When Charles William Eliot became your president in 1869 Comte’s positive philosophy and Religion of Humanity, and Herbert Spencer’s sociology received a warm welcome. In the 1870s your law school dean, Christopher Langell, applied positivism and evolution to the law. He claimed that since man was evolving, judges should assume that the law and the Constitution must also evolve, and they should play a part in that evolution. Following Langell, Roscoe Pound continued support of positivism and also carried what has been called sociological legal science to other universities.

In 1907 Professor A. Lawrence Lowell, who two years later became your president, suggested to Professor Frank W. Taussig that the school of business administration which was contemplated be patterned after the law school. He suggested that business education should be limited in a way similar to the way the study of law had been limited. He wrote, “No doubt you will say that business is a part of political economy. So law is a part of jurisprudence, but the Law School teaches that part alone, without requiring any knowledge of the rest. For example a man may graduate, and frequently does graduate, from the Law School without knowing the difference of actions ‘in rem’ and ‘in personam’ and without being able to give the slightest definition of sovereignty or of law. Most of the graduates could not pass the most elementary examination on jurisprudence. The German professors of law would reject them as being hopelessly ignorant of everything. In other words, they are strictly students in a professional school which trains them for the practice of common law; and the school has jealously kept itself free from contact with academic students and professors. Could we create a school which could teach certain branches of business—let us say railroading and banking—on such a basis? If we could, I think we might make a great success, and mark an era for education in business.” (The World of Business, edited by faculty members of the Harvard Business School, Simon and Schuster, 1962, Vol.III, P1555 .)

You had earned respect over the years and therefore it was near certain that other institutions would follow your example. In 1909 counselor-at-law, Philip Mauro acknowledged your influence in his book, The Number of Man, “Probably there is no institution in the United States which exerts a greater influence upon the formation of ideas than Harvard University. Some of the best minds of the country have their ideas formed and their ideals shaped in the atmosphere of that ancient and highly respectable seat of learning, and upon leaving it they become propagators of those ideas and ideals. In doing this they are aided by having, in addition to their own personal intelligence and culture, the weight of the influence and authority of the University. By sampling, therefore, the ideas that prevail, and are held in esteem at Harvard at the present time, we may learn what ideas will shortly become (if they be not already) current among the intellectual, or so-called “thinking,” classes all over the land.”

What the main thrust of those ideas would be Mauro found exemplified in the much- publicized class poem of 1908 which was titled “Man,” the poem’s theme being that mankind is the only savior of man, “Mankind, the Christ retried— Recrowned, recrucified; No god for a gift, God gave us. Mankind alone must save us. . .”

The quest for “knowledge and godlynes”’ was being replaced by the worship of man and the achievements of man. You taught that collective mankind (under your direction) must be changed. You indulged yourself in an overwhelming conceit. You sought to change society and the way it was organized. Many who passed through your halls of learning adopted your goals and your philosophy. From law and business to theology, education and politics—ambition and power were overtaking “knowledge and godlynes” as your motivating forces. Success or lack of success in reaching your goals was becoming your standard to determine what was right and what was wrong.

You were uprooting your heritage and dishonoring your historical Christian foundation even as Christian ministers and Christian missionaries in the Nineteenth Century were helping to improve life for millions in many countries. In India the custom of suttee, or the sacrifice of a Hindu widow on the funeral pyre of her husband was being discontinued. Widows remarried. The caste system was breaking down. In China foot binding had been discredited and in 1905 it was outlawed.

Africa was no longer the Dark Continent. To reach remote spots missionaries had become explorers, and they contributed enormously to the store of geographical knowledge. David Livingston alone added about a million square miles to the known land surface. Missionary roads had been built all through the continent, and a wholesome form of trade, stimulated and encouraged by missionaries, brought material benefits to once-isolated tribes. The Congo, Nile, Zambezi, and Niger rivers and their heavily populated valleys had been made known to the outside world largely through missionary efforts.

The Bible was translated into hundreds of tongues and dialects during the nineteenth century. British missionaries alone were responsible for the illustration of nearly two hundred African languages and dialects with grammars, dictionaries, vocabularies and translations of the Bible. They translated not only the Bible, but textbooks and literature such as Pilgrim’s Progress, Shakespeare’s works, Tennyson, Edmund Burke, Jefferson, the United States Constitution, Benjamin Franklin, etc.

