The Administration of William Jefferson Blythe III, the 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

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

1) https://archive.org/details/lastwilltestamen00rhodiala/page/58

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) https://archive.org/details/lastwilltestamen00rhodiala/page/58 pages 58,59,61, 73.

4) http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/Tragedy_and_Hope.pdf. See also http://www.carrollquigley.net/pdf/The_Anglo-American_Establishment.pdf7

5) https://archive.org/details/lastwilltestamen00rhodiala/page/58

6) E. Garrett, The Empire of the Century. 1905, 481. See also, The Nation and the Empire, 1913, introduction. https://archive.org/details/nationempirebein00miln

7) https://archive.org/details/lastwilltestamen00rhodiala/page/108

8) https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/history

9) https://cfrd8-files.cfr.org/sites/default/files/book_pdf/Continuing_The_Inquiry.pdf pg 5.

10) https://ceoworld.biz/2017/01/31/100-influential-think-tanks-world-2017/

11) https://cfrd8-files.cfr.org/sites/default/files/book_pdf/Continuing_The_Inquiry.pdf pg 5.

12) https://cfrd8files.cfr.org/sites/default/files/book_pdf/Continuing_The_Inquiry.pdf forward, Continuing the Inquiry, The Council on Foreign Relations From 1921 to 1996.

13) https://cfrd8-files.cfr.org/sites/default/files/book_pdf/Continuing_The_Inquiry.pdf pg 29

14) https://cfrd8files.cfr.org/sites/default/files/book_pdf/Continuing_The_Inquiry.pdf pg 29

15) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020202521.html

16) https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/bill-clinton

17) https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/08/business/the-battle-of-the-decades-reaganomics-vs-clintonomics-is-a-central-issue-in-2000.html

18) http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

https://archive.org/stream/primatealexander00alexiala#page/258/mode/2up

19) Statement of Principles https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC—statement%20of%20principles.pdf

20) https://www.cfr.org/membership/membership-roster-a-f

21) https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php

“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.)

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

Footnotes:

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. Encyclopedia.com 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. https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Mark-Baldwin. See also University of Toronto James Mark Baldwin Museum. psych.utoronto.ca/museum/baldwin.htm

26. Ibid.

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)

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

References:

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 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf#079

2. Washington Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/11/03/more-americans-than-ever-are-taking-prescription-drugs/?utm_term=.6fd7023b6462

3. American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb08/atleastone.aspx

4. Medscape https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753789

5. https://ia802900.us.archive.org/10/items/ChangingImagesOfMan/ChangingImagesOfMan-OCR.pdf

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. https://books.google.ca/books?id=P1QgBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=major+edward+sammons&source=bl&ots=gMVVRL5h2l&sig=bCoy9T1fwFiH2FFJVwLNrjJlAKM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipuJfM4vLfAhVJxFQKHdEoA-gQ6AEwAnoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=major%20edward%20sammons&f=false 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 https://books.google.ca/books?id=g1IgBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true 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 https://www.pbk.org/About-PBK/Presidents

6. Paris 1919, Margaret MacMillan, page 18.

7. Theodor Roosevelt freemason https://www.mn-masons.org/masonic-history/famous-masons/masonic-american-presidents

8. Theodore Roosevelt Phi Beta Kappa https://www.pbk.org/About-PBK/Presidents

9. William Howard Taft freemason https://www.mn-masons.org/masonic-history/famous-masons/masonic-american-presidents

10. William Howard Taft Phi Beta Kappa https://www.pbk.org/About-PBK/Presidents

11. William Howard Taft was the son of Alphonso Taft, co-founder of the Skull and Bones society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members

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 https://books.google.ca/books?id=g1IgBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=philip%20dru&f=false

16. Colonel House: A Biography of Wilsons Silent Partner. https://books.google.ca/books?id=g1IgBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA74&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=true 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, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members. 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, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members. 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, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members. 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, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Skull_and_Bones_members. 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 https://www.nytimes.com/1912/12/08/archives/americas-future-pictured-in-a-decidedly-quaint-modern-novel.html

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.

“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 20^th Century Ideal society they were attempting to engineer in Paris through experimentation has in reality, turned into a 21^st 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 

Bowman taught at St. Clair County, Michigan as early as 1896 and would graduate Harvard with a Bachelor of Science in 1905. After graduation he was offered an instructor position in Yale’s department of geology. It is during this time he would gain a PhD, writing his doctoral dissertation ‘The Physiography of the Central Andes’, a brief of his 1907 South American reconnaissance expedition on behalf of the Yale Corporation. Bowman led a team in 1907, landing in Antofagasta, that followed ancient trails through La Paz, Lake Titicaca, and Cuzco.  Documenting along the way, geographical topology and local infrastructure as well as observing local customs, religions, and tradition. Bowman noting throughout his work the significant role geography plays in the evolution of the human being. How, at the heart of geography, is the study of man in relation to the earth. These some of the first formulated thoughts of Bowman, on the importance of geography on politics and a glimpse into his future involvement in American foreign policy.

