The Tax-Free Foundations are Subversive:

Interview with Norman Dodd

Thanks Thomas A


>(Norman Dodd was head of research for the Reece Committee which was looking into the tax-free
>foundations in the 50's.)
>ED GRIFFIN: At what point in your career did you become connected with the
>Reece Committee?
>ED GRIFFIN: And what was that capacity, sir?
>NORMAN DODD: That was in the capacity of what they called Director of
>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
>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
> 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 assembled
>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?
>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
>The Goals of the Communist Party as they appeared in the Congressional
>Record on January 10, 1963 included this one:
>17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.



Freedom isn't free! To insure the continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683

"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *