The Fearful Master - Chapter 12
THE FEARFUL MASTER

CHAPTER TWELVE: POISON IN THE AIR

<<Chapter 11

Contents

Chapter 13>>

 

Breathes there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
"This is my own my native land!"

The Lay of the Last Minstrel, Sir Walter Scott

CHAPTER TWELVE: POISON IN THE AIR

In 1955 Congressman Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin described the United Nations and UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) as "a permanent international snake pit where Godless Communism is given a daily forum for hate, recrimination, psychological warfare against freedom, and unrelenting moral aggression against peace."1

That same year, at its annual national convention in Miami, the American Legion formally passed the following resolution:

Resolved,

As the true nature of UNESCO became better understood by more and more Americans, popular opposition began to rise against it. Patriotic organizations and service clubs all over the nation began to speak up and demand corrective action. To stem the tide, the State Department issued a series of lengthy bulletins which asserted that a few people had been "making some misstatements about UNESCO, some of them attaining the proportions of deliberate misrepresentation. Many of these statements repeat irresponsible charges which were long ago shown to be groundless."2 And, a few days after the American Legion passed its resolution condemning UNESCO, President Truman told newspaper reporters: "The Legion doesn't know what it is talking about. They have gone haywire in the last few years. They don't know what they are doing."3

The purpose of this chapter is to examine some of the "groundless, irresponsible charges and misrepresentations" that have led the American Legion, the Daughters of the American Revolution and many other patriotic societies to go "haywire" against UNESCO.

Friedrich Engels wrote that under Communism the youth of the world "will grow up in new, free social conditions and will be in a position to cast away all this rubbish of state-ism."4

William Z. Foster amplified this by stating:

The studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism, and the general ethics of the new Socialist society. . . .

Our teachers must write new school textbooks, and rewrite history from the Marxian point of view. . . .

There will be no place for the present narrow patriotism, the bigoted nationalist chauvinism that serves so well the capitalist warmakers.5

And in 1936, speaking before the ninth national convention of the Communist party in the United States, Earl Browder declared: "Who wins the youth, wins the future of America."6

In these three brief statements, the Communists themselves have fully explained what UNESCO in America was designed to accomplish:

1. Achieve effective control of the educational system of our country. If the Communists can condition the minds of the youth of a nation for just one generation, that nation will be theirs within that generation.

2. Deride, ridicule and ultimately destroy any feelings of patriotism or loyalty to our country among the youth.

3. Instill in our youth an outlook of so-called internationalism and world-mindedness. This can easily be reconciled at a later date with the concept of a one-world Communist empire.

4. Indoctrinate the youth to embrace Marxian socialism (not under that name, of course) as the correct political and social viewpoint.

5. Neutralize the youth against the religious influences of the home and all other concepts of rigid morality which might interfere with the acceptance of Marxian and Communist doctrine.

As former Communist Joseph Z. Kornfeder expressed it: "UNESCO corresponds to the agitation and propaganda department in the Communist party. This department handles the strategy and method of getting at the public mind, young and old."7

The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee disclosed that Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were the principal architects of UNESCO along with Communists from other countries. For instance, Elen Wilkenson who had been an open Communist in England, was even elected to a city council position on the Communist party ticket, and who later called herself a socialist, was made president of UNESCO's preparatory commission. Clement Attlee had made her British minister of education.8 And, as the Senate Committee on the judiciary stated:

What appears . . . to be by far the worst danger spot, from the standpoint of disloyalty and subversive activity among Americans employed by international organizations is UNESCO. . . Mr. Pierce Gerety, former chairman of the international organizations employees loyalty board . . . expressed the opinion that there existed in UNESCO a clique of people who placed the interests of the Communists and Communist ideology above any service to UNESCO, and above their own country.9

On August 2, 1953, Dr. Luther Evans, who was then the new director of UNESCO, inadvertently confirmed the above Senate report when he declared "that the U.S. drive against Communist infiltration in UN groups was a factor threatening to destroy UNESCO."10 [Italics added.]

