A sizeable but somewhat haphazardly gathered extraction from Hoover Institite historian Anthony Sutton's America's Secret Establishment, earlier posted about here. As a brief reminder Sutton wrote, "Back in 1968 my Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development was published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. In three substantial volumes I detailed how the West had built the Soviet Union. However, the work generated a seemingly insoluble puzzle - why have we done this? Why did we build the Soviet Union, while we also transferred technology to Hitler's Germany? Why does Washington want to conceal these facts? Why have we boosted Soviet military power? And simultaneously boosted our own? In subsequent books, the Wall Street series, I added more questions - but no answers."
How can there exist a common objective when members are apparently acting in opposition to one another?
Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither "left" nor "right." "Left" and "right" are artificial devices to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.
The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of "left" and "right" presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems. The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis.
For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, neither left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where "change" is promoted and "conflict management" is termed the means to bring about this change.
In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State. He
finds freedom only in obedience to the State. There was no freedom in Hitler's Germany, there is no freedom for the individual under Marxism, neither will there be in the New World Order. And if it sounds like George Orwell's 1984 - it is.
In brief, the State is supreme and conflict is used to bring about the ideal society. Individuals find freedom in obedience to the rulers.
In this process change requires conflict, and conflict requires the clash of opposites. You can't just have a "right," you must have a "right" and a "left." You can't have just a pro-Vietnam War
policy, you must also have an anti-Vietnam War policy. Else the dialectical process won't bring about change. In 1960 William Bundy, member of the Order, while still at CIA, became Staff Director for the newly formed Presidential Commission on National Goals. Such a commission, even in its title, assumes conscious direction. If you have goals, you logically need a device to achieve these goals. In a society like the U.S. it should be a superfluous sort of commission unless there is some "guiding hand," something more than the voting booth and the market place at work.
The Report of this Commission came up with some quotes which are almost pure Hegelianism:
(a) "a role of government is to stimulate changes of attitude"
(b) "in the 1960s every American is summoned to extraordinary personal responsibility, sustained effort,
(c) "The American citizen in the years ahead ought to devote a larger portion of his time and energy directly to solution of the nation's problems ... many ways are open for citizens to participate in the attainment of national goals."
Now the basic set of rules governing our society is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is nothing in these constitutional documents to support any of these demands. What the demands imply is that an American citizen has a DUTY to advance the will of the State. But such an assumption is definitely NOT implicit in the philosophy under which the United States was founded and presumably operates today.
The Order's control of history, through foundations and the American Historical Association, has been effective. Not so much because of outright censorship, although that is an important element, but more because of the gullibility of the American "educated public:'
From time to time their plans go awry. The bubbling pot of political manipulation - it's called conflict management on the inside - threatens to spill over into public view. It is extraordinary how newspaper editors, columnists, TV and radio commentators, and publishers either lack insight to see beyond the superficial or are
scared witless to do so. Even worse, the educated public, the 30-40 million degree holders, lets these opinion molders get away with it.
Outright censorship has not been too effective. There has certainly been a campaign to suppress revisionist interpretations of history. Witness Harry Elmer Barnes in The Struggle Against The Historical Blackout:
"It may be said, with great restraint, that, never since the Dark and Middle Ages, have there been so many powerful forces organized and alerted against the assertion and acceptance of historical truth as are active today to prevent the facts about the responsibility for the second World War and its results from being made generally accessible to the American public. Even the great Rockefeller Foundation frankly admits (Annual Report, 1946, p. 188) the subsidizing of a corps of historians to anticipate and frustrate the development of any neo-Revisionism in our time. And the only difference between this Foundation and several others is that it has been more candid and forthright about its politics."
This author's personal experience of attempted outright censorship was at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, when the Director attempted to suppress publication of my then forthcoming National Suicide: Military Aid To The Soviet Union. The facts weren't in question. Unfortunately, the book offended the Nixon-Kissinger program to aid the Soviets while they were aiding the North Vietnamese - so in effect, Americans were being killed by our own technology. In this case neither author nor publisher was in a mood to listen, and the Establishment put tail between legs and called it a day.
More effective than outright censorship is use of the left-right political spectrum to neutralize unwelcome facts and ideas or just condition citizens to think along certain lines. The "left" leaning segment of the press can always be relied upon to automatically assault ideas and information from the "right" and vice
versa. In fact, media outlets have been artificially set up just for this purpose: both Nation and New Republic on the "left" were financed by Willard Straight, using Payne Whitney (The Order) funds. On the "right" National Review published by William Buckley (The Order) runs a perpetual deficit. presumably made up by
Buckley. Neither the independent right nor the independent left sees the trap. They are so busy firing at each other they've mostly forgotten to look behind the scenes. And The Order smugly claims control of the "moderate" center. A neat game, and it's worked like a charm. But the establishment has a problem . . .
In Fact, It Has Several Problems
They are on the inside looking out. We are on the outside looking in. They may call us "peasants" but we have the advantage of knowing about the real world and its infinite diversity. Their global objectives are dreams based on skewed information. Dangerous dreams, but still dreams.
(1) The Order Lives In A Cultural Straightjacket
All the power in the world is useless without accurate information. If you meet these people as this author has more or less casually over 30 years, one impression comes to the forefront - they are charming but with a limited perception of the world. They may have global ambitions, they may act politically like miniature power houses, but their knowledge of the world comes from an in-group and those who play
along with the in-group. And the in-group lacks morality and diversity. It's a kind of jet Set Politburo.
Charming, power-hungry and myopic simultaneously.
