~ Illuminati News ~

Home

Site Map

Read First!!!

News & Updates

US Constitution

The Illuminati

Secret Societies

New World Order

Occultism

Banking & Paper Money

Politics

Business

Technology & Science

Media Control

UFOs & Aliens

Mind Control

Art & Mind Control

Microchipping

Drugs

War on Terrorism

Manmade and Natural Disasters

Religions & Religious Wars

Wars Towards a New World Order

Government Patents To Control
Us

Surveillance

Health

Miscellaneous

Solutions

Spiritual Solutions

Articles by Wes Penre

Guest  Writers

Archives

FAQ

Video & Audio Room

E-Books

Website on CD-ROM

Links

Bibliography

Copyright Fair Use

Disclaimer

Site Search

Donations

Contact Webmaster

Last Updated:
Wednesday,
November 01, 2006 05:55:37 AM

Wednesday, November 01,
2006

Illuminati: The Hidden Agenda for World Government

Ed Griffin interview with Norman Dodd in
1982

Last Updated: Wednesday,
November 01, 2006 05:55:37 AM

This is a very interesting video.
"The man who tells this story is none other than Mr.
Norman Dodd, who in 1954 was the staff director of the
Congressional Special Committee to Investigate
Tax-exempt Foundations, sometimes referred to as the
Reece Committee, in recognition of its chairman,
Congressman Carol Reece." He is here interviewed by Ed
Griffin back in 1982. Dodd is telling us about his
research into the tax-exempt organization and what
they REALLY stand for. He shows us that the Carnegie
Endowment, the Ford Foundation, the Guggenheim
Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation joined
together to alter American history and take over the
whole education system in America, so the children can
be indoctrinated into accepting a World Government.
Wes Penre, http://www.illuminati-news.com/.

Listen to the un-edited interview
here . The transcript is printed
here below:

Ed
Griffin

D GRIFFIN: Welcome to The Reality
Zone. I'm Ed Griffin. The story we are about to hear
represents a missing piece in the puzzle of modern history. We
are about to hear a man tell us that the major tax-exempt
foundations of America since at least 1945 have been operating
to promote a hidden agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do
with the surface appearance of charity, good works, or
philanthropy. This man will tell you that the real objective
has been to influence American educational institutions and to
control foreign policy of the federal government. The purpose
of this control has been to condition Americans to accept the
creation of world government. That government is to be based
on the principle of collectivism, which is another way of
saying socialism, and it is to be ruled from behind the scenes
by those same interests which control the tax-exempt
foundations. Is this a believable scenario? Well, the man who
tells this story is none other than Mr. Norman Dodd, who in
1954 was the staff director of the Congressional Special
Committee to Investigate Tax-exempt Foundations, sometimes
referred to as the Reece Committee, in recognition of its
chairman, Congressman Carol Reece. The interview we are about
to hear was conducted by me in 1982. I had no immediate use
for the material at that time, but I realized that Mr. Dodd's
story was of great importance, and since he was advanced in
age and not in good health, I wanted to capture his
recollections on videotape while he was still with us. It was
a wise decision, because Mr. Dodd did pass away just a short
time afterwards. In later years there was a resurgence of
interest in Mr. Dodd's story, and we released the videotape to
the public in 1991. And so what now follows is the soundtrack
taken from the full, unedited interview, broken occasionally
only for a tape change or to omit the sound of a passing
airplane. It stands on its own as an important piece in the
puzzle of modern history.

(THE INTERVIEW FOLLOWS)

ED GRIFFIN: Mr. Dodd, let's begin this
interview with a brief statement. For the record, please tell
us who you are, what is your background and your
qualifications to speak on this subject.

Norman Dodd

NORMAN DODD: Well, Mr. Griffin, as to
who I am, I am just, as the name implies, an individual born
in New Jersey and educated in private schools, eventually in a
school called Andover in Massachusetts and then Yale
university. Running through my whole period of being brought
up and growing up, I have been an indefatigable reader. I have
had one major interest, and that was this country as I was
lead to believe it was originally founded. I entered the world
of business knowing absolutely nothing about how that world
operated, and realized that the only way to find out what that
world consisted of would be to become part of it. I then
acquired some experience in the manufacturing world and then
in the world of international communication and finally chose
banking as the field I wished to devote my life to. I was
fortunate enough to secure a position in one of the important
banks in New York and lived there. I lived through the
conditions which led up to what is known as the crash of 1929.
I witnessed what was tantamount to the collapse of the
structure of the United States as a whole.

