By Mike Spaulding
January 17, 2022
President Woodrow Wilson’s several short–sighted missteps—among them allowing the creation of the Federal Reserve System, which is a centralized banking cartel that has nothing whatsoever to do with the United States Federal Government, and leading America into World War I, after campaigning on a pledge not to do that—created a great urge among Americans, and indeed the peoples of other nations, to create a global organization based on an ecumenical spirit of unity, clearly the legacy of the original progressive clergy I’ve mentioned many times previously.
This ecumenical spirit of the age was expressed most tangibly in the creation of several global religious and peace organizations and conferences such as the American Society of International Law (1906), National Arbitration and Peace Conference (1907), the Methodist Federation for Social Action (1907), The Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America (1908), American Society for the Judicial Settlement of International Disputes (1910), World Alliance for International Friendship (1914), The Church Peace Union (1914), American League to Limit Armaments (1914), American Union Against Militarism (1915), League to Enforce Peace (1915), Committee on Moral Aims of the War (1918), The International Missionary Council (1921), the Universal Conference on Life and Work (1925, 1930–1938), and The Faith and Order Movement (1927), among several others.
Many of these organizations were merely the out–workings of private foundations and their wealth, most especially the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation. Author Carl Teichrib describes the function of the many American Foundations that sprang up in the early twentieth century as:
Change agents of yesterday and in the present understand that if culture is to shift in a permanent way, then social values must move gradually until a tipping point is reached. For this to occur, institutional hubs must first be altered within; government, the education system, media and popular culture, religious organizations, and other key societal crossroads need to embrace the new worldview…The “top–down” change agents “reforming” our social and political institutions are not difficult to discover. Indeed, for the past hundred years in the Western World, and the United States in particular, an army of social and policy engineers have been accepted as part of the structural landscape. Enter the “expert” pressure peddlers: The interlocking complex of philanthropic foundations, think–tanks, executive organizations, and high academia…This is exactly what has been going on since the days of Andrew Carnegie, Nicholas Murray Butler, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, it’s an outgrowth of America’s “Progressive Era.”
Before 1900, there were only 18 Philanthropic Foundations operating in the United States. However, between 1910 and 1919, 58 new foundations were created. During the 1920’s, the total number grew to 173, and during the 1930’s, tax exempt foundations grew to 288. The 1940’s and 1950’s saw the greatest growth of these foundations such that the total number became 2,839.
Why is this important to understand? It is important to understand because from the beginning of the creation of these foundations, they have had two objectives. The first objective was to shelter the wealth of their creators, and the second was to use that wealth to fundamentally change America into one nation among many under the control of a global governing body.
These statements might sound outlandish to some readers. Let me assure you they are not. David Patterson, in his article titled, “An Interpretation of the American Peace Movement 1898–1914,” summarizes the mindset of the wealthy philanthropists by stating:
The world federationists were more closely internationalists. These internationalists shared peaceful aspirations of the pacific–minded and generalists, but were unwilling to wait for the conversion of the masses to the goal of world peace or of the nations’ widespread acceptance of arbitration and conciliation procedures for the resolution of international disputes. They wanted the major world powers to establish permanent international institutions which would formalize and regularize the conciliation process. They talked most often of the creation of some kind of world federation. Their proposals ranged from Andrew Carnegie’s general program for a a league of peace composed of the leaders of the major powers of Europe and the United States, who would agree to use economic sanctions and as a last resort an international police force against the aggressor states, to more specific arrangements for the creation of an international legislature which would develop procedures for preserving the peace.
By the early 1950’s, the amount of money the largest foundations had poured into anti–American activities such as socialism, progressive organizations, racial agitation groups, and activist groups, was in the billions of dollars and finally drew the attention of citizens and politicians alike. The late Jim Marrs, in his book, Rule by Secrecy, writes about a statement that Norman Dodd, Director of Research for the House Select Committee to Investigate Foundations and Charitable Organizations made in 1952. Dodd asserted that the then president of the Ford Foundation told him: “operating under a directive from the White House,” his foundation was to “use our grant–making power so as to alter our life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”
The House Select Committee mentioned above was also called the Reece Committee on Foundations. Norman Dodd’s report was a bombshell of revealing information that should have resulted in the Department of Justice and the FBI launching full scale investigations into the illegal activities of many of the largest foundations. The Dodd Report conclusion is that:
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.
Norman Dodd tempered his words in this report, however, the findings leave readers no other understanding than that the foundations deliberately undermined the Constitution of the United States by supporting organizations and strategies aimed at its demise. The questions the investigation team sought to answer included:
- Have foundations used their resources for purposes contrary to those for which they were established?
- Have they used their resources for purposes which can be classified as un–American?
- Have they used their resources for purposes which can be regarded as subversive?
- Have they resorted to propaganda in order to achieve the objectives for which they have been made?
The short answer to all these questions is an unequivocal yes! Consider that the American Historical Association issued a report 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.”
In February of 1936, the John Dewey Society was created. It worked very closely with The American Historical Society, The Progressive Education Association, the League for Industrial Democracy originally named the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (Fabian Socialism), and the National Educational Association to develop and disseminate:
…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 corner- stone 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 pro- duction 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…Its promotion appears to have been managed by such organizations as the Progressive Education Association, the American Historical Association, the League for In- dustrial Democracy, the John Dewey Society and the Anti–Defama- tion 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.”
The Dodd report examined foundation activities from 1903 to 1953 and their relationships with one another and the Executive branch of the United States Federal Government. Here, the evil underbelly of Political and Religious Progressivism is exposed to the glaring light of truth. Dodd revealed that grants made by foundations already mentioned above were for the purposes of:
- Directing education in the United States toward an international viewpoint and discarding 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.
Berit Kjos, in an article entitled, Conforming the Church to the New World Order writes:
In 1942, six years before the World Council of Churches was formally launched, its organizers within the Federal Council of Churches held a National Study conference at Wesleyan University in Ohio. Among the 30 delegates were 15 bishops, seven seminary presidents, and eight college and university presidents.
John Foster Dulles, who later became Secretary of State in the Eisenhower administration, chaired the conference. As head of the Federal Council’s inter–Church “Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace,” Dulles submitted the conference report. It recommended:
- a world government of delegated powers
- immediate limitations on national sovereignty
- international control of all armies and navies
- a universal system of money
- worldwide freedom of immigration
- a democratically controlled international bank [the Federal Reserve]
- even distribution of the world’s natural wealth.
Kjos’ point is clear: the drive for a new world order that embraces socialism under the guise of the brotherhood of man is being forced upon the world and the Church has been a vehicle for that development.
Semper Fidelis to Christ!
This article is an excerpt of the book Social Injustice: Exposing the False Gospel of the Social Justice Movement, which brought together authors Jeff Dornik, Brannon Howse, Dr Andy Woods, Dr Mike Spaulding, Thomas Littleton, Ken Peters, Sam Jones, Ian M Giatti, Patrick Wyett, Paige Rogers, Dustin Faulkner, Schumann and the foreword by Mychal Massie. This team of authors exposes the heresy of Social Justice and how it preaches a false Gospel.
© 2021 Mike Spaulding – All Rights Reserved
E-Mail Mike Spaulding: email@example.com