The following item appeared in newspapers on September 25, 1954. The article is speaking about the Institute of Pacific Relations, which, as previously mentioned, has been officially described as Soviet dominated. The news dispatch said: "Two problems confront the organization. One is that the work it set out to do is now being duplicated by wealthier and better equipped world organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)."11

In its own literature and periodicals, UNESCO makes its position clear. The Communist Guardian of Melbourne, England, in its May 28, 1959, issue, recommended the UNESCO Courier to its readers as "a monthly magazine deserving of wide distribution."12 The Courier is so blatant in its Communist propaganda that even the most unobserving reader can scarcely miss it.

As we have pointed out several times, not all of the people who are advancing the cause of the United Nations and its specialized agencies are doing so with malice aforethought. As a matter of fact there are relatively few who are. It has always been the pattern of successful Communist operation to have unsuspecting idealists do most of the work while the Communists stay in the background pulling the strings and issuing the directives. Consequently, many good people are victimized into lending their time, their reputations and their money. Unfortunately once a person has done this he gradually acquires a vested interest in his own error and even though he finds more and more aspects of the United Nations which run counter to his sensibilities, he tends to brush them aside rather than swallow his pride and admit that he made an original mistake in judgment. Most humans are like that, but occasionally there is an exception.

Mr. John M. Larson, as an active, respected and well-known citizen in his community, had been invited by the State Department to become a member of the United States National Commission for UNESCO. Like most Americans, he considered this to be an honor and felt that it was his duty to accept, which be did. He soon discovered, however, that he had been invited solely for the prestige that his name would add to the commission. He was expected to be satisfied with the role of a yes-man for all the decisions of the full-time staff and senior members of the commission. He expressed a desire to participate in UNESCO planning sessions as he was theoretically allowed to dož volunteering to travel at his own expense. But he was not advised of the meetings. He tried to make his voice felt through correspondence and personal visits with the commission secretariat. He was ignored as were his recommendations. Finally he resigned in protest. Here is what Mr. Larson revealed:

With respect to UNESCO's literature, it has very little substance, and what little it does have, appears overtly or covertly to be slanted away from the spiritual and political beliefs and traditions of the United States of America toward the sterile conceptions of a nebulous one-world government or federation which is to be built upon atheistic foundations. . . . I found grave errors of omission and distortions of perspective with respect to historical trends and events and to the growth and development of certain ideas. For these reasons, it is important to analyze what UNESCO does not present and proclaim as well as what it does present and proclaim, in order to gain an understanding of what its aims are. . . . Peoples today are interested in achieving some sort of peaceful solution to the conflicts present in the world. The question is: on what foundation will the edifice of peace be built? UNESCO claims to supply this foundation, but when its claims are investigated, they are found to be empty as well as a convenient cover for its real activities. The foundations of UNESCO are atheistic and materialistic. For it, man is the highest product of nature rather than one created in the image and likeness of God. This view of God and man dictates UNESCO's methods and. can be seen in them. Rather than being genuinely concerned with, the intellectual and moral development of men through education, UNESCO makes cynical use of those whom it professes to be serving and helping; rather than assisting people to grow and accept responsibilities, UNESCO preys upon those with whom it comes in contact and is more than glad to assume covertly or overtly all responsibilitv.13

Look at a few examples. The book How the United Nations Works by Tom Galt is one of the children's books recommended by UNESCO.14 It also comes highly praised by the New York Times, the Saturday Review of Literature and the New York Herald Tribune as well as the United Nations Information Service. In the opening paragraphs the reader is informed that the United Nations is "the most important organization that has ever been created on this earth." As for accuracy of information in this book, the following is typical. The author describes the UN organizational meeting in San Francisco in 1945. On page 20 he says that while the delegates were meeting in the opera house, Japanese bombs drifted overhead on balloons and exploded in the hills near the city! On page 9, the author skillfully plants a typical UNESCO attitude in the minds of his young readers by saving that when he was a boy his teachers and school books told him:

The U.S. is always good and noble. We never fought a war except in self-defense. We have always been kind and generous to other countries. But the people of other countries are dishonest and mean. They will always cheat you. They never take baths.

