Tuesday, March 19, 2019

PART 3: THE GREAT DECEIT...Socialism begins as "Social Science"...History as a Political Tool...

THE GREAT DECEIT 
SOCIAL PSEUDO-SCIENCES 
A Veritas Foundation Staff Study

Image result for images of the fabian society symbol

III 
SOCIALISM BEGINS 
AS "SOCIAL SCIENCE" 
In considering the term "social science" the question arises as to what is the true meaning of the term? A true and definitive answer to that question has never been properly given because "social science" is a term that has meant different things to different people and movements at different times. Although the term has been used on occasion by non-socialists its most consistent application has been by the left-wing.1 

Before 1825, in France, Claude Henri de Rouvroy' Comte de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) a French aristocrat and speculator, had developed a socialistic concept upon which to organize all of society on the basis of what then was known as "science",2 When he was a youth Saint-Simon felt that he was destined to great things and had his valet "awaken him every morning with the words, 'Remember, monsieur Le Comte, that you 'have great things to do.'''3 It was during the revolution, and while suffering a temporary imprisonment in the Luxembourg, that visions of a new social system, based on scientific principles, and not on political conventionality, :first unfolded themselves to his ardent imagination His ancestor Charlemagne appeared to him one night in a vision and said: 

"Since the world existed, only one family enjoys the honor of producing a hero and a philosopher of the first rank. This honor is reserved for my family. My son, your success as philosopher will equal that which I reached as soldier and politician.4 

Throughout his life Saint-Simon was afflicted with recurrent mental disorders. 

The concept of "social science" was thus apparently conceived in the disturbed brain of an aristocrat who was motivated by ghostly hallucinations. After his "vision", Saint-Simon, "though now 38 years of age, commenced to study 'science', of which he was as yet quite ignorant."5 It is an irony of history that "social science" was born in a mind completely lacking in scientific training. 

It is interesting that Charlemagne (742-814 A.D.) who initiated the period of feudalism should be used as a sponsor by his descendant, Saint-Simon. As our study will demonstrate later, the roots of socialism lay deep in the Middle Ages and the concept of a closed socialistic society is akin to the stagnant ossified economy of the feudal era. Charlemagne had given impetus to the development of feudalism by establishing widespread state control over commerce, agriculture, and public works. He had initiated "forced labor on public works among the lower ranks." He reduced the small farmers to serfdom and made the community responsible for providing the court and public officials with food and supplies. This was accompanied by systemization of the army and forced military service. The process then was what today we would call socialization. The system of control and enforcement was based on a theocracy with Charlemagne and his successors in dominant positions. This system soon embraced the greater part of Europe.

Socialists as 'social scientists' 
The disciples of St. Simon declared in 1829 "... that the only elements that have appeared repeatedly in the past and would interest the future were the Fine Arts, Sciences, and Industry, and that the study of this triple manifestation of human activity was to constitute social science ... "7 These same disciples a year later declared: 

"The results of social science can be presented to almost all men only in a dogmatic form. Only the small number of those who devote their whole life to its study can prove these problems to themselves. These men are also the only ones of whom one may suppose that they will under all circumstances be guided by the precepts of science."8 

Thus, over 135 years ago, the premise was established of lodging the control of "social science" in the hands of a small self appointed elite,9 The same premise exists today in "social science" circles. 

These apparently are the earliest references to the term "social science". 

In the International Encyclopedic Dictionary (1897) the observation is made that "Comte (August Comte, ed. 1798-1857) may rightfully be claimed as having created Social Science"10 However, since Comte was secretary to Saint-Simon from 1818 to 1824 it can be reasonably deduced that he acquired the term "social science" from his master. The gist of Saint-Simon's socialist system included much of the tyranny which exists in modern times in the form of modern communism and fascism. 

Francois Charles Marie Fourier (1772-1837) an admirer of Napoleon Bonaparte, also developed a socialistic system based upon "social science". Fourier was also plagued with signs of insanity throughout his life and the conclusion has been reached that "there was much of insanity in Fourier's mental constitution."11 

The first sizeable socialist movement in the United States was organized around the teachings of Fourier. Under the leadership of Albert Brisbane (circa 1840), a sizeable movement for socialist cooperative endeavors was initiated Horace Greeley, publisher of the New York Daily Tribune, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Amos Bronson Alcott, and Ralph Waldo Emerson were among some notables that initiated this movement and spread socialistic ideas via "social science" in many publications of that period. In 1843 the pages of the New York Daily Tribune, under the aegis of Horace Greeley, carried a regular column under the heading "Social Science". One of these columns announced: 

"The object of the present article is to show to Conservatives and to the Religious World generally, that a great plan of Social Reform" ... "is now advocated in this Country, England and France, and which from want of proper knowledge upon the subject is looked upon with distrust...." 

"The plan of reform to which we refer is that of Charles Fourier. He has discovered and made known to the World the laws and mechanism of Social Order, based upon Association and combined Action Unity of Interests, attractive Industry and Moral Harmony of the Passions-in the place of the present Social Order, based upon isolated and Individual Action, Conflict, of all Interests, Repugnant Industry, and Perversion and False Development of the Passions."12 

Albert Brisbane eventually published these socialistic schemes in a book entitled General Introduction to the Social Sciences. 

It must be remembered that in 1843 during the period of early French and American socialism there had been no college or university possessing as yet a department devoted to "Social Science ".

