Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court Justice: “The
real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the
John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York City, in a speech,
March 26, 1922:
The real menace of our republic is the invisible
government which, like a giant octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city,
state and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses generally
referred to as "international bankers." This little coterie of
powerful international bankers virtually run our government for their own
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in a letter to an
associate dated November 21, 1933: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and
I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government
ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
Senator William Jenner in a speech, February 23,
Today the path to total dictatorship in the United
States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress,
the President, or the people .... Outwardly we have a Constitutional
government. We have operating within our government and political system,
another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite
which believes our Constitution is outmoded and is sure that it is the winning
side... All the strange developments in foreign policy agreements may be traced
to this group who are going to make us over to suit their pleasure . . . This
political action group has its own local political support organizations, its
own pressure groups, its own vested interests, its foothold within our
government, and its own propaganda apparatus.
American Heritage Dictionary “the Establishment”: An exclusive group of powerful people who rule a
government or society by means of private agreements and decisions.
Columnist Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of
President Theodore Roosevelt, described the Establishment:
The word "Establishment" is a general term
for the power elite in international finance, business, the professions and
government, largely from the northeast, who wield most of the power regardless
of who is in the White House.
Most people are unaware of the existence of this
"legitimate Mafia." Yet the power of the Establishment makes itself
felt from the professor who seeks a foundation grant, to the candidate for a
cabinet post or State Department job. It affects the nation's policies in
almost every area.
In the public mind, the American Establishment is
probably most associated with big business and with wealthy, old-line families.
The sons of these families have long followed a traditional career path that
begins with private schools, the most famous being Groton. From these they have
typically proceeded to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Columbia, there entering
exclusive fraternities, such as Yale's secretive Skull and Bones. Some of the
brightest have traveled to Oxford for graduate work as Rhodes Scholars. From
academia they have customarily progressed to Wall Street, perhaps joining an
international investment bank, such as Chase Manhattan, or a prominent law firm
or brokerage house. Some of the politically inclined have signed on with
Establishment think tanks like the Brookings Institution and the Rand
Corporation. As they have matured, a few have found themselves on the boards of
the vast foundations—Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie. And ultimately, some
have advanced into "public service"—high positions in the federal
For the latter, there has long been a requisite:
membership in a New York-based group called the Council on Foreign Relations
CFR for short. Since its founding in 1921, the Council has been the
Establishment's chief link to the U.S. government.
The Council [on Foreign Relations], while remaining
largely unknown to the public, has exercised decisive impact on U.S. policy,
especially foreign policy, for several decades. It has achieved this primarily
in two ways. The first is by directly supplying personnel for upper echelon
Few Americans know how a President chooses his
administrators. The majority probably trust that, aside from an occasional
political payoff, the most qualified people are sought and found. But the CFR's
contribution cannot be overlooked. Pulitzer Prize winner Theodore White said
that the Councils "roster of members has for a generation, under
Republican and Democratic administrations alike, been the chief recruiting
ground for cabinet-level officials in Washington." The Christian Science
Monitor once observed that "there is a constant flow of its members from
private life to public service. Almost half of the council's members have been
invited to assume official government positions or to act as consultants at one
time or another."
Indeed, Joseph Kraft, writing in Harper's, called
the Council a "school for statesmen." David Halberstam puts it more
wryly: "They walk in one door as acquisitive businessmen and come out the
other door as statesmen-figures."
The historical record speaks even more loudly than
these quotes. Through early 1988, fourteen secretaries of state, fourteen
treasury secretaries, eleven defense secretaries, and scores of other federal
department heads have been CFR members.
Anthony Lukas, The New York Times, 1971:
Everyone knows how fraternity brothers can help
other brothers climb the ladder of life. If you want to make foreign policy,
there's no better fraternity to belong to than the Council [on Foreign
Richard Barnet, a CFR member, wrote in 1972: “Failure to be asked to be a member of the
Council [on Foreign Relations] has been regarded for a generation as a
presumption of unsuitability for high office in the national security
The CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] advocates the
creation of a world government. The ultimate implication of this is that all
power would be centralized in a single global authority; national identities
and boundaries (including our own) would be eliminated.
Admiral Chester Ward, former Judge Advocate General
of the U.S. Navy
[The CFR has as a goal] submergence of U.S.
sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world
government... this lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the
United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership . . . In the entire
CFR lexicon, there is no term of revulsion carrying a meaning so deep as
Foreign Affairs, the journal of the CFR, December
Obviously there is going to be no peace or
prosperity for mankind so long as it remains divided into fifty or sixty
independent states . . . Equally obviously there is going to be no steady progress
in civilization or self-government among the more backward peoples until some
kind of international system is created which will put an end to the diplomatic
struggles incident to the attempt of every nation to make itself secure. The
real problem today is that of world government.
In 1959, the Council [CFR] issued a position paper
entitled Study No. 7, Basic Aims of U.S. Foreign Policy. This document proposed
that the U.S. seek to "build a new international order."
1. Search for an international order in which the
freedom of nations is recognized as interdependent and in which many policies
are jointly undertaken by free world states with differing political, economic
and social systems, and including states labeling themselves as
2. Safeguard U.S. security through preserving a
system of bilateral agreements and regional arrangements.