Much to my surprise, I was confronted by my
superiors in the middle of the panic in which they were
immersed. I was confronted with the question: “Norm, what do
we do now?” I was thirty at the time and I had no more right
to have an answer to that question than the man in the moon.
However, I did manage to say to my superiors: “Gentlemen, you
take this experience as proof that there's something you do
not know about banking, and you'd better go find out what that
something is and act accordingly.” Four days later I was
confronted by the same superiors with a statement to the
effect that, “Norm, you go find out.” And I really was fool
enough to accept that assignment, because it meant that you
were going out to search for something, and nobody could tell
you what you were looking for, but I felt so strongly on the
subject that I consented.
I
was relieved of all normal duties inside the bank and
two-and-half years later I felt that it was possible to report
back to those who had given me this assignment. And so, I
rendered such a report; and, as a result of the report I
rendered. I was told the following: “Norm, what you're saying
is we should return to sound banking,” and I said, “Yes, in
essence, that's exactly what I’m saying.” Whereupon I got my
first shock, which was a statement from them to this effect:
“We will never see sound banking in the United States again.”
They cited chapter and verse to support that statement, and
what they cited was as follows: “Since the end of world war
one we have been responsible for what they call the
institutionalizing of conflicting interests, and they are so
prevalent inside this country that they can never be
resolved.”
This came to me as
an extraordinary shock because the men who made this statement
were men who were deemed as the most prominent bankers in the
country. The bank of which I was a part, which I’ve spoken of,
was a Morgan bank and, coming from men of that caliber, a
statement of that kind made a tremendous impression on me. The
type of impression that it made on me was such that I wondered
if I, as an individual and what they call a junior officer of
the bank, could with the same enthusiasm foster the progress
and policies of the bank. I spent about a year trying to think
this out and came to the conclusion that I would have to
resign.
I did resign; and, as
a consequence of that, had this experience. When my letter of
resignation reached the desk of the president of the bank, he
sent for me, and I came to visit with him, and he stated to
me: “Norm, I have your letter, but I don't believe you
understand what's happened in the last 10 days.” And I said,
“No, Mr. Cochran, I have no idea what's happened.” “Well,” he
said, “the directors have never been able to get your report
to them out of their mind; and, as a result, they have decided
that you as an individual must begin at once and you must
reorganize this bank in keeping with your own ideas.” He then
said, “Now, can I tear up your letter?” Inasmuch as what had
been said to me was offering me, at the age of by then 33,
about as fine an opportunity for service to the country as I
could imagine, I said yes. They said they wished me to begin
at once, and I did.
Suddenly,
in the span of about six weeks, I was not permitted to do
another piece of work and, every time I brought the subject
up, I was kind of patted on the back and told, “Stop worrying
about it, Norm. Pretty soon you'll be a vice president, and
you'll have quite a handsome salary and ultimately be able to
retire on a very worthwhile pension. In the meantime you can
play golf and tennis to your heart's content on weekends.”
Well, Mr. Griffin, I found I couldn't do it. I spent a year
figuratively with my feet on the desk doing nothing and I
couldn't adjust to it so I did resign and, this time, my
resignation stuck.
Then I got
my second shock, which was the discovery that the doors of
every bank in the United States were closed to me, and I never
could again get a job, as it were, in the banks. I found
myself, for the first time since I graduated from college, out
of a job.
From there on I
followed various branches of the financial world, ranging from
investment counsel to membership of the stock exchange and
finally ended as an adviser to a few individuals who had
capital funds to look after. In the meantime, my major
interest became very specific, which was to endeavor by some
means of getting the educational world to actually you might
say teach the subject of economics realistically and move it
away from the support of various speculative activities that
characterize our country. I have had that interest, and you
know how, as you generate a specific interest, you find
yourself gravitating toward persons with similar interests,
and ultimately I found myself in the center of the world of
dissatisfaction with the directions that this country was
headed. I found myself in contact with many individuals who on
their own had done a vast amount of studying and research in
areas, which were part of the problem.

ED GRIFFIN: At what point in your
career did you become connected with the Reece Committee?

NORMAN DODD: 1953.

ED GRIFFIN: And what was that
capacity, sir?

NORMAN DODD: That was in the capacity
of what they called Director of Research.

ED GRIFFIN: Can you tell us what the
Reece Committee was attempting to do?