You and the United Nations

This is the kind of conditioning of children's attitudes that Luther Evans had in mind when he addressed a UNESCO meeting and said:

UNESCO's is a radical program. The rewards may be visible ten years from now; again they may not be visible for a hundred years. . . . They are instilled into the daily habits of mind of rising generations-perhaps not the first, not the second, but ultimately, it must be so. . . . To make the system of the UN and its specialized agencies work, we must sweep past traditional barriers in our thinking toward new frames of reference.16

Writing as one of UNESCO's special consultants in a symposium on human rights, Borris Tchechko provides us with an example of just what these new frames of reference might be. He explained that the Soviet constitution "not only constitutes one of the most decisive stages in the advance of the ideas of the democratic emancipation of man, but also-and this is of vital importance-sets man as a worker in ideal political, social and economic conditions and gives him facilities for work and intellectual life."17

On February 14, 1963, American newspapers carried a UPI report from Paris revealing that UNESCO had just published a booklet entitled Equality of Rights Between Races and Nationalities in the USSR. The book is pure Soviet propaganda denouncing race discrimination in the United States while praising Soviet race relations as one of the major social triumphs of the twentieth century:

Only the revolution of October 1917 which . . . instituted the Soviet system, enabled the peoples of Russia to achieve genuine equality of rights and freedom of development. . . . It was the Communist party which showed the peoples of Russia the true way to free themselves from social and national oppression. . . . The Soviet Union is a brotherhood of free and equal peoples comprising 15 sovereign Soviet republics in voluntary association on a footing of complete equality. Under the constitution of the USSR, each of these republics retains the right to secede from the union. Each of them embodies the collective will of its people and can decide its own future in entire freedom.18

Through our membership in the United Nations, the American people were required to pay for over a third of the total cost of publishing this booklet and giving it worldwide distributionž a great deal more than the Soviet Union paid.

As previously noted, William Z. Foster, who was at the time the head of the Communist party in the United States, predicted that in the future Communist world "there will be no place for the present narrow patriotism, the bigoted nationalist chauvinism that serves so well the capitalist warmakers." And in the constitution of the United States Communist party, we find the same sentiment: "The Communist party . . . fights uncompromisingly against . . . all forms of chauvinism." With this in mind, it is doubly interesting to note the following passages taken from a UNESCO publication entitled

We shall come to nationalism later on. For the moment, it is sufficient to note that it is most frequently in the family that children are infected with nationalism by hearing what is national extolled and what is foreign disparaged. As chauvinism, this may be more ridiculous than dangerous; but it must, nonetheless, be regarded as the complete negation of world mindedness. . . . As long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education in world mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we have pointed out, it is frequently the family that infects the child with extreme nationalism. The school should therefore use the means described earlier to combat family attitudes that favor jingoism. . . . if the feeling of belonging to the human community develops normally by extension of the feeling of belonging to the national community, it cannot possibly develop from that caricature of patriotism which is extreme nationalism.19

Touching on the subject of teaching, geography in our schools, the same UNESCO publication states:

One method much in use now is to teach geography in a series of widening circles, beginning with local geography (i.e. the classroom, the school building and its surroundings, the village, the county) and proceeding to a study of the nation and the continent. Only when that routine has been accomplished is the child introduced to the rest of the world. This progress from the particular and the immediate to the general and the remote may be logical, but does it serve the purpose? In some atlases, the child's country is shown on every page on the same scale as the map to which it is to be compared. This is an admirable device, but would it not be better still if the first map constantly before the eves of the child were a map of the world? . . . This seemed to us so important that we were led to hope that UNESCO might persuade a publisher to prepare a world map that would really touch the child's imagination. . . . It should summarize the splendors of the earth; and when, later on, the child began the study of national geography, he would be already partly immunized against an exaggerated sense of the importance and beauty of his own country; that is to say, against the error of perspective which is at the root of jingoism and nationalism. . . . In addition, the geography teacher should never allow to go unchallenged statements from his pupils which reveal a supercilious feeling of national superiority. . . . The teacher who has, himself, a broad world outlook, will find many opportunities for influencing the minds of his pupils both in normal school sessions and in his personal contacts with them.20

In Volume 10 of UNESCO's Toward World Understanding, George Washington is given as an example of the "hero-type" which has to be expunged from history. This volume condemns all "presentation to the young of 'hero-types' in whom virtues are, so to speak, incarnated." UNESCO bemoans the fact that such figures are

. . . spoken of with admiration, and there is an implicit expectation that some children, at least, will look at these heroes as examples and model their own character and attitudes upon them.. . . Children do not content themselves with studying the heroes of national history simply as significant human beings [but] identify themselves with them, at least to some degree, and may attempt to mold their conduct upon theirs.