3. Maintain and gradually increase the authority of
4. Make more effective use of the International
Court of Justice, jurisdiction of which should be increased by withdrawal of
reservations by member nations on matters judged to be domestic.
Foreign Affairs, Fall 1984, by Kurt
Waldheim, former Secretary General of the UN, and former Nazi
As long as states insist that they are the supreme
arbiters of their destinies—that as sovereign entities their decisions are
subject to no higher authority—international organizations will never be able
to guarantee the maintenance of peace.
Naturally, everyone would like to see world harmony
and peace. But if the United States traded its sovereignty for membership in a
world government, what would become of our freedoms, as expressed in the Bill
of Rights? How would the rulers of this world government be selected? And how
could a single, central authority equitably govern a planet that is so
Kermit Roosevelt, 1961:
What is the Establishment's view-point? Through the
Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations its ideology is
constant: That the best way to fight Communism is by a One World Socialist
state governed by "experts" like themselves. The result has been
policies which favor the growth of the superstate, gradual surrender of United
States sovereignty to the United Nations and a steady retreat in the face of
Senator Jesse Helms, before the Senate in December
1987, after noting the Council on Foreign Relation's (CFR's) place within the
The viewpoint of the Establishment today is called
globalism. Not so long ago, this viewpoint was called the "one-world"
view by its critics. The phrase is no longer fashionable among sophisticates;
yet, the phrase "one-world" is still apt because nothing has changed
in the minds and actions of those promoting policies consistent with its
. . . In the globalist point of view, nation-states
and national boundaries do not count for anything. Political philosophies and
political principles seem to become simply relative. Indeed, even constitutions
are irrelevant to the exercise of power . . .
In this point of view, the activities of
international financial and industrial forces should be oriented to bringing
this one-world design - with a convergence of the Soviet and American systems
as its centerpiece - into being.
An "international" banker is one who,
among other things, loans money to the governments of nations.
Essential to controlling a government is the
establishment of a central bank with a monopoly on the country's supply of
money and credit.
Meyer Rothschild is said to have remarked, “Let me
issue and control a nation's money, and I care not who writes its laws.”
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966:
The powers of financial capitalism had [a]
far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial
control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country
and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a
feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by
secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.
Excerpts from Third World Traveler
A Note on Credentials from the author
A few will read this biography to determine what qualifications I have to write on various subjects.
Academic credentials are valid to address. I believe they are most consequential in fields of objective, applied sciences. No one would want brain surgery performed by someone had not been licensed for the task after studying in an accredited program. No city would want a bridge built by people not certified in civil engineering.
However, when we move into academic spheres which one might call less objective and less scientific, such as philosophy or political studies, degrees carry less exclusive authority. Many a barroom debate occurs over politics, but none over quantum physics.
In physical science, truths are relatively easy to establish. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade—repeated experiments have established that; anyone can test it; it is a fact, not an opinion. History is different, however. It consists of unrepeatable, one-time events. Eyewitnesses may testify about what took place in the past, but they may contradict each other, making erroneous statements, honestly or deliberately. The idea that U.S. involvement in the First World War was justified is not subject to the same caliber of proof as the boiling point of water. To be sure, one can cites statistics, or quotations from eminent statesmen, in support of one’s position. However, historians holding opposing views can usually do much the same.
Furthermore, attainment of degrees in history or political science, while representing commendable effort, may in cases actually warp one’s views. One might unwittingly be subject to the influence of a professor’s bias; universities may also slant interpretations and conclusions as the price tag that comes with large grants from tax-free foundations and from the government itself. I am reminded of the quotation from Thomas Jefferson that appears on this site’s welcome page. Part of it reads:
I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.
The principle Jefferson refers to—that misinformation is deadlier than lack of information—is the same one evoked when I refer to the biases which political science students may face in college.
It is for this reason that men like James Corbett have attained such wide international followings and respect. Most people are far more interested in truthful and edifying analysis than they are in the degree of the articulator, or whether he/she attended a prestigious Ivy League school.
As for myself, I claim no academic honors; I have a Bachelor of Science in Nursing from Boston University. (I have always been waiting for a critic to ask, “So, just how much expertise in American foreign policy did you attain by emptying bedpans?”). On the other hand, I have been researching and writing on historical and political affairs for three decades, largely through my association with The New American.
But in the final analysis, it is neither academic degrees nor journalistic experience that are paramount, but truth. This I have striven for, however imperfectly. Historians, like a police detective solving a crime, or a scientist seeking to develop a technology, will inevitably pursue a number of false leads and theories, and make mistakes of their own, in the course of their journey.
As stated, I have also written on creation science and evolution, and here it may be rightly argued that, since the topic is more objective than political affairs, academic degrees have greater weight. I agree, and this is why, in my creation books, I consistently quote credentialed scientists. Many scientific fields have bearing on the evolution discussion: biology, biochemistry, paleontology, geology, genetics, taxonomy, etc. However, Darwinism’s assertions are still predominantly speculative and historical in character: e.g., Darwin’s argument that men lost their body hair because our apelike forebears preferred mates with less hair; or Donald Johanson’s claim that the bones he named “Lucy” constitute man’s ancestor. These are opinions, based on limited evidence, about things Darwinists believe happened eons ago. They are not, like the laws of chemistry and physics, observable and testable in present time, and do not at all carry the same force.