Know the Truth to Stay Free

W. Cleon Skousen. Know the Truth to Stay Free. This speech was delivered at Brigham Young University during the 1971 Spring term to 180 students in Education 310, Section 5.

Thank you. I’m delighted to have just a few minutes this morning to speak on a topic that I suppose is going to turn out to be more exciting and more important as time goes on.

Many of us started out life not expecting to end up as teachers. You’re doing it the other way around. You’re starting out life expecting to be teachers. Many of you will end up doing something else, but the main thing at this point is to know what you’re about as you go out to become a teacher.

Interpreting World Events for Your Students

As you know, my assignment today is to talk on interpreting world events for our students. This turns out to be rather exciting because most of the things that are popular for the purpose of teaching have turned out not to be accurate. We have all kinds of fads — teachers’ fads — that get into education and they’re very popular to teach. Unfortunately, time discredits them.

As I look back through my life, I can tell you my great teachings in terms of about five or six people. They turned out to be teachers who didn’t fall for the fads of the moment, but had enough insight to tell me what really was going on. They had done additional homework and had found out that the fad that was so popular at the moment really wasn’t realistic at all. So this is what I’m going to talk about today because if you are going to interpret world events for your students, you have two or three challenges that need to be recognized.

Excite a Passion for Learning in Your Students

Your first challenge is to excite a passion for learning in a particular field.

For example, when I was coming up through college, where you are, my greatest teacher wasn’t even a teacher. He was a former Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico whose name was J. Reuben Clark. While I was going to college in California and winning debates on “Disarmament as the Road to Peace,” J. Reuben Clark came along and said “disarmament was the road to war.” And he turned out to be right. It was a fad at the time to look upon disarmament as a way to peace.

I needed a teacher like J. Reuben Clark to tell me that if you really knew what was going on, we were headed for World War II. His warning voice excited my mind to want to find out more about what was happening. So it is important for a teacher to somehow excite the mind of the student to want to know more about the topic so that he speaks with a very basic understanding and not a superficial one.

The teacher then, has a responsibility to interpret for the student what’s going on and that is what J. Reuben Clark was capable of doing. I teach 1,100 students twice a week, and I constantly say to myself that what I stand up and tell them each class period I want them to be able to say ten years from now on target. That’s a tremendous responsibility. That means once again that I must go beneath the current fads of what’s popular to teach and make sure I’m giving them the basic fundamentals that will hold up under the scrutiny of time.

Share Thinking Tools With Your Students

I have got to share with my students the necessary thinking tools. This is number three. I’ve got to give them the tools with which they can think through problems. For example, I could tell you that 2 times 2 is 5 and talk all day and not convince one of you. But I can tell you that 49 times 49 is 3,281 and half the class would write it down and quote it because they wouldn’t have the thinking tools to immediately know that was an error.

I hear some people say, “Don’t teach me facts, just teach me how to think straight.” This is one of the most ridiculous statements that I can imagine anyone in education using. You can’t think straight without thinking tools and if you don’t know your history accurately, you can be brainwashed as easily as people who haven’t had any history at all. So having good thinking tools is your responsibility as a teacher so that you can share them with the students.

Teach Facts, Not Fads

Number four is presenting your material so that it is credible. Now this is extremely difficult as I will demonstrate to you in a moment. You have the prophets of God, the foremost educators in the country, who are informed on what is now going on, not being accepted until history has run its course, proven the faddists wrong, and these men right. But then the tragedy is all enacted and it’s all too late. A good teacher is one who anticipates the problem and shares it credibly, so the student can accept it and withstand all kinds of criticism and controversy by holding to a position known to be rounded on fact.

Now I say this last one is the most challenging of all because we’ve just gone through a bit of this. I have found that it is easiest to present your story on a credible basis through somebody else, particularly somebody on the other side. So I always look for somebody on the other side who admits that what we need to tell our students is indeed true.

When I’m teaching them about the historic developments of the present moment, if I want to tell them how we lost Cuba, I tell them the story in terms of someone who was a Communist and who defected and whose story has now been demonstrated to be true by a vast amount of additional evidence, and you’ll find that the real story of Cuba is about 180 degrees different than what is in most of the current history books.