NORMAN DODD: Yes, I can tell you. It
was operating and carrying out instructions embodied in a
resolution passed by the House of Representatives, which was
to investigate the activities of foundations as to whether or
not these activities could justifiably be labeled un-American
without, I might say, defining what they meant by
"un-American". That was the resolution, and the committee had
then the task of selecting a counsel, and the counsel in turn
had the task of selecting a staff, and he had to have somebody
who would direct the work of that staff, and that was what
they meant by the Director of Research.

ED GRIFFIN: What were some of the
details, the specifics that you told the Committee at that
time?

NORMAN DODD: Well, Mr. Griffin, in
that report I specifically, number one, defined what, to us,
was meant by the phrase, "un-American." We defined that in our
way as being a determination to effect changes in the country
by unconstitutional means. We have plenty of constitutional
procedures, assuming we wish to effect a change in the form of
government and that sort of thing; and, therefore, any effort
in that direction which did not avail itself of the procedures
which were authorized by the Constitution could be justifiably
be called un-American. That was the start of educating them up
to that particular point. The next thing was to educate them
as to the effect on the country as a whole of the activities
of large, endowed foundations over the then-past forty years.

ED GRIFFIN: What was that effect?

NORMAN DODD: That effect was to orient
our educational system away from support of the principles
embodied in the Declaration of Independence and implemented in
the Constitution; and the task now was the orientation of
education away from these briefly stated principles and
self-evident truths. That's what had been the effect of the
wealth, which constituted the endowments of those foundations
that had been in existence over the largest portion of this
span of 50 years, and holding them responsible for this
change. What we were able to bring forward, what we uncovered,
was the determination of these large endowed foundations,
through their trustees, to actually get control over the
content of American education.

ED GRIFFIN: There's quite a bit of
publicity given to your conversation with Rowan Gaither. Would
you please tell us who he was and what was that conversation
you had with him?

NORMAN DODD: Rowan Gaither was, at
that time, president of the Ford Foundation. Mr. Gaither had
sent for me when I found it convenient to be in New York,
asked me to call upon him at his office, which I did. Upon
arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said: “Mr. Dodd,
we've asked you to come up here today because we thought that
possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress
is interested in the activities of foundations such as
ourselves?” Before I could think of how I would reply to that
statement, Mr. Gaither then went on voluntarily and said:

“Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the
making of policies here have had experience either with the
OSS during the war or the European Economic Administration
after the war. We've had experience operating under
directives, and these directives emanate and did emanate
from the White House. Now, we still operate under just such
directives. Would you like to know what the substance of
these directives is?”

I said, “Mr.
Gaither, I’d like very much to know,” whereupon he made this
statement to me: “Mr. Dodd, we are here operate in response to
similar directives, the substance of which is that we shall
use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United
States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet
Union.”
Well, parenthetically,
Mr. Griffin, I nearly fell off the chair. I, of course didn't,
but my response to Mr. Gaither then was: “Well, Mr. Gaither I
can now answer your first question. You've forced the Congress
of the United States to spend $150,000 to find out what you've
just told me.” I said: “Of course, legally, you're entitled to
make grants for this purpose, but I don't think you're
entitled to withhold that information from the people of the
country to whom you're indebted for your tax exemption, so why
don't you tell the people of the country what you just told
me?” And his answer was, “We would not think of doing any such
thing.” So then I said, “Well, Mr. Gaither, obviously you've
forced the Congress to spend this money in order to find out
what you've just told me.”

ED GRIFFIN: Mr. Dodd, you have spoken
before about some interesting things that were discovered by
Katherine Casey at the Carnegie Endowment. Can you tell us
that story, please?

NORMAN DODD: Yes, I’d be glad to, Mr.
Griffin. This experience that you just referred to came about
in response to a letter that I had written to the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, asking certain questions
and gathering certain information. On the arrival of that
letter, Dr. Johnson, who was then president of the Carnegie
Endowment, telephoned me and said, did I ever come up to New
York. I said yes, I did more or less each weekend, and he
said, “Well, when you're next here, will you drop in and see
us?” Which I did.
On arrival
at the office of the endowment I found myself in the presence
of Dr. Joseph Johnson, the president – who was the successor
to Alger Hiss – two vice presidents, and their own counsel, a
partner in the firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. Dr. Johnson
said, after again amenities, Mr. Dodd, we have your letter. We
can answer all those questions, but it would be a great deal
of trouble, and we have a counter suggestion. Our counter
suggestion is: If you can spare a member of your staff for two
weeks and send that member up to New York, we will give to
that member a room in the library and the minute books of this
foundation since its inception, and we think that whatever you
want to find out or that Congress wants to find out will be
obvious from those minutes.

