Memorandum Number Five:
The Baltimore Scheme

While G. Stanley Hall was in Leipzig working under Wilhelm Wundt, the revolutionary trio Gilman-Dwight-White were moving events back home - and The Order ran into its first organized opposition.

The protesting "neutrals" at Yale had no hope of winning. Even under independent President Noah Porter in the 1870s, The Order had Yale University under its control. But while Yale students were watching, protesting and writing bad verse, Daniel Gilman ran into opposition 3000 miles away - and if the leaders of this counter revolution had known the story we are recounting here, they might just have stopped The Order dead in its tracks.

In 1867 Daniel Gilman received an offer as President of the University of Wisconsin. This he declined. In 1872 Gilman was offered the Presidency of the newly established University of California. This offer he accepted.

In California Gilman found a political hornets' nest. For some years there had been increasing popular concern about the railroad monopolies, government subsidies to railroads and - oddly enough -the Morrill Bill which gave federal land grants to agricultural and scientific colleges. The reader will recall that in Connecticut and New York, The Order had grabbed the total state's share for Yale and Cornell respectively.

Californians believed that the University of California, a land grant college, should teach agriculture and science, whereas Gilman had different ideas. Unrest over corruption, including corruption among University of California Regents and the railroads (in which members of The Order had widespread interests), led to formation of a new California political party.

In 1873 the party was known as the Patrons of Husbandry or the Grangers. Then members of the Republican Party broke away and joined with the Grangers to form the Peoples Independent Party (known also as the Dolly Varden Party). They won a decisive victory in the 1873 California elections and following investigations by the Grangers, a petition was sent to the Legislature concerning operation of the University of California under Daniel Gilman.

At that time Henry George was editor of the San Francisco Daily Evening Post and George used his considerable journalistic skills to attack the University, the Regents, Gilman, and the land grants. Although Henry George is known as a socialist, we classify him as an independent socialist, not part of the Hegelian right-left spectrum.

His main target was land monopoly, whereas the "scientific" Hegelian socialism of Karl Marx is geared to establishing monopolies of all kinds under state control, following the Hegelian theory of the supremacy of the State.

This populist furor scared Gilman, as he freely admits:

"... there are dangers here which I could not foresee... . This year the dangers have been averted but who can tell what will happen two years hence"? I feel that we are building a superior structure but it rests over a powder mill which may blow it up any day. All these conditions fill me with perplexity."

Reading between the lines, Daniel Gilman was not too anxious to face the populist west. He needed a more stable base where prying journalists and independent politicians could be headed off. And this base presented itself in the "Baltimore scheme."
 

Daniel Gilman Becomes President Of Johns Hopkins

Johns Hopkins, a wealthy Baltimore merchant, left his fortune to establish a University for graduate education (the first in the United States along German lines) and a medical school.

Hopkins' trustees were all friends who lived in Baltimore. How then did they come to select Daniel Coit Gilman as President of the new University?

In 1874 the trustees invited three university presidents to come to Baltimore and advise on the choice of a President. These were Charles W. Eliot of Harvard, Andrew Dickson White of Cornell, and James B. Angell of Michigan. Only Andrew Dickson White was in The Order. After meeting independently with each of these presidents, half a dozen of the trustees toured several American Universities in search of further information - and Andrew D. White accompanied the tour.

The result, as in the words of James Angell:

"And now I have this remarkable statement to make to you, that without the least conference between us three, we all wrote letters telling them that the one man was Daniel C. Gilman of California,"¹

The truth is that Gilman not only knew what was going on in Baltimore, but was in communication with Andrew White on the Baltimore scheme," as they called it.

In a letter dated April 5, 1874, Gilman wrote as follows to Andrew D. White,

"could not conclude on any new proposition without conferring upon it with some of my family friends, and I have not felt at liberty to do so. I confess that the Baltimore (italics in original) scheme has often suggested itself to me, but I have no personal relations in that quarter."²

1 John C. French. A HISTORY OF "I HE UNIVERSITY FOUNDED BY JOHNS HOPKINS (The Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore. 1946), p. 26.
2 LIFE OF DANIEL COIT GILMAN. p. 157.

Here's the interesting point: the board appointed by Johns Hopkins to found a university did not even meet to adopt its by-laws and appoint committees until four weeks before this letter i.e., March 7, 1874. Yet Gilman tells us "the Baltimore scheme has of times suggested itself to me..."