Missionaries became advisors to once-tyrannical rulers whose children were sent to mission schools. Christian

hospitals, schools and charities were improving life in the cities. Even skeptical observers in the last quarter of the 19th Century were aware that Christianity had become a powerful force for good.

But your answer to all this was to agree with Auguste Comte’s materialist/positivist call for the elimination of Christianity. You threw away your compass and claimed the freedom to travel without direction. Your social science professors became obsessed with the idea that they could find a grand formula to manage a perfect world.

In this endeavor the power of the purse was with you. The Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, Danforth and other foundations cooperated in your experiments and your rush to enshrine social science as the savior of mankind. The federal government was generous with grants. You have had wealth beyond imagination and you have used it to set standards, form organizations and dazzle elected officials. Barely realizing what they were doing, many exchanged loyalty to the home folks who elected them for loyalty to policies concocted at Harvard.

Was this what should happen in a free country? Did the free citizens of the United States need to have the Constitution dishonored and their collective future planned by a swarm of university social “scientists?” James Bryant Conant, your president from 1933 to 1953, thought this should be the case. Your professors were to be more than teachers of students. They were to become policy makers in education, business, science, religion, government, and law. In his 1948 book, Education in a Divided World, Conant wrote, “The methods of certain of the social sciences have already been developed to a point where studies of society by competent scholars can provide basic information to assist the leaders of the nation. The scholars in these disciplines can help train not only public officials but those who carry responsibility for resolving the many human problems in our complex industrial economy.” (P. 35)

“More and more I believe that the nation and different groups within the nation (geographic, social, or economic groups) must look to university scholars for guidance in handling basic social and economic problems. To this end the professors of these subjects must explore vigorously not only the fundamental aspects of man’s behavior but the applications of our present knowledge.” (P. 172)

“If one hopes, as I do, that within fifty years the deep cleavage now dividing the world will become only a relatively shallow ditch, the children now in school may live to see the day when the present arguments for world government may not be entirely fantastic.” (P. 217)

World government? Citizens of the United States of America to submit to a government of the world? What kind of an insane goal was this to foist on the people of Wisconsin? Minnesota? Illinois? Missouri? Texas? North Dakota? Nebraska? Virginia?

Rhode Island?.......all of the states? Should they be governed by managers from Africa, Asia, South America and Europe? Was your president Conant out of his mind? You did not seem to think so. You continued to believe you had a mission to manage and change your countrymen into obedient subjects, rather than self governing citizens.

To make the changes you visualized, the emotions of those affected would need to be changed. You had a term for this process which you called, “emotional reeducation” or “human relations training.” In 1943 you began inviting corporate executives to Harvard for human relations training. FORTUNE magazine of February 1949 tells us that by 1949 more than one thousand top executives had taken thirteen weeks out of their business lives to study Harvard management practices. They emerged from the courses, FORTUNE tells us, with attitudes so different they seemed to be “changed” men. Since then thousands more have participated. I expect they felt honored out of their wits to be included.

The young also needed to be educated to your beliefs and goals. Every philosopher with world management ambition knows the importance of education, but how would it be possible to control education at the national level when the states, not the federal government were in charge? Never mind. Conant had a plan. He wrote about it in his 1964 book, Shaping Educational Policy, “Why not a new venture in cooperative federalism? Why not a compact between all the states? To be quite specific, let me be bold and make a suggestion for a possible way by which the road to development of a nationwide educational policy might be opened up. Let the fifty states, or at least fifteen to twenty of the more populous states, enter into a compact for the creation of an ‘Interstate Commission for Planning a Nationwide Educational Policy.’ ”

Before a year had passed, and with grants from the Carnegie Corporation and the Danforth Foundation, plus a push from the National Governors’ Conference, the project was on its way. The Education Commission of the States was born with most of the states participating.

After the formation of the Education Commission of the States it was easy to control education policy and shut out local parents, teachers and school boards. In each state the seven members included everyone necessary to establish control and carry out plans. In Wisconsin the governor appointed a state senator to introduce legislation in the senate, a state representative to introduce the same legislation in his governing body, the chief school officer to promote and carry out changes, the president of the university system, a private university representative to give his sanction, and a public school representative.