Digging for the Truth

So how are you going to interpret for your students the loss of Cuba when current textbooks don’t really have the proper story? This means you have got to do some additional homework and you’re not a good teacher unless you’re an extremely good student. You’ll find that if you start quoting the current popular line on most issues, your students, four or five years from now, will say, “I was really brainwashed!” — exactly as I said of my teachers when I got in the FBI and found that as a Poli-Sci major, I had been fed all kinds of things about certain people who were made heroes in my mind that were subsequently discredited.

As soon as I got in the FBI, I found that Stretche, one of the textbook writers that I had studied so vigorously in California, was a member of the enemy force and that Alger Hiss, who was presented to me as one of the most promising young men in government, was the most productive member of the Soviet espionage team in Washington. I had to sit down and re-evaluate my whole approach to political science in the United States.

I got clear up into law school, studying constitutional law, before I discovered that almost all of my teachers had completely missed the genius of the American Constitution. However, one of them, Dr. Compton, taught me the real, exciting, exclusive, unique, and inspired contributions of the Constitution, which, he said, we are abandoning in the United States. Because of his teaching — contrary to popular fads — I got all the thrill that is in the Doctrine and Covenants when God says, “it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose.” 1

So I look upon Dr. Compton as one of my really great teachers.

I look upon another one. I took Pre-Med to begin with, but I just couldn’t get excited about Physiology and Zoology. They were boring to me. But I had to have them in Pre-Med. Dr. Edge, formerly of the University of California, saw what was happening to me. I was getting straight A’s in other courses, but C’s in his. So he gave me a book called Microbe Hunters by Paul de Kruif. He said, “You take this home this weekend and read it.”

I came back Monday all excited about this phase of science. Another great teacher; he was a boring teacher, but very well informed. And he knew he was boring me — very methodical, very matter-of-fact, which is all right if you are excited about the topic, but I was not. He had to get me excited; he was incapable of doing it. He was a dull teacher, so he gave me de Kruif’s Microbe Hunters. That set my mind on fire and I went from a C- to an A the next semester.

Well, I say this now by way of preliminaries in an effort to illustrate to you how we must take a whole new look at the interpreting of world events for our students because the texts you will be teaching out of will not be realistic.

I just took a glance at the text that you’re studying here. It’s written, I’m sure, though I just took a look at this one chapter, by men who were sincere. You must not attribute to these people who have been caught up in the intellectual fadism of the moment a conspiratorial intent just because they end up on the side of the conspiracy. Many of them are very sincere. Because if you stop and think about it, the ideas behind United Nations and UNESCO and these things, their goals, and so forth, are magnificent. This is how we’re taken in. A con-man always gives you an excellent objective for supporting what he wants you to do. It’s the method that turns out to be wrong and you end up in a trap. So this is what is occurring here. So all that you are asked to do is to go beyond these textbooks and find out for certain what is happening.

A Government Report Completely Ignored by Congress

I want you to listen very carefully now as I read to you from an official government report. Can you imagine this kind of an official government report coming out and having it absolutely ignored by the Congress, the American people, the President and practically everybody else? Now listen to this:

1. The Soviet international organization has carried on a successful and important penetration of the United States Government and this penetration has not been fully exposed.

2. This penetration has extended from the lower ranks to top-level policy and operating positions in our Government. (This means the White House, the State Department, and the Department of Justice, etc.)

3. The agents of this penetration have operated in accordance with a distinct design fashioned by their Soviet superiors.

4. Members of this conspiracy helped to get each other into Government, helped each other to rise in Government and protected each other from exposure.

5. The general pattern of this penetration was first into agencies concerned with economic recovery, then to war-making agencies, then to agencies concerned with foreign policy and postwar planning, but always moving to the focal point of national concern.

6. In general, the Communists who infiltrated our Government worked behind the scenes — guiding research and preparing memoranda on which basic American policies were set, writing speeches for Cabinet officers, influencing congressional investigations, drafting laws, manipulating administrative reorganizations — always serving the interest of their Soviet superiors.

7. Thousands of diplomatic, political, military, scientific, and economic secrets of the United States have been stolen by Soviet agents in our Government and by other persons closely connected with the Communists.

8. Despite the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other security agencies had reported extensive information about this Communist penetration, little was done by the executive branch to interrupt the Soviet operatives in their ascent in Government until congressional committees brought forth to public light the facts of the conspiracy.

9. Powerful groups and individuals within the executive branch were at work obstructing and weakening the effort to eliminate Soviet agents from positions in Government.

10. Members of this conspiracy repeatedly swore to oaths denying Communist Party membership when seeking appointments, transfers, and promotions and these falsifications have, in virtually every case, gone unpunished.

