Of late years there has been throughout the country a great uneasiness about the education that young Americans have been receiving. Moral decay and a badly trained youth are only too evident. Newspapers, periodicals and the air waves devote more and more time and space to this subject. Student riots, aided by faculties, have been causing continuing havoc in colleges throughout the United States. Wide spread vandalism including massive destruction of scholarly materials are reminiscent of the bully tactics of Nazi and Marxist youth in Germany and Austria during the nineteen-thirties.
Under the corrosive influence of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that shield anarchy masquerading as “rights,” organized disorder and sanctioned moral aberrations have become an institutionalized campus adjunct. Open advocacy of narcotic addiction, sexual abuse and animalistic perversions is cleverly mingled with leftist agitation. With traditional legal restraints declared unconstitutional, the leftist masterminds are compelled to devise new and more outrageous provocations to force police retaliation. Shouting obscenities at officers of the law, spitting in their faces, bespattering them with human excreta and kicking at them with boots studded with rusty razor blades are a sample of atrocities devised by leftist-specialists in disorder. The mobilization of radical youth of both sexes to expose their genitals has been another provocation calculated to enrage the police.
In the face of this mounting disorder many college administrators cower and cringe like timid eunuchs. Years of sociological prattle about respectable society being guilty and social malefactors being victims, has reaped a harvest of bitter fruit. The left-liberal establishment, in the name of “progress” and “socialization,” has produced a chaos that may engender political tyranny. The chickens have come home to roost, but the academic brood hens are clucking disclaimers of blame.
A number of years ago when the disorders were being brewed our study was initiated with the hope that preventive measures could be taken. Analysis of the over-all field of education revealed that Harvard, more than any other university, was a chief source of leftist infection.
Harvard is the oldest college in the United States, and ever since its foundation has been considered all over the world as our leading American educational institution. Harvard has managed to choose brilliant teachers, thereby maintaining a position of leadership in the educational field. Colleges and graduate schools all over the United States have eagerly sought Harvard-trained men for their faculties.
We started with the premise that Harvard was the leading institution of education in the United States. So we asked ourselves two questions, First, had Harvard lost its leadership? And second, was Harvard providing the wrong sort of leadership?
A brief study convinced us that Harvard had not lost its leadership. We then decided to make a careful study of what was taught at Harvard and by whom and to inform the graduates accordingly.
The study was planned to be purely factual. No recommendations were to be made. No changes were to be suggested. It was decided to make a factual study of the subjects taught, the text books used plus the background and character of those teaching the subjects. After the study, it was planned to bring the facts before the general public. We felt that it is the duty of the graduates, as well as within their power, to impose any changes they wish, provided they are furnished with the true facts.
It took a very short time to realize that years of research, involving much man power and money, would be required to study all the teaching and teachers of Harvard College and the Harvard graduate schools. After due deliberation it was decided to concentrate on the Economics Department of Harvard College, as the breeding ground of much of Harvard leftism.
Harvard graduates will have to judge whether or not the traditional intellectual honesty of Harvard has been betrayed. We feel that the graduates have not been told the truth. There has been too little information as to the kind of text books used, and the background and training of Harvard teachers and lecturers.
We feel, just as others do, that Harvard is an educational leader, and that control of Harvard’s educational system may lead to the eventual control of the educational fabric of the United States.
Without a doubt the following study proves that the Keynesian “system”—if it can be called a system—is the primary economics system being taught in Harvard. “Keynesian economics” is a misnomer. It is not economics. It is a leftwing political theory.
Keynesian economics was undoubtedly spawned by English Fabian socialism. Keynes himself was a Fabian socialist as is later proven by Keynes’ own record.
We hope this study will clear up the confusion that exists in the minds of many people as to the meaning of these various terms.
For example, the impression is generally held that it is very respectable to be a Fabian socialist such as Ramsey MacDonald, or to be a follower of Keynes, or a “liberal” (in the modern sense of the word) such as A.A. Berle (H’13); whereas it is not respectable to be a Communist, or a Nazi like Hitler, or a Fascist like Mussolini.
