scene
Dwight Eisenhower
Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon
“The candidate [Eisenhower] had no particular assets except a bland and amiable disposition combined with his reputation as a victorious general. He also had a weakness, one which is frequently found in his profession, the conviction that anyone who has become a millionaire, even by inheritance, is an authoritative person on almost any subject. With Eisenhower as candidate, combined with Richard Nixon, the ruthless enemy of internal subversion, as a running mate, and using a campaign in which the power of Madison Avenue publicity mobilized all the forces of American discontent behind the neo-isolationist program, victory in November, 1952, was assured.”5
“... the lower-middle-class groups had preferred Senator Taft as their leader. Eisenhower, however, had been preferred by the eastern establishment of old Wall Street, Ivy League, semi-aristocratic Anglophiles whose real strength rested in their control of eastern financial endowments, operating from foundations, academic halls, and other tax-exempt refuges.”6
John F. Kennedy
“Kennedy, despite his Irish Catholicism, was an Establishment figure. This did not arise from his semi-aristocratic attitudes or his Harvard connections.... These helped, but John Kennedy’s introduction to the Establishment arose from his support of Britain, in opposition to his father, in the critical days at the American Embassy in London in 1938-1940.
“His acceptance into the English Establishment opened its American branch as well. The former was indicated by a number of events, such as sister Kathleen’s marriage to the Marquis of Hartington and the shifting of Caroline’s nursery school from the White House to the British Embassy after her father’s assassination. (The ambassador, Ormsby-Gore, fifth Baron of Harlech, was the son of an old associate of Lord Milner and Leo Amery, when they were the active core of the British-American Atlantic Establishment.) Another indication of this connection was the large number of Oxford-trained men appointed to office by President Kennedy.”7
Dean Rusk
Philip Jessup
Dean Rusk, Alger Hiss, John Foster Dulles, Etc.
“These tax laws drove the great private fortunes dominated by Wall Street into tax-exempt foundations which became a major link in the Establishment network between Wall Street, the Ivy League, and the Federal Government. Dean Rusk, Secretary of State after 1961, formerly president of the Rockefeller Foundation and Rhodes Scholar at Oxford (1931-1933) is as much a member of the nexus as Alger Hiss, the Dulles brothers, Jerome Greene, James T. Shortwell, John W. Davis, Elihu Root, or Philip Jessup.”8
Chapter Footnotes
<< 1. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, pp. 954-955, emphasis added.
<< 2. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 955, emphasis added.
<< 3. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 955, emphasis added.
<< 4. Rene A. Wormser, Foundations: Their Power and Influence, Devin-Adair, New York, 1958.
<< 5. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 987, emphasis added.
<< 6. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 1244, emphasis added.
<< 7. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 1245.
<< 8. Quigley, Tragedy And Hope, p. 938, emphasis added.
Chapter Eight
The Subversion of American Education
Beginning on page 980, Dr. Quigley mentions an incident which demonstrates how powerful tycoons of international finance have competed with each other behind the scenes to dominate American educational institutions.
Speaking of Columbia University, Dr. Quigley says:
“This, of all universities, had been the one closest to J.P. Morgan and Company, and its president, Nicholas Murray Butler, was Morgan’s chief spokesman from ivied halls. He had been chosen under Morgan influence, but the events of 1930-1948 which so weakened Morgan in the economic system also weakened his influence on the board of trustees of Columbia, until it became evident that Morgan did not have the votes to elect a successor.
“However, Morgan (that is Tom Lamont) did have the votes to preserve the status quo and, accordingly, President Butler was kept in his position until he was long past his physical ability to carry on its functions. Finally, he had to retire. Even then Lamont and his allies were able to prevent choice of a successor, and postponed it, making the university treasurer acting-president, in the hope that a favorable change in the board of trustees might make it possible for Morgan, once again, to name a Columbia president.
