Conspiracy Archive

Secret Societies, Cryptocracy and Deep Politics

The Illusion of Elite Unity: Elite Factionalism, the War on Terror and the New
World Order (Part 1)
NEW WORLD ORDER / POWER ELITE17 JUL, 201515
Featured-Rothschild-Rockefeller
By Will Banyan Copyright January 2008

Authors note: This essay was originally published on the Martin Frost
website back in 2008. After a lengthy delay, Part 2 will eventuate later this
year covering both the rise of the neo-conservatives and the prospects for
world government.

I believethat a grand game of chess is being played on a level that we

can barely imagine, and we are pawns.
Milton William Cooper, Behold a Pale Horse, (1991)

The basic thing is the establishment. The establishment is dying

President Richard Nixon, 13 March 1973[1]

If you were a member of the Council [on Foreign Relations] 15 years ago
you knew damn well that the conversation either was policy or would-be
policy. Today, it is just interesting talk.
National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1977[2]

1. The Elite Unity Hypothesis

One of the central assumptions of most studies about the New World Order
is that a covert combination of the most economically and politically
powerful people in the world, otherwise known as the Establishment,
Illuminati, the Insiders, the Brotherhood of the Snake, the Syndicate or
even the Committee of the 300 said to be secretly operating within and
above the highest levels of government are united in seeking to establish
a One World Government or global fascist superstate. When describing
this power-elite clique, most researchers into the New World Order typically
refer to a wide-ranging network of policy-planning organisations, such as the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral
Commission; and secret societies, such as the Illuminati, Freemasons, Skull

and Bones, Bohemian Grove and the Templars. Membership of these

organisations is said to be limited to selected politicians, government
officials, academics, businessmen, bankers and journalists; in other words
the leading private and public individuals in society. This exclusive group is
charged with implementing, justifying, hiding and ultimately benefiting from
the sole objective to which all these Insiders are believed to be committed:
world government.

To readers of the myriad works on the alleged New World Order conspiracy
this might seem like a self-evident truth unworthy of further comment.
However it is important to realise that for many researchers these powerful
advocates of world government (or global governance) are not some
isolated segment of the uppermost tiers of the political, economic and
military hierarchies; they are the power-elite. They are not just the majority
of a super-rich minority; they are its dominant players and world
government is said to be their only objective. For the purposes of this study
we shall refer to this belief or assumption that the power-elite is united
around the goal of establishing world government as the Elite Unity
Hypothesis (EUH).

A cursory review of the literature reveals the EUH to be the dominant

paradigm. Look at almost any book on the New World Order conspiracy and
one will find this sinister network of individuals, organisations and secret
societies is not only presented as being already firmly in control of all
national governments, but also unanimous in its support for world
government. Gary Allen and Larry Abraham, for example, authors of the
bestselling None Dare Call It Conspiracy (1971) which perhaps did the most
to popularise theories about the N.W.O, asserted that there was a selfperpetuating conspiratorial clique of power-seeking billionaires who from
the very highest levels manipulate government policy in their bid to
establish a government over all the world.[3] John F. McManus claims in
The Insiders (2004) that for several decades, America has been run by a
group of Establishment Insiders, who are all members of the CFR, and
whose collective goal is nothing less than to realise the world government
scheme of CFR founder Edward Mandell House.[4]

There are numerous other examples. David Icke, one of the more
imaginative researchers of recent years, has claimed there are hundreds of
people, events and organisations, who in the public arena appear to be in
opposition, but in truth are connected to the same Global Elite.[5] This
Global Elite or Illuminati, Icke writes in Alice in Wonderland and the World
Trade Center Disaster (2002), comprises thirteen elite families who share
the same bloodline and are united in their desire to control the world. Icke
admits, however, this cabal is already in control of humanity and operate
through all institutions and countries, controlling the media, religion and all
national governments.[6] The ultimate goal of these conspirators is a

centralised global tyranny or a New World Order that will take the form of
a world government; a world central bank and currency; a world army; and
a microchipped population linked to a global computer.[7]

Dr John Coleman, who claims to be a former agent for MI6, reveals the
existence of the Committee of 300 or the Olympians, an upper-level
parallel secret government headed by the British monarch, which he claims
is dedicated to the creation of a One-World Government-New World Order
with a unified church and monetary system under their direction.[8] In The
Syndicate (2005), former Professor of English, Nicholas Hagger identifies a
combination of influential families, including the Rockefellers, Rothschilds,
Warburgs, Morgans, Schiffs and many others, whom he dubs the Syndicate.
The objective of these Syndicate families, whom Hagger divides into two
camps: the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers; is a United States of the
World, a world government.[9]

Acclaimed US-based researcher Jim Marrs observes in his book Rule by

Secrecy (2000), that there can be no argument regarding the reality of
secret societies today. Citing the existence of the CFR, Trilateral
Commission and Bilderbergers, Marrs notes the only question is the extent
of their control and manipulation of world events.[10] But in any case the
facts suggest that the overall goal of these modern societies is to bring
about one world government with attendant centralized social control and
loss of national sovereignty. Furthermore:

It is apparent that globalization or one world government or the New World

Order is not simply the imaginings of conspiracy theorists or paranoids but
the articulated goal of the secret brotherhoods, organizations or groups, all
of which carry the imprint of the old orders of Freemasonry, the Round
Tables, and the Illuminati[11]

Tibor S. Friedman, a contributing writer to Online Journal, pointed to

revelations from the secretive Bilderberg meeting as confirming:

the intent and complicity of our leaders and the transnational corporations
and banking interests they serve to create a One World Government using
the UN, or similar institution, and to further diminish America economically
and to ultimately abdicate US sovereignty and the Constitution to a Regional
and subsequent World Power while enriching themselves and accumulating
power in the process.[12]

The prevalence of the EUH can be seen in the descriptions of the premier
power-elite conclave in the United States the Council on Foreign Relations
by countless researchers over the years. In his history of the Council,

James Perloff describes the CFR as having been since 1921 the
Establishments chief link to the U.S. government. Moreover, although the
CFR claims to be pluralistic it tends to remain homogenous, with the
pursuit of world government, and receptiveness to Communism being its
main characteristics.[13] According to McManus, the purpose of the CFR
right from its inception was to destroy the freedom and independence of
the United States and lead our nation into a world government.[14] Former
FBI agent Dan Smoot, one of the first researchers to focus on the Council in
the 1960s, once claimed the ultimate aim of the CFR was to create a oneworld socialist system[15]

These perceptions about the Council have been reinforced by a number of

seemingly impeccable sources. This includes the US Congressional
Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations (Reece Committee),
which in 1954 accused the Council on Foreign Relations of having an
internationalist bias and denounced its publications for overwhelmingly
promoting the globalistic concept.[16] And the claims made by one formerCFR member, retired US Navy Rear Admiral Chester Ward, that the majority
of CFR members visualise the utopian submergence of the United States as
a subsidiary administrative unit of a global government. Ward
acknowledged the existence of at least four distinct ruling cliques within
the Council, but attributed to all of them a lust to surrender American
sovereignty and national independence to some form of one-world allpowerful global government either a vastly strengthened United Nations,
or possibly limited to the Atlantic community.[17] Finally, according to
Perloff, anybody who cares to examine back issues of [the CFRs journal]
Foreign Affairs will have no difficulty finding hundreds of articles that
pushed.this concept of globalism. But he will be hard pressed to locate
even one essay opposing it.[18]

A similar unanimity pervades descriptions of other modern elite planning

organisations and conclaves, such as the Trilateral Commission, the
Bilderberg Group, the Club of Rome, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, and
the Round Table. The support of these organisations and most of their
members for world government is taken as a given. Doubts are erased
through the revelation most of these groups are but modern manifestations
of a far older network of secret societies devoted to global domination. Allen
and Abraham, for example, linked the creation of the CFR to the secret
society schemes of Cecil Rhodes, who in turn they traced to Adam
Weishaupt, the monster who founded the Order of the Illuminati on May 1,
1776, for the purpose of a conspiracy to control the world.[19]

Since the 1990s many researchers have linked the Establishment network to
ancient Sumerian secret societies, such as the Brotherhood of the Snake,
which have in turn have been presented as the product of extra-terrestrial
visitors (Anunnaki) and inter-dimensional interlopers, including shapeshifting Reptilians intent on ruling the Earth and its inhabitants.[20] Further

refinements have included the concept of elite bloodlines, in which

maintains that the power-elites commitment to the cause of global
dictatorship is due to their shared and non-human genetic heritage.[21]

2. No Exceptions?

Having decided the secret goal of the vast majority of the power-elite is
One World Government, the possibility of genuine factionalism or even
significant strategic disagreements within the ranks of the super-rich and
powerful is therefore rejected out of hand by most if not all N.W.O.
researchers as impossible; only one conclusion elite unity is allowed. This
becomes evident if we consider the two main explanations offered by most
EUH proponents when faced with seemingly incontrovertible evidence of
disunity within power-elite groups.

The first explanation maintains that apparent divisions or diversity of

opinion within the Establishment are merely a deliberate facade intended to
deceive the unwary observer, while the important work of building world
government presumably goes on behind closed doors. Citing the presence of
conservative members within the CFR, for example, Gary Allen warned in
Say No! to the New World Order (1987), that this is mostly windowdressing.[22] Another commentator, John Rees, publisher of the Information
Digest, once claimed the CFR had made a conscious effortto add
Conservatives and moderates to its membership list for protective
colouring in reaction to adverse publicity coming from the American Right
in the 1980s.[23] According to this reasoning, the impact of these
ideologically unsound members on the objectives of groups like the CFR is
insignificant; the public, though, is misled as was intended.

In fact, these elite cliques are said to operate much like their alleged parent,
the Illuminati, in having a double doctrine with a select inner core of
members being privy to the true purpose of the organisation, while the
broader membership is kept ignorant until and unless they are deemed
worthy enough to know. According to Michael Howard, author of The Occult
Conspiracy (1989), within the Freemasons it is doubtful if many of the
ordinary lodge members understand what its secrets represent. However,
within the inner circle of Masonry there are those who understand they are
the inheritors of an ancient and pre-Christian tradition handed down from
pagan times.[24] Similarly Icke has argued that not every member of these
[secret] societies is knowingly working against the good of humanity.
Certainly not. Most of them will not have a clue how their society is being
used[25]

Perloff has applied this rule to the Council on Foreign Relations suggesting
some noteworthy individuals are invited to join the CFR simply because

they have a distinguished name or other enhancing qualities and may do so

without endorsing or even knowing the Councils habitual viewpoint.[26]
Exactly how many people fit this category of ignorant membership is not
disclosed, nor have many of these unfortunate individuals actually been
identified; but we are left to assume there are too few of them to make any
difference to the CFRs supposedly pro-globalist outlook.

The second explanation, which is offered when the evidence of elite

factionalism is too great to ignore, is that such disputes are merely a fight
for control of the same program for global control. Icke, for instance, informs
us that while most world leaders who are Illuminati only appear to be in
conflict for the purposes of deluding the people into a false reality, there is
also great rivalrybetween different elements of the Illuminati as they
fight for the spoils. Although ultimately: they all depend on the agenda for
their collective power over humanity and that is the cement that holds the
warring factions together.[27] Ergo, elite disunity is of no consequence for
the end result will be the same.

These two explanations are further reinforced by the claim that it is

impossible for there to be any real differences of opinion within the ranks of
the power-elite because this same clique has constructed a false reality in
the political arena of contending ideologies. Again we can refer to Icke who
offers his theory of opposames, in which the elite deepens its control of
humanity by creating different belief systemsand bringing them into
conflict. This applies to all religions, political parties, economic theories,
countries and cultures. Democracy, according to Ickes logic, is a mere
diversion; in fact the Global Elite controls, directly or indirectly, every
major political party and movement.[28] But Icke is hardly alone in making
this assessment. Tibor Friedman also contends that the American electoral
process is a colossal fraud and charade designed to maintain elite control:

The election is a formality and exercise for the benefit of creating the illusion
of an ongoing democracy. The free speech zone areas created by both
parties in 2004 were their version of democracy. The MSM [mainstream
media] (already) is focusing on the battle for the White House 2008,
creating mythologies of opposing individuals and distracting the public with
a hope for change that never comesas both parties work towards the
creation of a New World Order with the United States as a much reduced
power, economically and militarily. Remember that politicians are the fronts
for (or part of) the Elites and as such share in their fortunes and power. One
need only look at the Bush dynasty and their involvement in and creation of
their fortunes and power by the Military / Industrial / Intelligence Complex.
War is profitable.[29]

A similar thesis is advanced in the letter addressed to The Sheeple from

the The Globalist New World Order by an alleged (and anonymous) New
World Order elitist:

Some of you believe we are the liberals and the good people are the
conservatives. In reality, both serve our purposes. Each camp merely serves
with the stamp of our approval but they are not allowed to present the real
issues. By creating controversy on all levels, no one knows what to do. So, in
all this confusion, we go ahead and accomplish what we want with no
hindrance.[30]

The implications of this reasoning are again obvious: if all political conflicts
are manufactured by the elites, then all ideologies have been fabricated as
distractions; therefore the only true agenda is the elites goal of world
government.

3. The Possibility of Elite Disunity

But is this really the case? Can we really just dismiss signs of disagreement
and division amongst the power elite as little more than a grubby squabble
for control of world government or an elaborate charade to deceive the
public? I think not. In this study it is my contention that the power elite are
divided not just on the issue of who will control the world, but also on how it
is to be controlled. Meaning that there are other significant factions within
the power elites of the West who do not support the globalist vision as
recently described by David Rockefeller of a more integrated global
political and economic structure one world[31] In fact, there are those
who seek quite a different model of international order, in which the world is
to be openly governed by one country, on behalf of its own elite, rather than
by a world government representing an international combination of the
privileged.

Signs of these differences of opinion within the upper ranks of the power
elite on both sides of the Atlantic have long been obvious. Within the Round
Table, for example, an organisation formed in 1909 for the explicit purpose
of federating the British Empire, there were divisions between imperialists
and world government proponents. Some Round Table members, in
particular Lionel Curtis, believed imperial federation could be a vital
stepping stone towards formation of a world state. Other members, in
contrast, favoured imperial federation as end in itself, one that would
consolidate the empire, protecting it against the growing rivalry of the
United States, Germany and Russia.[32] These divisions came to a head
during the Paris Peace Conference, with the imperialist faction trying to
weaken the League of Nations, while the world government proponents took
the opposite course.[33]

Differences within the American power elite have also long been obvious.
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, in his study Diplomacy
(1994), for example, makes much of the opposite philosophies of
Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt in justifying America
assuming a crucial role in world affairs. Roosevelt is venerated by Kissinger
as a sophisticated analyst of the balance of power, who disavowed the
efficacy of international law and was scathing when it came to talk of world
government.[34] Wilson, in contrast, is treated less reverently by Kissinger
as the promoter of a messianic vision of Americas global role. A vision that
succeeded in convincing the American people to take part in world affairs;
even though [i]n terms of all established principles of statecraft, Roosevelt
had by far the betterargument He also credits Wilson with being the
originator of the vision of a universal world organisation, the League of
Nations, and whose ideas on peace enforcement translated into institutions
tantamount to world government.[35]

Thomas J. Knock in his study of Woodrow Wilsons effort to found the League
of Nations, To End All Wars (1992), observes that in reaction to the outbreak
of the First World War a new American internationalist movement emerged
comprising two groups of diverse perspectives: the progressive
internationalists and the conservative internationalists.[36] The first
group, the progressive internationalists were originally dominated by
leftists the feminists, liberals, pacifists, socialists and social reformers.
Their proposals for an international peace included global disarmament,
creation of an international parliament or a Concert of Nations, and the
elimination of trade barriers. They were close to Wilson and were strong
supporters of his concept of the League of Nations.[37]

The conservative internationalists, in contrast, came from more established

peace organisations including the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace, founded by steel magnate Andrew Carnegie in 1910; the New York
Peace Society and the American Society for the Judicial Settlement of
International Disputes. Their leading figures included Senator Elihu Root,
William Howard Taft, Theodore Marburg (former US ambassador to Belgium)
and Abbot Lawrence Lowell, president of Harvard Unversity. In short, they
represented Americas emerging power elite. Organised as the League to
Enforce Peace (LEP), the most-influential pro-league organisation in the
United States, the conservative internationalists, true to their original
support for imperialism and an Anglo-American entente, sought stability
rather than change in international politics.[38] More importantly, according
to Knock, this group remained committed nationalists who resisted any
diminution of American sovereignty or military strength. Although
supportive of collective security, they believed America should reserve the
right to undertake independent coercive action against the forces of
disorder that threatened the national interest.[39]

Perhaps the most significant group of conservative internationalists were

those close to Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919). During the 1890s, while
serving Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the Harrison Administration,
Roosevelt had met regularly at Washington D.C.s Metropolitan Club with
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, the naval historian and geopolitical strategist
Captain Alfred T. Mahan, and the writer Brooks Adams to confer on world
politics. This group was united by a desire to make America a world power
before the turn of the century (Morris) and they gloried in the thought of
American greatness and power that their expansionist policies would create
(Beale).[40] I wish to see the United States [as] the dominant power on the
Pacific Ocean, Roosevelt had written in 1900, claiming that the American
people face the futureeager to do the great work of a great world
power.[41]

They were also strong advocates of an establishing an Anglo-American

political and military alliance that would dominate the world and deter any
would-be European challengers. Adams endorsed an Anglo-Saxon coalition
to check German and Russian ambitions;[42] while Mahan advocated an
Anglo-American re-union, especially a naval alliance, arguing that the two
powers united upon the ocean would be all-powerful there.[43] But
ultimately they wanted nothing more than to see America as the worlds
dominant power. In a letter to Lodge in 1901, Adams expressed his growing
belief that we may dominate the world, as no nation has dominated it in
recent timesFor the first time in my life I feel that for us is earth and
fullness thereofWe must now be masters or we must break down.[44]

During Roosevelts second term this conservative internationalist coterie

was expanded by his senior military aide, Frank Ross McCoy, who set up at
1718 H Street in Washington DC an exclusive club known as The Family.
Comprising young diplomats, military men and some journalists and
financiers, many observers believed this tightly knit teamunknown to the
general public actually ran the federal government.[45] Its members
included: Willard Straight, who would go on to join J.P. Morgan and Company;
[46] and Benjamin Strong, the first governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York.[47] According to Bacevich, the Family was united by a common
outlook one that zealously supported Americas expanded role in world
affairs. The Family was also a forum where the various disciples of
Roosevelt could meet and exchange views establishing a compatibility of
civil and military opinion that permeated key areas of federal
government.[48]

It is asserted by Kissinger, however, that with the exception of Richard

Nixon, Theodore Roosevelts approach to international affairs died with him
in 1919; no significant school of American thought has invoked him
since.[49] This is a bizarre and inaccurate claim that can be refuted on two
counts. First, despite Roosevelts untimely death, it was one of his Senate
allies, Henry Cabot Lodge, who lead the effort to scuttle Americas

participation in the League of Nations by insisting on altering the League

Covenant so the US would be able to carry out its foreign policy unimpeded
by League strictures. This was consistent with Roosevelts increasingly
strident anti-Wilsonian and anti-League rhetoric during the final years of his
life.[50] This period, dating from the end of the War through to the
aftermath of the Paris Peace Conference, also marked the split within the
ranks of power elite conservative internationalists into pro- and anti-Wilson
camps.