11. The control that the American Communications Association, a Communist-directed union, maintains over communication lines vital to the national defense poses a threat to the security of this country.

12. Policies and programs laid down by members of this Soviet conspiracy are still in effect within our Government and constitute a continuing hazard to our national security.

How many of you have ever heard this before? That’s the famous Jenner Report. (One person raised his hand.) That’s the Jenner Report of 1953, completely ignored by the rest of the country. A few teachers taught this. Most of the students of that period were not only not informed that this was going on but were assured that the men in power were very anxious for our welfare and were leading us very gently and carefully toward world peace. Actually they were leading us very gently and carefully toward a complete amalgamation with the Soviet economy and political structure. A few students here and there got the message. But not very many. Question: where is that found?

This is the Jenner Report. I put it in The Naked Capitalist so that it would be readily available to you. It is now out of print but you can get copies of it from the Congressional Record. It was put in the Congressional Record. But I put it in The Naked Capitalist so you would have it available.

How The Naked Communist Came To Be Written

President McKay was very sensitive to the fact that here at Brigham Young University we had no courses on subversion. We were not keeping up with our responsibility of protecting and preserving the Constitution.

So while I was here in 1953, President McKay, down through the Board of Trustees, requested that the school set up a committee to write a textbook on subversion.

I was made the chairman of it, and had the heads of the departments of Economics, History, Political Science, and two or three others were on the committee with me. So we started to write a textbook on subversion. To my amazement, I discovered that not one of them had ever had a course on subversion. They knew all about the theory of Communism, economically and politically. They knew quite a bit of history, but if I asked them, “How did we lose China?” they knew nothing about it. They had never read the congressional hearings. They had not read anything but the textbooks that were intended to obscure how we lost China. They knew nothing about the Congressional Reports of 1952. (They’re still not in our library. I have a set that I have been able to obtain which I will donate to the library shortly.) So we were turning out students who didn’t really know the story because their professors had never been exposed to it either. And they were good men, just uninformed.

So after about a year of frustration, in which I spent most of my time trying to tell them what had been going on and no writing was being accomplished, I was instructed to go ahead and write it up as best I could without any help, and then we would have experts in the country scrutinize the manuscript for accuracy. When you try to reduce into one volume the contents of about 200 books, which is what I was doing, you really wish you had some help. But there was no textbook in the United States in 1953, ’54, and ’55, on Communism that the Brethren wanted for our students.

By the time I got it finished it was 1956. Actually, what I had done was put together the material I used for sixteen hours of lecture to FBI agents, then I had rounded it out. By the time I had finished it, the term “Communism” had become extremely controversial in the United States as the result of the McCarthy hearings. You could divide a class just by mentioning the subject of Communism; you could divide a Ward by mentioning the subject of Communism.

I had sent the manuscript to the Assistant Director of the FBI, Mr. Tracy, and other people. I received some suggestions and counsel. I had polished it up the best I could, and then it was thought best that I publish it under my own name, rather than as a BYU textbook or a Church book so that it could go through the “shake-down” process, so in case there were any weaknesses, they wouldn’t be attributed either to the University or to the Church, but to the author, which is a good safe way to do it. And so we went ahead and published it. We thought maybe it would go as many as fifteen to twenty thousand copies. Nobody thought it would ever become a national best-seller.

President McKay Issues a Warning to the Saints …

When President McKay finished reading it, he went up before the conference of the Church, and said, “Now I want everyone to read this, and let us commence to get informed on what is happening to our country.” You see, practically everyone was being given a misinterpretation of world events. Things like this were being absolutely ignored. And President McKay said, “This is the number one responsibility of the Latter-day Saints — to get in the struggle to preserve freedom.”

People said, “Well, isn’t genealogy our number one responsibility?” “Isn’t missionary work our number one responsibility?” President McKay said, “Everywhere that Communism succeeds, missionary work, temple work, everything the Church does, dies. Your number one responsibility is to preserve freedom.”

… Which is Generally Ignored

The Church ignored the mandate in the aggregate. The mutual classes studied Communism for two years, 1960-1961. Then certain liberal elements in the Church made it so controversial for the bishops that the program was phased out. It was finally decided not to discuss the subject too much in church. It just divided everybody up. In 1966, President McKay came back and in the General Priesthood Conference asked the saints to please, as citizens this time, as citizens, get involved in the freedom fight so that you will know what is happening and what to do about it.