Harvard, in almost every area of life you have blocked the ability of citizens and tax payers to make their own choices. You set up groups as decision makers. You set up courses to

indoctrinate new university presidents, new mayors, new legislators, judges. They all learned the Harvard Management System. They all received some form of emotional reeducation.

When Conant and others called for busing children away from neighborhood schools parents who objected did not know it, but their battle was lost before it was started, especially since in addition to pressure from the Education Commission of the States, and support from the Chamber of Commerce, the Federal judges who heard the arguments had been told how to decide the cases before they were heard. (MILWAUKEE JOURNAL -October 4, 1975)

When parents all over the country objected to having their children trained in the moral reasoning of your Professor Lawrence Kohlberg, they fought in vain. Teacher training for Moral Reasoning had already been funded by Carnegie Corporation. Children were taught that the highest stage of moral development is when they decide for themselves what behavior is moral. That was exactly what Charles Manson and his little band of lost souls had done. They had no consciences. They were moral reasoners. They could contrive a reason for anything they wanted to do.

Some people seemed to believe if a program came from Harvard it had to be OK. You really had them fooled on that. I expect you were proud of what you had done because it showed you had power over people. Your human relations knowledge was paying off.

B. F. Skinner was another Harvard professor who thought along the same lines as Kohlberg. To his mind men did not need a conscience because they could be controlled by their environment. He wrote, “A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual may then seem particularly vulnerable. He is henceforth to be

controlled by the world around him, and in large part by other men. . . environmental contingencies now take over functions once attributed to autonomous man, and certain questions arise. Is man then abolished? Certainly not as a species or as an individual achiever. It is the autonomous inner man who is abolished, and that is a step forward. . . His abolition has been long overdue.” (Beyond Freedom and Dignity, B. F. Skinner, Bantam/Vantage Book, 1971, P.196, 205. NOTE: Book funded by the National Institute of Mental Health).

In your drive for power you have had little to fear from the mass media. That was taken care of years ago by the Nieman scholarships for journalists. Since 1938 an average of a dozen working journalists have been awarded one year scholarships to Harvard—complete with maintenance. Hundreds of journalists with an intense loyalty to Harvard have thus been created.

Harvard, you have had trust, knowledge, wealth, respect and honors, but it was not enough. Your campus was not enough. Your state was not enough. You wanted the world. You sought authority, power and control. But you no longer know what is right and what is wrong. You might consider yourself the intellectual powerhouse of the world, but you don’t know right from wrong. You know how to form and control groups, but you don’t know right from wrong.

Your management system and your lust for power are changing our country, our states, our cities. It has changed the way business is conducted. It has changed relationships between people. It has changed the way children are taught. It is robbing us of our heritage. OH, HARVARD, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

—NewsWithViews.com, January 17, 2004

Romania's Mr. Pacepa
by Arnaud De Borchgrave

The Bush administration is about to certify to Congress the democratic bona fides of seven new NATO member countries. But one of them is yet to make a clean break with its communist past.

In 1999, 10 years after the collapse of communism, Romania’s Supreme Court, under intense Western diplomatic pressure, canceled two death sentences and a $2 million bounty on the head of Ion Mihai Pacepa. The court also decided this former head of the Romanian equivalent of the CIA and FBI should be reinstated in the rank of general and his confiscated property returned. But the Romanian government is yet to heed this 4-year-old ruling. And Mr. Pacepa, arguably the Cold War’s most important defector, remains in hiding and in limbo.

Mr. Pacepa’s boss was once the communist counterpart of Saddam Hussein. Nicolai Ceaucescu and his martinet wife were executed by firing squad on Christmas Day 1989 during Romania’s anti-communist uprising. Mr. Pacepa defected in 1979 by walking into the U.S. Embassy in Bonn after delivering a message to Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. He was flown secretly to the U.S. under Public Law 110. Because of his high position, President Carter himself had to approve his request for asylum. Thus, the federal government became responsible for his security for the rest of his life.

Upon hearing the news of Mr. Pacepa’s defection, Ceaucescu went ballistic. A third of the ruling Council of Ministers was demoted, 22 ambassadors replaced, a dozen ranking security officers arrested, and a few dozen more never to be seen again—made to “disappear” on Ceaucescu’s orders.