Well, my first reaction was they'd lost their minds. I had a
pretty good idea of what those minutes would contain, but I
realized that Dr. Johnson had only been in office two years,
and the other vice presidents were relatively young men, and
counsel seemed to be also a young man, and I guessed that
probably they'd never read the minutes themselves. So I said I
had somebody; I would accept their offer.

I went back to Washington and I selected a
member of my staff who had been a practicing attorney in
Washington. She was on my staff to see to it that I didn't
break any congressional procedures or rules, in addition to
which she was unsympathetic to the purpose of the
investigation. She was level-headed and a very reasonably
brilliant, capable lady. Her attitude toward the investigation
was: What could possibly be wrong with foundations? They do so
much good.
Well, in the face
of that sincere conviction of Katherine's I went out of my way
not to prejudice her in any way, but I did explain to her that
she couldn't possibly cover 50 years of written minutes in two
weeks, so she would have to do what we call spot reading. I
blocked out certain periods of time to concentrate on, and off
she went to New York. She came back at the end of two weeks
with the following on dictaphone tapes:

We are now at
the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie
Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees,
meeting for the first time, raised a specific question,
which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a
very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means
known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter
the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no
more effective means than war to that end is known to
humanity.
So then, in 1909,
they raised the second question and discussed it, namely:
“How do we involve the United States in a war?”

Well, I doubt at that time if there was
any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the
people of this country than its involvement in a war. There
were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very
much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. Then,
finally, they answered that question as follows: “We must
control the State Department.” That very naturally raises
the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by
saying: “We must take over and control the diplomatic
machinery of this country.” And, finally, they resolve to
aim at that as an objective.

Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which
would be World War I. At that time they record on their
minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to
President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the
war does not end too quickly.

Finally, of course, the war is over. At that time their
interest shifts over to preventing what they call a
reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior
to 1914 when World War I broke out. At that point they came
to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, “we must
control education in the United States.” They realize that
that's a pretty big task. It is too big for them alone, so
they approach the Rockefeller Foundation with the suggestion
that that portion of education which could be considered
domestic be handled by the Rockefeller Foundation and that
portion which is international should be handled by the
Endowment. They then decide that the key to success of these
two operations lay in the alteration of the teaching of
American history.
So they
approach four of the then-most prominent teachers of
American history in the country – people like Charles and
Mary Byrd – and their suggestion to them is: will they alter
the manner in which they present their subject? And they got
turned down flat. So they then decide that it is necessary
for them to do as they say, “build our own stable of
historians.”
Then they
approach the Guggenheim Foundation, which specializes in
fellowships, and say: “When we find young men in the process
of studying for doctorates in the field of American history
and we feel that they are the right caliber, will you grant
them fellowships on our say-so?” And the answer is yes. So,
under that condition, eventually they assembled assemble
twenty, and they take this twenty potential teachers of
American history to London, and there they're briefed on
what is expected of them when, as, and if they secure
appointments in keeping with the doctorates they will have
earned. That group of twenty historians ultimately becomes
the nucleus of the American Historical
Association.
Toward the end
of the 1920's, the Endowment grants to the American
Historical Association $400,000 for a study of our history
in a manner which points to what can this country look
forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume
study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence a
summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the
last volume is: The future of this country belongs to
collectivism administered with characteristic American
efficiency. That's the story that ultimately grew out of
and, of course, was what could have been presented by the
members of this Congressional committee to the congress as a
whole for just exactly what it said. They never got to that
point.

ED GRIFFIN: This is the story that
emerged from the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment?

NORMAN DODD: That's right. It was
official to that extent.

ED GRIFFIN: Katherine Casey brought
all of these back in the form of dictated notes from a
verbatimreading of the minutes?

NORMAN DODD: On dictaphone belts.

ED GRIFFIN: Are those in existence
today?

NORMAN DODD: I don't know. If they
are, they're somewhere in the Archives under the control of
the Congress, House of Representatives.

ED GRIFFIN: How many people actually
heard those, or were they typed up, a transcript made of them?

NORMAN DODD: No.

ED GRIFFIN: How many people actually
heard those recordings?

NORMAN DODD: Oh, three maybe. Myself,
my top assistant, and Katherine. I might tell you, this
experience, as far as its impact on Katherine Casey was
concerned, was she never was able to return to her law
practice. If it hadn't been for Carol Reece's ability to tuck
her away into a job in the Federal Trade Commission, I don't
know what would have happened to Katherine. Ultimately, she
lost her mind as a result of it. It was a terrible shock. It's
a very rough experience to encounter proof of these kinds.