Volume 6 is rich in variations on the theme that the government must replace the family. It stresses the importance of "freeing the child more and more from the family."

Getting back to the question of ways and means, UNESCO's Volume 5 of Toward World Understanding said:

The kindergarten or infant school has a significant part to play in the child's education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home training, but it can also prepare the child for membership in the world society.

For older children, Volume 1 has this to say:

The idealism of youth should be appealed to, but it is essential to remember that the adolescent's enthusiasm can quickly turn to disappointment and disillusionment. . . . It will be found that children grasp more quickly and more firmly the principles of the UN and its agencies if the teaching is related to practical activities, such as the international children's emergency fund [UNICEF], or UNESCO's work of education reconstruction in the war-devastated countries.

Over the past twenty years the concept of education in America has gradually changed until today it is shockingly UNESCO-oriented. And this includes more than attitudes toward patriotism and religion. Increasing emphasis has been placed on UNESCO's program of replacing scholastic achievement with such vagaries as "human adjustment," "group consciousness," and "social cooperation." Our educational system has been shifting away from one which trains children to think and to understand, toward one which is preoccupied with turning out intellectual paralytics who do not question the authorities but readily conform with the group.

Our primary concern here, however, is not with UNESCO's program of mental paralysis, but with its assault on patriotism, religion and moral standards among our youth. One clear example of how far this poison has seeped into the air of American academic circles is a series of psychological tests called Reading for Understanding which was prepared by an organization known as Science Research Associates (SRA). These tests have been widely used in approximately seven thousand public school districts across the United States and are highly praised by teachers' associations and school administrators. As the following sample questions will reveal, however, the tests not only require the student to assume the veracity of a preliminary statement which is loaded with editorial opinion, but they use half-truths and untruths to undermine traditional concepts of religion, morality and constitutional government.

Question 34-S-2:

[Correct answer: "fear of death."]

Question 42-S-7

[Correct answer: "way of life."]

Question 64-C-3

[Correct answer: "nationalism."]

Question 72-S-8:

[Correct answer: "man-made."]

Question 78-C-5

[Correct answer: "no horses ever lived."]

Question 84-S-4:

[Correct answer: "hated."]

Question 96-C-10:

[Correct answer: "happiness and unhappiness."]

If we would but open our eyes and look, we would be shocked at the extent to which this UNESCO virus has spread. On Flag Day in a school in White Plains, New York, American children were presented with a flag at an impressive ceremony in which even the city government participated. It was not Old Glory; it was the flag of the United Nations.21

A University of Chicago instructor by the name of Milton Mayer was quoted by the Syracuse Post-Standard as saying in a public speech: "We must haul down the American flag; and if I wanted to be vulgar and shocking, I would go even further and say, haul it down, stamp on it and spit on it!" The newspaper reported that "most of the audience of nearly 200 persons greeted Mayer's statement with prolonged applause."22

How did this come about? How have our youngsters been brought to accept this insidious mental conditioning? If you would really like to know the answer, write to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, and ask for information on how to better teach about the United Nations in our schools. One such booklet, entitled Teaching About the United Nations in United States Educational Institutions, goes into minute detail explaining how the following school programs can be made most effective: panel discussions, notebooks and reports, audio-visuals, reading assignments, UN clubs, UNICEF drives, essay contests, speech contests, field trips to UN headquarters, and model UN meetings. It is a total saturation program that no child can escape.

On March 4, 1962, the National Broadcasting Company put on an NBC Special entitled Regards to George M. Cohan. You will remember that Cohan wrote many patriotic songs including "It's a Grand Old Flag." In this NBC Special, one of the actors came forward holding an American flag and said: "I guess everybody knows that George M. Cohan wrote a lot of songs about this. The Cohan brand of patriotism is a little old fashioned and naive for these confused times."23

Things have even gone so far that in 1963 the community of Catonsville, Maryland, selected "Salute to the UN" as the theme for its Independence Day parade!