Actually, the solution has been very simple all the time. We’ve needed to inform our people sufficiently well so they would stop sending back to Congress and the Senate the people that are supporting the conspiracy. Many of them, without realizing it, are supporting the conspiracy.

Attacked on the Senate Floor by a Friend

As a matter of fact, one of our Utah Senators got up on the floor of the Senate and for twenty minutes, castigated a little pamphlet I had written on the betrayal of Cuba. And I was called by United Press in New Orleans at two o’clock in the morning, and they said, “What is your answer to the Senator?

I said, “Well, what did he say?”

They said, “He said this was yellow journalism, irresponsible, inaccurate, out of context, etc., etc.”

I said, “Did he say anything specifically that was inaccurate?

“No, they were mostly general terms, but he attacked it for 20 minutes.”

I said, “I’ll call you back in about half an hour.”

So, since I had been gotten up at two o’clock in the morning, I thought I’d get the Senator up. So I called the Senator. I said, “I never respond to a press inquiry until I have found out whether or not they’re quoting you accurately. This is what they say you said on the Senate floor today. I don’t want to respond to it until I’ve assured myself that this is really the way you feel.”

“Now, what did they say I said?” the senator asked. So I quoted it back as I had copied it from my notes. He said, “Well, that’s basically what I said.”

I said, “Well, we’ve been good friends for many years, but,” I said, “this is going to be very easy to answer. The Congressional hearings have already exposed your position as not only vulnerable, but just the opposite of the real truth.”

He said, “I disagree completely.”

I said, “Have you read the Congressional reports?”

“Well, no, I’ve been too busy for that, but I’m in contact with these people, and I know more about this than you do.”

And I said, “You should, but I at least have read the reports, and they’re the opposite of what you’ve been telling people. I don’t want to see you get hurt and if you’ll retract, I’ll not reply.”

“I’ll not retract a word.” I said, “Alright, I just wanted to talk to you about it first.” So I called the United Press back and they gave me complete equal space to reply.

So the Senator then went back for another twenty minutes to castigate a fellow Utahn and then I had another chance to reply. Well, that went on in dialogue fashion for a while but of course, time was on the side of the Congressional Committee Report. But, the Senator would come back, you see, and make promises to the people and say the right things and back he would go again. And it’s a bit tragic because it isn’t a question of whether you are a Democrat or Republican. It’s going to take both parties to beat this conspiracy. I want to tell you it is so big and so well entrenched that we have a problem when we inform students of how serious it is because they go into a state of shock. They say, “What can we do?” and they mean, “When do we meet at the armory?” Actually, this is an educational problem. We don’t meet at the armory. We can beat this thing by education and exposure.

The Difficulty of Believing in a Conspiracy

A member of the faculty came up to me the other day and he said, “You know I am a conservative. I certainly believe we’ve got to get with this, but of course I don’t believe in the conspiracy theory.”

“Wait a minute,” I said. “You’ve got a contradiction of terms here. What does the word conservative mean?”

“Well,” he said, “I’m for the constitution and the country.”

I said, “That’s right. Conservative means conserving freedom. That’s all conservative means. Now,” I said, “what do you mean, ‘you’re a conservative but you don’t believe in the conspiracy theory’? There isn’t such a thing as a “conspiracy theory” — there is only a conspiracy fact. It’s gone past theory. Can you think of one official investigation that went into the thing and found that there was no conspiracy?”

“Oh well,” he said, “isn’t that just the extreme right?”

I said, “These are Republicans and Democrats who have been investigating this thing now for a full generation and haven’t come up with anything but a conspiracy, like the Jenner Report,” which he had never read, of course.

I said, “Now look, you’re a good man, you try to do good, you want to teach your students properly. Will you please go back and do your homework. Haven’t you been telling your students you didn’t believe in a conspiracy theory?”

“Yes,” he said, “I have.”

I said, “You don’t want to have them coming back in five years or even next year, if they read The Naked Capitalist and say, ‘You didn’t know what you were talking about.'”

“Now,” I said, “for your own sake, will you please go back and find out what’s been going on in the country?”

Well, when The Naked Communist finally caught on, it not only demonstrated that there was a conspiracy, but before long, it was selling 1,000 copies per day and hit the national best-seller list. Almost immediately the conspiratorial forces knew they had to get some of us off of national television and stop these books. So they used various techniques and we ran into a period of blackout.

