How Secret Societies Rule The World

It often strikes a man to inquire what is the chief good in life; to one the thought comes that it is a happy marriage, to another great wealth, and as each seizes on the idea, for that he more or less works for the rest of his existence. To myself, thinking over the same question, the wish came to me to render myself useful to my country. I then asked the question. How could I?” The Last Will and Testament Of Cecil Rhodes. Edited by William T. Stead. (1)


Front row, left to right: Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, Alfred Beit, Lord Alfred Milner. Middle row (left to right): Henry Ford, Cecil Rhodes, Lionel Curtis. Back Row: Colonel Edward House, John D. Rockefeller, Sir Abe Bailey, and Nathan Rothschild.


In the year 1871, fueled by the poetic words of famous British poet John Ruskin, and backed by the bottomless fortune of the Rothschild family, British Imperialist Cecil John Rhodes – at the age of eighteen – entered the burgeoning South African diamond fields. By 1888, Rhodes had nearly monopolized the entire market and together with business partner and wealthy Jewish emigre, Alfred Beit, would build DeBeers Consolidated Mines Ltd into the most well known diamond company in the world. Rhodes would then spend the remainder of his life ‘rendering himself useful to his country’ by parlaying his immense wealth and influence into becoming Britain’s preeminent figure in the ‘Scramble for Africa’. He would be the main instigator of the second Anglo-Boar War – a brutal battle in which the British would put many of their Dutch enemies into concentration camps similar to what we would see some three decades later in eastern Europe. The imperialist Rhodes even served as Prime Minister of the Cape Colony and through a series of legislation inspired by his belief that the native Africans were a backwards race subjugated hundreds of thousands of men, woman and children into an everlasting life of poverty and slavery.


Throughout his entire life, Rhodes had kept a hand written copy of John Ruskin’s Oxford inaugural lecture – one in which Ruskin spoke poetically to the moral responsibility every Englishman had in spreading the civilized ideals of British culture throughout the world – for the betterment of all humankind. It was during these early formative years that Rhodes stated to a friend, “have you ever thought how it is that Oxford men figure so largely in most departments of public life? Where ever you turn your eye…an Oxford man is at the top of the tree.”(2) It was also during these early years that Rhodes was quietly developing the idea of a secret society in which he could enact these British imperialist principles through a discrete alignment with America – as evidenced by his personal letters to well known journalist and personal confidante, William T. Stead in 1877:


Cecil John Rhodes, DeBeers Diamonds


“I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. I contend that every acre added to our territory means the birth of more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. Added to this, the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars…What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity! We could hold your federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one (society) …copied from the Jesuits as to organization…gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object…to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire.”(3)


Only a few short years later, in the winter of 1891, along with William T. Stead and Lord Esher, Rhodes (already a Freemason) forms the secretive Rhodes Round Table Group fashioned after the internal workings of the Jesuits. He envisioned a system of concentric rings within rings where only those at the core would know the society’s true objectives, and all those in the outer rings would form an ‘Association of Helpers’. Rhodes would elect Stead, Esher and influential British statesman Lord Alfred Milner into his inner circle which Rhodes called ‘The Society of the Elect’. This association of helpers would include names from the highest levels of British aristocracy and cover all aspects of social, political, economic, military, and intellectual life. (4) Together, this small but powerful group of men of wealth and influence would go on to shape the world in their image with the explicit intent of combining American and British interests with the object of, bringing the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one empire. What a dream!”(5). And if all of Rhodes’ hundred year old anglophile rhetoric somehow echoes familiar, you are paying attention dear reader – this same imperial exceptionalist banter has been the driving force behind every war in contemporary Western history including the most recent Iraq War at the beginning of this century. But more on that in a moment, allow me to continue connecting the dots.


Following Rhodes’ death in 1902, Lord Alfred Milner – a man who despised the party system – set the itinerary and directives for the Round Table Group. Milner served as the perfect successor as he was the one man with whom Rhodes trusted with the responsibility of continuing the secret goals set out in his Last Will and Testament, stating, “I support Milner absolutely without reserve. If he says peace, I say peace; if he says war, I say war. Whatever happens, I say ditto to Milner.”(7) In fact, so influential after Rhodes’ death was Milner that this secret society became known as The Milner Round Table Group, and it is important to note that, despite losing it’s founder in Rhodes, the pursuit of their goals and the spirit with which they chased them remained the same. Largely unknown to the general public, this group was highly influential. Key members of The Milner Group were the primary instigators in changing the name of the British Empire to the British Commonwealth of Nations, they were even the chief influence in British Prime Minister Lloyd George’s War Administration of 1917. Members of The Milner Group even dominated the British delegation at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference and were key participants in the formation of the League of Nations.

Rhodes and Milner both number themselves of that great unformed party which is neither the ins nor the outs, which touches here the foreign politics of the one, here the home politics of the other…a party which seems to have no name, no official leader, no paper even, but which I believe, when it comes by a soul and a voice, will prove to include a majority of the British in Britain and a still greater majority of the British overseas. (6)


And it is the less publicized events of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference that are of the utmost importance for this article as it was during this conference that Lionel Curtis, an inductee into The Milner Group’s inner society of the elect, and Colonel Edward M. House, chief adviser to Woodrow Wilson, who would quietly bring together British and American delegates to form the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and eventually it’s American counterpart, the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921.(8)(9) These organizations remain today as two of the most influential think tanks in the world and their creation was seen by those gathered in Paris as an integral convergence of Western ideals and a huge step towards accomplishing Rhodes’ Anglo-American ‘dream’.(10) This point further underlined in the following quote from Carroll Quigley below. It is also worthy of note that Colonel Edward House did much of the preliminary work, along with British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey(also a Milner Group associate) in formulating the main components of the peace treaty of 1919 and would be hugely influential in assisting Wilson in writing his famous Fourteen Points Speech. House was in fact such an influence on Wilson both personally and professionally that further discussion on this man is needed; however, for purposes of time and space, and for fear of digression, the subject will be left for my follow up article entitled, From Hidden Hand to Iron Fist.


The Royal Institute of International Affairs is nothing but the Milner Group ‘writ large.’ It was founded by the Group, has been consistently controlled by the Group, and to this day is the Milner Group in its widest aspect. It is the legitimate child of the Round Table organization, just as the latter was the legitimate child of the ‘Closer Union’ movement organized in South Africa in 1907. All three of these three received their initial financial backing from Sir Abe Bailey, and all three used the same methods of working out and propagating their ideas (the so-called Round Table method of discussion groups plus a journal). This similarity is not an accident. The new organization was intended to be a wider aspect of the Milner Group, the plan being to influence the leaders of thought through The Round Table [journal] and to influence a wider group through the RIIF. – Anglo American Establishment, Carroll Quigley, page 182.


Colonel Edward House is seated three seats to Woodrow Wilson’s right while Lord Alfred Milner sits five places to the presidents left.


On May 30, 1919, a little group of diplomats and scholars from Britain and the United States convened at the Hotel Majestic, billet of the British delegation, to discuss how their fellowship could be sustained after the peace. They proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with one branch in London, the other in New York. (11)


Over one hundred years later, Rhodes’ colossal influence can still be felt as you walk the grounds of prestigious All Souls College and Balliol College, or as you walk through The Great Milner Hall inside Rhodes House at Oxford University. The original Rhodes vision, laid out in his sixth and final Last Will and Testament, lives on today through the Rhodes Trust and the Rhodes Scholarship program and it is Rhodes’ original idea of an Anglo-American union that wealthy American industrialists like J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford would directly align themselves with by funding many projects undertaken by the Council on Foreign Relations. And this same undercurrent of British/American exceptionalism continues to be the primary object of the Council as evidenced by the comments of it’s President Emeritas, Leslie H. Gelb when he stated, “If the Council as a body has stood for anything these 75 years, it has been for American Internationalism based on American interests.”(12)


“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – One World, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” David Rockefeller, Memoirs, pg 404,405


And, when Gelb’s comment is put together with the preceding comments made by the Council’s Honorary Chairman David Rockefeller we see an admitted, unquenchable thirst for global domination. And, in turn, when these comments are understood within their full historical context, using the true origins of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations as a backdrop, we see both motive and method of operation fully exposed under the light of the truth, we see an internationally coordinated push to subjugate all other races that is anything but conspiracy ‘theory’. We see Rhodes acting as a millionaire monarch of the modern world, blanketing all backward, uncivilized races underneath the authority of one race – what he called the ‘first race’ – and the origins of a slow march towards what we know today as a One World Government, or a New World Order(13)


Over the course of the 1950’s large foundations stepped in to support and enlarge the Council as a leading force in America’s international awareness; from the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation came $500,000 each, topped by $1.5 million from the new Ford Foundation in 1954. (14)


The Administration of William Jefferson Blythe III, the Rhodes Scholar

After receiving a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service degree while studying under the tutelage of history professor Carroll Quigley at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service in 1968, a young William Jefferson Blythe III crossed the Atlantic to take up residence at Oxford University. And, although he departed prior to receiving a degree (some contend his departure was rather acrimonious), he was still heavily influenced by his time there, he had met a great deal of influential people, a few of whom would end up in his White House cabinet two decades later. Blythe III would rise to world prominence as the president of the United States and a key historical figure in the furtherance of Cecil Rhodes’ Anglo-Saxon dream. In fact, Blythe III’s cabinet was littered with fellow Rhodes Scholars as well as the aforementioned Lionel Curtis inspired, Council on Foreign Relations – and each and every one of them not elected by the people, but appointed to their positions by Blythe III.

Blythe’s communications director, George Stephanoupoulos is a Rhodes scholar and a CFR member while Blythe’s Secretary of State Madelaine Albright is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Blythe’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Walter B. Slocombe was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy over the entirety of Blythe’s tenure as president but also served under Carter and Reagan and was on the Committee on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction under George W. Bush – he is both a Rhodes Scholar and a member of the CFR. R. James Woolsey was appointed to Blythe’s staff as the Director of the CIA from 1993 to 1995; is a core member of a Project for a New American Century; a senior adviser to what Bloomberg named “the world’s most profitable spy organization” Booz Allen Hamilton from 2002 to present day and has heavily influenced the Carter, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush administrations as well as being a Rhodes Scholar. Richard Danzig served as Blythe’s Under Secretary of the Navy (1993-1997) and was promoted to US Secretary of Navy from 1998-2001 and is a Rhodes Scholar. David E. Kendall met Blythe while both were attending Oxford, and is legal counsel for both him and his wife Hillary Clinton – advising William during his impeachment trials and Hillary during the more recent private email scandal while she was U.S. Secretary of State – Kendall is a Rhodes Scholar.



William Jefferson Blythe III

George Stephanopoulos

Madeleine Albright

Walter B. Slocombe

James Woolsey

Stephen A. Oxman, was a liaison at the very heart of the Anglo American Establishment, serving under Blythe III as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Studies, he is both a Rhodes Scholar and a CFR member. Robert Reich is also a Rhodes Scholar, served under both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under Blythe. Blythe’s Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott is a Rhodes Scholar and a CFR member. Ashton Carter served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy under Blythe III and, following 9/11, was responsible for strategic affairs including the treatment of weapons of mass destruction and adviser on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush. He was also the Deputy Secretary of Defense under Obama, overseeing the DOD’s budget – Carter is both a member of the CFR and a Rhodes Scholar.

Nancy-Ann DeParle is a Rhodes Scholar and served under Blythe as the director of the Health Care Financing Administration from 1997 to 2000. Robert Malley was Assistant National Security Adviser and Director for Democracy, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs at the National Security Council under Blythe, a fellow at the CFR and a Rhodes Scholar. Daniel R. Porterfield was chief speechwriter and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs(Policy & Strategy) for US Health and Human Services Secretary under Blythe and a Rhodes Scholar. Susan Rice was on the National Security Council under both Blythe and Obama, the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during Blythe’s second term, and was even honored by the Royal Institute of International Affairs for – of all things – her dissertation entitled Commonwealth Initiative in Zimbabwe (formerly named Rhodesia after Cecil Rhodes). Rice is both a member of the CFR and a Rhodes Scholar.

Because Blythe’s presidency was book-ended by the Bush war regimes, many simply dismiss out-of-hand any claim of Blythe as a warmonger, but the aggressive foreign policy he initiated is prolific and displayed for all to see in the annals of documented history. Blythe’s reign is consistently cited as the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in American history(15)(16)(17) and while this author may not disagree with the expansionist part, the inclusion of the words ‘peace time’ pushes the definition well beyond even it’s most widest interpretation and into the realm of blatant lies.

By whitewashing a truly repulsive eight-year term into something resembling the altruistic acts of a saint, these journalists and political pundits participate in logical fallacy and do a great disservice to the American people. And it is because of this general misunderstanding of the Blythe regime that it becomes imperative to understand the most infamous event of his tenure under the proper light. The Monica Lewinsky affair and the subsequent Kenneth Starr trial was a mere smokescreen for the continuance of a global takeover objective initiated by an unchecked global superpower.

During Blythe’s eight years in office, the U.S. military bombed Afghanistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Sudan, Somalia and Iran. Interestingly, Blythe also ordered the bombing of the Iraqi intelligence headquarters of Saddam Hussein with cruise missiles on reports Hussein was building WMD’s. A man simply before his time, Blythe imposed a no-fly zone over Iraq that lasted his entire term and the bombing campaign persisted right up to the 2003 Bush led Iraq invasion. He deployed troops in Albania, Central African Republic, East Timor, Kuwait, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Liberia, and, in Iran we see, for the first time, a president use the term ‘state sponsored terrorism’ – yet all we remember from his presidency is an Oval Office tryst and him as a ‘peace time’ president. All of these aforementioned countries opposed to the rule of an overzealous Western ideology and all of it done under the guise of ‘spreading democracy’ or, for the ‘liberation of an oppressed people’. In truth, when all things are considered, the Blythe administration was simply maintaining the initiative that Rhodes had set out as early as 1891, “to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire.” Under Blythe, the expansionist war drum never missed a beat.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” William Jefferson Blythe III, January 26, 1998



The Project for A New American Century

Chances are, nearly everyone above the age of consent in 1998, will remember where they were when William Jefferson Blythe III called an impromptu news conference to address allegations of his sexual transgressions within the Oval Office; but I’m sure an even greater number of people would be completely unaware that on that same infamous day in history a memorandum from a small group of upstart neoconservatives landed on the president’s desk that would have far more serious global implications that are still being felt today. These men, unknown to anyone outside of Washington at the time, would rise to world prominence less than a year after the conclusion of Blythe’s presidency when on September 11, 2001 – another infamous day in history – the world changed forever, ‘dividing our past and future into a before and after’.

In this fateful letter, signed by eighteen members and outside supporters of a newly formed neocon think tank called The Project for a New American Century were calling for a much needed “diplomatic, political and military effort” for “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power”. They pointed to an eroding policy of containment from partners in the Gulf War coalition and a “misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council” as the leading causes and were urging Blythe in the upcoming presidential address to “chart a clear and determined course” to combat this threat.(18) More on this in a moment.

Further research shows Rhodes Scholars and CFR members are well represented within the ranks of every administration for the past five decades and this obvious Rhodes influence shows an undeniable ominous continuity of pro Anglo-Saxon ideology that transcends the authority of government, overlapping from one administration to the next, seriously calling into question, if not entirely obliterating – the validity of the two party system. When those with whom the people elect to the highest offices of government are deeply influenced by special unelected advisers and strategists who all come from the same ‘school of thought’ and who all adhere to the same imperialist principles of global domination set out in Cecil Rhodes’ Last Will and Testament we begin to see cogent evidence as to why the West – no matter what party holds power – is in a state of constant conflict with the areas of the world that resist the culture of a foreign entity hellbent on imposing it upon them and why we see a toxic axiom of doublespeak constantly emanating from Washington that is straight out of Orwell’s 1984 – War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.


“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. ”


– The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses, September 2000, pg. 51.

Of the eighteen signatories of the letter, thirteen would go on to fill important cabinet positions within the Bush administration; at least eleven were members of, or worked directly within the Council on Foreign Relations; and every last one of the eighteen were well known neocons:

Elliott Abrams (CFR, neocon, Spec. Assistant to President, NSC), Richard L. Armitage (neocon, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State), William J. Bennett (neocon, Dir. of Office of Nat. Drug Control Policy), Jeffrey Bergner (neocon, Assistant to Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs), John Bolton (neocon, U.S. Ambassador to the UN), Paula Dobriansky (Senior Vice President CFR, neocon, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs), Francis Fukuyama (CFR, neocon), Robert Kagan (CFR, neocon), Zalmay Khalilzad (CFR, neocon, U.S. Ambassador to the UN), William Kristol (CFR, neocon), Richard Perle (neocon), Peter W. Rodman (neocon, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs), Donald Rumsfeld (neocon, U.S. Secretary of Defense), William Schneider, Jr. (CFR, neocon, U.S. Department of Defense), Vin Weber (CFR, neocon), Paul Wolfowitz (CFR, neocon) Deputy Secretary of State), R. James Woolsey (CFR, neocon, Dir. of CIA), Robert B. Zoellick (CFR, neocon, Deputy Secretary of State, U.S. Trade Representative).