Actually all these people are striving toward the same end—concentration of power in the hands of a few.
The main quarrel between them is the struggle of the leaders of each group to become the exclusive arbiters of power. Once they obtain full power they inevitably gravitate toward absolute control of all human life.
They operate very much like the gangs in the United States. Gangsters fight and even kill each other to gain power, but quickly close their ranks when attacked by the forces of law and order. In radical politics you find clerics like Reinhold Niebuhr supporting the worst of the communist. That is why you will find Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all enthusiastically embracing Keynesian aspects of economics. You will also find such Fabians as Keynes and Bernard Shaw visiting Russia, and vociferously supporting the Soviet government’s methods and aims.
Shaw, who set the political tone for socialists in England and the United States, ran the whole gamut by supporting, in turn, various collective tyrannies. He announced admiration for Mein Kampf and Hitler and also sang the praises for Mussolini. More covertly, he served as chief expediter for Keynes’ ideas.
Even Whittaker Chambers, an old hand in the leftist game, did not realize the extent of the cohesion among the left-wing underworld until he accused Alger Hiss of espionage. Chambers then admitted:
The simple fact is that when I took up my little sling and aimed at Communism, I also hit something else. What I hit was the forces of that great socialist revolution, which, in the name of liberalism, spasmodically, incompletely, somewhat formlessly, but always in the same direction, has been inching its ice cap over the nation for two decades. . . . No one could have been more dismayed than I at what I had hit, for though I knew it existed, I still had no adequate idea of its extent, the depth of its penetration or the fierce vindictiveness of its revolutionary temper, which is a reflex of its struggle to keep and advance its political power.(1)
In 1920 as a Columbia University freshman Chambers was assigned Mark Van Doren as faculty adviser. Van Doren, a Fabian socialist, steered the young man into leftist directions.(2) In 1923, returning from a European trip, Chambers was further inoculated with British socialism. In his autobiography he wrote, “I returned to the United States and plunged into Fabian Socialism, studying as I seldom had in my life.”(3)
There is a difference between the Fabians on one extreme and the Communists and Fascists on the other. However, it is merely a difference in methods. The Fabians believe in “easing” into absolute power by deceit. The Communists and Fascists believe in attaining power quickly by violence. The ends are the same since absolute power can only be maintained by repression.
The “Keynes” school of this “political underworld” is particularly adept at this Machiavellian method of advancing tyranny. You will read in the ensuing thoroughly documented text, how Keynes publicly pretended that he was “saving capitalism.” You will also see how he despised the dupes of the upper classes who believed him.
Keynes’ American followers in the Harvard economics department, together with those they have planted throughout the various colleges of the United States, are adept at this art. As a result, many big businessmen have swallowed hook, line and sinker, the so-called “Keynesian economics.” And because the Keynesians have made the dose so tasty and disguised its flavor, some businessmen have not only swallowed the Keynes economics, but have themselves advanced far down the path of Fabianism. They have been taught by the very group that plans their destruction to vilify and savagely attack not only those who oppose Fabianism but even those who attack Communism.
In the ensuing pages it will be shown how Fabians, Communists and Keynesians unite in accusing the very businessmen who are supporting them of conspiring to enslave the people and destroy liberty.
Actually, the shoe is on the other foot. The conspiracy of the left-wing political underworld to destroy liberty is indicated quite openly in various documents. Most businessmen are politically ignorant and short sighted in matters of radical conspiracy. They are occupied mainly in the pressing problems of running a business.
Former Ambassador Spruille Braden, on June 12, 1959, gave a concise definition of the relationship of the left-wing underworld when he declared in Chicago:
The greatest danger does not come alone from the Communist parties, but also from all these other groups who in effect become their allies, even though they often seem to oppose communism at least superficially. It is impressive to see the way the Communists are able to inveigle these socialists, nationalists and other people into working with them. As a matter of fact, the commies frequently hide and camouflage the development of the real Communist Party by the Communists themselves joining other parties.