In brief: Gilman knew what was happening over in Baltimore BEFORE HIS NAME HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO THE TRUSTEES!

Gilman became first President of Johns Hopkins University and quickly set to work.

Johns Hopkins had willed substantial amounts for both a University and a medical school. Dr. William H. Welch ('70), a fellow member of The Order, was brought in by Gilman to head up the Hopkins medical school. (Welch was President of the Board of Directors of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research for almost 25 years, 1910-1934.

This we shall expand upon later in the series when we examine how The Order came to control medicine). For the moment let's return to G. Stanley Hall who was in Leipzig while Johns Hopkins was acquiring its new President.
 

Gilman Starts The Revolution in American Education

When he returned to the United States Hall was feeling pretty low:

"I came home, again in the depths because of debt and with no prospects, took a small flat on the edge of Somerville, where my two children were born, and waited, hoped and worked. One Wednesday morning President Eliot (of Harvard University) rode up to the house, rapped on the door without dismounting from his horse and asked me to begin Saturday of that week a course of lectures on education ..."

As Hall recounts it, he had a "very impressive audience" for these lectures. Sometime later,

"In 1881 I was surprised and delighted to receive an invitation from the Johns Hopkins University, then the cynosure of all aspiring young professors, to deliver a course of twelve semi-public lectures on psychology."

At the end of the lecture series, Gilman offered Hall the chair of Professor of Psychology and Pedagogy. This puzzled Hall because others at Johns Hopkins were "older and abler" than himself and,

"Why the appointment for which all of them had been considered fell to me I was never able to understand unless it was because my standpoint was thought to be a little more accordant with the ideals which then prevailed there."

Hall was given a psychological laboratory, a thousand dollars a year for equipment and, with the encouragement of Gilman, founded The American Journal Of Psychology.

And what did Hall teach? Again in his own words:

"The psychology I taught was almost entirely experimental and covered for the most part the material that Wundt had set forth in the later and larger edition of Physiological Psychology."

The rest is known.

The chart demonstrates how doctoral students from Wundt and Hall fanned out through the United States, established departments of psychology and education by the score; 117 psychological laboratories just in the period up to 1930. Prominent among these students were John Dewey, J.M. Cattell and E.L. Thorndike - all part of the founding of Columbia Teachers' College and Chicago's School of Education - the two sources of modern American education.

Their activities can be measured by the number of doctorates in educational psychology and experimental psychology granted in the period up to 1948. The following list includes psychologists with training in Germany under Wilhelm Wundt before 1900, and the number of doctorates they in turn awarded up to 1948:

Of these only E.B. Titchener at Cornell could be called a critic of the Wundt school of experimental psychology. The rest followed the party line: an amalgamation of Hegelian philosophy and Wundtian animal psychology.

So from the seed sown by Daniel Coit Gilman at Johns Hopkins grew the vast network of interlocking schools of education and departments of psychology that dominates education today.
 

Return to Contents

Memorandum Number Six:
The Troika Spreads Its Wings

Around the turn of the century The Order had made significant penetration into the educational establishment. By utilizing the power of members in strategic positions they were able to select, groom and position non-members with similar philosophy and activist traits.

In 1886 Timothy Dwight (The Order) had taken over from the last of Yale's clerical Presidents, Noah Porter. Never again was Yale to get too far from The Order. Dwight was followed by member Arthur T. Hadley ('76). Andrew Dickson White was secure as President of Cornell and alternated as U.S. Ambassador to Germany. While in Berlin, White acted as recruiting agent for The Order.

Not only G. Stanley Hall came into his net, but also Richard T. Ely, founder of the American Economic Association. Daniel Gilman, as we noted in the last memorandum, was President of Johns Hopkins and used that base to introduce Wundtian psychology into U.S. education. After retirement from Johns Hopkins, Gilman became the first President of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C.

The chart overleaf summarizes the achievements of this remarkable troika.

Now let's see how The Order moved into more specialized fields of education, then we need to examine how The Order fits with John Dewey, the source of modern American educational philosophy, then how The Order spread Dewey throughout the system.
 

Founding Of The American Economic Association

Academic associations are a means of conditioning or even policing academics. Although academics are great at talking about academic freedom, they are peculiarly susceptible to peer group pressures. And if an academic fails to get the word through his peer group, there is always the threat of not getting tenure. In other words, what is taught at University levels is passed through a sieve.