In 1958 the McDonnell Aircraft Company made UN Day its seventh paid holiday. Company officials stated that they hoped the idea would "spread throughout the world." Consequently, on June 21, the Philadelphia Bulletin ran a story headlined "Firm Makes UN Day a Paid Holiday." And on the very next day, the same paper had another news story with the heading: "Some Philadelphia Banks Drop Flag Day as a Holiday."

What effect has this anti-American conditioning had so far on the minds of our youth who have been subjected to it? How do we go about measuring the results? Unfortunately, there are so many unhealthy indications all around us that it is hard to begin. They range all the way from the rising juvenile crime rate, which is the inevitable result of a philosophy that says "truth is man-made" and "good is happiness," to student riots against congressional committees investigating Communist subversion. But perhaps the most tangible or measurable results were those observed among our fighting men who were captured in Korea.

These boys represented a fairly accurate cross section of the American youth that had been processed by our educational system since this thinking came into favor. They came from the same kind of homes and backgrounds as our soldiers in all previous wars. Yet, their behavior as prisoners was startlingly different. For the first time in American military history, very few captured American soldiers escaped. Many of them signed "confessions" and in other ways collaborated with the enemy, not as a result of torture, but because they got better treatment that way and because they did not think it mattered anyway. And some even chose to defect to Communism rather than return to America after the war. The underlying reason for this unexpected behavior was explained rather dramatically by the Communists themselves. During the course of the fighting several secret Communist intelligence reports were intercepted by American forces. Some of these dealt with the handling of American prisoners of war. The following message was written by the chief of intelligence of the Chinese Peoples Volunteer Army in North Korea to the chief of intelligence of the Chinese Peoples Republic in Peiping:

Based upon our observations of American soldiers and their officers captured in this war for the liberation of Korea from capitalist-imperialist aggression, the following facts are evident:

The American soldier has weak loyalty to his family, his community, his country, his religion and to his fellow soldier. His concepts of right and wrong are hazy and ill-formed. Opportunism is easy for him. By himself, he feels frightened and insecure. He underestimates his own worth, his own strength, and his ability to survive. He is ignorant of social values, social tensions and conflicts. There is little knowledge or understanding even among U.S. university graduates of American political history and philosophy; the federal, state and community organizations, states and civil rights, freedoms, safeguards, checks and balances, and how these things allegedly operate within his own system. . . .

He fails to appreciate the meaning of and the necessity for military or any form of organization or discipline. Most often he clearly feels that his military service is a kind of hateful and unavoidable servitude to be tolerated as briefly as possible and then escaped from as rapidly as possible with as little investment as possible. . . .

Based upon these facts about the imperialist United States aggressors, the reeducation and reindoctrination program for American prisoners proceeds as planned.24

In 1962 the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee conducted an investigation of Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies. During the course of the hearings, Admiral George W. Anderson, chief of naval operations, testified as follows:

There were maybe 65% or 70% of youngsters who came in with really a lack of appreciation of discipline, either imposed or self-discipline. You might say at times they were in a state of delayed adolescence, and this is the group that it was so important that we work on and devote our greatest talents to, whether they ultimately are to stay in the Navy or return to civilian life. These are the people on which we have to depend in the service and on which America is going to have to depend. . . .

General David M. Shoup, commandant of the Marine Corps, said:

They are the same kind of human beings [as recruited in the past] but they have not been exposed to what this country means and what it took to make this country what it is today. They have not been given a realization of the worthwhileness of our way of life and that it is worth giving your life for if necessary.25

All of which is right to the point. Who on earth would be willing to risk his life to defend America if he had been taught from kindergarten that love of one's own country is the major evil of our modem world? And if no one is willing to take such a stand, how long can we hold out against the fiercely aggressive force of world Communism? While the Soviet Communists are busy inculcating in their youth a strong loyalty to the Russian fatherland and to a precise dogma, UNESCO encourages Americans to deny their own children comparable convictions. When there no longer appears to be anything worth defending, America will be lost.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, to find that UNESCO has chosen to locate a western hemisphere headquarters in Communist Cuba since Cuba is, at present, the most solid Soviet satellite in this hemisphere. From there, it can carry on its subversion and propaganda activities throughout all of North and South America.