That the leftist political underworld has gained domination of the Harvard faculty is brought out in the May 16, 1960 issue of the New York Times (itself under Keynesian influence), which reported that “1359 Harvard faculty members and officers” urged Eisenhower, at the eve of the abortive Summit Conference, to agree to stop testing nuclear weapons. The message to Eisenhower said that “. . . a nuclear test ban can be seen as a preliminary step (italics ours) toward agreements on nuclear weapons controls . . .” Translated from leftist double talk, what they actually mean is that the United States stop atomic tests first and then plead with the Kremlin to agree to some kind of controls.(4)
It is amazing that 1359 of the Harvard faculty can be induced to agree politically on one single issue. 1359 individuals welded into one group, indoctrinated in one direction, practically constitutes full control of the Harvard professional body—a control which can only be broken by the determined action of Harvard graduates.
Socialism under various guises, supported by a Keynesian type theory, had complete power in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Italy, in Bolshevik Russia, and, in a more limited way, in England under the Labour Party. They have all been subjected to the test of history. Does anyone believe that they were successful? Even the political underworld hesitates to heap praises on the first three governments mentioned; as for the Labour Party, they seek devious excuses for its failures.
The average man is very busy earning a living in his own particular line. He cannot spare a great deal of effort outside his own business. Matters outside his own business must come to him in clear and uncomplicated language.
The Keynesians know this. Keynes in particular knew it. He clothed the simplest proposition in the most complicated phraseology. In this way the clearest facts have been beclouded. Businessmen often mistake such verbiage for profundity and are led to believe that the Keynesians have exclusive knowledge of some magic formulas incapable of being grasped by the average man. This is exactly what Keynes and his followers wished. It gives them carte blanche to pursue their ends.
Keynes in the preface to his magnum opus admitted that he used “changes in terminology” and “changes in language.”(5) His official biographer reported that Keynes used two “sets of terminology” which dismayed readers who had read his previous book. He added that readers “feared getting thereby into a terminological muddle beyond repair.”(6) This is not a Keynesian invention. Political sociologists (mostly Fabians) regularly use the ploy of changing their professional jargon to conceal ideological patterns. Keynesian proponents Galbraith and Samuelson exult over the “unique unreadability” and boast “that the General Theory is an obscure book so that would-be-anti-Keynesians must assume their position largely on credit.”(7)
Such a conscious attempt to cover Keynesism with semantic obscurities is designed to prove that all economic matters should be left exclusively to the Keynesian elite. Keynes openly admitted that non-economists who read his book “are only eavesdroppers.”
Harvard economics professor Seymour E. Harris opens a chapter in his book, National Debt and the New Economics, with the heading:
THE PROBLEMS ARE INTRICATE AND CANNOT BE FULLY UNDERSTOOD EVEN BY THE INTELLIGENT MINORITY.
In referring to the citizenry Harris grandiloquently declares:
On these technical matters he will have to accept the word of the experts, as he does on many other important public issues—not many laymen understand the theory of the release of atomic energy, or radar, or the functioning of our monetary system.
Harris and the other Keynesians take a complicated matter like the atomic theory and hide behind it. Actually very few citizens are engaged in unravelling the complexities of atomic fission. However, every human above the age of three is involved daily in economic activity. To demand that we empower this group of power-struck leftists with the exclusive right to determine all economic thinking is a monstrous piece of impertinence.
Even sound economists do not realize that Keynes’ obscurity is deliberate. Some believe he had a confused mind, and attack his theories from that point of view. They do not come to grips with the true state of affairs, namely, that Keynesism is not an economic theory. It is a weapon of political conspiracy.
Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the present situation at Harvard is the refusal of the Keynesians in control to give a fair hearing to the conservative point of view. They took advantage of the traditional tolerance of Harvard early in the century to infiltrate the faculty with their supporters and preach their socialist doctrine; but once they took power they have purged the Economics Department, at least, of all vestiges of truly free economic theories, advocates and text-books. This is precisely the technique of the Communist Party and their sympathizers here, who vociferously claim their rights under our Constitution with the obvious intention of destroying both rights and constitution at the first opportunity. The leftist apostles of academic freedom at Harvard have shown their hypocrisy by silencing untrammelled discussion of free enterprise. Ironically enough, this is at a time when the incomparable superiority of capitalism over socialism, exemplified first in this country, has recently been again dramatically demonstrated in West and East Germany and in the mass starvation of Communist China as compared with the prosperity of free Japan.