Thirty years later, in 1873, Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly, a socialist newspaper, reported that: 

"In a conversation with one of the editors of the New York Tribune, Professor Huxley expressed his emphatic opinion that 'the reorganization of society upon a new and purely scientific basis is not only practicable, but is the only political object much worth fighting for'. All scientific men in Europe and America are agreed that there is such a thing somewhere as a social science. (italics ours) We surely do not deserve the name of fanatics then, because we presently proceed to direct public attention to this study, as the only one that will guide us out of our social miseries."13 

Spiritualism once a social science 
In the pages of Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly, the socialist movement was wedded to spiritualism. Curiously this mysticism was also a characteristic of the teachings of Saint-Simon, Fourier and the American Fourierists under the leadership of Brisbane and Horace Greeley. About 1840, the mysticism of the American Socialists was lumped together under the generic term of transcendentalism. The transcendentalists represented the left-wing of the Unitarian Church. Early socialists just like the modern variety had a spiritual approach to lure the religious minds and a worldly approach, ("social science") for the worldly type. 

A National Convention of Liberalists and Spiritualists met in 1873 and were told that: 

"Let us remember that we are attended by hosts of unseen helpers who are on the spiritual side of existence, but whose untiring labors are with us to erect a Temple of Wisdom and Love and to banish want, to promote peace and to insure harmony and happiness to humanity." 

The same conclave "dwelt at length and with great power of logic upon the communistic order of association, and believed that a community of goods was the only true road to millennial life." At this meeting it was resolved to call the organization "the American Congress of Social Science." 14 

In 1828, Saint Simonians had declared that "social science" was composed of "the Fine Arts, the Sciences, and Industry." 15 Fourteen years later, the socialists in America projected "social science" as "based upon Association and combined Action and Unity of Interest, Attractive Industry, and Moral Harmony and Its Passions." By 1873, an American Congress of Social Science proposed a program of "moral, social, financial, religious and political thesis which would be attended by hosts of unseen helpers who are on the spiritual side of existence". 

As has been noted before, academic acceptance of "social science" did not begin until the formation of a left-wing clique within the then recently founded Johns Hopkins University in 1876. At that time, after more than 50 years of the use of the term "social science," mostly in connection with socialist movements, there was still no clear cut definition as to what was meant by the term. 

Charles A. Dana and George Ripley had been leaders of the socialist movement under the banner of "social science" since 1842. Dana and Ripley both eventually were placed in charge of editing the American Cyclopedia (1859). There is no separate category listed as "social science" in this large 15-volume work. Apparently Dana and Ripley realized that the use of the term "social science" was applicable in propounding socialism but would not bear expert scrutiny in a pretentious work of reference. 

What is "social science"? 
What is social science? This is the question which has been waiting for a proper definitive answer for over 150 years. 

In 1883, the Imperial Dictionary of the English Language stated: in part: 

"Social Science, the science of all that relates to the social condition, the relations and institutions which are involved in man's existence and his well-being as member of an organized community.... It thus deals with the effect of existing social forces and their result on the general well-being of the community, without directly discussing or expounding the theories or examining the problems of sociology of which it may be considered a branch."16 

A year later, 1884, Chambers Encyclopedia, gave a different slant on the subject by stating: 

"Social Science, a name that has of late years been given to the study of all that relates to the social improvement of the community."17 

The first definition mentions the fact that "social science" is a study of "existing social forces", whereas the second stated that social science is the "study of all that relates to the social improvement of the community." 

Forty-three years later (1926) the new International Encyclopedia wrote that:

 "Special sociology consists of the entire group of social sciences, including culture, history, economics, jurisprudence and politics, each of which deals minutely with some one phase of social organization, social activity or social development."18 

With this definition it seemed that the major social sciences were lumped together Wider the category of "social sociology"

The Modern Columbia Encyclopedia (second edition) dilutes the meaning of the term "social science" by stating: 

"social science, term for any or all of the branches of study that deal with man or his social relations. More commonly these studies are referred to in the plural as the social sciences. No single categorical list of them can be made, for any portion of any discipline that deals with the nature of man's group life must be counted among the social sciences."19 

Placing any study dealing "with the nature of man's group life" among the social sciences automatically enlarges the subject beyond definition, since the variety of man's group life is infinite in its complexity and arrangement. 

However, the ultimate authority, the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences (1959 printing) compounds the confusion: 

"The phenomena thus related to group activities are commonly called social phenomena, and the sciences which classify and interpret such activities are the social sciences. The social sciences may thus be defined as those mental or cultural sciences which deal with the activities of the individual as a member of a group. 

"Since the common wants of mankind are exceedingly diversified, the group activities designed to satisfy these wants are correspondingly manifold. In the measure that these group activities have been subjected to study, the social sciences have multiplied. They may be said to fall into three classes-the purely social sciences, the semi-social sciences and the sciences with social implications,"20 

By throwing "social science" "into three classes-the purely social science, the semi-social science and the sciences with social implications" it becomes impossible to pin this subject down, and creates a permanent cacophony of interpretations. 

Since the last definition is one contained in an encyclopedia dominated by Fabian socialist elements and was written by a chief protagonist of the socialist program, it is obvious that side-stepping a concrete definition of "social science" is in keeping with socialist strategy. Vague generalities and ambiguous references are always beneficial to Fabian socialist manipulations. Fabians prefer to fish in muddy waters.

Socialists formalize confusion 
The socialistic pundits in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences after making a most abstract and confusing definition of what is "social science" then proceeded to classify this confusion in eleven main categories. They are listed as Anthropology, ECl}- nomics, Education, History, Law, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology, Social Work, Sociology and Statistics.[a better name is social experiment DC] 

In this study we will deal with four broad categories of "social science"21 They are: History, Sociology, Social Anthropology, and Social Jurisprudence. We do not intend to deal with Political Science as a separate factor since the socialist manipulation of the social sciences is in itself a form of "political science". Perhaps Garet Garrett's definition of socialistic "political science" as being actually "the science of political dynamics" is more apropos.22 

In studying the socialist-communist movement over the last 150 years one outstanding factor is common to all of their manipulations. Left-wing movements at all times look upon every single object in society as a potential tool to be used to further the march towards socialism. This single-mindedness of the socialists is the reason for their massive opportunism in all endeavors. It also creates within itself the basis of continuous deception. 