Second, as historian Priscilla Roberts observes in her study of the origins of

the American Establishment, conservative internationalism did not
disappear, but persisted amongst that combination of internationalists from
wealthy and well-established old-stock American families who had risen to
prominence in the 1920s. In fact, they co-existed with the elite advocates of
progressive internationalism, although:

the lines between the different camps were decidedly blurred, and each
was itself a fairly broad church. There was a substantial overlap between the
different schools of American internationalist thought: rather than being split
along a simple Rooseveltian/Wilsonian or conservative/progressive
dichotomy, internationalists held a wide variety of positions, ranging across
an extremely broad spectrum.[51]

It was this same broad spectrum of opinion which gave birth to the Council
on Foreign Relations. Although the CFR continued the Inquiry that group of
specialists established by Colonel House for the purpose of advising
Woodrow Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 it also absorbed
the Family. But that spectrum of Establishment opinion never quite
excluded the Rooseveltian preference for hegemony over world government,
despite repeated attempts by the Wilsonians to eradicate those tendencies.
On the contrary, conservative internationalism has persisted, gaining more
adherents and becoming bolder over time.

This has become obvious in the new millennium, particularly since the
launch of the so-called War on Terror by the administration of President
George W. Bush in the wake of the tragic events of 11 September 2001.
With its doctrines of pre-emptive war, maintaining US military superiority
and demonstrated willingness to sideline the United Nations, the Bush
Administration has made it all too obvious that some factions would much
rather rule the world directly from Washington DC, rather than via the
plethora of supranational institutions based in or controlled from New York,
Geneva, Brussels, and Tokyo. Indeed, if we consider recent events honestly
there is only one conclusion to be drawn: Elite unity is the illusion.

Before we consider the origins of the Bush Administrations world order

program, it would be remiss not to review a couple of important reasons
why the Elite Unity Hypothesis has become so prevalent, but also why it was
untenable even before George W. Bush came to power. This requires a closer
look at the rise and fall of the unified ideology of the Establishment the socalled liberal foreign policy consensus and how the American power-elite
has become riven with factionalism since the 1970s.

4. The Liberal Foreign Policy Consensus

The Elite Unity Hypothesis rests on two assumptions, both largely based in
fact. The first is the existence of what is variously described by mainstream
sources as the power-elite, the Establishment, Eastern Establishment or
foreign policy establishment. This grouping comprises an exclusive clique
of individuals from the fields of banking, industry, law, military, academia
and government, who operate through a plethora of philanthropic
foundations, policy-planning organisations and think-tanks to devise
Americas foreign and defence policy beyond the reach of public scrutiny.
The second is that the Establishment is united by what numerous
mainstream commentators have described as the liberal consensus, vital
centre, the Establishment consensus or liberal foreign policy consensus.
The Establishment, according to this interpretation, has come to an
agreement on what Americas foreign policy objectives should be. Among
N.W.O. researchers it is believed this consensus is in fact unanimous elite
support for a totalitarian world government.

Although the existence of the Establishment and its consensus tends to be

disputed in some quarters especially by those who are said to belong to it
both concepts hold considerable respectability having been exposed and
analysed by numerous academics and journalists over the years. In 1973,
for example, the British journalist Godfrey Hodgson defined the foreign
policy establishment as comprising a self-recruiting group of menwho
have a shared bipartisan philosophy towards, and have exercised practical
influence on, the course of American defence and foreign policy.[52] More
recently, New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman, in his ode to
globalisation, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (2000), applauded the Eastern
Intellectual Establishment for having sustained American internationalism
for fifty years.[53] And in 2002, Newsweeks foreign editor Michael Hirsch,
hailed those American internationalists who were always hard at work in
quiet places making plans for a more perfect global community. According
to Hirsch, these internationalists have always dominated national policy,
but they had not bragged about their globe-building for fear of arousing
the berserker nativism of the American psyche.[54]

At the core of the Establishment, according to both journalists and political

scientists, is the New York based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Since

the 1950s numerous commentators have identified the CFR as the

Establishments unofficial club (Halberstam) and the heart of the
Establishment (Schlesinger). In 1958, for example, the US journalist Joseph
Kraft, described the CFR as a school for statesmen [which] comes close
being an organ of what C. Wright Mills has called the Power Elite a group of
men, similar in interest in outlook, shaping events from invulnerable
positions behind the scenes.[55] Among academics the CFR is typically
described as the oldest and perhaps the most influential of those
institutions closely related to the corporate economy (Domhoff); the most
influential policy-planning group in foreign affairs (Dye); and is credited with
being instrumental in developing the foreign policy of the United States
between the wars and even more during and after the Second World War
(Roberts).[56]

Recognition of this close connection between the Establishment and the

liberal consensus is not confined to academia, journalism or New World
Order researchers. On more than a few occasions senior members of the
Establishment have seriously acknowledged this link. In the second volume
of his memoirs Years of Upheaval (1982), former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, for example, applauded the American foreign policy
Establishmentthat had won the battle against isolationism in the 1940s
and sustained a responsible American involvement in the world throughout
the post-war period.[57] According to John J. McCloy, a long-time
Establishment stalwart and one its much-celebrated Wise Men, there was
indeed such a group: They were Skull and Bones, Groton, that sort of thing.
That was the elite. [Robert] Lovett, Harvey Bundy, [Dean] Acheson, they
called on a tradition, a high tradition.[58]

The important question for serious researchers into the New World Order,
however, is what global objectives had the Establishments various
personalities and factions agreed to support? There are numerous
assessments to choose from, though their respective conclusions appear to
conflict, some common currents, shared goals and accepted methods that
comprised the consensus become apparent.

According to Hodgson, for instance, the Establishments foreign policy had

three components: the first and indeed the kernel of its policy was to
oppose isolationism; second, was a belief that appeasement had been a
disaster and therefore the use of force in international affairs might be
justified; and third, they were anti-communist, though only internationally
as they did not see any domestic threat. Above all their aspiration was for
America to succeed Britain as the military and economic guarantor and
moral leader of an enlightened, liberal, democratic and capitalist world
order.[59]

The origins of this Establishment consensus Hodgson traces to the 1920s

when Colonel House and his collaborators, a tiny group of businessmen and
scholars, founded the CFR with the express intention of combating the rise
of tide of isolationism which had followed the Senates rejection of US
membership in the League of Nations. The opportunity to realise their
objectives, though, would not formally emerge until the 1940s when World
War Two brought together the three worlds that Establishment men are
drawn from: the corporate bankers, lawyers and executives; government
officials; and academics. Following the war this tripartite alliance, instilled
with a mood of national destiny and a sense of national danger caused by
the Soviet Unions acquisition of nuclear weapons, would go on to define the
parameters of the liberal consensus. This consensus, claims Hodgson, was
a Cold War political compromise between the mainstream Left and Right in
which the Right put aside its objections to Franklin D. Roosevelts
interventionist New Deal, favoured by the Left; while the Left embraced the
anti-Communist foreign policy of containment devised by the Right.[60]
The result was a bipartisan foreign policy of liberal internationalism, the
essential style of which was:

to deprecate chauvinism, while at the same time pressing for American

wishes to be respected, and American strength to be felt, around the world;
to advocate restraint, and yet to despise softness and to admire a
willingness to use military power; to feel conscience, but by no means to
allow it to paralyse one into inaction; to walk softly with ones big stick, in
fact, but to be ready to crack heads with it.[61]

Mirroring Hodgson some fifteen years later, another journalist John B. Judis,
suggested that the creators of the Establishment had returned to the US
after the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 disillusioned but also more
determined than ever to create what [Woodrow] Wilson had called a new
world order. The subsequent founders of the CFR, writes Judis, subscribed to
an ideology of liberal internationalism, though the term has to be carefully
defined. This group:

did not see free trade and international cooperation through organisations
such as the League of Nations as ends in themselves but as the means by
which American economic power, hitherto held in check by war and imperial
rivalry among the European powers, could come to the fore. They were
willing to sacrifice some degree of diplomatic and military sovereignty to
gain national economic ends. But when they saw that international
organisation could not stem the threat of fascism or communism to an open
market system, they were among the first to favour taking up arms.

Following World War Two, writes Judis, the Council and its members in the
Truman Administration devised a new agenda for the post-war era: to

create an American dominated international order, based on the dollar and

free trade, and to contain the spread of Soviet Communism.[62]

Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, in their book, The Wise Men (1986),
attribute to their nominated Wise Men George Kennan, Dean Acheson,
Charles Bohlen, Robert Lovett, Averell Harriman, and John McCloy a role at
the forefront of a remarkable transformation of American foreign policy.
Knowing that America would have to assume the burden of a global role,
this group from the 1940s through to the 1960s, in their myriad official
positions in both the White House and the State Department, and unofficial
positions, shaped a new world order Although sometimes differing on
tactical matters, these Wise Men share[d] a common outlook; they were
disciples of the multilateral ideal and believed that world tradewould
lead to greater prosperity and a greater chance of lasting peace, and the
best guarantee of Americas security would be through the establishment
of democratic and representative governments everywhere as they were
more likely to be peace-loving rather than aggressive.[63] Furthermore, the
Wise Men

were imbued with a special sense of destiny involving both Americas role
and their own. Safety in the atomic age would demand some sort of Pax
Americana in which the US accepted the obligations of leadership. People
like themselves, who understood the need for American resolve and
involvement, would have to take the lead.[64]

Noam Chomsky, who argues that to focus on the so-called Cold War
consensus is to avoid confronting the true unanimity that underlies America
foreign policy, provides a somewhat harsher view. Noting that one would
expect any group with access to power and affluence to construct an
ideology that will justify this state of affairs on grounds of the general
welfare,[65] Chomsky suggests the Establishments anti-Communist
consensus was but a public faade. In truth the Cold War merely provided
the elite with the justification for criminal action abroad and entrenchment
of privilege and state power at home.[66] The internal documentary
record of the US Government, as paraphrased by Chomsky, further confirms
this objective:

[T]he main commitment of the United States, internationally in the Third

World, must be to prevent the rise of nationalist regimes, which are
responsive to pressures from the masses of the population for improvement
in low living standards and diversification of production; the reason is, we
have to maintain a climate that is conducive to investment, and to ensure
conditions which allow for adequate repatriation of profits to the West.[67]

More recently, in his acclaimed study, American Empire (2002), Andrew

Bacevich, Professor of International Relations at Boston University, argues
that since the Cold War the US has in fact adhered to a well defined
strategy, which is to preserve andto expand an American imperium.[68]
Bacevich describes this as the strategy of openness:

Central to this strategy is a commitment to global openness removing

barriers that inhibit the movement of goods, capital, ideas and people. It
ultimate objective is the creation of an open and integrated international
order based on the principles of democratic capitalism, with the United
States as the ultimate guarantor of order and enforcer of norms.[69]

This strategy of openness, notes Bacevich, rests on a consensusso deepseated that its terms have become all but self-evident; in fact, it claims
broad bipartisan support.[70] It had been in place for more than a century
and was derived from twin convictions widely held by members of the
political elite and foreign policy establishment. The first was that robust
and continuing economic growth is an imperative, absolute and conditional;
and the second was that Americas domestic market was insufficient to
sustain economic growth.[71] This strategy was a revolutionary project
that attempted to realise Woodrow Wilsons goal of bringing the world as a
whole into conformity with American principles and American policies. Yet
this expansionist objective was concealed during the Cold War as the US
sought to thwart Soviet attempts to construct a different type of world order.
[72]

The Establishment consensus, according to these accounts, comprised three

specific strategies aimed at maintaining world order: (1) maintaining US
global leadership; (2) containing Communism primarily through military
means; and, perhaps above all, (3) opening up as much of the world as
possible to commercial exploitation by US corporations. Explicit in these
explanations is the claim that few within the Establishments ranks,
especially during the period from the mid-1940s through to the end of the
1960s, deviated or dissented from this policy framework. Hodgson, for
example, suggests that only those who are reluctant to admit the historical
reality of the American foreign policy establishment tend to lay heavy
stress on disagreements among its members, even though these
disagreements turn outto have been largely tactical.[73]

This is a remarkably common argument, advanced not only by the

mainstream press, but also by Establishment opponents, including radical
leftists. However, the primary consequence of accepting that assumption is
to deny the obvious, namely the existence of distinct factions within the
power-elite. When this supposition is applied the results are plainly absurd
pieces of analysis that, on the one hand, acknowledge the existence of
different factions complete with antagonistic stakeholders, conflicting

objectives and diverse strategies for world order, but on the other hand,
insist that these differences are actually irrelevant.

In 1977, for example, the academic Michael Klare, writing in the obscure
radical magazine, Seven Days, identified two distinct factions within
Americas power-elite which he dubbed the the Prussians and the Traders.
The Traders comprised internationally minded merchant capitalists, such as
executives of multinational corporations and international banks like David
Rockefeller, who preferred to pursue their goals through accommodations
and absorption. The Prussians, in contrast, would achieve their goals
through the threat or use of force and violence The Prussians were an
alliance of Pentagon leaders, arms producers, right-wing politicos,
intelligence operatives and some domestic capitalists, with their ideology
provided by a fair sprinkling of cold-war intellectuals. Despite identifying
these two quite distinct groupings whose respective interests surely
demanded quite different international strategies, Klare nevertheless
claimed the Prussians and Traders shared the same goals, differing only on
tactics.[74]

We might also include Chomskys work in this canon, given his oft-repeated
argument that within acceptable circles, the discussions and divisions about
US foreign policy aims are rarely amount to anything more than passing
quibbles over means rather than ends. Indeed there seems to be a
consensus on the Establishments consensus that reaches across the
political spectrum.

5. The Hidden Grand Strategy

If we stop to re-consider the assumptions introduced at the start of this

paper on the existence of the Establishment and its accompanying
consensus, two points can be made. First, the existence of the
Establishment is not actually denied, either by academics and journalists,
but confirmed in considerable detail, including by some of its alleged
members. So that assumption stands. Second, while the existence of an
Establishment consensus, at least from the 1940s through to the 1960s, is
widely acknowledged and even presented as being subject to no more than
the occasional challenge on tactical issues, the goal of world government is
not presented as one of the Establishments objectives. On the basis of
above accounts one could easily discard the notion of a one-worldgovernment consensus and accept the complex formulations offer.
However, in an article in The Wilson Quarterly by Georgetown University
Professor G. John Ikenberry, a tantalising glimpse of a hidden grand
strategy has been introduced which inevitably complicates the picture.