ED GRIFFIN: Mr. Dodd can you summarize
the opposition to the Committee, the Reece Committee and
particularly the efforts to sabotaging the Committee?

NORMAN DODD: Well, they began right at
the start of the work of an operating staff, Mr. Griffin, and
it began on the day in which the Committee met for the purpose
of consenting to or confirming my appointment to the position
of Director of Research. Thanks to the abstention of the
minority members of the committee, that is, the two Democratic
members, from voting, technically I was unanimously appointed.

ED GRIFFIN: Wasn't the White House
involved in opposition?

NORMAN DODD: Not at this particular
point, sir. Mr. Reece ordered counsel and myself to visit
Wayne Hayes. Wayne Hayes was the ranking minority member of
the Committee as a Democrat, so we came to him, and I had to
go down to Mr. Hayes's office, which I did. Mr. Hayes greeted
us with the flat statement directed primarily to me, which was
that “I am opposed to this investigation. I regard it as
nothing but an effort on the part of Carol Reece to gain a
little prominence, so I'll do everything I can to see that it
fails.” Well, I have a strange personality in that a challenge
of that nature interests me. Our counsel withdrew. He went
over and sat on the couch in Mr. Reece's office and pouted,
but I sort of took up this statement of Hayes as a challenge
and set myself the goal of winning him over to our point of
view. I started by noticing on his desk that there was a book,
and the book was of the type that – there were many in these
days – that would be complaining about the spread of Communism
in Hungary, that type of book. This meant to me at least he
has read a book, and so I brought up the subject of the spread
of the influence of the Soviet world. For two hours, I
discussed this with Hayes and finally ended up with his rising
from his desk and saying: “Norm, if you will carry this
investigation toward the goal as you have outlined to me, I'll
be your biggest supporter.” I said: “Mr. Hayes, I can assure
you that I will not double-cross you.”

Subsequently Mr. Hayes sent word to me that he was in
Bethesda Hospital with an attack of ulcers, but would I come
and see him, which I did. He then said: “Norm, the only reason
I’ve asked you to come out here is I just want to hear you say
again you will not double-cross me.” I gave him that
assurance, and that was the basis of our relationship.
Meantime, counsel took the attitude expressed in these words:
“Norm, if you want to waste your time with this guy,” as he
called him, “you go ahead and do it, but don't ever ask me to
say anything to him under any conditions on any subject.” So,
in a sense, that created a context for me to operate in
relation to Hayes on my own. As time passed, Hayes offered
friendship, which I hesitated to accept because of his
vulgarity, and I didn't want to get mixed up with him socially
under any conditions.
Well,
that was our relationship for about three months, and then,
eventually, I had occasion to add to my staff a top-flight
intelligence officer. Both the Republican National Committee
and the White House were resorted to, to stop me from
continuing this investigation in the directions Carol Reece
had personally asked me to do, which was to utilize this
investigation, Mr. Griffin, to uncover the fact that this
country had been the victim of a conspiracy. That was Mr.
Reece's conviction. I eventually agreed to carry it out. I
explained to Mr. Reece that Hayes's own counsel wouldn't go in
that direction. He gave me permission to disregard their
counsel, and I had then to set up an aspect of the
investigation outside of our office, more or less secret. The
Republican National Committee got wind of what I was doing and
they did everything they could to stop me. They appealed to
counsel to stop me, and finally they resorted to the White
House.

ED GRIFFIN: Was their objection
because of what you were doing or because of the fact that you
were doing it outside of the official auspices of the
Committee?

NORMAN DODD: No, their objection was,
as they put it, my devotion to what they called anti-semitism.
That was a cooked up idea. In other words, it wasn't true at
all, but anyway, that's the way they expressed it.

ED GRIFFIN: Why did they do that? How
could they say that?