Thus, the socialist manipulation of the various categories listed under "social science" is not one of mere academic searching for the truth. The socialist movement would not waste a moment on pure scholasticism for its own sake. Before participating in anything the basic rule of left-wing manipulations is Can it be used to our advantage and how can it be so used? 

In probing through extensive documentation involving the "social sciences" one feature stands out with striking vividness. Almost every key leftist in the "social sciences" has been a confirmed socialist first and then developed a "social science" later. In other words a faith called "socialism" came first and the "science" was then fashioned as a weapon to promote the socialistic aim. 

This means that the search for the truth by the leftists in the scholastic field is not of paramount importance. The bending and twisting of the academic subjects to fit socialist purposes is the prime purpose of all convinced socialists. This has been the case particularly in Social Anthropology, History, Economics, Social Jurisprudence and Sociology. The socialist dogma requires that all scholastic categories be made to serve socialism and not the cause of scientific truth. 

Leftist propaganda, particularly when aimed at the educated, pretends that socialism has been proved to be scientific and that the "social sciences" confirm this proof with scientific precision. Exhaustive studies have proved exactly the reverse. The socialist theory was developed first and then after long years of politically and emotionally inspired pressures accompanied by many subtle and deceitful twists and turns the socialistic schemers managed at last to cover their naked propaganda so completely with scholastic fig-leaves that they were able to convert entire categories of supposedly academic courses of instruction into purely political forums of socialistic indoctrination. 

Starting at the university level the entire socialistic twist has filtered down to the high schools and grammar schools. Socialistically oriented college graduates have gradually by almost imperceptible degrees spread out into all phases of social life and guided the drift towards collectivism. 

In order to justify this process in the minds of their minions the top socialistic schemers long ago decided that they must provide a grand theory of historical justification. History is suborned to bear false witness for socialism. In the socialist bag of tricks History becomes a counterfeit "social science".


IV 
HISTORY AS A POLITICAL TOOL 
In 1961, the President of the United States announced the appointment of Professor Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., as his Special Assistant. This, and other appointments of academic figures to top places in government, indicated that perhaps, at long last, Plato's old dream (circa 40n B.C.) had come true and that now "philosophers are kings and kings philosophers." A presidential assistant today possesses tremendous power and his influence is felt directly not only in: the United States, but throughout the world. 

The fact that Professor Schlesinger was considered one of America's leading historians, and was put in a position of actually fashioning future history himself, caused particular satisfaction to much of the academic world. No longer was scholasticism shut off from the practical world and now perhaps scholars could play a part in the administration of government. 

However, examination of Schlesinger's background and political philosophy made decidedly unattractive the picture of the scientist philosopher managing the affairs of state. Besides the business of teaching and writing history 'at Harvard University, Mr. Schlesinger had a life-long socialist background. 

The question arises whether Mr. Schlesinger's socialism was derived from the lessons of history or whether his version of history was derived from socialism. 

The answer is quite obvious. Professor Schlesinger's father, also a professor of history at Harvard, was a hard core left-winger of many years standing.1 Schlesinger, Jr. practically cut his eye teeth on the socialist theme. The Schlesingers, both father and son, actively collaborated in the writing of the now famous trilogy on the New Deal.2 Incidentally, all three volumes of this work were dedicated to persons who were leading left-wing figures.3 

Any possible doubts as to Schlesinger's socialist bias were dispelled by an article he wrote for the left-wing Partisan Review entitled "The Future of Socialism: The Perspective Now." Here Schlesinger, Jr. explains his advocacy of Fabian socialism quite clearly: . 

"Socialism, then, appears quite practicable within this frame of reference, as a long-term proposition. Its gradual advance might well preserve order and law, keep enough internal checks and discontinuities to guarantee a measure of freedom, and evolve new and real forms for the expression of democracy. The active agents in effecting the transition will probably be, not the working class, but some combination of lawyers, business and labor managers, politicians and intellectuals, in the manner of the first New Deal, or of the Labor government in Britain."4


Political murder called a "habit" 

Although he favors a peaceful "creeping socialism", he looks upon the mass murder of millions in the Soviet Union as mainly a psychological problem of the murderers: 

"The habit of violence is hard to abandon; especially when it has worked in the past. A revolutionary elite always has the wistful conviction, based on experience, that it is easier to dispose of opposition by firing squads than by arguments."5 

In the first statement, Mr. Schlesinger concedes that under socialism there may be "a measure of freedom" and new forms "for the expression of democracy". He assumes the new ruling class will be made up of the intellectuals and the professional element. This would naturally lead to a caste system in which class rule would evolve into hereditary succession. Parents usually fight to pass on to their children the positions and status which they have acquired. This is wholly at variance with the ideal of rule by the most capable. Schlesinger's admission that at best only "a measure of freedom" will be allowed in the New Order, combined with his tolerance of the Soviet's mass murders, recalls the old adage that "if you scratch a socialist you will :find a fascist". 

Mr. Schlesinger's socialist orientation readily accounts for the true nature of his writings, which are a modem, slick exposition of the Fabian socialist approach. The books of both Senior and,Junior Schlesinger's are required reading in college classrooms throughout the United States, and their slant on history represents the current teaching in this country. Actually, they do not teach history, but politics,-a socialism of the Fabian variety. 

The impact of Schlesinger socialism extends far beyond the classroom. The preachings of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., as Special Assistant to the President of the United States were heard not only in the United States, but throughout the world According to standard Fabian practice these avoid the name of socialism and masquerade under harmless sounding labels. 