Ikenberry identifies a liberal internationalist tradition that emerged at the

start of the 20th century based on Woodrow Wilsons ideals of a global
community. Despite Wilsons failure to secure US membership of the League
of Nations, this tradition still flourished in the shadows until it was
resurrected in the post-war effort by American officials to build a liberal
democratic order [based] on principles of economic openness, political
reciprocity, and the management of conflicts in new multinational
institutions. This order comprised the United Nations (UN), International
Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT). Ikenberry describes a long-term American agenda of
supporting economic interdependence and free trade (in a sort of economic
one-worldism), creating international institutions and the formation of
communities of like-minded states. The implementation of this agenda,
embraced by Democrat and Republican leaders alike, had been
successful, even though the realities of the Cold War had cast liberal
internationalism into shadow again, out of public view.[75]

Ikenberrys contention of a hidden grand strategy is partially borne out,

although the manner of that disguise is akin to that of the elephant in ones
living room that no one seems to see, the concept being too incredible to
accept, though the evidence is there if only one cares to look. This strategy
or intention has long been openly expressed by government officials and in
policy-planning documents formulated by many of the Establishments
leading organs. Indeed, its presence is apparent in those official and
unofficial planning documents cited by Hodgson, Bacevich and Chomsky as
evidence for their respective interpretations of the liberal foreign policy
consensus.

Chomsky cites two such studies. The first of these is the Council on Foreign
Relations War and Peace Studies Project, developed between 1939 and
1945, which Chomsky credits with providing the general framework of
thinking within which American foreign policy has evolved since the Second
World War[76] Launched in December 1939 with funding from the
Rockefeller Foundation and in collaboration with the State Department, the
primary objective of the project, according to a CFR memorandum, was to
elaborate concrete proposals designed to safeguard American interests in
the settlement which will be undertaken when hostilities cease. Up until its
completion in August 1945, the project produced some 680 planning
documents.[77] According to Chomsky, the CFR and State Department
planners, anticipating the US would emerge from the war as the worlds
dominant power devised the concept of a Grand Area, a geographical
expanse comprising at a minimum, the Western Hemisphere, the former
British Empire and the Far East. This Grand Area was to be organised in
such a way as to serve the needs of the American economy.[78] It was this
essentially imperialist strategy that Chomsky contends is the bedrock of
most American foreign policy through to the present day.

Chomskys assessment of the War and Peace Studies Project is confirmed in

part by those who have examined the projects original documentation.
According to Project memoranda quoted by Laurance Shoup, (Chomskys
primary source), during its early planning phase in 1940, the major concern
of the Council planners was ensuring that American corporations were
provided with sufficient elbow room to expand. Their goal was for a world
in which the US would hold unquestioned power and be able to secure the
limitation of sovereignty by foreign nations that threatened the world area
essential for [Americas] security and economic prosperity. The concept of
the Grand Area did enter into these deliberations, but only as an interim
measure, according to Shoup, in response to Nazi Germanys expansion. As
one of the Council study groups observed: the Grand Area is not regarded
by the Group as more desirable than a world economy, nor as an entirely
unsatisfactory substitute.[79]

But a substitute it was. The real preference of most CFR planners, as

emphasised by Shoup and Minter, and other analysts, was for a new world
order with international political and economic institutions, which would
join and integrate all the worlds nations under the leadership of the United
States.[80] According to Robert D. Schulzingers history of the Council, the
lions share of [CFR] recommendations went to ways of encouraging
participation in a general international organisation. This included proposals
to create an international army, air or police force that would punish
violators of global peace and in the process promote feelings of world
citizenship.[81] The War and Peace Studies project also helped lay the
foundation for the UN, IMF and World Bank. In fact, it was a project member
who, in 1942 had first suggested the formation of UN-like body as means of
protecting US interests while avoid[ing] conventional forms of imperialism.
Select project members later participated in a secret steering committee,
set up by Secretary of State Cordell Hull in 1943, which was, claims Shoup,
most responsible for the final shape of the United Nations. As for the IMF
and World Bank, in 1941 the project had endorsed formation of global
institutions for the purpose of stabilising currencies and promoting
programs of capital investment for backward and underdeveloped
regions.[82] Proponents of this proposal would also later play a key role in
advising those officials charged with determining the technical details of
both organisations.[83]

Reviewing the above it is clear that Chomskys arguments about the Grand
Area informing the Cold War consensus are incomplete. An implicit
assumption made by the CFR was that the Soviets would acquiesce to its
plans for world order in which American interests were to be advanced and
protected by a network of supranational organisations. That plan, subject to
further elaboration by the Roosevelt Administration, was to break-up the
existing European empires and open up much of the world to US
corporations under the guise of global free trade and investment;
international security would be maintained by the United Nations. The CFR
and State Department planners also shared the expectation that this model
of world order would not just restrain the Soviet Union, but also eventually

undermine its political and economic system, leading to its absorption into a
capitalist world.[84]

The second study cited by Chomsky is the Woodrow Wilson Foundation and
National Planning Association (NPA) joint report, The Political Economy of
American Foreign Policy (1955). According to Chomsky, The Political
Economy of American Foreign Policy is an important and generally ignored
study, one that is representative of the views of the tiny elite that largely
determines foreign policy whoever is technically in office.[85] In referring to
this study, however, Chomsky has always limited himself to quoting just a
fragment of this section:

The Soviet threat is total military, political, economic and ideologicalIt

has meant: (1) A serious reduction of the potential resource base and
market opportunities of the West owing to the subtraction of the communist
areas from the international economy and their economic transformation in
ways which reduce their willingness to complement the industrial economies
of the West[86]

Chomsky typically inserts part of this section into this sentence

construction: The primary threat of Communism, as they see it, is the
economic transformation of the Communist powers in ways that reduce
their willingness and ability to complement the industrial economies of the
West.[87] Although that quote supports Chomskys argument about the
essentially domestic economic objectives behind containment, he
downplays the studys quite serious concern about the Soviet challenge to
the economic pre-eminence of the West, and ignores the broader
prescriptions set out later in the study that are more suggestive of the
hidden grand strategy identified by Ikenberry. Given the importance
Chomsky quite rightly attributes to this report, it is puzzling that he does not
provide that additional detail.

The report certainly is worth noting because the nine members of the
Political Economy of American Foreign Policy Study Group William Y. Elliott,
Frank Altschul,[88] Richard M. Bissell, Courtney C. Brown, H. van B.
Cleveland, Theodore Geiger, Harry D. Gideonse, Edward Mason and Don K.
Price represented a key cross section of the Establishment. Most had
worked for the US government in some capacity during the war, primarily in
armaments production, although Cleveland and Mason had served in the
Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. They also
represented the foundations and Ivy League universities: five of its
members had been involved with groups such as the CFR (Altschul), Ford
Foundation (Price), NPA (Altschul, Geiger), Woodrow Wilson Foundation
(Altschul, Gideonse), and the Committee for Economic Development
(Cleveland); while Elliott and Mason had taught at Harvard, and Bissell was
based at Yale. They also retained links to the corporate sector: Brown had

been Assistant to the Chairman of the Board of the New Jersey branch of
Standard Oil, while Altschul was Chairman of the Board for the General
American Investors Company.[89]

This group of self-confessed like-minded and knowledgeable men

presented their efforts as an attempt to help those concerned with foreign
policy-making and execution deal with the critical problems of world
economic order in the second half of the 20th century. One of the key
problems they identified was the Soviet threat to both the free world
economies and the international economy, which had hastened the
disintegration of the unified world economy.[90] The central objective of
American foreign policy, they argued, is to foster construction of a better
integrated and more effectively functioning international economic system.
To recreate the integrated world economy of the 19th century would
require the deliberate coordination of national economic policies either by
cooperation among national governments, or more effectively and reliably
by supranational authorities.[91]

Among the various long-term goals and remedies they proposed was for the
United States to use its full power to achieve the political unity and
economic integration of the West; and to influence the economic
transformation of the non-Communist developing world so the outcome
would be compatible with Western values and vital interests. Ultimately the
report reiterated their central theme that some kind of central organising
authority is essential both to establish and maintain political and economic
order among nations; and their hope that this necessary central power
would be wielded in the world community by voluntarily created
international institutions.[92]

In their conclusion the reports authors demonstrated they were closer to

the liberal internationalists than to the imperialists when they described as
the only constructive and desirable outcome for the latter half of the 20th
century the support of the American people for a more effectively organised
Western Community and more stable and mutually beneficial relationships
between it and the underdeveloped countries. Which would mean the
adoption of policies whichconsciously seek creative adaptations of the
nation-state system; a system that had been conspicuously failing to
satisfy the test of efficiency and morality. Although declaring it to be
useless to provide a clear-cut definition in institutional terms of this
alternate path, if considered with their own declared preference for more
supranational institutions, criticisms of the nation-state, and rejection of the
dismal alternatives of American isolationism or imperialism; their devotion
to the hidden grand strategy is clear.[93]

Hodgson nominates the Rockefeller Brothers Fund report Prospect for

America (1961) as the handbook of the shared assumptions of the

American governmental and business elite.[94] The product of nearly three

years of deliberation, the unspoken purpose of Prospect for America
(hereafter PFA) was to bolster Nelson Rockefellers presidential aspirations
by giving him a policy platform, but the end result was something much
bigger than his selfish ambitions. Reflecting the views of nearly a hundred
members of Americas power-elite, PFA is credited by many commentators
with defining the Establishment consensus as it stood in the 1950s. As one
journalistic account observed, the report provided the intellectual
scaffolding for the military and foreign policy of the Kennedy
Administration.[95] This was very much in tune with the overall purpose of
the reports overseers to develop a framework of concepts and principles
on which national policies and decisions can be soundly based (Laurance
Rockefeller, the panels chairman) and an accepted political philosophy for
US foreign policy (Adolf Berle, PFA co-author).[96]

However, none of these descriptions quite grasp Prospect for Americas

transparent devotion to the hidden grand strategy of constructing a world
order that transcended national sovereignty. This objective had already been
flagged by Nelson Rockefeller in a paper he prepared for the project titled
Ideal World: Dream World of 1984 United States Style. Rockefeller
envisaged a collective security system within a UN framework in which all
nations would surrender some sovereignty to regional associations.[97]
These goals were subsequently echoed in PFAs strong position on the
need to build new supranational organisations and new regional
associations, and its seemingly selfless objective of shap[ing] a new world
order in which all men are brothers, deeply concerned with each others
fate. The ultimate objective of US foreign policy, according to PFA, should
be a world at peace, based on separate political entities acting as a
community. Or more precisely, an international order based on regional
institutions under an international body of growing authority This
approach was essential because [t]oday the national interest cannot be
fulfilled within the limits of the nation itself, but only through an order far
wider than its geographical limits.[98]

To this end PFA advocated the creation of regional associations, the

strengthening of existing supranational institutions and hastening the
process of international economic integration. Prospect for America
recommended that America support the political and economic unity of
Western Europe, as it would be a vital step towards an Atlantic
community. America should also take the lead in creating a Western
Hemisphere Common Market, incorporating North, South and Central
America.[99] As for the United Nations, PFA lauded the organisation as
proof of our conviction that problems which are of world-wide impact must
be dealt with through institutions global in their scope. The UN played a
vitally important role in the development of a functioning international
system and stood as a symbol of the world order that will one day be built.
It should therefore be one of the principal vehicles through which [US]
foreign policy is expressed.[100]

PFA also identified the need for a framework of economic law and
accommodation that runs beyond the boundaries of existing political
sovereignties to help nations adapt to the growth in economic
interdependence. To help meet this objective, PFA recommended the
creation of regional trading systems, the development of new international
financial and development institutions, and the vigorous promotion of free
world trade.[101] Prospect for America is one of the more remarkable
Establishment planning documents to emerge out the early Cold War, yet it
is widely and mysteriously ignored by New World Order historians.[102] This
occurs despite its impeccable Rockefeller pedigree and the fact it advocates
a model of world order based on regional associations answering to a single
supranational authority. That this key document could go unstudied for so
long demonstrates that much of this hidden grand strategy has been
hiding in plain sight

To support his contention that U.S. grand strategy during the Cold War not
only involved containing Communism, but taking measures to open up the
world politically, culturally and above all economically, Bacevich cites a
speech made by US President Harry S. Truman on 4 July 1947. Delivered at
the home of Thomas Jefferson in Monticello, Trumans address, according to
Bacevich, constituted a blueprint and a comprehensive vision for
constructing a new international order.[103] Noting that all nations were
interdependent, Truman had called for the full exchange of knowledge,
ideas, and information among the peoples of the earth, and maximum
freedom in international travel and communication. He also advocated the
adoption of economic and financial policies to support a world economy
rather than separate nationalistic economies, including creation of an
International Trade Organisation to promote free trade.[104]

Bacevich links these proposals to an imperialistic agenda to perpetuate

American pre-eminence and to foster an international order conductive to
U.S. interests.[105] A close reading of that speech, however, suggests
Truman had something else in mind, an ambitious goal more in tune with
the hidden grand strategy than imperialist expansion. His stated objective
was to encourage all nations to harmonise their internal and external
policies; as Truman explained, it is now the duty of all nations to converge
their policies toward common goals of peace. Truman later argued the
lesson of the two world wars was that nations should have learned the folly
of a nationalism so extreme as to block cooperative economic planning
among nations for peaceful reconstruction. Truman also advocated global
cultural unity: We have the mechanical facilities-the radio, television,
airplanesfor the creation of a worldwide culture. We have only to set them
to work for international good.[106]

A similar failure to identify this hidden grand strategy can be seen in

Chomskys analysis of another Truman speech. According to Chomsky,

American foreign policy is dominated by the principles that were crudely

outlined by Truman in a famous and important speech given at Baylor
University at Waco on 6 March 1947, when he suggested the basic freedom
is freedom of enterprise, and that the whole world should adopt the
American system which could survive in America only if it became a world
system.[107] Chomskys source, however, was not the speech itself but a
paraphrase by an observer quoted in another book, which claimed Truman
had announced the whole world should adopt the American system [which]
could survive in America only if it became a world system.[108] In falsely
attributing this paraphrase to Truman Chomsky soon fell afoul of critics who
accused him of scholarly fakery, and of being an intellectual crook and an
intellectual phoney.[109]

Of greater importance, though, is how Trumans speech should be

interpreted. Chomsky insisted his sources were accurate and perceptive in
their narrower reading of Trumans speech, and that it was an error to
focus on Trumans innocuous statements about protective tariffs.[110]
Arthur Schelsinger Jr, however, argued that Trumans speech at Baylor was
in fact an earnest plea to American businessmen not to return to its
economic nationalism of the days before the Second World War and for
them to support American membership in the International Trade
Organisation.[111]

Reviewing the above it is fair to conclude that this hidden grand strategy of
building a more integrated global political and economic structure one
world (David Rockefeller), identified by Ikenberry, alluded to by Hodgson,
Judis, Isaacson and Thomas, and Bacevich, but largely ignored by Chomsky,
does exist. And it is this strategy that a much-despised fringe of analysts,
mostly based in the John Birch Society, has sought to warn people of since
the late 1950s.[112] The problem, though, is how this strategy became
hidden and what it suggests about the supposed ideological unity of the
Establishment.

6. The Mask of Containment?

It is emphasised in a number of mainstream studies that at the conclusion of

World War Two the consensus among US government officials and leading
politicians was that a universalist model of world order, very much in
manner of Woodrow Wilsons League of Nations, was essential to prevent
war. As Seyom Brown observes in his study of US foreign policy, The Faces of
Power (1983):

United States officials emerged from the Second World War in awe of the
physical power nations had been able to develop, but with little confidence
in the power of nations unilaterally to exercise the self-control required to

channel their tremendous physical capabilities to constructive as opposed to

destructive purposes. Throughout the government there was a wide
consensus that the survival of civilisation required the strengthening of
international institutions and alsothe eventual reduction of the amount of
destructive power in the hands of individual nations.[113]

The establishment of the United Nations was the most obvious embodiment
of this strategy, though at its core was the Security Council dominated by
the remaining world powers the US, USSR, China, France and Britain who
were expected to collaborate in a great-power directorate to maintain the
new international system.[114] There were some who dreamed of the
United Nations being eventually transformed into something more profound,
maybe even a world government that would override national sovereignty.
There were numerous expressions of this sentiment, particularly during the
1940s and 1950s, both from world peace activists and politicians.[115] This
even included world leaders such as FDRs successor, US President Harry S.
Truman; as the historian John Gaddis Lewis relates:

Truman for years carried in his wallet a copy of the portion of Tennysons
poem, Locksley Hall, that predicted a Parliament of Man, the Federation of
the World. Were going to have that someday, he insisted, I guess thats
what Ive been really working for ever since I first put that poetry in my
pocket.[116]

Since 1944 the US government, first under Roosevelt, then under Truman,
had been working to shape and prepare public opinion for the
implementation of this universalist model of world order. To help achieve this
objective, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation had
provided special funding to the Council on Foreign Relations, the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, the Institute for Pacific Relations and the
Foreign Policy Association to cultivate popular support this agenda.[117] The
unresolved issue, though, is how this strategy could have slipped so
thoroughly from public awareness? How could this liberal internationalist
consensus become so well hidden that many mainstream analysts seem to
believe Establishment unity only emerged in response to the Soviet threat
after the war ended? The answer lies in the simple fact that what most
analysts identify as the consensus the devotion to the anti-Communist
policy of containment actually concealed and subsequently eroded that
original post war agreement amongst Americas power-elite to support
liberal internationalism.