Members of the Bush administration who were not signatories but were either Council on Foreign Relations members, neoconservatives, or both, include:


Paul Bremer(CFR, neocon, Coalition Provisional Authority), Dick Cheney (Director of CFR, neocon, Vice President of United States, ). Condoleezza Rice (CFR, 66th Secretary of State), Colin Powell (CFR, 65th Secretary of State), Henry Paulson (CFR, 74th Secretary of the Treasury), John W. Snow (neocon, 73rd Secretary of the Treasury, American Enterprise Institute). Robert Gates (CFR, neocon, Secretary of Defense, CIA, NSC), John Ashcroft (neocon, U.S. Attorney General), Anne Veneman (CFR, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture), Elaine Chao (CFR, Secretary of Labor), Tommy G. Thompson (CFR, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services), Christine Todd Whitman (CFR, Administrator of EPA).


Note: Several of Blythe’s administration were known as the Vulcans and had previously held important cabinet positions under the previous president, George H. W. Bush and then later, under George W. Bush.


The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative not-for-profit think tank established in 1997 – “to promote American global leadership”. It was established by neocons, William Kristol and Robert Kagan and represents – to many of today’s political pundits and historians – as the very peak of neoconservativism. Kagan, one of its directors is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and served in the State Department during the troubled second half of Reagan’s presidency as a member of it’s Policy Planning Staff. William Kristol was the acting chairman of PNAC, and while there is no public mention of his membership to the CFR, he certainly has no aversion to rubbing shoulders with those who are – publishing multiple articles within the CFR’s bi-monthly magazine, Foreign Affairs. And when one considers that William Kristol’s father Irving, was himself a member and is credited with being the ‘godfather of neoconservatism’ we see such an obvious alignment of ideologies that William’s absence from the CFR’s membership list becomes merely anecdotal. All other co founders and key contributors to PNAC are officially listed as directors and in the paragraph to follow – for reasons that will become clear later – I include all relevant titles or associations they held prior to, during, or after their involvement with PNAC. They were: Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce P. Jackson, John R. Bolton, Gary Schmitt and Thomas Donnelly.

Devon Gaffney Cross is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and worked under famous neocon hardliner Richard Perle at the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. Bruce P Jackson makes the neoconservative list and is also a member of the CFR. He was vice president of Strategy and Planning for Lockheed Martin and president of the US Committee on NATO – a non-profit corporation formed to promote the expansion of NATO and the strengthening of ties between the US and Europe. Jackson served in military intelligence and has been the president for the Project on Transitional Democracies from 2002 to the present day. John R. Bolton‘s legendary hawkish reputation on U.S. foreign policy precedes him, he is a senior fellow and former Senior Vice President for public policy research for the American Enterprise Institute – another infamous neocon haunt. He argued against biological weapons inspections of U.S. military sites in 2001 and is a very outspoken proponent for the overthrow of Iraq, Iran and Syria. He is presently the National Security Advisor for the Trump administration. Gary Schmitt is a well known neoconservative but is also listed as the co founder, chairman and executive director of PNAC and was the executive director of the US Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under Reagan. Thomas Donnelly is another neoconservative who now – after some degree of sexual identity reform – goes by the name of Giselle. She was deputy director of PNAC and has been the project director at the Lockheed Martin Corporation since 2002.

In PNAC’s initial Statements of Principles, published on June 3, 1997 – some three years before the letter sent to Blythe – the coauthors indicate an urgency to reestablish the United States as the preeminent force of global dominance, stating that “American foreign and defense policy is adrift” and that conservatives “had not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.” And through the creation of PNAC, they “aimed to change this”. They aimed to “make the case and rally support for American global leadership”. Within this initial piece of literature, the authors laid out, in bullet form, the four most effective ways to accomplish their goals:


  • We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
  • We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
  • We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
  • We need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.(19)



William Kristol

Robert Kagan


The increase of defense spending, the challenging of hostile regimes, the promotion of freedom abroad, and the preservation and extension of American principles presented in the four points above is the exact rhetoric the world heard in the lead up to every war since Rhode’s Last Will and Testament, including World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm and the Iraq War. In fact, the Project for a New American Century is widely understood today as the single greatest influencing factor in the U.S. invasion of Iraq and was what gave the smoldering neocon warmonger mandate its first draft of oxygen just as the flame of the ‘old’ century was dying out and just prior to the start of the one we find ourselves in today – a dominant ‘new American century’ and Brzezinski’s Middle Eastern chessboard fully engulfed in flames.

The 25 signatories of The Statement of Principles that has set the course for American foreign policy since 9/11 also reads reads like a CFR, neocon guest list and can be found below. You will see an overlapping of some names when compared to those who signed off on the letter sent to Blythe, but note the importance of some of the additions:


Elliott Abrams (CFR,neocon,spec.assistant to president, NSC), Gary Bauer (neocon), William J. Bennett (neocon, Dir. of Nat. Drug Control Policy), Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney (CFR,neocon,Vice Pres.), Eliot A. Cohen(CFR,neocon, counsellor US State Dept.), Midge Decter (neocon, wife of founder of neoconservativism), Paula Dobriansky (Senior Vice Pres. CFR,neocon), Steve Forbes (Editor-In-Chief of Forbes magazine and grandson of the magazines founder), Aaron Friedberg (CFR,Deputy Ass. for Nat. Sec. Affairs), Francis Fukuyama (CFR,neocon), Frank Gaffney (neocon), Fred Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad (CFR,neocon,US Ambassador to UN), Scooter Libby (CFR,neocon, Ass. to Vice Pres. for Nat. Sec. Affairs, Chief of Staff, Ass. to Pres.), Norman Podhoretz (CFR,neocon, advisor to US Information Agency), James Danforth Quayle, Peter Rodman (neocon,Ass.Sec. of Defense for Int’l Sec. Affairs), Stephen Peter Rosen, Harry Rowen (Sec. of Defense Policy Avisory Board), Donald Rumsfeld (neocon, Sec. of Defense), Vin Weber (CFR,neocon), George Weigel and Paul Wolfowitz (CFR,neocon, Deputy Sec. of Defense).(20)(21)


The obvious catalyst for the continued American occupation of the Middle East was the events that transpired on the morning of September 11, 2001, and since then, nothing has made any logical sense. From the immediacy with which the mainstream media had identified the culprit as a mysterious cave dwelling ‘mastermind’ named Usama bin Laden and Hussein’s heretofor to be discovered ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to the circumstances surrounding both of their capture and subsequent deaths; from the 9/11 Commission’s obviously compromised investigation to the resulting war on terror and omnipotent domestic surveillance that only grows in scale, the American public continue to be fed a steady dose of fallacy. The absence of empirical evidence to support the sensational claims made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their ilk in the immediate aftermath were obvious to those who were paying attention at the time and now, years later, that dissenting voice has only been further verified. Many at the time voiced their outrage at how the entire narrative was implanted into the public mind and taken as the gospel truth despite many glaring contradictions. And, conveniently enough, any public blow back from a very vociferous minority regarding the lateral shift from Afghanistan and Usama Bin Laden to Iraq and Saddam Hussein was stifled by a CFR member, neocon and head spokesman in the rebuild of Iraq, Paul Bremer(!) Bremer, put there by Rumsfeld, just as the Bush Administration changed the name of the organization from Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance to the much more inauspicious sounding, Coalition Provisional Authority and just like that, the U.S. military had slyly shifted from liberators to occupiers in less than three months after arrival.

Furthermore to all of this, the 9/11 Commission – the investigation that was supposed to unveil to the world the guilty party behind the attacks – quickly disintegrated into a farce led by executive director and CFR member Philip Zelikow. In the end, the official story was rubber stamped for approval and cleared for public consumption without ever having asked key members of the Bush administration any serious questions. In fact, it is an article co written less than one year prior to the events of 9/11 by Zelikow, and fellow CFR member and Rhodes Scholar, Ashton Carter, along with Director of the CIA, John Deutch that serves as a shining example of Hegelian Dialectic (problem, reaction, solution) and indicates the level upon which these secret societies work.

secretiveweThis information, gathered from primary sources, at the very least destroys the official narrative that was being spewed by the Bush administration and repeated by mainstream outlets immediately following 9/11 – that the Bush administration was caught unaware – and we instantly go from considering the neocons implicit responsibility to them having a complicit and intimate knowledge of the crime.  With all of the institutions and information at their disposal it becomes the argument of a mad man to try and defend their actions. Even the most adept in sophistry could not spin the facts and circumstances to make anyone believe that the most historic attack to happen on American soil since the burning of the White House was carried out by a handful of men with box cutters – yet much of America, still do wholeheartedly accept this phantasm as fact. And from this problem came the reaction predicted from the American people and a convenient two pronged solution in the form of The Patriot Act that served to embolden further authoritarian measures of surveillance and control on the citizens of America and a never ending war in the Middle East.

So it is with this knowledge of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Project for A New American Century, its members, and their original mandates, that we begin to see a much clearer and accurate demarcation between allegedly opposing factions; we see a circle of secretive friends that goes much deeper in explaining the real reasons for the overthrow of Hussein than the mainstream narrative had lamely offered. We see organizations that transcend political party. While the ‘reputable’ news organizations all forced the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ fallacy down the throats of an already angry mob of Americans willing to believe anything, and we continue to wait for evidence of this claim some 15+ years after it was first postulated. And, armed with an understanding of the hidden door policies created by PNAC, we can, through forensic historical analysis, create a far better understanding of the events that led up to the invasion of Iraq. We can go from an uninformed citizenry inundated with conflicting, nonsensical conclusions, to a population able to really see, empowered with the knowledge of the truth that transcends the color of Party

As I’m sure is now clear to the reader, we see a commonality in the inner structure of all of these secretive groups of powerful men: the Rhodes Round Table, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and even the more contemporary Project for A New American Century who all operate in a consistent manner of secrecy and – from Rhodes to Rumsfeld – all are driven by a common thread of Anglo American supremacy that can be traced directly back to The Last Will and Testament of one Cecil John Rhodes. An imperial aggression being hidden under words like ‘interventionalism’ and ‘expansionism’.  They all subscribe to the “Round Table method of discussion plus a journal” and their intent is to influence the ‘leaders of thought’ to steer foreign and domestic policy in any way they see fit. In all cases, their goals are largely hidden from the public, yet their buildings are brick and mortar. Their names are scrubbed from the front pages of history, yet they have procured disproportionate power and influence through their unelected advisory roles. both in the public and private sectors, and often times simultaneously it is these secret collectives that direct corporate policy of not only large Defense contractors like Booz Allen, Lockheed Martin and Halliburton, but government policy on a state, federal and international level.

You can follow the author on Bitchute, Gab, Minds, Trooth, and Twitter @TriviumMethod, and on Facebook and YouTube at The History of Propaganda

Citations and Footnotes:



2) Wikipedia Cecil Rhodes. See also, Alexander, Eleanor, ed. (1914). “Chapter XIV: «South Africa 1893»”. Primate Alexander, Archbishop of Armagh. A memoir. London: Edward Arnold. p. 259.

3) pages 58,59,61, 73.

4) See also


6) E. Garrett, The Empire of the Century. 1905, 481. See also, The Nation and the Empire, 1913, introduction.



9) pg 5.


11) pg 5.

12) forward, Continuing the Inquiry, The Council on Foreign Relations From 1921 to 1996.

13) pg 29

14) pg 29





19) Statement of Principles—statement%20of%20principles.pdf



How Foundations Created Modern Academia

“Naturally Leipzig became the Mecca of students who wished to study the “new” psychology – a psychology that was no longer a branch of speculative philosophy, no longer a fragment of the science of physiology, but a novel and daring and exciting attempt to study mental processes by the experimental and quantitative methods common to all science. For the psychology of Leipzig was, in the [eighteen] eighties and nineties, the newest thing under the sun. It was the psychology for bold young radicals who believed that the ways of the mind could be measured and treated experimentally – and who possibly thought of themselves, in their private reflections, as pioneers on the newest frontier of science, pushing its method into reaches of experience that it had never before invaded.” (Heidbreder op. cit., 94,95) And the person that everyone went to Leipzig to study under is still considered to be one of the leading figures in the development of psychology today, even ahead of Sigmund Freud, yet hardly anyone has heard of him. His name was Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt. Wundt graduated from the Heidelberg University as a medical doctor in 1856 and remained there for nearly 20 years – first as a professors assistant and later as a professor himself. After a short stay as professor of philosophy at the University of Zurich, he finally arrived at Leipzig University in 1875; it is during his forty-five year career at Leipzig that Wundt established the worlds first psychological research laboratory and initiated the worlds first Ph.D. system in psychology. Due to Wundt’s pioneering efforts, the University of Leipzig quickly gained world wide notoriety as a school for psychological study. In total, Wundt was responsible for awarding 184 doctorates to students between 1875 and 1919 including 70 foreigners and 18 Americans. He also published the journal, Philosophical Studies later to be named Psychological Studies.(1)

The list of men who studied under, or received their Ph.D under Wundt and then proceeded to establish experimental laboratories of their own at American Universities is a long one and include some of the most recognizable names in, not only psychology, but also education: Granville Stanley Hall at Johns Hopkins and Clark University; James McKeen Cattell at the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University; Walter Dill Scott at Northwestern University; Charles Hubbard Judd at Yale, New York University, the University of Cincinnati and the University of Chicago; James Earl Russell at the University of Colorado and the Teacher’s College at Columbia University; James Mark Baldwin at the University of Toronto and Princeton Universities; Edward Bratford Titchener at Cornell; William Lowe at Illinois University; Olin Templin at Kansas University; Harry Kirke Wolfe at the University of Nebraska; Andrew C Armstrong at Wesleyan University; Frank Angell at Cornell and Stanford; Edward Wheeler Scripture at Columbia University; Lightner Witner at the University of Pennsylvania; George T.W. Patrick at the University of Iowa; Harlow Stearns Gale at the University of Minnesota; George Malcolm Stratton at the University of California Berkeley; and August Kirschmann at University of Toronto.

The experimental psychology laboratories that spread throughout the U.S. universities at the turn of the 20th century were nearly exact replicas of those first created at Leipzig University under Wundt in 1879; and this development is considered to be the single most important contributing factor to psychology being accepted as a legitimate scientific study within western academia. This new laboratory approach to psychology also served as the impetus for later advancements in the experimental study of human conditioning and behavior by Ivan Pavlov, BF Skinner and John B. Watson. The above list of leading Americans who studied under Wundt were seen as pioneers of a burgeoning field of scientific study and they found little difficulty in securing positions of influence at major American universities; each of them contributing substantially to the world of experimental psychology. They would also serve as invaluable proponents or advocates of experimental psychology within the scientific community, pushing its legitimacy and efficacy by becoming editors and publishers of their very own periodicals, journals, newspaper articles, magazines, leaflets and pamphlets.

At any rate they threw themselves into their tasks with industry and zest. They became trained introspec-tionists and, adding introspection to the resources of the physiological laboratories they attempted the minute analysis of sensation and perception. They measured reaction-times, following their problems into numerous and widespread ramifications. They investigated verbal reactions, thus extending their researches into the field of association. They measured the span and the fluctuations of attention and noted some of its more complex features in the “complication experiment”…In their studies of feeling and emotion they recorded pulse-rates, breathing-rates, and fluctuations in muscular strength, and in the same connection they developed methods of recording systematically and treating statistically the impressions observed by introspection. They also developed psychophysical methods and in addition made constant use of resources of the physiological laboratory.

And throughout all their endeavors they were dominated by the conception of a psychology that should be scientific as opposed to speculative; always they attempted to rely on exact observation, experimentation, and measurement. Finally when they left Leipzig and worked in laboratories of their own – chiefly in American and German universities – most of them retained enough of the Leipzig impress to teach a psychology that, whatever the subsequent development of the individual’s thought, bore traces of the system which was recognized at Leipzig as orthodox. (Heidbreder, op. cit., 94-5.)

Granville Stanley Hall was a giant among the early education reformers and the first American to learn under Wilhelm Wundt at Leipzig before returning to heavily influence the American education system.(2) Hall’s main interests and contributions were in childhood development, evolutionary theory, and their various applications to education. He joined the newly established Johns Hopkins University in 1883, working with his former instructor William James and contemporary James McKeen Cattell. He established the first psychology lab at John Hopkins(3), modelling it after the much respected Wundtian laboratory at Leipzig and like Wundt, Hall created an impressive amount of literature to compliment his practical experimentation. Hall established the American Journal of Psychology, editing the Pedagogical Seminary after 1892, the American Journal of Religious Psychology and Education after 1904, and the Journal of Race Development after 1910, while writing books like Aspects of German Culture (1881), and The Contents of Children’s Minds on Entering School (1894). He also originated the Journal of Applied Psychology(4) and wrote Youth: Its Education, Regiment, and Hygiene in 1906, and Educational Problems in 1911.(5) In 1917 he wrote, Jesus, the Christ, in the Light of Psychology in which he made public his reformist beliefs when writing that “Man was the only true divinity”. However, his most well known work is the two volume, Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education in 1904 and it is with this book that Hall is credited with coining the term ‘adolescence’. 

Additionally it is important to note that this book on adolescence was published in an era when child labor laws and compulsory education were both being enacted, and the high school was quickly becoming the largest growing educational institution of the early twentieth century. If children were being freed from the constraints of labor, Hall believed there would be need for an alternative institution within which the youth could be controlled.