The Schlesinger's are only the culmination of a long-time process of infiltration into the teaching and writing of history by the Socialists, who early began to use history as a political weapon. 


History the Hidden Persuader 
Socialist and communist academicians have over-run the field of history largely by default. History is commonly misconceived as a rather abstract subject little related to everyday life. But leftists realize that those who control the teaching of history set the tone for the philosophy of history. The philosophy of history in tum determines the thinking about the direction in which society is travelling. Socialist infiltrators into our colleges and universities are interested solely in proving that society is predestined towards socialism. Alternatives are either ignored or derided as unworkable. Professor F. A. Hayek in his Capitalism and the Historians says: 

"The influence which the writers of history thus exercise on public opinion is probably more immediate and extensive than that of the political theorists who launch new ideas. It seems as though even such new ideas reach wider circles usually not in their abstract form. but as the interpretations of particular events. The historian is in this respect at least one step nearer to direct power over public opinion than is the theorist." 

Professor Hayek answers those who think that history does not have its direct impact upon the general public, as follows: 

"Most people, when being told that their political convictions have been affected by particular views on economic history, will answer that they never have been interested in it and never have read a book on the subject. 

This, however, does not mean that they do not, with the rest, regard as established facts many of the legends which at one time or another, have been given currency by writers on economic history. 

Although in the indirect and circuitous process by which new political ideas reach the general public the historian holds a key position, even he operates chiefly through many further relays. It is only at several removes that the picture which he provides becomes general property; it is via the novel and the newspaper, the cinema and political speeches, and ultimately the school and common talk that the ordinary person acquires his conceptions of history. 

But in the end even those who never read a book and probably have never heard the names of the historians whose views have influenced them come to see the past through their spectacles."6 


Leftists take over history teaching 
A survey of the overall teaching and writing of history in the United States soon reveals that socialistic philosophies predominate. Major textbooks and reference works in college courses in history throughout the nation are based upon the thinking of such persons as Charles A. Beard, James Harvey Robinson, E. R. A. Seligman, Carl Becker, Max Lerner, Henry Steele Commager, Allan Nevins, and the Schlesingers (father and son). All these have been leaders of leftist thinking in the United States. They have had overlapping connections with one another not only in their own particular chosen profession but also in general leftist 'associations. 

This Fabian socialist slant has prevailed in American schools for over 50 years. Thousands of teachers of history have been compelled to teach the socialistic slant to each succeeding generation because their textbooks and manuals were socialist-oriented.Many of these were not themselves socialistically inclined, but through the forced use of these leftist texts they became captives of the socialistic philosophies. 

Socialistic propaganda in the teaching of history first appeared in 1876 with the founding of Johns Hopkins University. 

Daniel Coit Gilman, the first President of Johns Hopkins "... placed before his trustees the idea of starting not with a college program but with a graduate school and research center; he sent his faculty to train in the great universities of Germany, and they came back with their booty of European techniques in science, medicine and historical research." 7 

Gilman had a reputation as the stormy petrel in the educational field having resigned under fire as head of the University of California. In 1898 Gilman held a special reception for the Fabian socialist leaders Beatrice and Sidney Webb, at Johns Hopkins where the key personnel of the university were briefed on the latest techniques of socialist permeations.8 Incidentally, Gilman's daughter Elizabeth ran for Governor on the Socialist Party ticket in the State of Maryland in 1930.9 

Herbert Baxter Adams, upon receiving a Degree of Philosophy at the University of Heidelberg in Germany in 1876, was promptly placed by Gilman at the head of the "Department of History and Politics at Johns Hopkins,"10 

Adams adapted the theories that he and his fellow professors acquired in the German universities to fit the American terrain. Germany was then the intellectual battleground of various types of socialism. There was the combination of Marxian and Lasallean socialism reflected in the German Social Democratic party (socialist), and the state socialism of Bismarck, who advocated a socialistic monarchy with the Kaiser as titular head. There were also "Katheder-Socialisten" or Socialists of the Chair (academic socialists), who "agreed with the Social Democrats" in the main." The Katheder Socialists had the greatest influence upon the Johns Hopkins group in America.


German statist philosophy 

German professors had developed the smooth technique of advocating socialism without compromising their respectability. They were the German precursors of the later Fabian socialists. 

Herbert Baxter Adams as a professor of history and as a trainer of other teachers-expounded what amounted to a classic German type of socialism applied to the American scene. He wrote: 

"American local history should be studied as a contribution to national history. This country will be yet viewed and reviewed as an organism of historic growth, developing from minute germs, from the very protoplasm of state-life. And some day this country will be studied in its international relations, as an organic part of a larger organism now vaguely called the World-State, but as surely developing through the operation of economic, legal, social, and scientific forces as the American Union, the German and British Empires are evolving into higher forms. . . . The local consciousness must be expanded into a fuller sense of its historic worth and dignity. We must understand the cosmopolitan relations of modern local life, and its own wholesome conservative power in the days of growing centralization. "12 

Even at this early date academic socialists were busy covering their radical manipulations with the cloak of conservatism. We see a modem resurgence of this technique when old Fabian socialists like Felix Frankfurter are referred to as "conservative" today. 

Herbert Baxter Adams was best known "not in writing history, but in training others to write it and he was a powerful influence in creating the New School of Historical Research,"13 

The teachers in history indoctrinated at Johns Hopkins then fanned out impregnating most of the major colleges and universities in America with collectivist thinking. In the latter part of the 19th century this thinking soon gained the ascendancy. 

At the time of Adams' death in 1901 some 40 volumes of historical material had been published under his editorship. After 1887 he edited a series of monographs for the U.S. Bureau of Education entitled Contributions to American Educational History, thus exerting a nation-wide influence on teachers of history. Instructors from the Johns Hopkins Graduate School taught in such institutions as Yale, Harvard, Columbia, University of Michigan, University of Wisconsin and the University of Chicago. 