The sieve is faculty conformity. In this century when faculties are larger, conformity cannot be imposed by a President. It is handled equally well through faculty tenure committees and publications committees of academic associations.

We have already noted that member Andrew Dickson White founded and was first President of the American Historical Association and therefore was able to influence the constitution and direction of the AHA. This has generated an official history and ensured that existence of The Order is never even whispered in history books, let alone school texts.

An economic association is also of significance because it conditions how people who are not economists think about the relative merits of free enterprise and state planning. State economic planning is an essential part of State political control. Laissez faire in economics is the equivalent of individualism in politics. And just as you will never find any plaudits for the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution in official history, neither will you find any plaudits for individual free enterprise.

The collectivist nature of present day college faculties in economics has been generated by the American Economic Association under influence of The Order. There are very few outspoken preachers of the Austrian School of Economics on American campuses today. They have been effectively weeded out.

Even Ludwig von Mises, undisputed leader of the school, was unable to find a teaching post in the United States. So much for academic freedom in economics. And it speaks harshly for the pervasive, deadening, dictatorial hand of the American Economics Association. And the controlling hand, as in the American Psychological Association and the American Historical Association, traces back to The Order.

The principal founder and first Secretary of the American Economic Association was Richard T. Ely.

Who was Ely?

Ely descended from Richard Ely of Plymouth, England who settled at Lyme, Connecticut in 1660. On his grandmother's side (and you have heard this before for members of The Order) Ely descended from the daughter of Rev. Thomas Hooker, founder of Hartford, Connecticut. On the paternal side, Ely descended from Elder William Brewster of Plymouth Colony.

Ely's first degree was from Dartmouth College. In 1876 he went to University of Heidelberg and received a Ph.D. in 1879. Ely then returned to the United States, but as we shall describe below, had already come to the notice of The Order.

When Ely arrived home, Daniel Gilman invited Ely to take the Chair of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins. Ely accepted at about the same time Gilman appointed G. Stanley Hall to the Chair of Philosophy and Pedagogy and William Welch, a member of The Order we have yet to describe, to be Dean of the Johns Hopkins medical school.

Fortunately, Richard Ely was an egocentric and left an autobiography, Ground Under Our Feet, which he dedicated to none other than Daniel Coit Gilman (see illustration). Then on page 54 of this autobiography is the caption "I find an invaluable friend in Andrew D. White."

And in Ely's first book, French And German Socialism, we find the following:

"The publication of this volume is due to the friendly counsel of the Honorable Andrew D. White, President of Cornell University, a gentleman tireless in his efforts to encourage young men and alive to every opportunity to speak fitting words of hope and cheer. Like many of the younger scholars of our country, I am indebted to him more than I can say."

Ely also comments that he never could understand why he always received a welcome from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, in fact from the Ambassador himself. But the reader has probably guessed what Ely didn't know - White was The Order's recruiter in Berlin.

Ely recalls his conversations with White, and makes a revealing comment:

"I was interested in his psychology and the way he worked cleverly with Ezra Cornell and Mr. Sage, a benefactor and one of the trustees of Cornell University."

The reader will remember it was Henry 5age who provided the first funds for G. Stanley Hall to study in Germany.

Then Ely says,

"The only explanation I can give for his special interest n me was the new ideas I had in relation to economics."

And what were these new ideas? Ely rejected classical liberal economics, including free trade, and noted that free trade was "particularly obnoxious to the German school of thought by which I was so strongly impressed."

In other words, just as G. Stanley Hall had adopted Hegelianism in psychology from Wundt, Ely adopted Hegelian ideas from his prime teacher Karl Knies at University of Heidelberg.

TO THE MEMORY OF DANIEL COIT GILMAN

First President of Johns Hopkins University,

creative genius in the field of education;

wise, inspiring and courageous chief under

whom I had the good fortune to begin my career

and to whom I owe an inestimable debt of gratitude,

I dedicate this book.

And both Americans had come to the watchful attention of The Order. The staff of the U.S. Embassy in Berlin never did appreciate why a young American student, not attached to the Embassy, was hired by Ambassador White to make a study of the Berlin City Government. That was Ely's test, and he passed it with flying colors.

As he says,

"It was this report which served to get me started on my way and later helped me get a teaching post at the Johns Hopkins."

The rest is history. Daniel Coit Gilman invited Richard Ely to Johns Hopkins University. From there Ely went on to head the department of economics at University of Wisconsin. Through the ability to influence choice of one's successor, Wisconsin has been a center of statist economics down to the present day.