Hall’s approach to education was to indoctrinate students into having selfless ideals of: service, patriotism, body culture, military discipline, love of authority, and devotion to the state while he consistently argued against intellectual attainment at all levels of public education and did not tolerate open discussion or critical opinions. To Hall, students needed to be indoctrinated in order to save them from the individualism that was so damaging to the progress of American culture. Having no sympathy for the sick, poor or people with disability, Hall was an advocate of forced sterilization and selective breeding; believing any charity given to the weak only disrupted or delayed the evolution of natural selection towards a super-race. He despised the thought of education for girls, stating on page thirty-five of The Ideal School as Based on Child Study that education for girls was “wrong and vicious” and “every girl should be educated primarily to become a wife and mother”, and in his letter to George A. Bullock, he elaborated on the topic,

“I am strongly opposed to giving women the slightest foothold in the college…I feel that they would crowd out the best men…”(6)

Hall’s, Adolescence was written with the intent of it becoming a guide for teachers and social workers within the education system and his most direct influence in shaping our view of education came from his theories regarding adolescence. One of his more telling essays, this one from The Education of the Will, Hall writes that, “The only duty of small children is habitual and prompt obedience”(7)

Hall would eventually leave his work at Johns Hopkins University unfinished due to a conflict in curriculum and would become the first president of Clark University in 1889. While at Clark he was famously influential in the field of psychology, and it is worth noting that Hall was responsible for Sigmund Freud’s one and only visit to the United States in the late summer of 1909. Freud and Carl Jung would deliver multiple lectures at Clark University which was also attended by William James, A. A. Brill, James McKeen Cattel and E.B. Titchener. Thus it is here that we see evidence of the co-mingling of pursuits between that of psycho-analytics and educational psychology. In fact Hall greatly admired Freud and had read all of his work. The latter half of Hall’s life was largely influenced by Freud, as evidenced by one of his many personal letters to the Austrian psychiatrist:

I think I have read about everything you have ever written, although in my limitations, there is much that I did not understand, and a little which, if I did understand it alright I have to question. Nevertheless, I owe to you almost a new birth of intellectual interest in psychology, as is perhaps best shown in my Jesus Book, which, without this, would not have been written.”(8)

Hall, inspired by Darwin’s evolutionary theory and the eugenics movement, was an advocate of social-Darwinism – Hall believing that the “lower races” should be given the chance to adapt and accept the “superior white race”(9). When one looks back at the totality of Granville Stanley Hall’s work, its hard to ignore his racist, eugenicist, male chauvinist traits; and its equally hard not to see, through his massive influence as one of the main figures in education reform, how these personal stereotypes and prejudiced beliefs couldn’t help but be implemented into society. While Hall does receive considerable admiration from the conventional establishment for changing the natural trajectory of education, I believe as Lawrence Cremin does when he wrote regarding Hall, that “he injected into the mainstream of American educational thought some of the most radical – and I happen to think virulent – doctrines of the twentieth century, and there is no understanding the present apart from his contribution.”(10) In total, Hall would award one hundred and forty-nine doctorates under his tutelage at Johns Hopkins and Clark Universities.

James McKeen Cattell was another leading figure in the development of the science of psychology. Cattell was Wundt’s first assistant and in 1886, would be the first American to receive his Ph.D in experimental psychology at Leipzig. In 1887, following his time at Leipzig, Cattell traveled to England and lectured at the prestigious Cambridge University where he met Francis Galton – Charles Darwin’s cousin – who was busily developing anthroprometric tests similar to those being carried out at Leipzig like: the measurement of skull size, visual acuity and reaction time. Cattell was impressed with Galton’s structuralist approach to psychology as well as his perspective on eugenics. Galton believed that “a man’s natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world.”(11) Here we see another early attempt by the education reformers to fallaciously impart Darwin’s theory of evolution onto the social structure of humanity by believing that a persons success or failures in life were largely determined by their genetics and inheritance; something we know today to be categorically false.

It is from Cattell’s early studies that we see the development of the first mental tests: color perception, pain sensitivity, visual after images, memory, and mental imagery. It is also during this era that Cattell would travel back to the United States on occasion to lecture at the University of Pennsylvania and Bryn Mawr College late in 1887. While at the University of Cambridge Cattell developed one of the first psychological laboratories in the country(12), designed after Wundts model at Leipzig.

After returning to the States permanently in 1889, James McKeen Cattell filled the position of Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and would begin to administer the first psychological testing on large groups of people at Columbia University. The next year he returned to the University of Pennsylvania as chairman of the department of psychology establishing another experimental laboratory(13,) and in 1891 became the director at the department of psychology at Columbia(14). He would co-found the American Psychological Association in 1892, becoming its president in 1895 (15); while also taking responsibility for the department of anthropology from 1896 to 1902 and the department of philosophy from 1902 to 1905.(16)

Like Hall, Cattell was prolific in the promotion of the new science of experimental psychology. He became the first psychologist elected to the National Academy of Sciences. He and James Mark Baldwin founded The Psychological Review,(17) and Cattell was instrumental in creating the journal, Science, which was the official publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.(18) Cattell had his very own printing press and at the beginning of the 20th century would put it to good use becoming editor-in-chief and publisher of the Popular Science Monthly,(19) which would eventually become Popular Science while also founding the Archives of Psychology(20). In 1908 he assumed control of the American Naturalist(21) and in 1915 he created a weekly publication called School and Society(22). Cattell also wrote for American Men of Science; Leaders in Education; and The Directory of American Scholars(23). All of these literary efforts working to firmly supplant psychology into the collective minds of American science for good. And by no means is this list exhaustive, Cattell continued to write, publish and edit prolifically throughout his career.

He supervised 344 doctoral candidates during his quarter century at Columbia University and forty-six members of the American Psychological Association received their Ph.D. during his tenure. More students received their doctorate at Columbia under his leadership than at any other time in the school’s history. Cattell left just as much of a lasting impression on his students as he did on the discipline of psychology itself and is one of, if not the leading figure in the continuation of Wundtian experimental psychology in the United States. James McKeen Cattell died on January 20, 1944.

James Mark Baldwin would receive his Ph.D under Wundt at Leipzig in 1885(24), and return to the States to re-open the psychology laboratory at Johns Hopkins after it had closed due to the departure of Hall to Clark University. He is also credited with the development of the first experimental psychology lab at Princeton. Baldwin would become one of the more preeminent psychologists of his day – voted the fifth most influential in 1903 – he literally wrote the book on psychology. Baldwin advanced a curriculum from which future aspiring psychologists would study by producing a two volume textbook entitled the Handbook of Psychology in 1889. In that same year, upon his appointment as the professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto, he faced considerable public backlash from a predominantly nativist sentiment among Canadians who, at the time, did not favor the introduction of a German education system. Despite the public discontent and a fire that would destroy the University College, Baldwin would establish the first psychology research laboratory in Canada(25). In 1892, he was a founding member of the American Psychology Association becoming its sixth president in 1897, and starting in 1893 he began a ten year career at Princeton University becoming professor of the psychology and philosophy departments while also founding Princeton’s original experimental research laboratory.(26)

Baldwin would also be a proponent of social Darwinism co-writing two works with James McKeen Cattell, Mental Development in the Child and Race in 1895 and Social and Ethical Interpretations in Mental Developments in 1897. He would also edit Cattell’s Psychological Review. Baldwin would be one of the first to administer experiments on children applying Darwin’s theory of evolution to child development. Baldwin would join the psychological department at Johns Hopkins in 1903, and edit works from over 60 philosophers and psychologists in his three volume Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology in association with Johns Hopkins University; while also advising the National University of Mexico between 1906 and 1911.

By the beginning of World War I, Wundtian psychology was on the decline, having largely been buried both by Gestaltism, which was emanating from out of the Berlin School of Experimental Psychology, and Freudian psychoanalytics from Austria. The appearance of functionalism and behaviorism popularized by B.F. Skinner and Pavlov were proving far more popular than anything coming out of Germany; the American psychological community had now grown to dwarf that of Germany and global prestige and notoriety had shifted to the shores of the United States. American psychologists began using techniques and methods further advanced from those that had been previously taught at Leipzig.

Upon reflection we clearly see a pattern of eugenics-based, anti-American, racist beliefs permeating the minds of the early education reformers. These men who, upon receiving their Ph.D’s from a Prussian University, would come back to North America to create a web of experimental psychology laboratories throughout western academia with the unconstitutional intent of destroying free will and subsuming the individual into society. Every major university would adopt a psychology department in the immediate years following the turn of the century and the centerpiece was the Wundtian experimental laboratory. By 1915, nearly every U.S. university had a psychology department and was led by someone who either trained directly under Wilhelm Wundt or was directly trained by the men who were.

Furthermore, when we employ by way of a historical study of the late 19th century and early 20th, we can prove through primary source material, a distinct, deliberate effort funded by the large Foundations – Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and Peabody – to adopt a Prussian universal education system across the United States (see Philanthropic Foundations and Why They Are A Problem). At the same time we now see the development of a burgeoning experimental psychology industry being systematically instituted into every major university in America with funds being primarily focused on understanding the human mind and child psychology. This, as we will see below, was also funded by the large foundations of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford as well as sub groups affiliated to these larger entities namely: The Social Science Research Council, The Institute of Pacific Relations, and The American Council on Education. Evidence of this organizational structure is authored by Rene Wormser, the former council for the Special Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations, informally referred to as the “The Reece Committee”, in his book Foundations: Their Power and Influence:

There are [grave dangers to our society], these dangers relate chiefly to the use of foundation funds for political ends; they arise out of the accumulation of substantial economic power and of cultural influence in the hands of a class of administrators or tax-exempt funds established in perpetuity. An “elite” has thus emerged, in control of gigantic financial resources operating outside of our democratic processes, which is willing and able to shape the future of this nation and of mankind in the image of its own value concepts. An unparalleled amount of power is concentrated increasingly in the hands of an interlocking and self-perpetuating group. Unlike the power of corporate management, it is unchecked by stockholders; unlike the power of government, it is unchecked by the people; unlike the power of churches, it is unchecked by any firmly established canons of value.”

The Reece Committee began it’s investigation with ‘specific determinations requested by the Congress H. Res. 217, namely’:

  • have Foundations – used their resources for purposes contrary to those for which they were established?
  • used their resources for purposes which can be classed as un-American?\
  • used their resources for purposes which can be regarded as subversive?
  • used their resources for political purposes?
  • resorted to propaganda in order to achieve the objectives for which they have made grants?

It was determined early in the investigation that its scope would need to be broadened to include several other ‘accessory agencies’ including: The American Council of Learned Societies; the National Research Council; the Social Science Research Council; the American Council on Education; the National Education Association; the League for Industrial Democracy; the Progressive Education Association; the American Historical Association; John Dewey Society; and the Anti-Defamation League. The first three of which, having several constituent, associate and institutional members of their own, and who were vessels for the funding of social science scholarships, i.e., history, economics, sociology, psychology, political science, statistics, and anthropology.

The fourth, The American Council on Education served as the coordinating mechanism on a regional and national level. The National Education Association was a monopolistic representative of the ‘great body of teachers’ able to control and administer to the entire poulation of teachers. The League for Industrial Democracy was originally known as the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, which promoted socialism and was the equivalent to the Fabian Society in England. The Progressive Education Association was also a divisive entity that promoted ‘the idea that the individual must be adjusted to the group as a result of his or her educational experience, and that democracy is little more than a system for cooperative living.’ The American Historical Association released a report in 1926 in which it concluded that “the day of the individual in the United States had come to an end and that the future would be characterized, inevitably, by some form of collectivism and an increase in the authority of the State.” And The John Dewey Society’s role was that of ‘conducting research in the field of education and promoting the educational philosophy of John Dewey’, namely the institution and promotion of progressive education.

The Reece Committee concluded that:

The broad study which called our attention to the activities of these organizations has revealed not only their support by Foundations, but has disclosed a degree of cooperation between them which they have referred to as “an interlock”, thus indicating a concentration of influence and power. By this phrase they indicate they are bound by a common interest rather than a dependency upon a single source for capital funds. It is difficult to study their relationship without confirming this. Likewise it is difficult to avoid the feeling that their common interest has led them to cooperate closely with one another and that this common interest lies in the planning and control of certain aspects of American life through a combination of the Federal Government and education.

The Reece Committee’s final report further summarized that these organizations, institutions and societies were using their massive financial influence over the social sciences to “transform education into an instrument for social change.”

In summary, our study of these entities and their relationship to each other seems to warrant the inference that they constitute a highly efficient, functioning whole. Its product is apparently an educational curriculum designed to indoctrinate the American student from matriculation to the consummation of his education. It contrasts sharply with the freedom of the individual as the cornerstone of our social structure. For this freedom, it seems to substitute the group, the will of the majority, and a centralized power to enforce this will – presumably in the interest of all. Its development and production seems t o have been largely the work of those organizations engaged in research, such as the Social Science Research Council and the National Research Council.

Stepping back to consider all of this in its entirety, one has to ask themselves some important ethical and moral questions regarding the power and influence of these Foundations. Is it within the national interests of the United States to allow an extremely small number of men to dictate a vast interest such as our national education? Is it morally just for a society to allow a few industrialists, on account of their exorbitant wealth, to administer the social direction of an entire nation? The evidence continues to prove that these tax-exempt foundations, who are mandated to remain bi-partisan and free from political affiliations, have most definitely stepped outside the realms of their expertise and even the law; and we see the same destructive results being played out even today.

Whether its Rockefeller – a businessman – donating the land for the creation of the United Nations; Bill Gates – a computer programmer – administering vaccines to impoverished Africans; Bill and Hillary Clinton – lifelong state actors – fleecing the victims of third world countries, or George Soros – a private citizen – using his Open Society Foundation to wield geopolitical influence; these ‘altruistic’, philanthropic, tax-exempt Foundations are enjoying an unfettered power that now undeniably controls governments; shapes global policy; and in turn affect societies around the world on a level disproportionate to their perceived importance. And while they continue to abuse the public trust of Americans, and as the evidence of their failures continues to pile up well beyond anything resembling coincidence or accident; the time to rethink their involvement in our society is long overdue.

You can follow the author Youtube The History of Progaganda


1. A History of Modern Psychology, Ludy Benjamin, pg 68.

2. The Journal of Libertarian Studies G. Stanley Hall: A Priestly Prophet of a New Dispensation, Clarence J Karier. pg. 2

3. Ibid

4. Ibid

5. Wikipedia Granville Stanley Hall

6. G. Stanley Hall letter to George A. Bullock, November 20, 1909, Clark University Archives, Hall Collection, Box 20.

7. G Stanley Hall, The Education of the Will, Princeton Review (July-December 1882), p. 310.

8. G. Stanley Hall, letter to Sigmund Freud, September 24, 1923, Clark University Archives, Hall Collection, Box 244, Folder 9, pg 2-3. See also John Chynoweth Burnham, ed., “Sigmund Freud and G. Stanley Hall: Exchange of letters,” Psychoanalytic Quarterly 29, no 3 (1960): 314-15.)

9. Hall, G. Stanley (1904) Adolescence: Its Psychology and its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religioni and Education.

10. Charles E. Strickland and Charles Burgess, Health, Growth, and Heredity: G. Stanley Hall on Natural Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 1965), p. viii

11.Pintner, op. cit., 14

12. National Academy Biographical Memoirs Vol. XXV James McKeen Cattell

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. Wikipedia.

16. National Academy Biographical Memoirs Vol. XXV James McKeen Cattell 17. Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography Copyright 2008 Also wikipedia James McKeen Cattell. See also National Academy Biographical Memoirs Vol. XXV. 18. Wikipedia James McKeen Cattell. See also National Academy Biographical Memoirs Vol. XXV.

19. National Academy Biographical Memoirs Vol. XXV. 20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Encyclopedia Britannica, James Mark Baldwin. See also University of Toronto James Mark Baldwin Museum.

26. Ibid.

Stanford Research Institute: The Changing Images of Man

Stanford Research Institute: The Changing Images of Man

Any student of the rise and fall of cultures cannot fail to be impressed by the role in this historical succession by the image of the future. The rise and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies the rise and fall of cultures ….In the end, the future may well be decided by the image which carries the greatest spiritual power.

Fred Polak (1973)

Vitruvian Man


From the very beginning of human existence, Man has relied upon mythological images and symbolic metaphor to help bring meaning and purpose to his life. Today, we use these images as snapshots in order to define the many evolutionary stages of human history, helping to condense the complexity of each era into a single, easy to understand archetypal symbol. For example, when we think of Man in prehistoric times, we imagine him as a spear wielding master of nature – just as the early cave paintings depicted.

During the Ancient Egyptian era, he became the master of his fellow man and is most commonly represented by the iconic golden image of King Tutankhamen. As scientific method emerged during the Renaissance of early European modern history, Man stepped out from underneath the mystical authority of God to become, not only the dominant force in nature, but the master of the universe – apotheosized by Leonardo Da Vinci’s perfectly proportioned Vitruvian Man. Even more recently, our multi-national, industrialized, globally conscious epoch can be summed up by the image of a tailored suit wearing Modern Man On The Move – trading his spear for a brief case.

These mythological images – or symbolic metaphors – fulfill an important purpose in the evolutionary process, helping Man not only understand who he is but who he was, and most importantly who he will become in the future. Without these strong self-images Man loses his sense of identity, the very structure of society can fragment and the risk of losing our meaning and purpose becomes a very plausible reality.