At least two assassination teams were dispatched to the U.S. to gun down Mr. Pacepa. Romania’s agents in the U.S. are still looking for him – and this despite Romania’s two-year mandate on the U.N. Security Council, which began Jan. 6, its new (Nov.21, 2003) NATO membership, and the decision of its own Supreme Court.

Twenty-five years ago, Mr. Pacepa gave the CIA the best intelligence ever obtained on communist intelligence networks and internal security services. Not only did he provide chapter and verse on the opulent lifestyle of the Ceaucescus while the country lacked essential staples, but, more damaging, unmasked the length to which the regime had gone to disinform Western journalists, academics, politicians and businessmen into believing Romania was a moderate, independent state, worthy of Western aid and trade. That is how Romania obtained Most Favored Nation trading status from the U.S., sealed in a state dinner in the Carter White House.

It was Ceaucescu’s fourth and most triumphant trip to Washington. President Carter hailed him as “a great national and international leader.” Everybody who was anybody took up the hosannas. He even conned the British establishment into a historic drive through London with Queen Elizabeth in the royal coach.

Mr. Pacepa worked with the CIA to bring down communism for more than 10 years, and the agency described his cooperation as “an important and unique contribution to the United States.”

Mr. Pacepa’s memoirs – Red Horizons – took the title of the code words of the system Ceaucescu had used to dupe the West about the benign character of his brand of independent communism. Ceaucescu was depicted as tyrant, crook, drug smuggler and sponsor of terrorism. The book was translated into 19 languages and published in 27 countries – and so infuriated the dictator he imposed a second death sentence in Mr. Pacepa and decreed anyone caught reading it would be executed.

The second Pacepa book – The Kremlin’s Legacy – in 1993 was an insider’s look at East European satellite intelligence services from their creation following World War II. Then in 2000, Mr. Pacepa’s The Black Book of the Securitate quickly became Romania’s all-time bestseller. And still Romania’s new “democratic” government insisted Mr. Pacepa was a traitor to his native country and there could be no stay of the death sentence ordered by Ceaucescu and rescinded by the Supreme Court.

In Poland, Cold War defectors from the communist regime have been decorated by the government and made honorary citizens of their native towns and cities. Even though a naturalized U.S. citizen, Mr. Pacepa still has to live clandes-tinely in the U.S. with a false ID, surgical enhancements, and secret location and occupation. Why? Because the legacy of communism is alive and well in Romania. Mr. Pacepa says former Securitate officers, who still form some 50 percent of the secret services’ personnel, artificially maintain the anti-CIA environment in Romania.

There are 13 other Romanian defectors from Securitate sentenced to death by the defunct communist regime who are still living under cover in Western countries.

The Eyes and Ears of the People (Ochii Urechile Poporului), published in 2001 by Gen. Nicolai Plesita, who was Mr. Pacepa’s successor at the head of Ceaucescu’s espionage service, called on Romanians to “execute Pacepa in the U.S. or wherever he is.”

Romania was invited to join NATO on Nov. 21, 2002, together with six other former communist countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia). The Pentagon has long been planning to create “lily pad” bases in Romania and Bulgaria that are designed to bring U.S. troops closer to the Middle East and Central Asia in case of emergency. A number of U.S. and NATO installations in Germany will be closed as NATO moves eastward.

As a member of NATO, an attack against Romania is the same as an attack against the U.S. American soldiers might then be required to go into harm’s way to defend a split personality regime nostalgic for its communist past.

Before taking that leap of faith, it would behoove President Bush to get on the blower to Romanian President Ion Iliescu. This would be a good time to make clear that the sine qua non of Romania’s NATO membership is cancellation of Mr. Pacepa’s two death sentences – loud and clear in a government communiqué that formally endorses the Supreme Court decision.

In the same phone call, Mr. Bush could also request a pardon for all other Romanian anti-communist Cold War defectors now hiding in Western democracies. Romania owes its new democratic NATO allies an answer to two fundamental questions – what is “treason” and who are the “traitors”?

—Washington Times, January 14, 2004 p.A15

Ford Foundation and Environmentalism
by John Perazzo

We have all seen the photos of cute, fuzzy creatures and flower-speckled hills adorning the Websites and promotional literature of America’s leading environmentalist groups. These groups portray themselves as grassroots organizations of ordinary nature-lovers motivated purely by a desire to preserve, for the welfare of future generations, those pristine areas of our nation’s landscape not yet spoiled by the smoky breath of industrial pollution. But in truth, environmentalism’s major objective has little to do with clean air, pure water, or cuddly wildlife. Rather, it is a vast network of radical leftist organizations dedicated to nothing less than the overthrow of American capitalism, which they deem the source of all environmental ills.