Before we leave Richard Ely we should note that financing for projects at University of Wisconsin came directly from The Order - from member George B. Cortelyou ('13), President of New York Life Insurance Company.

Ely also tells us about his students, and was especially enthralled by Woodrow Wilson:

"We knew we had in Wilson an unusual man. There could be no question that he had a brilliant future."

And for those readers who are wondering if Colonel Edward Mandell House, Woodrow Wilson's mysterious confidant, is going to enter the story, the answer is Yes! He does, but not yet.

The clue is that young Edward Mandell House went to school at Hopkins Grammar School, New Haven, Connecticut. House knew The Order from school days. [n fact one of House's closest classmates at Hopkins Grammar School was member Arthur Twining Hadley ('76), who went on to become President of Yale University (1899 to 1921). And it was Theodore Roosevelt who surfaced Hadley's hidden philosophy:

"Years later Theodore Roosevelt would term Arthur Hadley his fellow anarchist and say that if their true views were known, they would be so misunderstood that they would both lose their jobs as President of the United States and President of Yale."¹

1 Morris Hadley. ARTHUR TWINING HADLEY, Yale University Press. 1948, p. 33.
 

House's novel, Philip Dru, was written in New Haven, Connecticut and in those days House was closer to the Taft segment of The Order than Woodrow Wilson. In fact House, as we shall see later, was The Order's messenger boy. House was also something of a joker because part of the story of The Order is encoded within Philip Dru!

We are not sure if The Order knows about House's little prank. It's just like House to try to slip one over on the holders of power.
 

American Medical Association

Your doctor knows nothing about nutrition? Ask him confidentially and he'll probably confess he had only one course in nutrition. And there's a reason.

Back in the late 19th century American medicine was in a deplorable state. To the credit of the Rockefeller General Education Board and the Institute for Medical Research, funds were made available to staff teaching hospitals and to eradicate some pretty horrible diseases.

On the other hand, a chemical-based medicine was introduced and the medical profession cut its ties with naturopathy. Cancer statistics tell you the rest.

For the moment we want only to note that the impetus for reorganizing medical education in the United States came from John D. Rockefeller, but the funds were channeled through a single member of The Order.

Briefly, the story is this.

One day in 1912 Frederick T. Gates of Rockefeller Foundation had lunch with Abraham Flexner of Carnegie Institution. Said Gates to Flexner:

"What would you do if you had one million dollars with which to make a start in reorganizing medical education in the United States?"¹

1 Raymond D. Fosdick. ADVENTURE IN GIVING (Harper & Row. New York. 1962), p. 154.
 

As reported by Fosdick, this is what happened:

"The bluntness was characteristic of Mr. Gates, but the question about the million dollars was hardly in accord with his usual indirect and cautious approach to the spending of money. Flexner's reply, however, to the effect that any funds - a million dollars or otherwise - could most profitably be spent in developing the Johns Hopkins Medical School, struck a responsive chord in Gates who was already a close friend and devoted admirer of Dr. William H. Welch, the dean of the institution."

Welch was President of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research from 1901, and a Trustee of the Carnegie Institution from 1906. William H. Welch was also a member of the Order and had been brought to Johns Hopkins University by Daniel Coit Gilman.
 

Other Areas Of Education

We should note in conclusion other educational areas where The Order had its influence. In theology we have already noted that The Order controlled Union Theological Seminary for many years, and was strong within the Yale School of Divinity.

The constitution for UNESCO was written largely by The Order, i.e., member Archibald MacLeish. And member William Chauvenet (1840) was "largely responsible for establishing the U.S. Naval Academy on a firm scientific basis." Chauvenet was director of the Observatory, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis from 1845 to 1859 and then went on to become Chancellor of Washington University (1869).

Finally, a point on methodology. The reader will remember from Memorandum One (Volume One) that we argued the most "general" solution to a problem in science is the most acceptable solution. In brief, a useful hypothesis is one that explains the most events. Pause a minute and reflect. We are not developing a theory that includes numerous superficially unconnected events.

For example, the founding of Johns Hopkins University, the introduction of Wundtian educational methodology, a psychologist G. Stanley Hall, an economist Richard T. Ely, a politician Woodrow Wilson - and now we have included such disparate events as Colonel Edward House and the U.S. Naval Observatory. The Order links to them all... and several hundred or thousand other events yet to be unfolded.