All it can offer to the outsider is an invitation, almost an ultimatum, "You are part of the establishment."
In conclusion we must emphasize one point. An understanding of The Order
and its modus operandi is impossible unless the reader holds in mind the Hegelian
roots of the game plan. Hegelianism is alien to grass roots America. The national
character is straightforward and to the point, not devious and tortuous. The grass
roots are still closer to the American Revolution, the Jeffersonian Democrats, the
classical liberal school of Cobden and Bright in England, and the Austrian School
of Economics where Ludwig von Mises is the undisputed leader.
A Statist system is the objective of The Order. But in spite of constant prattling about "change" by zombie supporters - such a system is foreign to deeply held beliefs in this country. Above all the reader must - at least temporarily while reading this work - put to one side the descriptive clichés of left and right, liberal and conservative, communist and fascist, even republican and democrat. These
terms may be important for self recognition, they do provide a certain reassurance, but they are confusing in our context unless seen as essential elements in a game plan. You will never understand The Order if you try to label it right or left.
A Robert Taft and a William Buckley on the right are just as important to the forward motion of society, the fundamental change desired by The Order, as a William Sloan Coffin and a Harry Payne Whitney (who financed the left). Their conflict is essential for change.
(Sutton mentions what is termed a British counterpart of The Order- the Group, written about in detail by sympathetic Georgetown University historian, Carrol Quigley in his book, Tragedy and Hope. Whether Quigley was a very naive idealist of sorts, or roughly an insider I have no idea, but one interesting detail is that that in his inaugural Presidential address, Bill Clinton spoke of Quigley as his personal mentor.)
...the Group operates in a series of concentric circles and like The Order consists of old line families allied with private merchant bankers, known in the U.S. as investment bankers. Bearing in mind the proven existence of The Group, the operations of The Order and the kind of penetration it has achieved cannot be explained by mere chance. By examining The Order's operations we can generate a picture of its objectives without access to any internal constitution or statement of objectives even if such exists. It may only be word of mouth.
By contrast. The Group's objective is recorded in Cecil Rhodes' will. It was:
The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise ... and the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an
integral part of the British Empire.
This objective is, of course, ridiculous and somewhat immature, but no less ridiculous and immature than the New World order objective of The Order. Yet The Group has controlled British policy for a hundred years and still does.
Both The Group and The Order have been created by Anglophiles who want to pattern the world on a Hegelian-Anglo hybrid culture. Both secret organizations
overlook, and there is a philosophic basis for this neglect, the natural right of any ethnic group, be it white, black or yellow, English, Slavic or Latin, to develop its own culture without coercion.
Unlike this author, Quigley sympathizes with the ends of The Group, although he terms their methods despicable. Both The Group and The Order are unwilling or unable to bring about a global society by voluntary means, so they opted for coercion. To do this they have created wars and revolutions, they have ransacked public treasuries, they have oppressed, they have pillaged, they have lied - even to their own countrymen.
How have they done this?
Modus Operandi Of The Order
The activities of The Order are directed towards changing our society, -hanging the world, to bring about a New World Order. This will be a planned order with heavily restricted individual freedom, without Constitutional protection, without national boundaries or cultural distinction. We deduce this objective by examining and then summing up the actions of individual members: there has been a consistent pattern of activity over one hundred years. Part of this activity has been in cooperation with The Group, with its parallel and recorded objectives.
Now if, for example, we found that the dominant interest of members was raising ducks, that they wrote articles about ducks, bred ducks, sold ducks, formed duck-studying councils, developed a philosophy of ducks, then it would be reasonable to conclude that they had an objective concerning ducks, that this is not mere random activity.
Historically, operations of The Order have concentrated on society, now to change society in a specific manner towards a specific goal: a New World Order. We know the elements in society that will have to be changed in order to bring about this New World order, we can then examine The Order's actions in this
context. More or less these elements would have to be:
Education - how the population of the future will behave,
Money - the means of holding wealth and exchanging goods,
Law - the authority to enforce the will of the state, a world law and a world court is needed for a world state,
Politics - the direction of the State, Economy - the creation of wealth,
History - what people believe happened in the past,
Psychology - the means of controlling how people think,
Philanthropy - so that people think well of the controllers,
Medicine - the power over health, life and death,
Religion - people's spiritual beliefs, the spur to action for many, Media - what people know and learn about current events,
Continuity - the power to appoint who follows in your footsteps.
Sutton wrote hs book in the early 1980s, and of course the term New World Order has become ever more prominent in the intervening years. A few examples being:
We have before us the opportunity to forge a New World Order. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance of this New World Order." "It's more than one small country. It is a big idea; a New World Order."
Now we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a New World Order." All by George H.W. Bush
"There is a chance the President can use this disaster to bring about the New World Order." Gary Hart- US Commission on National Security the day after 911.
At the time of the election, there will just be 1,000 days to the new millennium - 1,000 days to prepare for 1,000 years, a moment of destiny for us." Tony Blair
"I want to lead Britain to what I believe is our destiny of success in this New World Order." Gordon Brown
"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.
"A colossal event is upon us, the birth of a New World Order." Brent Scowcroft, George Bush's National Security Advisor, said on the eve of the Gulf War.
Or Henry Kissinger speaks of being "a student of the future", and that "There is a need for a New World Order", here. A student of the future being exactly how the self-fulfilling Hegelian method works, or at least is intended to work. One envisages a desired future of the absolute State- in this case a global all-encompassing one- and one then embarks on processes designed to produce this future, while the great unwashed perceive the historical events unfolding as nigh on random events.