The Modern Man on the Move. Briefcase Man


As we have seen over the last several decades, it certainly seems as though Man has lost grip with his true identity. Our Western world is undergoing such a drastic technological transformation that it has proven increasingly more difficult to define Man with a single iconic image and this is characterized by today’s massive societal instability and unprecedented chaos that threatens to overturn our Western traditions and values. It certainly should come as no surprise that, as we analyze the cause and effect of unbridled technological advancement: like how the division of labour reduced once fulfilling lives to the most mechanized, menial of tasks; or how urbanization led to an unhealthy dependency upon institutions; or, how the standardization of the Western school system robbed Man of his individuality, that we are now seeing a crisis of identity unfolding in this most nondescript of eras – an era that can only be defined by its inability to be defined.

Following the 1960’s, a large section of the population became disillusioned. People began voluntarily disengaging from society in search of an meaningful identity but failed to find one in a culture driven by faceless commoditization and consumption. At the time of Stanford Research Institute’s study in the 1970’s, society had already existed without a true sense of purpose or meaning for a considerable length of time, and according to the experts, this lack of a strong self-image was having an immense negative impact on western society as a whole. The Western world was in desperate need of an image makeover. But, what would the next image of Man look like? And, in what direction would this image take us? These were the questions that a small group of scientists and consultants working out of Stanford University in Santa Clara Valley California (soon to be known around the world as Silicon Valley) were determined to answer.


“Might it be possible that a more adequate image of humankind could lead to a renewed sense of wholeness and to better behavior-both individual and collective?” pg. 15.


Published originally in 1974, and revised in 1982, The Changing Images of Man was the culmination of an eight month study administered by the Urban and Social Systems Division of the Stanford Research Institute. As they explain in the introduction, various intellectuals from the fields of social sciences, humanities, engineering and physics collaborated in an attempt to:

“1) illuminate ways our present society, its citizens, and institutions have been shaped by the underlying myths and images of the past and present.

2) Explore the deficiencies of currently held images of humankind and to identify needed characteristics of future images and,

3) Identify high-leverage activities that could facilitate the emergence of new images and new policy approaches to the resolution of key problems in society.” Essentially, the basis of their study was to identify and consider the viability and efficacy of all the possible ways in which they could socially engineer the American public towards a new self-image. The key research staff at SRI was led by Project Director O.W. Markley and assisted by an Advisory Panel with several well known public figures including world famous behaviorist B.F. Skinner from the Harvard Department of Psychology; Henry Margenau from the Department of Physics at Yale; well known cultural anthropologist Margaret Mead from the American Museum of Natural History; and popular mythologist and author of The Hero With A Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell.


“Society grows ever more complex, specialized and interconnected, and the production and distribution of essential goods and services is increasingly dependent on the continued integrity of human institutional systems. Human systems, however, depend on trust, agreement, and political law rather than on unchanging “natural” law, hence they are inherently less stable in times of rapid cultural change than are “natural” systems. They are particularly sensitive to breakdowns caused by war, terrorism and simplistic attempts at societal reform.” pg. 10


Within the three hundred page report, the researchers at SRI identified seven different functions of society in which the power of images could be used to acquiesce the population into a state of subservience. These functions were mainly derived from Joseph Campbell’s previous work on mythology and his knowledge of past civilizations. They included: mystical, cosmological, sociological, pedagogical or psychological, editorial, political and magical. Contained within these 7 functions are the many institutions, government agencies, organizations and groups that serve as authorities in society. While the researchers found Joseph’s mystical and magical functions to be largely ineffective due to the public’s inability to consider the former anything more than superstition and the latter to be negatively associated with the diminishing power of the church, they did find the other functions worthy of further exploration.


The cosmological function is “to form and present images of the universe and world in accord with local knowledge and experience. This function is performed in our society today by the scientific community and we see a grossly exaggerated reliance on the word of scientific ‘experts’ and the emergence of a new quasi-religion called ‘scientism’.

The sociological function enjoys perhaps the widest interpretation and includes the social sciences, various social programs, special interest groups, non-profit organizations, non-governmental organizations as well as mass communication, Hollywood, and the entertainment industry. Today this function most assuredly includes social media giants like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo! and Twitter – all of which just happen to have got their start mere miles away from SRI within the city boundaries of downtown San Jose California, right in the heart of Silicon Valley.

The pedagogical or educational function includes the public school system as well as the higher learning institutions of academia and has proven to be most effective in shaping the direction of western society. Today, both the public classroom and the university campus have become perfect breeding grounds for the enforcement of social order and the manufacturing of public opinion and are now the ideological battleground upon which the very fabric of western values and traditions are being viciously shredded to pieces – primarily led by violent, ill-informed protests at Berkeley University, which just happens to be located in Oakland, just north of Stanford.

The editorial function of society is performed by the “funding agencies (government legislatures and departments of program planning, foundations, and so forth) who also represent special interests in the selection of which aspects of reality should be collectively ignored and which attended to”. Today foundations like Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates and Open Society all play major roles in the shaping of society not only domestically but on an international scale. (see my previous articles, Philanthropic Foundations and Why They Are A Problem, and How Foundations Created Academia in which I go into further detail).

The political function is distinct from the strictly sociological function and “appears wherever a myth or institution of society is deliberately employed to represent the claim to privilege and authority of some special person, race, social class, nation or civilization”. Today our society has been inundated with these types of social justice authorities demanding equality of race, class, gender, and ethnicity.


According to the Changing Images of Man, the authoritative powers within the above mentioned 7 functions were then applied to all four “sources of societal problems” in order to affect the very beliefs, values and perceptions of society. These four levels are made up of: (1) the state of society, (2) behaviour, (3) motivations, and (4) basic values. As figure 7 demonstrates below, we see how the state of society can be directly affected by the individual actions and behaviours of its citizens. The scientists and researchers at SRI had rightly concluded that it is upon the foundation of our basic values and perceptions that our motivations are built; and our motivations will manifest themselves into reality through our behaviour while our collective behaviour as a society ultimately determines the general state of our society as a whole. Which raises the obvious question most pertinent to this specific discussion. Where do our values and perceptions come from?

The stability of the State no matter the ideology is entirely dependent upon the behaviour of its citizens. And those behaviours triggered by motivations stemming from our perception of basic values first established in early childhood and then reinforced through the repetition of Norbert Weiner’s feedback loop. This constant entrainment a necessary aspect in the maintaining of order. 

Our beliefs, values, and perceptions originate from our culture. In fact, they are a direct result of the above mentioned 7 functions of society. We are born into an already well established set of cosmological, sociological, pedagogical or psychological, editorial, political, magical and mythical beliefs that we are forced to adopt for fear we may fail to conform within the larger societal belief system. The SRI referred to this process of indoctrination as the “directed emotional conditioning” of children. pg. 170
As we grow older and gain more information, our values and beliefs and perceptions are further implanted within us in much the same way a plant photosynthesizes the energy of the sun – what SRI called “objectively constructed reinforcement patterns” pg. 170. We become a product of our environment. Those who step outside this construct are quickly stigmatized as social outliers – contemptible contrarians who are then ridiculed into submission by the majority. The very existence of this social construct depends heavily on the effectiveness of both our initial conditioning and the subsequent reinforcement of patterns. Of course, this was well understood by the assembled scientists at SRI. Interestingly, the shaping of thought in order to steer society in a predetermined direction is the very definition of brainwashing. The only thing left for SRI to decide was which of the many techniques proposed would be implemented? What behaviour modification strategies would prove most effective in the establishment of a more docile, benevolent society? These questions formed the heart of the study.

“Only if such mentalistic and pre-scientific concepts as will, freedom, and consciousness, and so forth are cast off, Skinner asserts, does man have a chance to attain a truly peaceful, rational, and humane society in the future.” B.F. Skinner, pg. 30


The research staff at SRI left no stone unturned in their search for ways to inculcate the masses, even considering the viability of telekinesis, bio feedback, telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, hypnosis, subliminal messaging, hallucinogenics and psychotropic drugs. Each strategy was identified and discussed at length over the 8 month study then summarized within Chapter 4, Influence of Science on the “Image of Man”. The study called upon behavioural scientist B.F. Skinner to offer his expertise on the examination of ‘man as a mechanism’ and to elaborate on his operant conditioning techniques. Also discussed was the viability of “genetic modification”(6); “brain surgery to prevent aggressive behaviour”; “electrical brain implants”; and “sophisticated electronic surveillance mechanisms to detect ‘aberrant’ behaviour patterns”. Incredibly, they also “proposed the development of chemically based “psychotechnologies”, (primarily to bring control over the tendencies of national leaders, in an attempt to lower the possibility of nuclear war)”. SRI also “urged the development of a ‘psycho-civilized’ society such that dangerous behavior in man can be modified by electrical stimulation of the brain” while they also considered the “profound moral questions” that arise from such activities “which, if unresolved, might propel civilization toward Brave New World and 1984”. pg. 170, 84.


The branch of this school of thought which has proved most successful emphasizes the technique of operant conditioning, a term originated by B. F. Skinner to denote a systematic procedure whereby the actions of an organism are brought under control by giving it a reward if and only if it behaves in a specified manner. This technique has been successfully used-in education, psychotherapy, and in prisons to alter whole behavior patterns of individuals. Certainly, the techniques that have been developed within the view of “man as mechanism” are powerful and efficient. They work. Hence if integrated and reconciled with other views of man – views which have more adequate ethics and metaphysics (both terms that the behavioristic scientist insists are not part of his concern) on which to guide their application – this view and its products could conceivably be of great benefit to mankind. pg. 30


The psychotropic drug scenario proposed by SRI was eerily reminiscent of Aldous Huxley’s Soma, and was found to be one of the more easy to apply. Nearly forty years later, we are witness to the horrific results. Coincidentally or not, the dramatic upward statistical trend of prescription drug use in America began in the years immediately following SRI’s report and is only matched by the rising death toll attributed to it. A seemingly never ending list of antidepressants, anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, and hypnotic sedatives like Adderall, Ambien, Ativan, Dexedrine, Lithium, Paxil, Prozac, Ritalin, Valium, Zanax and Zoloft have continued to flood the market ever since. As those who lived through the 1980’s would know, the number of prescription drugs on the market was relatively minimal to what we see now. According to recent statistics compiled by the CDC, nearly half of the US population was on at least one prescription drug during the years 2011 – 2014; one quarter of the population was on two; and 10% were on five or more (1)(!) According to more recent research published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the number of Americans on prescribed drugs in 2015 was 59%, while those on five or more jumped to 15%.(2) In another report, the American Psychological Association found a threefold increase in the use of antidepressants from the years 1988 to 2002 (3) while research compiled by David Muzina, MD, a psychiatrist at the Medco Neuroscience Therapeutic Resource Center found that the number of children receiving atypical anti-psychotics doubled from 2000 to 2010.(4)


In the year 2018, we have the immense advantage of hindsight with which we can evaluate the situation more closely and even cursory analysis of the statistics reveal a rather unsettling trend. To even the most ardent advocate of psychotropics there remains a disturbing condition worthy of future consideration. Firstly, it is undeniable that prescription drug use exploded in the years immediately following Stanford’s report, resulting in some unintended consequences; and these consequences are further being substantiated by an ever growing mountain of corroborating statistical evidence. And now, with the addition of Changing Images of Man as primary source material indicating both intent and motive, it becomes entirely possible that this has been a premeditated, coordinated scheme to drug an entire nation into submission. Even the eternal optimist must admit that the numbers are indicative of a deeply corrupted, degenerate system that risks growing completely out of control. And to those that remain skeptical of the conclusions being drawn herein I invite you to research the sources cited as they are offered for your perusal below. I challenge those doubters to research the ever-widening medical qualifications for depression, attention deficit disorder and the absurdity of a future in which the entire population of North America – over 350,000,000 people – are diagnosed by alleged experts as either depressed, psychotic or both.


A rather different approach to understanding (and controlling) behavior, also of proven effectiveness, is through the implementation of remotely activated electrodes in the brain. The “psycho-civilization of society” has been advocated by means of various techniques of behavior modification such as operant conditioning (Skinner, 1971), electrocranial stimulation (Delgado, 1969), and psychochemical drugs (Clark, 1971). Only if such mentalistic and prescientific concepts as will, freedom, consciousness, and so forth are cast off, Skinner asserts, does man have a chance to attain a truly peaceful, rational, and humane society in the future.” pg. 30


This conveniently leads me to the next strategy proposed by the SRI in which they deliberated the advantages and disadvantages of a public opinion dependent on the word of ‘experts’. This phenomenon, they say, resulting from the general public’s inability to keep up with an increasingly more complex society; that without adequate time to research for themselves, the masses would become overly dependent on the opinions of experts. And as anyone who has studied the Trivium will be aware, this reliance on expert opinion amounts to nothing more than a logical fallacy – the argumentum ad auctoritatum. Yet when we turn on the television or open a newspaper we are continuously asked, ad nauseam, to accept simple two word phrases like “experts say” as the irrefutable truth and today this has resulted in enormous consequences to society that SRI even predicted – as evidenced by the following excerpt:


“…the viability of a democracy depends upon the informed decision-making capacity of its citizenry, i.e. the “relative political maturity” of the people must at least maintain parity with the complexity of the issues confronting the public. If the acquisition of relevant knowledge

does not proceed at about the same pace at which the decisions become complex, then relative political maturity will decline. This may have two consequences:

(1) increasing reliance placed upon the “expert” to maintain order and control, with a resulting compromise of our democratic processes, or

(2) reluctance to give control to the “expert” but, with an increasing inability to make informed decisions, the result is that the system may truly go ‘out of control.'” pg. 61


In consideration of the readers time, an effort has been made to keep this blog within reasonable limitations, which dissuades the author from enumerating on all of the possible scenarios discussed within the pages of the Changing Images of Man, however I do wish to cover one final one. One in which the researchers at SRI considered a scenario involving what they referred to as “friendly fascism”. A scenario described by its creators, Gross and Bertram, that would “severely reduce individual freedoms….under the slogans of democracy and 100 percent Americanism…in the form of an advanced technological society, supported by its techniques – a techno-urban fascism, American style”. And when one compares the points proposed below for a fascist society, with the world today, we see a striking similarity unable to be explained away by mere coincidence. For anyone above the age of forty who have asked themselves how the image of our world can change so drastically within the last couple of decades, the following selection may provide some clarity:

• Application of military surveillance technologies to urban police problems.

• Utilization of behavior-changing drugs and operant conditioning in schools.

• Government attempts at management of news.

• “Personality screening” and maintenance of files on “pre-delinquent” children,

through cooperation between elementary school administrations and local, state, and

federal authorities.

• The cross-correlation of computer-based files containing personal data (e.g. credit,

employment records, tax status, insurance, criminal record, education).

• The introduction of legislation to control access to techniques for self-initiated

alteration of consciousness (both non-drug and drug induced). pg. 170, 171.


It is interesting that within a decade of publishing the Changing Images of Man, we see the meteoric rise of both Silicon Valley and the world wide web; both originating directly from out of this innocuous private research institute colloquially known as the Farm. Through the use of primary source material, we see the blueprint from which a plan is devised to socially engineer the American public through it’s various institutions and agencies, followed by the establishment of the very tools to best facilitate the plan.(!) We also see a deep military affiliation with the project in that the internet stems directly from out of the Pentagon’s Arpanet program and the Stanford Research Institute is one of three original hubs for the internet (see diagram below), as early as 1969. Stanford University is centered within a few miles radius of all of the social media giants Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo!, and all of these survivors of the dotcom era have major ties to the US intelligence community while also conveniently forming the main framework that is social media.

Is it just coincidence that these were the lucky few to survive the dotcom crash and then go on to dominate the web? Today, we see the Defense Department investing billions of dollars of venture capital into Silicon Valley technology and it’s a harder argument to make that this is all by accident or coincidence than it is to argue that it is by design. Especially when we compare the proposed strategies covered above with what has manifested within society today. There remains no doubt in this author’s mind that The Stanford Research Institute’s Changing Images of Man is a playbook from which originated a plan of full spectrum dominance over society that, as of the writing of this article, has progressed to near completion.


Today, it certainly seems as though society has become directionless, rudderless. And maybe all of the ‘hither to and fro’ of technology has served to mask the deeper issue of societal stagnation. The once archetypal image of the family-orientated, nuclear father of the 50’s has been persuaded to shun the responsibility of manhood and embrace narcissistic perpetual leisure, and as one looks around, there is considerable evidence to suggest this to be true.  As a society, we seem to lack a clear picture of where we are going or what we are supposed to do next and as we wait for the next image to appear, we will continue to endure chaos. What will the next Image of Man look like? Will he adapt to the imminently approaching era of digital, distributive networks? Maybe he has fallen victim to the trans-humanist movement and will emerge from behind the curtain only half of a man and half a machine. Perhaps he continues down his present path and becomes a simulacrum of a man – a soulless caricature of his former self in the image of Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin. At this point, no one knows for sure, but what is alarming is that as the social science experts; television talking heads; and the authorities of State, forcibly remove the word Man from our vocabulary, and the word son from even our national anthems, any way you choose to look at it, Man as we have known him is quickly disappearing. And it is the opinion of the author that we must initiate this image ourselves because if we allow a totalitarian government to provide it, we most certainly will not like the image that we are given, and the perfect antidote to a tyrannical authority remains a well developed, intelligent individual.


You can follow the author on Twitter, Gab, Bitchute, Steemit, Trooth and Minds @TriviumMethod and on Facebook as Duane Hayes/ Diego Garcia and on YouTube at The History of Propaganda.