According to more conventional accounts, the doctrine of containment

emerged out of necessity, as a justified response to the threat posed to the
Free World by the Soviet Unions totalitarian ambition (Hertzeberg) and
design for world domination (Paul Nitze), in the words of two prominent
American commentators.[118] Although somewhat blunt, these

explanations carry an important element of truth, in that the Soviet Union

came to be perceived as a threat to the universalist world order that the
US was trying to create. During the war, according to Patrick Hearden,
author of Architects of Globalism (2002), American planners had sought to
maintain the Grand Alliance between the United States and the Soviet
Union, believing Russian cooperation would be essential to maintaining
world peace. Most planning was therefore built on the assumption,
articulated by various senior State Department officials that Russia would
agree to cooperate with the United States (Under Secretary of State
Sumner Welles) because it was the only way for Russia to advance her
general economic interests, her industrial development, [and] her social
welfare (Secretary of State Hull).[119]

This expectation the USSR would and must cooperate was also reflected in
the various agreements that led up to the formation of the United Nations
The so-called Four-Power Declaration of 1943, for example, committed the
US, Britain, China and the Soviet Union to the creation of a general
international organisation to preserve world peace. Once the provisions of
that declaration were implemented, Hull told Congress on 18 November
1943, there will no longer be need for spheres of influence, for alliances,
[or] for balance of power Subsequent declarations and plans all of which
culminated in the drawing up of the UN Charter, reinforced this point that
collective security would be built on great power cooperation. Truman, in
one of his first addresses after taking office, reiterated that nothing would
be more essential to the future peace of the world than the continued
cooperation of those nations which had defeated the Axis powers.[120]

These expectations were soon dashed by the reluctance of Stalins Soviet

Union to conform to their expectations and participate in the Americandesigned new world order. Although actual Soviet aims, driven by fresh
memories of the horrendous Nazi invasion, were initially limited to
establishing a buffer zone of compliant client-states in Eastern Europe, some
in the Establishment were quick to seize on this as evidence of a more
sinister Communist design for world domination. During private sessions at
Pratt House in the late 1940s, for example, CFR members increasingly
griped at how the USSR had upset American plans for world order through
its grasping diplomacy and unilateral action of [a] cynical brutal type,
making it unlikely that a lasting peace can be established or that
Communism can live with the Capitalist System, or vice versa.[121]

The so-called Wise Men had already been warning of this problem for some
time. Averell Harriman (Skull & Bones), then US Ambassador to Russia, had
warned repeatedly since 1944 that unless America stood up to Stalin, there
was every indication the Soviet Union will become a world bully. The
Soviets were not going to live up to their post-war agreements, he cabled
Roosevelt in 1945, therefore America must recognise our objectives and the
Kremlins objectives are irreconcilable. In a draft message he planned to

deliver personally to FDR, Harriman argued the US must find ways to arrest
the Soviet domineering policy otherwise history will record the period of
the next generation as the Soviet age. Believers in FDRs Grand Alliance
publicly scorned Harrimans message, but he felt compelled to reiterate it in
1946 as he left his post. Those who place greater emphasis on unilateral
action rather than collective security are in ascendency in the Soviet
government, he warned, I think we have a long slow scrape ahead.[122]

There is some dispute over the sincerity of the anti-Communism of the Wise
Men. So-called revisionists, such as Chomsky, argue that their concern was
not in protecting the freedom of other peoples worldwide from Communist
tyranny or even safeguarding the US from the Soviet military, but in
meeting the political and economic threat to areas containing resources vital
to the American economy falling under the sway of regimes unfriendly to US
interests.[123] Critics of Chomsky, though, emphasise that the antiCommunism of the US Establishment was as serious as the Communism of
their Soviet opponents.[124]

Yet, it also cannot be denied that the response to the Communist threat was
driven as much by economic considerations as it was by ideology. As Gaddis
observes in his study of containment, that otherwise downplays this aspect:

What is surprising is the primacy that has been accorded economic

considerations in shaping strategies of containment, to the exclusion of
other considerationsTo a remarkable degree containment has been the
product, not so much of what the Russians have done, or what has
happened elsewhere in the world, but of internal forces operating in the
United States.[125]

The need to respond to this threat had been impressed upon Truman with
increasing effectiveness by the Wise Men, the US military and intelligence
services. An OSS report in April 1945 warned that should the US stand
aside, Russia would surely dominate Europe andestablish her hegemony
over Asia and through its access to Eurasias resources would in time well
outrank even the US in military potential.[126] The USSRs failure to abide
by the Yalta agreement, particularly with regard to holding free elections in
Eastern Europe and withdrawing its troops from Iran, only heightened
Trumans panic and anger. Unless Russia is faced with an iron fist and
strong language another war is possible, Truman concluded in 1946; I do
not think we should play compromise any longer, he added.[127]

The transformation of the Establishments consensus came to public

attention in 1947 with publication of the famous article The Sources of
Soviet Conduct (Foreign Affairs July 1947) by one of the Wise Men, George
Kennan, then Director of Policy Planning in the State Department. Citing the

looming Soviet threat to American prosperity and values, Kennan (under the
pseudonym of X) had called for a policy of firm containment with the US
confronting the USSR with unalterable counter-force where and when ever
the Soviets show signs of encroaching upon the interests of a peaceful and
stable world. In dealing with the Soviet threat, though, Kennan warned that
exhibitions of indecision, disunity and internal disintegration within the US
had an exhilarating effect on the whole Communist movement. The
American people could only meet this implacable challenge by pulling
themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political
leadership.[128]

Kennans article on the need for a new approach and for everyone to
support it both reflected and drove the shift in strategic thinking within the
Establishment and the Truman Administration. The Pentagon had already
decided to abandon the UN as the centre point of Americas post-war
strategy. In April 1947, for instance, the Joint Chiefs of Staff argued that
those who retained their faith in the ability of the United Nations to
protectthe security of the United States had in fact lost sight of the vital
security interest of the United States and were pursuing an approach that
could prove fatal to those interests. Kennans contribution was to hasten
that shift in thinking within the State Department. It was an official
memorandum from Kennan on the subject in November 1947, which had
prompted Secretary of State George Marshall to announce the objective of
our policy from this point on would be the restoration of [a] balance of
power in both Europe and Asia[129] Marshalls statement came just four
years after Hull had declared balances of power to be obsolete.

This rejection of the UN would have naturally suited Kennan and his cohorts.
Kennan had little time for the United Nations and other universalist
solutions such as international law. He dismissed the idea of world peace
as a grandiose form of day-dreaming. For the US to commit itself to such a
system, he warned in 1947, would only prevent [America] from employing
our influence in world affairs and ensnare it in a sterile and cumbersome
international parliamentarianism. Kennan favoured the balance-of-power as
the organising principle for world order. Our safety depends, he argued in
1948, on our ability to establish a balance among the hostile or
undependable forces of the world. Kennan later recalled in his Memoirs that
in 1944, while posted to Moscow, he had concluded the United Nations was
not greatly needed as no international organisation could take the place
of a realistic and well-conceived foreign policy. Lecturing in 1951, Kennan
maintained his view that Americas most serious fault had been its
preoccupation with the legalistic-moralistic approach to international
affairs, which he associated with international law, the UN, the League of
Nations and World Law and World Government. The UN and international
law would only impose a legal straitjacket over international relationships,
and inhibit the usual processes through which borders and boundaries
were changed and resolved: war and diplomacy.[130]

Kennans comments are revealing for we find that in conventional accounts

the Wise Men are usually celebrated for their so-called moderation with
little or no mention made of their attitude towards the UN. Hodgson, for
example, suggests that in pursuing containment, the Establishment saw
itself as steering a middle course between the ignorant Yahoos of the right
and the impractical sentimentality of the left. Similarly Isaacson and
Thomas credit the Wise Men with distinguishing themselves from the liberal
visionaries who believed the wartime Grand Alliance between the US and
the USSR could be preserved and the fanatic anti-communists who viewed
the coming East-West showdown as a holy war.[131] But if we use Kennans
anti-UN sentiments as a prism for inspecting our sources more closely a
different picture of Establishment moderation is revealed in which
containment was not only a strategy for opposing Soviet Communism, but a
very effective vehicle for one faction to usurp the temporary post-war
dominance of another.

Isaacson and Thomas account implicitly concedes these points. The authors
inform us that Kennans colleagues, Acheson, Lovett, Harriman, Bohlen and
McCloy all came to believe that it was dangerous to put much faith in postwar cooperation with the Soviet Union. Although tacitly willing to cede the
Soviets some sphere of interest; at the same time they consciously
overstated the threatin order to sell their vision of Americas role in the
postwar world. This was evident in the flood of alarmist cables that Kennan
and Harriman had both sent from Moscow; Kennans were particularly
disturbing with his repeated warnings of, among other things, Russias push
for ultimate political domination of the entire Asiatic mainland and
supposed determination to see Americas traditional way of life
destroyed.[132]

Also apparent is their disdain for the United Nations. Dean Acheson, for
instance, Under Secretary and later Secretary of State under Truman, had
dismissed the UN Charter as impractical, and considered the UN to be
weak and irrelevant. He believed with Britain on the ropes, America would
have to be the champion of order and the paladin of a new Pax
Americana.[133] The Wise Mens supposed fears about Soviet intentions,
however, proved to be a self-fulfilling prophecy once containment was
applied, as even Isaacson and Thomas acknowledge:

Their policiesdid nothing to alleviate, and perhaps even exacerbated the

evil they were designed to combat: Moscows paranoia, expansionism and
unwillingness to cooperate in a liberal world order.[134]

It was Acheson who would take the lead in translating Kennans concept of
containment into a network of mostly bilateral security-alliances as an
alternative to the UN-based world order that FDR had originally envisaged.
According to Achesons Policy Planning Staff, the US and USSR were in a

struggle for preponderant power[T]o seek less than preponderant power

would be to opt for defeat. Preponderant power must be the object of US
policy.[135] Achieving this goal would require sidelining the newly created
United Nations; a task Acheson had no qualms about undertaking. In fact his
scorn for the American-created organisation was considerable; in private he
dismissed that little rat Leo Pasvolskys United Nations while publicly he
would declare the votes in the United Nations mean less than
nothing.[136] In later years he would also identify international law as an
obstacle to American preponderance which should be cast aside, telling the
American Society of International Law in 1962 that when faced by
challenges to its power, position and prestige, Americas response was not
a legal issue.[137]

In building this Pax Americana Acheson found plenty of support from within
the US defence establishment, which had already developed plans along
those lines during WWII. According to University of Virginia historian Melvyn
P. Leffler, in 1943-44 US military planners had devised elaborate plans for
an overseas base system to protect Americas strategic frontier. These
plans, which were endorsed by FDR in 1944, envisaged a defensive ring of
outlying bases encircling the Western Hemisphere thus giving the US
complete control of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The initial aim of this
strategy, which was revised and expanded in subsequent years, was to
maintain exclusive US access to vital raw materials in the Western
Hemisphere by denying all foreign powers access those resources.[138]

By the end of the war, however, control of the Eurasian landmass had
become the primary concern of the military establishment, leading to an
expansion of the basing strategy. A Brookings Institution study from 1945, A
Security Policy for Postwar America, had concluded that should a single
power or an anti-American coalition gain control of the Eurasian landmass,
American security interests would be threatened. A number of military and
government studies also emphasised the need to increase American
commercial access and prevent Soviet domination of Eurasia. To counter this
anticipated threat, bases were sought in Western Europe, the Middle East
and North Asia, along with increases in military expenditure and the
acquisition of more atomic weapons. Most of these plans were brought to
fruition under the auspices of the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan, even
though, as a number of US military intelligence analysts had recognised as
early as July 1947, these policies had in fact provoked a more aggressive
Soviet attitude toward the United States.[139]

The culmination of this policy over the objections of Kennan who favoured
containing the USSR through diplomatic and economic rather military means
was the planning document known as NSC-68. First drafted in 1950 by
Achesons Policy Planning Group, then headed by Paul Nitze, NSC-68 invoked
the spectre of imminent Soviet domination of the Eurasian landmass and
claimed the USSR sought in the long-term absolute authority over the rest

of the world. NSC-68 used this image of a global, monolithic Communist

conspiracy to justify an increase in the US defence budget from $13.5 billion
per year up to $50 billion. But NSC-68 was flawed in its assumptions,
dramatically overstating, if not exaggerating, the military capabilities of the
USSR presenting it as the stronger party when in fact the opposite was true.
Setting an example for future policy-makers, Nitze later blamed poor
intelligence for these errors. Despite most of these flaws being unknown at
the time, NSC-68 still failed to convince Truman and Congress, leaving its
authors in a quandary; as Isaacson and Thomas note Acheson and the State
Department needed a crisis to shape the listless body politic. This crisis
soon came in the form of the Korean War, which easily persuaded Congress
to nearly triple defence spending to $53.4 billion in 1951. A relieved
Acheson would later remark: Korea saved us.[140]

Viewing this record it is surely intriguing that the celebrated architects of

containment by no sheer coincidence were all either opposed to or
sceptical of the universalist model based around the United Nations. It was
this group, the so-called Wise Men in collaboration with elements within
the US military establishment who exploited Soviet intransigence and postwar excesses to overturn the original post-war pro-UN consensus. They
replaced it with a strategy of aggressively asserting US interests worldwide
supposedly in the name of containing the Communist threat. But it was
never intended to be a sincere anti-Communist crusade. Rather than
seeking to roll back or crush Communism, as some ignorant Yahoos of the
right desired, the supporters of containment were content to maintain a
global balance of power, restraining the Soviet Union while at the same time
staking out and maintaining Americas sphere of influence as widely as
possible. Invoking the Soviet threat also enabled them to convince the
American public that sidestepping the United Nations was essential to US
national security. It was an effective strategy one that removed two major
domestic and international constraints on their plans and while also creating
a strong justification for what Chomsky describes as criminal action abroad
and entrenchment of privilege and state power at home. In sum, in their
competition with the liberal internationalists, the threat of Soviet
Communism was the Wise Mens trump card and they played it for over
twenty-five years.

7. The Death of the Bipartisan Consensus

The other more important implication of their success was that the liberal
internationalist project became hidden. This was not because its
proponents were expelled from the seats of power; on the contrary, as
demonstrated by the pre-eminent position of David Rockefeller and other
members of his family, the liberal internationalists retained a strong
presence within the Establishment. Although wary of the exaggerated
Communist threat popularised by Acheson and the military-industrial
complex, even the liberal internationalists were compelled, if reluctantly, to

acknowledge that the Soviet Union was an obstacle to their plans. In fact,
once the nuclear arms race was underway, there seemed to be no choice.
As Prospect for Americas authors lamented in the late 1950s, even though
nationalism can no longer have the absolute meaning it once did, present
circumstances meant there was no other course for Americans than to act
for the preservation of our nation-state[141] Recognising the
requirements of this short-term goal, the liberal internationalist faction
continued to agitate for change. David and Nelson Rockefeller were often at
the forefront of these efforts, combining anti-Communist bluster with the
gradual insinuation of their preferred policies into Americas Cold War
strategy.[142]

Their success is perhaps most evident in the continuing existence of that

international institutions originally established by Roosevelt and Truman.
Despite varying degrees of hostility or indifference from successive US
administrations, the essential structure based around the UN, the IMF, World
Bank and GATT (now the World Trade Organisation) are intact and
functioning. Americans sometimes forget the role their nation has played in
this process, but as Michael Hirsch noted in Foreign Affairs in late 2002, in
the sixty years since these organisations were created, the US has in fact
built a global order, bit by bit, era by era. In fact: Every major international
institution the UN, the World Bank, the [IMF], NATO, the [GATT] was made
in America. And all this institution building has amounted to a workable
international system[143]

The maintenance of this system remained largely out of public view,

although from time to time there were a few glimpses of this hidden
strategy, particularly during the presidency of John F. Kennedy. This
included the Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament, presented to
the world by Kennedy in his first address to the United Nations on 25
September 1961. Also known as the McCloy-Zorin Agreement or the
Department of State Document 7277 Freedom From War, the treaty and its
subsequent follow-up, Blueprint for the Peace Race (18 April 1962) provided
for the phased elimination of all military weapons and the creation of a UN
Peace Force to oversee disarmament and maintain world peace. It did not
escape the attention of more than a few analysts at the time that these
proposals amounted to an endorsement of world government. Here, then,
commented Lincoln Bloomfield, is the basis in recent American policy for
the notion of world government. It was not made explicit and, given the
realities of domestic political life, may never be.[144] Arms control expert
David Schelling agreed: If militarily superior to any combination of national
forces, an international force implies (or is) some form of world
government.[145]

On 10 June 1963, in an address at the American University in Washington

DC titled The Strategy for Peace; Kennedy presented a more extensive
blueprint for world order that seemed to revive the post-war dreams of the

liberal internationalists. In his speech apparently prepared without input or

clearance from either the Pentagon or the State Department Kennedy
explicitly ruled out a Pax Americana, forced on the world by American
weapons of war, putting in his faith instead in a more effective system of
world law and a strengthened United Nations creating a genuine world
security systemcapable of solving disputes on the basis of law. Not
surprisingly Kennedy also paid tribute in his address to the greatest
generation for establishing the UN, NATO, World Bank and IMF.[146] What
Kennedy had in mind struck at the heart of the agenda of the militaryindustrial complex, and it is perhaps no coincidence that these proposals
were swept aside in the aftermath of Kennedys assassination by the rapid
escalation of US involvement in Vietnam.