In research when a theory begins to find support of this pervasive nature it suggests the work is on the right track. So let's interpose another principle of scientific methodology. How do we finally know that our hypothesis is valid? If our hypothesis is correct, then we should be able to predict not only future conduct of The Order but also events where we have yet to conduct research. This is still to come.

However, the curious reader may wish to try it out. Select a major historical event and search for the guiding hand of The Order.
 

Members Of The Order In Education

Return to Contents

Memorandum Number Seven:
The Order's Objectives For Education

We can deduce The Order's objectives for education from evidence already presented and by examining the work and influence of John Dewey, the arch creator of modern educational theory.

How do we do this? We first need to examine Dewey's relationship with The Order. Then compare Dewey's philosophy with Hegel and with the philosophy and objectives of modern educational practice.

These educational objectives have not, by and large, been brought about by governmental action. In fact, if the present state of education 7 had been brought about by legislation, it would have been challenged on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

On the contrary, the philosophy and practice of today's system has been achieved by injection of massive private funds by foundations under influence, and sometimes control, of The Order. This implementation we will describe in a future volume, How The Order Controls Foundations. In fact, the history of the implementation of Dewey's objectives is also the history of the larger foundations, i.e., Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Peabody, Sloan, Slater and Twentieth Century.
 

How John Dewey Relates To The Order

John Dewey worked for his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University from 1882-86 under Hegelian philosopher George Sylvester Morris. Morris in turn had his doctorate from University of Berlin and studied under the same teachers as Daniel Gilman, i.e., Adolph Trendelenberg and Hermann Ulrici.

Neither Morris nor Dewey were members of The Order, but the link is clear. Gilman hired Morris, knowing full well that Hegelianism is a totally integrated body of 'knowledge and easy to recognize. It is a different from the British empirical school of John Stuart Mill as night and day.

John Dewey's psychology was taken from G. Stanley Hall, the first American student to receive a doctorate from Wilhelm Wundt at University of Leipzig. Gilman knew exactly what he was getting when he hired Hall. With only a dozen faculty members, all were hired personally by the President.

In brief, philosophy and psychology came to Dewey from academics hand-picked by The Order.

From Johns Hopkins Dewey went as Professor of Philosophy to University of Michigan and in 1886 published Psychology, a blend of Hegelian philosophy applied to Wundtian experimental psychology. It sold well. In 1894 Dewey went to University of Chicago and in 1902 was appointed Director of the newly founded - with Rockefeller money - School of Education.

The University of Chicago itself had been founded in 1890 with Rockefeller funds - and in a future volume we will trace this through Frederick Gates (of Hartford, Connecticut), and the Pillsbury family (The Order). The University of Chicago and Columbia Teachers' College were the key training schools for modern education.
 

The Influence Of Dewey

Looking back at John Dewey after 80 years of his influence, he can be recognized as the pre-eminent factor in the collectivization, or Hegelianization, of American Schools. Dewey was consistently a philosopher of social change. That's why his impact has been so deep and pervasive. And it is in the work and implementation of the ideas of John Dewey that we can find the objective of The Order.

When The Order brought G. Stanley Hall from Leipzig to Johns Hopkins University, John Dewey was already there, waiting to write his doctoral dissertation on "The Psychology of Kant." Already a Hegelian in philosophy, he acquired and adapted the experimental psychology of Wundt and Hall to his concept of education for social change.

To illustrate this, here's a quote from John Dewey in My Pedagogic Creed:

"The school is primarily a social institution. Education being a social process, the school is simply that form of community life in which all those agencies are concentrated that will be most effective in bringing the child to share in the inherited resources of the race, and to use his own powers for social ends. Education, therefore, is a process of living and not a preparation for future living."

What we learn from this is that Dewey's education is not child centered but State centered, because for the Hegelian, "social ends" are always State ends.

This is where the gulf of misunderstanding between modern parents and the educational system begins. Parents believe a child goes to school to learn skills to use in the adult world, but Dewey states specifically that education is "not a preparation for future living."

The Dewey educational system does not accept the role of developing a child's talents but, contrarily, only to prepare the child to function as a unit in an organic whole - in blunt terms a cog in the wheel of an organic society. Whereas most Americans have moral values rooted in the individual, the values of the school system are rooted in the Hegelian concept of the State as the absolute.

No wonder there is misunderstanding!
 