1. Health United States Report 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

2. Washington Post article

3. American Psychological Association

4. Medscape


From Hidden Hand to Iron Fist

Keep yourself as much in the background as possible…and let everybody do the talking excepting yourself. Nothing ever kills a man’s influence so quickly as to be too much in evidence.” Colonel House(1)

In a previous article, How Secret Societies Rule the World, I briefly identify Colonel Edward Mandell House as a chief adviser inside the Wilson administration; however, in consideration of staying on point, further elaboration of this important historical figure was simply deemed impossible at the time. Furthermore, even when afforded the far more liberating expanse of an entire article it is difficult to put the man’s full influence into proper context. In consideration of this, an impressive amount of literature has been presented in the footnotes to satisfy those wishing for an even deeper understanding of House beyond what is offered here.

Edward Mandell House’s mansion, Austin Texas.

On July 26, 1858, Colonel Edward Mandell House was born in Houston Texas, the youngest of eight children (seven of which were boys) to an affluent anglophile merchant family. His father, Thomas William House, founded some of the first transportation and utility companies in Houston – even serving as it’s mayor in 1862. As a young boy Edward found enjoyment in pitting classmates against each other and learned to shoot and ride at a very young age. Due to a physical ailment, House was prohibited from pursuing a military career but would attend Cornell University and was a member of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity (closely associated with Yale’s Skull and Bones and Scroll and Key fraternities). Growing up in a political household exposed Edward to social circles that most children his age weren’t afforded and these relationships would leave an enduring impression upon the young Texan. It wasn’t long after leaving Cornell that he too would enter the political realm but, unlike his father, he shunned the attention bestowed upon a public figure, he refused interviews and seldom accepted official appointments, preferring instead to remain in the shadows – fulfilling the far more discreet role of ‘silent partner’.

House proved to have considerable political acumen and quickly developed an influential circle of friends while working in Texas state politics he referred to as “Our Crowd“(2) and, “as their leader, would focus on the acquisition of power, emphasizing personal loyalty, patronage, the deception of others, and the manipulation of the political system.“(3) House would use these strategies to lead the successful campaigns of four Democratic Governors of Texas: James S. Hogg (1892), Charles A. Culberson (1894), Joseph D. Sayers (1898), and S. W. T. Lanham (1902). It is during these early formative years in Texas that House would adopt ‘Colonel’ as his unofficial moniker and, operating unfettered within the powerful social setting of ‘Our Crowd’ would quickly gain notoriety as a “kingmaker”.

Early in 1896, as the progressive movement swept America, we see evidence of House thoroughly embracing the ideal of social equality as a driver for reconstruction. Sometime after the turn of the century, House walks away from state politics, choosing instead to focus on more pressing national reform issues. House, recognizing negligence on the part of the Republican Party to resolve the unchecked power of the financial interests on Wall Street, seized on an opportunity for the Democratic Party to resurrect itself from the ashes of previous presidential campaign failures in 1900 and 1904 – but he was an adviser without a candidate. House identified three qualities that his nominee would need to possess in order to complete a successful run to Washington. Firstly, his candidate had to be presentable and articulate enough to inspire the imagination of the American public. Secondly, he had to have strong enough character to withstand public opposition to some of House’s more progressive social reform measures.Thirdly, and most importantly, the correct candidate must be sufficiently muted enough in his personal ideals so as to remain ‘advisable’.

House began the interview process with a mayor from Texas named Gaynor but found he lacked political acuity. He also approached Charles A. Culberson, the same man he helped win the Texas Governorship in 1894, but abandoned hopes due to Culberson’s failing health and his penchant for alcohol. After contemplating several other candidates, House would eventually find his man in an ambitious young progressive Governor from New Jersey named Woodrow Wilson. House writing of Wilson, “I now turned to Woodrow Wilson, then Governor of New Jersey, as being the only man in the East who in every way measured up to the office for which he was a candidate.“(4) House studied Wilson intensely prior to meeting him, reading all of his speeches and studying his background. They also corresponded by letter but the two never actually met until the late afternoon of September 24, 1911 – just over a year before Wilson would be elected president – when Wilson was summoned to a small room at the Hotel Gotham in New York City. The two spoke for only an hour, but House would later write of the meeting, “they were immediately intimate”. House also later relates his affection for Wilson in a letter to Senator Culberson, “The more I see of Governor Wilson the better I like him…I think he is going to be a man one can advise with some degree of satisfaction.

Wilson was the son of a preacher man. His father founded The Southern Presbyterian Church in the United States and had instilled within his son deep religious values while also providing him with a substantial education. By 1879, Wilson had graduated from Princeton Phi Kappa Psi and was studying law at the University of Virginia. In 1883 he began economics study at Johns Hopkins under one of the founders of the Progressive movement, economist Richard T. Ely. Following his time at Johns Hopkins, Wilson would spend several years lecturing at Cornell University(1886-1887), Bryn Mawr College(1885-1888), and Wesleyan where he was elected Phi Beta Kappa. In 1902, Wilson was elected president of Princeton but would vacate the position in 1910 due to a clash with university administrators over the placement of a graduate school. Publicly, Wilson announced his candidacy for the gubernatorial seat of New Jersey, and in doing so, put himself on a direct historical collision course with Colonel House. These early experiences with Presbyterianism, constitutional law, economics, progressivism, and the fraternal order would be profoundly influential in shaping both Wilson’s character and his future policies as president.

From their historic first meeting in New York, House and Wilson would forge an incredible professional and personal relationship. Wilson would eventually defer to House on matters of both public and private concern. The two would grow inseparable, especially following the death of Wilson’s first wife. House became Wilson’s chief adviser and we see the immense trust and influence Wilson had in the Texas ‘kingmaker’ in a letter Wilson wrote to House in 1915, over a year after his election victory:


“You are the only person in the world with whom I can discuss everything…There are some I can tell one thing and others another, but you are the only one to whom I can make an entire clearance of the mind.”(6)


Entering the second decade of the 20th century, America was in turmoil. Wilson turned his attention to the national leadership campaign just as contentious societal changes were underway. Industrialization and urbanization had violently uprooted traditional American values and we see free market laissez-faire being overtaken by a never-before-seen bastard child of capitalism known as monopoly capitalism – and from out of the melee emerged giant corporate interests, or Trusts. A progressive wave of reform had flooded every aspect of American life and the people responded violently. Farm Wars, Labour Wars, Indian Wars and School Wars each took a toll across the nation. Traditional ways of farming, education, labour and medicine were being completely overturned by the wealthy ways of industrialists and the public was accusing industry, financiers, and politicians of colluding in an unprecedented display of corruption. The importance of the time cannot be overstated. According to professor of history at Georgetown, Carroll Quigley, Western Civilization was in fact entering it’s third Age of Conflict. The fate of the Western world rested in it’s ability to overcome great advancements in technology, most broadly, the Industrial Revolution – America was prone to a hijack. And so it was into this tumultuous socio-political milieu that Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House would take their first historic steps together, on their march to Washington.
While 1912 would end in spectacular fashion for House, the election year did not start out well. He was forced to retreat to his Texas home due to an illness in early January but while convalescing, puts to paper what a reformed society might look like under a Wilson led government. Within a month, House had a roughly handwritten manuscript written in the form of a fictional political love story. By late February the longhand draft was typed up and following many revisions and consultations with friends, advisers and publishers, House would have the finished product in his hand by October. Entitled, Philip Dru: Administrator A Story of Tomorrow 1920-1935, it was published anonymously, sparking considerable controversy in political and public circles at the time, many speculating as to who the true identity of the author was. House himself added to the intrigue by marketing the mystery author as “a man distinguished in political councils” and that the book was filled with “facts known only to the inner circle of statecraft and finance“. House’s closest friends and confidantes applauded it while critics lathered it with disdain.

At the same time House was trying to get his book published, the presidential campaign was heating up. By summertime, the atmosphere around the country was filled with the progressive promise of change. Theodore Roosevelt, a Freemason(7) and Phi Beta Kappa(8), abandoned an African hunting expedition to campaign for the Republican nomination. After losing the preliminary to fellow Freemason(9) and Phi Beta Kappa(10), William Howard Taft, formed a new progressive Republican party called the Bull Moose Party. The charismatic, ‘trust busting’ Roosevelt promised to ameliorate corporate avarice, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics by limiting campaign contributions; imposing a registration for lobbyists; and instituting a federal securities commission. William Howard Taft, a member of Skull and Bones(11), was the incumbent nominee for the Conservative Republican Party but was less sympathetic to the needs of the people. Taft sided with large corporations during anti-trust cases, even reversing key legislature invoked by Roosevelt in his previous presidency. Woodrow Wilson, also represented the progressives but on the Democratic ticket, and also promised to implement measures to counteract out-of-control corporations but supported decreased tariffs on foreign goods.

Roosevelt’s progressive campaign expressed a New Nationalism, proposing a national health service, social insurance for the elderly, elimination of women suffrage, an eight hour work day, farm relief, workers compensation and support of labour unions. Where Roosevelt’s platform was largely paternalistic, calling for radically increased government oversight to help curb corporate corruption, the tenets of Wilson’s New Freedom campaign were less drastic and based in the philosophy of individualism. Wilson chose instead to limit the power of the federal government, proposing less radical strategies to control corporate over reach. Wilson was “skeptical of great business enterprises and emphasized the restoration of competition and the continual renewal of American society from below.“(12) In the end, the campaign of 1912 would prove to be one of the most contentious in history. Wilson, under the advisement of House, would use the Republican split to his advantage in carrying an incredible forty states. However, once elected Wilson would abandon his campaign planks, implementing policy largely reminiscent of both Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party platforms and, more strangely still, the ‘New Constitution’ hypothesized within the pages of House’s newly published ‘fictional’ novel.

History shows that following the election victory on November 5, 1912, and prior to his inauguration on March 4, 1913, Wilson and his wife would vacation in Bermuda. But less documented is the fact that just prior to their departure, Colonel House handed Wilson a copy of his freshly published novel.(13)(14)(15)

House had written Philip Dru in an utopian style reminiscent of other, more well known utopian works like Plato’s Republic or Jonathan Swift’s Gullivers Travels; however, in no way should Philip Dru be considered on the same literary level – House even admitting that it was hastily arranged and rushed to publication. But, when considering who the author was, when it was published, and the serendipitous political reform that immediately followed both Wilson’s ascendancy to the Oval Office and the publication of the book,, Philip Dru proves far more deserving of our contemplation as a political confessional and probably the primary reason why it has remained in relative obscurity for over one hundred years. Like in my previous article, Brave New World Order, where it is proven that Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel, Brave New World served as an obvious ‘blueprint’ for a significant societal shift towards a new order, we see parallels between Colonel Edward Mandell House’s fictional tale and the policies he personally initiated into reality shortly after it’s publication.

As opposed to Huxley’s tale that was set in the far distant future, Philip Dru is set in the very near future and is an amazing expression of the duality of House’s character portrayed through the two main characters of the story. On one path we have the progressive protagonist, Philip Dru, a man of principle and discipline who, after having a life altering experience with a poor family living in the run down tenements of New York City begins a personal mission to rectify social inequality. Just as Colonel House “came to share the concern of many Americans over the corruption of the political process, the excesses of giant corporation, and the strains appearing in the nations social fabric”,(16) Dru vows to introduce arrogant wealthy privilege to the plight of the poor. Dru strives to shine a light on the destructive nature of materialistic vanity and to invigorate within the more fortunate set a spark of social consciousness not temporarily placated by their occasional charity but instead fueled by a true desire to seek out and eliminate inequality. Similarities between the author and his main character go beyond ideology and are evidenced throughout the book’s nearly two hundred pages. Two more obvious examples being that Dru, like House, was denied a military career due to a physical ailment, and both happened to be the youngest of seven boys.

The well meaning character of Dru is juxtaposed against the path of the story’s anti hero – an egocentric, well-to-do Senator named Selywn who manipulates the minds of powerful men to serve his own self-interests as if it were a game. Through Senator Selwyn, House unveils the darker side of his personality and shows a keen willingness to participate in the more disreputable aspects of politics as if the book was a confessional exercise in the cleansing of House’s tortured Texas soul. Through Selwyn, House shows the perspective that could only come from someone on the inside as he reveals a deep understanding of the true political environment, enacting scenarios that even the most casual political observer has long since suspected but could never confirm. And this overtly corrupt political atmosphere further underlined today as a managerie of lobbyists, sycophants, and demogogue’s permeate the memberships of the most powerful special interest groups, NGO’s and ‘think tanks’. House leaves hints as to the true identity of the author through the senator as like House, Selwyn only ‘tastes’ wine and never drinks to excess; and like House, Selwyn’s youngest daughter’s name was Janet. House even leaving a more obvious clue in that where Selwyn met his potential presidential candidate, Senator Rockland, was a place penned Mandell House. In the first excerpt, taken from page 41, we see House admitting to how the two party system is compromised similar to what we see in the 1912 presidential campaign in which all three candidates were from the same university fraternal order, Phi Beta Kappa, and two were confirmed Freemasons(!)


“Masterful and arrogant wealth, created largely by Government protection of its profits, not content with its domination and influence within a single party, had sought to corrupt them both, and to that end had insinuated itself into the primaries, in order that no candidates might be nominated whose views were not in accord with theirs.” Philip Dru: Administrator, page 41.


Dru, once in a position of influence, understood quickly that helping the less fortunate within his own immediate influence did little to alleviate the overall issue – often times even acting as a deterrent – and real lasting change could only be secured through aristocratic political circles. But, just as quickly, Dru recognizes the halls of public office as a tawdry system of self preservation in control of both parties and in doing so, House brings the reader face to face with the invalidity of the corrupt two party system. Here, House unveils for all the world to see, an abhorrent atmosphere of narcissists who care little for issues beyond the white granite walls of Congress. House reveals, in a very matter-of-fact way, the sordid truths that machinate beyond public purview – cloaked behind the closed doors of the people’s most hallowed institutions. And more contemporaneously, we have evidence that this corruption still exists a hundred years later when we consider the police enforced refusal of Green Party leader Ralph Nader to speak at the primaries in 2000(17). And this two party infiltration by a backdoor brotherhood most famously highlighted when in 2004 both party candidates, George W. Bush, a Republican, and John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, happened to be members of Skull and Bones, the same secret Yale Fraternity as Taft. George H. W. Bush and his father Prescott, were also a members.(18)(19)(20)(21)


In the following example from Chapter 34, Selwyn’s Story, Senator Selwyn – like a gangster suddenly turned informant – proudly confesses to his sins of success. Those at the helm of the political machinery are interestingly referred to as ‘bosses’ and is simply fascinating in that, while officially written as fiction, sounds more like an honest account of what life must have been like for young Edward growing up within the cutthroat environment of Texas state politics. It also imparts for the reader incredible insight into the absolute power that House truly sought and why he himself would avoid the bright lights of fame and recognition his entire career – instead preferring the far less public, shadowy existence of an unelected advisor:


“He was my father’s best friend, and there were no secrets between them. They seldom paid attention to me, and I was rarely dismissed even when they had their most confidential talks. In this way, I early learned how our great American cities are looted, not so much by those actually in power, for they are of less consequence than the more powerful men behind them.”pg 109.


In the second example taken from the same chapter, we see Selwyn admit to how the ‘bosses’ are able to milk the system to their advantage by tactfully exploiting the largely naive, trusting, and “selfish attitude” of the citizenry without soliciting any unnecessary public blowback:


“Any measure they desired passed by the legislature was first submitted to him, and he would prune it until he felt he could put it through without doing too great violence to public sentiment. The citizens at large do not scrutinize measures closely; they are too busy in their own vineyards to bother greatly about things which only remotely or indirectly concern them.

This selfish attitude and indifference of our people has made the boss and his methods possible. The “big interests” reciprocate in many and devious ways, ways subtle enough to seem not dishonest even if exposed to public view.” page 110.


As we near the end of the novel, Selwyn divulges to Dru exactly how he built his empire of wealth and influence from a system of loyalty, patronage and the manipulation of others that sounds eerily reminiscent of House’s days back in Texas mingling within the prestige of ‘Our Crowd’ and confirms the dangers of what we more familiarly refer today as quid pro quo, pay-to-play, or insider trading relationships. All of these confidence schemes are openly admitted as self-evident by those in power today and rarely do we witness those guilty of such crimes face anything resembling real consequence or punishment as the corruption continues on unabated today through lobbyists and superpacs. And the repeated failure of our justice system to act also serves as further evidence of a much higher level of corrupted vested interest that ferments beyond the veil of party politics holding no regard for the needs of the public that most of us either fail to see or choose to ignore.

Without doubt, these same schemes and allegiances saturate today’s political landscape and indicate why we see an egregious increase in the personal wealth of politicians in the years in which they hold public office – smashing any previously held belief that their role is considered a sacrosant position of servitude not intended to be used for the acquisition of great personal wealth. And, as the author earlier alluded to and will later illuminate, there exists beyond this veil of political partisanship an even deeper loyal brotherhood of thieves forged from a dark underworld network of loyal fraternal friendships first formed on the academic campuses that presently thrives within the most prestigious universities in America that this author, in later articles will contend, is the true insidious nature of the university system. A secret, second-tier, plutocratic web of peerage and nepotism.