Silencing the Anti-Communist Movement

It was very clever how they did it. In The Naked Capitalist I describe the technique that they used to keep the people from finding out.

By 1963, you couldn’t hear a patriotic program in the military services; they were almost all neutralized. A General couldn’t get up and say that we were going to eventually liberate the Communist countries. That was all wiped out by censor committees set up in the State Department.

All of a sudden, all of the radio and television stations couldn’t handle programs that named names as we had done in these books where the Congressional committee had identified them positively as part of the conspiracy because of a so called “fairness doctrine” which required the station to go out and solicit people to respond, free of charge. In other words, you would buy a half an hour period of time for $100,000, coast-to-coast. Those stations all then have to go out and solicit someone on the other side to come in, free of charge, and take equal time to respond. Well, naturally they’re going to bo broke if they have very many patriotic programs on the air. So all the patriotic programs were excluded except those that talked just in general terms and principles. So our people went back into a state of “sleepiness.”

And that’s why President McKay came back in 1966 and pleaded with our saints, as citizens, to please get involved. Now I have a copy of that statement for all of you. On the back of that statement, I want you to read what Moroni said would happen in our day; that there would be a secret combination, worldwide, that would try to destroy the freedom of all men and all nations. And here is what Moroni said:

“Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you…. For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people.” 2

This is President McKay’s position continually; that if we are informed, we will start challenging our representatives to resist this whole movement — which we haven’t done because we haven’t known enough about it to demand that they challenge it and resist it. So when our people still didn’t pay too much attention, he had Brother Benson give a speech called “Be Not Commanded in All Things.” Remember that Doctrine and Covenants statement — that we should not wait to be commanded in all things; he that does is a slothful servant — remember that?

But we should be engaged continually in righteous causes and good things. And so, Brother Benson was instructed to give that speech and it is excellent. He specifically dealt with the problem of Communism and Socialism, just as President McKay instructed him to do. Then President McKay followed up with a speech in which he talked about the need for unity in the Church, particularly on these ideological problems of this great massive conspiracy. He reiterated that this was our number one responsibility. Once again our people yawned and walked away.

Correctly Educated and Motivated Teachers Can Turn the Tide

So it was about that time that I was invited to come back to the campus and President McKay was right about this, actually, this campus is the key to influencing the whole world most effectively. This is even equally important with our whole missionary system. And President McKay felt that the key was here with you as teachers, and he told me as much in those specific words.

He said that the young people that are going out of BYU as teachers have a chance to get this message out to the whole world and if they do it carefully, factually and deliberately, they can turn the tide. So you have a magnificent opportunity here to make a unique contribution.

Now I want to go back to the fourth challenge. How can you do this credibly? In 1964 I could see that the Communists were working for somebody else. I had really seen hints of it long before that; that the Communists were being financed. Somebody was running interference in the State Department, over in London, in Paris. Somebody bigger than Communism was constantly preventing us from rooting them out and exposing them. Who in the world were these powerful people?

Who is Behind the Conspiracy?

I was able to document enough of it so that I started to write a book but I finally decided nobody would believe me. They didn’t believe the Congressional Committee, why, did I think they would believe my book? So I said to my wife, “I’m going to stop writing.” And I gave it up. I finished The Third Thousand Years and The Fourth Thousand Years and Fantastic Victory.

Then last year I ran across a book by Carroll Quigley of Harvard, Princeton, and Georgetown Universities in which Dr. Quigley, writing from the other side, said something I was waiting for somebody on the other side to say. Just listen to it:

“I know of the operation of this network, because I have studied it for 20 years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for most of my life been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” 3

What is Dr. Quigley talking about? He tells the whole story of two generations of extremely wealthy heirs to the biggest fortunes in the world who have been converted to Marxist collectivism.

The Undermining of Our Education Institutions

They have been pouring millions into Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, and other major institutions, Oxford and so forth, insisting that they eliminate anybody who is talking for freedom and replace them with somebody talking for collectivism — that they introduce directly the principles of socialist thought; that they make Marxism a popular concept, and that they point up that the final responsibility for the solution of problems is not the individual but the government.

They reverse the whole concept of freedom so we no longer talk about freedom and self-determination, but we talk about freedom from problems, freedom for unemployment, freedom from want, freedom from this sort of thing. And this was exactly what we turned down in the pre-mortal existence, because it has compulsion behind it.