Adams and the head of the American Social Science Association, (Frank B. Sanborn) founded the American Historical Association in 1884. The leftists had an open field. "In all the universities and colleges of the country there were apparently only 15 professors and 5 assistant professors who gave all their time to history."14 

Within the American Historical Association it was stated "it has never been questioned that the main influence in the movement was that of Herbert Adams, professor in the Johns Hopkins University.... "15 

Another proficient promoter of the socialistic writings on history and sociology which entered the classrooms of American colleges at the tum of the century, was Albion W. Small (1854-1926). He was professor of history and political economics, and was also a reader of history at Johns Hopkins in 1888-1889. He attended the Universities of Berlin and Leipzig in Germany, where he thoroughly absorbed the viewpoint of state socialism then prevalent there. He was considered the major disciple of the German professor Gustav Ratzenhofer (1842-1904) who asserted that" ... the universal extension of the socialization process tends to produce concord of interests through the increasing perfection of the social organization. ... "16 

In 1913, Small authored a book entitled Between Eras, From Capitalism to Democracy, wherein he enunciated a thinly disguised Marxian socialist .doctrine of the class struggle. He used the term "democracy" as a transparent veil for socialistic ideas.17 

However, his main function was to promote the socialistic works of others and to encourage the planting of teachers with a socialistic bent, trained in Germany, into various American colleges and universities.18 

He was a past master in the art of insinuating socialist ideas into the minds of students and professors through cleverly camouflaged terminology. He was also particularly adept at indoctrinating religious groups and pushing them by degrees towards a socialistic agnosticism.19 

Professor Franklin H. Giddings, a colleague of Small, was located in Columbia University in 1891. Giddings was a professor of Sociology and of the History of Civilization, He was also editor of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences (1890-94). During the same period he was an "editor of publications" of the American Economic Association. Eventually, he became a member of the Board of Education of the City of New York (1915-17). 

Giddings actively participated in socialist activities for many years. He was one of the pioneer members of the American Socialist Society and taught at the socialistic Rand School of Social Science.20 

At that time among textbooks used at the Rand School were the Soviets at Work by Nikolai Lenin, and American Socialists and the War by Alexander L. Trachtenberg. Trachtenberg later became known as a chief soviet agent in the United States and the head of the Kremlin publishing outlet in America, International Publishers.21 

Another outstanding example of the manner in which the Johns Hopkins group germinated the socialistic teaching of history is the case of Frederick Jackson Turner (1861-1932). He secured his doctorate at Johns Hopkins in 1890. From 1910 to 1924 he taught history at Harvard. The Columbia Encyclopedia states that "Turner's ideas are now incorporated in all American history texts."

During the 1890's a socialist publication, The Review, reprinted Turner's famous 1893 essay The Significance of the Frontier in American History with the note that it was "without doubt the greatest contribution yet made in the application of the materialistic conception of history to American conditions.22 

Since the materialistic conception of history is the foundation stone of the socialist movement and was invented by Karl Marx there is no doubt that Turner had produced an American historical account fitting into the socialist principle. Leftist books are replete with accounts of Turner's major theme that the frontier is gone and opportunities for personal advancement have dried up. This theme fits into the socialist premise that the only way out now is a controlled collectivist society.23 


F.D.R. at-Harvard 
Among those influenced by Turner was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who absorbed his education in history from Turner and Edward Channing.24 Channing was -the son of William Ellery Channing, well-known Fourierist socialist advocate of a collectivist society.25 

The future president of the United States, while barely 20 years of age, was thus being taught that the system of private enterprise had run its course, and that a controlled social order must take its place. The germ of the New Deal was thus planted not in 1932, but soon after 1900. 

Columbia University became a mecca for the socialistic teaching of history. The chain started by F. H. Giddings was soon joined by James Harvey Robinson, who also taught history. Robinson had absorbed German socialistic ideas in the University of Freiburg in Germany in 1890. The History Department at Columbia began to be converted into a socialistic center with Robinson as the chief mentor. In 1900 he was joined by James T. Shotwell, who had leftist connections throughout his career.26 

This group of socialist historians was responsible for many influential textbooks, but these were only amateurish beginnings compared to what followed. 

In 1902 Charles Austin Beard began his postgraduate studies at Columbia University and soon caught the attention of Professor James Harvey Robinson. By 1904 Beard had secured his doctorate and began teaching at Columbia. He was already a socialist of considerable experience. While at DePauw College in 1895·98, he was immersed in the study of Karl Mati's Communist Manifesto. He joined with the socialists of that day in the Free Silver Campaign. 

Beard went to England in 1898 to do post-graduate work at Oxford University. There, with a group of leftists, he organized Ruskin Labor College, as an affiliate of the University. John Ruskin was one of the early precursors of British socialism. While at Oxford, Beard was in close contact with young socialist intellectuals, both orthodox Marxists and Fablans.27 

At that stage, Beard was already an expert on Marxism and a militant socialist. He frankly admitted that his Marxian bent was encouraged by the " . . . suggestive work already done by Professor Turner... "28 

Since the name of Charles A. Beard has been linked to the dominant school of historical thinking in the United States, it will be interesting to follow his career. 