As evidenced even further in the following Selwyn confessional:


“I also demanded and received information in advance of any extension of railroads, standard or interurban, of contemplated improvements of whatsoever character, and I doled out this information to those of my followers in whose jurisdiction lay such territory. My own fortune I augmented by advance information regarding the appreciation of stocks. If an amalgamation of two important institutions was to occur, or if they were to be put upon a dividend basis, or if the dividend rate was to be increased, I was told, not only in advance of the public, but in advance of the stockholders themselves. All such information I held in confidence even from my own followers, for it was given me with such understanding.”


In the next excerpt, House, er, Senator Selwyn discloses how he and his coterie of wealthy millionaires managed to prolong their status quo by assigning men sympathetic to their financial interests to the highest positions of influence within county, state, and federal government. Whether it be the country’s natural resources, public utilities, or finance, Selwyn and his cohorts would control profits through a cohesive trust that proved very lucrative to those same loyal government officials who served to protect them. This patronage scheme reminiscent of how the early industrialists – concomitant with Wilson’s presidency – were able to take control of the mass communication industry by first purchasing the most influential newspapers in America, and then, by placing one of their own as editor-in-chief, were able to distract the public from their corrupt practices while also controlling public opinion. This being the genesis of the profoundly radical, progressive, liberal media that exists today, consisting of six giant corporate conglomerates responsible for all the nations news, television entertainment, and Hollywood movies.


“By the use of all the money that could be spent, by a complete and compact organization and by the most infamous sort of deception regarding his real opinions and intentions, plutocracy had succeeded in electing its creature to the Presidency. There had been formed a league, the membership of which was composed of one thousand multi-million-aires, each one contributing ten thousand dollars. This gave a fund of ten million dollars with which to mislead those that could be misled, and to debauch the weak and uncertain.”

In the chapter entitled, The Making of a President, the similarities between House and Senator Selwyn become so interwoven that it becomes hard to discern whether you are reading a fictional utopian novel or the intimate letters of Colonel House.


“It was a fascinating game to Selwyn. It appealed to his intellectual side far more than it did to his avarice. He wanted to govern the Nation with an absolute hand, and yet not be known as the directing power. He arranged to have his name appear less frequently in the press and he never submitted to interviews, laughingly ridding himself of reporters by asserting that he knew nothing of importance.”pg. 52.


Following a violent Civil War initiated by Dru that successfully overthrows the Selwyn controlled monolithic government, Dru formulates a new “Code of Laws” and a new Constitution, of which he would be the sole Administrator in order to curb any further exploitation of the American people by a corrupt corporatocracy. Dru appoints himself – to the roaring applause of the masses – as Dictator who is given the responsibility of guiding America through a temporary time of turmoil that will ultimately lead to a unified utopia. Here, Dru invokes the same kind of atavism that would allow Lenin to create his Communist Soviet regime just a mere five years after Philip Dru’s publication. An event in which House and his close confidente’s had intimate involvement. Ultimately, Dru, fueled by his belief in ‘equality of opportunity’, and through an appeal to the plight of the poor, imposes a socialist system of government to be laid over top of the original Constitutional concept of the American Republic to be ruled by an absolute dictator – or, as is repeated several times both throughout the novel and during Wilson’s presidency, a new order.

“The president [Woodrow Wilson] did not in those brief months achieve the “new world,” the “new order,” he so nobly phrased, so ardently desired, and so continuously fought for, but he chose the battleground and set forth the issues which will engage the thought of the world for many years to come.” New York Times, January 21, 1922.


As evidenced by the above passage, Wilson himself would use the terms “new order” and “new world” repeatedly throughout his two terms – especially when hammering out the future of international order while at the Paris Peace conference in 1919. This phrase implies a replacement of the old, rapacious capitalist system of Western society with a more homogenous socially conscious global community. And, as one reads the book, one is struck by the many allusions to Communism. From the basic socialist tenet of wealth inequality to the concept of class struggle; from the character named Marx, to the real life authors that are cited in the novel ( Sir Oliver Lodge), we see a penchant for socialism. Lodge was an active member of the socialist organization, the Fabian Society and frequent lecturer at the London School of Economics, co-authoring two publications with none other than it’s two co-founders, Sidney Webb and George Bernard Shaw. Lodge was also one of Colonel House’s favourite writers.


Amazingly, what Dru institutes is in many ways mirrored in both the progressive platform policies of Roosevelt during the 1912 election campaign and the actual policies put in place by Wilson in the immediate years following it. It should also be noted that the changes initiated by Wilson were the largest progressive reform measures up until that point in American history and Philip Dru seemed to be nothing less than an internal memorandum issued to the president by his advisers that laid out the future of American domestic and foreign policy. Little wonder then, that some one hundred years later, the measures imposed by Wilson have done little to curb the corporate corruption perpetrated by the very same men who not only funded Wilson’s campaign but the campaign of both Taft and Roosevelt. Wilson, like Roosevelt and Taft before him, participated in a sort of Kubuki theatre ritual of special investigative committees (Pujo) that resulted in an even more oppressive centralized governance of the people while conveniently doing very little to restrict the corrupt activities of those actually responsible. The striking similarities between Dru’s dictatorial proposals and those actually imposed by Wilson in real life were so similar in fact to prompt fellow ‘Inquiry’ member Walter Lippmann to write in The New York Times:


“…if the author is really a man of affairs, this is an extraordinarily interesting book”.(22)


The list of similarities is extensive and those I offer below, while the most considerable and most worthy of the reader’s contemplation, is not exhaustive. Where Dru proposes Federal oversight of business practices, Wilson creates the Federal Trade Commission; where Dru recommends a crackdown on monopolies, Wilson passes the Clayton Antitrust Act; where Dru advances the idea of government sponsored financial reform, Wilson creates the Federal Reserve; where Dru tables government ownership of telegraph and telephone companies, Wilson hires one of House’s “Our Crowd”, Albert Sidney Burleson to Post Master General to acquire, “at a fair valuation”, the early telecommunications industry (23); where Dru proposes a graduated income tax scheme, Wilson passes it into law; where Dru suggests an eight hour work week and a farm relief program, Wilson makes both a reality. From worker’s compensation to old age pension to social insurance, wherever Dru makes a suggestion, Wilson implements it into reality as if under hypnotic control. And while the reader may or may not agree to some or all of these policies on the surface, the author’s main point herein is not to dispute their validity or efficacy, it is only to have the reader regard the repugnancy of a secret underworld of unelected officials and ministers without portfolio who operate within an allegedly free and open, transparent democratic society.


“Certain of the public service corporations, Dru insisted, should be taken over bodily by the National Government and accordingly the Postmaster General was instructed to negotiate with the telegraph and telephone companies for their properties at a fair valuation. They were to be under the absolute control of the Postoffice Department…” Philip Dru, pg 107.


In Chapter 48, An International Coalition, Dru turns his attention from domestic issues to U.S. foreign policy. Acting in his official role as dictator, Dru proposes an international plan based on an anglophile solidarity to end all wars that sounds identical to what Cecil Rhodes had set out in his Last Will and Testament decades earlier and echoed by the very Anglo-centric Pilgrims Society that was largely accomplished through the concerted efforts of both the Milner Group and the Inquiry – two key organizations of which House had intimate knowledge and influence(!) It was, in fact – as proven with primary citations in my previous article, How Secret Societies Rule The World – during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, that House directed the Inquiry to work with British delegates headed by key Milner Round Table insider, Lionel Curtis, to create both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Institute of International Affairs.


These two think tanks, the former to be located in New York and funded by J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford; the latter, to be centered in London and funded by the Lazar’s, Warburg’s and Rothschild’s would form the key institution and information nucleus of what Georgetown history professor Carroll Quigley would later coin, an Anglo-American Establishment. In fact, as I will discuss at length in following articles, many of the members of the Inquiry were also tapped Phi Beta Kappa and, along with the Milner Round Table members, were all members of the very influential Pilgrims Society. Interesting to say the least when it is discovered that from this nucleus of not-for-profit organizations emerged our present day system of both public diplomacy and foreign policy as well as the intelligence communities of both the United States and Britain.



History shows that The Inquiry and The Milner Group were the primaries responsible for reparations in Paris, carving up European, Near East, Far East, and Southeast Asian borders into a more occidentally palatable configuration. Members of The Inquiry were unelected members of Wilson’s entourage and almost exclusively graduates of Ivy League universities – mostly Harvard. While the Milner Group made up a considerable portion of Prime Minister Lloyd George’s War administration, his British delegation to Paris, and were mainly Oxford and Cambridge graduates. Both groups of men operated beyond public scrutiny and were free of both political constraints and public considerations. They consisted of world renowned economists, political scientists, and high ranking military intelligence assets who were all members of one or several commonly shared fraternal organizations. They were free to divide global territories into ‘spheres of influence’ as if it were a game of Risk – and the spoils of victory were to be shared mainly by Britain and the United States.


The names of these men are rarely if ever publicized and exist in the annals of history today only as rumour and any search for the minutes of their meetings is futile as they were conveniently never recorded. Their presence would be far less compelling and perhaps more easily explained as a group of ineffectual advisers except for the fact that from their behind-closed-door, top-secret meetings originated some of our world’s most historical events. From the declaration of the First World War to the armistace of 1918; from Wilson’s famous Fourteen Points Speech to the Covenant of the League of Nations; from the creation of the secretive Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Institute of Pacific Relations to the founding of the United Nations, UNESCO and NATO, this clandestine group of mystery men were at the forefront of international policy while remaining obscured within the secret back pages of history and far from the spotlight of public notoriety.


With the addition of this new information it becomes easier to see why our elected officials traditionally say one thing and do another. And when one finally defers to the painful truth of a defunct two party system and a world ran by an unelected advisory group of secret society members we begin to question the real catalyst behind not only World War I, but the actions of our government throughout history. We start to see why Wilson’s Fourteen Point Speech is largely built upon economic concessions of trade rather than the ideological, conventionally fed beliefs of ‘liberation of an oppressed people’, ‘self governance’, or ‘democracy for all’. We begin to see why, after being promised further freedom, it is instead taken from us, and when demanding more consciousness we are deprived of it. And why, after more than one hundred years after Wilson first ran on a platform of individualism and pacifism, we see an increase in global conflict, an increase in monopolization and an even further advancement towards an Anglo-American led One World Government.


“In the meantime, Dru negotiated with them to the end that England and America were to join hands in a world wide policy of peace and commercial freedom. According to Dru’s plan, disarmaments were to be made to an appreciable degree, custom barriers were to be torn down, zones of influence clearly defined, and an era of friendly commercial rivalry established.”

All of the measures Dru and House imposed did little to stop the money and credit trusts from relinquishing any of their power, in fact, with the introduction of centralized system it has progressively gotten worse in the years since and one could argue that instead of ridding the world of trusts they have created one giant global one. But, make no mistake, for what Philip Dru lacks in literary value it more than makes up for in it’s blatant transparency and is worth a read to anyone interested in the history of U.S. foreign policy as House stands as a clear protege to future political advisers like Henry Kissinger, or Zbigniew Brzezinski. And it is in fact – as Houston said when evaluating House’s manuscript in the winter of 1912 – because “the fiction is so thin” that makes the book so incredibly interesting. The same lack of elaborate story telling that detracts from it’s literary value and is the main complaint of critics also leaves it relatively free of distraction to the point that it barely qualifies as fiction – to be more accurately fitted onto the same book shelves as Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard, or Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations.


So, what is Philip Dru?


It is a bare bones look into the mind of Colonel Edward House and an undeniable blueprint for the administrative changes he himself would have a hand in creating as the least known but most influential member of the Wilson advisory group. What is Philip Dru? It is an admission of how the political loyalty game is really played through the use of patronage and vanity. What is Philip Dru? It is, when all literary critique and political evaluation is complete, a profoundly authoritarian proposal that is nearer a political manifesto than a fictional love story. What Philip Dru is, is an emblematic portrayal of the powers that exist in our present day struggle to survive Western Civilization’s Third Age of Conflict. The final question that remains to be answered is whether Philip Dru will be a blueprint of a turbulent future or an obscure, literary remnant of a naive past. Will we find a way to embrace new technology to pull ourselves from the wreckage and survive one more time, or do we succumb to the power of the hidden hand to be ruled forever by an iron fist?

Footnotes and Citations:


1. pg 29.


2. “Our Crowd” was a young, energetic group of influential lawyers: Frank Andrews, Thomas Watt Gregory was an attorney who would serve Woodrow Wilson as U.S. Attorney General 1914-1919; James B. Wells Jr. lawyer South Texas; Albert Sidney Burleson, attorney, assigned Post Master General by Woodrow Wilson; Joe Lee Jameson, Freemason, Colonel Houses’ “right hand man”.


3. Colonel House: A Biography of Wilson’s Silent Partner pg. 68.


4. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/The_Intimate_Papers_of_Colonel_House-Vol1-1912to1915-518pgs-POL.sml.pdf pg 43.


5. Woodrow Wilson Phi Beta Kappa


6. Paris 1919, Margaret MacMillan, page 18.


7. Theodor Roosevelt freemason

8. Theodore Roosevelt Phi Beta Kappa


9. William Howard Taft freemason


10. William Howard Taft Phi Beta Kappa


11. William Howard Taft was the son of Alphonso Taft, co-founder of the Skull and Bones society.


12. Colonel House: A Biography of Woodrow Wilson’s Silent Partner Carle E Neu. page 66.


13. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson – Volume 25


14. Woodrow Wilson’s Right Hand: The Life of Colonel Edward M. House


15. Colonel House: A Biography of Wilsons Silent Partner


16. Colonel House: A Biography of Wilsons Silent Partner. pg. 69.


17. Ralph Nader graduated magna cum laude and was initiated as Phi Beta Kappa after receiving his Bachelor of Arts Degree from, of all places, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Furthermore, when considering that Nader was supported by a large contingent of high profile entertainers including Micheal Moore and his refusal of entry at the primaries was made into a Netflix documentary movie, An Unreasonable Man; and with his lengthy career in opposing the establishment, one has to ask whether he was a legitimate candidate for change; or simply an asset meant to divide votes; or were his the actions of a lifetime actor, or controlled opposition. Ultimately, this author leans towards Nader actually being a legitimate candidate and, whether orchestrated or not, the events at the 2000 primaries still serve as an indicator of a corrupted two party system.

18. George W. Bush, Skull and Bones, See also, Robbins, Alexandra (2002). Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power. Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-72091-7.

19. John Kerry, Skull and Bones, See also, Robbins, Alexandra (2002). Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power. Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-72091-7.

20. George H.W. Bush, Skull and Bones, See also, Robbins, Alexandra (2002). Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power. Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-72091-7. See also, Counterpunch, May 22–29, 2009

21. Prescott Bush, Skull and Bones, See also, Robbins, Alexandra (2002). Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power. Boston: Little, Brown. ISBN 0-316-72091-7.

22. Wikipedia, Philip Dru: Administrator. See also


23. Burleson’s term as Post Master General was highly controversial. He ruled the communications industry as a dictator: segregating the work force, forbidding the union to strike, and instituting the Espionage Act during the war, banning any and all antiwar material. Burleson’s tenure as Post Master is often cited as the worst and most reactionary in history.

House of Truth & The Devils Agent

 “Almost everybody who was interesting in Washington … sooner or later passed through that house.” – Felix Frankfurter

Today the original red brick front façade fails to live up to it’s heady reputation. Located at 1727 19th Street, the House, like the story, has been completely whitewashed, covered over, almost as if intentional. Nevertheless, there she still stands, defiant, daring us to ask questions the answers of which she dares not speak. Herein an attempt will be made to tell the incredible, virtually untold story of how, for nearly a decade, all roads in Washington led to this mysterious place just one mile northwest of the White House. For that one brief moment, this non-descript house in NW Washington was more than just a home. It was even more than a casual flophouse for Phi Beta Kappa Harvard Law grads. It was a Progressive political salon, and for one resonating moment in history, it was known as the House of Truth.

From Humble Beginnings to Imperious Ends

The House was owned by Robert Grosvenor Valentine, Bachelor of Arts, class of 1896 Harvard Law.

It is Valentine who invited Felix Frankfurter, Harvard Law, Class of 1906, and another former Harvard classmate, Winfred Denison to stay at the house beginning in 1911. In the years prior, Valentine was a member of the Taft administration and had resigned his position as Commissioner of Indian Affairs just prior to buying the house. All three of these men knew each other from their time under another Harvard Law grad, Henry L. Stimson at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York. And they were placed there on the recommendation of his former law partner, Taft’s Secretary of State, and Phi Beta Kappa himself, Elihu Root.(2)(3)

Valentine is most known for being one of, along with Frederick Winslow Taylor, the pioneers of ‘scientific management’ – a term describing the economic efficiency of labor within industrial relations – the term coined by another central figure of the House, mentor to Frankfurter, the activist attorney, Louis Brandeis (pronounced Brandise).

Valentine was the subject of a June 17, 1915 Harper’s Weekly article entitled, The Human Audit, in which Child referred to Valentine and his goal, “the undeveloped side of American industry … the scientific knowledge of human beings”, further adding, “And yet until three years ago, when Robert G. Valentine, formerly Indian Commissioner of the United States, became the pioneer, the profession of labor auditing was unknown.” (4)

Taylorism “the most influential ‘ism’ of the 20th Century.” – Peter Jennings, ABC News.