As to the radical protesting youth who enthusiastically engage in mindless destruction and social anarchy amid cries of “police brutality,” there is a deadly final reckoning already awaiting them. Their role, as political dupes, to weaken the social order, so that adult leftists can gain political power, will be rewarded with death—after the revolution. This has been discussed and carefully planned. The hippies, beatniks, dope users, law breakers, and welfare chiselers are already provided for in the future society by Fabian socialists.
The Chief Fabian of them all wrote, “Such freaks should be pitied and painlessly killed without malice as a mad dog is killed. And so should all who are not worth their salt and are spoiling the lives of those who are worth their salt. . . .” Under socialism he continued, “The procedure, as far as we can foresee it, will be for the police to establish a capital case and bring the accused to trial by jury as usual; but the judge, instead of passing sentence, will report the case and the verdict to the Inquisition to consider whether the accused can safely be allowed to live at large in a civilized community.”
There would be no death row. The execution would be done by experts in the privacy of your living quarters. This “gradualist” socialist further explained, “However painless euthenasia might be made by the Inquisition every citizen would know that it was waiting for the incorrigibly mischievous and dangerous. The convicted, knowing that the Inquisition was considering the case, could never go to bed with any certainty of being alive next morning. But this uncertainty would not concern the convicted only. It would concern everybody; for the question of fitness to live could be raised about anybody, whether any indictable crime had been committed or not.”
In case the young insurgents against “affluence” should think this fate was reserved only for those over thirty, let this final touch by the Chief Fabian disenchant them: “They, (children) must be policed as adults are. Some of them should be liquidated as congenital and incurable idiots or criminals; and they should all respect the police and be taught that unless they fit themselves to live in civilized society thay cannot be allowed to live at all;”(8) Naturally, there would be no disrespect for the socialist police, otherwise the young would risk being found dead in bed—executed mercifully.
The SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) currently so active in perpetrating atrocities, should learn from their progenitor. The SDS was founded as the youth section of the League for Industrial Democracy, the Fabian society in the United States. Records show that such drastic measures have been discussed in Fabian circles for many years.
To conclude, we hope that graduates and undergraduates of many colleges will read the ensuing pages carefully, but particularly we feel that Harvard men should give this study careful attention. The references and quotes show that all statements are carefully documented. Harvard men will learn that, instead of economics, an essentially fraudulent political credo is being taught to their sons by the Harvard Economics Department at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
If the graduates approve of Keynesism and Fabian socialism as the “ne plus ultra” for the Harvard student, then the Department should be left to follow the present trend.
If they disapprove and wish a change, they must take vigorous and immediate action, as the system is firmly entrenched and has flourished for many years.
We can only supply the truth. Magna est veritas et praevalebit.
We urge that the reader get THE GREAT DECEIT–Social Pseudo-Sciences in order to understand the over-all scope of leftist infiltration via our educational complex. The tracing of the leftist footprints will make it possible to identify the enemy within his academic lair. Identification of individuals, organizations and activities is a preparation before any effective counter measures can be taken.
1 Whittaker Chambers, Witness, Random House, N.Y., 1954, p p. 741-742.
2 Ibid., pp. 164-66, 545.
3 Ibid., p. 194.
4 Full account on the front page of the Harvard Crimson, May 16, 1960.
5 Keynes, J.M., The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1958, p.VI.
6 Harrod, R.F., The Life of John Maynard Keynes, MacMillan & Co. London, 1951, p. 404.
7 Hazlitt, Henry, The Failure of the “New Economics,” D. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton, N.J., 1959, p. 3. The New York Times, Book Review, May 16, 1965, p. 1.
8 Shaw, Bernard, Everybody’s Political What’s What?, Dodd, Meade Co., 1944, New York, pp. 177, 283.