In 1901 the American Socialist Society was formed to replace the American Fabian Society, which had ceased publication of its journal, The American Fabian, the year before. The American Socialist Society, made up primarily of academic leftists, had decided to use "social science" to promote socialism.29 In 1906 this group, after receiving funds from a wealthy socialist, organized a school called the Rand School of Social Science. Here Charles Beard, James Harvey Robinson, and James T. Shotwell, from the History Department of Columbia University, met with Franklin H. Giddings, sociologist, Alexander Goldenweiser, anthropologist, and William P. Montague, from the Department of Philosophy (and also from Columbia University.30  

Other professors and teachers from every part of the country gathered there periodically to discuss the best ways of using American education to bring about socialism. At these meetings Charles Beard and his cohorts were reinforced by top hard core socialist politicians who had extensive experience in the practical world of politics. These top level socialist staff meetings hammered out the overall strategy of putting over socialist ideas under the guise of impartial scholarship. 


Founding Fathers smeared 
The first problem was to change the attitude of Americans towards the history of their own country and the ideals of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic. 

This was not an easy task. The American people had been brought up to believe that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other statesmen of their time were men of patriotism and principle. Hundreds of authoritative books had praised the heroic stature and noble purpose of the heroes who had defied the British Empire and founded a new nation based on individual freedom. 

History had been picked out as the vanguard of the "social sciences" in picturing socialism as an inevitable development. But first the image of the Founding Fathers as men of high purpose had to be destroyed. This done, the socialists had a ready-made Marxian formula to replace the traditional patriotic account of American history. 

Charles Beard had co-authored with James Harvey Robinson The Development of Modern Europe in 1907. This was a highly successful work which popularized the socialist teachings of Karl Marx. It achieved a wide acceptance as a textbook in American colleges. 

Beard, at this time, became associated with the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (known today as the League for Industrial Democracy).31 The Intercollegiate Socialist Society had organized Fabian socialist branches in scores of universities and colleges of America. 

With this socialist background Beard was in a position not only to write but also to find a market for his books. 

In 1913, he wrote An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.32 This was heavy artillery designed to demolish the lofty reputations of the Founding Fathers. It was one of the most audacious pieces of historical deception of all time. James Madison, one of the framers of the United States Constitution, and the fourth President of the United States, was caricatured as an exponent of a Marxist type of economic interpretation of history 21 years before Marx was even born. 

Beard selected for his text a twisted extract from one out of 85 essays issued under the joint title of The Federalist in order to get support for adoption of the Constitution. The essay he chose was James Madison's Federalist 10, printed in the New York Packet, November 23, 1787. Beard used the unpardonable trick of quoting part of one paragraph and then skipping about 150 words before tacking on part of a later paragraph. Historian Douglass Adair states: 

"Apparently Beard's use of Madison's Tenth Federalist was, in part, at least, a matter of political strategy-a device, quite self-consciously adopted, of wrapping himself in the American Flag as he muckraked the motives of the Founding Fathers, and, by implication, pointed to the Constitution as an instrument of class exploitation.33

Beard, deliberately created the illusion that our Founding Fathers were "a conspiracy of predatory minority groups concealing their operations behind the rhetorical false face of 'We, the People' ".34 

In the portion that Beard extracted out of context from Madison's writings he tries to show that Madison attributed a purely economic and selfish motivation to the building of the American Republic. This accords with Marx's economic interpretation of history propounded about 70 years after Madison wrote the Tenth Federalist. But part of the section omitted by Beard, reads: 

"A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts."35 

The above statements of Madison directly contradicts Beard's false picture of Madison. Madison's view of social relations as above expressed was certainly far broader and much more realistic and intelligent than either Marx's or Beard's. 

Douglass Adair sums up this chicanery succinctly when he says: "In fact, when Beard paraphrases from Federalist 10 what he calls Madison's 'masterly statement of the theory' his method is to quote one passage of that essay incompletely; to change subtly, but decisively, a key element in Madison's theory into Marxian terms; and then to buttress this misstatement of Madison's 'economic determinism' with a footnote which is almost a verbatim transcription of a paragraph by Engels."36 

The introduction to one of Beard's essays states: 

"Beard's main thesis that economic motives and interests dominated the 'Founding Fathers' in their drawing up of the new federal constitution in 1787 led scholars, in the main, during the twenties and thirties to subscribe to an economic interpretation of history."37 


Socialists twisted American history 
Beard's slant was calculated to undermine not only the heroic picture of the founders of our nation, but also to denigrate those features of independence, individualism and sell-reliance that characterized the pioneer era. Beard's historical muckraking, and Frederick Jackson Turner's prophesy of a future bare of opportunity for individual development represent two great strategic blows against the basic structure of American history and traditions. 

The socialistic theme outlined by Beard in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States was carried through all his subsequent works. Some eleven million copies of his 47 books have been sold. 38 

As Beard's interpretations have dominated the teaching of history in American schools, there is hardly an American alive who has not been exposed to this leftist virus. Since Beard's death (1948) the socialistic slant on history has been continued by such persons as Carl Becker, Max Lerner, and the two Schlesingers.

The historical perversions of Beard and his successors are not their own personal idiosyncrasies, but are linked with the massive Fabian socialist movement in this country. The eleven million copies of Beard's works are a small part of the flood of socialistic material which has discolored American history. His followers and imitators have issued many millions more that are slowly corroding our people's veneration for the wise statesmen who conceived and made viable our constitutional form of government, the envy of all mankind. 