In the same vein, but less well known, is the White House Conference on
International Cooperation, established by Lyndon Johnson and held in
Washington DC between 29 November and 1 December 1965. Johnson
wanted the conference to search and explore and canvass and thoroughly
discuss every conceivable approach and avenue of cooperation that could
lead to peace. This proved to be a massive undertaking, with some thirty
citizens committees distilling advice from thousands of expert witnesses
into thirty reports that were considered by the final Conference. The result
was not so much a consensus but a broad agenda for curbing the arms
race, keeping the peace, expanding world trade, aiding economic
development, organising world finance, curbing population growth,
conserving the worlds resources, exploring outer space, expanding the
exchange of ideas, and protecting human rights, almost exclusively
through the creation of supranational institutions. The recommendations
were later published in a book, Blueprint for Peace (1966), edited by Richard
Gardner, and then largely forgotten.[147]

But not completely.

By the late 1960s, according to mainstream accounts, the Establishment

consensus around containment was crumbling because of the combined
weight of a seemingly unwinnable war in the jungles of Vietnam and civil
unrest on the streets of America. By 1968, writes Judis, the Establishment
had been torn apart by the war; as early as 1965 with US involvement
escalating, dissenters had already emerged to argue that America was
committing itself to a disastrous land war over a militarily unimportant
country. This soon led to containment being questioned: [CFR] members
began to voice disagreement with the larger Cold War strategy that had
guided American foreign policy since the end of World War II. By May 1971,
according to Hodgson, the establishment was bitterly divided on the issue
of Vietnam; the incendiary debates had corroded the bonds of seniority,
authority and respect which used to hold it together. The consensus of the
elite was shattered by the war, claimed one former White House official.

Writing in 1973, Hodgson agreed, noting that although the Establishment

was sure to survive its opinions will no longer be homogenous.[148]

An in-depth examination of all the reasons behind the break-up of the

Establishment consensus over Vietnam is beyond the scope or intention of
this paper, however there is one important point that needs to be
emphasised. The elite push to abandon the war in Vietnam and thus
containment, did not become significant until the US financial community
decided the war had become too costly to be sustained any longer.
According to historian Robert Buzzanco, it was in 1968 that most of
Americas financial elite had concluded the Vietnam War was damaging the
economy and causing economic instability on an international scale.
Under the guise of calling for reduced expenditure on the war, the bankers
effectively endorsed US military withdrawal from Vietnam.[149] With Wall
Street no longer behind it, the overall sensibility of the containment strategy
was thus called into question and division replaced the previous unity of the
Establishment.

This collapse of the Establishment consensus, drawn out over the final year
of the Johnson Administration and much of Nixons first term, also resulted
in the institutional, strategic and ideological fragmentation of the US powerelite. It was a tumultuous period as divisions, which had long been
suppressed or hidden by the Cold War consensus, finally came to the
surface. These divisions were also deepened by the geographical shift in
wealth and influence, with the traditional Establishment, based on the
Eastern seaboard of the US, seemingly eclipsed by the so-called Cowboy or
Southern Rim elites based in the South and West.[150] As Carroll Quigley
related in Tragedy and Hope (1966), since the 1950s the economic
influence of the older Wall Street groups [had] been weakening and been
challenged by new wealth springing up outside the eastern cities, notably in
the Southwest and Far West. The wealth of the Cowboys was largely based
on oil and aviation or on industries reliant on government funding such as
armaments and space exploration. As early as 1964, the representatives of
this new wealth had engaged in a financial struggle with the old wealth
of the East for control of the political process, and ultimately of the White
House, to ensure that high government spending on the military and space
continued.[151] With the collapse of the Eastern Establishments consensus,
this struggle for control only escalated.

Institutionally the dominant position of the CFR was eroded as a plethora of

new foreign policy think-tanks and policy-planning organisations were
created. As one academic commentator observed, when the consensus
broke down in the early 1970s new institutions emerged giving diverse
opinions a more exact and explicit form. This proliferation of think-tanks
and heated competition for funding and media attention, accelerated
during the 1980s, to the extent that permanent disagreement has been
institutionalised.[152] This new wave of private institutions included

conservative organisations such as the Heritage Foundation, Centre for

Security Policy, Centre for Defence Information and American Enterprise
Institute; and more avowedly liberal internationalist groups (many with
Rockefeller support) such as the Trilateral Commission,[153] the Overseas
Development Council, the Institute for International Economics, and the
World Policy Institute.

The abandonment of containment also coincided with a fundamental shift in

elite perceptions. Gone was the public obsession with the supposed Soviet
threat, instead there seemed to be widespread agreement that with its
political and economic power now in decline, the US could no longer shape
the world by itself. America cannot shape the world single-handed, argued
Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book Between Two Ages (1970), his largely
successful attempt to launch the idea of a community of developed nations
or trilateralism, to share the burden of global leadership. Gone are the days
when America could be the military policeman of the world, the moral
preacher of the world, the sole arsenal of democracy, or a patch of
prosperity on the globe, agreed Trilateral Commission founder David
Rockefeller.[154] Even Richard Nixon, according to his National Security
Adviser Henry Kissinger, constructed his balance of power policies on the
premise that the age of Americas nearly total dominance of the world
stage was drawing to a close.[155]

There was, however, no bipartisan strategy that replaced containment;

instead the various factions endorsed their own preferred approaches. The
liberal internationalists revived supranationalism and international economic
integration as the only means build a new world order, but suggested that
America share leadership in a trilateral arrangement with Japan and
Western Europe. To justify their stance, liberal internationalists also cited the
growing interdependence of the world that was weakening the nationstate. As Stanley Hoffman argued in Foreign Affairs in 1972, state policies
are often impaired or inspired by transnational forces that range from
corporations to scientists. This imposed certain obligations on America;
specifically a single world system must be the goal of US foreign policy as
there was a growing need for pooled sovereignty, shared powers and
effective international institutions in all realms.[156]

Yet, recognising that the Cold War had hobbled the United Nations, draining
it of the resources, unanimity and strength (Brown) and that at the same
time, any plans for instant world government carry little credibility
(Gardner), the liberal internationalists adopted a different strategy of
outflanking the nation-state.[157] According to this approach, essentially a
revival of David Mitranys idea of functionalism, responsibility for resolving
various problems would be shifted from the nation-state to a plethora of
international bodies. Basically national governments would face
fragmentation and weakening as an anonymous multinational network of
bureaucrats emerged to take control.[158] Or as the most well-known

advocate of the functional approach to world order, Richard Gardner,

wrote:

the hope for the foreseeable future lies not in building up a few ambitious
central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was
envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more
decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting
institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with
specific problems on a case by case basis, as the necessity for cooperation
is perceived by the relevant nationsIn short the house of world order will
have to built from bottom up, rather than from top downan end run
around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much
more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.[159]

In contrast, some of the original architects of containment, now recognising

US weakness, promoted a version of the balance of power concept involving
a more civil arrangement with the Communist states through dtente with
the USSR and rapprochement with China. Nixon became the main proponent
of this approach, announcing in July 1971 his plan to construct a pentagonal
balance of power involving the US, USSR, China, Japan and Western Europe.
[160]

For Establishment intellectuals these two contrasting strategies were easy

to assimilate and over time the acceptable definition of world order for the
power elite was recast to mean either of those approaches. As then
academic (and later Clinton Administration official) Joseph S. Nye Jr
explained in Foreign Affairs in 1992:

[T]he term world order is used in two very different ways in discussions of
world politics. Realists, in the tradition of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger,
see international politics occurring among sovereign states balancing each
others power. World order is the product of a stable distribution of power
among the major states. Liberals, in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and
Jimmy Carter, look at relations among peoples as well as states. They see
order arising from broad values like democracy and human rights, as well as
from international law and institutions such as the United Nations.[161]

For most New World Order researchers, however, this might seem like an
arcane, academic distinction, maybe even the product of a profound
intellectual failure to search for the hidden agenda behind the dogma and
doctrine emanating from the seats of power. Or even some skilful
propaganda designed to deceive rather than inform with its contrasting
explanations of world order. But in truth it should be seen for what it is: an
admission to diversity of opinion within the Establishment, even though the
accepted spectrum of opinion was quite narrow. These divisions had been

already explicitly acknowledged by Jimmy Carter during the 1976

presidential campaign, with his declaration that the time had come to
replace balance of power politics with world order politics.[162]

Yet even this two-fold division is misleading. For one the boundaries
between the two groups are sometimes blurred; indeed, irrespective of what
think-tank, political party or social club they belong to, or which corporate
entity they either own or represent, the positions taken by leading
Establishment figures at times defies such simplistic characterisations. The
other reason is that Nyes neat labels exclude a third group, usually known
as the neo-conservatives, whose vision of world order is based on the
exclusive and overt global hegemony of the United States. And it is the
emergence of this so-called neo-conservative faction, which is credited
with formulating much of George W. Bushs post-9/11 foreign policy that is
the subject of Part Two of this study.

Endnotes

[1] Quoted in Richard Reeves, President Nixon: Alone in the White House,
(Touchstone, 2002), p.577.
[2] Quoted in Robert Manning, A world safe for business, Far Eastern
Economic Review, 25 March 1977, p.39.

[3] Gary Allen and Larry Abraham, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, (Concord
Press, 1971), pp.13-14, 87.

[4] John F. McManus, TThe Insiders: Architects of the New World Order, (The
John Birch Society, 2004), pp.5, 11.

[5] David Icke, I Am Me, I Am Free: The Robots Guide to Freedom, (Bridge of
Love, 1997), p.17.

[6] David Icke, Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster:
Why the official story of 9/11 is a monumental lie, (Bridge of Love, 2002),
pp.7, 9, 13-19.

[7] David Icke, And The Truth Shall Set You Free, (Bridge of Love, 1995),
p.xviii.

[8] Dr. John Coleman, Conspirators Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of
300, (America West Publishers, 1992), pp.3-4, 21.

[9] Nicholas Hagger, The Syndicate: The Story of the Coming World
Government, (O Books, 2005), pp.x, 23-25.

[10] Jim Marrs, Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the
Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids,
(HarperCollins, 2000), p.107.

[11] ibid, p.108 (emphasis added).

[12] Tibor S. Friedman, Symbols, slogans and spin, Online Journal, 29 June
2005, p.3 (emphasis added).

[13] James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations
and the American Decline, (Western Islands, 1988), pp.5, 15 (emphasis
added).

[14] McManus, The Insiders, p.8 (emphasis added).

[15] Quoted in Gary Kah, En Route to Global Occupation, (Huntington House,

1992), p.32.

[16] Quoted in John A. Stormer, None Dare Call It Treason, (Liberty Bell
Press, 1964), p.210.

[17] Phyllis Schafly and Chester Ward, Kissinger On The Couch, (Arlington
House, 1975), pp.129, 135, 145-146.

[18] Perloff, The Shadows of Power, p.10.

[19] Allan and Abram, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, p.80.

[20] See for example, Marrs, Rule By Secrecy; William Bramley, The Gods of
Eden, (Avon Books, 1990); and David Icke, The Biggest Secret, (Bridge of
Love, 1999).

[21] See for example Fritz Springmeier, The Illuminati Bloodlines,

(Ambassador House, 1999).

[22] Gary Allen, Say No! to the New World Order, (Concord Press, 1987),
p.29.

[23] Quoted in Perloff, Shadows of Power, p.193.

[24] Michael Howard, The Occult Conspiracy: Secret Societies Their

Influence and Power in World History, (Destiny Books, 1989), pp.2-3.

[25] David Icke, The Robots Rebellion, (Gateway Books, 1994), p.37.

[26] Perloff, Shadows of Power, p.191.

[27] Icke, Alice in Wonderland, p.477.

[28] David Icke, Children of the Matrix, (Bridge of Love, 2001), p.5; and Icke,
I Am Me, I Am Free, pp.14 & 8.

[29] Friedman, Symbols, slogans and spin, p.3 (emphasis in original).

[30] Letter addressed to The Sheeple from The Globalist New World Order

[31] David Rockefeller, Memoirs, (Random House, 2002), p.405.

[32] See Will Banyan, A Short History of the Round Table Parts 1-3, Nexus
(December 2004-January 2005; February-March 2005 & April-May 2005).

[33] See Will Banyan, A Short History of the Round Table Part 4, Nexus,
(June-July 2005).

[34] Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, (Touchstone, 1994), pp.29-30, 40.

[35] ibid, pp.30, 44, 234.

[36] Thomas J. Knock, To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a
New World Order, (Princeton University Press, 1992), p.50.

[37] ibid, pp.50-55.

[38] ibid, pp.55-57.

[39] ibid, p.58.

[40] Edmund Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, (Coward, McGann &
Geoghegan: New York, 1979), pp.567-568; and Howard K. Beale, Theodore
Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power, (John Hopkins Press:
Baltimore, 1956), p.38.

[41] Roosevelt quoted in Beale, ibid, p.64.

[42] Adams quoted in Beale, ibid, p.78

[43] Alfred T. Mahan, Possibilities of an Anglo-American Reunion, North

American Review, November 1894, p.560.

[44] Adams quoted Beale, Theodore Roosevelt, pp. 256-257 (emphasis

added).

[45] Quoted in Andrew J. Bacevich, Family Matters: American Civilian and

Military Elites in the Progressive Era, Armed Forces & Society, Spring 1982,
p.408.

[46] See Priscilla Roberts, Willard Straight, The First World War, and
Internationalism of all Sorts: The Inconsistencies of An American Liberal
Interventionist, Australian Journal of Politics and History, Vol.44, No.4, 1998.

[47] See Priscilla Roberts, Benjamin Strong, the Federal Reserve, and the
Limits to Interwar American Nationalism, Part I: Intellectual Profile of a
Central Banker, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic Quarterly,
Spring 2000; and Roberts, Benjamin Strong, the Federal Reserve, and the
Limits to Interwar American Nationalism, Part II: Strong and the Federal
Reserve System in the 1920s, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Economic
Quarterly, Spring 2000. According to Roberts, Strong was predisposed to
supporting close cooperation with Britain and had a world view in which
intimate Anglo-American cooperation was fundamental, (Roberts,
Benjamin StrongPart I, p.64).

[48] Bacevich, Family Matters, pp.409, 411.

[49] Kissinger, Diplomacy, p.54.

[50] See Serge Ricard, Anti-Wilsonian Internationalism: Theodore Roosevelt

in the Kansas City Star, in Daniela Rossini, ed., From Theodore Roosevelt to
FDR: Internationalism and Isolationism in American Foreign Policy, (Keele
University Press, 1995).

[51] Priscilla Roberts, The Anglo-American Theme: American Visions of an

Atlantic Alliance, 1914-1933, Diplomatic History, Summer 1997, p.336.

[52] Godfrey Hodgson, The Establishment, Foreign Policy, Spring 1973,

p.13.

[53] Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, (HarperCollins,
2000), p.466.

[54] Michael Hirsch, The Death of a Founding Myth, Newsweek: Special

Davos Edition, December-2001-February 2002, p.22.

[55] David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest, (Pan Books, 1972), p.12;
Arthur Schelsinger Jr., A Thousand Days, (Houghton Mifflin, 1965), p.128;
and Joseph Kraft, School for Statesmen, Harpers Magazine, July 1958,
pp.64, 68.

[56] G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America?, (Prentice-Hall, 1967), pp.63,

71; Thomas R. Dye, Whos Running America?: The Carter Years, Second
Edition, (Prentice-Hall, 1979), p.126; and Priscilla Roberts, The Council has

been your Creation: Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Paradigm of the American

Foreign Policy Establishment?, Journal of American Studies, April 2001, p.66.

[57] Henry Kissinger, Years of Upheaval, (Little Brown, 1982), p.86.

[58] Quoted in Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends
and the World They Made, (Touchstone, 1986) pp.27-28.

[59] Hodgson, The Establishment, pp.9-10.

[60] ibid, pp.8-9; Godfrey Hodgson, America In Our Time, (Doubleday & Co.
1976), pp.67-69, 491.

[61] Hodgson, America In Our Time, p.118.

[62] John B. Judis, Twilight of the Gods, The Wilson Quarterly, Autumn 1991,
pp.43-44.

[63] Isaacson and Thomas, The Wise Men, pp.19, 348-349.

[64] ibid, p.349.

[65] Noam Chomsky, American Power and the New Mandarins, (Pelican
Books, 1969), p.26.

[66] Noam Chomsky, World Orders, Old and New, (Pluto Press, 1994), p.1.

[67] Chomsky quoted in Peter R. Mitchell & John Schoeffel, Understanding

Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, (Scribe Publications, 2002), p.64

[68] Andrew Bacevich, American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of

American Diplomacy, (Harvard University Press, 2002), pp.2-3.

[69] ibid, p.3.

[70] ibid, pp.33, 88.

[71] ibid, pp.79, 85.

[72] ibid, p.87.

[73] Hodgson, The Establishment, p.13.

[74] Quoted and paraphrased in Noam Chomsky, The United States: From
Greece to El Salvador, in Noam Chomsky, Jonathan Steele & John Gittings,
Superpowers in Collision: The New Cold War, (Penguin Books, 1982), pp.2021, 104.

[75] G. John Ikenberry, Why Export Democracy?: The Hidden Grand

Strategy of American Foreign Policy, The Wilson Quarterly, Spring 1999,
pp.58-59.