Note the fasces subtlety embossed in the fabric cover. First edition to the public (1913)

Robert Grovenor Valentine “the father of Industrial Relations”

Frederick Winslow Taylor

American Magazine, in June of 1916, named Valentine the country’s “First Expert in Industrial Relations” and the “only man in America who is a whole profession all by himself.” (5)

Over the next four years Valentine, with help of Brandeis, Taylor, and Frankfurter, would turn his theories on industrial relations into a discipline, and that discipline eventually would become an American institution. And with American entry into the war looming Valentine and his cohorts knew the integral role in winning the war industrial relations would play. Valentine writing to Loring C. Christie,

“You’ll think for a minute – but not longer – that I’ve gone crazy over my idea of what there is to be done in industrial relations … when I say that it is building right relationships in industry out of which is to come a vigorous affirmative, manly, and womanly peace of the world.” (6)

Following the sinking of the Lusitania in May of 1915 and war seemingly imminent, Valentine wrote in the New Republic to the importance of American industry implementing his theories of scientific management. He saw at least preparation for war as an opportunity.

“Valentine had succeeded in creating a new business of industrial counseling and in establishing himself as one of the nations foremost labor relations experts”. (7)

Valentine, Brandeis and Frankfurter would communicate often with Taylor who had published his, The Principles of Scientific Management coincidentally in the same year they all moved into the House of Truth. Brandeis not only coined the term ‘scientific management’ but it was Brandeis who introduced Taylor’s ideas to the world during his highly publicized investigations into the efficiency of Trusts. Taylor remains the preeminent figure in the industry, scientific management now more widely known simply as Taylorism. In 2001, the Fellows of the Academy of Management voted The Principles of Scientific Management the most influential management book of the twentieth century. And Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Valentine were instrumental in its application into society. (8)(9)(10) To which Taylor gratefully thanked Brandeis in a letter afterwards,

“I have rarely seen a new movement started with such great momentum as you have given this one.” (11)(12)

Taylor first rose to prominence in 1903, publishing, Shop Management and at least one historian called it “one of the key documents shaping modern industrialization”.  Shop Management would propel Taylor to the head of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in 1906.(13)

Besides Valentine, Frankfurter, and Denison two other prominent progressive leaders called the House home, Walter Lippmann and Herbert Croly. While Supreme Court Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. were both frequent and often honored house guests. Interesting to know then that these men all just so happen to be major “father figures” of the central tenets of Progressivism – more specifically known as the Efficiency Movement and the Preparedness movementHerbert Croly wrote what many consider to be the Progressive Manifesto, The Promise of American Life, in 1909, Frankfurter calling it, “the most powerful single contribution to progressive thinking” while Lippmann championed Croly as the “first important [American] political philosopher”.  

Theodore Roosevelt publicly identified Croly’s book as being the impetus for his 1912 Progressive campaign platform, New Nationalism – a strong patriotic State built on an efficient labor force and a prepared military. (14) Croly continued to write in support of strong central government, labour unions, and the nationalization of corporations in his 1914 book, Progressive Democracy. Herbert Croly the spiritual force behind the soon to be created progressive special interest rag, the New Republic.

Herbert Croly, co-founder, The New Republic

While Brandeis and Frankfurter spearheaded the anti-trust investigations into big business, they were also setting the foundations for Industrial Relations, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, and the nationally adopted and Brandeis invented, Savings Bank Life Insurance Program. Brandeis especially, was a key, personal advisor to president Woodrow Wilson during this time, was instrumental in the coordination and drafting process of much of the government overhaul and considered widely as an unofficial member of the Wilson administration.

At 22, Walter Lippmann was the House’s youngest resident, arriving less than two years removed from graduating BA, Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard Law in 1909. (15) Lippmann’s early life, including his early years at the House, were defined by his socialist friendships and his associations with radical groups like the New York Socialist Party, the Greenwich Village social clubs, and his first employer, the socialist paper, Boston Common. In 1914, while living together at the House, Lippmann and Frankfurter partnered with Herbert Croly and another progressive leading figure, and frequent House guest, Walter Weyl. Together they founded the voice of American progressivism, The New Republic. The project was supported financially from its onset by Dorothy Payne Whitney and the House of Morgan, through Whitney’s husband Willard Straight. (16)

 “We shall be socialistic in direction but not in method, in phrase, or allegiance. If there is any word to cover our ideal, I suppose it is humanist.” Walter Lippmann (17)

Croly described the proposed publication as “radically progressive”. (18)

Although a central mainstream argument surrounding Lippmann’s professional legacy is whether a journalist as close to his sources as Lippmann could abstain from the seduction of privilege himself.  History proves this argument to be irrelevant in that Lippmann succumbed to his temptations at birth. Born to an affluent Jewish family, Walter was quickly immersed in New York’s upper high-society, attending Sachs School for Boys, founded by Julius Sachs, of Goldman Sachs banking fame.  Ronald Steel adding:

“Virtually everyone he [Lippmann] knew was wealthy, Jewish and of German background … [Lippmann and his friends] thought of themselves as part of a cultural and social elite.”(19)


Throughout his career, Lippmann was a member of several gentlemen’s clubs in New York including the Metropolitan Club. (20) As were many of the men involved in this story, the Century Club, the Lotus Club, the Cosmos Club, the Pilgrims Society among the most popular.  And Lippmann frequented more than one. It is not an understatement to suggest Lippmann was a central force in the shaping of what American journalism would be for the remainder of the 20th century. It merely being documented historical fact Lippmann is regarded generally as one of the most important journalists of the 20th century, many even considering Lippmann the very “father of modern American journalism” and his most famous work, Public Opinion, regarded as “the founding book on modern journalism”, as well as “the founding book in American media studies”. (21)(22)(23)(24)

Lippmann would play a key role in the initial development of The Inquiry, first setting up headquarters at the New York Public Library with: fellow Harvard alum, summa cum laude, Master of Arts, and future US president Archibald Cary Coolidge; professor of History at  Columbia University, BA, PhD, managing editor of the infamous 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, President Emeritus Carnegie Endowment, and one hell of a model Canadian, James Thomson Shotwell; and Colonel House’s Jewish brother-in-law, BS, BA, MA, Harvard, Century Club member, Director of The Inquiry, and president of City College of New York, Sidney Mezes. CCNY especially noted during these years for its proclivity to accept Jews on campus when other Universities, like Harvard, were applying strict quotas. Lippmann and these men would go on to play leading roles in Paris peace talks, creating the League of Nations, and the authoring of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

“For Frankfurter and his friends, the House was a place to gather information, to influence policy, and to try out new ideas.” (25)

Felix Frankfurter

The Kochleffel / The Cooking Spoon

Felix Frankfurter entered The House at the age of 29, having already established himself within the U.S. Attorney’s office under Taft (William Howard Taft himself a Century Club member, Phi Beta Kappa and the very son of Alphonse, the founder of Skull and Bones. Frankfurter serving as assistant at the USAO to another Phi Beta Kappa, Century member and Bonesman, Secretary of War, Henry Stimson).

Chief prosecutor for the Federal government, Stimson, with the help of Frankfurter, prosecuted several high-profile cases protecting the government from the American Sugar Refining Company’s attempt to defraud the government of sugar import fees. Frankfurter would continue to defend the State through the years 1909 and 1910. Frankfurter saw himself as a kochleffel, a Yiddish term meaning ‘cooking spoon’, used to describe someone who stirs up trouble, a meddler or busy body. It was one of his favourite words. Frankfurter then it would seem perfect counsel for an overzealous State.

Frankfurter had certainly come a long way himself.  Born in Vienna, landing on Ellis Island as a twelve year old Jewish émigré young Felix apparently hit the ground running, his family first settling in the Lower East Side in 1896, but by 1902, only six short years later, Frankfurter already had gained his BA, magna cum laude and tapped Phi Beta Kappa at City College of New York. And, by 1906, Frankfurter graduated, magna cum laude, Harvard Law, and was working in the US Attorney’s office. And, by 1910, Frankfurter was a close, personal campaign aide to his old boss Henry Stimson during Stimson’s New York gubernatorial bid to which Stimson gratefully proclaimed his appreciation for his assistants above all, Frankfurter, at the Grand Music Hall on the Lower East Side while performing a campaign speech:

“If there was one of my assistants in the District Attorney’s office to whom I owe personal gratitude … Felix Frankfurter is that man.” Henry Stimson


In 1914 Frankfurter would temporarily depart the House for a full professorship at Harvard Law School where he would also edit the Harvard Law Review. Frankfurter funded during these years at Harvard Law by a contingent of Internationals dominated by Jewish financiers, starting with his very close friend and mentor Louis Brandeis, the activist judge who donated $1000 a year for five years. Julian Mack and Eugene Meyers brother, Walter, secured $1000 pledges from Sears Roebuck owner and philanthropist, Julius Rosenwald and legendary bankers Felix and Paul Warburg. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Phi Beta Kappa, New York District Attorney, and close personal friend of the House, Learned Hand both donated – amounting to a total of nearly a quarter of a million dollars today.(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) These connections would later serve Frankfurter very well, only on a far larger international stage, while at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, as an integral member of the Zionist Delegation.

Louis Brandeis

Julian Mack

Julius Rosenwald

Paul Warburg

The Sage Advisor

Born, Louis David Brandeis, Louis was raised in Louisville Kentucky, to a middle-class family. According to Frankfurter, Brandeis was “the sage advisor of all”.(31) When the House opened in 1911, Brandeis had just entered the public consciousness as counsel in the Ballinger – Pinchot Affair, a case of national public interest and despite the loss in the court of law, Brandeis had won over the court of public opinion. By 1911, Brandeis had entered the Zionist sphere, having been introduced to the political ideology by Jacob deHaas. (32) By 1914, he was the undisputed leader of the American Zionist Organization. Brandeis taking over leadership one day after Frankfurter left for his professorship at Harvard. With both Frankfurter and Brandeis now in Boston, it allowed more intimate and frequent communications between the two. And after the Ballinger – Pinchot case, Brandeis was well on his way to cementing his public reputation as ‘the People’s Attorney’. In 1916, Brandeis was nominated, seemingly out of nowhere, as the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice by his friend, fellow Phi Beta Kappa and Cosmos Club member, Woodrow Wilson. 

Brandeis changed his middle name from David to Dembitz in honour of his Frankist, radical uncle Naphtali Dembitz. His uncle in fact largely the inspiration for Brandeis choosing law as a profession.  Frankism a somewhat degenerate form of Sabbatean Judaism in which they heavily endorse immorality of all types, a rejection of the Torah, and the insignificance of all law. The Sabbatean ideology considered by Jewish historian, Gershom Shalom as the natural ancestor to Zionism. A strange belief system indeed for a member of the US Supreme Court and at least part of the reason Brandeis was considered a radical judge even by his friends. The International Zionist and admirer of Sabbateanism was a speech writer, close confidante, and personal political aide to Woodrow Wilson.

“I need Brandeis everywhere.” Woodrow Wilson

While arguing the 1908 US Supreme Court case Muller v. Oregon, Brandeis established the ‘Brandeis Brief’, marking a new method of defense, emphasizing social scientific evidence. The purpose was to have the Court rely more on scientific information and the social sciences than on legal citations, principles or opinion from experience. And he looked at the Constitution and the Supreme Court as the biggest obstacles to his ends. They all did.

The Muller v Oregon was a landmark decision and set precedent. Many progressives applauded the outcome for this very reason yet, as over one hundred years has passed since, we see a very different reality from the ideal then presented. We see Brandeis’ stereotyping of women actually amplifying the social inequality he at least publicly, intended to ameliorate. His introduction of subjectivity into jurisprudence has proven over time to be one of the more damaging documents ever presented into Constitutional law. The Encyclopedia Britannica going so far in its description of Muller v Oregon to say, “although it appeared to promote the health and welfare of female workers, in fact led to additional protective legislation that was detrimental to equality in the workplace for years to come”, even calling the brief a “document outlining quasiscientific data on the negative effects of long working hours on both woman and men.”

Frankfurter could not have been more pleased, “the Muller case is ‘epoch making,’ not because of its decision, but because of the authoritative recognition by the Supreme Court that the way in which Mr. Brandeis presented the case – the support of legislation by an array of facts which established the reasonableness of the legislative action … ” Felix Frankfurter (33)

Brandeis wrote to Frankfurter regarding the decision on February 27, 1911:

“The Commission did, I think, quite as much as they could, and rather more than I thought they would with the efficiency argument. They accepted the fundamental principles that improvements in economy and management were possible, and that they must be made before the need would be recognized. Scientific management will follow that inevitably.”

The Devil’s Agent, Mephistopheles

“The House of Truth is happier every time Mephistopheles crosses its threshold” 

Winfred Denison to Oliver Wendell Holmes, March 3, 1913

Both Frankfurter and Brandeis worked their shared friendship with Oliver Wendell Holmes to help facilitate the necessary legislative changes that would help ensure success of their Efficiency Movement. The two sectarian Jews turned international Zionists had identified Holmes as the one judge on the Supreme Court with whom they felt was sympathetic to their cause. Brandeis, Frankfurter and Holmes approached Constitutional law similarly, with an open mind. For Holmes, if experimentation was necessary in an ever-evolving, evermore complex world then he would help pave the road. To Brandeis, Frankfurter and the rest of the House, the Supreme Court was the biggest obstacle to their dream of a government run by experts and their dream of an industrial democracy. Not coincidentally the name of a 1902 Sidney Webb book. 

Oliver Wendell Holmes would be their most important facilitating agent, Holmes was their Mephistopheles as they all stood at the crossroads of hell and history.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.


They saw Holmes “as their only hope on an otherwise reactionary Court.” (36) Frankfurter especially heaped praise on Holmes, commissioning a bust of Holmes in his court robes, and through the pages of the Harvard Law Review and the New Republic, Frankfurter applauded Holmes every chance we could. He put forth to America the aging Justice as an icon, a representative symbol of American tradition worthy of wide veneration.

“What drew Frankfurter and Denison to Holmes was his personality and open-mindedness. Holmes did not subscribe to their ideas, but he was willing to listen to them. They admired his intellectual curiosity, conversational skills, and sense of fun. Mephistopheles, as Holmes often referred to himself, admired their ambition, intelligence, and optimism about the future.” (37)(38)(39)(40) 

“[Holmes] was neither Liberal or Conservative but simply believed that the government should be allowed to experiment with socioeconomic legislation. Holmes’s philosophy, therefore, led to outcomes that pleased his friends – especially in cases involving organized labor.” (41)

An excerpt borrowed from, The House of Truth: Home of the Young Frankfurter and Lippmann:

“Holmes’s affection for his youthful friends also shows in a letter written to diplomat Lewis Einstein shortly after Holmes’ seventy-fifth birthday. While the Justice received many accolades on that day, he was especially thrilled by the party arranged for him by his wife. Mrs. Holmes invited a group of young people for dinner and punch, and they stayed late into the evening. Holmes related: “We giggled and made giggle, as Cowper says, until after midnight, and I was really touched and pleased. . .I like the young, and these, at least, seem to be fond of me. We encourage each other.” In turn, Holmes earned the awed respect of the young progressives by his ruthless willingness to re-examine tradition and long-held assumptions about American law and society.” (42)

“Holmes loved flattery, and Frankfurter and Denison were expert flatterers” (43)

Frankfurter, who didn’t miss an opportunity to praise or flatter Holmes often surprised the Justice with extravagant gifts on several of his birthdays that played to Holmes’ more ego based sensibilities while Brandeis would dine often at the Justice’s home.  Together, Brandeis and Frankfurter flanked Holmes and controlled him. Lippmann, Croly, Harold Laski and other good friends of the House would also write articles commemorating Holmes and Holmes reciprocated the affection as evidenced in a letter Holmes wrote to Frankfurter on March 8, 1912 following a rousing evening in Holmes’ honour:

“It will be many years before you have the occasion to know the happiness and encouragement that comes to an old man from the sympathy of the young.” (44)(45)

“At the Harvard Law School and in the pages of the New Republic and the Harvard Law Review, Frankfurter made it his mission for the rest of the country to recognize the greatness of … Justice Holmes” (46)

“Frankfurter and his friends were not simply praising Holmes for Holmes’s sake. They were trying to remove the Court as an obstacle to socioeconomic legislation. They were laying one of the foundations of American Liberalism, a belief in government’s role in regulating the nation’s economic life, in managing labor-management relations, and in recognizing the rights of unions … The Court was the only thing standing in the way of industrial democracy.” (47)

Note that, ‘Liberal’ in the context of the late 19th and early 20th century, stressed the importance of increased individual liberty and minimal government interference. The House definition, now shockingly the norm in the 21st century, is a complete reversal of the original, with an emphasis on increased government oversight and a top-down, centralized control of society. Similarly reversed through this reformation of American values has been the definition of the US Constitution. Previously thought to be a document written to protect the negative rights of the people against State overreach, the men of the House targeted the central document of American liberty as public enemy number one. The American Constitution, the greatest enabler of individual liberty had now become its greatest obstacle. 

“I have little doubt that the country loves it … and if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them … it’s my job” Oliver Wendell Holmes (48)(49)


A House of Truth Homecoming

The Progressive Movement was the key Brandeis and Frankfurter needed to open the door to Constitutional experimentation through appealing to Americas liberal sentimentalities. The deliberate coercion of traditional Western institutions through the social sciences. A profound change in America took place during this time, signifying a national social reordering of society so comprehensive as to require a splitting of history into a before and after. The Progressive Movement perhaps the largest reformation of Western values ever seen before or since. The drifting definitions of our institutions, the deliberate degradation of our values, and the near total disappearance of our traditions, go beyond the measure of this text. Taylorism played a huge part in the Progressive Movement, later serving as the inspiration for the Technocracy  movement. 