This degrading process is not only reflected in college textbooks, but lurks in the pages of historical novels, in motion pictures and in television programs. It has set the tone of historical thinking f-or the whole country. The socialist game of "debunking history" has become a popular literary pastime. It festers in the Halls of Congress, the White House, and even in the Judiciary system.

next
MARXISTS TWIST HISTORY


Notes: Chapter 3
1.There was some use of the term "social science" by non-socialists and even those opposing the socialist aims. One example was Henry Charles Carey, who published the Principles oi Social Science in the United States (1859). This work was highly critical of the collectivist thesis. 
2. In Chambers Encyclopedia (1884) it is observed that during the French Revolution Saint Simon's "... energies were devoted to matters more profitable than patriotic viz., the purchase of confiscated property-i-and it is unhappily not at all doubtful that when France was laboring in the agony of a mighty struggle after new life, Saint Simon was consumed by an ignoble passion for enriching himself." Vol. VII, p. 30. It was only after squandering his wealth upon extravagant parties and affairs and being subjected to poverty that Saint Simon had begun to develop his philosophy on how to organize all of mankind on a socialistic basis. 
3 Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th Ed., Vol. 24, p. 45.
4 Chambers Ency., Vol. VII, p. 30: "Depuis que le monde existe aucune famille n'a [oui de l'honneur de produire un heros et un philosophe de premiere ligne. Cet honneur etait reserve a ma maison. Mon. fils, tes succes comme philosophe egaleront ceux qu: j'ai obtenu comme militaire et comme politique," 
5 id. 
6. Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th Ed., Vol. 5, p. 891·94, and Encyclopedia of World History. edited by William 1. Langer, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1940, pp. ISS, 158
7The Doctrine 0/ St. Simon (Preface by G. D. H. Cole, Fabian), Beacon Hill Press, 1958, p. 32. . 
8 ibid, p. 156. 
9 See Seymour Harris, National Debt and the New Economics, p. 24. 10 International Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1897, p. 3746. . Comte is quoted by the socialist Emile Durkheirn in respect to positive philosophy. "It was necessary to discuss its influence On the theory of social science." Ref.: Socialism, Durkheim, p. 145. 
10.Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th Ed., Vol. 10, p. 752. 
11.... The theoretical organ of the Fourierist school, LaPhalange, revue de La science sociale". (1845). Ref.: p. 344, Fourierist School and the Jews by E. Silherner, in Jewish Social Studies, Oct. 1947.
12 New York Daily Tribune, Feb. 7, 1843, p. l. "SOCIAL SCIENCE" " (Communicated by the Friends of Association)" "Society, as at present constituted, is based upon principles which in their operation misemploy, misdirect and pervert the faculties and passions of man, and defeat all the ends and hopes of life. It is based upon the principle of isolation, of separation of man from his fellow-man upon individual effort, and envious, strife and anarchical competition, upon selfishness, distrust, antagonism overreaching, fraud and injustice, upon the conflict of all interests, and upon universal duplicity of action. There is no combination or capital unity, no harmony of action, of interests or of feeling; no connection or association. Every family has, for example, a separate house, a separate interest, separate hopes and a separate welfare to maintain; it is in conflict with most of the families around it eager to detract from their prosperity to add its own, instead of seeking to unite with them to advance by their combined efforts their mutual welfare and happiness. A Social Order, governed by such principles, must, it is evident, be opposed to capital reason, to capital justice, and to capital truth, and should be reformed. We advocate a Social Order based upon the principle of Association- ..." (May 6, 1843, New York Daily Tribune, p. 1, Horace Greeley, publisher).
13 Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly, Nov. 22, 1873, p. 6. . Woodhull & Claflin's Weekly was a rather exotic socialistic weekly published by Victoria Woodhull and Tennie C. Claflin, wealthy sisters of a banking family who had become enamored of the socialist movement. This publication published the official proceedings of the International Workingmen's Association (the First International) which was under the direction and control of Karl Marx and his cohorts. The Communist Manifesto was published for the first time in the U. S. in the pages of this periodical on Dec. 30, 1871.
14 Woodhull & Clajlin's Weekly, April 5, 1873, p. 7. "Resolved, that the American Congress oi Social Science appoint the following. named persons to act as a Board of Counsellors and invite their acceptance; . Henry Ward Beecher, Victoria C. WoCKIhulI, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Susan B. Anthony, Wendell Phillips, Mary F. Davis, Josiah Warren, Annie Dickenson, Henry T. Child, Addie L. Ballou, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Emma Hardinge, Samuel B. Brittan, Thomas W. Higginson, Lizzie Doten, Mary E. Leland, A. E. Newton, Andrew Jackson Davis, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Tennie C. Claflin, E. V. Wilson, Warren Chase, Paulina Wright Davis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton." 
15 The Doctrine o] St. Simon, p. 32.
16 Imperial Dictionary of the English Language, London, Blackie & Son, 1883. An interesting reference to "social science" was made in describing Karl Marx's First International: "The International Workingmen's Association, commonly called the 'International,' was formed at London in 1864. It was a society of workingmen of all nations, somewhat like a cosmopolitan trades union, but bearing a still closer resemblance to an international social science association for discussing and furthering the rights of labour." (italics ours). Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th Ed., 1881, Vol. XIII, p, 189. 
17 Chambers Encyclopedia, (l884) Vol. VII, p. 302. 
18 New International Encyclopedia, 1926, 2nd edition, Vol, 21, p. 249.
19 Columbia Encyclopedia, 2nd Edition, 1950, p. 1845. 
20 Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vol. 1, p. 3, 13th printing (1950) Macmillan Company, definition by E. R. A. Seligman, well known authority among left wing circles
21 For Our treatment of economics, see Keynes at Harvard. 
22 Garet Garrett. The People's Pottage, p. 19.