[76] Chomsky, The United States: From Greece to El Salvador, p.21.

[77] CFR memorandum quoted in Laurence H. Shoup, Shaping the Postwar

World: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States War Aims During
World War II, The Insurgent Sociologist, Spring 1975, p.10.

[78] Noam Chomsky, Strategic Arms, the Cold War and the Third World, in
Edward P. Thompson et al, Exterminism and Cold War, (New Left Books,
1982), p.227.

[79] Shoup, Shaping the Postwar World, pp.16-17, 19-20 (emphasis added).

[80] ibid, p.23; and Laurance Shoup and William Minter, Shaping a New
World Order: The Council on Foreign Relations Blueprint for World
Hegemony, in Holly Sklar, ed, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and
Elite Planning for World Management, (South End Press, 1980), p.142.

[81] Robert D. Schulzinger, The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: The History of
the Council on Foreign Relations, (Columbia University Press, 1984), pp.83,
88-93.

[82] Quoted in Shoup, Shaping the Postwar World, pp.35-39.

[83] For a more extensive discussion of CFR input into the formation of the
IMF, see G. William Domhoff, The Power Elite and the State: How Policy is
Made in America, (Aldine de Gruyter, 1990), pp.153-186.

[84] See Patrick J. Hearden, Architects of Globalism: Building a New World

Order During World War II, (The University of Arkansas Press, 2002); and
Peter Gowan, US: UN, New Left Review, No.24, November-December 2003,
pp.5-28.

[85] Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, (Vintage, 1992), p.66, fn27; and
Chomsky, At War With Asia, (Fontana, 1970), p.8.

[86] William Y. Elliott et al, The Political Economy of American Foreign Policy:
Its Concepts, Strategy and Limits, A Report of a Study Group sponsored by
the Woodrow Wilson Foundation and the National Planning Association,
(Henry Holt & Co, 1955), p.42.

[87] Chomsky, At War With Asia, p.8. For further variations of Chomskys use
of this quotation see also: Chomsky, Towards a New Cold War: Essays on the
Current Crisis and How We Got There, (Pantheon Books, 1982), p.85;
Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, p.27; Chomsky, Brave new world order,
New Statesman & Society, 20 & 27 December 1991, p.19; and Chomsky,
Hegemony or Survival: Americas Quest for Global Dominance, (Allen &
Unwin, 2003), p.66.

[88] For a more detailed profile of the otherwise near invisible Frank Altschul
see Priscilla Roberts, Frank Altschul, Lazard Freres and the Council on
Foreign Relations: The Evolution of a Transatlantic Thinker, Journal of
Transatlantic Studies, Vol.1, No.2 (2003). Roberts suggests that in Altschuls
career we can find some truth in the myth of the inconspicuous powerbroker quietly pulling the strings (ibid, p.175).

[89] Elliott et al, The Political Economy of American Foreign Policy, pp.vi-viii.

[90] ibid, pp.vi, 15, 42.

[91] ibid, pp.8 11 (emphasis added).

[92] ibid, pp.220-221, 224, 390, 394 (emphasis added).

[93] ibid, pp.395-397.

[94] Hodgson, America In Our Time, p.69.

[95] Lewis Chester et al, An American Melodrama: The Presidential

Campaign of 1968, (Andre Deutsch: London, 1969), p.216.

[96] Rockefeller quoted in Stephen R. Graubard, Kissinger: Portrait of a Mind,

(W.W.Norton & Company, 1973), p106; Berle quoted in Jordan A. Schwarz,
Liberal: Adolf A. Berle and the Vision of an American Era, (The Free Press,
1987), p.311.

[97] Quoted in John Andrew iii, Cracks in the Consensus: The Rockefeller
Brothers Fund Special Studies Project and Eisenhowers America,
Presidential Studies Quarterly, Summer 1998, pp.537, 551 en.8.

[98] Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Prospect for America: The Rockefeller Panel
Reports, (Doubleday, 1961) pp.17-18, 20, 24, 26, 32-33, 35-36 (emphasis
added).

[99] ibid, pp.29-33, 228-231 (emphasis added).

[100] ibid, pp.33-35 (emphasis added).

[101] ibid, 186, 189-191, 198-199, 204, 222.

[102] John Birch Society founder Robert Welch did suggest that Communist
influences had affected the timing and recommendations of the RBF Study
Group, although he did praise the study group for comprising of mostly
entirely loyal Americans (The Blue Book of the John Birch Society, Western
Islands, 1959, p.21).

[103] Bacevich, American Empire, pp.4-5.

[104] Quoted in ibid, p.5.

[105] ibid, p.6.

[106] President Truman, Independence Day Address Delivered at the Home

of Thomas Jefferson, 4 July 1974, at Truman Presidential Library website
(emphasis added).

[107] Chomsky, American Power and the New Mandarins, p.253.

[108] Quoted in ibid, p.215.

[109] Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Trumans Speech & Noam Chomsky,

Commentary, December 1969, pp.4 & 10. Schlesinger had first pointed out
this error in his review of American Power and the New Mandarins, which
appeared in Book World (23 March 1969).

[110] Noam Chomsky, Vietnam, the Cold War & Other Matters,
Commentary, October 1969, p.22.

[111] Schlesinger, Trumans Speech & Noam Chomsky, p.4.

[112] Arguably the main problem with the John Birch Societys analysis of
the New World Order, one that persists to this day, is their assertion
Communism are the primary vehicle of those capitalist elites behind the
push for world government. It was JBS founder Robert Welch who first
warned of the gigantic conspiracy to enslave mankind being hatched by
the Communists in his book, The Blue Book of the John Birch Society
(Western Islands, 1959). The Communists, he claimed, were following a
long-range plan designed to: induce the gradual surrender of American
sovereignty, piece by piece and step by step, to various international
organisations of which the United Nations is the outstanding but by far the
only example while the Communists are simultaneously and equally
gradually getting complete working control of such organisationsUntil one
daywe are part of a world-wide government ruled by the Kremlin, with the
police-state features of that government rapidly closing in on ourselves
(p.20). Recent history has exposed the absurdities of this theory;
nevertheless Welchs legion of successors stick doggedly to his conjecture.
This has resulted in increasingly bizarre efforts in which most architects of
the New World Order are correctly identified; yet their supposedly proCommunist sympathies are the sole yardstick used to measure their

complicity. By trying to paint the New World Order project as inherently

Communist, the Welch-inspired methodology not only misses the clear
evidence of serious Establishment attempts to neutralise the Soviet threat,
but ignores the more compelling evidence of elite moves to supersede
national sovereignty to be found in their support for supranational
institutions, free trade and international economic integration.

[113] Seyom Brown, The Faces of Power: Constancy and Change in United
States Foreign Policy from Truman to Reagan, (Columbia University Press,
1983), p.29.

[114] See Gowan, US: UN, pp.9-11.

[115] See for example Cord Meyer Jr, A Plea for World Government, The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1949,
pp.6-3; Clark M. Eichelberger, World Government via the United Nations';
ibid, pp.20-25; and Albert Einstein, Atomic War or Peace, The Atlantic
Monthly, November 1947.

[116] Quoted in John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A Critical

Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy, (Oxford University
Press, 1982), p.56.

[117] See Inderjeet Parmar, To Relate Knowledge and Action: The Impact
of the Rockefeller Foundation on Foreign Policy Thinking During Americas
Rise to Globalism 1939-1945, Minerva 40 (2002), pp.235-263; Parmar, The
Carnegie Corporation and the Mobilisation of Opinion During the United
States Rise to Globalism, 1939-1940, Minerva, 37 (1999), pp..355-278; and
Parmar, Engineering Consent: The Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace and the Mobilisation of American Public Opinion, 1939-1945, Review
of International Studies 26 (2000), pp.35-48.

[118] Quotes in Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, pp.12, 15.

[119] Hearden, Architects of Globalism, pp.147, 148 (Welles quote), 184

(Hull quote).

[120] ibid, pp. 160, 164 (Hull quote); Truman quoted in Henry Kissinger,
Diplomacy, (Touchstone, 1994) p.427 (emphasis added).

[121] Quoted in Michael Wala, The Council on Foreign Relations and

American Foreign Policy in the Early Cold War, (Berghahn Books, 1994),
pp.78-79.

[122] Quoted in Isaacson and Thomas, The Wise Men, pp.238, 247-248, 268269, 348.

[123] See for example, Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, pp.1-68.

[124] For a recent critique of Chomskys theories about the Cold War see
Thomas M. Nichols, Chomsky and the Cold War, in Peter Collier and David
Horowitz, ed., The Anti-Chomsky Reader, (Encounter Books, 2004), pp.3565.

[125] Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, pp.356-357 (emphasis in original).

[126] Quoted in Martin Walker, The Cold War: And The Making of the Modern
World, (Vintage, 1994), p.18.

[127] Quoted in Brown, The Faces of Power, p.34.

[128] George Kennan, The Sources of Soviet Conduct, in Philip E. Mosely,

ed., The Soviet Union 1922-1962: A Foreign Affairs Reader, (Council on
Foreign Relations, 1963), pp.183-185.

[129] Quotes in Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, p.57 (emphasis added).

[130] Quoted in ibid pp.27-29; George F. Kennan, Memoirs, 1925-1950,

(Little Brown & Co, 1967), p.218-219; and Kennan, American Diplomacy
1900-1950, (A Mentor Book, 1951), pp.82-86.

[131] Hodgson, The Establishment, p.14; Isaacson and Thomas, The Wise
Men, p.33.

[132] Isaacson and Thomas, The Wise Men, pp.33-34, 275, 276 (including
quotes)

[133] ibid, pp.323, 400 & 367 (including quotes).

[134] ibid, p.34.

[135] Quoted in Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National

Security, the Truman Administration and the Cold War, (Stanford University
Press, 1992), p.19.

[136] Quoted in Gowan, US: UN, p.6.

[137] Quoted in Noam Chomsky, The New Military Humanism: Lessons From
Kosovo, (Pluto Press, 1999), p.151; and Chomsky, Hegemony Or Survival,
p.14.

[138] Melvyn P. Leffler, National Security and U.S. Foreign Policy, in Melvyn
P. Leffler and David S. Painter, eds, Origins of the Cold War: An International
History, (Routledge, 1994), pp.18-22.

[139] ibid, pp.23-24, 33-34; and Leffler, A Preponderance of Power, p.11.

[140] NSC-68 quoted in Walker, The Cold War, pp.72-73; and Isaacson and
Thomas, The Wise Men, pp.490, 495-504, 513 (Acheson quote).

[141] RBF, Prospect for America, pp.18-19.

[142] For further discussion of the liberal internationalist thought of Nelson

and David Rockefeller see Will Banyan, Rockefeller Internationalism (Part
2), Nexus, June-July 2003; ibid, (Part 3), Nexus, August-September 2003; and
ibid, (Part 4), Nexus, October-November 2003.

[143] Michael Hirsch, Bush and the World, Foreign Affairs,

September/October 2002, p.31.

[144] Lincoln Bloomfield, Arms Control and World Government, World

Politics, July 1962, p.635

[145] Schelling quoted in Lee D. Neumann, World Government, in Joseph S.

Nye Jr, et al, Fateful Visions: Avoiding Nuclear Catastrophe, (Ballinger, 1988),
p.197.

[146] Quoted in Theodore C. Sorenson, JFKs Strategy of Peace, World

Policy Journal, Fall 2003, pp.2-3. Sorenson was a former aide to Kennedy.
Peter Dale Scott cites Kennedys speech as an example of those
presidential initiatives for peace that have had to be prepared in
conditions of secrecy to avoid interference from the military-industrial
complex. See Scott, Drugs, Oil and War: The United States in Afghanistan,
Colombia and Indochina, (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003), p.10.

[147] See Richard N. Gardner, Blueprint for Peace: Being the Proposals of
Prominent Americans to the White House Conference on International
Cooperation, (McGraw Hill, 1966).

[148] Judis, Twilight of the Gods, p.45; and Hodgson, The Establishment,
pp.35, 37, 39 (emphasis in original).

[149] Robert Buzzanco, What Happened to the New Left? Toward a Radical
Reading of American Foreign Relations, Diplomatic History, Fall 1999,
pp.593-595.

[150] For more extensive treatments of this issue see, Carl Oglesby, The
Yankee and Cowboy War: Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate, (Sheed
Andrews & McNeel, 1976); Kirkpatrick Sale, Yankees and Cowboys the
World Behind Watergate in Steve Weissman, ed., Big Brother and the
Holding Company: The World Behind Watergate, (Ramparts Press, 1974);
and Kirkpatrick Sale, Power Shift: The Rise of the Southern Rim and Its
Challenge to the Eastern Establishment, (Random House, 1975). For a more
thoughtful and recent analysis of this issue see Daniel Brandt,
Philanthropists at War, NameBase Newsline, No.15, October-December
1996.

[151] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time,
(MacMillan Company, 1966), pp.1245-1246.

[152] James A. Smith, Private Players in the Game of Nations, The

Washington Quarterly, Summer 1988, pp.24-25.

[153] See Will Banyan, Rockefeller Internationalism, Part 5: Trilateralism and

the Legacy of David Rockefeller, Nexus, December 2003-January 2004.

[154] Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: Americas Role in the

Technetronic Era, (The Viking Press, 1970), p.304; and David Rockefeller, In
Pursuit of a Consistent Foreign Policy: The Trilateral Commission, Vital
Speeches of the Day, June 15, 1980, p.517.

[155] Kissinger, Diplomacy, p.703. Kissingers private views on Americas

decline were reputed to be more extreme. During the 1976 Presidential
campaign, retired Chief of Naval Operations and Democrat Senate candidate
Elmo Zumwalt claimed Kissinger had once told him, the day of the United
States is past and today is the day of the Soviet Union. My job as Secretary
of State is to negotiate the most acceptable second-best position available
(quoted in Larry Abraham, Call It Conspiracy, Double A Publications, 1985,
p.179). With Ronald Reagan and other critics using this allegation to attack
dtente, Kissinger angrily rejected Zumwalts claims as a fabrication and
publicly declared I do not believe the United States is on the decline
(quoted in Walter Isaacson, Kissinger, Touchstone, 1992, pp.696-698). The
policies Kissinger insisted on pursuing, however, indicated that he held at
the very least, a markedly more pessimistic view of Americas global
position than he was prepared to admit to.

[156] Stanley Hoffmann, Weighing the Balance of Power, Foreign Affairs,

July 1972, pp.632-635 (emphasis added).

[157] Lester R. Brown, World Without Borders, (Vintage Books, 1973), p.303;
and Richard N. Gardner, The United Nations and Alternative Formulations,
in Fred W. Neal and Mary K. Harvey, eds, Pacem In Terris III: Volume III
American Foreign Policy in the Age of Interdependence, (Fund for the
Republic: Santa Barbara, CA, 1974), p.168.

[158] Robert Cox, On Thinking about Future World Order, World Politics,
January 1976, pp.188, 191.

[159] Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road to World Order, Foreign Affairs,
April 1974, p.558.

[160] Quoted in Joan Hoff, Nixon Reconsidered, (Basic Books, 1994), pp.158,
164-165.

[161] Joseph S. Nye Jr, What New World Order?, Foreign Affairs, Spring
1992, p.84 (emphasis added).

[162] Jimmy Carter, The US, UN, World Order, in Jimmy Carter, The
Presidential Campaign, Volume One, Part One, (US Government Printing
Office, 1978), p.683.

Tags: Anti-CommunismCold WarCouncil on Foreign RelationsOne World

GovernmentPax AmericanaUnited NationsWill Banyan

7
16
0
1

Terry Melanson
Webmaster/editor of Conspiracy Archive; author of Perfectibilists: the 18th
Century Bavarian Order of the Illuminati.

NEXT
Roots of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
PREVIOUS
The Future of Freedom: A Feature Interview with NSA Whistleblower William
Binney
15 RESPONSES

15 Comments
0 Track/Pingbacks
Futureshock July 18, 2015 at 1:06 am
Hi Will,

Its quite an old article so I dont know if you still think the same about this,
but I presume you do.

.
As said before, I really like your book reviews and otherwise critical articles
on the researchers in the scene who fail to document their works, but on the
NWO as a concept and on the elite I think the skeptic worldview has gotten
too strong a hold on you. Its quite easy to drown in details, but the
helicopter-view is the most important I think. You also only mention the
worst researchers out there, like Marrs and Icke. There is a lot more and far
better evidence around and you know that.

.
I think that to really understand the NWO matter, one must learn the
esoteric side. One World Government is only the exoteric explanation, and
not even very relevant. While Im a new kid on the block as it comes to
publishing writing on these subjects, I have been researching it for a long
time. As you for instance can read in my essay THE BOREDOM OF
SKEPTICISM [see website link], for someone like Julian Huxley the New World
Order meant nothing less than the next step in our human evolution! I
already have written multiple essays going further into this subject, and
many more will follow. But it goes way way way way deeper than just a silly
world government. Many newer articles by the Collins gentlemen on this
website also go quite deep and well-researched into this. Do you not agree
with their view?