Now we want to solve all these problems. Is our Department of Economics figuring out how to solve the problem and the inequities of the present income tax structure? Have we sat down and tried to figure out how you would solve, in a framework of freedom, the farm problem? You see, we have practically eliminated the family farmer now. We have gone into these massive, huge, state farms. The $200,000 farm, you see, is the average farm in the United States today. We’re down to about five percent of our population on the farms, in the massive productive farming industry. Who is figuring out the answers to these questions?

Now, Dr. Quigley said that these very wealthy super-rich had been pouring their millions into institutions of learning so that today it is almost impossible to get a Ph.D. economist who is conservative. The exception has been Dr. Milton Freedman of Chicago. And so Brigham Young University has now saturated itself in the economics department with Milton Freedman men who talk about the open, competitive society, as against the hard-core collectivist governmental economic society.

It’s very difficult to get anybody in Political Science, even today, from any university who speaks of the Constitution with real respect and admiration. Most of them are saying, “The Constitution really isn’t suited to the requirement of a modern, industrial society.”

For Latter-day Saints to say that, of course, is a form of a betrayal of what the Lord has given us. This is the one form of government under which an industrial people can remain free. It’s just as practical for an industrial people as it was for an agrarian society if we solve our problems. And as I mentioned a moment ago, at BYU we ought to be solving in our Department of Economics, Political Science, and Sociology, these very basic things in terms of a free society. I hope we will get at that task. We’ve got some teachers that have this vision and are trying to do it. We need our whole departments moving in the same direction. Then BYU will be the School of the Prophets, but not until then. We’re still not doing what the prophets intended BYU should do.

Our teachers need to go out and say to their students, in a credible way, that when they hear these fads come along they ought to look at it a little more closely because there are some other aspects to the problems.

The Importance of Credible Sources

For example, let me take a term, like “Martin Luther King” that’s been such a fad. Here is such a great Savior of the colored race, in the United States he is virtually a martyr to the cause. He was a martyr, but not to a cause. You need to say to your students, from a credible source, you see, because they won’t read it in the daily press, that it is now known that Martin Luther King was in direct contact with the Soviet Union, that the congressional committees now have FBI tapes revealing that he was two people.

He played a role, magnificently, of a very refined, quiet, Negro minister, and at night he would get his men together and with the filthiest kind of language, choose from among his followers the woman that was to be his companion for that night. He used four letter words to tell them that they must “get in there and cultivate a spirit of violence and so forth among the demonstrators.” Probably the most violent speech against the United States was made by Martin Luther King just before he died, in Riverside Church in New York. Any of you knew this? Has anybody heard of this before? Five or six of you. Great! Now wouldn’t this be a shock to your students?

Up in our high school in Salt Lake one of the teachers tried to share this with his students and was fired. He only made one mistake. He needed to approach it a little more gently and let the students find out by reading it themselves from some source other than the teacher. See, they went home and quoted the teacher, then the parents, who were shocked, came against the teacher.

He didn’t immediately have his sources. He’d heard it and he knew it existed but he hadn’t done his research. So, will you remember this fourth challenge? Always present this material in a credible fashion. This is why, in The Naked Capitalist, this is the technique I use. See, there’s my headline, and there’s Dr. Quigley saying what I knew several years ago and could document it, but if I said it, then it’s not entirely credible for some reason. I need somebody on the other side to admit it’s true. That is the way it goes all the way through.

So you go to your basic sources whenever you can. You read an article in Human Events but you go to your sources, if they are given, so you don’t quote Human Events. You quote Congressman Rarick or Ashworth, or whoever the original source is. I don’t like to quote the secondary source. If I can, I like to go to the original.

Part of your preparation will of necessity be to identify members of the conspiracy so you can study their writings and speeches with a proper insight and caution. In The Naked Capitalist I listed a whole long line of them that are very open about being identified with various subversive organizations such as the Fabian Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, and such, including our Secretary of State, and other immediate advisors to the President.

The reason J. Edgar Hoover is now being attacked is because many of the people high in government have a record of outright treason and they’re anxious to get him out of the way in order to get somebody in the F.B.I. who will clean out all those records so they can relax. That’s what that big controversy over J. Edgar Hoover is all about.

Our time is gone. In closing, may I say that you’ve been very patient and attentive. You have a great future assignment as teachers. May the Lord bless you in your preparations here at BYU and in your professions wherever you go. You represent the light of the Lord to the world. May God bless you to so shine.

In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

By , On .