The Individual Child

When we compare Hegel, John Dewey, and today's educational thinkers and doers, we find an extraordinary similarity.

For Hegel the individual has no value except as he or she performs a function for society:

"The State is the absolute reality and the individual himself has objective existence, truth and morality only in his capacity as a member of the State."

John Dewey tried to brush the freedom of the individual to one side. In an article, "Democracy and Educational Administration" (School & Society, XVL, 1937, p. 457) Dewey talks about the "lost individual," and then restates Hegel in the following way:

"freedom is the participation of every mature human being in formation of the values that regulate the living of men together."

This is pure Hegel, i.e., man finds freedom only in obedience to the State. As one critic, Horace M. Kallen stated, John Dewey had a "blindness to the sheer individuality of individuals."

In other words, for Dewey man has no individual rights. Man exists only to serve the State. This is directly contradictory to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with the preamble "We the people." They then go on to define the rights of the state which are always subordinate and subject to the will of "We the people."

This, of course, is why modern educationists have great difficulty in introducing the Constitution into school work. Their ideas follow Hegel and Dewey and indirectly the objectives of The Order.

For example:

"An attempt should be made to redress the present overemphasis on individualism in current programs ... students need to develop a sense of community and collective identity."

(Educational Leadership, May 1982, William B. Stanley, Asst. Professor, Dept. of Curriculum and Instruction, Louisiana State University).
 

The Purpose Of Education

What then is the purpose of education, if the individual has no rights and exists only for the State?

There was no need for Hegel to describe education, and so far as we Know there is no statement purely on education in Hegel's writings. It is unnecessary. For Hegel every quality of an individual exists only at the mercy and will of the State. This approach is reflected in political systems based on Hegel whether it be Soviet Communism or Hitlerian national socialism. John Dewey follows Hegel's organic view of society.

For example:

"Education consists either in the ability to use one's powers in a social direction or else in ability to share in the experience of others and thus widen the individual consciousness to that of the race"

(Lectures For The First Course In Pedagogy)

This last sentence is reminiscent of the Hitlerian philosophy of race (i.e., right Hegelianism). And today's educators reflect this approach. Here's a quote from Assemblyman John Vasconcellos of California, who also happens to be Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education and the Education Goals Committee for the California State Assembly - a key post:

"It is now time for a new vision of ourselves, of man, of human nature and of human potential, and a new theory of politics and institutions premised upon that vision. What is that vision of Man? That the natural, whole, organismic human being is loving... that man's basic thrust is towards community"

(quoted in Rex Myles, Brotherhood and Darkness, p. 347).

What is this "widen(ing) of the individual consciousness" (Dewey) and "thrust... towards community" (Vasconcellos)?

Stripped of the pedantic language it is new world order, a world organic society. But there is no provision for a global organic order within the Constitution. In fact, it is illegal for any government officer or elected official to move the United States towards such an order as it would clearly be inconsistent with the Constitution. To be sure, Dewey was not a government official, but Vasconcellos has taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

The popular view of a global order is probably that we had better look after our problems at home before we get involved in these esoteric ideas. Political corruption, pitifully low educational standards, and insensitive bureaucracy are probably of more concern to Americans.

It's difficult to see what the new world order has to do with education of children, but it's there in the literature. Fichte, Hegel's predecessor from whom many of his philosophical ideas originated, had a definite concept of a League of Nations (Volkerbund) and the idea of a league to enforce peace.

Fichte asserted,

"As this federation spreads further and gradually embraces the whole earth, perpetual peace begins, the only lawful relation among states..."

The National Education Association, the lobby for education, produced a program for the 1976 Bicentennial entitled "A Declaration Of Interdependence: Education For A Global Community."

On page 6 of this document we find:

"We are committed to the idea of Education for Global Community. You are invited to help turn the commitment into action and mobilizing world education for development of a world community."

An objective almost parallel to Hegel is in Self Knowledge And Social Action by Obadiah Silas Harris, Associate Professor of Educational Management and Development New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico:

"When community educators say that community education takes into consideration the total individual and his total environment, they mean precisely this: the field of community education includes the individual in his total psycho-physical structure and his entire ecological climate with all its ramifications - social, political, economical, cultural, spiritual, etc. It seeks to integrate the individual within himself (sic) and within his community until the individual becomes a cosmic soul and the community the world."