Randall Hayes, president of the Rainforest Action Network, calls capitalism “an absurd economic system [that is] rapidly destroying nature.” Greenpeace International puts it this way: “When the last tree is cut, the last river poisoned, and the last fish dead, we will discover that we can’t eat money.” Far from being a grassroots movement, almost all of today’s environmentalist groups were created with grants from one or more elite foundations, among the most prominent being the Ford Foundation, which regularly funds leftist political causes. “Seed grants” from Ford and other foundations establish radical groups as new, independent entities that can thereafter commence their own fundraising operations under the pious banner of “environmentalism.”

The environmentalist establishment is comprised of thousands of groups – some local, some national – but virtually all well funded and able to pursue a multitude of often-obscure issues. Many people wonder, for instance, what motivates such groups to jump on the particular bandwagons they choose, such as a California group organized solely for the purpose of protecting an obscure species of flies. The answer is simple: these groups understand that the allegedly threatened welfare of such an insect could provide the pretext needed to someday derail the construction of a proposed factory, housing development, corporate office building, or road slated for a particular location. To set the stage for this scheme, a leftwing foundation such as the Ford Foundation makes a grant to

establish a group purportedly dedicated to protecting the species in question, and a cause is thus created. The nominal beneficiaries take many forms: spotted owls, snail darters, band-winged grasshoppers, moss spiders, beach mice, gray bats, and flatwoods salamanders, to name just a few. The “endangered species” list in the U.S. alone currently contains no fewer than 70 varieties of clams, 32 types of snails, 16 kinds of beetles, and 19 breeds of butterflies.

Contrary to the public image of an everyman’s movement, environmentalism is in fact big business, raking in more than $8.5 billion per year. If we factor in the revenues of law firms involved in environmental litigation, this figure nearly doubles. Environmentalist group income is larger than the Gross National Product (GNP) of about five-dozen nations worldwide. No trade association on earth possesses the financial resources and political influence of the environmental lobby. There are more than 3,000 so-called nonprofit environmental groups in the U.S. today, most of which take in over $1 million annually. In one recent year, Greenpeace International took in $35 million, the National Audubon Society $79 million, the National Wildlife Federation $102 million, the Sierra Club $74 million, the Nature Conservancy $972 million, and the World Wildlife Fund $118 million. In addition, each of these groups holds assets ranging from $16.3 million to $2.9 billion.

Only a small portion of these immense revenues comes from the checkbooks of concerned individual donors. Much of the money comes from the groups’ real estate holdings, product marketing, business deals, and huge stock portfolios. In other words, the very movement that condemns capitalism for allegedly ravaging the environment happily takes advantage of capitalism to rake in mounds of cash. Indeed, many environmentalist organizations buy stock in companies whose industries they consistently denounce as “harmful” to the environment: lumber companies, mining companies, and manufacturers of bulldozers and logging equipment such as Caterpillar and John Deere. Other environmentalist groups round out their portfolios with holdings in real estate, utilities, and government securities. The anti-capitalists further feed from capitalism’s trough by accepting at least another $200 million per year in corporate donations.

Environmentalist groups also exploit their non-profit status and reputations as selfless wildlife protectors by buying and selling vast tracts of land. The Nature Conservancy (NC), for

instance, buys real estate from landowners at a reduced cost and then sells it to the government for an inflated price. In one recent year, the NC bought and sold more than 73 million acres in this manner – all in the name of “saving the environment.” Notably, environmentalist groups use a hefty portion of such windfalls only to feather their own financial nests with such things as luxurious new offices, high-profile lobbyists, high-priced economists and attorneys, and millions of direct-mail pleas for still more money. Moreover, the bigwigs of the environmental game are careful to save themselves an ample piece of capitalism’s pie; environmental executives have average annual salaries in the $200,000 neighborhood.