Notes Chapter 4
1. Appendix IX of the House Un-American Activities Committee has 10 listings of communist front activities of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr., the California Committee on Un-American Activities has 2 listings. Actually these were socialist-communist fronts as a result of an international agreement between the communists and socialist forces. Among Fabian socialists who were active with Schlesinger Sr. in these fronts were Reinhold Neihuhr, Max Lerner, George Soule and Franz Boas.
2 Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order, 1957, The Coming of the New Deal, 1959, and The Politics of Upheaval, 1960, Houghton Mifflin, Boston. This series appears under the general title of The Age of Roosevelt. 
3 The first book is dedicated to Reinhold Neihuhr; the second to his father and mother; and the third to J. K. Galbraith and Seymour Harris (Keynesian socialists.) 
4 Partisan Review, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Future of Socialism: The Perspective Now, p. 232. 
5 ibid, p, 230
F. A. Hayek, editor, Capitalism and the Historians, University of Chicago Press, 1960, pp. 4, 8.
7 Max Lerner, America as a Civilization, Vol. 2, pp. 741-742. 
8 Beatrice Webb's American Diary 1898, edited by David Shannon, p. 43. 
9 David Shannon, The Socialist Party 0/ America, p. 209. 
10 American Journal 0/ Sociology, May 1916, Albion W. Small, "SO Years of Sociology in the United States," p. 731. 
11 Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 25, p, 305, 13th Edition.
12 Varieties 0/ History, ed. Fritz Stern, article "American Definition of History" by F. 1. Turner, (1861.1932) p. 206, Meridian Books, 1960. 
13 Americana-Universal Reference Library, 1908, Vol. 1, HERBERT BAXTER ADAMS
14 American Journal of Sociology, May 1916, article quoting Professor J. F. Jameson, p.777. 
15 ibid, p. 778. This article notes that the American Historical Association then maintained close relations with various Departments within the United States Government.
16 Encyclopedia of the Social Science$, Vol. 13, p, 121. 
17 Albion W. Small, Between Eras From Capitalism to Democracy, 1913
18.Albion W. Small's crusade to put across the work of Lester F. Ward, Dynamic Sociology (2 vols.) is well known in academic circles. Ward's book was a tirade against the system of private enterprise and individual freedom. Ward was at one time a teacher in the Rand School of Social Science on behalf of the American Socialist Society. A. W. Small was influential among instructors at Colby College (of which he had once been President), Cornell University, Columbia University, and the University of Wisconsin. He participated in the founding of the University of Chicago, where he became the head of the first Chair in Sociology in the United States. 
19 The letters of A. W. Small to Lester F. Ward, Social Forces, (Dec. 1933); see article edited by Bernard J. Stern, well-known communist theoretician (pp. 163.173). 
20. The Case of the Rand School, published by the Rand School of Social Science, July 26, 1919, p, 13. 
21 ibid, p. 11.
22 Shannon, The Socialist Party of America, pp, 18-19. 
23 Crusades for American Liberalism, Louis Filler, Harcourt Brace, 1939, p. 75. The extent in which Turner's works were useful to the socialist movement is the fact that huge socialist tent encampments used his works to promote the socialist cause at the turn of the present. century. Ref.: Shannon, The Socialist Party of America, p.27. - _ - - 
24 Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order, 1957. Schlesinger wrote that F. D. Roosevelt as a student ", . . listened to many of Harvard's best-Edward Channing and Frederick Jackson Turner .in history: .•" p. 3?3. 
25 C. Sotheran, Horace Greeley and Other Pioneers of American. Socialism, Passim,
26 At the time of the socialist-communist front honeymoon James T. Shotwell was active in organizations such as the American League for the protection of Foreign Born; the Free Earl Browder Committee, and the Conference on Pan American Democracy. All these were cited as subversive by various government agencies. Ref.: Appendix IX 0/ the Special Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, 78th Congress H. Res. 282, pp. 348, 476, 620, 640, 673. In 1957, he signed a statement on behalf of the National Committee for a Sane and Nuclear Policy (SANE). This is a socialist controlled front, Sister McCarran in her unpublished manuscript Fabian. Socialism in the United States refers to Shorwellas a Fabian socialist, p. 58. 
27 Sidney Fine and Gerald S. Brown, The American Past, Macmillan, New York, 1961, Vol. I, p. 206n. 
28 Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation 0/ the Constitution 0/ the United States, Preface. Feb., 1913.
29 The Case of the Rand School, published by the Rand School of Social Science, N. Y. C., July 26, 1919. "The American Socialist Society WlIS incorporated in the year 1901. During the first five yean, of its existence, it arranged II number of lecture courses and classes for the systematic study of Economics and Socialism, and matured plans for the School of Social Science whose establishment had been contemplated from the start," p. 10. 
30 The Case o} the Rand School, p. 13.
31 L. I. D., 50 Years of Democratic Education, 1905·1955. 
32 Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation: of the Constitution. of the United States, 1913, Macmillan Co. 
33 Fine and Brown, The American. Past, Vol 1, chapter by Douglass Adair, The Tenth Federalist Revisited, p. 207.
34 ibid, p. 206. 
35 Alexander Hamilton, John Hay and James Madison, The Federalist, edited by Henry Cabot Lodge, G. P. Putnam & Sons, N. Y. and London. 1888, pp. 53·54.
36 Fine and Brown, The American Past, Vol. 1, p, 206, chapter by Douglass Adair, "The Tenth Federalist Revisited." The portion quoted in the footnote referred to above was attributed to E. R. A. Seligman who also pretended to present items impartially while all the time being actuated by the socialist aim. The fact that Seligman's quotation makes no reference at all to Frederick Engels, who was internationally known as a revolutionary leftist, indicates that the policy of sly deception in the name of scholarship was an attribute not only of Charles Beard but also the entire corps of camouflaged socialists in the academic world commencing in the 19th century. 
37 ibid., Vol. 1, p. 177-78. 
38 Fritz Stern, The Varieties of History, p. 314, Meridian Books, 1956. Huge distribution of Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States was assured by its publication by Macmillan Co. Richard T. Ely, a fellow socialist, was editor in charge of the Citizen's Library of Economics, Politics and Sociology for the Macmillan Co. for a number of years before this publication. Thus previous penetration of the publishing industry enabled socialist forces to flood the colleges and high schools of America with slanted material.