“Fate decreed otherwise, for Lamont died in 1948, and shortly afterward, a committee of trustees under Thomas Watson of International Business Machines was empowered to seek a new president. This was not an area in which the genius of IBM was at his most effective. While on a business trip to Washington, he confided his problem to a friend who helpfully suggested, ‘Have you thought of Eisenhower?’ By this he meant Milton Eisenhower, then president of Penn State, later president of Johns Hopkins; Watson, who apparently did not think immediately of this lesser-known member of the Eisenhower family, thanked his friend, and began the steps which soon made Dwight Eisenhower, for two unhappy years, president of Columbia.”But it did not seem to matter which financial coterie behind the scenes appointed the President of Columbia; its policies followed the mainstream of world collectivism. Thus, Dwight Eisenhower vocally denounced the possibility that Columbia could be a hotbed of Communist intrigue1 and then turned around and accepted an endowment from the Communist government of Poland to set up a “Chair of Polish Studies” and appointed the well-known Marxist, Dr. Manfred Kridl, to fill the position. It would be extremely interesting to know what forces worked on Dwight Eisenhower to get him to take this rather amazing step when even his own liberally-oriented faculty objected.
But some strange things had been going on for many years at Columbia. The father of Progressive Education, John Dewey, made Columbia his chief center of operations. His favorite students and disciples, William H. Kilpatrick, Harold O. Rugg and George S. Counts, also claimed Columbia’s Teacher’s College as their headquarters. These men had been preaching some strange doctrines for many years and were receiving millions in endowments for their efforts. As Dr. Felix Wittmer pointed out in his book, Conquest of the American Mind:
“Have you ever read a book on ‘curriculum development?’ No one should blame you if you haven’t. If you have, you may understand a little better what has happened to the schools in your community and how it has come about.
“As the years went by, and your children passed through the grades, you may have noticed that a change was going on. Subject matter, teaching methods, types of study, everything changed. If you put two and two together, you realized that the emphasis shifted from the individual to the group.
“Your children learned that the Communist Manifesto ranked among the great works of world literature, and that the Soviet Union was an ‘economic democracy.’ They laughingly approved of the increase in ‘snap courses.’ Competition, it seems, had become old hat. ‘Attitudes’ and ‘group relationships’ were the thing.
“Just who was responsible for the change you could not say. ‘Trends of the times’ hardly seems to be a penetrating explanation. Fact is that a relatively small group of educators, who gravitated toward Columbia Teachers College, have in the course of twenty years turned thousands and thousands of teachers into missionaries of the collectivist, i.e., socialist, creed. These thousands of converts have brought about the change.”2What John Dewey and his disciples were teaching may be gleaned from any of their official publications. In Democracy and the Curriculum, Harold Rugg and George S. Counts said the open society of America was way behind the times. They called it a “continuously depressed society” and said it even contained the “seed of incipient racism.” (p. 524) They denounced the Constitutional system of checks and balances as a “liability” and deplored the fact that the Constitution “is calculated to make the administration of the public welfare feeble, uncertain and inefficient” (
p. 210). After making frequent pilgrimages to the Soviet Union the Columbia Teachers College missionaries would urge the hastening of America’s adoption of a “managed economy.”
As early as 1932, Dr. Counts had written his 56-page booklet entitled, Dare the Schools Build a New Social Order? In it he had demanded that education must free itself from the influence of the middle classes. He said “the teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest.” (p. 28) Of course, most teachers were not after power. They merely wanted to be left alone to teach school. Before long, however, they were getting policies from the National Educational Association and being required to teach from texts which contained some rather astonishing concepts. A genuine anti-Americanism began to appear in texts which downgraded traditional ideals and basic concepts of economics and government.
Many books have analyzed this assault on the American culture in addition to Dr. Wittmer’s Conquest of the American Mind. Dr. E. Merril Root has written two excellent books, Brain Washing in the High Schools,3 and Collectivism on the Campus.4 Augustin G. Rudd’s Bending of the Twig also deals with the invasion of the American schools for subversive purposes.
These authors were able to document the fact that for many years American schools have been infiltrated with a steady stream of amorality, humanism, collectivism and anti-individualism emanating from Columbia’s Teachers College, the National Education Association and other Establishment centers. These centers have served as launching pads to attack the political and economic structure of the American system.
The Naked Capitalist Page 9