NORMAN DODD: Well, they could say it,
Mr. Griffin, but they had to have something in the way of a
rationalization of their decision to do everything they could
to stop the completion of this investigation in the directions
that it was moving, which would have been an exposure of this
Carnegie Endowment story and the Ford Foundation and the
Guggenheim and the Rockefeller Foundation, all working in
harmony toward the control of education in the United States.
Well, to secure the help of the White House in the picture,
they got the White House to cause the liaison personality
between the White House and the hill, a Major Person, to go up
to Hayes and try to get him to, as it were, actively oppose
what the investigation was engaged in. Hayes very kindly then
would listen to this visit from Major Person; then he would
call me and say, “Norm, come up to my office. I have a good
deal to tell you.” I would go up. He would tell me, “I’ve just
had a visit from Major Person, and he wants me to break up
this investigation.” I then said, “Well, what did you do? What
did you say to him?” He said,” I just told him to get the hell
out.” He did that three times, and I got pretty proud of him
in the sense that he was, as it were, backing me up. We
finally embarked upon the hearing at Hayes's request, because
he wanted to get them out of the way before he went abroad for
the summer.

ED GRIFFIN: Why were the hearings
finally terminated? What happened to the Committee?

NORMAN DODD: What happened to the
Committee or the hearings?

ED GRIFFIN: The hearings.

NORMAN DODD: Oh, the hearings were
terminated. Carol Reece was up against such a furor with Hayes
through the activity of our own counsel. Hayes became
convinced that he was being double-crossed and he put on a
show in a public hearing room, Mr. Griffin, that was an
absolute disgrace. He called Carol Reece publicly every name
in the book, and Mr. Reece took this as proof that he couldn't
continue the hearings. He actually invited me to accompany him
when he went down to Hayes's office and, in my presence with
tears rolling down his face, Hayes apologized to Carol Reece
for what he had done and his conduct, and apologized to me. I
thought that would be enough and that Carol would resume, but
he never did.

ED GRIFFIN: The charge of
anti-semitism is intriguing. What was the basis of that
charge? Was there a basis for it at all?

NORMAN DODD: The basis of what the
Republican National Committee used was that the intelligence
officer I’d taken on my staff when I oriented this
investigation to the exposure and proof of a conspiracy was
known to have a book, and the book was deemed to be
anti-semitic. This was childish, but this was the second in
command of the Republican National Committee, and he told me
I’d have to dismiss this person from my staff.

ED GRIFFIN: Who was that person?

NORMAN DODD: A Colonel Lee Lelane.

ED GRIFFIN: And what was his book? Do
you recall?

NORMAN DODD: The book they referred to
was called Waters Flowing Eastward, which was a
castigation of the Jewish influence in the world.

ED GRIFFIN: What were some of the
other charges made by Mr. Hayes against Mr. Reece?

NORMAN DODD: Just that Mr. Reece was
utilizing this investigation for his own prominence inside the
House of Representatives. That was the only charge that Hayes
could think of.

ED GRIFFIN: How would you describe the
motivation of the people who created the foundations, the big
foundations, in the very beginning? What was their motivation?

NORMAN DODD: Their motivation? Well,
let's take Mr. Carnegie as an example. He has publicly
declared that his steadfast interest was to counteract the
departure of the colonies from Great Britain. He was devoted
to just putting the pieces back together again.

ED GRIFFIN: Would that have required
the collectivism that they were dedicated to?

NORMAN DODD: No, no, no. These
policies, the foundations’ allegiance to these un-American
concepts, are all traceable to the transfer of the funds into
the hands of trustees, Mr. Griffin. It's not the men who had a
hand in the creation of the wealth that led to the endowment
for what we would call public purposes.

ED GRIFFIN: It's a subversion of the
original intent, then?

NORMAN DODD: Oh, yes, completely, and
that’s how it got into the world traditionally of bankers and
lawyers.

ED GRIFFIN: How do you see that the
purpose and direction of the major foundations has changed
over the years to the present? What is it today?

NORMAN DODD: Oh, it’s a hundred
percent behind meeting the cost of education such as it is
presented through the schools and colleges of the United
States on the subject of our history as proving our original
ideas to be no longer practicable. The future belongs to
collectivistic concepts, and there's just no disagreement on
that.

ED GRIFFIN: Why do the foundations
generously support Communist causes in the United States?

NORMAN DODD: Well, because to them,
Communism represents a means of developing what we call a
monopoly, that is, an organization of, say, a large-scale
industry into an administerable unit.

ED GRIFFIN: Do they think that they
will be the ones to benefit?

NORMAN DODD: They will be the
beneficiaries of it, yes.

[END OF
INTERVIEW]

Source: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7373201783240489827&q=education%2Billuminati&hl=en

This page may contain copyrighted material, the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts
to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes.

- - - - - - - -
Disclaimer
- - - - - - -
-

Design
downloaded from FreeWebTemplates.com
Free web
design, web templates, web layouts, and website resources!