The rest of environmentalism’s funding comes largely from prestigious foundations like the Ford Foundation. Each year, hundreds of foundations earmark thousands of grants totaling hundreds of millions of dollars for environmentalist groups. Many of these foundations are part of an informal coalition called the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA), comprised of more than 250 private donors responsible for most of the money given to such groups. The EGA holds private annual retreats to plan strategies for achieving its desired programs and policy outcomes – almost exclusively leftwing, anti-business, and anti-private property ownership. Occupying a prominent place at the EGA meetings is the Ford Foundation, which has a long history of donating enormous sums to environmentalist causes.

In 1969, for instance, a large Ford Foundation seed grant established the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), a group that made its name in the early-1970s fight to ban DDT, the life-saving insecticide that was turning the tide on malaria. Among EDF’s other achievements was its role in drafting California’s first sweeping environmental regulations in the form of Proposition 65, the ballot initiative that restricted the use of many chemicals in industry and agriculture and has cost the California economy billions of dollars. The Ford Foundation has funded EDF heavily over the years, its generosity highlighted by a $500,000 grant in 1988, a $400,000 grant in 1996, and a $150,000 grant in 1998. Today EDF has seven offices nationwide, more than 150,000 members, and an annual operating budget of $17 million.

A $400,000 Ford Foundation seed grant in 1970 also established the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a radical leftist group that serves as one of the environmentalist movement’s legal arms. The NRDC has filed dozens of lawsuits to block the construction of highways, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear power plants, but is perhaps best known for being the source of an enormous and costly apple industry hoax about

Alar in 1989. Another NRDC signature issue is its fight to shut down the timber industry. Depicting itself as a nonprofit entity dedicated to fighting the capitalistic greed that purportedly ravages the environment, the tax-exempt NRDC holds assets exceeding $71 million.

A very partial list of other Ford Foundation grants made in the past few years includes the following: $225,000 to the Wilderness Society, $200,000 to Friends of the Earth, $2 million to the Nature Conservancy, $48,000 to the World Resources Institute, $75,000 to the NRDC, $24,000 to the World Resources Institute, $250,000 to the Environmental Law Institute, $225,000 to the Environmental Working Group, $50,000 to the National Environmental Trust, and $300,000 to the National Wildlife Federation. According to the Capital Research Center (CRC), which was established in 1984 to study non-profit organizations, all of the aforementioned organizations are politically far-left. Other recent Ford grants include: $150,000 to the American Land Institute, $500,000 to the Rainforest Alliance, $96,000 to the Center for Marine Conservation, $32,000 to the Conservation Fund, $150,000 to American Rivers, $100,000 to Northwest Environment Watch, and $400,000 to the Pratt Institute Center for Community and Environmental Development.

Four years ago, the Ford Foundation also gave $150,000 to the International Forum on Globalization (IFOG), a think-tank of some five-dozen anti-capitalist organizations with close ties to the Rainforest Action Network. IFOG founder and president Jerry Mander calls capitalism and economic globalization “the greatest single contributor to the massive ecological crises of our time,” characterized by an “inherent emphasis on increased trade requir[ing] corresponding expansion of transportation infrastructures – airports, seaports, roads, rail-lines, pipelines, dams, electric grids – many of [which] are constructed in pristine landscapes, often on Indigenous people’s lands. Increased transport also uses drastically increased fossil fuels, adding to the problems of climate change, ozone depletion, and ocean, air, and soil pollution.”

That, in a nutshell, is the environmentalist view of capitalism. Therefore, the next time you hear an environmentalist group depicting itself as a grassroots enterprise of average Americans who spontaneously banded together to save the environment, remember that its true agenda is political, not environmental. Moreover, it is most likely an enormously wealthy entity funded by some of the deepest pockets on earth, such as those of the Ford Foundation.

—FrontPageMagazine.com, January 19, 2004

“The Gods of the Copybook Headings”

Your editor visited Dr. and Mrs. Schwarz in Australia in January. Dr. Schwarz, now 91 years old, was in good spirits and recited poem after favorite poem from memory! Since Kipling’s “Gods of the Copybook Headings” is one of my favorite poems, keep in mind that the Gods of the Copybook Headings refers to traditional values and the Gods of the Marketplace refers to the value of the liberals and socialists.

As I pass through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market-Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn;
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch.
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch.
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings.
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew,
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four—
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man—
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began:—
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

Cited in Kipling: A Selections of His Stories and Poems, ed. John Beecroft (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1956).