The friendships, networks and circle of influences forged in the early years of the House would later expand out into a larger international sphere. The Peace Conference in 1919 was littered with this handful of former residents and honoured guests of the House. The same progressive movement that was such a catalyst for social change in the United States, Canada and Britain, was now going global. And, former House of Truth roommates were all well positioned in Paris, all having the ear of the most influential figures of the Conference. Frankfurter and Lippmann arriving months early working with Colonel House to help facilitate a deeper bond between Britain and the United States prior to the Conference. In many ways, the 1919 Paris Peace Conference was a House of Truth homecoming.

Lippmann, Frankfurter, and Brandeis were all intimately involved in the drafting of Wilson’s Fourteen Points Speech, the Balfour Declaration and the very creation of Israel. Lord Eustace Percy, an original House resident, serving as an assistant to British Foreign Secretary Robert Cecil, participated intimately in the creation of the League of Nations Covenant in Paris. Another resident of the House of Truth, Philip Kerr, worked with Percy and Lord Balfour, as secretary of the Rhodes Trust.  In Paris, Percy was private secretary to British Prime Minister – one of the ‘Big Four’ – David Lloyd George. Loring C. Christie, the Canadian resident of the House, was in Paris advising Canadian Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden. Lippmann working for Wilson, Frankfurter for the Zionist delegation, the natural extrovert, was right at home with friends and according to his personal secretary Ella Winter, “had a foothold, or at least a toe-hold, it seemed, in every delegation.” (50) The consummate kochleffel.

Evaluating the decisions made then, with the assistance of over one hundred years of hindsight now, we see what results in the absence of Eisenhower’s “alert and knowledgeable citizenry”, we see what happens when public accountability is absent, we see a clearly dependent society unable to properly mesh “the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals”. (51) Woodrow Wilson published The New Freedom, Walter Weyl, The New Democracy, Roosevelt The New Nationalism, James Harvey Robinson The New History, along with The Principles of Scientific Management in 1913. The same year the Fed was created. The New Republic founded less than a year earlier, in 1914. And only two years after they all started living together.

From Taylorism comes the principles of division of labour and the assembly line made so famous by Henry Ford and others like him. It cannot be overstated here the stepping from one’s own arable land onto the factory floor being an important violation of the individual. From the Efficiency Movement first promoted by Taylor, Valentine, Brandeis and Frankfurter, comes society wide radical reform. From the Preparedness Movement, which was largely created and directed by favourite friends of the House, all Century Club members Theodore Roosevelt, Henry L. Stimson, and Elihu Root. We see what is possible when government is left to its own imagination, for over a century, free from the restraints of public purview. It is anything but free and open and having flipped the definition of liberalism on its head, the resultant society we see today is representative of nothing classic liberal. What we see is the culmination of blindly trusting the scientific expert combined with excessive Progressive social reform – a nearly perfected, and soon to be fully aware, Welfare State.


  1. From dinner table to articles in the The New Republic.
  2. Elihu Root Phi Beta Kappa
  3. Brad Snyder, The House of Truth pg.
  4. Harper’s Weekly, The Human Audit, Richard Washburn Child;
  5. American Magazine, Moses Could Have Used This Man, Bruce Barton January 1916 page 52
  6. Brad Snyder, House of Truth, page 110.
  7. Felix Frankfurter to Alfred Mitchell – Innes, 11/7/1914, pg 3; RGV to WTD 7/27/1914 pg 1 – 2,RGV Papers, Carton 9, Folder 41.
  8. Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management most influential of 20th century see
  9. “FREDERICK TAYLOR was the most influential management guru of the early 20th century.” “and Vladimir Lenin, who regarded scientific management as on of the building blocks of socialism” The Economist Sept, 10, 2015
  11. FWT letter to LDB
  12. FWT letter to LDB
  13. Martha Banta is author of Taylored Lives: Narrative Productions in the Age of Taylor, Veblen, and Ford, published University of Chicago; professor emeritus English at the University of California, Los Angeles. PhD and bachelors degree Illinois University; She was awarded the Bode-Pearson Prize for Outstanding Contributions to American Studies in 2002 for her lifetime of achievement and service within the field; see also,; see also,
  14. Croly’s The Promise of American Life the single most important contribution to progressive thought and Croly as the most important American political philosopher.
  15. Lippmann biography
  16. Funding from Whitney and Morgan Snyder, Brad, The House of Truth, A Political Salon pg.90
  17. Snyder, Brad, The House of Truth pg 91; see also Walter Lippmann to Van Wyck Brooks, 2/5/1914 PPWL, pg 17
  18. Brad Snyder The House of Truth, page 114 Frankfurter and his friends
  19. Lippmann gilded Jewish ghetto Walter Lippmann and the American Century; see
  20. Metropolitan Club, The Writings of Walter Lippmann June 2, 2002 c-span
  21. Foreign Affairs, Walter Lippmann and the American Century, Henry C. McPherson, Jr., Fall 1980
  22. Snow, Nancy, Information War, page 32.
  23. Blumenthal, Sydney (October 31, 2007). “Walter Lippmann and American journalism today”.
  24. Lippmann and Public Opinion ‘foundational’ Carey, James W. (March 1987). “The Press and the Public Discourse”. The Center Magazine. 20.
  25. Brad Snyder, The House of Truth pg.
  26. The House of Truth pg 76 Brad Snyder; see also FF to Thayer, 7/ 30/1913, Harvard Law School Dean’s Office, Box 1, Folder “Felix Frankfurter”;LDB to Ezra Thayer, 11/4/1913. Id
  27. Felix Warburg to Thayer 11/17/1913, id.;
  28. Walter Meyer to Thayer, 11/7/1913, id.;
  29. Mack to Thayer, 11/29/1913, id. (Rosenwald);
  30. Thayer to Meyer, 12/3/1913, id.
  31. Brad Snyder House of Truth page 177; see also, FF to KL, 9/6/1917, at 6-8, id. See Barnard, The Forging of an American Jew, page 209.
  32. Brad Snyder, House of Truth, page 110.
  33. Felix Frankfurter Hours of Labor and Realism in Constitutional Law, 353,373 Harvard Law Review pg 365; see also
  34. Brandeis-Frankfurter Connection: Bruce Allen Murphy page 15.
  35. New York Times archives; Brandeis had Frankfurter on retainer for twenty years.
  36. Brad Snyder, House of Truth pg113 Holmes their only hope
  37. Brad Snyder, House of Truth, page 25 Mephistopheles
  38. Holmes, “Law and the Court,” in Collected Legal Papers 295 (1921) (Judges are apt to be naif, simple-minded men, and they need something of Mephistopheles.”); see also,
  39. Francis Biddle, Mr. Justice Holmes 124 (1942) (“[Holmes] knew he himself had something of Mephistopheles.”); see also, archive Mr. Justice Holmes page 123, 124
  40. OWH to NG, 10/23/101-, at 1, OWHP, Reel 23, Page 506, Box 32, Folder 5 (“I am much pleased with my secretary, Olds. … I don’t quite know how far to introduce him to Mephistopheles. …”).
  41. Brad Snyder The House of Truth
  42. The House of Truth: Home of the Young Frankfurter and Lippmann by Jeffrey O’Connell and Nancy Dart Catholic University Law Review Volume 35 Issue 1 Fall 1985 Article 5); see also primary, HOLMES-EINSTEIN LETTERS, supra note 41, at 124.
  43. Brad Snyder, House of Truth, page 70.
  44. OWH to FF “sympathy from the young” letter. See Holmes and Frankfurter: Their Correspondence, 1912 – 1934, by Oliver Wendell Holmes and Felix Frankfurter; edited by Robert M. Mennel and Christine L. Compston xiii;;
  45. Holmes and Frankfurter: Their Correspondence, 1912 -1934 xiii “I am all alone except for some of the young fellows, especially Frankfurter who you introduced to me.” Holmes to John Chipman Gray, May 10, 1914, Boxx 33, folder 25, OWHP, Harvard Law School Library.
  46. Snyder, Brad, The House of Truth page 113.
  47. Brad Snyder The House of Truth, page 114 Frankfurter and his friends
  48. Brad Snyder, The House of Truth, page 25.
  49. OWH to FF, H-FF Corr., 3/24/1914, at 19 (“a law should be called good if it reflects the will of the dominant forces of the community even if it will take us to hell”)
  50. Brad Snyder, The House of Truth, page 249.

Eisenhower Farewell Address; see also;

The Inquiry – The First All American Experts and Founding of CFR

“The Peace Treaty was not to be a return to the old diplomacy, but the establishment of a new world order.” James T. Shotwell, Inquiry/CFR founding member.

In early August of 1917 while the war raged in Europe, Third Assistant Secretary Breckinridge Long sends a memorandum to Secretary of State Robert Lansing in Washington, calling for a “bureau to be established for the study and preparation of those questions which appear likely to be proposed at the Peace Conference”.  The memo came on the recommendation of Frank Lyon Polk and Felix Frankfurter -in France since early July – and inspired by similar British and French foreign diplomatic efforts already underway. The memo was a call for America to begin preparations for peace talks – some 15 months prior to the signing of the Armistice.

By October an ad hoc organization was discreetly working parallel to the Wilson Administration in upper Manhattan – a group known as the Inquiry – directed by Wilson’s key advisor, Colonel Edward Mandell House while leading progressives Louis Brandeis, and the founders of the New Republic magazine: Walter Weyl, Herbert Croly, Felix Frankfurter and Walter Lippmann, all had significant influence. Wilson, who’s reelection less than a year earlier was largely built on the campaign slogan “He Kept Us Out of War”, was now planning for peace.

“The cooperation with the British and French Governments was, of course, on a different level, and we had cordial and intimate relations with some of their diplomatic and technical staffs in Washington and New York. … Lord Eustace Percy, an intimate friend of some of the Inquiry members, was especially helpful in securing documents and information from the British side, a service we were later to return in kind.” AAPC pg 11

“It was in a quiet part of New York where one would hardly expect to find the staff of the personal adviser of the President preparing materials for world policy” James T. Shotwell

The Inquiry’s inner circle consisted of five founding members: personal aide to Wilson, Colonel Edward Mandell House; New Republic co-founder Walter Lippmann; Columbia history professor James T. Shotwell; international law expert David Hunter Miller, and House’s brother-in-law Sidney Mezes.  It quickly became apparent that with the “vast field that would be covered by the Peace Conference”, the small rooms reserved for their work in the New York Public Library would be insufficient. It was the first task of Shotwell’s to gain the “co-operation of university men … drawn from the highest academic capacity in the country.” And it was agreed upon by the early founders to “enlarge the organization by adding colleagues in the various political and social sciences.” The personnel for this “strange experiment” came almost exclusively from three Ivy League Universities: Yale, Columbia and Harvard.

Early Inquiry recruits were Archibald Cary Coolidge; Charles Homer Haskins; George Louis Beer; Charles Seymour, and in November the Inquiry found their Chief Territorial Specialist and Executive Officer, in Isaiah Bowman. Bowman, as the Director of the American Geographical Society, had at his disposal, some of the best cartographic equipment for the preparation of maps in the entire United States. A graduate of Harvard in 1905 and Yale in 1909, Bowman had already led three South American reconnaissance Expeditions for the Yale Corporation, making world-wide headlines in 1911 rediscovering Machu Picchu with Hiram Bingham. Bowman created the Geographical Review in 1915 and remains today as one of the three pioneers of American geography. He was a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations and board of director until his death in 1950.

With Bowman aboard, the Inquiry had found their leader and the American Geographical Society building at 3755 Broadway, for the next thirteen months, would be the Inquiry’s headquarters. This chosen location convenient in that Shotwell at CU, Mezes at CCNY, and Bowman at the AGS were all within four subway stops of each other on the Broadway line in upper Manhattan. The Inquiry, as it was officially known, was purposely ambiguous in title, helping to ensure their work “would be perfectly blind to the general public, but, which nevertheless, would serve to identify it among the initiated.” The name was “adopted at first only provisionally” at Shotwell’s suggestion, but “later retained by the paradox that its very inadequacy was its best recommendation”.   The Inquiry’s membership would eventually grow to include over one hundred and fifty academics. And by early December of 1918, their thirteen-month long intelligence gathering project culminated when all of the Inquiry’s Division Chiefs accompanied the President aboard the USS George Washington, as his personal advisors, a front row seat on Wilson’s historic trip to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

The reports created in the year long period prior to the peace talks, along with the hundreds of carefully hand-drawn maps, diagrams and graphs, proved invaluable at the meetings in Paris. This marks a historically significant moment in American history, “for never before had universities been mobilized for such a service”. Never before had a private group of scholars been appointed as direct advisors to a US president and never before had a sitting American president relied so heavily upon such a group. And this would cause friction within the State Department, especially with the Secretary of State, Robert Lansing. The DoS feeling that this new approach violated already established foreign policy protocol. Shotwell implying later that it may have even been illegal:

“Even before the Armistice there had been some indications, although none of them serious, that there were those in the State Department who were by no means happy at the way in which the preparations for the Peace Conference were being made. This was not only natural under the circumstances but, from a standpoint of public law, had apparent justification … In their eyes it was one thing for the President to have a personal adviser in Colonel House, but quite a different thing for the Colonel’s staff to develop to the point of displacing the established governmental organ for foreign affairs. … “

“Technically it was connected with the State Department but really it was to be the President’s personal staff under Colonel House’s direction.”

James T. Shotwell, At The Paris Peace Conference.

 “There was a hint of this broader conception [social justice] of the purpose and scope of the International Labor Organization in the preamble to its constitution, in the statement that universal peace ‘can be established only if it is based upon social justice.’ It must be confessed, however, that when we wrote those words into the text, we were not thinking of their far reach, but of a formula which would enable us to tie our institution into the structure of that new world order which the League of Nations symbolized.”

James T. Shotwell, founder member of both the ILO and Inquiry At the Paris Peace Conference pg. 54

Of the fourteen Inquiry members in the photo all of them had an extensive background in the social or political sciences, ten had either a Bachelor’s or Masters in the Arts, or both. All attended Ivy League and many rounded out their scholastic career by studying abroad at European universities. The Inquiry membership was made up of economists, historians, statisticians, and lawyers all with a liberally progressive common interest. Many of these men graduated top of class, their early fraternal allegiances helping make for a graceful transition into elite high society later in life. This network of gentleman clubs hidden within the undercurrent of American life, however their immense influence self-evident and remains even today as the main determining factor to the quality of a man’s career.  In this system, the best and brightest are earmarked early in their education and coveted specifically for their intelligence. They are then moulded and their careers shaped to the benefit of their handlers. The Western education system, borrowed from the Prussian reformation, acting as a filter creating the inevitable caste system we live in. 

Today, this blind reliance on the expert seems to be the norm. The majority of people believing the world’s complexities exist beyond their comprehension, commonly concede their opinions to the expert.  Few see how this dependency has led to a largely apathetic and vulnerable public.  Even fewer still, see how this vulnerability can lead to the catastrophic fragmentation of Western democratic society. The think-tank lies at the center of this movement to shape and engineer society through manipulation. And Walter Lippmann, heavily influenced by what he experienced in Paris, wrote his most famous book on the “manufacturing of consent” And in Paris, we see the birth of two of today’s most influential and powerful persuaders of public consent in the Council on Foreign Relations and her British sister, the Royal Institute of International Affairs born conjoined forever bound in the backroom suites of the Hotel Majestic during the Conference. The expert opinion so prominently used today, we see being implemented for the first time, by executive orders, the rise of a “rival staff” of unelected experts guiding the president “at the most critical, and even revolutionary, turning point in the history of American diplomacy”.

James T Shotwell, APPC.

The truth is that this reliance on the expert has evolved for generations outside public consciousness, the public largely unaware to its dangers. And under this anonymity, the many and varied offices within the United States Intelligence Community (IC) have now grown to include all aspects of society: the military establishment, Silicon Valley and social media, Hollywood entertainment, American academia, and the mainstream media. All working together to create narratives that fragment our collective perspectives on reality. Leaving us in large part as if paralyzed on narcotics and unable to act. A suspended land of confusion. This technique of persuasion, so obvious today, first realized in Paris by the very men that would found propaganda, public relations and modern journalism directly inspiring the likes of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin and Vladimir Lenin.

The 20th Century Ideal society they were attempting to engineer in Paris through experimentation has in reality, turned into a 21st Century science fiction nightmare. We see, through the advice of these internationally minded movements, the merging of traditionally separate aspects of Western society. Public private partnerships, non-governmental organizations, think-tanks, not-for-profit foundations, lobbyists, despite being thought of by the general public as benevolent, all hold zero appreciation for Western traditions and values. Internationalism by its very definition repugnant to the spirit of closely held Western traditions of liberty and individual sovereignty. These corrupted institutions then are left to run roughshod for generations under the guise of humanitarianism and our nation states, long subservient to these false, fragmented narratives, are left to participate in their own downfall. And we, as the children of the future – those very generations the Paris Peace Conference was so concerned with, stand as the ultimate final judge of their social science experiment.

“Some day the Inquiry will find its historian, and this strange experiment in the mobilization of the political and social sciences to help in shaping the outlines of the new world structure which had to be built out of the ruins of the war will offer a subject with unique possibilities.”

James T. Shotwell