And on page 84 of the same book:

"The Cosmic soul ... the whole human race is going to evolve an effective soul of its own - the cosmic soul of the race. That is the future of human evolution. As a result of the emergence of the universal soul, there will be a great unification of the entire human race, ushering into existence a new era, a new dawn of unique world power."

This last quote sounds even more like Adolph Hitler than Assemblyman John Vasconcellos. It has the same blend of the occult, the ethnic and absolutism. In conclusion we need only quote the Constitution, the basic body of law under which the United States is governed.

The generally held understanding of the Constitution on the relationship between the individual and the State is that the individual is Supreme, the State exists only to serve individuals and the State has no power except by express permission of the people.

This is guaranteed by Amendments IX and X of the Constitution. Amendment IX reads,

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People."

Note, the "retained". And, Amendment X reads,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In brief, the proposals of John Dewey and his followers are un constitutional. They would never have seen the light of day in American schoolrooms unless they had been promoted by The Order with its enormous power.

Mind Blank - The Order's Objective For Education

Return to Contents

Memorandum Number Eight:

Summary

Up to this point we have established the following:

(1) By the 1870s The Order had Yale University under its control. Every President of Yale since Timothy Dwight has either been a member of The Order or has family connections to The Order. It also appears that some Yale graduates who are not members of The Order will act towards objectives desired by The Order. Some of these, for example Dean Acheson, we can identify as members of Scroll & Key, or with relatives in The Order.

 

Others yet to be brought into our discussion are members of Wolf's Head (for example, Reeve Schley, who worked for the Rockefellers). Still others, for example Robert Maynard Hutchins (Fund for the Republic), are Yale graduates but not yet identified as members of any Yale senior society. It appears at this point that Ron Rosenbaum's assertion (in Esquire, 1977), that members of the Eastern Establishment who are not members of Skull & Bones will be members of either Scroll & Key or Wolf's Head is holding up.
 

(2) So far as education is concerned, look-say reading originated with Thomas Gallaudet and was designed for deaf mutes. The elder Gallaudet was not a member of The Order, but his two sons (Edson and Herbert Gallaudet) were initiated in 1893 and 1898. Horace Mann, a significant influence in modern educational theory and the first promoter of "look-say," was not a member. However, Mann was President of Antioch College, and the Tafts (The Order) were the most powerful trustees of Antioch.
 

(3) We traced John Dewey's philosophy, that education is to prepare a person to fit into society rather than develop individual talents, to Herbart who was influenced by the Swiss Pestalozzi. Personal development cannot be achieved by developing individual talents, it must take the form of preparation to serve society, according to Herbart, Dewey and Pestalozzi. Pestalozzi was a member of the Illuminati, with the code name "Alfred." This raises new perspectives for future research, specifically whether The Order can be traced to the Illuminati.
 

(4) The scene shifts in the late 19th century from Yale to Johns Hopkins University. Member Daniel Coit Gilman is the first President of Johns Hopkins and he has handpicked either members of The Order (Welch) or Hegelians for the new departments. G. Stanley Hall, the first of Wilhelm Wundt's American students, began the process of Americanization of Wundt, established the first experimental psychology laboratory for education in the United States with funds from Gilman, and later started the Journal Of Psychology.

 

John Dewey was one of the first doctorates from Johns Hopkins (under Hall and Morris), followed by Woodrow Wilson, who was President of Princeton University before he became President of the United States. We noted that at key turning points of G. Stanley Hall's career the guiding hand of The Order can be traced. Hall also links to another member of The Order, Alphonso Taft. We noted that Wilhelm Wundt's family had Illuminati connections.
 

(5) The Order was able to acquire all the Morrill Act land grant entitlements for New York and Connecticut for Cornell and Yale respectively. However, member Gilman ran into trouble as President of University of California on the question of the California land grants and corruption among the University regents. The first organized opposition to The Order came from the San Francisco Times, but editor Henry George was not fully aware of the nature of his target.
 

(6) The core of The Order's impact on education can be seen as a troika: Gilman at Johns Hopkins, White at Cornell (and U.S. Minister to Germany) and Dwight, followed by member Hadley, at Yale. Andrew White was first President of the American Historical Association. Richard T. Ely (not a member but aided by The Order) became a founder and first secretary of the American Economic Association. Members can also be traced into such diverse areas as the U.S. Naval Observatory and the Union Theological Seminary.
 