.
A short comment by me. Of course there is no complete elite unity and
never was. Not everyone in the elite is after the same. Politicians are
anyhow not very relevant, and also never were. I wouldnt call them the
elite. Im certain that for instance most presidential advisers are way higher
on the real power structure than the presidents themselves. The whole
world and the way is has to go is planned decades ahead, incl. all wars, etc.
This because the end goal is known and they work by a cosmic time-clock so
to speak. But much of the elite in-fighting is fake, that I am sure of. There
might be differences in opinion how, but in the end all factions who come
into power will work to the world government and world unity. At the top the
Cold War was also not real, but it had a very different real reason.
.

President Bush and his neocons seemed like a different breed and a rogue
part of the so-called Establishment. You wrote:
-

 This has become obvious in the new millennium, particularly since the
launch of the so-called War on Terror by the administration of President
George W. Bush in the wake of the tragic events of 11 September 2001.
With its doctrines of pre-emptive war, maintaining US military superiority
and demonstrated willingness to sideline the United Nations, the Bush
Administration has made it all too obvious that some factions would much
rather rule the world directly from Washington DC, rather than via the
plethora of supranational institutions based in or controlled from New York,
Geneva, Brussels, and Tokyo.

.
The short answer is that the US had to become hated by the world, more
than it already was. The function why the US was founded is almost over. Its
function was to unite the world under democracy; manifest destiny, the New
Atlantis, blabla, and soon it will be brought back to its real status. What you
need to understand is that the World Order will not have a superpower like
the US, hence this superpower has to be destroyed. And the War On Terror
will do just that. Firstly, moneywise because the debt of the foreign wars will
be the death knell, just as it was with the Roman Empire. Really some same
kind of action plan as in ancient Rome is used for the controlled demolition
of the US. The other Agenda-point the War on Terror fulfills is the fact that
the last few countries in the world that werent subservient to the global
banking system have been or are in the process of being overturned. This
first had / has to be done, before the next phase kicks in. As H.G. Wells
already wrote in the 30s, World War III would begin in Iraq and spread from
there to the whole Middle-East and then far beyond that. The war had to
happen, and it is orchestrated to last until the world is one and the people
chipped. There will never be a moment when one could say now there are
no more terrorists, so they will sell it as the only way to achieve world
peace. Thats one of the major mistakes people make, thinking that the elite
means the same with peace as we do. Brainchipping the world has always
been the end goal, from the 30s or 40s certainly, but I think even before
1900 this was already decided by the REAL rulers behind the scene.
Because at the very top they have much more advanced knowledge and
techniques. And not even only for total control, thats once again only the
exoteric reason.
.
The real unity of the top elites is not in political doctrines, ethnicity,
nationality, etc. It goes much much deeper. Its a Brotherhood of initiates
who are bent to unite the world into one single living organism, which will
constitute the next step in human evolution. This has been documented
more than 100 years ago in great detail and the whole world is living
through it today, so there has to be a very strict collaboration behind the
scenes on some kind of supranational level. There is absolute unity, but one
that we probably never really gonna find out, because it happens in way
more secret meetings than that we know of.

.
.

PS: cant someone do something about the poor formatting in the

comments? Its not even possible to create white lines between paragraphs,
so it becomes one long unclear string of text.

Reply
Will Banyan July 19, 2015 at 8:45 am
Futureshock,

Fascinating comments, but I must disagree as follows:

1. Yes The Illusion of Elite Unity is seven years old now, but as a historical
overview of elite factionalism in the US, I think it retains validity and
shouldnt just be dispensed with because it has a few years on it. If we
employed that logic, surely we would have collectively cast Carroll Quigleys
Tragedy and Hope into the dustbin of old books long ago.

2. Skepticism should be the main driver of any research into the N.W.O. both
in terms of approaching the evidence for it, and for considering claims made
about there being a N.W.O. conspiracy. The problem I have with a lot of
research into these matters is that (a) claims are made with little or no
evidence, or with unreliable or invented evidence; and (b) preconceived
ideas often take precedence over what the facts actually are. Actually
examining the claims made, critically and in detail, actually works to
reinforce some of the basic helicopter level themes if you like that they
are making, whilst exposing all sorts of other more intriguing details that
helicopter-level theorists, in their zeal to make a sensational point, overlook.
I also note that in your comments you commit the further sin by appealing
to evidence that we cannot see or cannot disprove: There is absolute unity,
but one that we probably never really gonna find out, because it happens in
way more secret meetings than that we know of. Convenient. My paper on
the Rothschilds and Invasion of Iraq (in Lobster Magazine back in 2012) tried
to tackle this approach where people make an accusation, not based on any
direct evidence, but more on a belief about the inclinations and powers of a
particular group and/or persons. It helps, I think, on occasion, to make the
effort to see if the evidence supports a particular claim. In the case of the
Rothschilds there was no direct evidence to support the claims made (none
of the people making the claims bothered to provide any), but I was able
provide evidence of a plausible motive on their part, and to at least show
they knew to varying degrees quite a few people who went on to part to

play in the decision to invade. No smoking gun, but they were more than
well-connected bystanders.

3. Disagree on the neo-cons. Your theory is not new to me. I think the higher
level NWO theorists struggled for years to understand where the neo-cons
fit into things and what their objectives were. Because America has been
weakened by its adventurism in the Middle East, it is assumed that was the
original unstated objective. If researchers, such as yourself, really believe
that, then I think much more work needs to be done to try to show why that
is the case. One potential angle of analysis might be in terms of: (a) the
Bush/neo-cons being collectively stupid enough to think their plan would
work and do so to Americas strategic and economic benefit; (b) NWO
faction knowing they are wrong, but seeing opportunity to weaken the US,
despite risk of enhancing instability in the Middle East; and (c) facilitating
Bush/neo-con faction coming to power, 9/11 etc. Now thats just a wild
theory to me. I think (a) is true, but (b) and (c) are speculative. But I think
that elite factionalism explains it better and has far more evidence to
support it.

4. There can never be too much detail! My piece on Bilderberg and the 1973
Oil Shock is nearly 9000 words long!

Your website is very interesting. Some fascinating links and tidbits of

information, not that I agree with the totality of your analysis, but we can
address that in another time.

Reply
Mr. Resister July 19, 2015 at 4:09 pm
4. There can never be too much detail!

For my little pea-brain there can be. HA. I recently read Brave New World
Revisited.
http://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/
And Aldous sheds some light on this in the Foreword.

The soul of wit may become the very body of untruth. However elegant
and memorable, brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all
the facts of a complex situation. On such a theme one can be brief only by
omission and simplification. Omission and simplification help us to
understand but help us, in many cases, to understand the wrong thing;
for our comprehension may be only of the abbreviators neatly formulated

notions, not of the vast, ramifying reality from which these notions have
been so arbitrarily abstracted.

But life is short and information endless: nobody has time for everything. In
practice we are generally forced to choose between an unduly brief
exposition and no exposition at all. Abbreviation is a necessary evil and the
abbreviators business is to make the best of a job which, though
intrinsically bad, is still better than nothing. He must learn to simplify, but
not to the point of falsification. He must learn to concentrate upon the
essentials of a situation, but without ignoring too many of realitys qualifying
side issues. In this way he may be able to tell, not indeed the whole truth
(for the whole truth about almost any important subject is incompatible with
brevity), but considerably more than the dangerous quarter-truths and halftruths which have always been the current coin of thought.

The subject of freedom and its enemies is enormous, and what I have
written is certainly too short to do it full justice; but at least I have touched
on many aspects of the problem. Each aspect may have been somewhat
over-simplified in the exposition; but these successive over-simplifications
add up to a picture that, I hope, gives some hint of the vastness and
complexity of the original.

Omitted from the picture (not as being unimportant, but merely for
convenience and because I have discussed them on earlier occasions) are
the mechanical and military enemies of freedom the weapons and
hardware which have so powerfully strengthened the hands of the worlds
rulers against their subjects, and the ever more ruinously costly
preparations for ever more senseless and suicidal wars. The chapters that
follow should be read against a background of thoughts about the Hungarian
uprising and its repression, about H-bombs, about the cost of what every
nation refers to as defense, and about those endless columns of
uniformed boys, white, black, brown, yellow, marching obediently toward
the common grave.

Reply
Will B July 19, 2015 at 4:51 pm
Touch!

Reply
Futureshock July 24, 2015 at 3:17 am
Hi Will,

1.] This article certainly still has validity and is sound. Of course old sources
are not to be discarded, most of the time the sources that have stood the
test of time are the best. I thought more of the way the agenda has
proceeded since 2007, which at least to me really looks carefully
orchestrated from behind the scenes.

2.] I also note that in your comments you commit the further sin by
appealing to evidence that we cannot see or cannot disprove

A sinner? If thats the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. [as a
wise Stonecutter once said. You know, the one who daily works on his global
ashlar.]
.

I think, on occasion, to make the effort to see if the evidence supports a

particular claim.

Yes. But do you then hold the premise that all evidence is available to you /
us as researchers? Because thats of course not always the case. In most of
the cases well have to do it with only some crumbs that are thrown to the
public. Ive tried to explain that in my Boredom Of Skepticism-article. There
might for instance be a lot proof of Rothschild being caught red-handed, but
well outside our sphere of influence, for instance behind paywalls or just
classified company documentation, etc. Isnt it even nave to think that we
as regular folks can ever get our hands on the full literature / documentation
/ etc, and therefore the full picture? The whole world of literature is so
compartmentalized. Therefore sometimes I personally decide to be a bit
crude and picture before me how the plans were described 100 years ago,
or even 50, and the whole world has been or is in the process of getting
there. Soon not one country will be completely solitary. Maybe Korea, but
that small country is not very relevant for the world order at large. Is all this
possible with a high degree of factionalism? I doubt that. Therefore the best
conclusion for me is that there is another level of control above the factions.
And thats where my websites tries to be about. I focus mainly on the
Darwin-Huxley-Galton clique, which has had far more influence on the world
as all bankers and politicians combined. And thats because they are of a
special branch of hereditary elite, the doctrinal branch so to speak. The
long-term planners for the agenda.
.

Because America has been weakened by its adventurism in the Middle

East, it is assumed that was the original unstated objective. If researchers,
such as yourself, really believe that, then I think much more work needs to
be done to try to show why that is the case.

Well, this is impossible to proof in detail, but if you see the full picture [or
think you see], then its a logical conclusion. One which many already had
stated before they event went into the Middle-East. The best explanation I
know is that the Twin Towers represented the Jachin and Boaz, the two
pillars of the Temple Of Solomon, which were destroyed too, and were
carried away in pieces for ease of transportation to never be seen again.
[see Wikipedia] This constituted the end of the world power which was
prevalent in that Age. The two pillars also represent Male and Female, and
the collapse signified the real start of the 21st century; the century in which
the Fall will be undone and human will become androgynous again. And this
collapse would also end the US as world power. The Petronas Towers were
mentioned as the new icon, which are two towers, also called twin towers,
but joined by a Masonic-like compass, signifying the alchemical wedding of
male and female so to speak. In the greater picture this sounds not
unreasonable, but this can of course never be succinctly proven in any way.
But almost nothing of the higher esoteric conclusions can be proven in
detail, but to understand the full picture you have to venture into these grey
terrains. The middle road is not to publish these speculations, or with a
disclaimer. In my newer essays Ive also added some thoughts and hunches,
because it can also just be the one little spark one of your readers needs to
fill it in further.

(a) the Bush/neo-cons being collectively stupid enough to think their plan
would work and do so to Americas strategic and economic benefit;
I think there never was real doubt that their plan would fail, because it was
a collective plan of the people above them. But they might fall in the
shadowy elite class which isnt easy to pinpoint. The Neocons have had to
cope with heavy hits, thats for sure. With some of them almost being
indicted, but in the end they stand above the law, they all do. And you see
now that the next Bush can make his turn. They were just the bad cop so
to speak, so Obama could come in as the carefully prepared charismatic
personality, who, with the help of the exploitation of mass media to obtain
public confidence, would bring in the piecemeal transformation of the
United States into a highly controlled society. [Between Two Ages]
.

4. There can never be too much detail! Certainly, I also only try to publish
articles with some volume and scope.
.
PS: not that I agree with the totality of your analysis, but we can address
that in another time. Yes, would be great. In my article on Cecil Rhodes I
came to another conclusion as you too, also some conflicting sources. Ive
typed an e-mail for you addressing some points, but decided not to send it
last week, because I thought you wouldnt like that. Its one of the more
speculative articles, on Rhodes, but my intent with the website is mostly to
fill in gaps existing with earlier researchers. Or maybe other / higher levels
of communication they maybe do. Through names, etc. This sounds silly, for
me too at the start, but too many things match for it to be pure coincidence.

Greets.

Reply
Terry Melanson July 24, 2015 at 9:00 pm
crumbs that are thrown to the public proof of Rothschild being caught
red-handed, but well outside our sphere of influence, for instance behind
paywalls or just classified company documentation

If the historian is transparent with his source material, then we all have the
ability to consult it for ourselves. Other than books, journals and
newspapers, archival material may be hardest to consult but it is not out of
reach to the general public at large. Classified material is another matter
completely. It is just as much out of reach to the historian as it is to the
layman. We work with what we have the crumbs are the same for
everyone. I repeat: the crumbs are the same for everyone.

Reply
Futureshock July 29, 2015 at 10:21 pm
Terry wrote: If the historian is transparent with his source material, then we
all have the ability to consult it for ourselves. [] We work with what we
have the crumbs are the same for everyone. I repeat: the crumbs are
the same for everyone.
.
Yes, true. You make two important points. The first is that the historians
have to be transparent. I know that many important historians have been
initiates too, and that many historians were appointed by the ruler he
served and wrote his-story. And I think its often more important what they
omit than what they do write. Orwell called it through the memory-hole,

remember? Certainly the last few decades when some historians are literally
paid more than a million dollar to write a book. There hasnt been published
one book in history that can possibly be worth so much money. As soon as a
civilization creates stars its on its decline, and the same goes with
celebrity historians. Thats how they made Niall Ferguson for instance. And
Richard J. Evans is another example. Big names, but made big by the
financial powers behind the scene paying them millions for moderate books
that omit the most important facts.
.
The book Hidden History by Daniel J. Boorstin goes briefly into the flaws of
modern historiography. He was of opinion that due to the suffocating way
modern science is regulated the non-professional historians, like Churchill,
wrote the best history books. This book also contains an interesting chapter
on how FDR became the first nationally advertised president or something
in that regard. With the help of George Gallup and Walter Lipmann if I
remember correctly. I dont have the book at hand, and it lies somewhere in
my book-basement buried under big stacks of other books. He was the
predecessor to Billington as Librarian of Congress. Those guys always have
a bit more detail in their books than most of their fellows, because they sit
on one of the largest [public available] collections.
.
But Quigley might be the best example of how much we and other historians
really miss. His books are almost unbearable for other historians because
they contain so much detail [unsourced] they dont know of or have access
to. Look for scholars who dared to cite Quigley, there arent many, and all
write that they are completely in awe of the detail. Thats because Quigley
tells us that he had special access to the hidden archives to the CFR. So it
seems there is some kind of level above the normal academic level of
historiography. Arnold Toynbee was one of the authorized historians too, and
with him goes the same. Nave fellow-historians have dubbed him racist and
other slurs just because they didnt understand that Toynbee wrote the
history for the Dominant Minority [as Huxley called them and I adopted
this]. Therefore Toynbee added little paragraphs that went into the next step
in evolution where the white man [a small part of it] takes evolution in their
own hands and wipes out the rest, etc. Thats the goal set out by the early
Fabians and before the Darwins and Galtons. The Fabians where just the leftwing arm of the RIIA, the brains so to speak. Almost everything that is our
Western civilization can be traced back to this clique and the moneyed
powers they were affiliated with.
.
Will Durant was also one of their historians, and on my website I have added
some quotes from his mind-blowing book The Story Of Philosophy. In THE
BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM one quote at the end. And some more will follow,
with a linked scanned PDF of that book, in one of my upcoming articles
called APOCALYPSE NEVER; REVEALING THE METHOD OF THE
ARMAGEDDON-ENGINEERS. So keep your eyes open for that if you would be
interested. This book by Durant gives a deep insight on how the NWO-

agenda completes what Plato once started in his Republic. Francis Bacon
was the Plato of our Age, and he lives on through the Royal Society, which is
more or less the executive science arm of the NWO. In my article INDECENT
ATMOSPHERE you can find a bit more background info on that.

Greets.

Reply
Terry Melanson July 29, 2015 at 11:31 pm
Quigleys Tragedy and Hope was more of a textbook for his class thats
why theres no citations. Scholars knew about it at the time but werent
afraid of it or of citing it. They saw it for what it was a standard textbook
for his wide ranging course on the history of civilizations. Quigley wasnt an
historians historian. He was a teacher first and foremost. He hardly ever
wrote papers and published them in journals. He was a classroom sort of
guy until he died. His peers, on the other hand (including his teachers and
mentors) published innumerable works which in turn advanced their own
profession and won them accolades. Quigleys reference to having studied
the secret records of the Round Table Groups in the 1960s, I think, directly
refers to the precise citations included in the posthumously-published AngloAmerican Establishment.

Other authors have since consulted those exact archives Robert Rotberg,
especially, who is considered the expert on Cecil Rhodes. The latter is of the
opinion that Quigley exaggerated his case for the continuity of the Rhodes
secret societies and took too many liberties with the source material. See
his paper Did Cecil Rhodes Really Try to Control the World? which
examines Quigleys use of those sources. He didnt even know who Quigley
was until I told him about him. Rotberg uses the same sources as Quigley,
yet both came to different conclusions. Having read both authors both
citing the same exact material I kind of agree with him that Quigley
exaggerated his case beyond what the evidence warranted.