An interesting sidelight on this development occurred during a UNESCO conference held in Paris in 1960. Castro's Cuba submitted a report to the other delegates at the conference which read in part:

Law 680 was promulgated to lay the foundations of a new, more rational and effective general system of education. UNESCO experts have cooperated in this great task. . . . As will be seen in the following account of the implementation of UNESCO's major projects, Cuba, precisely by virtue of the revolutionary movement that is the driving force of our country, is one of the foremost nations in the world in the implementation of these projects. . . . One token of the high regard in which the revolutionary government holds UNESCO and the aims it pursues, is the fact that the Cuban National Commission at present has the largest budget since it was estabhshed.26

And now UNESCO is hoping that the United States Senate will ratify a proposed treaty known as the convention against discrimination in education. What would this treaty accomplish? As summarized in a joint statement by Congressmen John Ashbrook, William Ayres, Donald C. Bruce, Edgar Hiestand and David Martin:

UNESCO's proposed new treaty . . . would deliver the entire American educational system into UNESCO international control. It could close every private and parochial school in the United States. It would automatically remove education from under "domestic" law and control. It encompasses every phase and facet of American education.27

Unless Americans wake up soon and do something to clear away this UN poison in the air, the treaty will be ratified and we will then learn the full meaning of Earl Browder's words when he declared:

Who wins the youth, wins the future of America

<<Chapter 11

Contents

Chapter 13>>

NOTES

1. Congressman Lawrence H. Smith, Congressional Record (April 18, 1955).

2. Undated seven-page memorandum on the official letterhead of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Washington 25, D.C., released approximately January 1, 1962.

3. "Legionž Trumanž UNESCO," Washington News (October 14, 1955).

4. As quoted by Leon Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (Garden City, L.I., Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 1937), p. 161.

5. Foster, pp. 316, 327. Also, as quoted in the 6th report of the California Senate Investigating Committee on Education (1949), p. 36.

6. As quoted in the 6th report of the California Senate Investigating Committee on Education (1949), p. 36.

7. "The Communist Pattern in the UN," speech by Joseph Z. Kornfeder before the Congress of Freedom, Veterans War Memorial Auditorium (San Francisco, April 1955).

8. Who Was Who 1941-1950 (London, A. & C. Black, Ltd.), p. 1277. Also, The Annual Register 1947 (London, Longmans, Green & Co., Ltd., 1948), p. 568. Also, John H. Snow and Paul W. Shafer, The Turning of the Tides (New Canaan, Conn., The Long House, Inc., 1953), p. 102.

9. SISS annual report (1956).

10. Congressman Fred E. Busbey, Congressional Record (August 3, 1953).

11. Reuter's dispatch datelined September 25, 1954. As quoted in a speech by Florence Fowler Lyons before the Congress of Freedom, Veterans War Memorial Auditorium (San Francisco, April 1955).

12. Ewell, p. 79.

13. "UNESCO Renounced," Congressional Record (September 16, 1961).

14. Tom Galt, How the United Nations Works (New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1955).

15. Lois Fisher, You and the United Nations (Chicago, Children's Press, Inc., 1958).

16. UNESCO Leaders Speak, Department of State publication #841574 (1949), p. 2

17. Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations; a Symposium Edited by UNESCO (London and New York, Allan Wingate, 1949).

18. Congressman John M. Ashbrook, Congressional Record (March 21, 1953), p. A-1604.

19. Toward World Understanding (19 Avenue Kleber, Paris, UNESCO).

20. Ibid.

21. Florence Fowler Lyons, Reports on UNESCO, syndicated column (June 24, 1962).

22. The Syracuse Post-Standard (February 16, 1947), p. 15.

23. Congressman James B. Utt, Congressional Record (April 11, 1962).

24. "Communist Indoctrination: Its Significance to Americans," speech by William H. Mayer before the Freedom Forum (Searcy, Ark., April 15, 1957).

25. Military Cold War Education and Speech Review Policies, hearings before the Special Preparedness Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Armed Services (1962), pt. 1, pp. 216, 266.

26. Reports of Member States, presented to the UNESCO general conference at its eleventh session in Paris (November, December 1960), pp. 43-46.

27. Minority report of the House Committee on Education and Labor (July 11, 1961).
 
<<Chapter 11

Contents

Chapter 13>>