Here, in Bowmans own rude scribblings we see indicated the three South American expeditions. During their first trek, in 1907, they stayed in the northern area of Cuzco. The second trip more central, included the area around La Paz and the third while comprehensive, was generally focused to the south and the desert plateau of Atacama. The first trip, under the auspices of Yale and the American Geographical Society, and with the approval of the Chilean and Bolivian governments, the first Yale South American Expedition with Bowman at the lead, makes their way to South America. Bowman goes off grid for a total of five months, his communication with Yale during these trips documented by way of personal letters and Bowmans well preserved diary, now held in his archives. Making their way through Chile and Bolivia, Bowman and his team leave behind a large catalogue of photographs that indicate a particular interest in the local infrastructure, the railway lines, hydroelectric dams, power stations, and agriculture, while  witnessing and noting the innovative local modes of transportation as well as getting a good  feel for the locals and their way of life as it relates to the their geographical location in the world.

He would later meet up with Hiram Bingham, and together, inspired by what they thought was local myth, and driven by the curiosity of the Yale Corp, both Bowman and Bingham would be the first Westerners ever to set sight on this incredible part of the world. Two highly educated Yale professors, Bowman soon to be a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a real life Indian Jones. And the news of such an incredible discovery was sure to travel fast, making world-wide headlines, Bingham was heralded as the discoverer of Machu Pichu, National Geographic, as a sponsor of the trip, dedicated an entire edition. Bingham taking much of the photographs himself show amazing ancient stone structures, monuments, and the famous Hitching Post of the Sun. Their expedition more than settling a local myth, it brought the story of the Sacred Inca Valley and its final stand, into the collective lexicon.  And despite much of the world having been discovered by the turn of the century, both Isaiah Bowman and Hiram Bingham helped unveil never before known history of mankind and together authored one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century.

By 1912, Bowman was assisting William Morris Davis, in organizing the Trans Continental Excursion. Columbia University provided accommodations as nearly all the worlds leading geographers attended. The trip spanned the late summer and early fall months and would carry them by train, trolley, boat, wagon, and automobile on a nearly 13 thousand mile circuit around the Continental United States, leaving Grand Central Station in New York, on the morning of August 12. Travelling north they made a stop in Buffalo to see the Niagara Falls. Heading west they followed the track through Chicago and the northern states of Minnesota, Montana and Washington, where they visited Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Coulee Dam. After travelling south, through the Great Redwood Forest, they visited San Francisco and then the Great Salt Lake before making a pitstop at the Grand Canyon. They documented the Mississippi River at Memphis and travelled north through the Appalachians, finally arriving back in New York in October. This moment significant in that it brought all of the worlds most influential geographers to one place, with Bowman playing host. The relationships made during this trip having lasting effects, by helping to facilitate the International Map of the World project – the mapping of the entire world in a one to one million scale.

In 1913, Bowman’s sponsors, wanting one final exploration of South America sent Bowman to the Central Andes, beginning the most comprehensive of the Bowman missions. Their work centering first on Tiahuanacu and then south – through the Atacama Plateau.  Bowmans team travelling aboard the White Star Line’s Oceanic, setting sail from New York on April 26 bound for Buenos Aires by way of Southampton.  Photos of the Oceanic show it to be a beautifully ordained cruise liner, and Bowman and his team would have had full access to its amenities in the coordinating and communicating of their mission with the mainland. Once landed, the men disappeared into the jungle and contact with home at this point would have been rare. Images reveal the extreme type of terrain and weather, here seen traversing rivers on muleback in the rainforest while later, a large part of the trip was to take place in the driest place on earth, the Atacama Desert.

Bowman returns to America and writes of his experiences in, South America in 1915 and, The Andes of Southern Peru in 1916. Bowman was named the second vice president of, the International Geographical Congress, and by 1915 his work so notable, that Bowman was named director of the American Geographical Society. A year later, founding the Geographical Review. And, its because of his early experiences in South America, Bowman was chosen to head the Hispanic Millionth Map Project, fitting nicely within the larger, International Map of the World project. Bowman would then in 1917, be hired by the United States Government, called to head the Inquiry, his official title, the Executive Officer and Chief Territorial Specialist. Thus starting Bowmans career as a political geographer being a direct advisor to the presidencies of both Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

It is through this introduction to statecraft that Bowman would soon become an initial founding member, and early director of the newly formed think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations. Bowman would go on to be a lifetime board of director and would author many articles for the council’s periodical, Foreign Affairs. And, the CFR today continues to play a vital part on the world stage. He would continue to work with the State Department throughout his entire life earning him much international acclaim, Bowman personifying the very traits that still embody the CFR mission today, as it continues to be a gathering place for the intelligence community, Ivy League social science, mainstream press media, Fortune 500 corporations and our elected State officials, and now after a century, an argument can be heard, a well-formed argument calling into question the CFR and think tanks like them, wondering aloud as to the role of not-for-profits in our governments and in our society as a whole. This voice wonders what Isaiah Bowman would say some one hundred years later when confronted with the long-term results of what he helped create.  In part two, we follow the rise of Isaiah Bowmans international career, his introduction to the Inquiry and the completion of the Hispanic Millionth Map Project. Join us then as Bowman finally trades his leathers and canvas for a briefcase and a tie, and we continue to ask the viewer to make up their own mind, are think-tanks, not-for-profit 501c, non-governmental organizations and their omnipotent political lobbying altruistic in nature or parasitic by design?