(7) John Dewey, the originator of modern educational theory, took his doctorate at Johns Hopkins under Hegelians. Dewey's work is pure Hegel in theory and practice, and is totally inconsistent with the Constitution of the U.S. and rights of the individual. A comparison of German Hegelians, John Dewey and modern educational theorists demonstrates the parallelism. Children do not go to school to develop individual talents but to be prepared as units in an organic society.

Experimental schools at University of Chicago and Columbia University fanned the "new education" throughout the United States.

 

In brief, The Order initiated and controlled education in this century by controlling its CONTENT. The content is at variance with the traditional view of education, which sees each child as unique and the school as a means of developing this uniqueness.

Criticism of the educational system today bypasses the fundamental philosophic aspect and focuses on omissions, i.e., that the kids can't read, write, spell or undertake simple mathematical exercise. If we look at the educational system through the eyes of The Order and its objectives, then the problems shift.

If teachers are not teaching basics, then what are they doing?

They appear to be preparing children for a political objective which also happens to be the objective of The Order. The emphasis is on global living, preparing for a global society.

It is apparently of no concern to the educational establishment that children can’t read, can’t write, and can’t do elementary mathematics… but they are going to be ready for the Brave New World.

Return to Contents

Memorandum Number Nine:

Conclusions And Recommendations

A general conclusion is that The Order has been able to convert the educational system from one aimed at developing the individual child to one aimed at conditioning the child to be a unit in an organic, i.e., Hegelian, society.

When we look at philanthropic foundations in the next volume we shall see the way this has been implemented by private foundation funds.

There is not sufficient evidence to argue whether the decline in educational standards is an accidental by-product of this "new education" or a deliberate subsidiary policy. In any event, the Reagan Administration policy of merit pay will compound, not solve, the problem.

Recommendations for reform have been forthcoming at intervals since the late 1950s when educational problems first surfaced. At the time of Sputnik there was a hue and cry about the backward nature of U.S. training in mathematics and science, which at the University level are not at all backward. Anyway the educational establishment recognized an opportunity and cried, "more, more money." They got it, and there was a massive expansion in the '60s. But the funds have been poured into social conditioning. Mathematics and sciences have taken back seat in the last 30 years.

Then in 1981, James S. Coleman of the University of Chicago produced a study of public schools for the U.S. Department of Education. In this study Coleman used the National Opinion Research Center to contact 58,728 sophomores and seniors in 1,016 public, parochial, and private schools across the United States.

His findings were:

• private and parochial schools provide an education closer to the common school ideal than do public schools

• private school students learned more than public school counterparts

• Coleman wrote it was paradoxical that "catholic schools function much closer to the American ideal of the common school... than do public schools"

• private schools provide "a safer, more disciplined and more ordered environment" than public schools

• "blacks and Hispanics perform better at private schools"

The reason?

Private schools are less under the influence of the Dewey educational philosophy. They still have to use accredited teachers, but these teachers - quite bluntly - have been able to survive the teacher training conditioning.

Yet the educational establishment does not see the writing on the wall. In Fall 1983 a report by John Goodlad, Dean of the School of Education at University of Southern California, will be published. John I. Goodlad wrote the Foreword to Schooling For A Global Age (McGraw Hill, 1979) which includes these comments:

"Enlightened social engineering is required to face situations that demand global action now" (page xiii). "Parents and the general public must be reached ... otherwise children and youth enrolled in globally oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home."

And more. Another 345 pages of globalony follows.

Nothing about the child as an individual. Nothing about the child as a repository of talents that need to be encouraged. Nothing about basic education: the 3 R's.

Yet this Goodlad report is being pushed in The New York Times July 19, 1983) as the most "comprehensive report" ever made on American schools.

These are some Goodlad proposals:

• education should start at 4 years old

• schools should be smaller

• head teachers with doctorates should have more pay

And this does nothing, of course, to stop what a former Commissioner of Education called "a rising tide of mediocrity."

If the United States is to survive in the coming technologically intensive age, then certain recommendations follow. These are:

• the function of the school is to develop individual talent. Social engineering as an objective has to be discarded

• a thorough grounding in the 3 R's is essential for a good education. In other words, "content" is all important

• it follows that Schools of Education should be abolished (this is under serious discussion at Duke University and has been proposed at University of Michigan and even Cal Berkeley)

• teacher credentials should be based on subject matter entirely, not educational theory

• all restrictions on private schools should be abolished

• public schools should be returned to local control

Return to Contents