Theres a reason why Quigley is the star boy for conspiracy land. Its
because he was more like them than he let on his teacher Crane Brinton as
well all the while vociferously denying it. I wrote a bit about my take on
some aspects of this in the following: An Evaluation of Carroll Quigleys
Thoughts on the Illuminati, Buonarroti and the Carbonari.

As far as Boorstin goes, he was one of the best historians of his generation.
He cites everything he writes about, has advanced history quite a bit, and
was one of the best storytellers to boot. I havent read his Hidden History,
but his Creators and Discoverers are unmatched for what they are. By
Hidden History I assume he means obscure or not widely known

history, rather than the hidden hand of history common among conspiracy
theorists.

Ferguson, on the other hand, is definitely an establishment historian, and

dodgy as hell. I dont trust him, nor his motives. He is an example of the
historian who has had access to records that us mere mortals do not
probably after selling his soul, the little rat. Will is more familiar with his
books and career than I am and has written an expose of sorts, here: The
Professors Progress.

Reply
Futureshock July 30, 2015 at 1:36 am
Hi Terry,

I know of Rotberg. In my article on Cecil Rhodes I also go into him a bit:

http://futureshock2050.com/essays/old-man-on-the-mountain.
Rhodes was very clear about his plan for world domination, and it rhymes
perfectly with what other individuals of his level wanted.

Rotberg was himself a Rhodes Scholar, and I personally think he agitated

against Quigley to do some damage control. I really dont believe he didnt
knew Quigley. I think the chances are even bigger that Quigley appointed
Rotberg as a Rhodes Scholar than the fact theat both wouldnt know each
other. That was one of Quigleys extra-curricular activities, appointing the
Red revolutionairies. And Rotberg, the Red Mountain is named as a big one.
And if someone is called the foremost expert on anything, hes most of the
time made to be that, by the establishment. Rotberg is certainly part of the
Globalist establishment.
.
Quigleys books werent surpressed for nothing, and the printing plates of
Tragedy & Hope destroyed. He was thwarted and sabotaged a lot.

Terry Melanson July 30, 2015 at 3:13 am

Ive been called the foremost expert on the Bavarian Illuminati in the
English language. I was not made to be that. Its something that has to be
earned. You have to specialize and excel in a single subject and dig up all
the minutia available. I am not sure if Rotberg is considered the foremost
expert on Rhodes or not. But I do know that out of all the citations that
Quigley made in his Anglo-American Establishment, only one scholar
consulted the same material. Thats why I called him the expert; and thats
why I contacted him and asked him about Quigley. He was literally the only

one on the planet who had consulted the exact same material, and yet
came to distinctively different conclusions. He thanked me for it, read the
book, then wrote a scholarly paper on it, and gave me an acknowledgement
for making him aware of it in the first place (though he called me a
conspiracist blogger).

At any rate, Rotberg doesnt really succeed at debunking Quigley, if that is

what you think I mean. He disagrees mostly with the success of the scheme.
I actually found a good overview of Rotbergs article, here:
http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/15197
Rotbergs conclusions amounts to a lot of nitpicking and naysaying on the
basis of there being too much elite disunity in the org to begin with (of all
things!)

At any rate. We now have on record a scholarly attempt at refutation of

Quigleys conspiracy theory. Before this there was nothing, not even a
review. I asked his opinion and he gave it. We all can compare both works
for ourselves and see who is the most persuasive.

Futureshock August 4, 2015 at 6:22 am

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the link to Intrepid Report. Its an interesting article. Didnt knew
the writer John Klyczek, but I will look into his other writings too.
.
Time will tell how much of Quigleys details turn out to be true. Unfortnately
more than is good for us. I found the works of Alvin Toffler and Jacques Attali
the best in explaining how the new feudal system is implemented. I learned
of both by listening to Alan Watt from Canada.
I cite Attalis A Brief History Of The Future several times in my articles. This
book can only be explained as a NWO-handbook, just like Quigleys book
were. Therefore they need no citations and literature list, because most of
the information is from secret archives that others havent got access to.
But the agenda is out there, so nobody can ever say that it really is secret.
Its an Open Conspiracy and everything they want to do with the world and
the people is published. But as you know too: who reads anymore in these
times? Thats why they are able to succeed. Thats how H.G. Wells
formulated it too. Some of his non-fiction works have come out way too
detailed. See my article MAGGIE MACABRE for a link to the World Futurist
Society that goes into Wells.
.
Greets.

.
I still have hundreds of books to go to use in new articles on my website,
with many incriminating passages that havent been used before in the
conspiracy world to quote. So my thesis of the NWO-Agenda being the
perfecting of the whole world in an alchemical initiation, will become much
more clear I hope. But its so big its almost impossible to comprehend.

Will Banyan July 25, 2015 at 7:21 am

Hi Futureshock,

The best we can do as researchers, to both come to some sort of plausible

conclusion and to ensure our readers know where we are coming from, is to
exploit the evidence at hand and not let the desire to speculate, no matter
how tempting, override that goal. We should be about discovering the truth,
not inventing it.

Reading your responses I see what could easily be interpreted as a series of

excuses for speculation: do you then hold the premise that all evidence is
available to you / us as researchers? Because thats of course not always
the case; well have to do it with only some crumbs that are thrown to the
public; Isnt it even nave to think that we as regular folks can ever get our
hands on the full literature / documentation / etc, and therefore the full
picture?; this is impossible to prove in detail and almost nothing of the
higher esoteric conclusions can be proven in detail. You even use the term
speculations to describe the grey terrain you venture into.

I agree that some things are impossible to prove, probably because they are
wrong or impossible to be right, but also because we do not have access to
all the facts not everything is written, and not all that is written is easily
discovered; but thats no excuse for not trying to find out and to resist the
desire to indulge in speculation, no matter how entrancing the results of the
latter process might be. to return to my example of my paper on the
Rothschilds and Iraq, I was dealing with a lack of evidence presented by the
three authors making the claim David Icke, Nicholas Hagger and Henry
Makow for Rothschild involvement in the Iraq invasion. It was a throwaway
claim based almost entirely on their suspicions; in short the allegation was
speculation, nothing more. Makow even admitted as much to me,
admonishing me when I enquired as to what evidence he possessed to
support his allegations. His response was abrupt: They dont take pictures
and keep public records. If you have to ask this question, you dont get it.
In other words, there was no evidence, but because there was none, that
was the evidence, which fed into Makows belief in what the Rothschilds
were capable of. Its this sort of approach, where speculation takes
precedence over facts, that gives comfort and ammunition to professional
anti-conspiracists. My approach on the Rothschild paper was to exploit

Google as much as possible, to consult various databases, and also consults

books about the Iraq war and biographies and memoirs of the various
players near and far. It took a lot of work over a long period of time, but it
enabled me to build up a more plausible scenario for Rothschild involvement
and to provide confirmation of their links to some of the players in the whole
affair, but without resorting to speculation.

We have to make do with what we have, but in terms of what is available in

the public domain, I really dont think that researchers are scouring libraries
and the profusion of databases anywhere near the extent to which they
should. If they had, the anti-N.W.O. theories would arguably be held in much
higher esteem than they are now. Instead much of the literature available is
considered fodder for academics and aspiring journalists who want to say
something profound or amusing about conspiracy theories and the people
they consider foolish enough to believe in them.

I note that you also make a number of references to another level of

control above the factions and, in regards to the neo-cons, you suggest
they were perhaps working to a collective plan of the people above them,
adding that they might fall in the shadowy elite class which isnt easy to
pinpoint. Do you believe this to be true, or do you know to be true? That is,
if the latter is the case, do you have any evidence at all to support such
speculation? Who was above the factions I describe? And to whom were the
neo-cons deferring to? Or, to step back a bit, are you able to deduce from
the words and deeds of the neo-cons that they were being fed instructions
or were receiving guidance from elsewhere? Evidence please.

Send that email.

Reply
Futureshock July 30, 2015 at 12:49 am
Hi Will,
.
We should be about discovering the truth, not inventing it.

Thats a great statement he, and I fully agree. Though it can be aggravating
if you know something to be true, but cant prove it. Or you highly suspect
it. And the best is then to not claim it or publish it. But if it were to be true
and it would in the end be detrimental to many people, like many NOWrelated theories suggest, dont you agree that the ones who decided not to
publish all that they couldnt 100% proof would regret it in a high degree in
the later stages? A good example of this can be found in my article DIVINITY
DEFERRED, where I quote some Nazi scientists who didnt do anything when

they saw the German tyranny build up. In that essay I examine three of the
so-called Skeptic academics and their studies on conspiracism. I also go into
what I think its the greater agenda why such people are put in to forcefully
and pathologically declare everyone even remotely interested in conspiracyrelated material as mentally ill.
.
Will wrote: I agree that some things are impossible to prove, probably
because they are wrong or impossible to be right, but also because we do
not have access to all the facts not everything is written, and not all that is
written is easily discovered; but thats no excuse for not trying to find out
and to resist the desire to indulge in speculation.

I agree too. Its similar to the point made above. For the researchers who
dont even bother to research there is of course no excuse. And most of the
well-known names fall in that category, thats why I fully endorse your book
reviews etc. I had added an article ON THE MOVEMENT yesterday on my
website, which is far from complete, but there I also mention that one of the
major flaws of NWO-research is quantity over quality. As soon as you make a
show or popular website on it, you quickly are urged to publish as much as
possible, to not let down your regular visitors I presume. Most people in the
Movement are only thrillseekers who dont understand much of the material
at all, and are just seeking for their prejudices to be confirmed. And many of
the big names cater on that. Its something we have to live with, I think.
Many of the main claims made might be real, but the arguments or sources
given to proof is false. And deep buried in the academic literature the proof
is there, but most are not able to find this. Because its too much trouble, or
maybe even more often, because of incompetence due to not knowing how
the academic world works.
.
Will wrote: My approach on the Rothschild paper was to exploit Google as
much as possible, to consult various databases, and also consults books
about the Iraq war and biographies and memoirs of the various players near
and far. It took a lot of work over a long period of time, but it enabled me to
build up a more plausible scenario for Rothschild involvement and to provide
confirmation of their links to some of the players in the whole affair, but
without resorting to speculation.

Yes, thats the correct way to go normally. I most of the time try to work this
way too. On my website I almost only use academic material as sources,
and sometimes some esoteric books by initiates as Manly P. Hall or so.
Those books sometimes fill in the gaps that fall within the academic
literature. Those books can never be taken of face-value, and most of the
time they even write in the introduction that their book contains both
exoteric and esoteric. But sometimes you just understand a statement to be
true, because they explain things you didnt understand before. Or you are
made to think you understand, that is possible too.

.
If they had, the anti-N.W.O. theories would arguably be held in much
higher esteem than they are now. Instead much of the literature available is
considered fodder for academics and aspiring journalists who want to say
something profound or amusing about conspiracy theories and the people
they consider foolish enough to believe in them.

Yes, and the better researchers are thrown into the loony bin on guilt by
association. Thats how counter-intelligence works. Thats why they steered
the UFO community onto the NWO research, I think. In the early 90s some
good books were published and this had to be neutralized. So guys like Jim
Keith and William Bramley [both members of Scientology if Im not
mistaken] were put out to mix the real stuff like mind-control and so on, with
fiction like aliens, both ancient and recent, and UFOs. And on this
foundation people like Icke, Jim Marrs, Tsarion and many others built. Most
are no conscious agents or so, but its so easy to fall for the enticing stuff.
One of the less well-known key players in this was Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin, the Jesuit priest. His book The Human Phenomenon lays out the
agenda of the next step in human evolution. This was published after his
death, and I suspect that this book was highly doctored and complemented
by the unknown individuals who write the long-tern agendas. Many of them
have been Jesuits in the last centuries. Both the New-Age collective
evolution as the scientific aim for transhumanism etc. was highly influenced
by Teilhard. Brzezinski cites him a few times in Between Two Ages, and says
that his teachings were Communism without the dictatorship or something
in that regard.
.
Both the thesis and the antithesis of big societal movements always stem
from the same source. Thats how the Dominant Minority keeps control and
how they achieve Progress; by synthesizing the two into the sought-after
higher new system, which will then be the new thesis. Our whole recorded
history works on that basis. Sometimes clearly visible and sometimes not,
because we only have the crumbs to work with.
.

Will wrote: in regards to the neo-cons, you suggest they were perhaps
working to a collective plan of the people above them, adding that they
might fall in the shadowy elite class which isnt easy to pinpoint. Do you
believe this to be true, or do you know to be true? That is, if the latter is the
case, do you have any evidence at all to support such speculation?

I think with the Neocons its the same as what Ive just described above. In
the US also both sides stem from the same source. We have Obama
implementing a new updated version of the Marxist-light policy, so to speak.
But the Neocons descend from the Neo-Trotskyites. So both sides have their

deepest roots in Communism. There is of course much more to it, but both
are bent on world revolution, world domination and the destruction of
national sovereignty and nationalism altogether. Nationalism is the main
enemy of the Dominant Minority and as soon as they have their chance
nationalism will be written into law as a mental disease and later on as a
thought crime. Just as in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Experiment was a
test-bed for the world, the second after the American experiment. The last
experiment is China, the synthesis between Capitalism and Communism and
the example for the rest of the world to follow. Thats why Rockefeller
endorsed it so openly: it is one of their projects. And with every new project
they have been able to further standardize and robotize the masses, and in
their final experiment they are planning to perfect this. Thats their deepest
desire: perfection, completion, unity.
.
This is not the place to go into the Neocons in detail. Its a long time ago
that I have studied them, and I think their show is over anyway. To give one
example of a must-be scenario which I really think is pushed from a level
above the national politics, is the American healthcare thing. Obama won in
2012 so the final version became Obamacare, but if Romney had won it
would have become RomneyCare implemented federally. Both are the same
to a large degree [http://www.politifact.com/truth-ometer/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-telldifference] and it has to be, because this is the way the US will be brought
down to Third World status, as the whole West is planned to go. The plan is
that the fixed costs every citizen has, housing, insurance, mortgage, etc. will
with about 10-15 years increase to about 100% of the peoples income. This
will lead to a complete implosion on travel, which aids their plans of
eradicating private transport [Agenda 21] and also travel by plane. All to
save our dear Mother Earth of course. And as soon as people become more
and more fixed in their own surroundings, slowly the electronic prison grid
will start to function, where the electronic gates on bus station, train
stations, and airports will only open if you have the right clearance. You and
I wont have that, Im sure. First this clearance will be on your phone, later
the phone will become a microchip. Watch the 2011 movie In Time, by
Andrew Niccol. This is the future reality packed into a fictional story, similar
to Soylent Green for instance.
.
Keep an eye on one of the upcoming essays on my website, called THE U.N.
WORLD ORDER. There I give a nice quote of the man who is normally called
the first Neocon where he openly declares that they would go for world
empire, but of course not under that name, but several others. Another
Neocon ideologue, Michael Ledeen, gave one of its most recent incarnations:
democratic revolutionaries. This could just have been used by the
Bolsheviks and it probably was.

Everyone uses the farce of democracy, because the Dominant Minority [the
group above all] has chosen that system to unite the world. Im busy writing

an article on Democracy too, and this one will be called MOB FOOL; THE
MYTH OF DEMOCRACY AND WHY THEY CHOSE IT TO UNITE US. Will be
published in about two weeks I hope. Some others have a higher priority.

Reply
Futureshock August 4, 2015 at 6:29 am
Hi Will,
.
Ive referred to a new article as THE U.N. WORLD ORDER , but I decided to
call it PEACE OF MIND; Visions Of Emerging Empire.
.
http://futureshock2050.com/essays/peace-of-mind
.
Greets.

Reply
Will Banyan August 5, 2015 at 2:39 am
Hi Futureshock,

Just a few comments:

If you know or believe something to be true then you can present it either as
unsourced allegation or as an untested hypothesis, so long as you make this
clear. Just declaring something to be true, but without providing evidence for
it, leaves one open for entirely justified criticism.

For example, you present your suspicion that Pierre Teilhard de Chardins
final work, posthumously published was highly doctored and
complemented by the unknown individuals who write the long-term
agendas. To expand upon this point to justify your suspicion would take a
great deal of time, I suspect, but would you be able to explain the grounds
for your suspicion? Is that based on your deep familiarity of Chardins entire
corpus, or because you found a few ideas in there you just thought were odd
or undesirable? Moreover, even if you did find some ideas in his final book
that were subtly or significantly different or at odds with previous works, do
you think it be possible to definitively say if his book was deliberately
modified to deliver a different message, or if it represented an evolution in
his thoughts? Comparing a version of his final manuscript with what was
actually published might be a way of (1) confirming changes were made, (2)

assessing whether those changes significantly altered or doctored his

message; and (3) if (2) is found to be true, to attempt to identify who made
those changes and why. I believe some of his papers are at Georgetown
University in the U.S.

Ive been perusing your website and its a little unclear how you deduced
that the Dominant Minoritys grand plan contains all the elements you list
above.

Regards